Smoking Ban? What's next, I can't wait

[Hannah]

The Journal has a poll and 84% agree that the concil is incorrect to ban smoking in all public places. But that doesn't matter, elect a few world improvers who are all knowing and all seeing and get out of their way. There apparently is no shortage of idiots that can get elected to public office. Threre are no private property rights or personal freedoms when these jackasses take the stage. Way to go city council!

[rufio]

tyranny comes in the most innocous of forms. taxation without representation, increased government intrusion, enforced health ordinances in the form of mandatory seatbelt and anti-smoking ordinances to name a few. when people abrogate their personal responsibilities to 'public servants' they give up the only thing that distinguishes this country from the rest of the world, self-determination.

[Desert Rat]

the problem with this tom-foolery is that 83% of the people said this is assinine and not worthy of my time (or they didn't even know about it). This is because they're spending their time on improving their own lives through work or family.

Most find this not worthy of one's time or effort.

Meanwhile the dictive few participate in this idiotic manipulative crap. It's the old 80-20 rule. 20% of the people dictate to 80% of the people. Conversely, 20% of the people do the work of the other 80%. While most of us are working, 15 people at a council meeting dictate the the pulse of the people to political hacks and it's touted as a overwhelming majority supporting the political wanna be's actions.

Quite sad really.

[bushwood]

I smoke and am all for making tobacco illegal. Don't just ban smoking, ban tobacco. I would like to see all levels of governments (city, state, federal) pull the tar coated tobacco tax revenue needle from their arms. The main tobacco addicts are the taxing entities. If tobacco and smoking are so bad, our leaders should lead by example and either ban all tobacco products or stop receiving tax revenues from their sales.

[deadwood]

Nothing more intollerant than an ex-smoker, except maybe a Bay Area Liberal.

No surprise San Mateo! Just glad I moved on before the Fascists took over!

[jude51]

I totally agree with the person who said why not ban tobacco?
I think it's pretty sad when our government will ban any product that they think may cause cancer and make sure it is taken off the market immediatly. Any product other than cigarettes. We have been hearing for years now how bad they are for you and how much they cost us in health care etc. But, does the government ban them? Nope, too much money comes back into their pockets.
So, who are they really looking out for? Not us. Smoking is a hard habit to break, I know, but if it was not so readily available, many people would be forced to quit. Why not ban cigarettes? Big money maker in taxes and too many buddys on capital hill.

[StanLee]

Here's how it goes:
Your friendly government needs more money to buy votes.
Money comes from taxes, but over-taxing everyone would not be very popular.
So they decide: let's hit only a third of the taxpayers, the other 2 third will be happy and keep us in office.
Then comes the clever plan:
1. Throw some grant money on "scientist" to produce "evidence" that smoking is the worst thing on the planet.
2. Use all forms of propaganda to scare people. This is a very religious country, people believe anything.
3. Hire a bunch of retarded kids, call them "thetruth.com" and let them make the dumbest anti-smoker commercials possible. No problem, if it's on TV it's "the truth".
4. Now smoking and smokers are the enemy, anything goes.
5. Raise tobacco taxes, sue "big tobacco", cash in.
6. Enjoy power, ban smoking (more money from fines), keep raising taxes.
7. Go as far as you can, this is not the "home of the free" any more, people no longer care about rights and freedom, they prefer a false sense of security.
8. The government can actually ban the use of a legal product they make
tons of money taxing. How insane is that? When did common sense go out of style? I guess no one really cares any more. This country is doomed.

Oh, allmighty government, deliver us from the smokers...

[Roscoe_Beedle]

Not surprised at all. Small minds always think you can legislate common sense and health. If this bit of nonsense stands wait for the lawsuits neighbors against neighbor.

And as far as banning tobacco good luck. Ever hear of heroin? Cocaine? Crack. All illegal and all sold on the streets.

Somehow I don't think this ban will stick.

[Eddie]

This is kind of ridiculous. I'm an ex-smoker and would be thrilled if everyone else kicked the habit too. But not like this.

Anti-smoking laws have left common sense in the dust. It was smart to ban smoking from the workplace, and even most smokers I know agree restaurants are better now that you can actually taste the food. But banning smoking from bars was dumb -- who goes to bars for their health? Even so, smokers in my state gamely step outside to light up, and do surprisingly little complaining about it.

And now they can't do that either? Get real. You can't legislate common sense. Smoking is a terrible thing, and I've seen it ruin lives, but there are better ways to tackle this problem.

By the way, for the benefit of the previous poster: There are lots of proud liberals like myself who agree with this position. The government should stay out of our bedrooms, it should stay out of our churches (and vice versa), and it should leave us alone in our pursuit of happiness.

[WHIPPITYFLIPPIT]

Let's see. These anti-smoking blowhards have nothing better to do than to demonize smokers with faulty science and tax the bejesus out of them and then forbid smoking anyway. They've got too much power and too much time on their hands. Voting bodies should meet 12 days every 60 years, rather than 12 months every year.


Having smoked for 35 years and quit in 1998, you can be sure that I wish I'd never smoked. On the other hand, I depise the armed-humanitarian gas-bags who wish to impose all of these taxes and regulations on smokers. Overthrow them!


How? I am constrained by law to suggest that they be voted out of office, rather than horsewhipped out of office ------ but I do prefer the shortest distance between A and B ----- the straight line. Draw your own conclusions.

[Stevenjay3]

Gee....you have some very smart people who write in this forum. Unfortunately, the person who posted: "There apparently is no shortage of idiots that can get elected to public office..." is right on the money. I thought my town in Michigan was unique in that it is full of very smart people and but the elected officials are also, mostly, idiots.

I hope none of them read this publication as they are always looking for ridiculous things with which to occupy their time. A total ban on smoking would be right up their alley unless, of course, some of then smoked.

When I was a kid my friends and I joked about the possibility of "Fart Police" when passing gas became banned. It now doesn't seem as funny as it did way back then.

[infowarrior]

I have known for sometime that an all out smoking ban was coming. This kind of ban will require people to snitch on one another. Maybe Alexander Solzenitzen was right and when these lackeys come to our door we should great them with clubs and knives or anything else that will stop them if we don't we will regret it for the rest of our lives.

[JohninCT]

Anything viewed as "bad for you" is now illegal. (Sly Stallion movie 90's)

I am a smoker. Let me 1st say I am very respectful of non-smokers.
I won't even think of smoking in your car or home. I will refrain from
my habit, while you are in my car or home. But don't tell me it's illegal
for me, alone, to consume a legal product in my own car or
outside my home or on the street, away from everyone.

What about a person, who owns his own home,
it's a single and detached home, and legal to smoke in,
but wait,they have kids! :eek:

Now, don't wanta have the kids breath your 2nd hand smoke,
But it's illegal to go outside and smoke.

They pass a law that makes it illegal for you to smoke in your car,
why, because the guy in the car next to you at the traffic light
might catch some 2nd hand smoke?
What about the 100's of parts-per-million of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide / dioxide, spewing out the tailpipe?
What's more dangerous? :rolleyes:

In a car, while driving:
Cell phone use, reading the paper, maps, adjusting the radio,
women putting on makeup. Just things I see everyday.
Smoking in car, by yourself, is bad and/or dangerous? :rolleyes:

Tax the ciggys to the max, then restrict where you may consume
the legal product. Then tax it some more.

Smokers, do what I do. Make your own.
In CT a carton of ciggys is close to 50-bucks.
MYO (make your own) A bag of tobacco and ciggy tubes for
2-cartons cost me just under 30-bucks. Look up "MYO" on the web.

JM2C's,
John in CT

[StanLee]

I think decent people don't run for office any more. When it comes to Election Day, you get 2 or 3 "choices", none of them are really good.
The problem is that we think we have to vote for one of them anyway, instead of rejecting them all.
The only thing we know about the candidates is that they'll do almost anything to get into (and stay in) power.
Public offices should be filled by randomly selected people, similar to jury duty.
Let's say you have two positions to fill, you call in 20 people, have a public hearing, ask some questions, then vote. That's it.
No mud slinging campaigns, no special interests, no corruption, clean and simple.
It just might be crazy enough to work...
One more thing: whenever legistlators pass a new law, they would be required to eliminate 2 old ones. We have way too many laws already...

[NewYorker]

If Belmont does go through with this 'Draconian' ban on smoking, they will serve no-one but the pharmaceutical companies who have lobbied for this and other bans around the country.

Pharmaceutical companies reap huge profits through the sales of nicotine patches and gums, not to mention the associated anti-depressants usually also prescribed by doctors to quit smoking.

Fears of 'second hand smoke' are nothing more than the result of propoganda circulated by the very powerful 'anti-smoking' lobby financed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Smoking is not good for the smoker, but even a smoker's health risks have been distorted out of proportion.
Risks from 'second hand smoke' exposure have been distorted, misrepresented and invented.

There is as much reason to ban smoking in Belmont as there was to invade Iraq for WMD.

The sources listed below provide plenty of evidence to support my post.

http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page1.asp
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/
http://forces.org/index.htm
http://nycclash.com/
http://www.smokersclub.com/home.html

A New York Smoker.

[Free Thinker]

I guess re-education camps and the mandatory posting of "The Great Leader" Kim Jong Il in every home is next. Maybe now the state will start releasing the pot heads to make room for the addicts of the "Evil Weed", because we know there is still no room for the rapists and murders.

Phil

[Jerry Arrow]

Gee.... "There apparently is no shortage of idiots that can get elected to public office..." is right on the money.

the Belmont City Council voted unanimously to draft an ordinance that will ban smoking in all areas of the city ..............
the council chose to pursue the strictest law possible and deal with any legal challenges later..................

I highly recommend that each and every member of or anyone who reads this Forum, write to the Belmont City Council and demand their immediate resignation

Mayor Phillip Matthewson
Vice Mayor Coralin Feierbach 650 593-3550
Council member Dave Warden 650.593-3270
Council member William Dickenson 650.593-3940
Council member Warren Lieberman 650.620-0000

to contact the City Council collectively, please use the following link: CityCouncil@belmont.gov

Snail Mail address:
Belmont City Council
1070 6th Ave, Belmont, CA
(650) 595-7413

Belmont web site http://www.belmont.gov/index.asp

I would also suggest that any resident(s) of the City of Belmont put together a signed petition to Recall all members of the entire City Council, immediately. You may want to make copies of all these posts on this Forum concerning this matter and send it directly to the City Council and request they resign. It would be nice to include your signature but not mandatory

[StanLee]

I followed the link (provided by Jerry) to the Belmont City website.
According to the agenda posted on the site, the Council meeting begins with
the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
If I remember correctly, it includes the phrase :

"...liberty and justice for all."

Maybe the council members don't understand theses words, or they make no effort to disguise their disrespect for the basic principles this country was founded upon. This should offend everyone, including the non-smoking members of the community.
If the council even considers a ban on smoking in places like your home, car, backyard, or private club, they must be recalled, and replaced.
It's not about smoking any more, it goes deeper than that.
If this ban stands, anything goes.

[JohninCT]

" It's not about smoking any more, it goes deeper than that.

