Gay pride parade 'bumping and grinding' offend Tea Party hero & NY governor hopeful

WinterBorn said:
Quite right. Bu cigarettes are perfectly legal. And I am not forcing anyone into my business. I am serving smokers. If I was a nonsmoking place, do you think people would quit smoking?

If it is so paramount that people be protected from smoking, why are they legal?
Click to expand...

Perfectly Legal? Why can't kids buy cigarettes? Are you making the argument that somehow a 'law' would remove the health hazards of cigarette smoke?

I really don't have a problem with letting establishments choose if they want to be a smoking or non smoking establishment, as long as any current employees that don't want to be in that environment are assisted in finding a new job.
 
Bfgrn said:
Perfectly Legal? Why can't kids buy cigarettes? Are you making the argument that somehow a 'law' would remove the health hazards of cigarette smoke?.
Click to expand...

Quite the contrary. I have not made any claims about the health hazards of cigarettes. And I do not believe that is the issue. Individual freedom and property rights are the issue.



Bfgrn said:
I really don't have a problem with letting establishments choose if they want to be a smoking or non smoking establishment, as long as any current employees that don't want to be in that environment are assisted in finding a new job.
Click to expand...

If the establishment is privately owned, it should be no one's business whether it is smoking or nonsmoking, except the owner's.

As for the employees, they can either stay or go just like any other job. It is not as if they spent large amounts of money on college so they could wait tables. If they want to work somepleace else, let them go.
 
BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):1057.

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.
Enstrom JE, Kabat GC.

School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA. jenstrom@ucla.edu

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

SETTING: Adult population of California, United States.

PARTICIPANTS: 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

RESULTS: For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Even from the anti-smoking crowd:

There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease," said Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health.

Whelan, author of "A Smoking Gun: How the Cigarette Industry Gets Away with Murder," said her group's research has reached the same conclusion as the new study. While Whelan said she's delighted by New York City's smoking ban, she labels "patently absurd" Mayor Bloomberg's claim that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers.
 
Socrtease said:
BMJ. 2003 May 17;326(7398):1057.

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.
Enstrom JE, Kabat GC.

School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA. jenstrom@ucla.edu

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

DESIGN: Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

SETTING: Adult population of California, United States.

PARTICIPANTS: 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

RESULTS: For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Even from the anti-smoking crowd:

There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease," said Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health.

Whelan, author of "A Smoking Gun: How the Cigarette Industry Gets Away with Murder," said her group's research has reached the same conclusion as the new study. While Whelan said she's delighted by New York City's smoking ban, she labels "patently absurd" Mayor Bloomberg's claim that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers.
Click to expand...

I find it 'interesting' that you offer no link.

James E. Enstrom

Enstrom & Tobacco

Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS. [1]

Tobacco companies have used Enstrom's work to help confuse the public about the causative link between tobacco smoke and disease. For example, a 1992 British American Tobacco (BAT) handbook titled Smoking Issues Claims and Responses counsels BAT employees to publicly deny that smoking causes lung cancer, claiming that statistics have failed to be conclusive on the question. The manual cites Enstrom as one of the "eminent scientists" who has "questioned the evidence on smoking and lung cancer because of its many inconsistencies." Pages 8-9 of 170 page manual

In 1997 Enstrom wrote to Richard Carchman, Director of Scientific Affairs at Philip Morris, asking for $150,000 to study the link between environmental tobacco smoke and mortality rates. Enstrom wrote, "A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS and active smoking." [2] Also in 1997, Max Eisenberg, Director of the tobacco industry-funded CIAR, held discussions with Enstrom and epidemiologist Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York in Stoneybrook, about the possibility of their collaboration.[3] The same year, Philip Morris granted Enstrom $150,000 (in the form of two payments of $75,000) to fund a project titled "Relationship of low levels of active smoking to mortality." [4] [5]

In 2003 Enstrom and Kabat published an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) titled, Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians 1960-98. The study was based on a dataset collected by the American Cancer Society for the purpose of measuring the health effects of active smoking rather than passive smoking. Enstrom's article was controversial for its finding that secondhand tobacco smoke was less harmful than previously believed. Enstrom and Kabat wrote that "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." [6]

BMJ received approximately 150 "rapid response" letters to the article, most of which sharply criticized Enstrom's findings. [7] One of the respondents was Michael J. Thun, Vice President and head of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society, who pronounced Enstrom and Kabat's study "fatally flawed" because "no information was obtained on sources of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [in the dataset] other then smoking status of the spouse," and "tobacco smoke was so pervasive in the United states in the 1950s and 1960s that virtually everyone was exposed at home, at work or in other settings." Enstrom responded by saying Thun had been unable to "identify a single error" in the study and that his "attack should be seen for what it is--an attempt to discredit work that is at variance with the position he's committed to." [8]

In 1999 the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) brought a massive lawsuit against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers alleging that the companies had collaborated in an elaborate, decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of active smoking and secondhand smoke. In August 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. ruled against the companies. The court's Final Opinion contains a detailed timeline (starting in Section 5, paragraph #3781, on Page 1380) describing communication between Philip Morris and Enstrom to produce the 2003 BMJ study, and describes how the American Cancer Society had repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its CPS-I data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The court's Final Opinion cites the 2003 Enstrom/Kabat study as a significant part of the companies' conspiratorial enterprise against the American public.
 
