|
|
|
|
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 5:24:22 AM | Gal?
Well, boy, I am not defending the rights of smokers to light up and and cause health or other related problems for anyone, including children.
But to stoop to the levels of comparing smokers to perverts and child predators, did you read what you said?
My opinion..........that's just silly. 
Just as some folks don't want to have religion shoved down their throats, smokers do not want to have health info shoved into our gullets either.
Neither do I want to hear the blah blah blah, of how we wish to sacrifice every ones freedom just sos we can smoke.
Far from the truth and has never been my intent to do so.
Point is freedom from so many laws.........
since cars are extensions of our homes, this has in some states, became stepping into your house.
And before you go saying, "well then, it should be OK not to have laws against drunk/drugged driving". Pleaaassssssse. Not the same thing at all.
Just as the "sin" tax a few years back.
That would blow the heck out of poker nights, Sunday football and the super bowl.
Once the government gets a hold into your house then any other freedom is up for grabs. Possibly things a non-smoker enjoys partaking in, will be outlawed.
Alcohol including beer and wine could be against the law in your home, when children are present.
Just because "some" grew up watching parents drink and were for whatever reason, scarred for life.
My parents smoked. Daddy cigarillos and mother ciggies.
Daddy drank like a fish, mother never had one drink.
Our car windows were down..........what was worse than the smoking was the spitting out the open window and being second to get into the car and have to sit behind daddy, the giant loogie spitter.
Once the nazi's have entered the sanctity of our private homes, everything done in our homes is subject to laws.
 What ires me is the ones making and some enforcing imposed laws upon citizens are the very ones who think they are above those laws and do what they want.
Example: In the county court house about my divorce. I'm in one room with my lawyer and whoos it's in another one.
I walk into the room and immediately smell cigarettes.........this is after I'd been reminded by an officer of the court that smoking was not allowed.
I stood around, after waiting and waiting some more and decided to hunt for the evidence of smoking.
Not hard to find.
In a cabinet in front of a window were two soda cans..........
oh my, call the police, get the csi in there to get some DNA from the butt laying on top of the can.
Track down the doer of such a heinous crime.
 Naw, just laughed and thought how very typical.
Just as I wish for my rights to do things or have some of things that I do, infringed upon, I also do not wish to infringe upon others who do not have the same views as I do.
Respect, mutual respect.
FYI I don't drink but would be just adamant about defending a person right to drink alcohol in their homes.
It ain't about the habit, if it's legal,
it's about the laws that impinge upon our freedoms.
Oh, Nashville has an ordinance,  no adult will wear a mask.......gees folks it almost Halloween, into a business or other public establishment.
A mask or partial mask must be totally removed before entering the above mentioned.
Freedom of expression? Being pissed away.
Tobacco is addictive but please do not group us in with drug addicts (that's doing something illegal).
At the ripe old age of 73, whatever pleases my mom, is OK with me.
If she wanted a smoke, she doesn't any more, I would not control her as far as not buying them for her.
And I'm not going to try and break her of a habit or deprive her of anything her little self wants.........within the realms of the law.
I'm not trying to change any one's mind.........
only to express my views and my, let me say that again, my opinion.
Out of here.......
ceeceekitty
 | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 5:25:00 AM | I'm seriously waiting to see if ANYONE can explain how this law can be enforced, save having the police watch the drivers on the opposite lane rather than the road.
>>>Emissions are another problem altogether.
So you agree cars should be banned?
Just like smoking, it harms more than the user- just like smoking, its harm to people is well documented- And yet you don't offer to put away your car for good.
Why do you demand everyone put down something you never used in the first place, but the moment someone uses the exact same argument against something you're using- well, then laws can't change it- its not our fault- people have rights- suddenly the same respect your demand other give you when it comes to one pollutant is completely a different story when it comes to another-one thats more deadly, far more used, burns for longer periods of time, and can get to a point where the air is toxic and acid rains from the sky.
I cannot see how someone can claim that we need to protect societies health from cigarettes, meanwhile a far greater threat that matches and surpasses the arguments made against smoking is marginalized. Its simply a fact that you have a holier than thou attitude- that you believe you know whats better for a person than that person does, and you believe it is both your right to tell them and your right to tax them to protect them from themselves.
That been said, thats on the issue of banning cigarettes cause they're unhealthy- not the OP about children in the car law..... | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 5:38:32 AM |
Just like smoking, it harms more than the user- just like smoking, its harm to people is well documented- And yet you don't offer to put away your car for good.
Vehicles, for good or for ill, are neccesary for the continuing functioning of our society. You're argument is one for the banning of vehicles. Which is fine, feel free to start this campaign. It's of 0 relevance to the smoking issue.
Also the means of enforcement? If you did some reading you'd discover the intention is to enforce it in cases where the person is being pulled over for other reasons.
So if you're sutpid enough to speed while smoking with your kid you get dinged.
It's not a rights issue, we limit all sorts of destructive behavior, you're also not allowed to smoke crack with your kid in the car. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 9:12:48 AM | It won't be long till you'll have buy a $250 permit to smoke in your vehicle. You'll have to sign a document that children won't be allowed in your vehicle and you'll have to renew it every year. Big bro has to make a dollar billion on selling little stickers to put on your vehicle. Then they'll start mandating in your homes...I won't be allowed to go anywhere without somekinda sticker stuck to me....it's a "what's it worth to ya" kinda mentality and it sucks.
So...."why smoke?" is what your askin'....and my only reply is because I f'ing WANT TO !
.....~and another thang ~~~~ ! What about you peeps who pee in my pool or at my beach ! Somebody needs a law for your rank a$$ as well. Wanna buy a peein' permit? It's only a $500 per year ~ ! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 9:33:50 AM | "Many Medical Studies dispute effects of second hand smoke."
Are you serious?? There has been study after study, proof after proof, article after article prooving the consequences of second hand smoke. If they were all wrong, why the law about smoking in cars? Why are so many resturants turning to "non-smoking" facilities? I mean...even the cigarette companies know the ill effects of smoking... THEY put it right on their own boxes!!!!!! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 9:56:32 AM |
So if you're sutpid enough to speed while smoking with your kid you get dinged. So, if you are smart enough to not speed, not drive reckless, not break ANY vehicular laws, you can smoke with impunity with your children in the car. Hmmm... like I said, a half assed implementation of a half assed law. I guess the safety and health of the children isn't that important to make it a secondary offense.
you're also not allowed to smoke crack with your kid in the car. Last time I checked, crack was illegal weather or not you were in your car or weather or not your children were present. Apples and oranges there.
ou're argument is one for the banning of vehicles. Which is fine, feel free to start this campaign. It's of 0 relevance to the smoking issue. Much the same that crack usage is relevant. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 10:03:55 AM | girlee girl13, there have been many, many studies. None conclusive and it's never been proven that cigarettes cause cancer. The people who say so ~ are usually the ones not wanting you to see or care about the real pollutants known to do so.
Don't be spoon fed, while worse carcinogens are being shoved down your throat.
My cigarette pack says something about smoking MAY cause low birth weight. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 10:13:59 AM | FrogO Oeyes
I really didn't hear anyone saying that we want to harm our children in anyway. That's simply insane. The issue is about protecting our rights and the rights of future generations.
Anyone here burn candles in their home with children there? They are toxic. Use toxic cleaning supplies? Bleach? Put any kind of chemicals on your yard and let your children play in it? Feed your children processed food with preservatives? Do some research... many more parents smoked with their children around years ago and children had less allergies and asthmas problems...It's the chemicals in the air, the food, the water....if you really want to protect our children go for the big problems...not little personal freedoms.
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
Henry David Thoreau | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 10:24:59 AM | There you go again comparing ciggies to crack cocaine............
"we limit, (who is we and are the we doing it?) all sorts of destructive behavior (being? and depending on the definition of destructive behavior), your not allowed ( it's illegal??)to smoke crack with your kid in the car". So if I take this sentence by content, am I to believe that cracking smoking is OK/legal to do any where with the exception of having a child in the car???
Unless there was a law that I wasn't aware of...........crack smoking, poking and injecting is illegal every where in the us of a.