If this ban stands, anything goes. "

Soo true!

[Stevenjay3]

The government cannot survive without the taxes on tobacco.

With all the tobacco settlement money that the states received, one would think that there would be a "real" effort to aid people to stop smoking like free, or low cost, nicotine patches; nicotine gum; wellbutrin; etc.

Naw....too expensive!

In my State of Michigan no tobacco settlement money went for smoking cessation. None!

But they did raise tax on tobacco to the point where poeple went out of state to purchase tobacco. The state responded with the threat of jail and/or huge fines for out of state tobacco purchases.

I remember the State Police somewhere in California shutting down tobacco sales at an Indian reservation because they were selling them too cheaply and the state wasn't getting the tax money. Maybe somebody out there can refresh me with the details.

Sure is getting weird out there.


Yes, "it's not just about smoking anymore."

[ladyteal]

and not really about smoking. The government wants control of every aspect of your life. It started with seat belts, helmets for motorcyclers, helmets for kids, car seats for kids, front or back seat for kids. Yes, it's true that for your own safety and your kids safety it is probably better to use all of the above. However, haven't you ever wondered how all of us baby boomers survived all of the years through infancy, childhood, and young adulthood without those laws? The government should not be involved in making "feel good" laws. But it is going to get worse, trust me.

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Smoker.
Then they came for the SUV Owners, and I did not
speak out because I was not a SUV Owner
Then they came for the fat people, and I did not
speak out because I was thin.
Then they came for the Gun Owners, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Gun Owner.
Then they came for the me
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Stevenjay3]

A judge has upheld a Colorado homeowners association's order that bars a couple from smoking in the town house they own.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10336501/detail.html

[ladyteal]

A judge has upheld a Colorado homeowners association's order that bars a couple from smoking in the town house they own.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10336501/detail.html

There must be something wrong with the way those townhouses were built.
I live in a townhouse, and can't smell anything from the neighbors.
If this happened to me, I'd be frying fish 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Then they'd really have something to b!tch & moan about. ;)

[Michael Stogner]

According to the Belmont Police Department report:0601-0500 dated 1/21/06

01/07/06

I was dispatched to the 1100 block of Alameda Avenue on a report of a hit and run accident that had just occurred involving two vehicles.

The Chevy has since left the scene and was traveling south on Alameda. Officer Hussey and Cpl McGuigan conducted an area check for the Chevy with negative results.

From the very begining this was a hit and run case. There is no other search actions reported by the Belmont Police Department regarding finding Mr. E. Smith. who lives in Belmont.

The next time he is mentioned in the report, On 1/13/06 Mr. E. Smith arrived at the Belmont Police Department and made a statement.

I am sure something happened during those six days, but there is nothing in the report.

Belmont Police Stated on page 4 of 4.
V1 caused this collision by being in violation of Vehicle Code Section 22350,
Unsafe speed for conditions. D1 is also in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001(A) felony hit and run.

That is what was sent to the District Attorney's Office,

DDA Sarah Boxer filed the single charge of misdemeanor. She was removed from the case.

This case is being reviewed by DDA Peter Lynch, The victim went to court and asked DDA Pat Flynn to not proceed until he has read the file and please review and charge as a felony per Belmont Police Report.

I have contacted the Belmont City Council and asked them to look into this matter.
Specifically:

(1) Why was Mr. Smith not arrested on 1/7/06?

(2) Why was Mr. Smith not arrested on 1/13/06 when he walked into the Police Department and made his statement?

To this day they have not responded. What on earth makes them think their Police Force will be able to enforce such a far reaching law.

[Colonist]

What's next?
Better be banning wood fireplaces. Fireplaces emit some of the same carcinogens as cigarettes - and more so.
If the council doesn't declare Fireplaces illegal and force homeowners to rip them out of their houses...they are discriminating against the smoker and not against second-hand-smoke.

Time to call the ACLU

[2smart4u]

The Journal has a poll and 84% agree that the concil is incorrect to ban smoking in all public places. But that doesn't matter, elect a few world improvers who are all knowing and all seeing and get out of their way. There apparently is no shortage of idiots that can get elected to public office. Threre are no private property rights or personal freedoms when these jackasses take the stage. Way to go city council!

Can you whine a little more, please? Take your nasty habits and go elsewhere if you don't like it.

[2smart4u]

and not really about smoking. The government wants control of every aspect of your life. It started with seat belts, helmets for motorcyclers, helmets for kids, car seats for kids, front or back seat for kids. Yes, it's true that for your own safety and your kids safety it is probably better to use all of the above. However, haven't you ever wondered how all of us baby boomers survived all of the years through infancy, childhood, and young adulthood without those laws? The government should not be involved in making "feel good" laws. But it is going to get worse, trust me.

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Smoker.
Then they came for the SUV Owners, and I did not
speak out because I was not a SUV Owner
Then they came for the fat people, and I did not
speak out because I was thin.
Then they came for the Gun Owners, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Gun Owner.
Then they came for the me
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Amusingly ignorant.

[2smart4u]

What's next?
Better be banning wood fireplaces. Fireplaces emit some of the same carcinogens as cigarettes - and more so.
If the council doesn't declare Fireplaces illegal and force homeowners to rip them out of their houses...they are discriminating against the smoker and not against second-hand-smoke.

Time to call the ACLU

How ignorant.

[happysmoker]

How ignorant.

Sadly, you are the ignorant one. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Do the RESEARCH yourself and LEARN. Big Anti-tobacco lies to you and everyone. Educate yourself, so that you can know the facts before you speak out of ignorance and embarrass yourself again.

[2smart4u]

Nothing more intollerant than an ex-smoker, except maybe a Bay Area Liberal.

No surprise San Mateo! Just glad I moved on before the Fascists took over!

Concerning your moving away: You're not as glad as we are!

[2smart4u]

Sadly, you are the ignorant one. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Do the RESEARCH yourself and LEARN. Big Anti-tobacco lies to you and everyone. Educate yourself, so that you can know the facts before you speak out of ignorance and embarrass yourself again.

Wow, you must be so proud of your ignorance to make such a fool of yourself so publicly.

[happysmoker]

Wow, you must be so proud of your ignorance to make such a fool of yourself so publicly.

I have educated myself on what tabacco does and does not do. Can you say the same? Your response proves once again that anti-smokers lack imagination and curiosity. I really do feel sorry for your gullibility and self-imposed ignorance. It must be horrible to be trapped in such a narrow mind.

[2smart4u]

I have educated myself on what tabacco does and does not do. Can you say the same? Your response proves once again that anti-smokers lack imagination and curiosity. I really do feel sorry for your gullibility and self-imposed ignorance. It must be horrible to be trapped in such a narrow mind.

You are truly ignorant. You pretend to know things that you clearly don't. Such as how much I know.
So tell me again, what "Big Anti-tobacco" (too funny) stands to gain from these alleged lies?
I pity you and those around you.

[happysmoker]

You are truly ignorant. You pretend to know things that you clearly don't. Such as how much I know.
So tell me again, what "Big Anti-tobacco" (too funny) stands to gain from these alleged lies?
I pity you and those around you.

Research, read, and learn. With the internet, a world of information is at your fingertips. Follow the money--that will tell you what you want to know.

Apologies to everyone else. I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I was just trying to help educate the antis, but they refuse to research, read, and learn. I will withdraw now.

[2smart4u]

Research, read, and learn. With the internet, a world of information is at your fingertips. Follow the money--that will tell you what you want to know.

Now if we could just get you to take your own advice.

[2smart4u]

"scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).

Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans.

Persons with asthma can experience attacks brought on by smoking, and by passive smoking whether they are adults or children, supporting calls for a smoking ban.

Tobacco smoke is an allergen, and allergy sufferers can experience stuffy, runny noses, watery eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, and all the other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure. Some people with no known allergies and without asthma may cough in smoke-filled rooms, get headaches, feel nauseated, feel sleepy, and experience other ill effects. Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit do not like to be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings. Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair and clothing.

The effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. Studies from the USA, Europe, the UK, and Australia have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.

Not to mention how rude and disgusting it is.

Shall I continue?

[2smart4u]

I can't believe some anti-fresh air people are complaining about car seats and seat belts, etc.

The car seats are to protect your children from your stupidity. The seat belts and helmets are to protect the rest of us from paying higher insurance rates because of the rest of you.

I sure wish they would hurry up and outlaw talking on a phone while driving. Now THAT is dangerous! And 100% unnnecessary.

[Colonist]

2Smart,
Fireplace smoke is also in the atmosphere and can be inhaled.

Is there something wrong with that statement?

If you believe that second-hand-smoke from a cigarette is the only thing you should be concerned about and everything else is a moot point.

You are discriminating against people and not the activity.

[happysmoker]

I said I would withdraw, but I feel it a duty not to allow erroneous information to continue to be spread. And I see you want others to do your research for you. I hope you follow the links, read, and learn...but I'm not holding my breath. Most antis don't. I'm not sure why. Perhaps you don't want to be confronted with the fact that you have been duped by Big Anti-tobacco?

I will post an online source to back up anything I say. Too bad you didn't provide a link to your source.

"scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability."

The <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm">world's oldest people are/were smokers.

Air quality test results by the American Cancer Society prove that the secondhand smoke kills argument is completely fabricated. <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html"> American Cancer Society test results</a> for secondhand smoke prove SHS is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations. ACS graphs included.

From the <a href="http://www.lcolby.com/b-forw.htm">foreword</a> of Lauren Colby's book, In Defense of Smokers. "Important figures, like the 400,000 "smoking related deaths every year", are made up out of whole cloth. Studies which appear to refute the "dangers" of smoking, e.g., animal studies or some of the second hand smoke studies, are either ignored or subjected to manipulation and distortion to make them fit the official line."

Also from Mr. Colby's book, <a href="http://www.lcolby.com/addendum2.htm">addendum</a>, and includes a chart with compiled figures from 87 countries, "If, as the anti smokers postulate, smoking is a deadly "addiction", trimming years off the life of the smoker, how do they explain such examples as Japan, Israel, Greece, Cuba, Spain, Italy and France? How can it be that people in these countries smoke far more than people in the United States, yet manage to live substantially longer?"

The complete text of Mr. Colby's book is <a href="http://www.lcolby.com">online and free</a>.

Dave Hitt contacted various health organizations and people in the anti-tobacco crusade and asked them to name three people who have died of secondhand smoke. Most ignored his question. Only one responded with three names. Of the three names, one was unverifiable, one was rejected by a jury because the claim was a fraud, and the other had been ruled against by a jury. Here is the account of <a href="http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html">his quest</a>.

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/19jun2006.htm">Dr. Ray Johnstone's analysis of the Australian Federal Statistician</a>'s survey of the Australian population. "It was designed to measure the numbers of smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers and the prevalence of "long-term conditions" in each group. ... Overall these conditions were commoner in never-smokers than smokers."

