Smoking ban: Ban on smoking in Wisconsin facing intense debate ...

::sigh:: I guess I must lead a boring life. I spend my time reading scientific studies while Disscusseded watching I Love Lucy reruns.

Guess that's why he's the expert, eh?

- MJM

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
I got there by googling the line in question. I have a program loaded that searches for related video when I google. Nothing related to the show came up for a while, and when it did it was one of the Lucky ads, and it was a youtube video.
Search Youtube for the phrase, and you will find a lot of episodes (which do NOT necessarily contain the line--I did some time watching) and a whole lot of--well, check it and see.
I was not looking for random episodes from the show, I was looking for an episode containing the line.

Everyone; can we let the dog die? I'm to the place i don't even like Lucy anymore, damn't. >:~(

Cantiloper wrote:

::sigh:: I guess I must lead a boring life. I spend my time reading scientific studies while Disscusseded watching I Love Lucy reruns.
Guess that's why he's the expert, eh?
- MJM

I spend my time working out best stock buys, while you're getting bored doing your thing. Guess that's the way i am, and you the way you are. >:~|

Smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
Really it is just a distraction technique. They cannot win the argument or bait you with insults any longer so they just divert your attention. They are pathetic.

There are many questions these antis run from like the plague.

Whatever you do...don't bring up "safe levels".

It's like garlic...and wooden stakes...and silver bullets with these hypocrites.

Come to think of it...it's really just a good dose of sunlight.

No wonder they run.

;-)

Smoker wrote:

<quoted text>
That is what i wrote isn't it? Perhaps you find this difficult to believe because today's children have been dumbed down to the point of mental disability. We didn't have 500 channels of tv and cell phones nor did we have the internet. Today's kids have so many distractions that its a wonder they learn anything at all hence the "No child left behind" garbage. Recently i asked one of the grand kids, in 7th grade, to recite the preamble to the Constitution, he could not, neither could his older brother, one is an honors student and one has a B average. This was planned, don't teach someone their rights and they wont complain when they are taken away..

I don't know how it is today but, 15 years ago in order to graduate from a Mass. High School you had to pass 2 tests. One was the MASS. Constitution and the other was the National Constitution.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> I stand by my words. I have never said, most, all or almost all Smokers are drunks, degenerates, riffraff, scumbags or their ilk ect. Perhaps you are among the mentioned and along with being stupid have negative feelings about yourself. If that's the case, that's your problem not mine You are either dumb, stupid, or both. Why not do yourself a favor and quit showing the world how dumb and stupid you are.

Now who is the dumb and stupid one, I prove you have done the deed and you wont even admit it.! You are a LIAR, and still Lying about being a LIAR !!!!

candid
AOL
Reply »

#313
Feb 2, 2008

Eric_Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that too until I read this:
"The report shows that people with mental illness make up 38 per cent of all smokers.
This group also tends to smoke more heavily than others, buying 42 per cent of the cigarettes sold in Australia each year."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22907275 ...
So even though mentally ill people DO buy a greater proportion of cigarettes, this report reckons that 38% of ALL smokers ARE mentally ill.
That really is quite a dramatic bit of information, we do not know how accurate that is, but even if it was half that figure it would still be shocking to most people.

""It's well knnown that most durnks, degenerates and low life riff raff type people are smokers, It's now also known the around 38% of smokers are nuts,but that's something all non smokers knew a long time ago. Fact is we belive ANYONE who still smokes has to be rather screwed up topside."""

post #313.
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TBC...

Eric_Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that too until I read this:
"The report shows that people with mental illness make up 38 per cent of all smokers.
This group also tends to smoke more heavily than others, buying 42 per cent of the cigarettes sold in Australia each year."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22907275 ...
So even though mentally ill people DO buy a greater proportion of cigarettes, this report reckons that 38% of ALL smokers ARE mentally ill.
That really is quite a dramatic bit of information, we do not know how accurate that is, but even if it was half that figure it would still be shocking to most people.
It's well knnown that most durnks, degenerates and low life riff raff type people are smokers, It's now also known the around 38% of smokers are nuts,but that's something all non smokers knew a long time ago. Fact is we belive ANYONE who still smokes has to be rather screwed up topside.

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> It's well knnown that most durnks, degenerates and low life riff raff type people are smokers, It's now also known the around 38% of smokers are nuts,but that's something all non smokers knew a long time ago. Fact is we belive ANYONE who still smokes has to be rather screwed up topside.

The proof.