Socrtease said:
Even from the anti-smoking crowd:

There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease," said Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health.

Whelan, author of "A Smoking Gun: How the Cigarette Industry Gets Away with Murder," said her group's research has reached the same conclusion as the new study. While Whelan said she's delighted by New York City's smoking ban, she labels "patently absurd" Mayor Bloomberg's claim that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers.
Click to expand...

Elizabeth Whelan

Elizabeth Whelan is president and co-founder of the industry-friendly, global warming skeptic group The American Council on Science and Health.

ACSH has been headed by Elizabeth Whelan since its inception. Whelan makes no bones about her political leanings, describing herself as a lifelong conservative who is "more libertarian than Republican."

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) describes itself as "a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.

The Washington Post identified ACSH as "an industry-friendly group whose board member Betsy McCaughey helped set off the "death panels" frenzy" in the 2009 health care reform debate. last year.[1] To its credit, it has taken a strong public position against the dangers of tobacco, one of the leading preventable causes of death in today's society. However, it takes a generally apologetic stance regarding virtually every other health and environmental hazard produced by modern industry, accepting corporate funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mills, Pepsico, and the American Beverage Association, among others.

Funding

In a speech marking the 25th annivserary of ACSH Whelan explained that about 40% of ACSH funding comes from private foundations, "about 40% from corporations, and the rest of the sale of ACSH publications", she wrote. "The important thing, though, is not the source of your funding but the accuracy of the points you make, and ACSH's scientific advisors and use of peer review keep us honest". [[12]

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this in recent years, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. In the latest years for which information is available, some 40 percent of ACSH's budget was supplied directly by industry, including a long list of food, drug and chemical companies that have a vested interest in supporting Whelan's message.

In its 1984 Annual report ACSH provided an extensive list of its corporate and foundations. [13] ACSH funders have included the following:

* ALCOA Foundation
* Allied Signals Foundation, Inc.
* American Cyanamid Company
* American Meat Institute
* Amoco Foundation, Inc.
* Anheuser-Busch Foundation
* Archer Daniels Midland Company
* Ashland Oil Foundation
* Boise Cascade Corporation
* Bristol-Myers Fund, Inc.
* Burger King Corporation
* Campbell Soup Company
* Carnation Company
* Chevron Environmental Health Center
* Ciba-Geigy Corporation
* Coca-Cola Company
* Consolidated Edison
* Cooper Industries Foundation
* Adolph Coors Foundation
* Crystal Trust
* Shelby Cullum Davis Foundation
* Dow Chemical Canada, Inc.
* Dow Corning Corporation
* E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company
* Ethyl Corporation
* Exxon Corporation
* FMC Foundation
* Ford Motor Company Fund
* Frito-Lay
* General Electric Foundation
* General Mills, Inc.
* General Motors Foundation
* Gerber Products Company
* Rollin M. Gerstacker Foundation
* Hershey Foods Corporation Fund
* Heublein, Inc.
* ICI Americas Inc.
* Johnson & Johnson
* Johnson's Wax Fund, Inc.
* Kellogg Company
* Ester A. and Joseph Klingenstein Fund, Inc.
* David H. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Kraft Foundation
* Kraft General Foods (now part of Altria Group)
* Licensed Beverage Information Council
* Thomas J. Lipton Foundation, Inc.
* M&M Mars
* Merck Company Foundation
* Mobil Foundation, Inc.
* Monsanto Fund
* National Agricultural Chemicals Association
* National Dairy Council
* National Soft Drink Association
* National Starch and Chemical Foundation
* Nestlé
* Samuel Roberts Nobel Foundation, Inc.
* Northwood Institute
* NutraSweet Company
* John M. Olin Foundation Inc.
* Oscar Mayer Foods
* Pepsico Foundation Inc. (Pepsi-Cola)
* Pfizer Inc.
* Pillsbury Company
* PPG Industries Foundation
* Procter & Gamble Fund
* Ralston Purina
* Rohm & Haas Company
* Salt Institute
* Sarah Scaife Foundation, Inc.
* Schultz Foundation
* G.D. Searle Charitable Trust
* Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc.
* Shell Oil Company Foundation
* Stare Fund
* Starr Foundation
* Sterling Drug, Inc.
* Stouffer Company
* Stroh Brewery Company
* Sugar Association, Inc.
* Sun Company, Inc.
* Syntex Corporation
* Union Carbide Corporation
* Uniroyal Chemical Co.
* USX Corp.
* Warner-Lambert Foundation
* Wine Growers of California
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
Sorry zap, your polarized argument does not hold water. A patron can CHOOSE not to eat food cooked in peanut oil, or CHOOSE not to eat sugar...he or she cannot choose to stop breathing.