Dr. Ray Johnstone, <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ps.html">Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer</a> "Conclusion It is evident from what has been presented that drawing a conclusion from the mass of published data on passive smoking and lung cancer is bound to be exceedingly difficult. "

Or maybe something else is causing lung cancer. <a href="http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html">Diesel smoke and lung cancer</a> by Dr. Kitty Little, a research scientist.

And consider the <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm">therapeutic effects of smoking and nicotine</a>.


One of the major conclusions of the Surgeon General Report is: "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health and has 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher (from his About Me). From Dr. Siegel's blog, <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communications.html">The Rest of the Story</a>: Surgeon General's Communications Misrepresent Findings of Report; Tobacco Control Practitioners Appear Unable to Accurately Portray the Science - "Apparently, the actual conclusions of a comprehensive 727-page report which documents all kinds of adverse health effects of secondhand smoke were not sensational enough for the Surgeon General's office. In what seems to be a contagious phenomenon which has now infiltrated a federal tobacco control organization, public health groups that report the science of secondhand smoke do not seem able to accurately report the science to the public. ... Rather than sticking to the carefully-reviewed science in the detailed and thorough report, the press release and other related communications of the Surgeon General regarding the findings of his report were sensationalized in a way that makes these communications quite misleading."

But even the report itself is in question. Here's a <a href="http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/sg_report_rebuttals_2006.html">list of rebuttals with to the Surgeon General's Report</a> with links to the original sources of the rebuttals from around the internet.


on January 26, 2006, the Air Resources Board, following a lengthy review and public outreach process, determined ETS to be a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC).

Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans.

From <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/three-independent-air-quality-test.html"> Three independent air quality test results confirm that secondhand smoke was never a health hazard</a> - " "....secondhand smoke is a proven human carcinogen with no safe threshold of exposure...." is a bogus argument, OSHA has a safe exposure limit regulation for all the chemicals in secondhand smoke......indeed the very existence of OSHA is to determine the safe exposure limit of all potentially hazardous substances. Example radiation is a naturally occurring substance within our atmosphere, instead of relying on government to ban all sources of radiation, OSHA has determined the safe level of exposure to radiation.....the same goes for secondhand smoke."

From <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/if-non-profits-cant-get-me-to-stop.html"> If the non-profits can't get me to stop presenting the facts</a> - "....tobacco smoke is classified by the U.S. EPA as a Class A carcinogen........ ....yes, and so is airborne chromium and nickel, both Class A carcinogens which are given off in welding smoke......why are you so cavalier about the health of factory workers who are exposed to much higher concentrations of carcinogenic smoke than restaurants or bars could ever produce?" The dose makes the poison: "are you familiar with the harmful substance carbon dioxide? CO2 is fatal to humans at a concentration of 20%, yet with every breath you inhale a concentration of .4%......of a "harmful substance" "

From <a href="http://www.forces.org/research/luik/luik-st/toward.htm">A Response to "Towards Healthier Communities in Nova Scotia: A Discussion Paper"</a> - "The Discussion paper puts forward a variety of claims: ... While the claims are various, what unites them is the central assertion that there is "overwhelming evidence" that ETS is a "major health hazard" that must be addressed. What also unites them is the fact that all of them are false - all of them are contradicted by the relevant scientific evidence. In effect, ETS is not a major health hazard and thus it does not warrant government legislation."

A U.S. federal court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/etsfrau.htm">wrongly declared secondhand tobacco smoke a dangerous carcinogen</a>.


(to be continued)

[happysmoker]

(continued)

Persons with asthma can experience attacks brought on by smoking, and by passive smoking whether they are adults or children, supporting calls for a smoking ban.

Tobacco smoke is an allergen, and allergy sufferers can experience stuffy, runny noses, watery eyes, sneezing, coughing, wheezing, and all the other typical allergy symptoms within minutes of exposure. Some people with no known allergies and without asthma may cough in smoke-filled rooms, get headaches, feel nauseated, feel sleepy, and experience other ill effects. Many former smokers, and those who are trying to quit do not like to be around smoke as it can cause them to have cravings.

Smoking used to be reccommended to alleviate asthma symptoms in <a href="http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html">medical textbooks</a>.

In the past few decades as smoking rates and places to smoke have gone down, asthma in children and adults has risen. <a href="http://www.forces.org/research/files/asthma.htm">Smoke and the Asthma Epidemic: A Reality Check</a>

<a href="http://www.data-yard.net/10x1/asthma-winter.htm">Respiratory Infections, Not Air Pollution, Pose Winter Health Threat for Children with Asthma</a> from the National Jewish Medical & Rsearch Center.

From <a href="http://www.data-yard.net/10a1/epa-asthma.htm">EPA worried as child asthma doubles</a> - "The number of children whose blood levels showed effects from second hand smoke declined by about one-fifth to one-half between 1988 and 2000, depending on their levels of exposure. Those figures are obtained by tracking the amount of cotinine, a breakdown product of nicotine in blood. ... But the report also found that the percentage of children getting asthma has doubled in two decades, rising from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 8.7 percent, or 6.3 million children by 2001."

From <a href="http://www.data-yard.net/14/asthma.htm">Diet and hygiene could be behind asthma epidemic</a> in the Telegraph, UK - "The rise in respiratory problems could not be linked to household risk factors such as passive smoking, gas cooking, pets or low parental education attainment because those factors declined over the period, the team reports."


Some people simply do not like the odor, which clings to hair and clothing.

That is the crux of why smoking bans have some followers. (Others just like telling people what to do and how to live.) They just don't like the smell. I don't like the smell of perfume when it is poured on people and surrounds them like a cloud of scent, but I don't intend to jump on any "ban"wagon to ban perfume.

But others have...<a href="http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/fume27.shtml">Halifax perfume ban</a>


The effect of passive smoking on lung cancer has been extensively studied. Studies from the USA, Europe, the UK, and Australia have consistently shown a significant increase in relative risk among those exposed to passive smoke.

Nope. Even the study by WHO (that's the World Health Organization, in case you don't know) shows there is no statistically significant risk in passive smoke. Here is the result and conclusions of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract">the abstract of the study</a>: "RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."

Here is a link to <a href="http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf">the actual study in PDF</a>.

Here is <a href="http://www.junkscience.com/news/euwsjets.htm">a copy of an article</a> that appeared in the Wall Street Journal-European Edition (March 12, 1998) discussing the WHO study.

Needless to say, the WHO quickly buried the study until the <a href="http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm">the Telegraph, UK</a> uncovered it.

And here is a list of 75 studies, worldwide, on <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/financial-ties/index.htm#cancer">passive smoke and lung cancer</a> with results of about the same as the WHO study.


Not to mention how rude and disgusting it is.

Ah, I get it now. You don't like the smell of smoke. That's fine. You have the right to places that don't allow smoking as much as smokers have the right to places that do allow smoking. Modern <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html">ventilation and filtration</a> technology can accomplish this and keep everyone happy.

" "Isn't indoor charcoal and wood-fired grilling a popular trend in bars & restaurants these days?....and isn't inhaling those fumes indoors potentially deadly? " (note how similar charcoal, wood, and tobacco smoke are as far as hazards....in fact <a href="http://www.burningissues.org/pdfs/WSComparisontable%209%2001%20.pdf">wood and charcoal contain far more hazardous chemicals</a>)"


Shall I continue?

No, thanks. I've read all of Big Anti-tobacco's propaganda and lies. I prefer to read the real facts. Shall I continue? On second thought, I've spent enough time doing your research for you. It took quite a while to compile and organize the links in this post, although I had most of them bookmarked. These links should get you started on discovering the real truth...if you care to know the real truth, that is.

[jonvn]

Well, this is amusing....we got someone here trying to defend smoking as if it were a healthy thing to do, and a bunch of others hysterical about the Belmont City Council doing something to establish health and safety laws for the people in the town.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't more people who have said this is a good thing, which it really is. Very similar to health laws in restaurants.

Every one of these arguments "I have property rights!" can be applied in the same manner to food cleanliness laws, or any other law where the public health is at stake.

You don't have a right to operate a restaurant in an unclean manner, as it affects the health of others. You don't have a right to go around and infect others with a disease you may have, and you don't have a right to poison the air of those who do not wish to smoke with your cigarettes.

You don't.

I'm glad a law like this is being passed, and I hope more get passed like it. While a complete ban on tobacco is a pointless act that will do nothing but create a black market like for marijuana, there is no need to actually go ahead and encourage its use, either.

[2smart4u]

2Smart,
Fireplace smoke is also in the atmosphere and can be inhaled.

Is there something wrong with that statement?

If you believe that second-hand-smoke from a cigarette is the only thing you should be concerned about and everything else is a moot point.

You are discriminating against people and not the activity.

How often do you inhale someone else;s chimney smoke? Be serious. Do you go around walking on other people's roofs? Sure, it's in the air, but it's not going in your face. Geez!

[2smart4u]

I said I would withdraw, but I feel it a duty not to allow erroneous information to continue to be spread. And I see you want others to do your research for you. I hope you follow the links, read, and learn...but I'm not holding my breath. Most antis don't. I'm not sure why. Perhaps you don't want to be confronted with the fact that you have been duped by Big Anti-tobacco?

I will post an online source to back up anything I say. Too bad you didn't provide a link to your source.



The <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm">world's oldest people are/were smokers.

Air quality test results by the American Cancer Society prove that the secondhand smoke kills argument is completely fabricated. <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html"> American Cancer Society test results</a> for secondhand smoke prove SHS is 532 - 25,000 times safer than OSHA regulations. ACS graphs included.

From the <a href="http://www.lcolby.com/b-forw.htm">foreword</a> of Lauren Colby's book, In Defense of Smokers. "Important figures, like the 400,000 "smoking related deaths every year", are made up out of whole cloth. Studies which appear to refute the "dangers" of smoking, e.g., animal studies or some of the second hand smoke studies, are either ignored or subjected to manipulation and distortion to make them fit the official line."

Also from Mr. Colby's book, <a href="http://www.lcolby.com/addendum2.htm">addendum</a>, and includes a chart with compiled figures from 87 countries, "If, as the anti smokers postulate, smoking is a deadly "addiction", trimming years off the life of the smoker, how do they explain such examples as Japan, Israel, Greece, Cuba, Spain, Italy and France? How can it be that people in these countries smoke far more than people in the United States, yet manage to live substantially longer?"

The complete text of Mr. Colby's book is <a href="http://www.lcolby.com">online and free</a>.

Dave Hitt contacted various health organizations and people in the anti-tobacco crusade and asked them to name three people who have died of secondhand smoke. Most ignored his question. Only one responded with three names. Of the three names, one was unverifiable, one was rejected by a jury because the claim was a fraud, and the other had been ruled against by a jury. Here is the account of <a href="http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html">his quest</a>.

<a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/19jun2006.htm">Dr. Ray Johnstone's analysis of the Australian Federal Statistician</a>'s survey of the Australian population. "It was designed to measure the numbers of smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers and the prevalence of "long-term conditions" in each group. ... Overall these conditions were commoner in never-smokers than smokers."

