By Wide Margin, Americans Oppose The Nanny State
When it comes to thinks like Mike Bloomberg's large-sized soda ban, most Americans prefer to just say no.
The past several years have seen many efforts by government authorities at a number of levels seek to use the power of the state to regulate the ability of citizens to engage in activities that, while perfectly legal, are supposedly bad for their health. The most famous example, of course, has been New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to ban most businesses from selling sodas in containers larger than 16 ounces, although it exempted many types of sales including sales by 7-11 of its famous “Slurpees” that the law came to be named after. Other similar efforts across the country have included efforts to ban the sale of fois gras, a high-fat delicacy derived from goose liver, and efforts by several jurisdictions in California to regulate the contents of the famous McDonald’s Happy Meal. Outside of the food arena, other recent regulatory moves have seen various jurisdictions begin moves toward banning or heavily regulating everything from online gambling, to energy drinks, to electronic cigarettes, to, most recently, the announcement by the FDA that it was beginning a process that could lead to a nationwide ban on the use of Trans Fats in the nations food supply. In each case, we are told by the people in charge that these bans are for the good of “public health,” and, of course, it is implied that people are simply incapable of making the correct decisions for themselves.
A new poll, however, indicates that, by wide majorities, Americans oppose these efforts by government authorities to ban things deemed to be “bad” for them:
The federal government recently proposed rules that would effectively ban trans fats, but 71 percent of Americans say they should be allowed to buy foods with trans fats if they so choose. Just under a quarter, 24 percent of Americans, say foods with trans fats should not be allowed.
The Food and Drug Administration recently ordered a genetic testing company to stop selling its DNA tests. Reason-Rupe finds 55 percent of Americans believe they should be allowed to buy genetic testing kits that provide information about a person’s DNA, 37 percent say these should not be allowed.
Over three quarters of Americans, 76 percent, say they should be allowed to buy high-caffeine energy drinks. Twenty-one percent think energy drinks should be prohibited.
Several cities have moved to ban e-cigarettes in public places, but 62 percent of Americans say electronic cigarettes should be allowed in public spaces. Thirty-four percent favor prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in public.
Congress is considering a bill that would legalize online poker and 65 percent of Americans tell Reason-Rupe that adults should be allowed to gamble in online poker games. Thirty-two percent oppose allowing people to play online poker.
Two-thirds of Americans, 66 percent, tell Reason-Rupe that people should be allowed to play violent video games, while 31 percent want them banned.
The one item Reason-Rupe asked about that the public wants to ban is printing 3D guns. Six in 10 Americans think printing working 3D guns should be prohibited, while 30 percent say it should be allowed.
This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. By their nature, the American people have generally resisted efforts by the state to regulate their personal behavior. There have been notable exceptions. Prohibition was wildly popular when it was first adopted, of course, otherwise the 18th Amendment never would have been adopted. Soon after that happened, of course, the American people began voting with their feet and the thirst and non-compliance with the Volsted Act was so widespread as to make the entire idea that alcohol was actually prohibited in the United States a widespread joke. More recent, and harder to defeat, exceptions include the War On (Some) Drugs and the efforts to ban tobacco smoking not only in enclosed private places like restaurants but also in open public places like public parks where the idea that people are involuntarily being exposed to second-hand smoke are essentially non-existent. Outside of these exceptions, though, this polls mostly stands to confirm the idea that, when it comes to what they eat or drink, the American people tend to default to a “leave me alone” position, which is one reason why public reason to things like Bloomberg’s soda regulations, which were thankfully shot down by a New York state trial judge and by the state’s intermediate appeals court are typically widely derided.
Now, if only our dear leaders would recognize all of this and stop trying to doing things that are “good for us” when we cleary just want them to leave us the heck alone.
You have a right to drink as much soda and eat as many hamburgers – it’s in the Constitution (toward the end). And you want to be obese – you be obese. But we will throw you in jail for a long time if you smoke a dooby or two.
I can’t wait to start driving without seatbelts and eating un-inspected meat again.
@C. Clavin:
You can drive without seat belts now, you’ll just be harassed by the government man. And you’d be surprised how much un-inspected meat you eat. They have an inspection program but no necessarily that much inspection.
But enjoy your illusions. It might be all you have left.
“By their nature, the American people have generally resisted efforts by the state to regulate their personal behavior”.
I’d be interested to know if this is true in comparison to European countries.
The ban on foie gras has nothing to do with “public health,” and I suspect you can’t find a single instance of anyone saying it does.
This is purely an animal cruelty issue like raising pigs in crate and torturing chickens to produce more eggs.
I have mixed feeling about the ban — not about the pig and chickens questions, which are slam dunks to me, even if they do threaten to raise prices a little — because I’m not convinced this process really is as cruel as PETA and co say it is. But it’s annoying to see it lumped in with Doug’s little list of “nanny state” bans.
It’s not just the second hand smoke problem with cigarettes in parks and in other open-air areas. Many smokers just casually toss their toxic cigarette butts anywhere they want. They are littering.
This is not part of the ‘nanny state’ protecting people from something bad for them; it is about force feeding geese to death. That is fundamentally different.
@JKB:
The illusion is yours…that we would be better off with no regulation. Sort of like your fantasy about the solution to gun violence being more guns. Nonsensical to everyone but the cult members.
@wr:
You beat me to it
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
Study: Second-Hand Smoke And Lung Cancer Not Clearly Linked
December 13, 2013 11:09 AM
ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta attribute approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths every year to second-hand smoke.
A new study suggests that CDC researchers may be mistaken, however.
Researchers at Stanford University discovered during a study of over 75,000 women who smoke that there was no reasonable connection
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/12/13/study-second-hand-smoke-and-lung-cancer-not-clearly-linked/
The Nanny created Epidemics were created by Nanny just like all the public health trash propaganda…..
http://easydiagnosis.com/secondopinions/newsletter17.html
Diabetes:
Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
People under old definition: 11.7 million
New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
People added under new definition: 1.7 million
Percent increase: 15%
The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.
Hypertension:
High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.
Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
People under old definition: 38.7 million
New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
People added under new definition: 13.5 million
Percent Increase: 35%
The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).
High (Total) Cholesterol:
Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
People under old definition: 49.5 million
New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
People added under new definition: 42.6 million
Percent increase: 86%
The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
Overweight:
Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.
Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%
The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.
“The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers.
…
@harleyrider1978: I like the ban b/c i don’t like the smell of smoke. I don’t have much sympathy for smokers as I have never seen a smoker say something to a fellow smoker who has tossed the cigarette butt on the ground instead of a trash can – it is almost as if it is their right to do so.
I can’t argue that soda bans are popular, only that they are beneficial and low cost (in all senses of cost).
Note that the benefit and costs carry little weight in popular discussions.
As Doug notes, “you’re not the boss of me” is way stronger a motivation than “this is my best health choice.”
I think what the FDA is worried about is people thinking that DNA tests provide much more information than they actually do. Eg. oh, I don’t have the gene associated with getting breast cancer–> therefore I don’t have to worry about breast cancer. The link between genes and gene expression (especially for recessive genes) is still very general.
Also, there’s very little oversight as to how these companies are actually doing the tests. For all you know they could be throwing darts at a list of genes and using that as the result.
@Mike:
Who made you Hitler jr!
The Führer thanks you from the grave:
Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign
One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
@harleyrider1978:
Let me guess…Climate Change…a myth?
@harleyrider1978: Yes, I am eager to take health and safety advice from someone who labels himself “Harleyrider.”
You can live a stronger and happier life.
You’re not the boss of me!
@Mike: Another Anti-Smoking Hoax Debunked. Those cigarette filters are 100% biodegradable.
The cigarette butt menace was created to support outdoor smoking bans because many non-smokers will accept that secondhand smoke is not harmful in an outdoor setting.
The anti-smoking zealots admit that the tobacco and paper in cigarette butts are biodegradable, but claim that the cellulose acetate cigarette filters are a plastic, like styrofoam and polystyrene, and will contaminate the earth forever. This is not true. Cellulose acetate is a wood product. It is completely degradable through biological, chemical, and photo chemical degradation mechanisms.
Sorry, I don’t have a nice, easy to read MSM news article to give you. I have research papers from cellulose acetate manufacturers. Ann W., a commentor to a Dick Puddlecote article, put me onto this. http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011 … found.html
http://www.acetateweb.com/pdf/Environme … ilters.pdf
“STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF CIGARETTE FILTERS: A simulation of the Roadside or Parking Lot Environment.” Stephen K. Haynes, et al,\., Research Laboratories, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport Tenn.
“In recent years there has been increasing public awareness of items which may be discarded as litter with particular attention being given to cigarette filters. Some studies have concluded that when cigarette filters are introduced into the environment, they either do not degrade or degrade very slowly. Previous work in our laboratories has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. The purpose of this study was to examine the changes occurring in cigarette filters over time in an environment similar to that of a parking lot or roadside area. In this environment, exposure to sunlight, moisture and wind occur, but there is limited exposure to microbial attack … ”
“CONCLUSIONS: Previous work has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. This work demonstrates that current commercial cigarette filters also degrade when exposed to an environment which is not optimal for microbial biodegradation.”
