DDT Posts Split from Outing Anonymous Posters Thread

[_Yoda]

Ha! I moved it too. :)

LOL! Great minds. I'm too tired to deal with it anymore tonight. You'll just have two posts here.

l)

'night!

[_Doctor Steuss]

I for one am disgusted that the liberals would dare to ban a carcinogen.

[_asbestosman]

I for one am disgusted that the liberals would dare to ban a carcinogen.

I wonder if they'll ban me from the internet--being asbestosman and all.

Anyhow, I guess it depends on the carcinogen. Were liberals behind the ban on smoking in restaraunts and other public places, or lesser carcinogen marijuana?

[_Moniker]

I for one am disgusted that the liberals would dare to ban a carcinogen.

I wonder if they'll ban me from the internet--being asbestosman and all.

Anyhow, I guess it depends on the carcinogen. Were liberals behind the ban on smoking in restaraunts and other public places, or lesser carcinogen marijuana?

I think people that were concerned about second hand smoke were the ones behind banning smoking from public places. According to Rush Limbaugh it was all liberals, though. Cigarettes haven't been banned -- just the ability to hurt strangers with them has been in a lot of places.

[_Coggins7]

I for one am disgusted that the liberals would dare to ban a carcinogen.

Unfortunately, since there is no definitive empirical evidence of this whatever, the point is moot.

Everything is a carcinogen in sufficient quantity.

[_Coggins7]

I

think people that were concerned about second hand smoke were the ones behind banning smoking from public places. According to Rush Limbaugh it was all liberals, though. Cigarettes haven't been banned -- just the ability to hurt strangers with them has been in a lot of places.

Moniker, would you please show me the hard empirical evidence that second hand smoke can possible hurt anyone except those with acute respiratory problems or who are severely allergic to cigarette smoke?

[_Coggins7]

And of course its "the liberals". Its the lifestyle police--almost always associated with the Left and its authoritarian/totalitarian core values--that are into banning everything that could possibly cause, even a single living human being, some discomfort or distress.

Hence, we are critically short of flu vaccine. Hence, we will just have to live with Malaria. Hence, no nuclear power or drilling for oil, and a serious energy crisis staring us in the face.

[_Coggins7]

Anyhow, I guess it depends on the carcinogen. Were liberals behind the ban on smoking in restaraunts and other public places, or lesser carcinogen marijuana?

Yes, the "Left" was behind it.

[_Moniker]

I

think people that were concerned about second hand smoke were the ones behind banning smoking from public places. According to Rush Limbaugh it was all liberals, though. Cigarettes haven't been banned -- just the ability to hurt strangers with them has been in a lot of places.

Moniker, would you please show me the hard empirical evidence that second hand smoke can possible hurt anyone except those with acute respiratory problems or who are severely allergic to cigarette smoke?

Are you kidding? There is wide scientific consensus that second hand smoke creates a health risk. Even if you want to deny that (you should really be getting a check for the amount of effort and time you put into these nutty rightie ideology defenses) you should be aware that it is harmful to pregnant women and children -- even those without allergies or respiratory problems.

Yet, here's the surgeon general's report from 2006(go ANYWHERE except an ideology tinged page and there is consensus):

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report

Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that:

1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.

Supporting Evidence
* Levels of a chemical called cotinine, a biomarker of secondhand smoke exposure, fell by 70 percent from 1988-91 to 2001-02. In national surveys, however, 43 percent of U.S. nonsmokers still have detectable levels of cotinine.
* Almost 60 percent of U.S. children aged 3-11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.
* Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies.

2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
* Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.

3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

Supporting Evidence
* Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
* Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
* Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
* Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
* Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.

4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

Supporting Evidence
* Concentrations of many cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers.
* Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 - 30 percent.
* Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20 - 30 percent.

5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Short exposures to secondhand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.
* Secondhand smoke contains many chemicals that can quickly irritate and damage the lining of the airways. Even brief exposure can result in upper airway changes in healthy persons and can lead to more frequent and more asthma attacks in children who already have asthma.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

Supporting Evidence
* Conventional air cleaning systems can remove large particles, but not the smaller particles or the gases found in secondhand smoke.
* Routine operation of a heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system can distribute secondhand smoke throughout a building.
* The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.