Dr. Ray Johnstone, <a href="http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ps.html">Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer</a> "Conclusion It is evident from what has been presented that drawing a conclusion from the mass of published data on passive smoking and lung cancer is bound to be exceedingly difficult. "

Or maybe something else is causing lung cancer. <a href="http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html">Diesel smoke and lung cancer</a> by Dr. Kitty Little, a research scientist.

And consider the <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm">therapeutic effects of smoking and nicotine</a>.




Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health and has 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher (from his About Me). From Dr. Siegel's blog, <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communications.html">The Rest of the Story</a>: Surgeon General's Communications Misrepresent Findings of Report; Tobacco Control Practitioners Appear Unable to Accurately Portray the Science - "Apparently, the actual conclusions of a comprehensive 727-page report which documents all kinds of adverse health effects of secondhand smoke were not sensational enough for the Surgeon General's office. In what seems to be a contagious phenomenon which has now infiltrated a federal tobacco control organization, public health groups that report the science of secondhand smoke do not seem able to accurately report the science to the public. ... Rather than sticking to the carefully-reviewed science in the detailed and thorough report, the press release and other related communications of the Surgeon General regarding the findings of his report were sensationalized in a way that makes these communications quite misleading."

But even the report itself is in question. Here's a <a href="http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/sg_report_rebuttals_2006.html">list of rebuttals with to the Surgeon General's Report</a> with links to the original sources of the rebuttals from around the internet.




From <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/06/three-independent-air-quality-test.html"> Three independent air quality test results confirm that secondhand smoke was never a health hazard</a> - " "....secondhand smoke is a proven human carcinogen with no safe threshold of exposure...." is a bogus argument, OSHA has a safe exposure limit regulation for all the chemicals in secondhand smoke......indeed the very existence of OSHA is to determine the safe exposure limit of all potentially hazardous substances. Example radiation is a naturally occurring substance within our atmosphere, instead of relying on government to ban all sources of radiation, OSHA has determined the safe level of exposure to radiation.....the same goes for secondhand smoke."

From <a href="http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/10/if-non-profits-cant-get-me-to-stop.html"> If the non-profits can't get me to stop presenting the facts</a> - "....tobacco smoke is classified by the U.S. EPA as a Class A carcinogen........ ....yes, and so is airborne chromium and nickel, both Class A carcinogens which are given off in welding smoke......why are you so cavalier about the health of factory workers who are exposed to much higher concentrations of carcinogenic smoke than restaurants or bars could ever produce?" The dose makes the poison: "are you familiar with the harmful substance carbon dioxide? CO2 is fatal to humans at a concentration of 20%, yet with every breath you inhale a concentration of .4%......of a "harmful substance" "

From <a href="http://www.forces.org/research/luik/luik-st/toward.htm">A Response to "Towards Healthier Communities in Nova Scotia: A Discussion Paper"</a> - "The Discussion paper puts forward a variety of claims: ... While the claims are various, what unites them is the central assertion that there is "overwhelming evidence" that ETS is a "major health hazard" that must be addressed. What also unites them is the fact that all of them are false - all of them are contradicted by the relevant scientific evidence. In effect, ETS is not a major health hazard and thus it does not warrant government legislation."

A U.S. federal court has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency <a href="http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/etsfrau.htm">wrongly declared secondhand tobacco smoke a dangerous carcinogen</a>.


(to be continued)

Go any LEGITIMATE links? You are so ignorant. Big tobacco has you wrapped around it's finger. You anti-fresh air people are foolish!

[2smart4u]

" I prefer to read the real facts."

Obviously not. You provided none. Do you really believe what you read on blogs and big tobacco sites? Are you really THAT ignorant?

[2smart4u]

"You have the right to places that don't allow smoking as much as smokers have the right to places that do allow smoking."

Right, and there are now less places that allow smoking. Deal with it.

[happysmoker]

Well, this is amusing....we got someone here trying to defend smoking as if it were a healthy thing to do, and a bunch of others hysterical about the Belmont City Council doing something to establish health and safety laws for the people in the town.

I'm actually surprised that there aren't more people who have said this is a good thing, which it really is. Very similar to health laws in restaurants.

Every one of these arguments "I have property rights!" can be applied in the same manner to food cleanliness laws, or any other law where the public health is at stake.

You don't have a right to operate a restaurant in an unclean manner, as it affects the health of others. You don't have a right to go around and infect others with a disease you may have, and you don't have a right to poison the air of those who do not wish to smoke with your cigarettes.

The purpose of health laws in restaurants is to protect the patrons from unseen problems because you can't go in the kitchen to ensure the cook washes his/her hands, that food is stored and prepared properly, that roaches and rats don't infest the area, etc. A patron can see smoke in the air . If you are too lazy to leave and go somewhere else that does not allow smoking, that is your problem. There should not be a law to prohibit more than one quarter of the population to enjoy a smoking environment. With modern ventilation and filtration technology, smoking and non-smoking areas within a restaurant are the answer. Did you bother to actually read my previous posts, follow the links, and learn?

You don't.

I'm glad a law like this is being passed, and I hope more get passed like it. While a complete ban on tobacco is a pointless act that will do nothing but create a black market like for marijuana, there is no need to actually go ahead and encourage its use, either.

Too bad you need someone to tell you how to live and think and make your decisions for you. I don't and I'm tired of you babies who need coddling driving these laws to run my life for me. You are so sad.

[2smart4u]

"The purpose of health laws in restaurants is to protect the patrons from unseen problems because you can't go in the kitchen to ensure the cook washes his/her hands, that food is stored and prepared properly, that roaches and rats don't infest the area, etc. A patron can see smoke in the air . If you are too lazy to leave and go somewhere else that does not allow smoking, that is your problem. There should not be a law to prohibit more than one quarter of the population to enjoy a smoking environment. With modern ventilation and filtration technology, smoking and non-smoking areas within a restaurant are the answer."

I have yet to see any ventilation and filtration system that will keep 100% of smoke away from others in a restaurant. Why should 75% of the population have to get up and go somewhere else so that you can smoke where you want? Can you be a little more self-centered? Quit yer whining. It's not very becoming.

[happysmoker]

Go any LEGITIMATE links? You are so ignorant. Big tobacco has you wrapped around it's finger. You anti-fresh air people are foolish!

All are legitimate links, leading you to a wealth of information. Many are newspaper articles, medical journal articles, and repositories of information that have been gathered over years. All have been researched, not by me, but by those who have the expertise and training. Some links led to tests done by the American Cancer Society and the judgement against the EPA--these are facts, not opinion.

From <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ignorant">Merriam-Webster Online</a>
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

I do not have a destitute of knowledge or education and I do not lack knowledge or comprehension of this topic. I do not show a lack of knowledge or intelligence.

The same cannot be said of you.

Ignorance is the absense of knowledge. All you have to do is follow my links, read, and learn--in other words, educate yourself. Did you bother to read anything I posted, follow even one link, read even one sentence at any of those links? If not, then you refuse to educate yourself and you will remain ignorant.

I have no ties to Big Tobacco and receive no recompense for posting here. I smoke, but I no longer use the packaged, premade cigarettes from Big Tobacco. I buy bulk tobacco, make my own, and do not pay into the Master Settlement Agreement. Big Anti-tobacco does not receive any of my tax dollars.

Are you paid by Big Anti-Tobacco to post here? Many antis on forums are paid to repeat the lies ad nauseam, to cause dissent, to keep activists busy rebutting your posts when they could be doing more to actively defeat you. Granted, I've spent much more time here giving you facts than I should, but I do try to educate people. I'll waste no more time here with people who refuse to learn.


To the people of Belmont--you can stop this, but you must fight it on the science, not personal property rights. Every lawsuit against smoking bans that has been fought on personal property rights has been defeated. The science is out there, at your disposal, to use to fight these draconian laws. Good luck to you all!

[2smart4u]

All are legitimate links, leading you to a wealth of information. Many are newspaper articles, medical journal articles, and repositories of information that have been gathered over years. All have been researched, not by me, but by those who have the expertise and training. Some links led to tests done by the American Cancer Society and the judgement against the EPA--these are facts, not opinion.

From <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ignorant">Merriam-Webster Online</a>
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>

I do not have a destitute of knowledge or education and I do not lack knowledge or comprehension of this topic. I do not show a lack of knowledge or intelligence.

The same cannot be said of you.

Ignorance is the absense of knowledge. All you have to do is follow my links, read, and learn--in other words, educate yourself. Did you bother to read anything I posted, follow even one link, read even one sentence at any of those links? If not, then you refuse to educate yourself and you will remain ignorant.

I have no ties to Big Tobacco and receive no recompense for posting here. I smoke, but I no longer use the packaged, premade cigarettes from Big Tobacco. I buy bulk tobacco, make my own, and do not pay into the Master Settlement Agreement. Big Anti-tobacco does not receive any of my tax dollars.

Are you paid by Big Anti-Tobacco to post here? Many antis on forums are paid to repeat the lies ad nauseam, to cause dissent, to keep activists busy rebutting your posts when they could be doing more to actively defeat you. Granted, I've spent much more time here giving you facts than I should, but I do try to educate people. I'll waste no more time here with people who refuse to learn.


To the people of Belmont--you can stop this, but you must fight it on the science, not personal property rights. Every lawsuit against smoking bans that has been fought on personal property rights has been defeated. The science is out there, at your disposal, to use to fight these draconian laws. Good luck to you all!

No, they are not legitimate links. They are links to blogs ans extremist web sites. Try something a bit more mainstream.

"I do not have a destitute of knowledge or education and I do not lack knowledge or comprehension of this topic. I do not show a lack of knowledge or intelligence."

Well, yes, you do. But, being ignorant, you don't realize it.

Did you bother to provide even one legitimate source? No. You really need to educate yourself on this subject, rather than continualy making a fool of yourself. Who is "Big Anti-tobacco" and what do they gain from being anti-tobacco? I've never heard of "Big Anti-tobacco ".

You have provided no facts whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claims.

People of Belmont: Fight these Big Tobacco goons and liars. You deserve to breathe fresh air!

[2smart4u]

Your links: forces.org (a pro-smoking site), a blog, lcolby.com (a pro-smoking site), davehitt.com (a personal site), http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/19jun2006.htm (can't access from work, but appears to be a personal site), http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/ (an unprofessional-looking site from the UK), another blog, another pro-smoking site, blog, data-yard.net (what is this?), another link to a foreign site, or a foreign study, junkscience.com (LOL), and burningissues.com (whatever that is). LMAO!!!

You're just being funny, right?

[ladyteal]

No, they are not legitimate links. They are links to blogs ans extremist web sites. Try something a bit more mainstream.

"I do not have a destitute of knowledge or education and I do not lack knowledge or comprehension of this topic. I do not show a lack of knowledge or intelligence."

Well, yes, you do. But, being ignorant, you don't realize it.

Did you bother to provide even one legitimate source? No. You really need to educate yourself on this subject, rather than continualy making a fool of yourself. Who is "Big Anti-tobacco" and what do they gain from being anti-tobacco? I've never heard of "Big Anti-tobacco ".

You have provided no facts whatsoever to back up your ridiculous claims.

People of Belmont: Fight these Big Tobacco goons and liars. You deserve to breathe fresh air!

