where to begin?
In no particular order:
Otsuko himself didn't even say "can," he said, repeatedly, "may." So even Otsuko doesn't know that it "can."
Dr Siegel, you keep repeating "in healthy nonsmokers," but
a) ASH has covered a whole gamut of 'healthy" people (like everyone over 40-- anyone who doesn't get "enough" exercize, or has "high" cholesterol --with "high" getting lower and lower every day to raise the Lipitor market, and
b) you've yet to prove that a passing whiff on a sidewalk could endanger even the feeblest imaginable human being.
However, once you buy into ASH's proposition, the fact that "30 minutes" in itself is non lethal, begins to become irrelevant. Since everybody walks down the street every day, that's 30 minutes a day! or even twice on the same day! So everybody's doomed-- getting this lethally chronic,/i> exposure.
Comparing a sidewalk or a beach to Otsuko (whose experment was in an unventilated room where, if I recall, a lot of smokers were smoking) is ostentatiously nonsensical (and forget that Otsuko showed no damage anyway.) Outdoors is -- how can i put this--outdoors. Talk about ventilation. Talk about volume dilution. And dealing with a sidewalk, talk about duration.
But all that aside, I'm afraid I do believe that the scapegoaters everywhere will climb on this wagon, the hate-seed's been sewn, and the threat of lawsuits will prod them over the edge,
Way past time for you to wait for retractions, or expect humility, or write polite letters. And way past time to just sit there wringing your hands, You've got the credibility to howl from the rooftops-- to get to the media-- to stop this fascism dead in its foul tracks. Later will be too late.
:
Walt is completely correct, you have the credibility to get to the media.
Checks and balances have been destroyed.
"A Lie told often enough becomes the truth"
-Lenin-
Glister, I believe that is a quote form Goebbles. Still relevent though.
And not to beat a dead horse, but PM2.5, acrolien, benzo-a-pyrene, carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene, ammonia, and all these other bad sounding chemicals are the same whether or not the come from a ciagrette, or from an internal combustion engine.
The main difference is that an internal combustion engine produces realeases much more of these same chemicals than a cigarette.
Wow, sorry for the typos in that last post. You still get my drift.
Glister, I believe that is a quote form Goebbles. Still relevent though.
Not only relevant, but probably tobacco controls daily affirmation, repeated every hour on the hour.
I had to look it up, Found:
Joseph Goebbels said “if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Winston Churchil said “a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Nikolai Lenin believed “a lie told often enough becomes truth”.
Ed-
Aren't many of those awful sounding chemicals you say come from internal combustion engines as well as cigarettes found with any form of combustion like that of campfires, leaves, or, for that matter, any plant?
This is just becoming a free for all,with ever more absurd and preposterous "facts" which have more in common with The Brothers Grimm than any basis in science.Smoking AKA smokers must be eradicated at all costs,tell the public whatever, in order to reach this objective.How far down the line must we go before this dream ticket the rabids have been given finally comes to an end.Remove their funding if ,as they are doing,corruption continues outside the confines of known science.Prove what you are spouting or pay back the handouts you have been given.Bleed them dry.
While we are on the subject of ASH...this just in with regard to research into the production of safer cigarettes:
http://www.magentanews.com/cache...e.asp?
n=1959036
Since I have previously confessed to naivete, can someone please explain why Ms Arnott (ASH mouthpiece) would be so set against a safer cigarette?
Her rejection of such a thing seems wildly out of place, and decidedly illogical.
Colin
Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, said: "The problem with cigarettes is the inhaling of smoke. You can tinker about with the materials in the cigarette, but inhaling smoke is so dangerous that the particular blend of toxic constituents will not make much difference.
"The fact is that you are burning something and inhaling the smoke and that will always be harmful. However you tinker around with it, smoke damages your lungs.
"The danger with developing a product like this is the implication that a low-toxic cigarette is somehow less harmful, which will reassure smokers and could stop some giving up.