Bless your heart and cigarettes are legal.
Is that all you got?
Can people not think on their own?
Is that why some want to legislate and police-up the behaviors of other?
Is it in the water?
Hummmmmm, sock puppets and sheep?
Wake up and think for yourself.........march to your own drum..........I'd just about be willing to bet that even if you had a thought different that other's and didn't feel it was PC to voice it, you would not.
Why.....simple............
around here we call it lacking intestinal fortitude or gonads, to stand up and say what you honestly think.
Oh, holy crap, what will they think of me........I must say all the right things, oh me oh my...that's a yeller belly.
Yep.
I love a great debate but must insist the next time you come to debate an issue, please come prepared.
It's disappointing, number one and two I feel cheated.
That was my favorite job for many years,
debate issues, listen to the validity of disputes of the opposing sides.........
finding holes in the arguments, negotiating and arriving at a compromise, one that each party could live with.
Your comparison of crack and cigarette smoking is like comparing an avid beer drinker to a person that uses morphine.
Now look at how silly comparing the two to each other, for corn sakes.
I could just about feel sorry for ya but then it seems sad, very sad.
Kinda reminds me of watching "night of the living dead" with the mute button on.
Bet if you turned someone in you'd ask for anonymity for fear of repercussion.
I say bring that repercussion on...........
I smoke and it's no one business but my own.
If you don't like it stay away. Okay?
When you pay my bills, mortgage, insurances, groceries........not saying that would influence me what so ever, but I'd let you get it out of your mouth before I chewed your face off. 
ceeceekitty
| |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 10:45:11 AM | I'd rather hang out with heroin addicts. At least their addiction can't kill OTHERS by exposure. As for liberals seeking to enact laws to 'protect people from themselves', I couldn't care less what happens to people who choose to smoke (in fact, the fewer of them the better). I guess in that respect the feeling is mutual. What I care about is the (MAJORITY) rest of us.
You guys are ridiculous (sure wish I owned stock in tobacco, you're more devout than religious people), wonder if you'll ever get it?
And post 111 by sensualsteve is right. I'll take it a bit further and say that (for the most part) smokers are considered backward bottom feeders by most of us, which they are. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 10:59:29 AM | So you agree cars should be banned?
I know this was not addressed to me, but my answer is YES
Everyone who purchases or operates a vehicle would have to prove there is a need. I have had that opinion for many years.
What about drinking ? What about driving impaired by alcohol and drugs ?
I have never used illicit drugs. I have not had a drink in over 5 years.
What about when you breathe ? You may be a carrier of some disease ? That endangers children too.
If someone is a carrier of a disease that can be easily be spread in the air, they would be quarantined.
What about when you fart ? Or what about your sweat ? Isn't the odour unhealthy for kids ?
That may be annoying, but the answer is NO.
I have been in homes where garlic and salmon was being cooked. That has to be as unhealthy as my smoking.
No it is not as unhealthy as your smoking.
Many ANTI smokers are concerned about the air we breathe and the environment, their health and the health of others, including their children and we practice it.
All of you PRO smokers have no chance in these debates for 2 reasons.
Defending smoking is like defending child molesters. I am not going to be PC here. Many pro smokers are not as educated or intelligent as the non smokers. That has been backed up by studies. It has also been my personal experience. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 11:00:03 AM | Thank you for all the posts where folks regognized the impact to children....we will call that common sence....common that is except for those thumping their 'rights'. When will elements of the US population stop putting blinders on with narrow views of the scope of so called rights and just do the right thing. Do you folks have any idea how closed minded you sound, it must be a lonely life with such limited scope of thought. Start with some basic 'human rights' over constitutional ones especialy when they are not percieved to include those of a child. If you think it is your legal right to impose what ever you like on children you have a very sick view of life it'self and if you think an interpritation of a constitutional right vito's a human one, nice society you are building there.
I don't care if 'you' smoke, that is a courtacy I extend to you to screw yourself up as you please and a resiprical courtacy do not be offended when I stand up wind of you. To argue if second hand smoke is a problem is irrelivent, it's ignorant and rude to assume it's not. I hope you see the irony that a law is only for those who need clarification of an abuse of a right....the rest of us get it.
Thanks again for those who stood up for the kids! | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 12:49:55 PM |
Defending smoking is like defending child molesters
You are a nonsmoker and proclaim nonsmokers are more intelligent than smokers?...then you have the audacity to make a statement like THAT ! ? | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 1:11:09 PM | ^^^^Sunny, you prove his point (in your case) every time you post stuff like this. The tobacco companies themselves had exhibits at AMA conventions showing what they, themselves, believed to be the effects of smoking back in the fifties. That is historical fact.
I don't agree with his blanket statement (about intelligence) but maybe you should look up that thread about the self-proclaimed pedophile in this forum -- assuming it wasn't deleted -- and you'll see EXACTLY what he's talking about: it's impossible to change someones mind against their will. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 1:30:52 PM | The tobacco companies themselves had exhibits at AMA conventions showing what they, themselves, believed to be the effects of smoking back in the fifties. That is historical fact.
Well I don't think I attended such a convention. I wasn't able to attend, since I wasn't born yet.
But show me facts.
Now, Sensual Steve.....
As far as the intelligence coment.....show me how they compare IQs with smokers vs nonsmokers. Where are these results?
You made the statement, therefore you have burden of proof. Don't just throw stupid stuff out here and expect us to swallow it.
I was raised in a smoking environment with both a mother and father who both smoked and both my sisters were valedictorians and I was salutorian. My mother quit a few years ago, but the rest of us all smoke. Our children were honor roll students ~ there is no point in arguing your silly comment, because it's a ridiculous one. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 2:15:09 PM | Many seem to need a good "scape goat".....especially the government.
Despite media induced popular opinion to the contrary (stampeding) ....
The health risks associated with "second hand smoke" are , at the very least, very much disputed :
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Smears and Media Cover Up
Commentary On The Study
DID YOU KNOW?... - Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease says: >NO CONNECTION< - April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:
"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."
The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore, more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation. Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk. CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE STUDY
REVISITING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK – May 28, 2002 - There's been a loud and "responsible" silence in the media about this study, published 11 months ago, concerning the overestimation of the already ridiculously small "risks" of passive smoke. "Adjustment for bias due to misclassification of smoking habits reduces the observed relative risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women associated with smoking by the husband from 1.24 to 1.18." Eighteen percent risk increment …(1.00 = no risk; 1.18 = 18 % increased risk). Readers must keep in mind that statistical risks smaller than 200% are not even considered by serious science – especially when one cannot even be sure of what has been measured – as it is always and only the case for passive smoke. Yet, well financed criminals have penetrated the media, state and even international institutions to the point where a non-existing danger has become a primary legal, financial and political issue at the global level. This is the sad state of decay in the body of "public health" – the entity we trust.
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE IN AN UNRESTRICTED SMOKING WORKPLACE: AREA AND PERSONAL EXPOSURE MONITORING - Passive smoking not as big a threat? In fact, it is no threat at all. When studies on passive smoking are not based on twisted questionnaires, the truth comes out. "Although smoking was completely unrestricted inside the main office areas of the facility, ETS levels, either areal or from personal exposure measurements, were lower than those estimated by Occupational Safety and Health Administration to be present in such facilities." The overestimation of something that has not even been proven to be a hazard is a well established technique of the antismoking crooks.
Yet another study absolves passive smoking - but let's be careful... PASSIVE SMOKING EXPOSURE AND FEMALE BREAST CANCER MORTALITY - "In contrast to the results of previous studies, this study found no association between exposure to ETS and female breast cancer mortality. The results of our study are particularly compelling because of its prospective design as compared with most earlier studies, the relatively large number of exposed women with breast cancer deaths, and the reporting of exposure by the spouse rather than by proxy. "
Study paid by the tobacco industry? Not at all. The study is paid by (ready for this?) the rabidly antismoking American Cancer Society! How come the truth is coming out? Is the ACS gone insane, and given in to truthful information on tobacco? Nothing of the sort. The reason is political, for it gives the antitobacco cartel a badly needed aura of credibility without anything to lose, since the antismoking cartel has not even been able to establish a statistical link (to say nothing of proof) between active smoking and breast cancer, let alone passive smoking. In fact, some older studies showed a slight decrease in breast cancer in smoking women. With yet another battle with scientific truth on tobacco utterly lost, the cartel actually gives up nothing, but now there is the appearance of "fairness" - in order to make all the other misinformation and frauds about smoking appear more credible. Nice try, guys, but we are not falling for it!