@C. Clavin: Finally your showing some sence and also the earth is no longer flat……………
@wr: Study: live to 100 by defying all health advice
Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”
Einstein College press release:
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/news_pr … 78&pt=news
Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!
Here it is: the official NIH abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812767
You’d probably have to pay about $50 to buy the full study from the Wiley service where it’s posted. But you don’t have to. A reporter for an independent publication who read the study tells us that about 74% of 70-year old men smoked and that smokers still made up the majority of over-95 men at 60%, while 26% of 70-year-old women smoked and a greater proportion of about 30% of over-95 women smoked, and that, all-in-all, the oldest folks did not particularly follow any of the Healthist advice to exercise, eat “healthy”, or avoid booze and tobacco.
The news article:
http://lee-robinson-petzer.tumblr.com/p … pectations
Did you note the researcher’s conclusion: “Although this study demonstrates that centenarians can be obese, smoke and avoid exercise … We should watch our weight, avoid smoking and be sure to exercise, since these activities have been shown to have great health benefits for the general population, including a longer lifespan.”
@Mike: unfortunately in England we are following America.bloomberg is the one of the wealthiest politicians in the world.this is a classic example of a man with a few quid throwing his weight around to satisfy his ego.a truly despicable individual with no humility or compassion.steve.leeds.england.
@harleyrider1978: I really don’t care if they biodegrade or not – they’re a filthy mess. Dog poop is biodegradable too but I don’t want it littering my parks or sidewalks.
But hey, if you want to smoke, eat fatty food and drink 32 ounce sodas while riding on your Harley with no helmet, be my guest.
@beth: But Dog Poo carries diseases within it a very real and true bio-hazard……….
A Toxic Cycle
If you aren’t worried about the state of your local waterways, you may be a bit more concerned about the impact of dog waste a little closer to home. The thing about persistently disposing of stools improperly (or not at all) is that it kicks off a harmful cycle that can affect your whole family—including your pet.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pet droppings can contribute to diseases animals pass to humans, called zoonoses. When infected dog poop is deposited on your lawn, the eggs of certain roundworms and other parasites can linger in your soil for years. Anyone who comes into contact with that soil—be it through gardening, playing sports, walking barefoot or any other means—runs the risk of coming into contact with those eggs; especially your dog.
Some of the hard-to-pronounce parasites your lawn could harbor include Cryptosporidium, Giardia, Salmonella, as well as hookworms, ringworms and tapeworms. Infections from these bugs often cause fever, muscle aches, headache, vomiting, and diarrhea in humans. Children are most susceptible, since they often play in the dirt and put things in their mouths or eyes.
(I think the Seventh Day Adventist data is pretty good on healthy lifestyle.)
I used to smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, roll a joint and drive the car with my knees at the same time. Without a helmet.
Good bet it was all against the law. Didn’t stop me.
Government Regulation against Big Soda and Bacon Bans will be as effective as the National 55MPH Speed Limit.
Drivers violated that law with impunity.
Nannyism isn’t new the prohibitionists were the first nanny staters:
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
Take heed Mary Chey and Phil Mendelson (DC City Council), take heed….
@Grewgills:
It’s not about force-feeding geese (or ducks) to death, that would be counterproductive. They are force-fed to get their livers fattened, which is a natural process taken to an extreme.
Migratory birds like ducks and geese consume a great deal of food before migration and the excess fat is stored in their livers. No doubt the ancient Egyptians (the first recorded consumers of foie gras) put two and two together and figured out if they force-fed the birds, they could get fatty liver any time they liked. Whether the process was passed on by the Egyptians, or re-discovered by Europeans, it has been used for a very long time.
There are, of course, varying perspectives on the cruelty of the process. The farmers who raise the birds maintain the birds are quite pleased with force-feeding and will eagerly approach a person holding a gavage apparatus. On the other hand, one French production facility was severely penalized for cruel treatment of its birds.
@harleyrider1978:
Wow, another content-free Hitler Analogy.
@Mikey: Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix
By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am
You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.
According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.
“Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”
The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.
Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.
“All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”
The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.
So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?
Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.
“After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”
http://www.tampabay.com/news/aging/lifetimes/mummies-clogged-arteries-take-smoking-fatty-foods-lethargy-out-of-the-mix/2114897
@al-Ameda:
I give you historical facts how you read them is of your own concern. The fact is the Nazis created passive smoking as part of their propaganda and todays prohibitionists simply it and Hitlers anti-tobacco laws for their own use……………
They say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck…………
Hense the term we all have heard for decades ”HEALTH NAZIS” now you know where it comes from FACTS!
I think we’re getting a bit lost in the weeds. The purpose of bans on smoking, fatty foods, and so on isn’t to promote long life or (mostly) because of some sort of bluenosery or buttinskyism. It’s healthcare cost control.
The analogy to the abolition movement isn’t too bad. The reason for that wasn’t prudishness since it didn’t ban the consumption of alcohol but its sales. It was a serious woman’s issue because in a day when men were the sole providers for families and there was no social safety net when the man of the house drank up his paycheck or was unable to work it was a serious matter, indeed. AFDC changed that and it’s no coincidence that Prohibition was repealed and AFDC enacted in short order.
How do you reconcile being against the Nanny state with acceptance of the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, both of which are Nanny State in overdrive.
The best you can say is that people are selective about the kind of Nanny state they want. I’d argue that if nothing else Bloomberg is being consistent.
I’d also argue that soda bans aren’t likely to work any better than the war on drugs has, and whatever people think of the morality of soda and pot, banning them is a waste of time and effort.
What we have seen is these people ride around in bullet proof limousines and surrounded by armed guards are telling the common working people what size soft drinks they can have while they are sipping $40 martinis and eating lobster for lunch.
I’m perfectly happy for a ban on smoking indoors. Moral: your right to pollute as you wish ends at my lungs.
And it’s not so much cancer as it is that cigarette smoke sets off my sinuses and I feel lousy for the next day or two. For a friend of mine it’s even more problematic: he’s dreadfully allergic to cigarette smoke and has cascading auto-immune problems as well.
So we’re supposed to get ill because you want to be able to smoke cigarettes indoors and don’t have the politeness to move outside?
I don’t think so.
@C. Clavin: You can already drive without a seat belt: get a Harley. You can buy food that is uninspected: at convenience stores.
grumpy realist says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 16:32
I’m perfectly happy for a ban on smoking indoors. Moral: your right to pollute as you wish ends at my lungs.
And it’s not so much cancer as it is that cigarette smoke sets off my sinuses and I feel lousy for the next day or two. For a friend of mine it’s even more problematic: he’s dreadfully allergic to cigarette smoke and has cascading auto-immune problems as well.
So we’re supposed to get ill because you want to be able to smoke cigarettes indoors and don’t have the politeness to move outside?
I don’t think so.
Its impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke or any smoke as it contains no proteins to be allergic too!
The anti-smoking PSYCHOSIS has been studied and found non-harmful and they can seek treatment!
Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46.
Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill’s criteria to the toxicogenic theory.
Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S.
Source
Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA. hs***********@co*****.net
Abstract
Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill’s nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible.
…
@ernieyeball:
That’s a really bad reading of the law. It is a feature, not a bug, that you can buy as many 16 ounce drinks as you want.
You don’t need to “break the law.”
The whole idea is just a nudge, that lazy people will choose 16 ounces and leave it at that.
Also, the fact that certain people who lived to 100 smoked cigarettes doesn’t mean anything. It may simply mean that those whose genetic heritage made them vulnerable to cigarette smoke had already died off.
I’m pretty certain that, taking everything in order, a balanced diet, an active life, and not being exposed to chemical pollutants is better for your health than a diet crammed full of junk food, days spent as a couch potato, and stuffing chemical pollutants in your lungs. There’s being slightly overweight and then there’s being 300 lbs.
The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S00…(07)01954-9/abstract
.
This is a Swedish study.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14
http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm
…
@Dave Schuler:
The 16 oz drink law is similar to old 3% beer laws.
@john personna:
Exactly.
grumpy realist says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 16:37
Also, the fact that certain people who lived to 100 smoked cigarettes doesn’t mean anything. It may simply mean that those whose genetic heritage made them vulnerable to cigarette smoke had already died off.
I’m pretty certain that, taking everything in order, a balanced diet and an active life is better for your health than a diet crammed full of junk food and days spent as a couch potato. There’s being slightly overweight and then there’s being 300 lbs.
……………………………..
Healthy obese people may live as long as thin folks
Study suggests not all those who are overweight or obese need to lose weight
Obese but healthy
It’s “absolutely” possible for people to be overweight or obese and healthy, said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a general internist at Cambridge Health Alliance. However, the new study is just a “small piece in a larger puzzle,” to try to determine which individuals will benefit from weight loss, Cohen said.
Even if we identify individuals at high risk for complications from obesity, it’s unclear whether losing weight will reduce their risk of dying, Cohen said.
