Ohio Supreme Court Rules Smoking Ban Constitutional

Kyboy wrote:

The WHO quickly buried the report.

No, they didn't. I even provided you a link to it.

All you can come up with are cut an paste from Dave Hitt's blog.

You are a tool who is too stupid to think for yourself.

No wonder you call yourself "K-Y Boy", you'll accept ANYTHING that's shoved into you.

Viva La Ban!

Frisbee wrote:

<quoted text>No, they didn't. I even provided you a link to it.

All you can come up with are cut an paste from Dave Hitt's blog.

You are a tool who is too stupid to think for yourself.

No wonder you call yourself "K-Y Boy", you'll accept ANYTHING that's shoved into you.

Viva La Ban!

Apparently your wrong. You been trying
to shove it all along and it has not worked.

This truly says it all wrote:

"This says it all" is a drug pusher for SMOKE FREE KIDS.

And who says, "nut sucking fruitcake"?? It sounds like something the middle school dork that runs the projector would come up with. Really?

And now you're offended that someone would try to keep KIDS from smoking? Go back and read what you just wrote. Someone who tries to keep big tobacco from hooking a 10 year old child should be mocked?

Wow. You really are a scumbag.

The EPA Report

In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.

Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA '93 study, probably because it became widely available in '93.

This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it's no one else's business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.

EPA Report

Did this study show SHS is deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.

Fact: In 1992 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.

Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.

After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself "Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible?

Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.

Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.(Approximately 87% of lung cancer occurs among primary smokers. Another 10% occurs in asbestos workers, leaving just 3% of the cases without an obvious cause.)

The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.

BluesCat1980 wrote:

Simple fact is smoking whether it be second hand smoke or direct smoke from smoking, are bad for your health. There are over 210 chemicals in cigarettes, and the most deadly are tar, carbon monoxide, arsenic, and as science proves, smoke displaces oxygen. Enough said.

Blues Cat 1980 you would have to sit in a room where somebody smokes 165,000 cigerettes to match the arsenic contained in 1 glass of water to that of SHS. Should they ban drinking water ?

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>
Blues Cat 1980 you would have to sit in a room where somebody smokes 165,000 cigerettes to match the arsenic contained in 1 glass of water to that of SHS. Should they ban drinking water ?

Will you please present your credentials that qualifies you too make such statements? IF you can not, please shut the fu<k up.

Kyboy wrote:

Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.

"Statistically significant results were the reduced risk from childhood exposure and the increasing trend in risk for weighted duration of exposure to ETS from the spouse or at the workplace. Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."

You'll find that right below Table 5 on the second page you linked to. Frisbee suggested READING, not just LOCATING, the study.

He probably should have included asking you to get someone to read it to you and help with difficult concepts such as the conjunction "and".

Kyboy wrote:

The EPA Report
In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.
Note: Although the official date of this report is December, 1992, it is commonly referred to as the EPA '93 study, probably because it became widely available in '93.
This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it's no one else's business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified.

My recollection is that the leaking of the report's findings was done by someone called on to review the work--not by the EPA itself. Regardless of that, though, the results of the work have been reproduced by one public health agency after another since then. The furor stirred by the tobacco industry's deliberate and substantial efforts to use disinformation as a tool to discredit the study--begun when they learned the study was happening, not when it was concluded--ensured that the EPA's work would come under the most severe scrutiny of any such work in history.

The medical/scientific community has embraced the work (as well as confirming the results).

The tobacco industry's attack on the study included abuse of the legal process in the form of a legally groundless hearing under the auspices of a former industry lobbyist turned federal judge (William Osteen, Sr.), whose decision to allow the travesty in his courtroom was found to be unlawful when the case was reviewed. The entire attack was part of the grounds for the RICO conviction of the major players.

Oh, yeah, that attack also included the efforts to dismiss results of meta-analysis.

never mind all that though. If you want to go into this element, "there's a thread for that".

If you think you have something to say that hasn't already been covered there, by all means continue that discussion THERE.

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/TEQ...

By the way, if you want to take up the Osteen thing (most folks who are led down the path you seem to be on get there sooner or later), there's a thread for THAT as well:

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T8U...

I got sick of the interminable yammering of you addicts in denial thinking you had something new and original every time you "discover" one of these industry PR efforts--as well as those who think that, since it's been a while since they were blown out of the water on it, they should be able to get away with making us debunk them again. So, I started these threads so that we wouldn't have to waste so much time and bandwidth going over and over the ground in every thread that lasts for any length of time.
Feel free to go on saying "Oh, HUH!!" as long as you want to. You lose regardless.

Kyboy wrote:

Apparently your wrong. You been trying
to shove it all along and it has not worked.

Apparently I know how to spell "you're". Facts do work. That's why bans exist, dummy.

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>Blues Cat 1980 you would have to sit in a room where somebody smokes 165,000 cigerettes to match the arsenic contained in 1 glass of water to that of SHS. Should they ban drinking water ?

Ah. Mr. Brainiac strikes again! Where is the proof of your water theory? Seems to me your theory doesn't even hold the very water laced with arsenic you speak of. I can't stand people like you that try their hardest to dumb down reality. If you know anything about cigarette smoke, the chemicals in it are real and dangerous.

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah. Mr. Brainiac strikes again! Where is the proof of your water theory? Seems to me your theory doesn't even hold the very water laced with arsenic you speak of. I can't stand people like you that try their hardest to dumb down reality. If you know anything about cigarette smoke, the chemicals in it are real and dangerous.

http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.a...

