Even smokers see benefit of smoking ban

Our military veterans from all time frames did not fight for ONE choice any more than they fought for ONE religion.

No smoke = No go. My choice.

The Article wrote:

With 1,000 respondents, the margin of error for such a poll is considered to be plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, Lger said. For questions answered by a smaller field of respondents, such as those posed to actual smokers, the likely margin of error increases.

Doesn't matter. If 6/10 said it was good, it's pretty obvious that it was fixed anyway. Almost all people know that's wrong, on so many different levels...

Only about 1/20 people don't like to be around smoking (or smoke), and even most of them know better than to let the Government commit such Abuse Of Power.(As I have explained previously...)

Anyway this article was a clear, blatant attempt at Social Engineering.

Why does the article not have the name of who wrote it? Not that I can find, anyway. Just says "The Gazette" and then "Published: Monday, May 28, 2007"

Of course I wouldn't put my name on that crap either, so I don't blame 'em I don't guess... But uh, it sure does make you wonder, doesn't it?

Hey, I'm almost positive that THIS is the ban that ended up leading to me learning about this issue!

It was about a year ago, now. The ban took effect last May 31, according to that article. Of course the article also tried to say that 78% of people like Wrongful Government Control.

But nevermind that, we'll use ME to vouch for it. And while I'm not positive it was May 31, it was sometime about then.

Anyway yeah, I think that was the ban that lead to what happened about me starting to study this issue and learning more than I had ever thought about it in the past.....

Thank-you Montreal Gazette for this article.

One fact to always keep in mind is that all smokers are suckers.

<LI>Our military veterans from all time frames did not fight for ONE choice any more than they fought for ONE religion.

Or ONE vector of disease.

Dave wrote:

<LI>Our military veterans from all time frames did not fight for ONE choice any more than they fought for ONE religion.
Or ONE vector of disease.

Yeah I like to fight all disease and death wherever possible, both physical death and spiritual death.

None of any of that changes the fact that Tobacco isn't the reason for Cancer, COPD, Emphasyma, etc.

The reason those Medical Conditions are STILL able to affect people is because certain entities (i.e. ACS, AHA, ALA, etc.) have not FOUND the CURES and VACCINES that they have had more than enough time (and money) to have long since found by now.

Nor the fact that if they cannot have the Cures and Vaccines found (in almost a century and countless funding) there are people who can take what they've got and get the job done (Such as myself, strictly for example.) Therefore, the question remains WHY can THEY not do so? Or why HAVE THEY NOT done so?

As I say constantly if anbody has been a victim of such and desires to take action against any of them and I can help in any way (including, without limitation, offering Testimony as a Expert Witness), just let me know and I will sure help out!!!

Anybody who is searious about "fighting disease" should be going after the REAL causes of it. That makes more sense, doesn't it?

Smoking is unhealthy but it's not the only thing that causes those conditions. However, even if it were, that would still not negate the question of Blame and Responsibility, not in the least!

2informU wrote:

None of any of that changes the fact that Tobacco isn't the reason for Cancer, COPD, Emphasyma, etc.
The reason those Medical Conditions are STILL able to affect people is because certain entities (i.e. ACS, AHA, ALA, etc.) have not FOUND the CURES and VACCINES that they have had more than enough time (and money) to have long since found by now.
Nor the fact that if they cannot have the Cures and Vaccines found (in almost a century and countless funding) there are people who can take what they've got and get the job done (Such as myself, strictly for example.) Therefore, the question remains WHY can THEY not do so? Or why HAVE THEY NOT done so?
As I say constantly if anbody has been a victim of such and desires to take action against any of them and I can help in any way (including, without limitation, offering Testimony as a Expert Witness), just let me know and I will sure help out!!!
Anybody who is searious about "fighting disease" should be going after the REAL causes of it. That makes more sense, doesn't it?
Smoking is unhealthy but it's not the only thing that causes those conditions. However, even if it were, that would still not negate the question of Blame and Responsibility, not in the least!

The facts remain. There is a surgeons warning on the cigarette package. Those who ignore the top medical people on this issue need to start paying attention. If they don't it is at the risk of life itself, health and even comfort. No person who has these diseases would say they enjoy them.

aghasttruthtllr wrote:

<quoted text>
The facts remain. There is a surgeons warning on the cigarette package. Those who ignore the top medical people on this issue need to start paying attention. If they don't it is at the risk of life itself, health and even comfort. No person who has these diseases would say they enjoy them.

