Dental Practices declare smoke-free outdoor areas

I applaud them this decision, but now all dental professionals have to go to the next step in being consistent in protecting children and their patients by communicating dangers of fluoride instead of promoting it. Fluoride is a proven neurotoxin and studies have proven that it lowers the IQ's of children in communities that fluoridate their water as well as being linked to a myriad of other diseases and disorders in both children and adults. Don't believe me just go to Google and type in the search term "fluoride nerotoxin" and see the search return. How does dementia, Alzheimers, ADD, bone fluorosis sound to name a few.

Bill wrote:

I applaud them this decision, but now all dental professionals have to go to the next step in being consistent in protecting children and their patients by communicating dangers of fluoride instead of promoting it. Fluoride is a proven neurotoxin and studies have proven that it lowers the IQ's of children in communities that fluoridate their water as well as being linked to a myriad of other diseases and disorders in both children and adults. Don't believe me just go to Google and type in the search term "fluoride nerotoxin" and see the search return. How does dementia, Alzheimers, ADD, bone fluorosis sound to name a few.

Another good source of information: www.naturalnews.com
A lot of articles regarding flouride.

A couple of years ago, I brought this subject up with my dentist and he looked at me like I was nuts. It's amazing to me how people who have the intelligence to go through dental school can be so either so closed minded or brainwashed to ignore and disregard conclusive research and keep on promoting poison. I guess chalk it up to big pharma. Granted that individual is no longer my dentist.

This is great. I'd like to see NY like CA-no smoking allowed in ALL public places!

The one good thing about NY is they do not allow smoking in restaurants. In VA restaurants have "designated smoking areas". If you go to Applebees in VA the bar is the "designated smoking area". You still have a central ventilation system, so I don't see how that prevents people from getting second hand smoke.

It is amusing that they end the article by putting the grounds of the dental clinic in a class with Central Park.

Scarpino wrote:

<quoted text>It should be up to the establishments if they want smoking in their place of business. People don't have to go there of they don't like it.

And it should be up to the bar owner if he wants to serve alcohol all night, serve minors, serve people that are already drunk, buy liquor from hillbilly bootleggers etc... Right? Laws are in place to protect good people from idiots like you.

Thanks for playing though. Fact is, people like you are a dime a dozen, and have been proven wrong time and time again. You are not bringing anything new to the table.

Scarpino wrote:

<quoted text>It should be up to the establishments if they want smoking in their place of business. People don't have to go there of they don't like it.

BTW.... LOL at the Yankees. All that money and POOF!!!!

I know they have been courteous enough to let their parking lot be used for FCS athletic practices and events, and there is that collateral effect of smoke and other encroachment as well as possible liability. I had a feeling it was just a matter of time before their would be issues. It is private property. Next they will curtail the event parking. Again, it's private property so liability issues would be on their minds.

Scarpino wrote:

<quoted text>It should be up to the establishments if they want smoking in their place of business. People don't have to go there of they don't like it.

obviously you haven't seen the latest NYS quit smoking commercials-the one with the guy that got throat cancer and had a huge part of his neck removed, the lady that had the prosthetic device to re-create the roof of her mouth, etc. The odds of cancer in the US is 1 in 2 males, 1 in 3 females. That's it, period. Do you think we as a society should allow smoking in public places like restaurants, etc.? There's not only the hazards of second hand smoke. The flip side is teaching children by example that smoking is wrong and hazardous to your health, as well as others.

If you could please help me out and answer 6 questions to a survey about dentists and optometrists I would appreciate it. I am trying to do some research. Thank you.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WNH9GSZ

INS REP wrote:

<quoted text>
obviously you haven't seen the latest NYS quit smoking commercials-the one with the guy that got throat cancer and had a huge part of his neck removed, the lady that had the prosthetic device to re-create the roof of her mouth, etc. The odds of cancer in the US is 1 in 2 males, 1 in 3 females. That's it, period. Do you think we as a society should allow smoking in public places like restaurants, etc.? There's not only the hazards of second hand smoke. The flip side is teaching children by example that smoking is wrong and hazardous to your health, as well as others.

Of course smoking isn't healthy. That's not a mystery at all. But smoking in one's car with nobody else present isn't hurting anyone but the smoker. Smoking outside isn't either. Government intrusion into our personal lives has become ridiculous and based on the Constitution, illegal. Nobody cares. Well, they will when the government comes after their habit or health issue. I wish all those second amendment defenders would remember there's a lot more to the Constitution than that, and show just as much concern for the rest of it. If I smoke, my employees smoke, and I want to open a bar or restaurant for smokers, why can't I? Nobody is forced to go in there, are they? Even totally separate smoking rooms are banned. Why? Please don't talk to me about health care costs unless you want to discuss mandatory Weight Watchers programs, along with mandatory exercise. Both those issues kill more people than smoking. But of course the non-smoking obese and lazy will fight that tooth and claw. As for kids, why don't you all raise yours in a bubble somewhere until they're 21? Then they won't be exposed to anything wrong or bad for them. The reasoning behind anti-smoking laws is just nuts.