This person is obviously nothing but a troll for the antis. If he hasn't heard of "big anti-tobacco", he most likely lives in a vaccum, but needs to live in a bubble. All sources listed are legitimate, and you troll have provided no facts to back up your claims. Neither has the government, nor the antis. All you & they do is "mouth" like good sheeple what big anti tobacco has brainwashed them with. These are the types of people the Nazi's loved - blonde, blue-eyed, brainwashed sheeple.

[ladyteal]

How often do you inhale someone else;s chimney smoke? Be serious. Do you go around walking on other people's roofs? Sure, it's in the air, but it's not going in your face. Geez!

Are you blonde? Or just a wanna-be?

[2smart4u]

This person is obviously nothing but a troll for the antis. If he hasn't heard of "big anti-tobacco", he most likely lives in a vaccum, but needs to live in a bubble. All sources listed are legitimate, and you troll have provided no facts to back up your claims. Neither has the government, nor the antis. All you & they do is "mouth" like good sheeple what big anti tobacco has brainwashed them with. These are the types of people the Nazi's loved - blonde, blue-eyed, brainwashed sheeple.

You are referring to "happy smoker", right? Yes, I believe he is a troll for the anti-fresh air people. He probably gets paid by Big Anti-Fresh Air. I'm sure he does live in a vacuum, if not, he should. Note how he could not list one legitimate link to back up his silly claims. None of the smokers can provide facts to back up their claims, while there is a mountain of evidence about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Big tobacco has really brainwashed them. Maybe that tobacco affects their brains. Can you believe that? "Big anti-tobacco"? LOL I think he just made that up yesterday. He's dumb enough to be blonde, and he's certainly brainwashed.

[2smart4u]

Are you blonde? Or just a wanna-be?

Are you Dumb or Dumber?

[ladyteal]

You are referring to "happy smoker", right? Yes, I believe he is a troll for the anti-fresh air people. He probably gets paid by Big Anti-Fresh Air. I'm sure he does live in a vacuum, if not, he should. Note how he could not list one legitimate link to back up his silly claims. None of the smokers can provide facts to back up their claims, while there is a mountain of evidence about the dangers of secondhand smoke. Big tobacco has really brainwashed them. Maybe that tobacco affects their brains. Can you believe that? "Big anti-tobacco"? LOL I think he just made that up yesterday. He's dumb enough to be blonde, and he's certainly brainwashed.

Get a life troll. Yes, that means you 2DUMB4U (alias 2smart4u). ROFLMAO at you!

[2smart4u]

Get a life troll. Yes, that means you 2DUMB4U (alias 2smart4u). ROFLMAO at you!

What's a "life troll"? Is that what you are? Why would I want one?
Go smoke a few packs of cigs in your house, and stay there.

[Colonist]

burningissues.com (whatever that is). LMAO!!!

My Dear 2Smart, Burningissues.org is a group that is fighting fireplaces, outdoor furnaces, burning leaves and BBQ smoke.

BurningIssues.org provides public education about the medical hazards of exposure to wood smoke and other fine particulate pollution. Smoke from residential burning of wood and coal, wood burning restaurants and outdoor burning of wood, leaves, crops, tires and debris is permeating our neighborhoods, resulting in high ground-level concentrations of toxic air pollution.

Clean Air Revival, Inc. is a non-profit 501 c3 volunteer organization dedicated to research and education on particulate aerosol pollution and its deadly effects on living things. We advocate life-long good health by breathing clean air and planned avoidance of smoke creation.


Wake up Belmont - this will not end with cigarette smoke - If you have a fireplace in your house, the town council will be restricting you next.

It will start - you will need a yearly permit [taxes]

One or two people will complain about smoke- as in the Bemont ordinance- one person sent a letter.

You will be restricted as to how many days a year you may have a fire or BBQ.

Then you will not be permitted to use your fireplace or BBQ within the city limits.

Far fetched? I think not......
Look what they are passing against a legal activity.

Fireplaces are nice.....BBQ's are legal.....
Wait and see...or stand up and say "Too Far"
http://burningissues.org/

[2smart4u]

burningissues.com (whatever that is). LMAO!!!

My Dear 2Smart, Burningissues.org is a group that is fighting fireplaces, outdoor furnaces, burning leaves and BBQ smoke.

One or two people will complain about smoke- as in the Bemont ordinance- one person sent a letter.

You will be restricted as to how many days a year you may have a fire or BBQ.

Then you will not be permitted to use your fireplace or BBQ within the city limits.

Far fetched? I think not......
Look what they are passing against a legal activity.

Fireplaces are nice.....BBQ's are legal.....
Wait and see...or stand up and say "Too Far"
http://burningissues.org/

So why aren't they fighting cigarette smoke? Explain that!
What are they passing against what legal activity?
Your comments are very far-fetched.

[2smart4u]

So it's some whacko fringe group. What about it?

[happysmoker]

(can't access from work,

Ah, you're posting on a forum from work.
I bet you'd be the first in line to whine and complain about smokers taking extra smoke breaks. :rolleyes:

[happysmoker]

This person is obviously nothing but a troll for the antis. If he hasn't heard of "big anti-tobacco", he most likely lives in a vaccum, but needs to live in a bubble. All sources listed are legitimate, and you troll have provided no facts to back up your claims. Neither has the government, nor the antis. All you & they do is "mouth" like good sheeple what big anti tobacco has brainwashed them with. These are the types of people the Nazi's loved - blonde, blue-eyed, brainwashed sheeple.

Yes, I agree, s/h/it is nothing but a troll. When they attack the poster and grammar/punctuation and cannot come up with one sound argument to even attempt to refute the facts (except whining, "I don't like the smell", which doesn't count), they are trolls.

What they don't realize is that smoke from fireplaces, grills, barbecues, automobile exhaust is more deadly--and more abundant--than tobacco smoke.

Thanks!

[2smart4u]

Ah, you're posting on a forum from work.
I bet you'd be the first in line to whine and complain about smokers taking extra smoke breaks. :rolleyes:

You lose. Pay up.

[2smart4u]

Yes, I agree, s/h/it is nothing but a troll. When they attack the poster and grammar/punctuation and cannot come up with one sound argument to even attempt to refute the facts (except whining, "I don't like the smell", which doesn't count), they are trolls.

What they don't realize is that smoke from fireplaces, grills, barbecues, automobile exhaust is more deadly--and more abundant--than tobacco smoke.

Thanks!

Oh, please. We all know that you and Teal are the same troll.
Now try to back up some of your ignorant claims. I dare you.

[2smart4u]

"automobile exhaust is more deadly"
So you ready to give up your car? What an ignorant argument. Can't you do any better than that?

[2smart4u]

Ah, you're posting on a forum from work.
I bet you'd be the first in line to whine and complain about smokers taking extra smoke breaks. :rolleyes:

BTW: Good job of avoiding the issue.

[Colonist]

So it's some whacko fringe group. What about it?

No 2smart for your britches...burningissues.org is.............
It's from a group that wants to go a step further than you apparently want.

So-Belmont - ready to get rid of your fireplaces and BBQ's?????????

City Council - ready to go for this? If you are not......ACLU will be calling

[2smart4u]

No 2smart for your britches...burningissues.org is.............
It's from a group that wants to go a step further than you apparently want.

So-Belmont - ready to get rid of your fireplaces and BBQ's?????????

City Council - ready to go for this? If you are not......ACLU will be calling

But this whacko group doesn't seem to be concerned about cigarettes, and they are just a few people (maybe only one person), with a poorly designed web site.

No one is taking them seriously.

[JohninCT]

You know, as a smoker, I have gone along with the bans quietly...
I understand a resterant, bar, mall, plane, train, stores, etc.

But when a ban like this comes out, even a non-smoker should
really start to wonder if, it is just about ciggys.

When a law comes along like this, no smoking in public places,
in your own dwelling, unless it's a seperate house, outside on your
front lawn and in the privacy of your own car.....

You 'should' be wondering about the thinking involved,
to create such a law.... and where it could, or will lead to one day,
on another issue...

You see, to the common non-smoker, all this means nothing except
they will not be bothered by that smoker in the corner.

To the hard-core anti-smoker, this is a victory, of the war,
to end the smokers rights.
Never to see them, and their bad habits ever again.

Even when, they themselves, didn't start the war, didn't battle for a
law to be changed or passed. They simply heard of the passing of the law,
and for whatever reason, are now happy, and bragging about how,
smokers, who they have never met, are now upset and angered about this.

*** Misery loves company ***

None of you, should waste another moment of your valuable time,
on trying to explain, post links, or stating facts to people who will
never understand how it feels to have your rights, ripped away from you.

Even if it's the simple pleasure of,
standing on your front lawn and enjoying a smoke.

Cheers all,
John

[2smart4u]

"None of you, should waste another moment of your valuable time,
on trying to explain, post links, or stating facts to people who will
never understand how it feels to have your rights, ripped away from you."

They have spent any time yet stating facts...

[JohninCT]

Facts pro and con to the topic will never be agreed to by both sides.

2S4U :
A question for you...

What is soo wrong about a person, standing in their yard,
or sitting in their car, having a ciggy?

[2smart4u]

Facts pro and con to the topic will never be agreed to by both sides.

2S4U :
A question for you...

What is soo wrong about a person, standing in their yard,
or sitting in their car, having a ciggy?

Well, if they're sitting in their car alone, not moving, and with the windows rolled up, that's ok with me, as long as it's ok with anyone else who would ever have to get in that car. Standing in their yard? Smoke doesn't stay in their yard.

[JohninCT]

""Well, if they're sitting in their car alone, not moving, and with the windows rolled up, that's ok with me, as long as it's ok with anyone else who would ever have to get in that car. Standing in their yard? Smoke doesn't stay in their yard.""


You see, this is why us smokers, don't understand the thinking and
why we comment on things like ' no BBQ's or fireplaces '.

Smoke from a ciggy is far less poluting or deadly than
a fireplace burning wood for hours or exhaust from a car's tailpipe.
The smoke from either, is blended into the air we all breathe.

Even if, a person was to have a ciggy, inside their own home,
the smoke will get into the air, we all breathe again.


So what is the "real issue", that non-smokers have with us smokers?
There HAS to be more to this, than just a person having a smoke.

For real, what is all the fuss about?

[2smart4u]

"You see, this is why us smokers, don't understand the thinking and
why we comment on things like ' no BBQ's or fireplaces '.

Smoke from a ciggy is far less poluting or deadly than
a fireplace burning wood for hours"

No fireplace has ever blown smoke in my face. I've never sat next to one at a restaurant, encountered one at a strip mall, or on a walking trail, or worked with one, etc. (Not to mention, the smell of a burning fireplace is much more pleasant than that of a cigarette)

" or exhaust from a car's tailpipe."
This has already been dismissed as an extremely ignorant argument.

"The smoke from either, is blended into the air we all breathe.
Even if, a person was to have a ciggy, inside their own home,
the smoke will get into the air, we all breathe again."

True, so you are advocating a complete ban on smoking?