I am not denying most of that. And as I stated previously, SMOKING IS UNHEALTHY (ETS is harmless but smoking is a Health Risk.)

What my main point was is that certain entities, such as the ACS (ETAL... the RWJF gang mostly...) are supposed to HAVE the Cures and Vaccines for those Diseases to which you were referring.

Other than that, I basically agree with most of what you said.

2informU wrote:

None of any of that changes the fact that Tobacco isn't the reason for Cancer, COPD, Emphasyma, etc.
The reason those Medical Conditions are STILL able to affect people is because certain entities (i.e. ACS, AHA, ALA, etc.) have not FOUND the CURES and VACCINES that they have had more than enough time (and money) to have long since found by now.
Nor the fact that if they cannot have the Cures and Vaccines found (in almost a century and countless funding) there are people who can take what they've got and get the job done (Such as myself, strictly for example.) Therefore, the question remains WHY can THEY not do so? Or why HAVE THEY NOT done so?
As I say constantly if anbody has been a victim of such and desires to take action against any of them and I can help in any way (including, without limitation, offering Testimony as a Expert Witness), just let me know and I will sure help out!!!
Anybody who is searious about "fighting disease" should be going after the REAL causes of it. That makes more sense, doesn't it?
Smoking is unhealthy but it's not the only thing that causes those conditions. However, even if it were, that would still not negate the question of Blame and Responsibility, not in the least!

OK, lets add WHO to the list of org's on the non-smoking side:
"The evidence is clear. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke," said Dr. Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization. Governments should immediately pass laws "requiring all indoor workplaces and public places to be 100 percent smoke-free," she said.

I suggest we stick a fork in the smokers as they are well-done!!! I hear the fat lady humming & tuning up....

Stop and think about the profit you would make with a Med. that would cure all cancer. Do you think for one moment that if anyone knew how to do it they would not have done it?They would be by far the richest and most loved person in the world.

2informU wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not denying most of that. And as I stated previously, SMOKING IS UNHEALTHY (ETS is harmless but smoking is a Health Risk.)
What my main point was is that certain entities, such as the ACS (ETAL... the RWJF gang mostly...) are supposed to HAVE the Cures and Vaccines for those Diseases to which you were referring.
Other than that, I basically agree with most of what you said.

If the RWJF gang has a cure for all these diseases why isn't everybody cured?

candid wrote:

Stop and think about the profit you would make with a Med. that would cure all cancer. Do you think for one moment that if anyone knew how to do it they would not have done it?They would be by far the richest and most loved person in the world.

I know of some who have been cured, it takes an awful lot of hard work though and buying of vegetables for juicing. One person lived 31 years and the other around 15 years.

Smokefree wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, lets add WHO to the list of org's on the non-smoking side:
"The evidence is clear. There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke," said Dr. Margaret Chan, director-general of the World Health Organization. Governments should immediately pass laws "requiring all indoor workplaces and public places to be 100 percent smoke-free," she said.
I suggest we stick a fork in the smokers as they are well-done!!! I hear the fat lady humming & tuning up....

The WHO is no better than the ACS, the RWJF, the EPA, the CDC, the ALA, or the SG's Office... I've never said otherwise, LOL

The WHO also (in addition to the afformentioned) has a clear, provable history of Wrongdoing, including (without limitation) Dishonesty. Therefore, as the case with the afformentioned, any information from them is pretty much WORTHLESS unless and until it has been verified elsewhere...

questioner wrote:

<quoted text>
If the RWJF gang has a cure for all these diseases why isn't everybody cured?

SHOULD have the Cures and Vaccines.

I suspect they might be doing it on purpose (although I presently have no evidence of such) and I sure wouldn't put it past them... But that's not what I meant by that.

I just meant that they have had enough time to get the job done.

candid wrote:

Stop and think about the profit you would make with a Med. that would cure all cancer. Do you think for one moment that if anyone knew how to do it they would not have done it?They would be by far the richest and most loved person in the world.