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text> http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.a...

It says "arsenic was found in the drinking water of 25 states". Now with that said, okay, you showed me proof of what you were saying.

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text> http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.a...

As stated, I was wrong about what I was saying about you not having proof arsenic in drinking water, but I found some very interesting. Apparently there are over 4,000 chemicals is cigarettes, of which 51 are carcinogenic.

Here's just a small list of what I found in research. Cigarettes and the smoke it produces contain:

Carbon Monoxide=found in car exhaust
Nicotine=found in bug sprays
Tar=found in asphalt and on rooftops
Arsenic=found in rat poison
Ammonia=found in cleaning products
Hydrogen cyanide=gas chambers
Cyanide=found in many poisons
Acetone=found in nail polish remover
Butane=found in lighters
DDT=found in insecticides
Formaldehyde=used to preserve bodies
Sulfuric Acid=found in drain cleaner
Cadmium=found rechargeable batteries
Freon=a type of refrigerant

Any if those chemicals sound familiar?

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
As stated, I was wrong about what I was saying about you not having proof arsenic in drinking water, but I found some very interesting. Apparently there are over 4,000 chemicals is cigarettes, of which 51 are carcinogenic.
Here's just a small list of what I found in research. Cigarettes and the smoke it produces contain:
Carbon Monoxide=found in car exhaust
Nicotine=found in bug sprays
Tar=found in asphalt and on rooftops
Arsenic=found in rat poison
Ammonia=found in cleaning products
Hydrogen cyanide=gas chambers
Cyanide=found in many poisons
Acetone=found in nail polish remover
Butane=found in lighters
DDT=found in insecticides
Formaldehyde=used to preserve bodies
Sulfuric Acid=found in drain cleaner
Cadmium=found rechargeable batteries
Freon=a type of refrigerant
Any if those chemicals sound familiar?

Blue Cat ....What is import to remember it is the size of the dose that kills. If you go a little further with these chemicals and even more of them you will find them in many foods both processed and natural.
Actually in the case of arsenic in rat poison you might find yourself spending a lot of money on the poison before you switch to the succesful old standby trap. They can become immune amazing ???

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>Blue Cat ....What is import to remember it is the size of the dose that kills. If you go a little further with these chemicals and even more of them you will find them in many foods both processed and natural.
Actually in the case of arsenic in rat poison you might find yourself spending a lot of money on the poison before you switch to the succesful old standby trap. They can become immune amazing ???

Any of these chemicals in any dosage are unhealthy. The body was never meant to be introduced to such chemicals. These chemicals aren't something as you said get "immune" to at any point.

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
It says "arsenic was found in the drinking water of 25 states". Now with that said, okay, you showed me proof of what you were saying.

Actually, it didn't say anything about comparison to smoking, did it?

Too, this would only qualify as "evidence", not as "proof", of what was said.

Once all of that is said and done, there remains the question of whether arsenic is taken up by the body at a similar rate whether it is ingested or inhaled. Then there is the major hurdle to assigning the rant relevance: Just how big a portion of the trouble caused by smoking is attributed to arsenic?

Need A Light wrote:

<quoted text>
Blue Cat ....What is import to remember it is the size of the dose that kills. If you go a little further with these chemicals and even more of them you will find them in many foods both processed and natural.

Ah, the old standby argument. In the case of carcinogenesis, there are many "poisons" that only require one molecule to interact with one cell in the body in order for a lethal cancer to result. Now, yes, statistically, the more molecules there are in the exposure, the more likely that one reaction is to take place. That does NOT, however, negate the potential of a single molecule to do the deed.

There is also the often-significant difference between the digestive tract and the respiratory tract in efficiency of getting the poison into the blood stream.

I have never, for some reason, seen a list that put any specific food at the top for "preventable causes of death". I wonder why that could be, when smoking tops virtually every such list I have seen?

BluesCat1980 wrote:

<quoted text>
Any of these chemicals in any dosage are unhealthy. The body was never meant to be introduced to such chemicals. These chemicals aren't something as you said get "immune" to at any point.

There are poisons for which a human can build up a tolerance. "Immunity" is, of course, a different matter.

The human body does need some of those chemicals in miniscule amounts. I believe arsenic is classed as a "micronutrient". This is not, however, a valid basis for the extension to everything else involved.

DDT, though, is a man-made chemical. No animal's body was ever meant to be introduced to that one, though nearly all of them are fooled into accepting it as one hormone or other that their bodies need/produce in order to function properly.

Just to change the subject a bit:

New Fines In Place For Cats And Dogs That Don’t Buckle Up In New Jersey

By David Madden

PHILADELPHIA (CBS)– Click it or ticket. It’s not just for people anymore — at least in the Garden State.

Police and animal control officers are authorized to cite drivers with unrestrained animals in the car. Yes, that includes the back of a pickup truck too. Violators can be fined $250 to $1,000 per offense.

Ray Martinez, head of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, just wants to avoid distracted driving.

“People actually driving with a dog or a cat on their laps. It’s not cute. It’s actually dangerous for the driver. It’s dangerous for other drivers and it’s dangerous for that pet.”

Dogs can be placed in harnesses that click right into the seat belt buckle. Cats don’t take well to harnesses for the most part, so they need to go in a carrier. And the carrier needs to be buckled down.

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/06/02/n...

Naaah. Government won't get bigger just because we invite them into our homes and businesses. They will just stop right there.