ON SECOND-HAND SMOKE
A Layman's guide on how to interpret the confusing language of multifactorial epidemiology junk science.
" We're bombarded by endless proclamations telling us of its horrors. These claims are usually accompanied by impressive sounding numbers. Are smokers really hurting every stranger in thevicinity? The answer to that question is obvious once you know the facts. We're not going to rely on hype or hysteria. We won't tell you we have The Truth. We'll just present the hard cold facts and let you figure out The Truth for yourself."
We link with www.davehitt.com
The answer of the BC WCB to the questions of the hospitality industry: - DISHONESTY, OR JUST PLAIN INCOMPETENCE? - Recently, the Cabaret Alliance of Manitoba wrote a letter to the British Columbia Workers' Compensation Board, asking, among other things, on what scientific grounds the draconian smoking bans that forbid smoking everywhere in BC except in the home are based.
The thorough reply from the BC WBC is, to date, among the best collections of junk science and misrepresentations of evidence ever seen in one single package.
The reply from BC WBC is peculiar in its detailed response to the questions. The WCB bureaucrats, in the attempt to do a good job of constructing credibility through an intimidating amount of information, have concentrated a large number of antismoking elements together in one single letter, setting the stage for a massive debunking and exposure of either their incompetence or, worse, their dishonesty.
Therefore, in addition to a lighter version for the general reader, we are also publishing a thorough debunking of the WCB letter that contains 28 examples of misinformation, ranging from twisted interpretation of results to outright fraudulent information (and anything in between). For those who are interested in discovering on what flimsy and corrupt foundations smoking bans are based, as well as having a taste (...just a taste!) of the incredible amount of corruption of antitobacco, click above. (For greater detail, click here). The antitobacco industry has been built through five decades of poor professional ethics, as well as public and professional misinformation.
Their misinformation has been intentionally low-keyed for many years before critical mass was reached and a resulting, exploding wave of repression, legal litigation and social enmity now threatens the fabrics of society, scientific integrity, private business, livelihoods, schools, morals, the rule of law, and civil liberties.
REANALYSIS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON LUNG CANCER AND PASSIVE SMOKING - "A systematic review of epidemiological studies on passive smoking estimated the increased risk of lung cancer as 24%." ... "There is clear evidence of publication bias in these studies." ... "Reanalysis of the data allowing for the possibility of publication bias substantially lowers the estimate of relative risk." If the link does not work, click here
LIKELIHOOD OF EAR INFECTIONS IN CHILDREN MAY BE INHERITED - "Babies' vulnerability to ear infections appears largely inherited, according to a study that suggests doctors might want to closely watch siblings of children who are prone to such ailments." ... "Middle ear infections are the most common illness in children next to the common cold." Then, the politically correct, but low-key statement "Previous research has shown that environmental factors can increase a child's vulnerability, including cigarette smoke and bottle feeding rather than breast-feeding," perhaps printed just to avoid the irritation of the antitobacco cartel...? Middle ear infection is in fact one of the stalking horses of the campaign against passive smoke. It is no wonder that this study was not reported by the mass-media: it casts doubts on the credibility of antitobacco. For more information of the real possible causes of tobacco-attributed disease, click here.
Some important admissions by the cartel -- kept quiet, of course!
Self-reporting and politically correct association of asthma with passive smoking? Yes, of course, but "...not as strong as many believe") - RISK FACTORS FOR ACUTE EXACERBATION OF SYMPTOMS - American Lung Association/American Thoracic Society International Conference Day 1 - April 25, 1999 "Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of active asthma, but studies to date have not demonstrated this association convincingly. Leitch et al assessed this issue in a questionnaire to more then 7,400 college students..."
DETERMINATION OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE: THE "16-CITIES STUDY" - This study has been sponsored by the Center for Indoor Air Research under contract No. ERD-88-812 with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corp. for the US Department of Energy under contract DA-AC-05-OR9622464. Among the special contributors there is RJR Tobacco Company. Does that invalidate it? Yes, according to the propaganda of the antitobacco cartel. No, according to the simple, honest logic that when the methodology and the technology is sound, it does not matter who participates to the research.
This study is actually solid and substantial, and it confirms that the level of misclassification is up to 6 times higher than what speculated by EPA when it performed its corrupt classification of ETS as a class A carcinogen. That classification was vacated by a US federal court. The 16-Cities Study confirms, if there is any further need, that the EPA conclusions are erroneous and exaggerated.
The study is provided with photographic documentation. If the above link does not work, click here.
For more technical details, click here. If the link does not work, click here.
EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND RISK OF ADENOCARCINOMA OF THE LUNG - One more study exonerates second hand smoke. Despite the 'mandatory,' 'politically correct' authors' statement about finding a "weak" risk and lamely trying to explain away the "protective" effect of childhood exposure, the simple fact is that they found no statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer in the home or in the workplace or in the home AND the workplace.
NCI'S MONOGRAPH 10: -- YESTERDAY'S RECYCLED GARBAGE MAKES TODAY'S NEW MANURE - What a joke! The NCI portrays the 1997 Cal/EPA report (which made headlines -- and was debunked -- two years ago) as "new" and "the most comprehensive report on the health risks of second hand smoke ever conducted."
New??? Indeed, the tobacco control gang at NCI must be desperate to try to pull this off to make it appear as if new, fresh "evidence" is coming up. In this subsection we can see that more "studies" on smoking are getting recycled to create the effect of a continuous stream of "evidence" that the antitobacco cartel-related press pumps out for propaganda.
THE STUDY THE WHO DID NOT WANT YOU TO SEE -- MULTICENTER CASE-CONTROL STUDY OF EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND LUNG CANCER IN EUROPE - International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France -- '' RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France -- '' RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16. No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17, with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk 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. ''
To download the entire study CLICK HERE. To read this piece, you must have installed Adobe Acrobat in your computer. This format allows you to quickly download the document, and to reprint it in its original form. Click here to get Adobe Acrobat.
TOXIC TOXICOLOGY: PLACING SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY AT RISK - PUBLIC COMMENT - "Littlewood & Fennell is an independent public and health policy research group, with no ties whatsoever to industry or any government agency. I am here today on my own time and at my own expense to address the clear possibility that the National Toxicology Program has actively undermined the process by which risk assessments should be conducted. NTP overlooked a substantial body of evidence showing uncertainty, vagueness, and lack of statistical support of what is and is not carcinogenic. In addition, NTP conducted its assessments in a manner reminiscent of a rubber stamp proceeding, which favored politics over science."
To read this piece, you must have installed Adobe Acrobat in your computer. This format allows you to quickly download the document, and to reprint it in its original form. Click here to get free Adobe Acrobat Reader.