To more clearly answer the question, researchers should randomly assign obese people to either lose weight or maintain their weight and practice a healthy lifestyle, to see which group sees more improvement in health, Cohen said.
The findings do not give obese individuals a “free license” to gain weight, Kuk said. Rather, the study suggests that maintaining weight, eating right and exercising may, in the long run, be better than trying to lose weight, Kuk said.
Pass it on: Some obese individuals may be better off maintain their weight and practicing a healthy lifestyle than attempting to lose weight, a study suggests.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44149775/#.Uq9zxomA2P8
@john personna: That’s dealing with alcohol content not the amount of beer sold in size like the soda ban is……………Its nothing at alike unless it was sugar content is only 3% by volume……………etc etc
@harleyrider1978:
America’s regulation and taxation of tobacco is equivalent to Hitler’s Nazi Germany? Well then, I suppose I wouldn’t be wrong to suggest that you’re an Analogy Nazi?
@harleyrider1978:
As it happens, you are talking to a guy with a chemistry degree.
Limit on size, percentages, etc. are all interchangeable and equivalent.
Note that when they had 3% beer you could still buy whiskey. It was just a “nudge” in that a bottle of beer wouldn’t get you too tipsy. I mean, the boilermaker was a drink choice, conrta nudge.
@harleyrider1978:
Dude…you ride a Harley…50 year old technology that is under-powered, handles abysmally, is prone to failure, and at this point is little more than a fashion statement for old guys……I wouldn’t comment on anyone else’s sense.
@john personna: Behaviorists, or those that would “nudge” us in a certain direction — a term derived from Nudge Theory advocates Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler — do not believe that humans are rational beings. President Obama is of course a big fan of this outlook as is David Cameron, the British Prime Minister who has a “behavioural insight team”. They think that we will make the “wrong” kind of choices and decisions and need to be “nudged” and helped along in the “right” direction. This has quite considerable affection among those who consider themselves liberal minded.
However, government are supposed to represent the people and not to be engaged in mind-bending experiments to reach the deepest recesses of our consciousness in an attempt to re-program our private lives and activities. We need an injection of a bit of the old Enlightenment idea, that humans are autonomous agents who can shape the world. Indeed, Locke and Mill argued specifically that people would be able to make choices that others would consider stupid or wrong. The American idea of the right to the pursuit of happiness is also in danger of being eroded significantly.
C. Clavin says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 16:56
@harleyrider1978:
Dude…you ride a Harley…50 year old technology that is under-powered, handles abysmally, is prone to failure, and at this point is little more than a fashion statement for old guys……I wouldn’t comment on anyone else’s sense.
………………The old technology is much preferred to the new green technology as the old worked and the new doesn’t……….Try an EVO motor…….they run like scalded dogs!
I have read all these comments and the majority are so puerile.why do you all take so much pleasure in insulting others.for my part i believe the smoking ban has gone too far.i spoke in my previous post about humility and compassion.this is what makes a human being.where is the humility and compassion when I see elderly people who have smoked all their lives shivering in the middle of winter outside a pub or working men’s club.their contemporaries fought in the Second World War to give us freedom and liberty.for these elderly people to be treated like cattle is shameful.for many to go to the club or pub is their only social experience.whether you are for the smoking ban or not there should have been some compromise on both sides.steven.leeds.england
@Steven simon:
The Smokers’ Graveyard
In Memory of all the smokers driven to their deaths by smoking bans
http://thesmokersgraveyard.wordpress.com/
It isn’t really Nudge that’s going on its DENORMALIZATION VIA THE GOVERNMENT AND A BUNCH PROHIBITIONIST CONTROL FREAKS, yes its a totally planned attack on us all!
PDF]
junk food denormalization pro- ject for students overview – RSEQ
rseq.ca/media/27896/igetit_overview.pdf
Junk Food Denormalization Project for Students – An Overview ….. All denormalization messages explain the different tactics used, based on the “4 Ps,” to make …
Program Training and
Consultation Centre
Tobacco Industry
Denormalization Info Pack
The Use of Mass Media in TID
Best practice research in tobacco demonstrates that mass media
campaigns are a key component of a denormalization strategy for discrediting
the industry.17 Mass media campaigns are most effective when they
■ use blunt messaging,
■ often use real people,
■ explain the consequence of tobacco use in graphic ways,
■ reframe the debate to expose the industry’s role in the epidemic,
■ build public support for more effective tobacco control measures
through tobacco control policy and legislation.19
The campaigns with the greatest success to date in reducing smoking
rates among youth as well as adults have been those in California, Florida
and Massachusetts. All employed tobacco industry denormalization
strategies.
Goldman & Glantz’s research, which used focus group assessment of
existing anti-tobacco messages, found that the theme and target of advertising
messages matter. They recommend industry manipulation and
second hand smoke as the two issues most effective in reaching both
youth and adults. They found that addiction and cessation messages can
also be effective, but appear to work best when used in combination with
the two more powerful issues. The research concluded that youth access,
short term effects, long term health effects and romantic rejection are
not effective themes of anti-tobacco advertising.21
Aggressive advertising strategies appear to be more effective at reducing
tobacco consumption. Lavack recommends the use of denormalization
strategies, such as mass media campaigns, to inform the public about
the dangers of second hand smoke, to encourage quitting, and to tell
smokers where to get help to quit.22 She also proposes that a Canadian
tobacco reduction campaign “focus its efforts on three primary concepts:
lies of the tobacco industry, nicotine is addictive and second-hand smoke
is harmful.”23
Counter-marketing is a specific element of a mass media campaign which
“counters” pro tobacco influences and increases the influence of prohealth
messages. Counter-marketing consists of a wide range of activities,
including paid television, radio, billboard, and print advertising, as
well as media advocacy such as issuing a press release or holding local
events. Other counter-marketing approaches include efforts to reduce or
replace tobacco industry sponsorship and promotions. Counter-advertising
relies on the techniques and
imagery of conventional product
advertising to “sell” a
health message. Such ads
challenge the legitimacy and
credibility of the tobacco
industry marketing the product.
These are counter-ads
http://fr.ptcc-cfc.on.ca/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=105002
@harleyrider1978:
I have to admit, you are pretty well informed (or good with a quick google) to call out Sunstein and Thaler. I read Thaler “Winner’s Curse” and found it very good.
Basically reading that book and more behavioralist stuff makes you rethink “rational” vs “irrational.” Neither one equates to “good” or “bad.” Many irrational tendencies are useful, and even compassionate. Our innate generosity is irrational (in stark terms) but good.
And so, yeah, human nature is human. It isn’t (if you pardon me) Vulcan.
And so we can use a little help here and there.
The key thing about a nudge though is that you ALWAYS can say no, and choose your own way. If you want more soda, you can order another one, even if they are 16 oz per.
@Steven simon:
Do you know that we don’t burn diesel in cars like you do, because we don’t think the resulting deaths are morally justifiable?
There is pretty solid data:
But I guess Europe puts oil dependence (higher diesel efficiency) before those 100 souls.
The controls must be petty. Must not have true benefit to the victim. Otherwise they are not true exercises of power. The power is used to tear the man apart and remake him to the powerful’s liking.
Do you know that we don’t burn diesel in cars like you do, because we don’t think the resulting deaths are morally justifiable?
There is pretty solid data:
Residents from more than two-thirds of all U.S. counties face a cancer risk from diesel exhaust greater than 100 deaths per million population
But I guess Europe puts oil dependence (higher diesel efficiency) before those 100 souls.
…………………….
There are no deaths to any of it,there all created out of junk science epidemiology studies a statistical propaganda stunt the same for even smoking deaths……….there are none! Why because they cant prove anything they claim at all…………….statistical magic is where your deaths come from with no names or even mass graves.
@harleyrider1978:
That claim is categorically false, as anyone with access to a search engine can demonstrate:
“Our research shows that exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke increases the risk of severe urinary disorders in children, that may otherwise be reduced or even prevented,” said Joseph G. Barone, MD, an expert pediatric urologist, associate professor of surgery at UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and surgeon-in-chief of Bristol-Myers Squibb Children’s Hospital at Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital. “Our results emphasize the importance of smoking cessation for parents. Pediatricians and family physicians are urged to discuss with parents opportunities that are available to quit smoking.”
This is only one of many studies on the topic, most of which indicate negative effects of smoking on children.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/second-hand-smoke-affects-bladder-function-in-children
@john personna: How do you say no to ‘ CRIMINAL LAWS” smoking bans aren’t nudges there flat out criminal and based upon JUNK SCIENCE just like all the rest of it is!
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/06/epidemiologists-vote-to-keep-doing-junk-science.html
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)
An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!
Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.
Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.
Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby
Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/13287
@harleyrider1978:
I have not actually discussed smoking at all above. And to be honest, it’s beyond my interest right now.
Smoking seems to be taking care of itself.
YMMV.
OK, maybe I should say a little more.
If sodas only get nudges, and smoking get bans, it may because people see a more direct connection to injury in one and not the other.
A soda might be what you need after burning a lot of calories, while nicotine is … less accepted as an essential nutrient.