A skewing of perspective that gives a substance or activity an importance that is all out of reasonable proportion is one of the trademarks of addiction.

Personally, I think that qualifies as a mental illness.

Does it make a person dysfunctional? Not necessarily, but possibly. Does it make a person less functional? Not necessarily, but probably.

Unfortunately, in the case of nicotine addiction, the most commonly marketed method of gratification is not so efficient as to involve self-injection. It requires a method that leaves most of the drug floating in the air, along with a few thousand other chemicals, affecting anyone else nearby.

Does exposure to SHS make nonsmokers less functional? Almost certainly, if only by the immediate effect on vision.

Therefore the relevance doesn't stop at the effect on the addict alone.

Therefore the clamor for restrictions on public gratification of the addiction.

discusseded wrote:

A skewing of perspective that gives a substance or activity an importance that is all out of reasonable proportion is one of the trademarks of addiction.
Personally, I think that qualifies as a mental illness.
Does it make a person dysfunctional? Not necessarily, but possibly. Does it make a person less functional? Not necessarily, but probably.
Unfortunately, in the case of nicotine addiction, the most commonly marketed method of gratification is not so efficient as to involve self-injection. It requires a method that leaves most of the drug floating in the air, along with a few thousand other chemicals, affecting anyone else nearby.
Does exposure to SHS make nonsmokers less functional? Almost certainly, if only by the immediate effect on vision.
Therefore the relevance doesn't stop at the effect on the addict alone.
Therefore the clamor for restrictions on public gratification of the addiction.

So your saying that when a smoker lights up and notices a non smoker stand off in the distance in a stupper. We should go announce Im smoking, and take them by the hand and lead them to a more suitable area becasue they are not capable of making that decision for themselves.? Good to know.

Cantiloper wrote:

::sigh:: I guess I must lead a boring life. I spend my time reading scientific studies while Disscusseded watching I Love Lucy reruns.
Guess that's why he's the expert, eh?
- MJM

First item, I am not the one of two proclaiming expertise. Second, your learning is a hazard to the public if you then turn around and tell lies such as your claims that Enstrom and Kabat was somehow an ACS study, that ACS cut off funding for them when the results became clear, and that Enstrom and Kabat received only the last 5% or so of their funding from the tobacco industry.

You know full well that the ACS wrapped up the CPS 1 data gathering in 1972, that Philip Morris recruited Kabat as a co-author, and that Philip Morris paid well over half a million dollars for the study WITH the stipulation that only the CPS 1 data be used.

Unless E&K went through well over ten million dollars in their study, you are a ridiculous liar whatever your background and a hideous liar given your clear purpose.

In one particular, though, you are right. I am spending far too much time and effort addressing the reactionary bullshit and drivel you and yours post in this forum.

Thank you for your contribution to making it unpleasant enough that I could wake up and quit. I hope for your sake that someone manages to do the same for the tobacco habit, despite the higher bar set by nicotine addiction.

Good bye.

phoenixcat wrote:

I smoked for 5 months because I had two friends who didn't, and everyone else did. This activated my families tendency towards having a heart murmur. Think about that! Five months. No one should smoke. It's a stupid idea no matter who you are.

what mental thinking..er propaganda

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Now who is the dumb and stupid one, I prove you have done the deed and you wont even admit it.! You are a LIAR, and still Lying about being a LIAR !!!!
candid
AOL
Reply »
#313
Feb 2, 2008
Eric_Johnson wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought that too until I read this:
"The report shows that people with mental illness make up 38 per cent of all smokers.
This group also tends to smoke more heavily than others, buying 42 per cent of the cigarettes sold in Australia each year."
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22907275 ...
So even though mentally ill people DO buy a greater proportion of cigarettes, this report reckons that 38% of ALL smokers ARE mentally ill.
That really is quite a dramatic bit of information, we do not know how accurate that is, but even if it was half that figure it would still be shocking to most people.
""It's well knnown that most durnks, degenerates and low life riff raff type people are smokers, It's now also known the around 38% of smokers are nuts,but that's something all non smokers knew a long time ago. Fact is we belive ANYONE who still smokes has to be rather screwed up topside."""
post #313.
http://www.topix.net/forum/health/smoking/TBC...