Like I said, I don't KNOW they are doing it on purpose. They probably are but I can't say that they are, at this time.

Assuming they are:

I'm sure they plan to do that later. The thing is AFTER they've done that, the money train dries up. So in the meantime they just take some more "donations" from RWJF, and get that later.

Anyway yeah, I'm using the theoretical presumption that they are just not able to get the job done. And like I said before (and I'll say it again and again) if they REALLY can't do any better than that, they should take a hike and leave the keys where I can find 'em. And I'll take all that Equipment, and Resources, and FUNDING (like 125M/year, just for one Region!), and get the Cures and Vaccines found. And it sure won't take no 93 years to get it done!!!!!!!

So yes, the way I see it, if I can, why can they not?

And somebody's gonna say something like "Can you prove you really could?" Well, not very well over the Internet but I'm sure I could at a Court Hearing or the such. Which might happen, BTW. Because I seriously am looking into taking action against them. I just need some more victims first...

Anyway yeah, I don't know if they are doing it on purpose or just stupid and incompatent. I dunno... Either way it's still inexcusable. People are sick and dying and all they can do is tell people to make Lifestyle Changes when they've had almost a century to get the Cures and Vaccines found. There will be justice though. You can bank on that!!!

2informU wrote:

<quoted text>
The WHO is no better than the ACS, the RWJF, the EPA, the CDC, the ALA, or the SG's Office... I've never said otherwise, LOL
The WHO also (in addition to the afformentioned) has a clear, provable history of Wrongdoing, including (without limitation) Dishonesty. Therefore, as the case with the afformentioned, any information from them is pretty much WORTHLESS unless and until it has been verified elsewhere...

Dishonesty? about what?

truthtllr wrote:

<quoted text>
Dishonesty? about what?

Well, where should I start? The main thing that comes to mind has to be the "elephant in the corner". About the ETS Study they did (I forget what it was called at the moment. I'll get a link later...) Similar to the 1993 EPA Study except that instead of trying to falsify it, they just tried to cover it up...

Honestly, I've got to make a point in the WHO's favor here: That was honestly a better thing to do (Not 100% right, but better, indeed.) And on so many different levels...

Yeah, what the WHO did wasn't great but at least they didn't do what the EPA did. Like I said, it doesn't make it right, but at least they aren't the worst :)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

Conclusion The estimated burden of passive smoking heavily depends on the definition of underlying parameters. Using an evidence-based approach reveals a substantial burden of passive smoking in terms of CHD mortality and morbidity reflected by six CHD deaths and 10 incident CHD cases every day in Germany.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

Passive smoking impaired flow-mediated vasodilation in healthy never smokers in a smoking environment. The impairment was strongly related to carboxyhemoglobin level.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to ETS at home and work is associated with lower HRV and with higher heart rate in an ageing population. Our findings suggest that exposure to ETS increases cardiac risk through disturbances in the autonomic nervous system.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

CONCLUSIONS: The increasing presence of restrictive workplace policies seemed to be a component of the substantial decline in self-reported passive smoke exposure since 1985.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

In conclusion, passive smoking had a significant effect on associations between B2 adrenoceptor polymorphisms and asthma-related phenotypes, enhancing the relationship between Arg16 and lung function and removing the relationship between Arg16 or Gln27 and eNO.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

CONCLUSIONS: Passive smokers appear to have disproportionately increased levels of 2 biomarkers of cardiovascular disease risk, fibrinogen and homocysteine. This finding provides further evidence to suggest that low-level exposure to secondhand smoke has a clinically important effect on susceptibility to cardiovascular disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi...

Active and passive smoking are well-known causes of disease, including respiratory and cardiovascular disease and cancer. In 2004 the Dutch government introduced new legislation to regulate smoking in the workplace. However, smoking is still allowed in hotels, bars and restaurants, despite the fact that two-thirds of the Dutch population support a total ban on smoking in public places. Several other European countries and American states have banned smoking in public places. Studies performed in these regions show that the new smoking regulations have had no negative economic effects. Moreover, various studies have shown that smoking bans have a positive impact on public health, even in the short-term, including a significant decrease in respiratory and cardiovascular disease. There is therefore no reason to continue to exclude hotels, bars and restaurants from the smoking ban in all public places in The Netherlands.