I realize that these comments are quite old but have to make one in regards to BTR and his idiocy. It is certainly discrimination when the landlord won't tolertate stink and stains from smokers but will tolerate stink and stains from kids, animals, and any other life form with stinky habits. Once all of that is banned in rentals, well go ahead and ban the smokers too. NUFF SAID!!
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Russ Duke is grant funded to lobby for the smoking ban. He does this lobbying, with pharma grant money, on tax payer time. There IS no science to support his statement. This is propaganda.
"The science on tobacco smoke is clear; it causes cancer, heart disease, damages the circulatory and respiratory systems, leads to low birth weight babies and makes it harder to control diabetes. All of these problems can also affect people who don’t smoke, but are exposed to the smoke of others, even if that smoke is outdoors."
This statement by Russ Duke, should be enough to get him fired as a health expert.
Dr John Dunn IS a health expert, and he says, (In a sworn affidavit)
"1. Based upon my medical training, my knowledge of proper scientific research, and my review of studies and policy making addressing second hand tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill anyone, anytime and it does not cause disease or death. I say that with reasonable medical certainty or probability. "
A non-smoking doctor opposed to smoking bans
A letter from a practicing physician and member of American Cancer Society
By Robert E. Madden, M.D
I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate
opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon
economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of
individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.
I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past
president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk,
in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco
smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is
virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in
bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the
ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product
based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-
Semitism or racism.
To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that
environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but
there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a
scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of
which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described
as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate
smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in
restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who
choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize
establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to
deny people of their rights.
Respectfully, Robert E. Madden, M.D
If the City Council and the Mayor would read studies concerning second hand smoke, instead of having private meetings with pro ban people, they would see how this entire issue has been created. It was created to assist Johnson and Johnson in selling their Nicoderm, Nicrette, Nicotrol, Nicderm CQ, and Commit Lozenges.
The money for this grand marketing scheme, starts at Johnson and Johnson's "philanthropic arm" the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The money to fund this is then funneled into created "grassroots" groups, who do call in and mailings, such as your local clean air group, the local branch of the Cancer Society and Heart and Lung Associations, (who have received over $99,000,000 national, to lobby for smoking bans, and Health Department employees, who are grant funded to start the local groups, and proclaim them to be "grassroots". THey are not.
THis money, and these lobbyists are from outside of Boise. They do not care if businesses close.
J&J wants people using THEIR nicotine instead of tobacco, and they are forcing small locally owned businesses to be free tobacco control officers for that reason.
Ridiculous, that's all I have to say. It's obvious that this economy is causing more problems then we realized. It's apparent that we have an entire community of angry, lonely, and unemployed housewives that have nothing better to do than try and control other people.
I myself am not a smoker and when I don't want to be around smoke I don't go to a bar or establishment that allows smoking. If a man at a park is smoking next to me or my children I will ask him to move or I will get off my ass and move to a different area. to be quite frank, that cigarette and cigar tax that smokers pay is enough of fine for those who enjoy smoking a tobacco leaf.
Air Quality? What is this argument? Do you honestly think that cigarettes are causing toxic and cancerous air quality. How bout all of you SUV driving soccer moms and V8 truck driving suburban dwellers who commute 40+ miles a day stop putting my health at risk. We might as well start taxing people who get less than 25 miles a gallon.
Personally, I believe that these anti-smoking petitioners need to find a part-time job or get a god damn hobby. Maybe even a gym membership. If you don't like smoking it's not hard to avoid it. Quit being a bunch of whiny bitches and find something worthwhile to fight for.
For me, the intrusion into a business owner's right to make their own decision outweighs our right to tell them what to do. That doesn't hold true in all cases, I'm not a purist. But, to me, there seem to be plenty of alternatives if a customer wants to go to a non-smoking establishment. There's a limit to how far governments should go and there are other alternatives to implementing new laws. For instance, new city codes allow - where there is not an imminent threat - for buildings to be either grandfathered in or they are given long lead time implementation dates.
The case being made, from what I understand, can be applied to BBQ grills, lawnmowers, and many other emission sources. So, to me, the justification is a) thin on one point & b) too broad as the same logic can be applied to many other emission sources.
I also kind of think if Greenwich Village had such a rule in the '60s, a huge creative environment would have taken on a different tone. You know, I just feel like governmental agencies never stop with new rules. At some point it just gets too much.
This same ordinance prohibits smoking in tobacco stores. It would prohibit smoking in hookah bars, cigar bars, and private establishments. Give me a break.