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING SECONDHAND SMOKE EXPOSURE QUESTIONED - Simon Fraser University researchers report in the in the Oct. 15 American Journal of Epidemiology, "[N]umerous studies of the effects of environmental tobacco smoke have studied the lung cancer risk of nonsmoking wives as a function of their husbands' smoking habits. In these spousal studies, husbands' smoking is being used as a surrogate for [ETS] exposure. The majority of these studies have largely ignored the possibility of confounding from either direct occupational exposure of the subjects or paraoccupational exposure through their spouses. Studies such as that by Fontham, which have made some attempt to control for occupational exposure of the subjects, have used job classification as a surrogate for occupational exposure. If an attempt were made to control for paraoccupational exposure of the wives by their husbands, a somewhat different set of job groupings would likely be used as a surrogate for paraoccupational exposure. In either case, we have a situation in which the exposure variable and the confounder are both being estimated through surrogates, and failure to take this into account in the analysis could lead to erroneous or misleading results..." [ Source: "Recovering True Risks When Multilevel Exposure and Covariable Are Both Misclassified," Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:886-91.] Simon Fraser University researchers report in the in the Oct. 15 American Journal of Epidemiology, "[N]umerous studies of the effects of environmental tobacco smoke have studied the lung cancer risk of nonsmoking wives as a function of their husbands' smoking habits. In these spousal studies, husbands' smoking is being used as a surrogate for [ETS] exposure. The majority of these studies have largely ignored the possibility of confounding from either direct occupational exposure of the subjects or paraoccupational exposure through their spouses. Studies such as that by Fontham, which have made some attempt to control for occupational exposure of the subjects, have used job classification as a surrogate for occupational exposure. If an attempt were made to control for paraoccupational exposure of the wives by their husbands, a somewhat different set of job groupings would likely be used as a surrogate for paraoccupational exposure. In either case, we have a situation in which the exposure variable and the confounder are both being estimated through surrogates, and failure to take this into account in the analysis could lead to erroneous or misleading results..." [ Source: "Recovering True Risks When Multilevel Exposure and Covariable Are Both Misclassified," Am J Epidemiol 1999;150:886-91.]
"...Could lead to erroneous or misleading results..." In simple, proud, politically incorrect English, it is absolutely impossible to figure out which is what when infinitesimally small amounts of chemicals that are common everywhere in most substances, including ETS, are involved. In short, the statement that ETS is dangerous is a fraud.
Fact Sheet on Smoking and the Health of Others - From Forest UK.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke: NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF CARCINOGENICITY - While the anti-tobacco juggernaut seems unstoppable, more and more evidence surfaces to indicate that Environmental Tobacco Smoke causes no harm. This is yet another compelling analysis of the evidence available, prepared by Littlewood & Fennell, P.A., Independent Public & Health Policy Research. But this squashing amount of evidence is ignored by media and politicians, for everybody is busy in looting the tobacco industry, and extortingever more taxes from its customers while destroying the foundations of personal choice and free enterprise. Though ignored, vilified, and spat upon by the dishonest and the ignorant, the truth stands nevertheless, though it does not seem to have much effect on the unfolding events: There is no harm in secondhand smoke.
MORE ETS META BS... BUT THIS TIME, SOMEBODY DISAGREES - "EVEN SECOND-HAND cigarette smoke is bad for your heart, a major study in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded earlier this year. No surprises there. But in addition to publishing the authors' estimate of how dangerous passive smoking is, the journal took the unusual step of running an editorial in the same issue that appeared to rubbish the research findings." If the above link does not work, click here.
THE US FEDERAL COURT DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE - Here is the whole US Federal Court decision. This decision makes liars of all those "professionals" who have exposed themselves by stating that ETS hurts children and adults. It severely questions the integrity of our institutions, and those ministries and department of health who have promoted smoking bans, and manipulated the public opinion into the perception that "smokers are killers". It accuses politicians, health activists, certain doctors, and whoever else has engaged in the persecution of smokers of being corrupted. The anti-smoking cartel has been officially stamped with the truth.
THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL COURT DECISION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE - The total silence of major North American media on virtually any information that could be used against the political agenda of the international anti-tobacco cartel is truly astonishing. The Australian National Health & Medical Research Council was taken to task by the tobacco industry for deliberately suppressing scientific evidence. Justice Finn's findings were eloquent. Justice Finn made subsequent orders that the recommendations contained in the draft report on the estimated costs to the community of passive smoking, and for the elimination of environmental tobacco smoke in public places be taken out, as those recommendations could not be inferred from the evidence contained in the report.
PASSIVE SMOKE: THE EPA'S BETRAYAL OF SCIENCE AND POLICY - This book, by Dr. John Luik and Dr. Gio Gori, may go a considerable way toward changing this state of affairs. It is a powerful and shocking critique of today's science and public policy procedures, highlighting the social and political dangers that these pose. Written in a lively and accessible style, it is an indispensable and timely "wake up call" for both the public health community, and citizens.
The authors address in detail the specific problem of the frauds about Environmental Tobacco Smoke by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States, an agency which has the power to affect many countries outside the US.
Passive Smoking, Coronary Heart Disease, and Meta-Analysis - " Can meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies on this topic provide a more reliable conclusion than a thoughtful review of the usual type? There are reasons to think that it cannot."
These are the words of John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D. University of Chicago. This man has been immediately attacked by the gang of the anti-tobacco cartel (notwithstanding his impeccable credentials - if the link does not work, click here) for speaking the truth and, as a consequence, removing credibility from the propagandists who use manipulated meta-analysis to "prove" the "dangers" of second hand smoke, and as a tool to persecute smokers, lie to the children, and forbid smoking everywhere.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Ischaemic Heart Disease: A Case Study in Applying Causal Criteria - Here is yet another study proving the weak, almost non-existing links between ischaemic heart disease and passive smoke. When looked at in conjunction with science's most recent findings on the infectious nature of heart disease (1), (2), one can clearly see that the attack on personal liberties and choice in lifestyle by the anti-tobacco "health" establishment is nothing more than a social control experiment with financial extortion overtones. There is nothing healthy about undermining scientific principles.
Socioeconomic Status and Indicators of Asthma in Children - Here is a 1995 Canadian study from the Respiratory Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This study shows no association between asthma in children and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. A pet, for example, is much more likely to be associated with child asthma than ETS. Yet, our "honest and concerned" health authorities have never mentioned the existence of this study. Like the large majority of the studies we publish, no tobacco money for this one. This research is another nail in the coffin full of lies of the antismoking gang.
The NTP Board of Scientific Counselors on Carcinogens Subcommittee (excerpt from ETS discussion): A Direct Assault on Key Scientific Principles - Here is yet another piece of evidence of the scientific and moral corruption of anti-smoking "science", and the sold-out scientists at the service of the anti-tobacco cartel. Notwithstanding the ABSOLUTE unreliability of the evidence examined, the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors on Carcinogens Subcommittee decided unanimously what was already politically established: to recommend that ETS be listed as a human carcinogen, in spite of the Osteen ruling. This stomach-turning blatant display of corruption in the face of reality is yet another indication that these gangsters feel protected in their behaviour by the powers that be; thus they can get away with the murder of science for political gain.
Gross and Brown: Dogfighting Over a Non-Existent Bone - We report on a study performed by Alan J. Gross of the Department of Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, concerning the deaths allegedly caused by secondhand smoke, and an ensuing debate with Stephen K. Brown from the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science and Health Behaviour Research Group at the University of Waterloo. Gross, performing the study with a grant from Philip Morris, finds that the deaths attributed to secondhand smoke cannot be substantiated by the data. Of course Brown, notorious mouthpiece of the anti-tobacco cartel, disagrees. After the reported back-and-forth correspondence, where mathematical dexterity is shown in abundance on both sides, Brown pulls the usual stunt of anti-tobacco. ... It is incredible that on these flimsy foundations -- and on these foundations alone -- immense fortunes have been wasted by governments and made by the looters, and an entire sub-economy has been created to support those who out of cheating and lying have made a profession.
Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Coronary Heart Syndromes: Absence Of An Association - The lack of association between secondhand smoking and coronary heart syndrome is clearly and unequivocally demonstrated in this work. The anti-tobacco cartel has gone to great extents in trying to link ETS with heart disease. Faced with its own utter failure, the cartel has then turned to political force and total corruption of science to impose its view, and lie to media and the general public. This criminal behaviour must be punished. For the first time ever, the whole contents of this important work are accessible to the lay person, and to the truly independent researcher. The work is no longer restricted to "political" science, its interpreters, and its corrupted mouthpieces, for the unknown people who post Dr. Gori's works on this anonymous site have now added this one.
Major IARC Study Shown that Secondhand Smoke Poses No Cancer Risk to Children - We are pleased that yet another major study shows that the dangers of secondhand smoke are infinitesimally small -- if they exist at all. But after so many studies on ETS, it is now time to make some serious and sad considerations.