"So what is the "real issue", that non-smokers have with us smokers?
There HAS to be more to this, than just a person having a smoke."

Well, you're polluting the air, and making others ill. That is the main thing. Rudeness, arrogance, odor, littering and increased health care costs for all are just a few more other reasons.

People who smoke while driving and then flick the ashes/butt out the window should be hung. Same for people with cig in one hand and phone in the other, while driving. People who throw their butts on the ground should be fined, heavily. Even more so if they do this in a grassy area.

[JohninCT]

""No fireplace has ever blown smoke in my face. I've never sat next to one at a restaurant, encountered one at a strip mall, or on a walking trail, or worked with one, etc. ""

I would hope not! lol Just kidding.

But you haven't had to worry about the indoors events, listed above,
for quite a while now.

----------------------------------------------------
" or exhaust from a car's tailpipe."
This has already been dismissed as an extremely ignorant argument.

I didn't read all 8 pages but, emissions from a car contains quite a bit
of carbon dioxide, monixide and hydrocarbons.
I find it hard to believe that smoke from a ciggy burning, is worse. < (Edit )

But no one is outlawing the internal combusion engine today so...


-----------------------------------------------------
"The smoke from either, is blended into the air we all breathe.
Even if, a person was to have a ciggy, inside their own home,
the smoke will get into the air, we all breathe again."

True, so you are advocating a complete ban on smoking?
---
In a word, no.
I am trying to understand the reasons for such a harsh ban / law.



"So what is the "real issue", that non-smokers have with us smokers?
There HAS to be more to this, than just a person having a smoke."
--------------------------------
Well, you're polluting the air, and making others ill. That is the main thing.

I find it hard to believe that this little puff, of my ciggy,
is having a great effect on the global air pollution,
that you would dismiss emissions from a car, as a poor argument.

-----------------------------------------
Rudeness, arrogance, odor, littering and increased health care costs f
or all are just a few more other reasons.

Smokers already pay more for medical insurance, than a non-smoker.
And, for the most part, we're all fine with that.
And were taxed heavily on that pack of ciggys too.

Odor, ok, you got us there but, rude and arrogant?

-----------------------------
People who throw their butts on the ground should be fined, heavily.

Anyone who litters... Cans, bottles, trash, or ciggy butts.
I agree with you.

[2smart4u]

"But you haven't had to worry about the indoors events, listed above,
for quite a while now."

Only indoor thing I see mentioned is a fireplace. And you're right, that's a seasonal thing, unlike smoking.

"I didn't read all 8 pages but, emissions from a car contains quite a bit
of carbon dioxide, monixide and hydrocarbons.
I find it hard to believe it's worse, than smoke from a ciggy burning.

But no one is outlawing the internal combusion engine today so..."

So... what? It's a terribly ignorant argument. Cars are useful. Cigarettes are not.

"I am trying to understand the reasons for such a harsh ban / law."

Oh, saving lives, cleaning up the air and the streets. Simple stuff like that.

"I find it hard to believe that this little puff, of my ciggy,
is having a great effect on the global air pollution,
that you would dismiss emissions from a car, as a poor argument. "

See above.

"Smokers already pay more for medical insurance, than a non-smoker.
And, for the most part, we're all fine with that. And were taxed heavily on that pack of ciggys too. Odor, ok, you got us there but, rude and arrogant?"

Yes, but you also cause the cost of health insurance to rise for everyone else. Not to mention the others that are made ill by the secondhand smoke.
Yes, most smokers are rude. They smoke where others are forced to breathe in their smoke. Ask them to stop or to move, and they get arrogant and ruder.

[JohninCT]

"But you haven't had to worry about the indoors events, listed above,
for quite a while now."

Only indoor thing I see mentioned is a fireplace. And you're right, that's a seasonal thing, unlike smoking.

I was speaking about the resterants or strip malls.... indoor type of items.

In CT at least, we've been banned from almost all indoor smoking.
And that is understandable, it stays in the air in a trapped enviroment,
and you, the non-smoker, should not have to be exposed to my habit.

---------------
It's the outdoor items that are the confusion. How can a person,
standing by himself, on his lawn or in his car, smoking a ciggy,
be cause for such a law to be passed?

The car emissions, fireplaces, and BBQ's are just examples of polluting items. But, like I said, no one is banning there use today.

I wouldn't say it's an ignorant argument.

Cars are useful. -> Yes, but are very poluting.

Cigarettes are not. No, not to a non-smoker, but are not a source of such heavy polution that it would be cause to ban their use.

Calling for a ban on ciggys, by stating they are a cause of polution...
I would call that ignorant.

----------------------------------------

Yes, but you also cause the cost of health insurance to rise
for everyone else.

Smokers pay more on health and life insurance than the non-smoker.
Rising costs all around, are a normal thing too.

I could strew this argument down to taxes on homes too.
Example:
I own a 3-bedroom home. You own a 3-bedroom home, next door.
Everything is the same.

We both are taxed, lets say, $5,000 a year for property tax.

Here's the difference.

I live alone. You are married and have 3 kids.

Your house sends 10-bags of trash a week to the curb, uses the local
school system, and uses much more water, electricity, than I.

Why should I be taxed the same as you?

It's a shared burden taxing system.

-----------------------------------------------
Yes, most smokers are rude. They smoke where others are forced to breathe in their smoke. Ask them to stop or to move, and they get arrogant and ruder.

You must be around a ruff group of people.
Most smokers I know get along with non-smokers.
I treat people, as they treat me.
Be nice to me, I'm nice. Be a rude a-hole, I'll give it right back too.

[2smart4u]

"I was speaking about the resterants or strip malls.... indoor type of items.

In CT at least, we've been banned from almost all indoor smoking.
And that is understandable, it stays in the air in a trapped enviroment,
and you, the non-smoker, should not have to be exposed to my habit."

Oh, gotcha. Agreed. Well, strip malls... I'm pretty sure you can still smoke at them here. Not in the enclosed malls, though.

"It's the outdoor items that are the confusion. How can a person,
standing by himself, on his lawn or in his car, smoking a ciggy,
be cause for such a law to be passed?

The car emissions, fireplaces, and BBQ's are just examples of polluting items. But, like I said, no one is banning there use today."

Nor should they be. They are not as prevalant or as stinky, and, as stated repeatedly, cars serve a useful purpose. And of course BBQs and fireplaces means you;re saving energy that would otherwise be used to heat your house or cook your food. I'd say it's a very ignorant argument.

"Cars are useful. -> Yes, but are very poluting."

Your point? Cigarettes are useless and very polluting.

"Calling for a ban on ciggys, by stating they are a cause of polution...
I would call that ignorant."

I wouldn't, but then, no one has called for a ban on cigarettes, have they?

"Smokers pay more on health and life insurance than the non-smoker."
...and cause rates to be higher for all of us.


"...Your house sends 10-bags of trash a week to the curb, uses the local
school system, and uses much more water, electricity, than I."

Then I would be paying more for trash pick-up, water, and electricity.

"Why should I be taxed the same as you?"

The tax is on the property, not on how many people live there. What does this have to do with cigarettes?


"Be nice to me, I'm nice. Be a rude a-hole, I'll give it right back too."

So you never smoke where other people would have to breathe it? That in itself is very rude.

[JohninCT]

"Cars are useful. -> Yes, but are very poluting."

Your point? Cigarettes are useless and very polluting.


Are you really telling me that a ciggy, is more poluting than a car?
Come on....

I'd go with it's unhealthy or it smells, but the polution thing...

--------------------------------
"Why should I be taxed the same as you?"

The tax is on the property, not on how many people live there.
What does this have to do with cigarettes?


It's a comparison of a tax burdens, to the medical costs.

The taxes are the same on my house to yours, in that example.
But I don't need or utilize the same things as you would.
Because of your choice, to have a larger family than me,
your house would generate more trash to be disposed of,
increased cost of the school systems and a school bus, etc.

The tax burden is the same for your and my house, based on
the property alone, not on how it's used.

Same goes for medical insurance costs.
I smoke, you don't, but in this case, my medical payments are
more than yours. No shared burden as above for my choice.

---------------------------------------------

"Be nice to me, I'm nice. Be a rude a-hole, I'll give it right back too."

So you never smoke where other people would have to breathe it?
That in itself is very rude.

I truely make my best effort to keep my habit away,
from others. I smoke in my shop area, not around non-smokers.
If your in my car, I don't smoke. I make an effort to make non-smokers happy for the most part.

There is that tolerance thing, for other people.
I tolerate terible perfumes, body odors, tatoo's, and those people
that for some reason, find a need to punch holes in their faces and ears. Or color their hair purple and green.
That hurts my eyes! lol

=================================================
Good talking with you 2S4U.

You've helped my afternoon pass more quickly!
Have a good turkeyday.

Cheers,
John

[2smart4u]

"Are you really telling me that a ciggy, is more poluting than a car?
Come on....

I'd go with it's unhealthy or it smells, but the polution thing..."

So you'd prefer pollution for no good reason over pollution for what is a necessity for most people? Like I said, extremely ignorant argument.

--------------------------------
"It's a comparison of a tax burdens, to the medical costs.

The taxes are the same on my house to yours, in that example.
But I don't need or utilize the same things as you would.
Because of your choice, to have a larger family than me,
your house would generate more trash to be disposed of,
increased cost of the school systems and a school bus, etc.

The tax burden is the same for your and my house, based on
the property alone, not on how it's used.

Same goes for medical insurance costs.
I smoke, you don't, but in this case, my medical payments are
more than yours. No shared burden as above for my choice."

But if no one smoked, insurance costs would be lower for everyone. So I am right.

---------------------------------------------
"I truely make my best effort to keep my habit away,
from others. I smoke in my shop area, not around non-smokers.
If your in my car, I don't smoke. I make an effort to make non-smokers happy for the most part."

You are unique among smokers, then.

"There is that tolerance thing, for other people.
I tolerate terible perfumes, body odors, tatoo's, and those people
that for some reason, find a need to punch holes in their faces and ears. Or color their hair purple and green. That hurts my eyes! lol"

Tattoos & piercings cause you no harm. I'm not big on the perfumes, either, but I certainly don't encounter nearly as many people who have bathed in perfume as I do smokers.

=================================================

"Have a good turkeyday."

You, too. Gonna smoke that turkey? :)

Hey, have you heard the song about CT, by Jesus H Christ and the Four Hornsmen of the Apocalypse? I can't print the title here, but it's a pretty funny song. "Connecticut's for ..."

[ladyteal]

Said by 2dumb4u: But if no one smoked, insurance costs would be lower for everyone. So I am right.

Rudeness, arrogance, odor, littering and increased health care costs for all are just a few more other reasons.

Definitely a blonde sheeple, and a very dumb one at that.:p

[happysmoker]

But if no one smoked, insurance costs would be lower for everyone. So I am right.

Wrong again. 2smart4u proves one more time he's not.

(emphasis mine)


From <a href="http://www.moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P100291.asp">http://www.moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhealth/P100291.asp</a>

"New CDC figures assert that smokers cost the economy nearly $94 billion yearly in lost productivity. An additional $89 billion is estimated spent on public and private healthcare combined. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Taxpayers says each American household spends $596 a year in federal and state taxes due to smoking.