I also think that groups leasing public parks for events - e.g., Art In The Park - can make their own decisions. I went to Blues in the Park a few months ago. There was a very low percentage of smokers, but historically, that's been a group that has smokers. I don't enjoy smoke from others, but hey, I made a reasonable accommodation by sitting away from those smoking. My desire to not be bothered did not outweigh that person's rights. Was it bothersome? Sure. Life's not perfect, let's stop the social engineering, please.
I adamantly object to this also prohibiting someone from smoking in there own home. OSHA tried to regulate people's home offices once & people were outraged. It's just too dang intrusive.
When we start making laws based on preference, we've gone too far. This law is a) too intrusive, b) doesn't allow for common sense (e.g., no-smoking in Hookah Bars / cigar bars / smoke shops?????), c) feels like No Child Left Behind - i.e., attempts to make us all the same / doesn't allow for individual variability, etc....
I say this is going too far.
Smoking at home is already banned in some places in California, birthplace of the bans. Once these ban fanatics find gullible lawmakers and get a foot in the door, there's no stopping them.
It is time for smokers to stand up together before they try to take away the rest of our rights. The next thing you know they will say that we cant smoke in our own houses. Granted there are some that smoke that dont think about others and smoke where ever they want. I smoke and go out of my way to smoke away from kids and non-smokers.
84 percent of Idaho Adults are non-smokers? I wonder where that number comes from. If that's the case, are we really afraid of the smoke generated from the other 16%? If people are concerned about the air they breathe, perhaps we should ban automobiles which produce far more toxins into the air than 16% of the Idaho smoking population. Or for that matter, we should ban forest fires. Let's get real and talk straight. Stop raising a flag for ridiculous causes because you have nothing better to do than discriminate against other people.
This is a liberal thinking meathead. Don't want to work in a bar with smoke and having to work in a bar with smoke are two different things. If you choose to, you put up with that environment. Get lost you fool!
I because I am a smoker that means I have no rights. I will quit smoking if you grow a brain!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just another move towards dictatorship
Does this mean we smokers get a tax break? I mean shit if we can't smoke why do we need to pay for parks?
Ms. Woodruff and her organization mean well, I'm sure. And they provide a valuable service in that they "counter-point" the nuclear industry folks who declare just as passionately that nuclear energy is safe.
Every form of energy generation has an upside and a downside. And every one has an impact on the environment. What type of energy does the SRA say we should use, to supplant that generated by the 104 nuclear plants they'd like to shut down? And are they confident in declaring that the public will willingly accept the tradeoffs? (Higher energy prices would probably be one of the tradeoffs.)
Here's something interesting - almost 80% of France's energy is from nuclear reactors. Apparently it's working for them. Once America's reactors are mothballed, will the anti-nukes go after the other countries?
Gee, another nuclear scientist who falsely frames our choice as using nuke power or coal, or shiver in the darkness. Can yoiu say "geothermal power" Akira? Geothermal is steady 24/7 power, and it can provide 50% of the total USA power load.
Idaho has enough wind power to triple our electric needs, and never meltdown. Funny how in this long article Akira never mentions they still can not control FUK-U-shima. Akira never mentions we do NOT need a tsunami to wipe out back up emergency power. In the 1980's, Shoreham plant had all 3 backup generators break when tested past 15 minutes. In 2002, Indian Point had 2 of 3 fail. NRC only requires 4 freraking hours of back up power.
Idaho is too great to evacuate! ...Peter Rickards
Thats what im saying Right!!!!!!!!!! The first car was made of hemp and ran on hemp. Hemp for victory! Yes I and I see this plant is good, love hemp seeds yummy and so good for you!!!!! Vote Yes on prop 19 in California, Boo Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dude, you said "hash this out"!
$2 billion industry in Canada. It's also supported by the Idaho and National Grange, and I believe the Farm Bureau as well.
We need to grow up. and get with the times. Hemp could put America back on its feet. Control it tax it, who cares except drug dealers. Lets use hemp to build homes, cure cancer and make gas.
Let us farm our hemp for its natural resources In the national marketplace, as mother nature intended. Give us the freedom we need to succeed in a national marketplace.
I still find it funny that there are two sides....not just the issues but you have to be in the "buddy system" side of politics to many persons beliefs. We all know many old conservatives that vote republican because that's what they do, that's what their daddy did and it's pretty lame. Not many free thinkers out there. People should did into an issue and see who they align with. I took a test last election. I did not align with either candidate to my shagrin.
© 2017 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation