Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/30/2002 5:00:57 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:10:41 AM EDT
Ask yourself how you would feel if "the people" were deciding if they were going to let you do something YOU like to do. Freedom has to be protected, even if it's not a freedom you yourself would take advantage of. FooBarBaz
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:21:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 8:35:44 AM EDT by FL_BOY]
the gov't will ban smoking in your house, in your car, then move on to regulate what you watch, read, eat, when you are allowed to have sex......in other words, there will be no end to it and this will give the precedent that the 'good of the many' has been approved by the voters. By the way, I smoked in my misspent youth and quit so many years ago I don't remember exactly when I quit. As a rule of thumb, I will vote no on anything that imposes on someone else's right of choice, in the hope that when they come for me and my freedom of choice, the public will say no. What is with the pig amendment? This should be a legislative civil law, not an amendment to the Constitution. Is someone trying to open up the FL Constitution for more than a 'pig' amendment, say removing the current state preemption on firearms??? I also think that requiring a study to tell me what new gov't programs will cost is a good idea, miami can go fvck itself, I will not agree to let them become a seperate kingdom in the state - example is requiring gun locks in violation of the FL Constitution, had to be taken to court to make them repeal the law and drop the gun manufacturer's suits, and I don't think that I want to spend 30 Billion on free day care billed as pre-kindergarten, or any of the other gov't spending that once passed will force a state income tax. Don't know about everyone else, but I feel taxed to the max, with little beneficial return, and I am tired of the personal rights creep that is slowly making citizens a prisoner/servent of government. Just my .02 edit to add: I find smoking disgusting, I have lost several family members to smoking - I can still picture my aunt dragging around a 100' oxygen tube, one lung left and craving a smoke. If I have to tolerate smoke, I take my business to another establishment. KEEP in mind this is not a gov't reg, they want to change the FL Constitution! None of the amendments are worth calling for a change to the Constitution. How many other freedoms can be made this way?
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:27:28 AM EDT
Oh boy... where to begin. I've been a smoker for 15 years (I'm 30). Let me start off by saying it's a terrible, terrible thing. I have not done the homework, but I would bet it could come close to firearms and automobile deaths combined. The question you have to ask yourself is, how badly does your state want to get rid of smoking/ who are they appeasing right now with this refferendum? Sales of cigarettes are remaining constant despite higher taxes and the Ad Campaign commercials. So what you should really ask yourself, is how much does it affect your personal way of life/ how much do you want your taxes to go up. Although, I digress, I go to a small business that happens to only serve beer and liquor in the PRK... there is a jar, where, if you do indeed partake of smokular (I made that word up, nyuk, nyuk) activities - you put $5 in to help take of the fine if they get popped. Dunno, if this helps at all - but I can be long winded, and my fingers hurt (No jokes you turkeys)
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:35:05 AM EDT
This isn't the same thing as the govt telling you what you can and can't do with your guns, except that they have said that you can't kill someone else with your guns. This is the same thing. If you want to stay home and hot-box your house, feel free, but don't infect others with your smoke. Cigarette smoke is also pollution. Just like the govt. regulates the amount of pollution your car can make, and factories can make, they should regulate the amount of pollution that your cigarette can make too. My grandfather recently passed away from throat cancer, and he hadn't smoked in 20 years. If 20 years of clean living didn't rid him of the effects of smoking, just think what 10 years working as a waiter or waitress (or god forbid a bartender) could do to an otherwise healthy person. If people can't handle not getting their fix, then they can take up dipping snuff or chewing tobacco, just don't spit on my shoe. I would vote no on this issue if they would pass a law that every time someone is blowing smoke on me, I can punch them in the face. This seems more along the lines of an-eye-for-an-eye. I also have a huge problem with human weakness and smoking, or any kind of addiction, is human weakness to me. Smokers endure immediate health problems (asthma, pneumonia) in addition to the long-term effects (cancer, emphysema). Virtually every smoker I know wishes, even if they won't readily admit it, that they could quit. The fact that they endure these medical hardships, and drive the cost of my health insurance higher, is pathetic to me.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:36:37 AM EDT
I'm voting 'NO' on ALL the amendments. I'm sick and tired of the Florida legislature dicking around with the state constitution for political and in some cases financial gains. [pissed]
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:44:10 AM EDT
Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:46:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
We do, but not the power grabbers and the sheeple!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:48:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:48:35 AM EDT
Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner. Some rights are simply not negotiable. You have to decide if this is one of them. You are taking these things into proper perspective. I am not a smoker, but would oppose any ban that limits smoking to only to licensed establishments. When are they planning on hiking the license fees? Do it for the children? You made no exception for peoples homes, so I have to assume that even a smokers home must go smoke free. Has there already been a ban on outdoor smoking? I would vote "strongly no" to this and any similar ballot measure.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:51:30 AM EDT
Yes, It's weakness... here is my wallet and my gun. I'm very, very weak and I don't deserve either. Oh, and feel free to punch smokers in the face... let me know how far you get with the "weak" ones. Ciao S-A BTW, If you bitch about second-hand smoke - You owe us half a pack [:D]
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:51:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
Absolutely YES, and I also believe it should be up to the employee whether he wants to work there. Do you think that companies profit when workers are killed? Business has moved far past the days of "The Jungle". They recognize that it cost far more to rehire and retrain than it does to ensure basic safety.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:52:38 AM EDT
i agree stay home and smoke :) my wife has had to visit the hospital numerous times because of her asma and people smoking. i also dont enjoy the smell,and dont want my kids around it. its a drug especially when it's hard to quit and the only reason its not banned yet is america makes alot of money off of it. and i ask myself how can people willingly go in and spend 5.00 a pack and not say there addicted? my own mom makes up millions of excuses for smoking and the DOC told her she had infusima(sp)...but now she just lies to him and says she cut back :( ... and please if you smoke use your ashtray in your car...im sick of people whipping the dam things out of there windows and hitting my car. never mind on a hike down the road all you see is butts on the side of the road.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:00:36 AM EDT
Look at it this way I can carry a gun and stand right next to someone with out infringing on them at all. A smoker on the other side of the room will pollute the whole room . Everybody in that room will smell that smoke and breath it. That infringes on me. No smoking sections mean nothing unless they are designed from the start to clean the air and protect the workers in those areas. That is why the total ban on inside smoking. Please vote Yes to ban smoking were it infringes on anybody else right to breath.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:04:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
Absolutely YES, and I also believe it should be up to the employee whether he wants to work there. Do you think that companies profit when workers are killed? Business has moved far past the days of "The Jungle". They recognize that it cost far more to rehire and retrain than it does to ensure basic safety.