The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.

There was a rather landmark ruling (enjoy reading it!:) where the defendants (tobacco companies) were found to being aware about the harm for years and attempted to deceive the public. It's United States vs. Phillip Morris

http://library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/litigation/uspm.html
Some quotes from the ruling:

Defendants recognized that secondhand smoke contained high concentrations of carcinogens and other harmful agents. Defendants also recognized that the research from the public health community showing that ETS caused disease was persuasive evidence of the harmful effects of secondhand smoke and could be adverse to their position. Most importantly, research funded by Defendants themselves provided evidence confirming the public health authorities’ warnings that nonsmokers exposure to cigarette smoke was a health hazard.

These public promises were intended to deceive the American public into believing that there was no risk associated with passive smoking and that Defendants would fund objective research to find definitive answers. Instead, over the decades that followed, Defendants took steps to undermine independent research, to fund research designed and controlled to generate industry-favorable results, and to suppress adverse research results.

[D]efendants recognized from the mid-1970s forward that the health effects of passive smoking posed a profound threat to industry viability and cigarette profits, through (1) increasing numbers of smoking restrictions; (2) making smoking “socially unacceptable”; and (3) reducing the number of starter smokers. This recognition resulted in concerted, international action by Defendants and other members of the industry to meet the passive smoking threat head on.

In June 1987, Philip Morris Companies held its conference called “Operation Downunder” [a 1987 meeting between a small a group of executives on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina] . . . to formulate a worldwide strategy on passive smoking. [Philip Morris legal counsel] Covington & Burling’s John Rupp told the group that the industry was “in deep crap” as a result of the 1986 reports* and the industry’s “serious credibility problem.”

Significantly, Defendants were well aware of, and worried about, this issue as early as 1961 when a Philip Morris scientist presented a paper showing that 84% of cigarette smoke was composed of sidestream smoke, and that sidestream smoke contained carcinogens. In addition to understanding, early on, that there was a strong possibility that ETS posed a serious health danger to smokers, Defendants also understood the financial ramifications of such a conclusion. In 1974, the Tobacco Institute’s president Horace Kornegay acknowledged that indoor air restrictions designed to defuse the passive smoking issue “could lead to the virtual elimination of cigarette smoking.” In 1980, the CEO of R.J. Reynolds, Ed Horrigan, stated that “We all know that probably the biggest threat to our industry is the issue of passive smoking.”

Despite the fact that Defendants’ own scientists were increasingly persuaded of the strength of the research showing the dangers of ETS to nonsmokers, Defendants mounted a comprehensive, coordinated, international effort to undermine and discredit this research. Defendants poured money and resources into establishing a network of interlocking organizations. They identified, trained, and subsidized “friendly” scientists through their Global Consultancy Program, and sponsored symposia all over the world from Vienna to Tokyo to Bermuda to Canada featuring those “friendly” scientists, without revealing their substantial financial ties to Defendants. They conducted a mammoth national and international public relations campaign to criticize and trivialize scientific reports demonstrating the health hazards of ETS to nonsmokers and smokers.

[_Moniker]

And of course its "the liberals". Its the lifestyle police--almost always associated with the Left and its authoritarian/totalitarian core values--that are into banning everything that could possibly cause, even a single living human being, some discomfort or distress.

Hence, we are critically short of flu vaccine. Hence, we will just have to live with Malaria. Hence, no nuclear power or drilling for oil, and a serious energy crisis staring us in the face.

So, tell me what your views are on free love, cohabitation outside of marriage, pornography, prostitution, flag burning, homosexuals ability to adopt or raise their own biological children, pot being legalized, morning after pill, women's reproductive choices, homosexual marriage, ? Aren't you the one upset about all that radical hippie shift of the 60's where everyone was all into that sinful hedonistic carnal decadence? Sounds to me that YOU are sort of a part of the lifestyle police brigade.

I already regret this post......