HatesFoxNews wrote:

<quoted text>Of course smoking isn't healthy. That's not a mystery at all. But smoking in one's car with nobody else present isn't hurting anyone but the smoker. Smoking outside isn't either. Government intrusion into our personal lives has become ridiculous and based on the Constitution, illegal. Nobody cares. Well, they will when the government comes after their habit or health issue. I wish all those second amendment defenders would remember there's a lot more to the Constitution than that, and show just as much concern for the rest of it. If I smoke, my employees smoke, and I want to open a bar or restaurant for smokers, why can't I? Nobody is forced to go in there, are they? Even totally separate smoking rooms are banned. Why? Please don't talk to me about health care costs unless you want to discuss mandatory Weight Watchers programs, along with mandatory exercise. Both those issues kill more people than smoking. But of course the non-smoking obese and lazy will fight that tooth and claw. As for kids, why don't you all raise yours in a bubble somewhere until they're 21? Then they won't be exposed to anything wrong or bad for them. The reasoning behind anti-smoking laws is just nuts.

I can't think of anything good about tobacco or the tobacco industry. Everything from a waste of good land that could be used for real crops, to cancer and everything in between. It's destructive. It kills. Plain and simple. I know a person that got cancer of the tongue, stopped smoking for a few months,had part of his tongue removed,and he's back smoking. If you had a child that had lung cancer and was on the path to death, would you still defend it?

INS REP wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't think of anything good about tobacco or the tobacco industry. Everything from a waste of good land that could be used for real crops, to cancer and everything in between. It's destructive. It kills. Plain and simple. I know a person that got cancer of the tongue, stopped smoking for a few months,had part of his tongue removed,and he's back smoking. If you had a child that had lung cancer and was on the path to death, would you still defend it?

As usual, you miss the point. The point is, it is NOT the right of the government to babysit adults on their personal behavior as long as it's not hurting others. people smoking outdoors or alone in their cars are NOT hurting anyone but themselves. Every point you just made could be aimed at the fast food industry, or eating too much sugar. By the way, you should know, heart attacks and strokes kill way more people than cancer. The point is, NOBODY should have the right to rule by law against somebody's personal stupidity such as smoking. Of course it's bad. I never said it wasn't. Read a bit more carefully, would you?

Scarpino wrote:

<quoted text>
What has any team from Ohio done????

They don't need to beat anyone. Kinda like Jerry, they lick themselves.

HatesFoxNews wrote:

<quoted text>As usual, you miss the point. The point is, it is NOT the right of the government to babysit adults on their personal behavior as long as it's not hurting others. people smoking outdoors or alone in their cars are NOT hurting anyone but themselves. Every point you just made could be aimed at the fast food industry, or eating too much sugar. By the way, you should know, heart attacks and strokes kill way more people than cancer. The point is, NOBODY should have the right to rule by law against somebody's personal stupidity such as smoking. Of course it's bad. I never said it wasn't. Read a bit more carefully, would you?

Tobacco use also causes heart attacks and strokes. What about those people that throw their lit butts out the car window and cause fires? I have a friend that was behind someone at the McDonald's drive thru. A person threw a lit butt out the window. He got out of his car, picked up the butt,and threw it back in the persons car, saying,"you dropped this". I love that statement "nobody should have the right to rule by law against somebody's personal stupidity"? Read that over again and think about it. Laws are created in a society to set parameters for that society. Obviously, if people knew how to react responsibly, we wouldn't have as many laws. Lets take for example, the law that involves cell phones/texting while driving. Lots of people would agree they should have the right to talk/text while driving. If there weren't a law, more people would do it. It endangers lives. Because of the law, we have less accidents. What about DUI? Again, if there weren't a law, more people would drink and drive. So, let's get back to your statement, "nobody should have the right to rule by law against somebody's personal stupidity". Would you still make that statement if your child were killed by a drunk driver or someone on the cell phone talking/texting?

Joey W wrote:

<quoted text>If your homosexual friend threw something in my car I would jack his ass up. What business was it of his to go out of his way to do that? Would love him to do that to me I would stuff a lit cigarette down his throat knocking teeth out in the process.

The person that did this was a farmer. I'm sure if a fine was involved he could pay it.

Joey W wrote:

<quoted text>If your homosexual friend threw something in my car I would jack his ass up. What business was it of his to go out of his way to do that? Would love him to do that to me I would stuff a lit cigarette down his throat knocking teeth out in the process.

By the way, I don't have any homosexual friends. Maybe you do. And I guarantee you, If this person picked up one of your cigarette butts and returned it to you, you wouldn't do anything about it.If you did, he would probably jack your ass up. By the way, I'm curious. Are you one of those people that smoke and throw the butts out the window, etc.? One of those smokers that give other smokers bad reputations, like being offensive with it? Not being courteous to others, littering, etc? Just a general rude to others and don't care about anybody type of person? It's people like that lawmakers love. It gives them more of a reason to make up more regulations and laws because people simply don't know how to conduct themselves in society.

If somebody makes a habit of throwing cigarette butts out windows, it's everybody's business. Litter, fires, etc. Major fires in California were traced back to throwing cigarette butts out of car windows. When I was young I smoked. So I know where you are coming from. I quit when cigarettes were .75 cents a pack. Now cigarettes are $7-$10 a pack. A pack a day multiplied by 30 days is equivalent money wise to a nice car payment. Who would think someone would pay $7-$10 a pack for cigarettes?

Joey W wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually don't smoke at all. Just hate people that have to involve themselves in other peoples business. Those are the ones who don't know how to conduct themselves in society.

You are absolutely correct. And there are descriptions for such busybodies... Neurotics and sociopaths being a couple of the kinder ones.

From an ANR update:

Smokefree parks laws also expanded this year, with 112 new laws taking effect to make local parks 100% smokefree in 2011.
Please note that if a law contains an exemption allowing the use of electronic cigarettes, the ANR Foundation does not consider the law to be 100% smokefree, and it will not appear on our 100% lists.