While I am biased (I do not smoke), I LOVE that New York City bars and restaurants do not allow smoking. I never come home from a night out stinking like smoke, and I swear I feel so much better in the morning because of it.

I suppose I'm just not up on all this modern research that refutes everything I thought was true about smoking and health related problems, the biggest being death at an earlier age than I really wanted. Now, I'm starting to wonder if the holocaust really happened. I think we should quit picking on those who love to smoke anywhere they want. Since there is no proven risk of any health problems at all, let's just start smoking again. We could begin by allowing smoking in hospital waiting rooms.

Swamp Fox wrote: I suppose I'm just not up on all this modern research that refutes everything I thought was true about smoking and health related problems, the biggest being death at an earlier age than I really wanted. Now, I'm starting to wonder if the holocaust really happened. I think we should quit picking on those who love to smoke anywhere they want. Since there is no proven risk of any health problems at all, let's just start smoking again. We could begin by allowing smoking in hospital waiting rooms.

I agree. I mean, a substance that has been proven to cause deadly cancer in it's users couldn't possibly have any such consequences on those who inhale the smoke. Nah, that could never happen.

I suppose I'm just not up on all this modern research that refutes everything I thought was true about smoking and health related problems, the biggest being death at an earlier age than I really wanted. Now, I'm starting to wonder if the holocaust really happened. I think we should quit picking on those who love to smoke anywhere they want. Since there is no proven risk of any health problems at all, let's just start smoking again. We could begin by allowing smoking in hospital waiting rooms.

You are confusing smoking with exposure to second hand smoke. Many people make this mistake.


It might help if you would read Judge William Osteen's decision concerning a 1993 EPA study on SHS. If this court decision does nothing else, it should make you a bit skeptical of scientific studies.

Some highlights.

a.EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality

b.EPA determined it was biologically plausible that ETS causes lung cancer. In doing so, EPA recognized problems with its theory, namely the dissimilarities between MS and ETS. In other areas of the Assessment, EPA relied on these dissimilarities in justifying its methodology. EPA did not explain much of the criteria and assertions upon which EPA's theory relies. EPA claimed selected epidemiologic studies would affirm its plausibility theory. The studies EPA selected did not include a significant number of studies and data which demonstrated no association between ETS and cancer

c.In conducting the Assessment, EPA deemed it biologically plausible that ETS was a carcinoqen. EPA's theory was premised on the similarities between MS, SS, and ETS. In other chapters, the Agency used MS and ETS dissimilarities to justify methodology. Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm

ernest_t_bass wrote: I don't smoke either, but I'm a huge fan of freedom.

Since this was voted by the people then the ban is the result of Freedom

So if we voted slavery back in, it would mean that slavery = freedom?

tk421 wrote: I agree. I mean, a substance that has been proven to cause deadly cancer in it's users couldn't possibly have any such consequences on those who inhale the smoke. Nah, that could never happen.

Again, we are exposed to hundreds of toxins and poisons in the air and our food daily. The level and frequency of exposure matters.

The propaganda has been that second hand smoke is a risk at any level of exposure no matter how small. Reality is that studies have not conclusively proven second hand smoke to be a hazard at any level experienced by spouses, children or co-workers. Using inconclusive research at levels of exposure much higher to ban ALL exposure is the epitome of living in a nanny state. In fact, such practice is an absolute complete waste of resources.

It practically is the equivalent of banning potatoes because they contain cyanide because cyanide is a poison.

queencitybuckeye wrote: So if we voted slavery back in, it would mean that slavery = freedom?

The people got to vote on it. Because of Freedom WE got to decide not the gov't dictating to us.

martyirish wrote: The people got to vote on it. Because of Freedom WE got to decide not the gov't dictating to us.

Trampling on the rights of the property owners in the process.

Using your logic, "we" could vote to tear down your house and put a park there. Is that OK? After all, we voted on it.

martyirish wrote:

queencitybuckeye wrote: So if we voted slavery back in, it would mean that slavery = freedom?

The people got to vote on it. Because of Freedom WE got to decide not the gov't dictating to us.

This what is wrong in this country...Just because some place is open to the public..does not make it a PUBLIC place..it still belongs to the private individual who should have final say in whether smoking is allowed or not...