xTYBALTx

Seeing as scientists had their funding pulled by the American Cancer Society at the last minute after the ACS learned that the study wasn't going to be rigged, and that the EPA is known to have rigged the first 'real' study of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in 1993 (this study was later struck down by a federal judge for its' obvious faults. Let's also note that the 'scientific community' largely lauded this study. And, in case you're curious, the federal judge's ruling was later overruled on a technicality unrelated to the quality of the EPA study itself.), the answer to your question is, of course, no. Let's also remember that the WHO has actually admitted to rigging studies in the past (breast cancer) in the name of promoting the public good.

So tell me, who's going to fund a proper study of ETS? Certainly not the same health organizations which have been browbeating us over ETS for a decade. Certainly not the tobacco industry (they have an agenda too!). So whom?

Edit: I don't expect to convince anyone here that ETS is not a serious concern anymore than I expect to convince people in the ID thread that evolution is true. For this reason, and because I'm probably going to be going solo on this one, I'm not going to follow up beyond this post regarding this subject.

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

Trooper

let me get this right, you say second hand smoke is perfectly healthy to breath in and children are not effected by it?

__________________
that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan

El_Gringo_Grande

Yea, I don't get this either.

If you are saying that the degree of damage caused by second hand smoke is not fully understood, fine. I would agree with you.

If you are saying there is no evidance of adverse effects caused by second hand smoke. Well.... Hmmm.... Sir, you seem to be loony.

__________________
Sen. John McCain (AZ) For President '08
---
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

xTYBALTx

Gringo - I'd say that the risk is overstated. To what extent they're overstated I can not say with any certainty. So, from your two choices, the former is an accurate description of my position, not the latter. :]

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

GhostintheShell

Welcome to 2006....


http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...tml#post524267

__________________
Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

leejo

My father used to do tobacco litigation for RJ Reynolds and attended the world's large tobacco firm's atty's twice-annual meeting in San Francisco. Out of the 500 or so lawyers present, three smoked.

Personally I think that government should stay out of this. In fact, I think the government should encourage smoking just like I think there should be a National Drunk Driving Day: not only should we let Darwin do his thing, we can help the process of weeding out the stupid from the herd.

If you think smoking is a noble struggle for civil liberties, volunteer at your local hospital and ask to hang out with the oncology patients. Meet their families. Reconsider.

DudeMan

it might not be noble leejo, and the governments sentiment may be absolutely correct, however, the fact remains, that less people smoke today than have done in the past, and i dont see hundreds of people walking along the streets gasping for air because their lungs dont work..... and if i did i would probably see them chugging on a burger with a whole days calorie content in it....

you cant go half arsed on public health, this is a stupid, token gesture, at a wider and potentially more destructive issue. and the very reason nothing will be done is the nature of the health system, if more people get ill, it boosts the economy, so you dont need to do anything about people getting long slow and painful illnesses because in the end their insurance company will be paying for new doctors and nurses, and new consumers.

like i siad before this has jack **** to do with childrens health, it is a token gesture, second hand smoke, i would wager is nowhere near as harmful and the first hand smoke, i feel alot better since i quit, and i still sit in an office of smokers, apart from the smell, i dont feel affected.... but im sure its doing some damage. if the government thinks these parents are effrectively giving their chilldren breathing difficulties which they could avoid, $50 is hardly a reflective punishment, when we have another thread about spanking and loosing your kids.... spoank then cause a red mark, loose your kids, cause them to have breathing difficulties and potentially shorten their life, $50... look at the punishment and tell me this has anything to do with saving chilldren, its just hard to argue against saving chilldren.... so its perfect for draconian use.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

CingularDuality

First they came for the smokers...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Kerostasis

Thats such an overused cliche...

__________________

leejo

Then they came for the people who enjoy sex with 8 year olds...Then the people who wanted to smoke dope...Then the people who wear big floppy hats while providing protection services for sex workers. What's your point?

Steeler

Yeah, Cing. Not quite a Godwin, but it's a bit of a stretch to jump from smoking ordinances to race ghettos and blast furnaces. Stick with the boiling frog.

__________________

DudeMan

erm i think cing is completely correct,

sex with 8 yr olds, against the law,

smoking dope, ditto,

providing protection for sex workers, (i am not sure but i would assume ditto)

smoking, lawful and a great source of national income....

having said that, it is wrong to somke in front of kids.

__________________


The Queen
"Those who perpetrate these brutal acts against innocent people should know that they will not change our way of life,"
Atrocities such as these simply reinforce our sense of community

TheFeniX
"Guns don't kill people: effeminate men in green tunics do"

leejo

Back in the day I could have "married" a hot little 12 year old girl and no-one would have said a thing about it. Then "they came" and made it illegal.

Cing is attempting to align his position that making smoking illegal is akin to rounding up Jews. I am pointing out that making smoking illegal is a lot more like making smoking opium, pimping hoes, or banging a 16 year old illegal. Maybe smokers and NABMLA can join forces and fight the good fight.

Iamthefallen

I think that we can all agree, that it should definitely be illegal to have sex with 12 year olds while driving if your kids are in the car.

__________________



| Wearing the TG tags | Reporting infractions | How to get started with PoE |

leejo

Unless you're 17 or younger.