"Some of these numbers are disputed, however, by the Bureau of National Affairs which says 95% of companies banning smoking report no financial savings and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which finds no connection between smoking and absenteeism."


From the abstract on a study:

<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6419350&dopt=Abstract">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6419350&dopt=Abstract</a>

"Does smoking increase medical care expenditure?

Leu RE, Schaub T.

"The impact of smoking on medical care expenditure is analyzed, challenging the widespread belief that smoking imposes a large cost burden on health services systems. The results imply that lifetime expenditure is higher for nonsmokers than for smokers because smokers' higher annual utilization rates are overcompensated for by nonsmokers' higher life expectancy. Population simulation, taking into account the effects of past smoking on present population size and composition, suggests that 1976 expenditure would have been the same if no male born since 1876 had ever smoked. The male population would have been larger, particularly at older ages, increasing medical care expenditure, but this increase would have been offset by lower annual medical care utilization rates. Thus the results imply that smoking does not increase medical care expenditure and, therefore, reducing smoking is unlikely to decrease it."


From Dr. Michael Siegel's blog, a tobacco control advocate:
St. Cloud (Florida) Rescinds Smoker-Free Hiring Policy Due to Lack of Qualified Police Officers
<a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/st-cloud-florida-rescinds-smoker-free.html">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/05/st-cloud-florida-rescinds-smoker-free.html</a>

"St. Cloud now becomes the second city in Florida to rescind a smoker-free hiring policy. The city of North Miami revoked its ban on smokers in 2003 after also failing to observe any health insurance savings and being hampered in its ability to recruit qualified applicants for city jobs.

"According to the article: "What seemed to many like a good idea several years ago has gone up in smoke. St. Cloud's ban on hiring employees who use tobacco, which was enacted in 2002, has been revoked by the City Council. 'Number one, it never did do what it was supposed to do -- help on insurance,' City Manager Tom Hurt said. 'And, it put a cramp on hiring.' With more jobs to fill as the city grows, there was a shrinking pool of workers to fill the jobs. Osceola's unemployment rate for the 12 months ending in April was 2.6 percent, substantially lower than the national average of 4.5 percent. 'We had certified operators that wanted to work for us, and then they found out they had to be a nonsmoker for a year,' said Robert MacKichan, public works director. His department employees about 100 workers and has 12 to 15 vacancies, he said. At one point the city loosened its policy by agreeing to hire smokers if they promised to stop. 'No one wants to take a job on the pretense they will be able to stop, not knowing if they will. In a year, if they're not smoke-free, they're [fired].'"

Here's the link to the original article in the Orlando Sentinel, but the article is no longer found at the website. Dr. Siegel quoted parts of it in his blog.
<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-loclocnosmoke24052406may24,0,2130377.story?track=r ss">http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-loclocnosmoke24052406may24,0,2130377.story?track=r ss</a>

[JohninCT]

"" Hey, have you heard the song about CT, by Jesus H Christ and the Four Hornsmen of the Apocalypse? I can't print the title here, but it's a pretty funny song. "Connecticut's for ..." "

LOL ! LOL! :D
I've never heard of that before, but went and found it!
Now that's funny!!

[JohninCT]

Happysmoker wrote:

""Some of these numbers are disputed, however, by the Bureau of National Affairs which says 95% of companies banning smoking report no financial savings and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which finds no connection between smoking and absenteeism."


I don't have a way to compare, like them but..

Thinking about it, I, as a smoker, have missed work, once, back about 15yrs ago, for 1 day.
And about 5-6 years I was out for 3 days straight with a really bad cold. But I do work in an auto shop, and am constantly going from
freezing cold outside, to the shop which is 50's,
to the office which is close to 70-degrees, in the winter time.

That one day, a long time ago was funny too. Remembering back,
I didn't know how to 'call in sick' because I had never done it before
in my life! LOL! :D

Cheers,
J

[2smart4u]

[B]

Definitely a blonde sheeple, and a very dumb one at that.:p

I know you are, but what am I?

[Dimomma]

In my State of Michigan no tobacco settlement money went for smoking cessation. None!

Yes, "it's not just about smoking anymore."

Our tobacco settlement money went for roadwork and schools. School taxes have gone up and our roads are all becoming tolled. Where'd the money go?

[2smart4u]

Our tobacco settlement money went for roadwork and schools. School taxes have gone up and our roads are all becoming tolled. Where'd the money go?

Ask the Governator. I can't believe California re-elected this bad actor.

[marcus aurelius]

How often do you inhale someone else;s chimney smoke? Be serious. Do you go around walking on other people's roofs? Sure, it's in the air, but it's not going in your face. Geez!

Wood smoke and charcoal smoke do exist in many trendy restaurants.......check this exchange out.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/12/thought-i-would-remind-lawmakers-and.html

[2smart4u]

Wood smoke and charcoal smoke do exist in many trendy restaurants.......check this exchange out.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/12/ventilation-not-legislation.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/12/thought-i-would-remind-lawmakers-and.html

Yeah, and I could create a blog that says whatever I want it to say, too.

For those not paying attention, he posted links to his own blog.

[Colonist]

For those not paying attention, he posted links to his own blog.

I found that post very informational.
This blog links and references EPA and WHO studies and reports.

Thank you Marcus for the links.

[marcus aurelius]

Yeah, and I could create a blog that says whatever I want it to say, too.

For those not paying attention, he posted links to his own blog.

You are quick.......and if you know how blogs work......you'll note that links within the post bring you to supporting data that prove the point.

For instance in this post you'll find out why pharmaceutical nicotine interests like Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and J & J Co. fund nearly all the smoking ban efforts across the globe........in this country alone over the counter smoking cessation product sales of products like Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ (manufactured by J & J subsidiary ALZA) exceed $500,000,000.00 annually.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-drug-industry-uses-non-profits-to.html

Smoking bans are less about concern for your health, and more about making money for pharmaceutical nicotine interests.......people like you are simply unwitting pawns helping pharma interests, which may not bother you now but wait til they start funding policy change efforts that do affect you........it will be too late to stop the next wave as you allowed them dictate public policy in a previous matter.

http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/interestarea.jsp?iaid=138

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html

[2smart4u]

For those not paying attention, he posted links to his own blog.

This blog links and references EPA and WHO studies and reports.



No it doesn't. It links to "publicintegrity.org" (whatever that is), which crashes my browser everytime I try to go to the site, and it links to other pages of the blog.

Totally worthless.

[2smart4u]

Marcus, your ignorance is amusing.

[Colonist]

No it doesn't. It links to "publicintegrity.org" (whatever that is), which crashes my browser everytime I try to go to the site, and it links to other pages of the blog.


Time for a new computer - Happy Holidays

[2smart4u]

Time for a new computer - Happy Holidays

No, my computer is fine. Something wrong with that site. Maybe my antivirus software is protecting me from something there.

[jamison]

Action on Smoking and Health


Action on Smoking and Health August 2006

2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

202-659-4310

www.ash.org Expiration Date: August 2007


Year, State Incorporated: 1967, District of Columbia

Affiliates: Not disclosed


Stated Purpose: Not provided



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment (Nondisclosure)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that this lack of cooperation may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency and accountability.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 20 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals, and governance. Without the requested information, it cannot verify if the charity meets these standards. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Status

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.




An organization may change its practices at any time without notice. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgment. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report reflects the results of an evaluation of informational materials provided voluntarily by the organization. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgement. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report is not to be used for fund raising or promotional purposes.

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Action on Smoking and Health


Action on Smoking and Health August 2006

2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

202-659-4310

www.ash.org Expiration Date: August 2007


Year, State Incorporated: 1967, District of Columbia

Affiliates: Not disclosed


Stated Purpose: Not provided



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment (Nondisclosure)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliance’s Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliance’s charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that this lack of cooperation may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency and accountability.

The BBB Wise Giving Alliance reports on national charities and determines if they meet 20 voluntary standards on matters such as charity finances, appeals, and governance. Without the requested information, it cannot verify if the charity meets these standards. The Alliance does not evaluate the worthiness of the charitable program.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Status

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This organization is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is eligible to receive contributions deductible as charitable donations for federal income tax purposes.




An organization may change its practices at any time without notice. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgment. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report reflects the results of an evaluation of informational materials provided voluntarily by the organization. A copy of this report has been shared with the organization prior to publication. It is not intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished solely to assist you in exercising your own judgement. The name Better Business Bureau is a registered service mark of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc.

This report is not to be used for fund raising or promotional purposes.

Jamison

Your point?

[jamison]

Originally Posted by jamison
By JENNY BARD

Is there any sight more comforting on a cold winter evening than a roaring fireplace?

According to thousands of recent scientific studies, we should be anything but comforted: wood smoke, we now know, is hazardous to our health.

Burning wood creates significant amounts of fine particle pollution. And the more scientists have learned about particle pollution, the more alarmed they have become.

Studies have now linked particle pollution with a host of health problems that include asthma attacks, diminished lung function, respiratory ailments, heart attacks and stroke. While particle pollution affects everyone, it is particularly dangerous for children - whose lungs are still developing - and can cause bronchitis, increases in respiratory infections and impaired lung development.

These are just a few of the reasons the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now considers fine particle pollution its "most pressing air quality problem."

If you're skeptical that smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves could actually be a significant source of air pollution, consider this: according to the California Air Resources Board, residential wood burning is the single biggest contributor to winter particle pollution in the Bay Area, contributing more particle pollution to our air than automobiles, diesel vehicles, or industry. Last December, the air quality in the Bay Area exceeded the recently enacted EPA particle pollution standard on one out of every three days, largely due to wood burning. It would be bad enough if the story ended here, but it doesn't. Wood smoke also contains toxic and carcinogenic substances that include benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxin - one of the most toxic substances on earth. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, one third of the total amount of dioxin in the Bay Area comes from wood burning. It may seem hard to believe that something so familiar could actually be harmful to our health. But just watch a movie from the 1940s, and you'll realize that cigarette smoking was also once considered harmless, and just as ubiquitous as wood burning is today.The EPA estimates that the cancer risk from wood smoke may be 12 times greater than from an equal amount of tobacco smoke. The hazardous particles from wood smoke are so tiny that they can easily infiltrate homes.

Every winter, local offices of the American Lung Association receive phone calls from distraught families suffering from health problems caused by wood burning. Often, they have young children with asthma who are literally unable to breathe in their own homes. Some of these families have had to resort to selling their houses and moving to areas with less wood smoke pollution.

Fortunately, there are easily available solutions. Gas fireplaces now so convincingly imitate their log burning brethren that it is difficult to tell them apart - and gas is far more convenient and cleaner burning. Gas burning woodstoves can be inserted into fireplaces and put out a small fraction of the particle pollution of those that burn wood. Electric models offer amazing realism. If gas is not an option, pellet stoves deliver high overall efficiency, and burn relatively cleanly. And with improved woodstove combustion technologies, some newer stoves have certified emissions as low as pellet stoves.

The American Lung Association of California is currently working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to promote the cleanest burning options and to enact effective measures to protect the public from wood smoke pollution. The health of our community depends on it.

But the most important change we can make is in our collective attitude towards wood burning. This will be difficult, since it has been engrained in human behavior ever since our ancestors first gathered around a fire in a dark cave.

The first step is for us to stop associating that roaring fire with romance and ambience. And start linking it with an asthmatic child reaching desperately for his or her inhaler.

Jenny Bard is the director of Clean Air Programs for the American Lung Association of California in Santa Rosa.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...73266325041622

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak for I didn't smoke.
They came for the Obese,
I didn't speak for I was thin.
Then they came for those that burn wood,
I didn't speak.
Then they came for me,
and NO ONE was left to speak.

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Jamison, why don't you wait until you either learn to use a computer properly, or have something original, intelligent, and interesting to say?
Second hand smoke kills.

[jamison]

If you're skeptical that smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves could actually be a significant source of air pollution, consider this: according to the California Air Resources Board, residential wood burning is the single biggest contributor to winter particle pollution in the Bay Area, contributing more particle pollution to our air than automobiles, diesel vehicles, or industry. Last December, the air quality in the Bay Area exceeded the recently enacted EPA particle pollution standard on one out of every three days, largely due to wood burning. It would be bad enough if the story ended here, but it doesn't. Wood smoke also contains toxic and carcinogenic substances that include benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxin - one of the most toxic substances on earth. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, one third of the total amount of dioxin in the Bay Area comes from wood burning. It may seem hard to believe that something so familiar could actually be harmful to our health. But just watch a movie from the 1940s, and you'll realize that cigarette smoking was also once considered harmless, and just as ubiquitous as wood burning is today.The EPA estimates that the cancer risk from wood smoke may be 12 times greater than from an equal amount of tobacco smoke. The hazardous particles from wood smoke are so tiny that they can easily infiltrate homes.
Jamison

[2smart4u]

So you won't take my advice. I didn't think you would.
You do realize this thread is about cigarette smoke, don't you? Do you have anything new to add to the topic? There are already ordinances in the bay area in regards to wood burning appliances. Nothing you say (or copy and paste) about wood burning stoves or fireplaces changes the fact that second hand smoke is deadly and annoying (and smells a lot worse than a fireplace).

[jamison]

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=164&page=4

Jamison

[2smart4u]

I have yet to figure out why you post links to other pages of this forum? That link took me to my own post. So you agree with it? Is that what you are saying?

[jamison]

By JENNY BARD

Is there any sight more comforting on a cold winter evening than a roaring fireplace?

According to thousands of recent scientific studies, we should be anything but comforted: wood smoke, we now know, is hazardous to our health.

Burning wood creates significant amounts of fine particle pollution. And the more scientists have learned about particle pollution, the more alarmed they have become.

Studies have now linked particle pollution with a host of health problems that include asthma attacks, diminished lung function, respiratory ailments, heart attacks and stroke. While particle pollution affects everyone, it is particularly dangerous for children - whose lungs are still developing - and can cause bronchitis, increases in respiratory infections and impaired lung development.

These are just a few of the reasons the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now considers fine particle pollution its "most pressing air quality problem."

If you're skeptical that smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves could actually be a significant source of air pollution, consider this: according to the California Air Resources Board, residential wood burning is the single biggest contributor to winter particle pollution in the Bay Area, contributing more particle pollution to our air than automobiles, diesel vehicles, or industry. Last December, the air quality in the Bay Area exceeded the recently enacted EPA particle pollution standard on one out of every three days, largely due to wood burning.
It would be bad enough if the story ended here, but it doesn't. Wood smoke also contains toxic and carcinogenic substances that include benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxin - one of the most toxic substances on earth. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management Agency, one third of the total amount of dioxin in the Bay Area comes from wood burning.
It may seem hard to believe that something so familiar could actually be harmful to our health. But just watch a movie from the 1940s, and you'll realize that cigarette smoking was also once considered harmless, and just as ubiquitous as wood burning is today.The EPA estimates that the cancer risk from wood smoke may be 12 times greater than from an equal amount of tobacco smoke.
The hazardous particles from wood smoke are so tiny that they can easily infiltrate homes.

Every winter, local offices of the American Lung Association receive phone calls from distraught families suffering from health problems caused by wood burning. Often, they have young children with asthma who are literally unable to breathe in their own homes. Some of these families have had to resort to selling their houses and moving to areas with less wood smoke pollution.

Fortunately, there are easily available solutions. Gas fireplaces now so convincingly imitate their log burning brethren that it is difficult to tell them apart - and gas is far more convenient and cleaner burning. Gas burning woodstoves can be inserted into fireplaces and put out a small fraction of the particle pollution of those that burn wood. Electric models offer amazing realism. If gas is not an option, pellet stoves deliver high overall efficiency, and burn relatively cleanly. And with improved woodstove combustion technologies, some newer stoves have certified emissions as low as pellet stoves.

The American Lung Association of California is currently working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to promote the cleanest burning options and to enact effective measures to protect the public from wood smoke pollution. The health of our community depends on it.

But the most important change we can make is in our collective attitude towards wood burning. This will be difficult, since it has been engrained in human behavior ever since our ancestors first gathered around a fire in a dark cave.

The first step is for us to stop associating that roaring fire with romance and ambience. And start linking it with an asthmatic child reaching desperately for his or her inhaler.

Jenny Bard is the director of Clean Air Programs for the American Lung Association of California in Santa Rosa.
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/p...73266325041622

First they came for the smokers,
and I didn't speak for I didn't smoke.
They came for the Obese,
I didn't speak for I was thin.
Then they came for those that burn wood,
I didn't speak.
Then they came for me,
and NO ONE was left to speak.

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Jamison = Troll

[jamison]

IN THE END
IT'S UP TO US
By: Phil Brennan

It's midday Tuesday and I have no idea how the election will turn out so I'll avoid writing about what the end result might be.
Instead let's talk about the real issue in this and any other election which I'll compress into two words: "personal responsibility."
During my long lifetime I have seen the development of a mass psychosis that causes many Americans to believe that the advancement of their lives and fortunes is legitimately the business of government and not their own. How many times have you heard someone say "there ought to be a law," one way of expressing the corrupt notion that whatever the problem might be, government at some level has the responsibility for handling it to whatever extent it deems necessary and appropriate. Hitler and Stalin showed us just how far government can go in doing what it deems to be necessary and appropriate to achieve its aims.
Taken to its logical conclusion the idea leads not to utopia, but instead to a Dachau, an Auschwitz and a Soviet gulag. When the people empower government to solve all of their problems government inevitably responds with force to the public demand, and as George Washington is said to have explained "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
Whether or not Washington actually said it, it's simply an exercise in liberal sophistry to deny its truth; all recorded history has proven it to be an accurate description - government cannot exist without the power to enforce it's fiats and edicts and that power cannot be described as anything less than force - and sometimes brute force.
Of course much of what government in a republic such as ours seeks to do is both desirable and fully justified by the circumstances, but the possibility for overreaching is always present. This is especially true when we surrender to the government the power to do for us what we should be doing for ourselves.
If we refuse to curb our most basic instincts government is only too happy to step in and use its force to curb them for us. The problem begins when government decides which of our basic instincts require curbing. Such basic instincts as what the government sees as a delusion - that the money we earn belongs to us, and not to our greedy masters in Washington. That delusion must me suppressed and if force is needed so be it. Bring in the IRS.
In Mayor Bloomberg's New York City supernanny administration, for example, having an ashtray in your place of business is a violation of the law that prohibits smoking just about anywhere within the city's borders. There are actually special goon squads empowered to come into one's private place of business and carry out the government's diligent search for such lethal weapons as ash trays. And if the nannies have their way, restaurants will soon be forbidden to serve foods made with certain kinds of fats and shortenings.
This is all for the alleged good of the people of New York City, of course, but it usurps the right of New Yorkers to decide such very basic human rights as what kind of cooking fats they want used to prepare their food, or to smoke in private establishments.

If we want to endanger our health we have every right to do it. And all the propaganda used to justify such regulations from the self-appointed nannies in the liberal establishment which insists that your smoking or your eating fat-laden fried chicken endangers the people around us is just that: propaganda thought up to justify the use of government force to enforce their delusions.
Now that's small stuff compared to the use of force to suppress free speech as has been done in the campaign finance laws now on the books, or the absolute terror tactics employed by the government in the enforcement of it's tax laws. Get in the government's way in these and other governmental activities and you'll find out what it feels like to be run over by an Abrams tank.
How you donate your money to political causes , short of outright bribery, is your absolute right yet we have allowed government to dictate the terms of campaign contributions that seriously diminishes our right to free speech. Should we not be sufficiently alert to detect improper political contributions and the effect they have on government actions? Isn't that a job for the media, that is when they are not busy promoting Democrats and leftist political causes?

None of these dangers to individual liberty would exist if we would exercise our own responsibilities to take care of ourselves. Instead of making every effort to provide for our retirement years by putting aside some of our income we rely on Uncle Sam to guarantee our welfare in our senior years through Social Security and other welfare programs.
And when it becomes crystal clear that the financial stability of the Social Security and Medicare systems is seriously threatened we turn our backs on seeking solutions that would involve allowing those still working to control and invest a small part of their FICA taxes, thereby building an estate for themselves in addition to their Social Security benefits. Obviously we accept the idea that people must not be allowed to think and act for themselves when it comes to planning for their retirement years. We turn that responsibility over to government and go on happy go-lucky as we approach the precipice over which the whole structure is about to plunge.
For all intents and purposes we have allowed the government to spend our money recklessly, much of it shamefully wasted on programs designed to do for us what we should do for ourselves and done in ways as government does most often: incompetently and horribly expensive. Competence and thrift being alien concepts to bureaucracies that exist solely to perpetuate their existence at our expense.
Maybe it's too late. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be the permanent wards of nanny government, sonomulently acceptant of the whims and caprices of our bureaucratic masters on the shores of the Potomac River.
If so it won't matter a good doodly damn how this or any other election turns out. Alea iacta est!*

Jamison

[2smart4u]

Wow, what a load of crap! Thanks, troll. I needed a laugh.

[jamison]

2S4U ROFLMAO @U
Ladyteal was right 2S4U is 2DUMB4US

LMAO TSDMF :D

Jamison

[2smart4u]

2S4U ROFLMAO @U
Ladyteal was right 2S4U is 2DUMB4US

LMAO TSDMF :D

Jamison

Wow, what a load of crap! Thanks, troll. I needed a laugh.
Are you three years old yet?

[jamison]

WTF DUTIWTA??????? :eek:

Jamison

[2smart4u]

FTEHYJWPP!

Ignorant troll.

[jamison]

2DUMB4US = IDJIT

IDJIT = 2DUMB4US :p
Jamison

[2smart4u]

2DUMB4US = IDJIT

IDJIT = 2DUMB4US :p
Jamison

Huh? Who is 2DUMB4US?
IYAACATIRTTP