A very simplified view.
Didn't we reduce the hazard of car exhausts? For those who lived in the 50 and 60, they may remember the famous smog in London.
If you look at the difference between a full tar cigarette, smokeless tobacco and ultimately NRT, there is some leeway for improvement. Shouldn't the perspective of reducing the number of tobacco-related deaths by half be the dream of every anti-tobacco movement? Surely more effective than R-rating movies.
We didn't eliminate cars completely either, but we reduced the number of fatalities despite the multiplication of the number of cars in circulation.
There is no such thing as a riskless life.
"The danger with developing a product like this is the implication that a low-toxic cigarette is somehow less harmful, which will reassure smokers and could stop some giving up."
The old quit-or-die argument.
Benpal,
When you boil it right down, they just want to eradicate tobacco. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes.
Safer cigarettes just dont pay the mortgage.
When you have a black belt in interfering in peoples lives, the compulsion to control must be overwhelming.
Sensei Arnott appears to be a black belt, fifth Dan.
Having thought about it a great deal, I would rather live for 65 years under my terms, than a thousand years under hers.
Arnott is well known to get hysterical when pushed to respond to reasonable questions,and will shout down someone who disagrees with her position.FOREST have documented the joint interview with i think Clarke (main speaker,chair of FOREST)and her on if i remember correctly radio 4 a while ago.She typifies the mentality of a rabid,since we smoke tobacco ,we are of the lemming breed and unable to participate in the human race as individuals who are perfectly able to function adequately.We must therefore accept that we do not know what is best for ourselves and must leave the decision making to her and her brethren.Makes you wanna puke really doesn't it ?
Sensei Arnott appears to be a black belt, fifth Dan.
Either that Colin, or she has consumed a 5th of Dan, Jack Daniels, that is 
No way is Arnott really a black belt??
Im red belt!!
Mike wrote:
"There is, in my opinion, simply no justification for invoking the state's police powers to regulate smoking on streets and sidewalks, places where people are free to move about and where, in most situations, people can simply avoid substantial exposure to secondhand smoke. And I am aware of no scientific evidence that secondhand smoke exposure on streets and sidewalks is a significant public health problem."
I'm not aware of scientific evidence that being naked, smoking marijuana or littering on a street or sidewalk are public health problems, but doing so is illegal in all 50 states.
Even drinking a beer (or carrying an open container of beverage alcohol) on a street or sidewalk is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Mike needs to realize that many different laws prohibit or restrict many different activities that are not public health problems.
Exactly - but the reason why behaviors are regulated that are not public health problems is that they represent a moral affront or a public nuisance. Nudity, for example, is prohibited because it is a moral affront.
So what Bill is basically saying is that secondhand smoke should be regulated because smokers are a moral affront, or because smokers are a public nuisance.
Sorry, but I don't go along with either of those arguments.
I'm not aware of scientific evidence that being naked, smoking marijuana or littering on a street or sidewalk are public health problems, but doing so is illegal in all 50 states.
Maybe it shouldn't be illegal at all, law shouldn't replace common sense. There's no common sense for making smoking illegal.
Even drinking a beer (or carrying an open container of beverage alcohol) on a street or sidewalk is illegal in most jurisdictions.
How is drinking a beer on a street different from drinking beer at home? Such laws don't exist at all in European countries. Remnants from the prohibition era?
Mike needs to realize that many different laws prohibit or restrict many different activities that are not public health problems. If there is no sense for a law, it makes no sense. Just because Bill Godshall wants a law might not be a sufficient reason to justify one. Man is born free.
One has to be very careful in his food intake and lifestyle if he has diabetes Gestational Diabetes Resources
Cheers
JT
Great blog with good informations and pictures.
Thank you for this interesting blog.
I have bookmarked it.
Greetz Franz from
Limousinenservice in Munich
Commenting by HaloScan