@john personna: Jim smoking like all the other things being mentioned here like nanny state laws………..they are all coming from the leftwing and Rino’s along with big pharma,the government health agencies and the like. If you follow a bit you will see all the same folks from those movements are now in charge of Obamas health agencies……….or Bloombergs former health Nazi promotors………..Sebelius at HHS,Friedeman at CDC formerly Bloombergs anti-smoking CZAR! Regina Benjamin SG under Obama former head of the Mississippi anti-tobacco state health commission…………the list goes on and on!
@john personna: You sure are worried about the “Lazy People” aren’t you. Is that code for something?
john personna says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 18:10
OK, maybe I should say a little more.
If sodas only get nudges, and smoking get bans, it may because people see a more direct connection to injury in one and not the other.
A soda might be what you need after burning a lot of calories, while nicotine is … less accepted as an essential nutrient.
…………………………..
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.
Don’t fret over list of cancer ‘risks’
http://www.dispatch.com/…/…r-list-ofcancer-risks.html
“We are being bombarded” with messages about the dangers posed by common things in our lives, yet most exposures “are not at a level that are going to cause cancer,” said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the American Cancer Society’s deputy chief medical officer.
Linda Birnbaum agrees. She is a toxicologist who heads the government agency that just declared styrene, an ingredient in fiberglass boats and Styrofoam, a likely cancer risk.
“Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam,” she said. Levels of styrene that leach from food containers “are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Carcinogens are things that can cause cancer, but that label doesn’t mean that they will or that they pose a risk to anyone exposed to them in any amount at any time.
Now,Im glad to see the ACS admitting to the dose response relationship finally!
So now we understand why the following is factual:
are hundreds if not thousands of times lower than have occurred in the occupational setting,” where the chemical in vapor form poses a possible risk to workers.
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Vol. 14, No. 1. (August 1991), pp. 88-105.
ETS between 10,000- and 100,000-fold less than estimated average MSS-RSP doses for active smokers
http://www.citeulike.org/user/vmarthia/article/7458828
OSHA the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded
JUST AMAZING ISNT IT
Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.
4 % is carbon monoxide.
6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
@harleyrider1978: This may be the dullest troll on the internet. Bring back the Hilter analogies. At least they were mildly entertaining.
Is there a filibuster option I didn’t know about?
@john personna: If I could only choose 3% beer, I probably wouldn’t bother. I can’t drink two 3% beers for the equivalent of a good 6% IPA….
@john personna: “I have to admit, you are pretty well informed (or good with a quick google) to call out Sunstein and Thaler. I read Thaler “Winner’s Curse” and found it very good.”
The Totally Obsessed always have this stuff at their fingertips,whether it’s proving that minorities are intellectually inferior or that Bush piloted one of the planes into the WTC.
At first they seem well informed, but after a couple of posts you start longing for trolls as lazy and information-free as Jenos…
wr says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 18:31
@harleyrider1978: This may be the dullest troll on the internet. Bring back the Hilter analogies. At least they were mildly entertaining.
You could at least offer up a fight……………..But I accept your surrender Sir.
@ernieyeball:
No (though that was funny) take the Dan Ariely course online some time. We are all lazy people.
@harleyrider1978:
I guess that it is impossible to be allergic to lactose as well. There are no proteins in that either.
I will be sure to let my wife know that she is faking it when she has a wheezing attack after breathing in someone else’s second hand smoke. “Honey, you can’t be having this reaction. There are no proteins in smoke. I learned it on the interwebs.”
@harleyrider1978:
I believe that my grandmother was right when she said “smoking is a dirty habit.” Science seems to have confirmed.
BTW, if you want to some more fun, ask the liberals why they want to smoke the dope but not the tobacco!
@harleyrider1978: What you need is a nice hot cup of chamomile tea. And some Librium.
@john personna: @john personna:
Actually science hasnt proven anything at all……………
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Grewgills says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 18:54
@harleyrider1978:
Its impossible to be allergic to tobacco smoke or any smoke as it contains no proteins to be allergic too!
I guess that it is impossible to be allergic to lactose as well. There are no proteins in that either.
I will be sure to let my wife know that she is faking it when she has a wheezing attack after breathing in someone else’s second hand smoke. “Honey, you can’t be having this reaction. There are no proteins in smoke. I learned it on the interwebs.”
Id have her tested for;
Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5.
[Environmental somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu syndrome?].
[Article in Swedish]
Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin C.
SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge Sjukhus.
Abstract
Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster. Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a., arsenic, carbon monoxide (“generator gas poisoning”), mercury (“oral galvanism”), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields (“electric allergy”) and repetitive movements (“repetition strain injury”, RSI). The typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology.
The community is often placed in difficult positions by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8170802
@wr:
I’m sure that he would agree that Hitler would have loved Michael Bloomberg, because well … Bloomberg is a leftist (or a RINO, same thing, right?)
Your wife should be in more smoke it will help her…………..
In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.
The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”
http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/a…
…
@harleyrider1978:
I have the personal experience of one friend asking another to put out his cigarette since he was allergic. The smoking friend, not the most accommodating of people, instead blew smoke into the allergic friend’s face.
An hour later, we’re at a hospital, and his cheeks are being sliced open to get at the pus springing up all over every nook and cranny. Needless to say, the smoker friend was apologizing profusely and offering to pay the costs of the procedure.
@harleyrider1978:
Sigh. She has the reaction whenever it is around and often before she knows it is around. Your argument is entirely unconvincing.
Still no word on lactose and other sugar allergies. Proteins are not the only culprits for allergic reaction. The human body is capable of a great many things, including overactive immune responses to a variety of substances, not just proteins.
@Tillman: In simple terms your a Lying sak of obamavomit!
Can you back it up with a doctors statement proving end point causation………..of course you cant and neither can any doctor on earth!
@Tillman:
But it’s all psychological man. Your supposedly allergic friend should be apologizing to the smoker for making such a big deal out of it.
@harleyrider1978:
Do you really believe that crap you are spouting?
@Grewgills: Grewgills says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 19:08
@harleyrider1978:
Sigh. She has the reaction whenever it is around and often before she knows it is around. Your argument is entirely unconvincing.
Still no word on lactose and other sugar allergies. Proteins are not the only culprits for allergic reaction. The human body is capable of a great many things, including overactive immune responses to a variety of substances, not just proteins.
Refer back to IED and somatization complexes it fits! Tobacco smoke like any smoke is an irritant and you might get watery eyes………….but to even consider smoke causing rashes and throats to close up is impossible and its very easy for the smoke haters to blame it rather than its true causes like animal dander,food,pollen etc etc………..next tiem you grab an inhaler make sure it isn’t one of the new nicotine laced ones!LOL
@Grewgills: I BACK UP WHAT I STATE! Or haven’t your read any of the references listed!
@reid: ” I can’t drink two 3% beers for the equivalent of a good 6% IPA….”
What if you mixed them together?
(Sorry, liberal arts major here…)
@al-Ameda: Yes, Hitler was famous for embracing so many people just like Bloomberg. Maybe as many as six million of them.
Grewgills says:
Monday, December 16, 2013 at 19:08
@harleyrider1978:
Sigh. She has the reaction whenever it is around and often before she knows it is around. Your argument is entirely unconvincing.
Still no word on lactose and other sugar allergies. Proteins are not the only culprits for allergic reaction. The human body is capable of a great many things, including overactive immune responses to a variety of substances, not just proteins.
Enzyme deficiency is your problem…………..nothing else and is easily remedied with a pill!
Your small intestine doesn’t produce enough of the enzyme lactase. This enzyme is essential for the proper digestion of milk and the absorption of milk nutrients. This difficulty with digestion results in lactose intolerance symptoms [source: PubMed Health].
Milk allergies and lactose intolerance are not the same thing. A milk allergy is caused by a malfunctioning immune system. The immune system identifies milk proteins as harmful “invaders” and releases antibodies called immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies into your bloodstream. These antibodies then release histamine, which causes milk allergy symptoms [source: Mayo Clinic]. Lactose intolerance, on the other hand, is caused by your stomach’s inability to properly digest lactose, which is sugar found in milk. Your small intestine doesn’t produce enough of the enzyme lactase. This enzyme is essential for the proper digestion of milk and the absorption of milk nutrients. This difficulty with digestion results in lactose intolerance symptoms [source: PubMed Health].
The symptoms of milk allergies and lactose intolerance are somewhat similar. The symptoms of a milk allergy include a variety of systems including skin irritation and hives, wheezing, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach ache, runny nose, and watery eyes [source: Mayo Clinic]. Symptoms of lactose intolerance are primarily gastrointestinal-related, including bloating, stomach aches, diarrhea, gas and nausea [source: PubMed Health].
SURGEON GENERAL REPORT 2006
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
And finally…..
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.
Any more questions…………
@harleyrider1978:
Not all antigens are proteins. Not all allergens are proteins.
Then I have seen the impossible. It is a miracle!
