Little-Acorn
12-19-2013, 01:59 PM
Well. After all the restrictions on smoking - can't smoke in a public building, can't smoke in a bar, can't smoke near a child, can't smoke in your own home, because you are endangering the health and life of other people - they have finally determined that smoking in someone else's presence doesn't affect their health or life at all.
Not even a little bit.
It was all a lie.
"Well, I don't like your smoking! I don't like the smell!"
Hmmm. Tell me, if I don't like homosexuality - I don't like to SEE two men kissing - is that sufficient grounds for me to forbid them from kissing in other people's presence?
No, it is not sufficient grounds.
So, is your not liking smoking, sufficient grounds for banning all smoking in other people's presence?
When do we intend to get rid of all these restrictions on where people can smoke? Now that we know it is NOT a health risk to other people, but merely something that some people don't like?
Report from the American Cancer Institute:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract
------------------------------------------
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/
Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies
By James Delingpole
Environment
Last updated: December 18th, 2013
Passive smoking doesn't give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great "environmental tobacco smoke" meme.
It was, after all, a decade ago that the British Medical Journal, published the results of a massive, long-term survey into the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.
At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.
Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant." A 2002 report by the Greater London Assembly agreed. So too did an investigation by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.
Not even a little bit.
It was all a lie.
"Well, I don't like your smoking! I don't like the smell!"
Hmmm. Tell me, if I don't like homosexuality - I don't like to SEE two men kissing - is that sufficient grounds for me to forbid them from kissing in other people's presence?
No, it is not sufficient grounds.
So, is your not liking smoking, sufficient grounds for banning all smoking in other people's presence?
When do we intend to get rid of all these restrictions on where people can smoke? Now that we know it is NOT a health risk to other people, but merely something that some people don't like?
Report from the American Cancer Institute:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.extract
------------------------------------------
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100251229/passive-smoking-another-of-the-nanny-states-big-lies/
Passive smoking – another of the Nanny State's big lies
By James Delingpole
Environment
Last updated: December 18th, 2013
Passive smoking doesn't give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great "environmental tobacco smoke" meme.
It was, after all, a decade ago that the British Medical Journal, published the results of a massive, long-term survey into the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.
At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.
Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant." A 2002 report by the Greater London Assembly agreed. So too did an investigation by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.