Science, Politics, and Ethics: The Case of Environmental Tobacco Smoke - "The right of individuals to smoke has been a vexing obstacle in the campaign against smoking. Strategists have long sought to restrict this right, if it could be represented that exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) constitutes a health risk. Massive resources have been directed toward producing the desired evidence, but 15 years of investigations have yielded ambiguous results which permit openly hypothetical conjectures."
When You Can Prove that Anti-tobacco Lies, the Perpetrators Just Switch to Another Liar - Thanks to the commendable and relentless work of Wanda Hamilton, it turns out that the colossal fraud by the American Cancer Society (scaled down and parroted, of course, by the Canadian anti-smoking cartel) about the 53,000 lives claimed by secondhand smoke(!!), and attributed to the EPA, never came from that agency. Pushed to the wall and dancing between assorted answers for quite a while, the ACS now admits that the figure comes from professional anti-smoker "spokesman" Stanton Glantz. Not even the EPA has the stomach to lie this much, as they claim "only" 3,000 "victims." The real number, of course, "0," for NOT ONE of the ETS-attributed deaths can be substantiated.
The corrupt media that has promoted the false advertisement is, of course, far from admitting its complicity in the fraud.
The Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in non-smokers exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke - Research article - Dr. Alan J. Gross pulls no punches in this research article on ETS: "The toxicological evidence provided by Glantz and Parmley has been challenged by Wu and by Gori, among others. Moreover, the epidemiologic data considered by Glantz and Parmley are equivocal at best and do not include data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Studies (CPS-I) and (CPS-II and the National Mortality Followback Survey which, when added to the original epidemiologic database considered by Glantz and Parmley, indicate no statistically significant association."
Passive Smokers Inhale 6 Cigarettes per Year - "The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates."
Passive Smoke and Disease: an Incredible Story
List of all the Studies Ever Performed on Second Hand Smoke, Lung Cancer, and Heart Disease - In order to counter the new volley of lies by the anti-tobacco cartel since the exposure of the EPA fraud by the US federal court, FORCES publishes of the complete lists of ALL the studies ever performed on secondhand smoke, lung cancer, and heart disease. The lists are updated to January 1st, 1998.
Lies, Damn Lies... - A CLOSER LOOK AT STATISTICS ON SMOKING AND HEALTH - In these two learned papers Professor Finch does not challenge the often heavily qualified findings of various researchers on the possible effect of smoking on health. As a professional statistician, his only interest is in the way such "facts" are presented to the innocent public for the purposes of propaganda, thus in Part I he documents how public opinion has been turned - often viciously - against smokers for fear of being harmed by 'passive smoking.' It turns out that available research provides no acceptable scientific basis for such a trumped-up danger.
In Part II, he provides a further corrective to alarmist health warnings which can be grasped without specialist statistical knowledge.
Prof. Peter Finch has been Foundation Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Monash University, Australia, since 1964. He has contributed to countless scholarly journals including The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Information Sciences, The Australian Journal of Statistics, The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Acta Mathematica Scientia, Biometrics, The European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, as well as to such books as The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, The Encyclopedia of Statistical Science and The Foundations of Statistical Theories in the Physical Sciences.
Science You Won't Read in Your Daily Newspaper - You don't see this information published in the newspapers. You don't hear it from the politicians. The antismoking lobbyists maintain utter silence, of course. Talking about it is not "kosher." But it is true. In this easy-to-understand compendium written by Martha Perske, and published on the site of the National Smokers Alliance, we see the simple, plain truth: NONE of the "studies" about the dangers of secondhand smoke has indicated any statistically significant increase of danger for health in non-smokers exposed to it. In fact, NONE of the studies but one has found ANY LINK AT ALL. Download this important page and use it against the crooks, the misinformed, and the fanatics who are determined to tell everyone else how to live their lives.
The Response of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council to B.C. Ministry of Health Misinformation - We cannot think of any better way to highlight the shameful ignorance and incompetence of the BC Ministry of Health than this letter from the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council to the new BC Minister of Health, Penny Priddy, in response to a recent speech and antitobacco campaign by Joy MacPhail (past Minister). Read and download this letter for future reference, for it corrects a number of "facts" that the antismoking cartel uses to lie to the population, and to our children in school. The Ministry of Health, for example, confuses Propylene glycol, a harmless food additive used in cigarettes, with poisonous Ethyl glycol, used -- among other things -- in automobiles' radiators as antifreeze. Yet, the propaganda machine of the M. of H. says and prints that tobacco companies use antifreeze as additive in tobacco! Honest ignorance, or dishonest misrepresentation? Either way, these individuals are allowed to regulate health resources, interfere with business, and over regulate our lives.
ETS Heart Disease Study Is Epidemiologic Malpractice - This study is fraudulent, because the authors knowingly left out the risk factors that really cause excess heart disease in smokers and in passive smokers. And Howard's boast to the media that "We threw the kitchen sink at the data, and still couldn't make it go away," (Knight-Ridder) is an outright lie. This study and the editorial also fail to mention Helicobacter pylori and Chlamydia pneumoniae infection, which many studies have linked to cardiovascular disease. Nor is there mention of C-reactive protein, a general marker of inflammation.
Continuous Assessment of Indoor Fine Particles With a Portable Nephelometer - The following paper describes the results of a study completed in 1996 in Vancouver. Here are some conclusions we may infer from the discussion of results: (1) There is little difference between the non-smoking restaurants and the non-smoking sections of restaurants with designated smoking areas. (2) Cooking can lead to particulate levels in non-smoking establishments as high as those in establishments that allow smoking. Introduction by Stephen Stewart, PhD., P.Eng.
A Response to: "Towards Healthier Communities in Nova Scotia: a Discussion Paper" - We are proud to present one of the most powerful critiques of the ETS scam ever written. In this Paper, John Luik destroys one by one all the false statements and junk science pertinent to ETS. In plain English, devoid of the technicalities that can confuse the lay person, John shows how the corrupted junk scientists, the antismokers, and the public health authorities have betrayed the trust of the taxpaying citizens in ways that are, in our opinion, morally, politically and even legally nothing short of criminal, and as such they should be legally prosecuted, and punished accordingly.
Who Did Them? - After the publication of the bibliography "Childhood ETS Does Not Cause Lung Cancer" antismokers and their parrots in the media barked: "Studies paid by the tobacco industry!" If there is something the antismoking dogs don't have, it is imagination. Don't they get tired of always barking the same song? Of course, the studies are NOT paid by the tobacco industry, but they ARE contrary to these dogs' agenda! Inside, the complete list of the funding, study by study.
ETS Does Not Cause Otitis Media - Here we examine one of the most utilized lies of the antismoking cartel: ETS causes middle ear infection in children. The analysis of this important, non-tobacco funded study clearly disproves ANY ASSOCIATION between ETS and otitis media. Yet the racket of the non-profits, the gangs of certain medical associations, and their enablers in the public health departments go around promoting absurd lies about this issue, while innocent people drink it all in.
Workplace ETS Does Not Cause Lung Cancer - The antismoking cartel is investing a lot of tax money in pushing absurdity to credibility: ETS kills. Of course, this is a lie motivated by dollars and political gains, as proven not just by electronic emission analyzers, but even by science. Of course, the last statement refers to science that has not been tampered with, such as the two latest "hits" recently published on the BMJ, where the confidence intervals were at 90 as opposed to 95%, and where important studies demonstrating no association with ETS were excluded, and junk studies not considered even by antismoking gangs like the EPA were included to create statistical significance.
The CRS Report - Testimony May 11,1994 Jane E. Gravelle senior specialist Congressional Research Service Senate Environment/Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Health Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (Complete original document - 0.98 Mb) - "Our evaluation of that evidence led to two conclusions: first, the evidence that passive smoking causes disease is far less certain than the effects for active smoking; second, the health costs of these potential passive smoking effects, which we translated into a tax per pack, are likely to be quite small." Click here to get a free copy of Adobe Acrobat.
The CRS Report - The US Congressional Research Study that criticizes, even discredits, the findings of EPA on Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
European Working Group on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer - A tobacco industry funded study disproving the dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Airliner Cabin Environment: Contaminant Measurements, Health Risks, and Mitigation Options - The DIRECT MEASUREMENT study (no statistics) commissioned by US Department Of Transport to ascertain the dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. When it demonstrated that it takes over 48,000 hrs of exposure to ETS to inhale the equivalent of one cigarette, it was quickly buried!