If I were to light up a cigarette now within minutes my wife would be coughing, her breathing would be labored, and her throat would be swelling. She is in the next room btw, so she would not see it. If on the other hand I were to burn something else, she might eventually complain of the smell, but would not experience the other symptoms. Also, sight unseen her body reacts differently to the heavily processed tobacco present in most cigarettes, particularly ‘light’ cigs, than to pipe tobacco. This happens whether or not she can see it or be otherwise aware of it. If it were as you claim these consistent responses would not be.
@harleyrider1978:
To be clear, I think the smoking bans have in some places gone too far, but comparing them to attempted genocide is both stupid and offensive.
@Grewgills: You think Hitler didn’t have help on his pathway to genocide……..the smoking bans were a part of his eugenics plan which had its roots in America namely California:
De-normalization tactics like those being incorporated today were what gave Hitler the ability to do what he did at the time he did it and the world over carried much the same views……..EUGENICS POLICIES WERE RIPE EVERYWHERE IN AMERICA BACK THEN as they are TODAY!
Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/11/10.php
Eugenics: the California connection to Nazi policies_SF Chronicle
Mon, 10 Nov 2003
On Sunday, Nov 9, the San Francisco Chronicle published an extraordinary, most informative article by Edwin Black, that sheds light on the role played by the American eugenics movement in the Nazi extermination policy. Eugenics is a pseudoscience whose purported aim is to “improve” the human race, while eliminating that portion of the race that eugenicists deem “undesirable.” The article is adapted from Black’s recently released book, “War Against the Weak,” published by Four Walls Eight Windows.
Black shows that American eugenics played a decisive role in the adoption of racist and even lethal public policies in the US and then in Germany. Black writes: “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists from such prestigious universities as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.”
“Stanford President David Starr Jordan originated the notion of “race and blood” in his 1902 racial epistle “Blood of a Nation,” in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.”
“The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, confinement or forced sterilization.”
The influence of American eugenicists was even more sinister. American eugenicists influenced the Nazi sterilization, experimentation, and extermination policies–including the medical atrocities first conducted on institutionalized disabled human beings–adults and children. What’s more, the scions of American philanthropy financed German eugenicists and actively supported their pseudoscientific research institutes.
Therefore, no useful discussion about medical and behavioral research ethics can take place without an examination of the American eugenics movement. Yet, American bioethicists have studiously avoided a critical analysis of the eugenics movement, its lethal ideology, and its inevitably lethal “solutions.” By their silence, American bioethics seem to be attesting to the lingering, but covert influence of eugenics within the American healthcare and research community.
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Long Island, was a eugenics center founded by the Carnegie Institution. Among its activities was the stockpiling of “millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation’s social service agencies and associations.” See also: http://nucleus.cshl.org/CSHLlib/archives/ciwfiles.htm
Edwin Black Lecture – “Eugenics: From Indiana to Auschwitz …
https://www.facebook.com/events/136054693146978/
Edwin Black Lecture – “Eugenics: From Indiana to Auschwitz”. Public · By CANDLES Holocaust Museum and Education Center. Edwin Black Lecture – “Eugenics: …
@harleyrider1978: Lactose has no protein? The milk in our refrigerator has 8 grams of protein. Lactose is milk.
@Tyrell: Enzyme deficiency is your problem…………..nothing else and is easily remedied with a pill!
Your small intestine doesn’t produce enough of the enzyme lactase. This enzyme is essential for the proper digestion of milk and the absorption of milk nutrients. This difficulty with digestion results in lactose intolerance symptoms [source: PubMed Health].
Milk allergies and lactose intolerance are not the same thing. A milk allergy is caused by a malfunctioning immune system. The immune system identifies milk proteins as harmful “invaders” and releases antibodies called immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies into your bloodstream. These antibodies then release histamine, which causes milk allergy symptoms [source: Mayo Clinic]. Lactose intolerance, on the other hand, is caused by your stomach’s inability to properly digest lactose, which is sugar found in milk. Your small intestine doesn’t produce enough of the enzyme lactase. This enzyme is essential for the proper digestion of milk and the absorption of milk nutrients. This difficulty with digestion results in lactose intolerance symptoms [source: PubMed Health].
@Tyrell: Please read the above and get it!
@Tyrell:
No, lactose is a sugar found in milk.
I hope whoever Harleyrider really is finds himself on the no-fly list, because imagining sitting next to him on a long flight is going to give me nightmares…
That is quite a grandiose title to give for such a small and sniveling blog post. I will not argue the pros or cons of each example cited but hardly they support the main assertion. I will address the issue of trans fats though. I think the results here are semantically challenged. If we instead we call the product artificial fats or plastics fats which probably closer resembles the actual product, I think the results would be different. Eg: should the government ban plastics from been used as additives in foods?
@grumpy realist:
So you’re saying that because you don’t like the smell of smoke, every bar must ban smoking, just in case, one day, you might be passing and just might want to go in for a beer? That sounds pretty unreasonable to me. And what about the 25% of the adult population who like smoky bars? Don’t they get any say in the matter?
It never seems to occur to the anti-smoking zealots that in a capitalist economy, businesses will do what they must to attract the maximum amount of customers. So if the demand is for a non-smoking bar, any owner who doesn’t want to commit economic suicide will cater to that desire. So why is it that there is need for legislation? If left to their own devices, bars will of their own accord become either smoking or non-smoking. And you, grumpy realist, will be able to choose to drink in a non-smoking bar while others can choose to go to a smoking bar. Is that such a difficult concept to take on board?
So then we get to the real reasons why smoking bans are created by force of law. It’s because the numerically small but massively funded anti-smoking lobby simply hate smokers and smoking, and they will do everything they can to make smoker’s lives unpleasant. It’s never been about health; it has always been about ideological bigotry. The Tobacco Control Industry lie, cheat and misinform through their propaganda machine, and have been doing so for decades. When the truth finally emerges concerning the way they have created social and economic havoc through their lies and deception, people will wonder how they had been conned for so long.
@nisakiman:
I hope that’s also your opinion on banning pot – if not, I suspect your biases are showing.
@george: George I myself feel that way about pot…….make it legal! The drug war is a complete and utter failure making criminals out of non-criminals.
What makes doing drugs criminal is when they have to steal to buy high priced drugs………… Make it legal and regulate the dose amount and collect some tax to pay for rehab if and when somebody decides they want rehab.
@nisakiman: We did have a period of time when smoking was allowed in bars. And in restaurants. And in all sorts of places.
There were a lot of places with “No Smoking” signs attached as well. Sections of said bars, sections of restaurants, etc. And you know what? It did absolutely zilch to regulate smoke and smokers. Smoke drifted into the area from the smoking areas. Even more, a heck of a lot of smokers seemed to think the sign was just wall decoration and would sit in the area….and smoke.
So we’ve tried it your way. And it doesn’t work. And enough people got pissed off enough at it that they wrote letters to city councils and state legislatures so that no smoking bans got implemented.
Sorry that you’re inconvenienced, but if the smoking population had been politer in the beginning and hadn’t acted like a bunch of boors, you might not have been kicked out into the snow. Your behavior, your responsibility.
@nisakiman:
LOL!
One thing I’ve noticed is that, despite the protestations of smokers concerning bars and the banning of smokers, all the bars in my area (the San Francisco Bay Area) are doing quite well, not lost business. Most smokers merely excuse themselves to go outside and smoke if they so desire.
@harleyrider1978: You don’t know much about allergies, do you? Or asthma? Or humanity?
@grumpy realist: I covered it well enough………..you don’t cover it at all!
I am a smoker. I also hate smoky bars, and hate the smell of the smoke itself. I have no issue going outside for 4 minutes to have my cigarette, because I have no problem accomodating people who don’t want to be saturated by my smoke.
If this is the battle youre picking and fighting so passionately, youre just a jackass.
@wr:
Exactly …..
grumpy realist says:
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 10:28
@nisakiman: We did have a period of time when smoking was allowed in bars. And in restaurants. And in all sorts of places.
There were a lot of places with “No Smoking” signs attached as well. Sections of said bars, sections of restaurants, etc. And you know what? It did absolutely zilch to regulate smoke and smokers. Smoke drifted into the area from the smoking areas. Even more, a heck of a lot of smokers seemed to think the sign was just wall decoration and would sit in the area….and smoke.
So we’ve tried it your way. And it doesn’t work. And enough people got pissed off enough at it that they wrote letters to city councils and state legislatures so that no smoking bans got implemented.
Sorry that you’re inconvenienced, but if the smoking population had been politer in the beginning and hadn’t acted like a bunch of boors, you might not have been kicked out into the snow. Your behavior, your responsibility.
……………………………………….
Grumpy smoking sections were basically a mention from OSHA back in 1992-3 while the debate was going on as a more or less protective stance until SHS/ETS was discussed fully.
The anti-smokers as ASH john Banzhafts group wanted sections not for smoke irritation but for the de-normalizing factor it provided………..DIVIDE and CONQUER tactic……… Then they went into the tirade that shs harmed these non-smokers which OSHA ultimately proved wasn’t true at all and ASH dropped their Federal lawsuit to force OSHA to pass a rule against indoor smoking!