Try again...
Click to expand...

But he can CHOOSE not to go into a restaurant that allows smoking.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Proven where?
Click to expand...
When you said the government should pass laws banning smoking in businesses where owners want to allow smoking. Just as the parents can not buy their kid the happy meal, you can go somewhere where smoking is not allowed by the owner. Plain and simple, but you LOVE big brother when it comes to smoking and hate them when it comes to the Happy Meal when in both instances it is nanny staters telling us what they KNOW is good for us.
 
Socrtease said:
When you said the government should pass laws banning smoking in businesses where owners want to allow smoking. Just as the parents can not buy their kid the happy meal, you can go somewhere where smoking is not allowed by the owner. Plain and simple, but you LOVE big brother when it comes to smoking and hate them when it comes to the Happy Meal when in both instances it is nanny staters telling us what they KNOW is good for us.
Click to expand...
Public smoking is a matter of public heath because you don't have a choice of breathing the air or not in that public place. You do, however, have a choice to eat at that public place and use the toy or not, buy the supersize fries or not.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Public smoking is a matter of public heath because you don't have a choice of breathing the air or not in that public place. You do, however, have a choice to eat at that public place and use the toy or not, buy the supersize fries or not.
Click to expand...

You have just as much choice in eating at a smoking or nonsmoking restaurant as you do in whether to buy the supersize fries or use the toy.

The point is the same in each case. If you want warnings, I can agree with that. But if a privately owned business wants to be a smoking establishment, to have the gov't refuse to allow it for "public health" reasons is nanny state mentality.
 
WinterBorn said:
You have just as much choice in eating at a smoking or nonsmoking restaurant as you do in whether to buy the supersize fries or use the toy.

The point is the same in each case. If you want warnings, I can agree with that. But if a privately owned business wants to be a smoking establishment, to have the gov't refuse to allow it for "public health" reasons is nanny state mentality.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I have never understood this law. Private business owners should be able to determine if their establishment will be smoking or non smoking.

I thought DY wanted less government involvement, with 'Patriots', it is pick and choose, I guess.
 
Rana said:
Absolutely, I have never understood this law. Private business owners should be able to determine if their establishment will be smoking or non smoking.

I thought DY wanted less government involvement, with 'Patriots', it is pick and choose, I guess.
Click to expand...
As a Patriot I want limited federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. As a resident of the State of NC it pleases me that our State Legislature is enforcing public health policy.
 
Rana said:
Absolutely, I have never understood this law. Private business owners should be able to determine if their establishment will be smoking or non smoking.

I thought DY wanted less government involvement, with 'Patriots', it is pick and choose, I guess.
Click to expand...

he's like all those "limited Government" types.

They want the limited Government where THEY want, but they want all the spending and regulation WHERE THEY think it's necessary.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
he's like all those "limited Government" types.

They want the limited Government where THEY want, but they want all the spending and regulation WHERE THEY think it's necessary.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what Ben Franklin did when he helped create the first municipal fire department in the US? He didn't turn to the federal government, even though he had considerable influence. Instead he applied what would later be known as the Ninth Amendment and looked to local government for a solution.
 
WinterBorn said:
You have just as much choice in eating at a smoking or nonsmoking restaurant as you do in whether to buy the supersize fries or use the toy.

The point is the same in each case. If you want warnings, I can agree with that. But if a privately owned business wants to be a smoking establishment, to have the gov't refuse to allow it for "public health" reasons is nanny state mentality.
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting one little detail...smoke from tobacco IS a danger to "public health", especially for employees that are exposed to it every day on the job.
 
Damn Yankee said:
As a Patriot I want limited federal government as enumerated in the Constitution. As a resident of the State of NC it pleases me that our State Legislature is enforcing public health policy.
Click to expand...
That's right, there is no place for federal interference in privately owned businesses, that room is all taken up by those "conservative" state governments.
 
Bfgrn said:
You keep forgetting one little detail...smoke from tobacco IS a danger to "public health", especially for employees that are exposed to it every day on the job.
Click to expand...
Wow how cool for you. You and Damn Yankee see eye to eye on infringement of private ownership. So nice to see when the two sides can come together and agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top