Never Smoker Lung Cancer Risks From Exposure To Particulate Tobacco Smoke - A study that demonstrates that the dangers of being struck by lightening (one in a million) far exceed the dangers of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
A Critical Examination of OSHA's Assessment Of Risk Associated With Workplace Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke - A Canadian study demonstrating the methodology flaws on the danger assessments of Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Assessment of Volatile Hydrocarbons from Tobacco Smoke and from Vehicle Emissions - A DIRECT MEASUREMENT study (no statistics) from Sweden. This one demonstrates that a person driving a car downtown is exposed to the same amounts of pollutants as being in a smoky cafe`... but kids are not forbidden from riding in cars!
Ischemic Heart Disease And Spousal Smoking In The National Mortality Followback Survey - "No overall spousal smoking-heart disease risk elevation was observed for either males or females", this study says.
Analysis Of The California EPA Report On Secondhand Smoke - The latest weapon of the antismoking industry is dismantled in this analysis. Manipulated charts & figures, lack of solid links, unverified data... More of the same in the construction of the "mountain of evidence" against smoking.
Assessment of air quality in Stockholm by personal monitoring of nonsmokers for respirable suspended particles and environmental tobacco smoke - This study of actual exposure to ETS supports Jenkins' work, and confirms that non-smokers working with smokers would be exposed to 0.1-0.2 cigarette equivalent at work. It also says "Over 70% of all the nicotine measurements and 60% of all the ETS measurements were below the LOQ [Limits of Quantification]"
Assessment Of Non-Smokers' Exposure To Environmental Tobacco Smoke Using Personal-Exposure And Fixed-Location Monitoring - This demonstrates the feasibility of applying available advanced ventilation systems to dilute secondhand smoke (ETS) to a level that is below the most rigid standards. Once again, this is a direct measurement study -- no statistics. You will notice that, in order to read the emissions of ETS, the instrumentation had to be sensitive enough to pick up emissions from common office glue, and inks!
Parental Smoking Does Not Cause Kids Cancer - There have been a number of studies investigating possible links between parental smoking and childhood cancer, and the media only publicized the ones which claimed big risks. But considering the numbers of cases in other studies, the evidence is overwhelming that there is no association between parental smoking and childhood cancer, especially with leukemia, the most-hyped supposed risk.
Childhood ETS Does Not Cause Lung Cancer - The EPA has no justification for pretending that childhood exposure to ETS causes lung cancer later. The overall relative risk from 11 studies worldwide is 0.96 (0.85-1.09) (Lee PN. [Letter]. JNCI 1993;85(9):748), which is unequivocally no risk. 75% of US subjects were in studies with risks of LESS THAN one. But instead of revealing these statistics to the public, the anti-smoking demagogues cherry-pick the highest risk and misrepresent it as the weight of the evidence, and the media collude with their deceit.
Socioeconomic Status and Indicators of Asthma in Children - Here is a 1995 Canadian study from the Respiratory Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This study shows no association between asthma in children and Environmental Tobacco Smoke. A pet, for example, is much more likely to be associated with child asthma than ETS. Yet, our "honest" health authorities have never mentioned the existence of this study. Like the large majority of the studies we publish, no tobacco money for this one. This research is another nail in the coffin full of lies of the antismoking gang.
The EPA's "Background ETS" And Other Frauds - An analysis of how EPA manipulated the figures to get at the famous false figure of 3,000 death a year from secondhand smoke by using EPA's own tables! The great crime of the tax-funded "health" organizations is the use of credibility gained in the past for the dissemination of conclusions that cannot possibly be verified by the lay person for both lack of data, and knowledge. Non tax-funded, or unbiased scientists who can see through the manipulation of data are promptly discredited as tobacco sympathizers, and don't find a voice in the media. We are attempting to simplify the analytical process to make it more comprehensible for the lay person.
No Positive Evidence Of a Link Between SIDS and Second Hand Smoking - The Childrens' Hospital of Los Angeles exposes the antismoking industry's lies about a "link" between secondhand smoking and Sidden Infant Death Syndrome: NO EVIDENCE.
Plain False Statements About ETS: Confusion By The Numbers - Hold onto your hats. Antismoking gangsters and their media accomplices issued this news report via Associated Press on March 2, 1997. In it, you read that a study finds that secondhand smoke kills 4,700 nonsmoking Californians each year, while 35,000 to 62,000 ETS-related deaths take place nationwide, 4,200 to 7,400 in California alone. We're told lung cancer caused by environmental tobacco smoke kills 3,000 Americans each year, 360 of them Californians. Meanwhile, a Harvard study claims that 6,700 children a year are killed by ETS. Why is it that EPA has kept a skeptical distance from the 30,000-death ETS figure, while this California report modifies it to a wide 35,000 to 62,000? In the meantime, the American Medical Association talks about 53,000 non-smokers killed by ETS year, while New York City's Public Advocate Mark Green claims that 100,000 Americans are killed by ETS. Confused? So are we. The criminal shotgun practice of scaring the public by throwing out enormous, random, up-in-the-air death figures is well known by anyone who is involved in the fight against this fraud. But here is something you don't know: THIS "STUDY" IS NOT A STUDY.
The Text of the Epidemiologist's Review of EPA Report on Passive Smoking - FORCES Canada has come in possession of this interesting document. It was written by the EPA's reviewing Epidemiologist. The 1992 EPA study on passive smoking is the "big gun" of the antismoking industry, fired continuously to add credibility to their claims. Well, read the comments yourself. Then consider that this study is at the base of US and Canadian government decisions to suppress the right to smoke, and to interfere into the lives of citizens, and their business. If the big gun is this flawed, what about the rest of the ammunitions?
Text Of EPA's Research And Development Environmental Criteria And Assessment Office (EPA Report On Passive Smoking) - More hard evidence about the EPA's political manipulation of data on passive smoking. This time, here is the communication of the Criteria and Assessment Office to the EPA's Directorate. Notice the opposition of the Assessment Office to the classification of passive smoking as a Class A carcinogen because of lack of evidence. ETS does not deserve this classification, but the politicians know better. They know when it's time to lie to the nation, to the world, and to the foolish believers. PLEASE NOTE: all original evidence on file.
Oral Comments to CAL-EPA on Section 7.2 of External Review Draft - Excerpt: ETS and Lung Cancer - A report written by Dr. William Butler, Ph.D. showing the faulty conclusions of the EPA classification of secondhand smoke. The EPA report was largely based on the Fontham Study. In studying the raw data, Dr. Butler found MAJOR errors in the report the EPA used as a main guideline to take action against smoking. Coming soon, the full report as submitted to the U.S. Dept of Labor denouncing the "conclusions" of the Fontham study. It states why the secondhand smoke classification is based on untruths and misclassification. | |
|
Rhett1
|
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 117 | |
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 2:57:48 PM | Texas:
girlee girl13, there have been many, many studies. None conclusive and it's never been proven that cigarettes cause cancer. The people who say so ~ are usually the ones not wanting you to see or care about the real pollutants known to do so.
Don't be spoon fed, while worse carcinogens are being shoved down your throat.
My cigarette pack says something about smoking MAY cause low birth weight. Yeah, that means that there's a chance...is that okay to you? You're willing to take a chance on having an unhealthy baby?
You keep trying diversionary tactics to make an argument...yes, junk food causes health problems, yes there are carcinogens in foods....but are you aware that doesn't change the fact, for even a second, that cigarettes cause cancer?
Oh wait, apparently, they don't...
it's never been proven that cigarettes cause cancer Considering many of the 100's of ingredients in cigarettes are known carcinogens, please don't be so silly. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:08:32 PM | Below is an alphabetized reference to known carcinogens. You are in contact with these EVERYDAY and nobody says a word.