The so called pissed off people you speak of don’t even exist………non-smokers don’t care one way or another until they themselves started getting attacked by the same extremist anti-smokers that then went after the Obese,the drinkers, sodas and everything else!
You and yours have created quite an army against you and your nanny state laws and regulations. So many in fact they are joining political groups like UKIP in England and in many other same styled political groups across the world to end the WORLD HEALTHS attacks on the regular joes on the street.
You can claim all the linked to trash science you want but outcome based political Public Health studies are on the way out as the people shrug off oh no not that again claims that they now laugh at………
You and yours have become the largest political joke since the last prohibitionists showed the faces back between 1900-1933! Its over and you may as well start getting use to your nanny state laws being abolished in the coming few years………ITS OVER!
CB says:
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 10:41
I am a smoker. I also hate smoky bars, and hate the smell of the smoke itself. I have no issue going outside for 4 minutes to have my cigarette, because I have no problem accomodating people who don’t want to be saturated by my smoke.
If this is the battle youre picking and fighting so passionately, youre just a jackass
………………………….
CB I highly doubt your a smoker as you come str8 off with the anti-smoker attitude and line of normal biased explanations.
The norm is smoke easys for bars and a lot of restaraunts…………
Why would you want to leave the relative safety of the indoors to smoke outside and possibly be attacked,murdered or raped as some women smokers have had happen to them.
Non-smokers don’t care about smoke,anti-smokers are the ones who say they hate smoke but yet still drive cars and do cookouts…………
Extremism isn’t a virtue………..nor is it long put up with by the general population at large.
al-Ameda says:
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 at 10:30
@nisakiman:
The Tobacco Control Industry lie, cheat and misinform through their propaganda machine, and have been doing so for decades. When the truth finally emerges concerning the way they have created social and economic havoc through their lies and deception, people will wonder how they had been conned for so long.
LOL!
One thing I’ve noticed is that, despite the protestations of smokers concerning bars and the banning of smokers, all the bars in my area (the San Francisco Bay Area) are doing quite well, not lost business. Most smokers merely excuse themselves to go outside and smoke if they so desire
…………………….
GAY BARS do well in SF but even they are under attack by the left for smoking!
Health campaign targets smoking in LGBT community
A countywide effort seeks to reduce smoking rate among gays, lesbians and bisexuals, which is 50% higher than it is among heterosexuals.
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-lgbt-smoking-20131122,0,1345024.story#ixzz2nkTHgXBc
OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE……………..
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA.
500+ bars & restaurants closed since smoking bans were enacted in the Twin Cities area, list here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
So no….the fact is smoking bans DO NOT increase business in our bars & restaurants. And in fact the MN State Auditor’s Office published a report that found bars & taverns lost, on average, 31.9% revenue, report found here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/minnesota-releases-revenue-numbers-that.html
http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2008/liquor/liquor_08_report.pdf
Kentucky shouldn’t be too eager to blindly enact a law funded by Nicoderm lobbyists. The same lobbyists promised Minnesota that “smoking bans were good for business.” However today they just hit an ominous milestone, 500 MN bars and restaurants closed since smoking bans were enacted up here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
On the Economic Analysis of Smoking Bans st louis federal reserve
This paper evaluates the literature on the economic effects of smoking bans. Many studies focus
exclusively on aggregate impact and thus may overlook the importance of distributional effects,
which reveal inefficiencies often undetectable in analyses of aggregated data. These effects also
account for the political economy of smoking bans, igniting controversy and public debate. The
political resolution often involves exemptions for certain types of establishments, which limits
the applicability of many existing studies to the more comprehensive smoking-ban proposals.
The paper also analyzes data from Maryville, Missouri—the first city in Missouri to ban smoking
in restaurants—to illustrate some of these points.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2006/02/Pakko.pdf
……………….
All anyone has to do is google smoking ban losses and it shows up everywhere a ban was imposed
Bar owners say Evansville smoking ban has snuffed out their business, sent customers to KY
Bar and tavern owners said the future is uncertain, but the past three months have been clear — business is ailing.
Alsop said members have reported revenue decreases ranging from 25 percent to 45 percent compared to April, May and June of last year.
And since the ban took effect, at least six establishments have closed, including Gloria’s and Corner Keg. Officials from those businesses couldn’t be reached.
“And I know there are several teetering,” Alsop said.
Several owners said patrons aren’t spending as much time at the bar as they used to.
DeVasier said he’s seen people buy drinks, go outside to smoke and then head home.
…
And the more time smokers are outside, the less time they’re at the bar making purchases, Alsop said.
“They imposed a lot of pain on small businesses,” said Mike Nunning, owner of Hagedorn’s, where he said business is down 30 percent.
Outside patios were recommended to ease patron inconvenience and encourage stay.
But they’re costly and some are still being built. Some places, such as the Peephole, don’t have any space for them.
Also, Alsop said some of his members are running into compliance issues with the Building Commission and other agencies, including having to create more parking because of expansions.
Whether there’s a patio or not, the 100-plus degree weather lately has been the great discourager. Several owners said they suspect people are stopping by going to liquor stores or visiting establishments that allow smoking.
Aztar is another issue,” Alsop said. “I’ve seen my customers sitting at their bars over there.”
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a39457f544b145e2a215d9f345df3eb7/IN–Exchange-Smoking-Ban-Evansville
500+ bars & restaurants closed since smoking bans were enacted in the Twin Cities area, list here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html
So no….the fact is smoking bans DO NOT increase business in our bars & restaurants. And in fact the MN State Auditor’s Office published a report that found bars & taverns lost, on average, 31.9% revenue, report found here:
http://www.osa.state.mn.us/Reports/gid/2008/liquor/liquor_08_report.p
On the Economic Analysis of Smoking Bans st louis federal reserve
This paper evaluates the literature on the economic effects of smoking bans. Many studies focus
exclusively on aggregate impact and thus may overlook the importance of distributional effects,
which reveal inefficiencies often undetectable in analyses of aggregated data. These effects also
account for the political economy of smoking bans, igniting controversy and public debate. The
political resolution often involves exemptions for certain types of establishments, which limits
the applicability of many existing studies to the more comprehensive smoking-ban proposals.
The paper also analyzes data from Maryville, Missouri—the first city in Missouri to ban smoking
in restaurants—to illustrate some of these points.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2006/02/Pakko.pdf
Once again cancer rates (including lung) have been shown to be in long time decline.Much the same for tobacco related death.The period is different.North America began showing declines at least 22 years ago.(1975 for U.K.) Yet so called tobacco control erroneously continues to claim that their secondhand smoke “death toll” has increased by 20 fold over nearly the same period.(since 1993 using these figures-it’s worse if you start earlier)
Don’t forget that they can’t actually state that secondhand smoke is a cause.
Lung cancer death rates fall, helping drive decrease in overall cancer death rates – National…
http://www.cancer.gov
Yet there are more smokers today than ever before:
World Atlas: More People Smoking Cigarettes than Ever
There are more people smoking now than ever before, despite health warnings and the rising price of cigarettes. In 1980, 4,453 billion cigarettes went up in smoke, which increased to 6,319 billion in 2010. By 2020, you can expect to find nearly seven billion cigarette ends littering the world.
Top of the charts in terms of nicotine addiction are Asia and Australia, which is where 57 percent of cigarettes are smoked today.
These alarming statistics are among many of the intriguing facts laid bare in the ninth edition of Dan Smith’s The State of the World Atlas.
The Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, covering the period 1975–2010, showed death…
@harleyrider1978:
Some items:
(1) Why do you have “gay bars” in CAPS? Is that of importance to you?
(2) Do you realize that San Francisco is both a city and a county so any action taken will be both citywide and county wide.
(3) If smoking is 50% more prevalent among those in the LGBT community than it is in the hetero community, why would you not, from a public health standpoint, strive to reduce smoking in the LGBT community?
The elephant in the room is the smoking ban.
“Taking the pre-ban years, 1980 to 2006, the average percentage loss of pubs per year was 0.65%. From 2007, the year of the ban, onwards, the average has been 2.8%. In 2007, there were 56,791 pubs in the UK, so one would have expected, based on the long-term trend, 369 pubs to close. The actual figure was 1,409. So, an ‘excess’ of 1,040 pubs closed, suggesting that perhaps three-quarters of the closures may have been caused by the ban. The ‘excess’ closures have continued at a similarly high rate in subsequent years. (Studies of the pub industry byNielsen PLC and PriceWaterhouseCoopers provide additional support for the hypothesis that the smoking ban is a key driving force behind pub closures.)”
http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/is-the-smoking-ban-to-blame-for-the-high-rate-of-pub-closures
Well! Rarely have I seen so many ‘ad hominem’ attacks on a single individual. I don’t know how Harleywhatsit has restrained himself.
When H is talking about Hitler and Nazis, he is talking about their methods, and not the end results. It is perfectly legitimate to highlight the mass media propaganda used in those horrendous times.
He is right also to draw attention to the eugenicists and their involvement in the Third Reich. These are matters of fact.