I know at least one smoker that's not only dumb and stupid, but also mixed up. Guess who that mixed up, stupid & dumb smoker is "garbage boy". You only get three chances to answer, and the answers should all be the same. PS/I still stand by my words. "Most drunks, degenerates, riffraff lowlife and their ilk are people who are cigarette smokers." >;~)

just candid wrote:

<quoted text> I know at least one smoker that's not only dumb and stupid, but also mixed up. Guess who that mixed up, stupid & dumb smoker is "garbage boy". You only get three chances to answer, and the answers should all be the same. PS/I still stand by my words. "Most drunks, degenerates, riffraff lowlife and their ilk are people who are cigarette smokers." >;~)

So your JustALiar.!! and thanks for the proof again.
There is a very fine line between 'Lying' and "mental illness."
Liar.!

I don't smoke, I have never even tried, never had the desire. Having said that, I am sick of all the government intervention and intrusion into people's lives. We know smoking is not the most healthy habit, thanks for the information, now let us make our decisions as free people.
Unfortunately, Wisconsin has been know as one of the most liberal, anti liberty States for decades and when they are stealing another one of your rights "for your own good" you will have a tough time stopping them.
My suggestion, move! Let the rest of the liberal entitlement mentality monkeys pay for the State welfare programs and enjoy your freedoms elsewhere.

Discusseded wrote, "Thank you for your contribution to making it unpleasant enough that I could wake up and quit"

You won't quit Discusseded. You'll simply come back while hiding behind another anonymous name.

But it is nice to know that you've formally and totally given up ever standing behind your claim that "even short exposures to very small amounts of ETS" causes coronary damage.

As for Enstrom/Kabat, again, I'd simply refer readers to read Dr. Enstrom's own defense against the D type charges at:

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/d...

and make up your own minds: Unlike the Antismokers I do *NOT* encourage people to simply blindly take sound bites as knowledge. Their greatest weakness is in their lies and their deceptions, and our greatest strength is in our honesty and our facts.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Todays point to ponder;--- " Most drunks, degenerates, riffraff and their ilk are people who smoke cigarettes." ---

Sorry, I realized I shouldn't have posted without connecting to sourcing.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/21433430/d...

Page 13

The ACS study you mention was one by Enstrom and Kabat in 2003. It was the largest of its kind, showed no significant association at all between ETS and either cancer or heart disease, and was excluded from the Surgeon General's 2006 Report because it would have spoiled the nice antismoking conclusions that were intended. Enstrom, Kabat, and even the BMJ were attacked as being "tobacco industry shills" because the ACS pulled the study's funding when it was clear the results were going to go against them and E/K applied for the final 5% of funding from the industry, but Jim Enstrom has mounted an interesting and very detailed defense of their work

Where there is forum, there is ===Sugarloves+C0M'S backs drifting away!!!

Sorry, I realized I shouldn't have posted without connecting to sourcing for the accusation.
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/21433430/d...
Page 13
(McFadden)
"The ACS study you mention was one by Enstrom and Kabat in 2003. It was the largest of its kind, showed no significant association at all between ETS and either cancer or heart disease, and was excluded from the Surgeon General's 2006 Report because it would have spoiled the nice antismoking conclusions that were intended. Enstrom, Kabat, and even the BMJ were attacked as being "tobacco industry shills" because the ACS pulled the study's funding when it was clear the results were going to go against them and E/K applied for the final 5% of funding from the industry, but Jim Enstrom has mounted an interesting and very detailed defense of their work"
==========
From
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/...
Some more of the story:
"Question:'In the British Medical Journal article you mentioned that said there wasn’t an effect of secondhand smoke; did the authors have to disclose that their funding was from tobacco? Do you know if the Journal has a policy that disclosure is all that is necessary and reader beware?'"
"LISA BERO:'Yes, and that article had the longest financial disclosure I have ever seen. It does say
the study was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research, but our research suggests this isn’t
enough because you don’t really know what went on behind that study. It doesn’t reveal that
Philip Morris funded it; and as you see, the check is from Philip Morris. So this study actually
had funding from two sources, only one of which was disclosed.'"
==========
"'What were the restrictions put on the UCLA study that guided the results?'
"LISA BERO:'There is a particular data set called CPS1, which comes from the American Cancer Society that was the subject of this study. However, the American Cancer Society had said this was an inappropriate data set to use for this question. This investigator submitted a proposal that wanted to look at four data sets, one of which was CPS1. The other three were more appropriate to the research question, but the tobacco company only funded him to look at CPS1. So he went ahead and did the study this way and it got published.'"
==========
More detail at this thread (on the Indy issue McFadden says is so important)
http://www.topix.net/health/smoking/2009/11/p...