A-alpha-C (2-Amino-9H-pyrido[2,3-b]indole)
Acetaldehyde
Acetamide
Acetochlor
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acifluorfen
Acridine
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylonitrile
Actinomycin D
Adriamycin (Doxorubicin hydrochloride)
AF-2;[2-(2-furyl)-3-(5-nitro-2-furyl)]acrylamide
Aflatoxins
Agaritine
Alachlor
Aldrin
Allyl chloride
Allyl glycidyl ether
Allyl isothiocyanate
Allyl isovalerate
Aluminium products
2-Aminoanthraquinone
p-Aminoazobenzene
o-Aminoazotoluene [solvent yellow 3]
4-Aminobiphenyl (4-aminodiphenyl)
3-Amino-9-ethylcarbazole hydrochloride
1-Amino-2-methylanthraquinone
Amitrole
Ammonium dichromate
Analgesic mixtures containing phenacetin
Androgenic (anabolic) steroids
Aniline
ortho-Anisidine
ortho-Anisidine hydrochloride
para-anisidine
anthanthrene
Antimony oxide (antimony trioxide)
Aramite
Arsenic (inorganic arsenic compounds)
Asbestos
Auramine
Azaserine
Azathioprine
Azacitidine
Azobenzene
Azathioprine
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzene
Benzidine [and its salts]
Benzidine-based dyes
Benzofluoranthene
Benzo[j]fluoranthene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Benzofuran
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzotrichloride
Benzyl chloride
Benzyl violet 4B
Beryllium and beryllium compounds
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
N,N-Bis(2-chloroethyl)-2- naphthylamine (Chlornapazine)
Bischloroethyl nitrosourea (BCNU) (Carmustine)
Bis(chloromethyl)ether and technical-grade chloromethyl methyl ether
Bitumens, extracts of steam-refined and air refined
Bleomycins
Bracken fern
Bromodichloromethane
2-bromoethyl ether
Bromoform
1,3-Butadiene
1,4-Butanediol dimethanesulfonate (Busulfan, myleran)
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
t-butyl methyl ether
beta-Butyrolactone
Cadmium and cadmium compounds
Caffeic acid
Captafol
Captan
Carbazole
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbon-black extracts
Carrageenan, degraded
Ceramic fibers (airborne particles of respirable size)
Chlorambucil
Chloramphenicol
chlorbenzilat
Chlordane
Chlordecone (Kepone)
Chlordimeform
Chlorendic acid
Chlorinated Parrafins
alpha-Chlorinated toluenes
p-Chloroaniline
Chlormadinone aceate
Chlornaphazine[n,n-bis(2-chloroethyl)-2-naphthylamine]
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea (CCNU) (Lomustine)
1-(2-Chloroethyl)-3-(4-methylcyclohexyl)-1-nitrosourea (Methyl-CCNU)
Chloroform
Chloromethyl methyl ether
3-Chloro-2-methylpropene
4-Chloro-ortho-phenylenediamine
p-Chloro-o-toluidine
Chlorophenols
Chlorophenoxy herbicides
Cloroprene
Chlorothalonil
Chlorozotocin
Chromium
Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
Chrysene
C.I. Acid Red 114
C.I. Basic Red 9 monohydrochloride
Ciclosporin (Cyclosporin A; Cyclosporine)
Cinnamyl anthranilate
Cisplatin
Citrus Red No. 2
Clofibrate
Coal gasification products
Coal-tars and pitches
Cobalt metal powder
Cobalt [II] oxide
Conjugated estrogens
Copper acetoarsenite
Creosotes
Crystal violet
para-Cresidine
Cupferron
Cycasin
Cyclamates
1,4-cyclohexadiene
Cyclophosphamide (anhydrous)
Cyclophosphamide (hydrated)
D&C Orange No. 17
D&C Red No. 8
D&C Red No. 9
D&C Red No. 19
Dacarbazine
Daminozide
Dantron (Chrysazin; 1,8-Dihydroxyanthraquinone)
dapsone
Daunomycin
DCM
DDD (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
DDE (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
DDVP (Dichlorvos)
Decabromodiphenyl ether
N,N'-Diacetylbenzidine
2,4-Diaminoanisole
2,4-Diaminoanisole sulfate
4,4'-Diaminodiphenyl ether (4,4'-Oxydianiline)
2,4-Diaminotoluene
Diaminotoluene (mixed)
Dibenz[a,h]acridine
Dibenz[a,j]acridine
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[c,g]carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,i]pyrene
Dibenzo[a,l]pyrene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dibromoethane
2,3-Dibromo-1-propanol
p-Dichlorobenzene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine dihydrochloride
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
3,3'-Dichloro-4,4'-diaminodiphenyl ether
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride)
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Dichloropropene
Dieldrin
Dienestrol
Diepoxybutane
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1,2-Diethylhydrazine
Diethyl sulfate
DES, Diethylstilbestrol
Diglycidyl resorcinol ether (DGRE)
Dihydrosafrole
Diisopropyl sulfate
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine (ortho-Dianisidine)
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine dihydrochloride (ortho-dianisidine dihydrochloride)
para-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
trans-2-[(Dimethylamino)methylimino]-5-[2-(5-nitro-2-furyl)vinyl]-1,3,4- oxadiazole
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine (ortho-Tolidine)
3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine dihydrochloride
Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride
1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)
1,2-Dimethylhydrazine
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimethylvinyl Chloride
2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene
1,6-Dinitropyrene
1,8-Dinitropyrene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,4-Dioxane
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (hydrazobenzene)
Diphenylhydantoin (Phenytoin)
Diphenylhydantoin (Phenytoin), sodium salt
Direct Black 38
Direct Blue 6
Direct Brown 95
Disperse Blue 1
Epichlorohydrin
Erionite
Estradiol 17B
Estrogens (not conjugated)
Estradiol-17
Estrone
Ethinylestradiol
Mestranol
Estrone
Ethinylestradiol
Ethyl acrylate
Ethyl methanesulfonate
Ethyl-4,4'-dichlorobenzilate
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene dichloride (1,2-Dichloroethane)
N-Ethyl-N-nitrosourea
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene thiourea
Ethyleneimine
Folpet
Formaldehyde (gas or aqueous solution)
2-(2-Formylhydrazino)-4-(5-nitro-2-furyl) thiazole
Furan
Furazolidone
Furmecyclox
Fusarin C
Glasswool fibers (airborne particles of respirable size)
Glu-P-1 (2-Amino-6-methyldipyrido[1,2- a:3', 2'-d]imidazole)
Glu-P-2 (2-Aminodipyrido[1,2-a:3',2'-d]imidazole)
Glycidaldehyde
Glycidol
Griseofulvin
Gyromitrin (Acetaldehyde methylformylhydrazone)
HC Blue 1
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexanes
Hexachlorodibenzodioxin
Hexachloroethane
Hexamethylphosphoramide
Hydrazine
Hydrazine dihydrobromide
Hydrazine sulfate
Hydroquinone
Hydroxybutyric acid lactone
Indeno [1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Indium trichloride
IQ (2-Amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
Iron dextran complex
Isosafrole
Kepone (Chlordecone)
Lactofen
Lasiocarpine
Lead
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate
Lindane and other hexachlorocyclohexane isomers
Mancozeb
Maneb
Me-A-alpha-C (2-Amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido[2, 3-b]indole)
Medroxyprogesterone acetate
MeIQ(2-Amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline)
MeIQx(2-Amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline)
Melphalan
Merphalan
Mestranol
2-Methylaziridine (Propyleneimine)
Methylazoxymethanol
Methylazoxymethanol acetate
3-Methylcholanthrene
5-Methylchrysene
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) (MOCA)
4,4'-Methylene bis(N,N-dimethyl)benzenamine
4,4'-Methylene bis(2-methylaniline)
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4,4'-Methylenedianiline dihydrochloride
Methylhydrazine and its salts
Methyl chloromethyl ether
Methyl-CCNU
Methyl iodide
Methyl methanesulfonate
2-Methyl-1-nitroanthraquinone
N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG)
N-Methyl-N-nitrosourea
N-Methylolacrylamide
Methylthiouracil
Metiram
Metronidazole
Michler's ketone
Mineral Oils, untreated and mildly treated
Mirex
Mitomycin C
MOPP
Monocrotaline
5-(Morpholinomethyl)-3-[(5-nitro-fufurylidene)-amino]-2-oxazolidinone
Mustard gas
Nafenopin
1-Naphthylamine
2-Naphthylamine
3-Naphthylamine
Nickel and certain nickel compounds
Nickel carbonyl
Nickel subsulfide
Niridazole
Nitrilotriacetic acid
Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt monohydrate
5-Nitroacenaphthene
5-Nitro-o-anisidine
o-Nitroanisole
4-Nitrobiphenyl
6-Nitrochrysene
Nitrofen
2-Nitrofluorene
Nitrofurazone