People should ask themselves some questions about the eugenicists. For example, when prohibition ended in 1933, did the eugenicists and prohibitionists go away?
Most certainly not! They immediately move back to tobacco.
Tobacco bans ended in 1917. Why? Because American servicemen were fighting in WW1 in great numbers and enjoying the little solace available to them in the form of tobacco. How could an American government justify the ban on tobacco when hundreds of thousands of its veterans were about to return home at the end of WW1 (which was already imminent in 1917)?
It may interest readers to know that Richard Doll, who conducted anti-smoking studies, had already visited Germany to study the anti-tobacco efforts there. He himself served in WW2 in the Royal Navy. After the war, in 1947, he started the Hospital Study and reported the results in 1950. Preparations were already made for the Doctors Study, which was largely funded at the beginning by the Rockefeller Foundation, a eugenicist promoter.
The eugenicists had perforce laid low during WW2 but rose again, fully intact, immediately after the war. We are now seeing the results of decades of preparation. The American people especially ought to very concerned about where all this is leading. Lies, deceits and propaganda are the order of the day.
@Junican:
It’s always perfectly legitimate to use Hitler-Nazi analogies to argue that the methods used by non-smokers and political advocates to advance smoking prohibtions are similar to those used in the Third Reich. After all, most people respond very favorably to arguments where Hitler-Nazi analogies are utilized.
@harleyrider1978:
Yeah, I lie on message boards about smoking to make points against people I dont know.
Also, you are an insane person. Goodbye!
@al-Ameda: “After all, most people respond very favorably to arguments where Hitler-Nazi analogies are utilized.”
And to obvious sock puppets. In fact, nothing is faster to convince me of an otherwise moronic argument than a message from someone no one has ever seen before supporting a troll who just showed up the day before and started spewing out dozens of messages filled with gibberish.
Sorry, all you anti-smokers, I’m not on to your evil plan to build concentration camps and… do something having to do with… something.
It’s always perfectly legitimate to use Hitler-Nazi analogies to argue that the methods used by non-smokers and political advocates to advance smoking prohibtions are similar to those used in the Third Reich. After all, most people respond very favorably to arguments where Hitler-Nazi analogies are utilized.
FACT; It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.
TODAY: CDC – Fact Sheet – Secondhand Smoke Facts – Smoking & Tobacco …
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/…/general_facts/
Jun 10, 2013 – Secondhand smoke is a mixture of gases and fine particles that includes— …. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and …
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION: PASSIVE SMOKE
90% WATER VAPOR AND ORDINAIRY AIR WE ALL BREATHE SG REPORT 1989 PG 80
Study: Second-Hand Smoke And Lung Cancer Not Clearly Linked
December 13, 2013 11:09 AM
ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta attribute approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths every year to second-hand smoke.
A new study suggests that CDC researchers may be mistaken, however.
Researchers at Stanford University discovered during a study of over 75,000 women who smoke that there was no reasonable connection
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/12/13/study-second-hand-smoke-and-lung-cancer-not-clearly-linked/
@harleyrider1978:
The fact that we used V2 technology in developing our own rockets? We must all be Nazis!
funny THING Werner VON BRAUN WASNT A NAZI……………Neither was EINSTEIN!
But the Doctors who were part of HITLERS anti-tobacco movement were Nazis.
You don’t have to be a Nazi to borrow from theyre propaganda or even those Nuremberg laws!
Its about Eugenics and its policies and they are alive today and can lead straight down the same road to a final solution if not put in check NOW!
@harleyrider1978:
Hitler was a vegetarian and in favor of animal rights as well. Never trust anyone who doesn’t eat meat or stands against animal cruelty, they are like Nazis.
@al-Ameda: I don’t know about San Francisco but there is some town out in California that is actually trying to ban smoking in peoples’ own homes!
Ok, everyone had enough fun batting around the troll and his obvious sock-puppets….? Must be a bored teenager stuck in his mom’s basement during Snow Day. One who doesn’t know how to use the “Reply” function, at that. And wants to impress us with his use of Teh Google, but just comes off as a boring little drip. May he quickly discover why helmet laws were originally passed.
To the other standard locals, I commend you for your patience and courtesy in dealing with this uncouth little putz.
(wanders off, gets lunch.)
@Grewgills:
The Green Nazi Hell and America’s Future?
Some 100 years before the Nazis rose to power, German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) ominously wrote that “we owe the animals not mercy but justice, and the debt often remains unpaid in Europe, the continent that is permeated with Foeter Judaicus…it is obviously high time in Europe that Jewish views on nature were brought to an end…the unconscionable treatment of the animal world must, on account of its immorality, be expelled from Europe.”
That such words became prophetic under the umbrella of a secular religion of nature that was Nazi Germany, colored by an environmental totalitarian view during the 1930′s and 40′s, is a historical truth that has been underappreciated-and unreported-for too long.
There was in fact a convergence between early German environmentalism and Nazism that is stunning with regard to how the Nazis promoted nationalistic ecological ideas, yet also found themselves unable to match in practice the green rhetoric they were espousing for a variety of reasons.
Thus while it may be true that from the perspective of modern environmental historians, the Nazis were not nearly as green as they said they were, there was one aspect of their nationalistic environmental campaign that was accomplished with brutal efficiency -the elimination of the Jews-which in the eyes of the Nazis was the first necessary step, if not the most important.
While Schopenhauer could not have anticipated the green sacrificial offering of the Jews in the gas chambers of places like Dachau where organic farms were planted nearby to feed Himmler’s SS troops, the Nazis never asked him “how” to expel the Jews from Europe. Only the turning tide of the war prevented the Nazis from finishing the job that Schopenhauer prophetically announced 100 years earlier. While Schopenhauer would have undoubtedly been aghast at how literally the Nazis fulfilled such anti-Semitic ambitions, Hitler called Schopenhauer a genius.
Here begins the lesson of a nationalistic racism and environmentalism that got hotwired together into an explosive political ecology that eventually dug a biological-ecological hole as deep as Auschwitz.
Schopenhauer was one of a growing list of academics throughout the 1800′s who complained of the nature-hating tendencies of the Jews whose religious views and economic practices were informed by the Genesis mandate to subdue and fill the earth. Hitler himself called this particular conquest emphasis “Jewish nonsense.” However, in the creation story of Genesis, man is created to be the king of creation, and while nature was made for the glory of God, it was also made for man since he was made in the image of God.
Anti-Semitic Greens
This view on man and nature strongly implies an autonomous utilitarian ecology, which has been the most hated ideological concept by environmental thinkers for some 200 years now. It was especially the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment that emphasized this utilitarian view of nature that opened the door for the Industrial Revolution and free market capitalism, the two greatest forces of the modern world which has supposedly left the earth in ecological shambles.
Thus, while Henry David Thoreau, perhaps the first environmental hippie of America going back to the 1800′s, was blaming the immigrant Protestants and Puritans for despoiling the New England landscape, German romantics were blaming the invasive Jewish people for the same environmental degradation taking place all around their countryside as the Industrial Revolution, supposedly fueled by Jewish capital and banks, inexorably despoiled the forested landscape and sullied wildlife habitat with dirty cities and international commercial markets.
The Stage Is Set
Other Germans with such romantic leanings like Alexander Humboldt, Ernst Moritz Arndt, Heinrich Riehl, Ernst Haeckel, and others, slowly stoked the fires of this green environmental racist campaign throughout the 1800′s. With such men is seen the birth of the idea of the German volk (people’s collective community), romantically and holistically embedded into their own German landscape. However, it was especially Ernst Haeckel, a zoologist, who opened the door wide open to the path of Nazism when he propounded a holistic, racist Social Darwinism based on “science” called Monism in those days. Haeckel in fact was the very man who coined the term “ecology” in 1866. Thus Haeckel will help provide the Nazis the missing link between nationalism, socialism, ecology, race and nature protection.
Haeckel took the Darwinian evolutionary theory about the origin of the species, and mutated it into a Romantic pseudo-scientific religious quest to recover and preserve that origin. In short, the Darwinian theory of the natural selection of the species mutated into eugenics where race became fused with species, so much so that the major concern was over preserving and protecting the original or indigenous German species from the disorderly mixing of the races. Haeckel was thus advocating a crackpot volkish romantic nationalism and nature worship, all presented in contemporary scientific garb for modern intellectual consumption.
Unsurprisingly, he discovered that the racial characteristics of the Jews were harmfully reactionary to the evolutionary laws of the natural world. Their transcendent view of man over nature made them resistant to evolutionary biological change, and hence had become a lesser race. Their blood was not properly related to the evolutionary laws of nature, nor properly embedded in the German soil.
Over time this Social Darwinist emphasis on returning back to the evolutionary laws of nature further mutated into an occultic volkish belief in “blood and soil,” where the German volk assumed that they had a special mystical relationship to the German landscape through their blood. Thus well before the Nazis had even come to power, Haeckel and the Monists essentially argued for an early Nazi version of eugenics and the environment, which later became known as “blood and soil.”
“Blood And Soil”
By the time of the Nazi period, “blood and soil” had become hardened into a romantic nationalistic green ideology where the German master race would purify itself by returning back to the simplicity of the German landscape away from the alienating asphalt culture of the big cities and free market capitalism. Nazi ideologues used the slogan for many practical purposes, everything from getting Germans back to the farm, to calls for environmental sustainability and nature preservation, to emphasizing a buy-local self-sufficient agricultural economics scheme, and including the upholding of traditional German values. Not to be outdone, but the slogan was also used to complain about capitalism, industrialization, internationalism, Judaism and Christianity as well.
Borrowing from ancient Germanic mysticism that posited that German racial identity was essentially tied literally and metaphorically to the German landscape and then cleansed by Monist scientism, the slogan “blood and soil” had thus become a rallying cry for a dangerous politicized ecology that would spell disaster for the Jewish people in particular, and millions of Slavs as well.
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/the-green-nazi-hell-and-americas-future/
@grumpy realist:
Gotta say, he/she has been a pretty entertaining one. Kinda makes me miss the Tsar.
Wait a minute…
Tell us what we want or we keep the money
A nice little illustration of how the field of ‘public health’ science works comes from Sweden this week. Recently the Karolinska Institute (which readers of The Art of Suppression may recall is very anti-tobacco) was commissioned by Sweden’s National Institute for Public Health to carry out a study on whether graphic warnings work. I have mentioned in previous posts that they do not work and that is exactly what the Karolinska researchers found.
The result? The National Institute for Public Health cancelled the contract and refused to pay them their 400,000 krona (£37,000).
Long live science! http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/…/tell-us…
Well obviously none of you have learnt since my last post.the messages are becoming more and more tedious.understand a smoker is not going to convince an anti smoker and vice versa.so stop getting yourselves wound up.nobody is more passionate than me in trying to get the smoking ban amended but i have learnt over the last few years to go about it in a different way.dont waste your time in trying to get these anti smokers to change their minds because they won’t. Steven.leeds.england.
Steve it makes you wander how they ever got a ban to start with,they cant even fight back!
@harleyrider1978:
FACT: Celine Dion, Jim Carrey, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and William Shatner are Canadians.
Okay, I get it – non-smokers are Nazis who listen to Wagnerian operas while watching Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will,” while eating schnitzel, bratkartoffeln, sauerkraut, and drinking König Pilsener beer?
@al-Ameda: Not all Germans were Nazis but they sat back while the Nazis did their business………….
@harleyrider1978: we have only got ourselves to blame.the publicans for a start should have resisted this.but remember the smokers are the piggies in the middle.we have been deserted by the tobacco companies.forest are a toothless organisation.however this all comes down to money.the anti smoking lobby are funded by the most powerful companies in the world,the pharmaceutical companies.i have read many of your messages and you write a lot of sense.however sometimes you seek confrontation and we will never get the ban amended if we pursue that avenue.we have to be more cute.i am going down an alternative avenue.i presume you are based in England.
@harleyrider1978:
Also, American non-smokers are not Germans.
@al-Ameda: Also, American non-smokers are not Germans.
American non-smokers are not anti-smokers……………..
@harleyrider1978:
but they let those Nazi anti smokers go about their business, just like the Germans. Lock your doors, they’re coming for you next! It will be genocide on all smokers and trans fat eaters. Watch your back.
@Grewgills: Given time yes,thats why we fight back today to prevent tomorrow from becoming yesterdays world!
This is what denormalization causes MURDER FOR SMOKING! The anti-smoking shooter was arrested last week and booked on 2nd degree murder as it appears the smoker was shot in the BACK OF THE HEAD!
Jerald “Wayne” Mills
Singer dies after being shot in head at downtown bar
Posted: Nov 23, 2013 11:01 AM GSTUpdated: Nov 23, 2013 10:08 PM
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -A singer died after he was shot in the head following an altercation at a bar in downtown Nashville early Saturday morning.Police confirmed Jerald “Wayne” Mills, 44, of the Wayne Mills Band, died from his injuries on Saturday evening.
The shooting was reported around 5 a.m. at the Pit and Barrel bar at 515 2nd Avenue South near Lea Avenue. The bar was closed at the time of the shooting.
The preliminary investigation reveals Mills began smoking a cigarette in a non-smoking area of the bar and the owner, Chris Ferrell, became upset.
Ferrell, 44, and Mills allegedly began to argue. Others still inside the bar at the time left.
According to a police report, witnesses outside reported hearing gunshots from inside the bar shortly after leaving and contacted police.
Mills suffered a gunshot wound to the head and was taken to Vanderbilt University Medical Center where he died Saturday evening.
Ferrell, who has a valid handgun carry permit, told police he shot Mills in self defense. The investigation is ongoing.
See also Tennessean
@harleyrider1978:
…no doctor in the world would provide me that statement because I don’t have access to the medical records of friends who haven’t deemed me legally able to see them.
And even if they did, why the hell would I then post it on the Internet?
@Tillman:
Tillman if it existed the smokefree prohibitionists would be crowing it from the rooftops by now! It doesn’t exist anywhere except in the minds of deranged anti-smokers.
One simply has to ask, How did the Murderer develop such a hatred towards smoking to start with.
DENORMALIZATION TACTICS is how……….
.Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry “Smoking, smokers and the tobacco industry are today routinely depicted in everyday discourse and media representations in a variety of overwhelmingly negative ways. Several authors have invoked Erving Goffman’s notions of stigmatisation to describe the process and impact of this radical transformation, which importantly includes motivating smoking cessation.” http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com//content/17/1/25.full
Is this what has become of society at large with the government backing such things thru its legislated smoking ban laws. So far the Federal Government has financed these smoking bans at the state and local levels thru the use of Illegal Federal grants for Lobbying via CDC,HHS,NIH etc.
There are many deaths due to the smoking bans and basically smoker hatred by people who buy into the de-normalization tactics. Is it now acceptable to shoot smokers on site. Is this what was behind the Tenn state smoking ban all along. This man would still be alive had it not been the state law and all the garbage junk science used to pass and create the atmosphere that smokers were harming others! Its all B.S. and we all know it.
It appears OSHA had it right all those years ago………..and weve had to endure 30 years of second hand B.S.
As Mike points out here on the Forbes story:
The only category of exposure that showed a trend
toward increased risk was living in the same
house with a smoker for 30 years or more.”
A Confidence Interval **THAT INCLUDES 1.0** is now being stated, in a scientific journal, to be STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT! Oh, yes, they add a weasel-word qualifier of “borderline” but that’s sort of like the Princess Bride guy saying “Well, he’s only MOSTLY dead.” or you trying to tell your girlfriend’s dad that “I only got her a LITTLE BIT pregnant!”
There’s no such thing as a finding with 1.0 being counted as statistically significant. At least not in any NORMAL science. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it even in the perverted world of antismoking science
Then we look to OSHA standards
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!
I was thinking about this if exposure is at 30 years and that’s roughly 168 hours per week and OSHA allows 40 hours a week that would tend to put the standard for a bar or waitress or casino staff at roughly 120 years of a safe workplace………Going by OSHA and the 30 year work rule as compared to the study.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/12/16/is-it-safe-yet-to-have-an-honest-conversation-about-secondhand-smoke-and-lung-cancer/
@CB: Yes, harleyrider1978 and its assorted sockpuppets are “pretty entertaining” for those who admire great, steaming truckloads of horse manure. I must admit that this is the best Gish Gallop I’ve seen in months.
I’m actually kind of in awe that any adult could have as much free time as Harleyrider.
Or no better way to spend it.
What no arguments…………………come on dudettes at least try!
@rachel:
Oh no doubt, it just takes a special kind of troll to have such stamina on what is basically a dead thread. I admire the spirit.
Is admire the right word?
@harleyrider1978:
Keep f*ckin’ that chicken, dude, its gold.
@harleyrider1978: How about? Who gives a damn about the healthiness or unhealthiness of SH smoke. A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST DON’T LIKE IT!
@Pharoah Narim: Hate they say is a terrible thing to waste!
@harleyrider1978:
Imagine how much lower the homicide rate would be if: (1) we repealed smoking prohibitions and (2) did not grant handgun carry permits.
@al-Ameda: It wasn’t the handgun that committed the murder but the brainwashing via government mandated hate campaigns against smoking that caused it………There would never have been a confrontation had the shooter not been a hater of smoking. Motivator was the hate of smoking. Government endorsed of course!
@grumpy realist:
‘Ad Hominem’ – you lose.
@CB:
‘Ad Hominem’ – you lose.
@harleyrider1978:
Without the gun, no murder. I doubt the guy would have used a steak knife.
By the way – the gun carry permit was government sanctioned.
@al-Ameda: @al-Ameda: Oh yes it was government sanctioned without any hate campaign to accompany it either……….Basically just giving us our rights back we always had under the 2nd amendment!
@harleyrider1978:
Exactly, public health concerns had nothing to do with non-smoking regulations, it was all government sponsored hate.
Also, I do agree that the government issued the gun carry permit that essentially enabled the murder – just some Second Amendment collateral damage, we’re all accustomed to that.