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)amino]-2-imidazollidinone
1-[(5-Nitrofurfurylidene)-N-[4-(5-Nitro-2-furyl)-2 thiazolyl]acetamide
Nitrogen mustard (Mechlorethamine)
Nitrogen mustard hydrochloride (Mechlorethamine hydrochloride)
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide
Nitrogen mustard N-oxide hydrochloride
2-Nitropropane
4-Nitropyrene
N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
p-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine
N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea
3-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)propionitrile
4-(N-Nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitroso-N-methylurea
N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosonornicotine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
N-Nitrososarcosine
Norethisterone (Norethindrone)
Ochratoxin A
Oestrogen, nonstreoidal
Oestrogen, steroidal
Oil Orange SS
4,4'-Oxydianiline
Oxadiazon
Oxymetholone
Oxazepam
Panfuran S
Pentachlorophenol
Perylene
Phenacetin
Phenazopyridine hydrochloride
Phenesterin
Phenobarbital
Phenolphthalein
Phenoxybenzamine
Phenoxybenzamine hydrochloride
Phenyl glycidyl ether
Phenylhydrazine and its salts
o-Phenylphenate, sodium
2-phenylphenol
Phenytoin
PhiP(2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazol[4,5-b]pyridine)
Polybrominated biphenyls
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Polygeenan
Ponceau MX
Ponceau 3R
Potassium bromate
Potassium dichromate
Procarbazine
Procarbazine hydrochloride
Procymidone
Progesterone
Progestins
1,3-Propane sultone
Progargite
beta-Propiolactone
Propylene oxide
Propylthiouracil
Pyridinium chlorochromate
Radionuclides
Radon
Reserpine
Residual (heavy) fuel oils
Rhodamine 101
Saccharin
Saccharin, sodium
Safrole
Selenium sulfide
Shale-oils
Silica, crystalline (airborne particles of respirable size)
Sodium chromate tetrahydrate
Sodium dichromate
Sodium hexafluoroarsenate(V)
Sodium ortho-phenylphenate
Sterigmatocystin
Streptozotocin
Strontium chromate
Styrene
Styrene oxide
Sulfallate
Sulfur trioxide
Sulphur trioxide N,N-dimethylformamide complex
Talc containing asbestiform fibers
Terrazole
Testosterone and its esters
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD)
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene (Perchloroethylene)
p-a,a,a-Tetrachlorotoluene
3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine
Tetranitromethane
Thioacetamide
4,4'-Thiodianiline
Thiourea
Thorium dioxide
Tobacco, oral use of smokeless products
Tobacco smoke
Toluene diisocyanate
p-toluenesulphonic acid
ortho-Toluidine
ortho-Toluidine hydrochloride
para-Toluidine
Toxaphene
Treosulfan (Tresoluphan)
Trichlormethine (Trimustine hydrochloride)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
Triphenyltin hydroxide
Trichloroethylene
Tris(aziridinyl)-para-benzoquinone (Triaziquone)
Tris(1-aziridinyl)phosphine sulfide (Thiotepa)
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate
Tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate
TRIZMA base
Trp-P-1 (Tryptophan-P-1) (3-Amino-1,4-dimethyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trp-P-2 (Tryptophan-P-2) (3-Amino-1-methyl-5H-pyrido[4,3-b]indole)
Trypan blue
Uracil mustard
Urethane (Ethyl carbamate)
Vinyl bromide
Vinyl chloride
4-Vinyl-1-cyclohexene diepoxide (Vinyl cyclohexene dioxide)
n-vinyl pyrollidone
Vinyl pivalate
Vinyl trichloride (1,1,2-Trichloroethane)
2,6-Xylidine (2,6-Dimethylaniline)
Now pick your poison.
Just what's gonna kill ya ?
Most of these you have ON YOUR BODY everyday ! You dress your children in them, you clean with them and many are inside your car.
| |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:17:29 PM | >>>>So you agree cars should be banned?
>>>I know this was not addressed to me, but my answer is YES
Well, at least some peoples stances are consistent..... | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:17:45 PM | Impressive list. Not sure if that's what's in tobacco or all the other stuff.
However, NICOTINE is a poison sooooo deadly that one drop of pure nicotine on your skin is enough to kill you quickly | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:22:36 PM | ^^^
Good point SunnyTexas
I think we can outlaw just about everything and live in plastic bubbles ...but , that is not very practical .
I would say that we should put our energies into legitimate research into cancer and finding a cure.
That certainly does not mean blindly throwing more money at the big pharma monopoly.
I think the answer to much of our ill health lies in our immune systems.
Something in our environment is damaging our immune systems , and I really do not think it is tobacco.
There are three essential factors to good health : ...immune system , immune system and immune system.
What is tampering with our immune systems?
How do we improve our immune system health?
Those should be the most important questions.
This whole anti- tobacco agenda is counter-productive...and a big diver$ion .
Let's not just spin our wheels when it comes to public health , it's just too important an issue . | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:43:22 PM | That's correct cedar77, we are on the wrong path.
I do believe we are predisposed to the immune system breakdown according to our DNA. It's all a crapshoot. As hard as we try....I don't wanna be in a hospital at 95...a dyin' of NOTHIN !
cageforfun, that list is known carcinogens. I wasn't listing chemicals in cigarettes, but feel free to do so. I'll research the list of chemicals emitted from refineries. You take on the cigs. I'll take on the WORLD ! ! ! haha...j/k | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:45:26 PM | | I have never smoked and agree with this law. If you want to smoke that is your business but if you have young children and you are filling there lungs with smoke that is poor parenting. My ex and her husband both smoke like trains and when I pick up my kids I can easliy smell it. I once went inside her apartment and couldn't help but notice the nicotine settlement on her TV screen. Now just think of a young child being exposed to this. Where do you think it goes? Would you want your kids to smoke? I f not then you are being a bad role model for them because most people that smoke had parents that smoked.. I realize it is an addiction and not easy to quit but it shouldn't be forced on your kids are anybody elses. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:52:48 PM | I figure the gov't should just stay out of health issues, except to provide health care. Nothing "pre-emptive". Why? Because at 65 when you are no longer any use to them as a taxpayer, you are shuffled off to a home or whatever and expected to die in a relatively short span, thereby saving them billions per year. Death is a great leveler. Maybe they should enforce smoking! The taxes alone more than covers any medical expenses involved...most smokers die off long before they "use up" the tax money they paid out over the years. there was a study done on that and it made the news and was quickly buried. No use pointing out the "good things" or adding another fact to the benefits to society that smoking brings. Stress relief is a major factor and may well prevent many coronary attacks and stress related problems.
Anyhow's....if it is in my home, gov't doesn't belong. | |
|
| No smoking in car with minors
Posted: 10/15/2007 3:56:39 PM | blah, blah, blah...
Smoking is frickin' gross!!! I smoked for years and finally quit 11 yrs ago. Nothing worse thing being in a closed space with a cig going; smoke floating down your throat... ugghh! Not only does it make me gag; I smell like an ashtray for the rest of the day - smoke loves to stick to the hair. It also gives a person horrendous breath... uggh!
No-one should smoke around children... that's just wrong. It's poison and it kills... go ahead and poison yourself; but don't friggin' poison your kids... it doesn't matter if it's "your" car if you are a parent - it's a parent's responsibility to protect their children from harm... and smoking is definitely harmful! Bad enough we gotta breathe in the rest of the crap in the air... yuk!
Gawd, if you need a smoke that bad, pull over and smoke outside for a few minutes! | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