View Quote
Are you kidding? When was the last time you were on a construction site? I am in charge of safety (among other things) on a $35 million project, and I have to battle with the foreman and subcontractor owners daily to get them to provide the proper tools, materials, and equipment for their employees to be able to work safely. Is the OSHA arm of the govt. run well? Hell no. Do we still need the regulations? Hell yes. I would actually like to see the smoking issue become a part of the OSHA standard, then there would be much less question, but most violators would get away with it more often. That way, if an employee didn't have a problem working around smoke, he could do so, but if he did have a problem, he could report it.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:06:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 6:07:58 AM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
Absolutely YES, and I also believe it should be up to the employee whether he wants to work there. Do you think that companies profit when workers are killed? Business has moved far past the days of "The Jungle". They recognize that it cost far more to rehire and retrain than it does to ensure basic safety.
View Quote
WRONG, Everyday, I will say it again EVERYDAY I see workers to do unsafe and sometime just plain stupid thing to GET THE JOB DONE. Everyday there is a pipefitter going into a unprotected trench because it take too long or there is no trench box on site to set up. I see this all the time.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:06:48 AM EDT
Oh, and feel free to punch smokers in the face... let me know how far you get with the "weak" ones.
View Quote
This gives me an even better idea, lets classify second hand smoke as assault. This opens up a wealth of possibilities should you decide to pollute my space.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:12:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 6:18:34 AM EDT by norman74]
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By Torf:
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
Absolutely YES, and I also believe it should be up to the employee whether he wants to work there. Do you think that companies profit when workers are killed? Business has moved far past the days of "The Jungle". They recognize that it cost far more to rehire and retrain than it does to ensure basic safety.
View Quote
WRONG, Everyday, I will say it again EVERYDAY I see workers to do unsafe and sometime just plain stupid thing to GET THE JOB DONE. Everyday there is a pipefitter going into a unprotected trench because it take too long or there is no trench box on site to set up. I see this all the time.
View Quote
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or with Torf, but I thought I'd address it either way. This has to do with the safety culture, both for a project and for a company. If the company stresses results over safety, then this kind of activity will go on all the time. Here in South Florida, workers ARE cheap, and easily replacable. Most of the workers on our jobsite are immigrants, many illegal. For my concrete sub to lose a "dirty mexican" is nothing to him, he's got 12 more waiting to take his place. The bottom line is that employers do not have the best interests of the workers at heart, they have their $$ at heart. This is the EXACT reason that standards like OSHA were enacted. This "if you don't like it you can work somewhere else" attitude is not acceptable, simply because you can't "work somewhere else" when all of the employers have this attitude. *Edited to add, I've started a new thread regarding OSHA (go here: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=151860[/url]) so that we don't get too far off topic on this thread.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:18:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74:
Oh, and feel free to punch smokers in the face... let me know how far you get with the "weak" ones.
View Quote
This gives me an even better idea, lets classify second hand smoke as assault. This opens up a wealth of possibilities should you decide to pollute my space.
View Quote
Christ. Irresistable force meets the immovable object. I agree to disagree on this. Out.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:20:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74: Are you kidding? When was the last time you were on a construction site?
View Quote
Actually, Friday.
I am in charge of safety (among other things) on a $35 million project, and I have to battle with the foreman and subcontractor owners daily to get them to provide the proper tools, materials, and equipment for their employees to be able to work safely.
View Quote
Good for you, I am building a $10 million dollar building, and have been on the job site for at least 4 out of the last 6 months. Why do you have to deal with such crappy attitudes? I don't know. None of those problems exist on our site. As a business owner, I know that it costs as much as $10,000 to replace even a forklift driver! Why would anyone in my position risk a $10,000 investment on a few dollars worth of safety precautions.
Is the OSHA arm of the govt. run well? Hell no. Do we still need the regulations? Hell yes.
View Quote
OSHA sucks. Plain and simple. Why do you need some 4th branch of government agency to tell you to treat your people right? Most of us don't.
I would actually like to see the smoking issue become a part of the OSHA standard, then there would be much less question, but most violators would get away with it more often. That way, if an employee didn't have a problem working around smoke, he could do so, but if he did have a problem, he could report it.
View Quote
This despite the fact that smoking is a non-workplace occurance. Should farting be regulated under OSHA? That is offensive, smelly and toxic to people. Sure, make a bureaucracy so restrictive that even the complaint of smoke can trigger governmental action. Despite the fact that most businesses are "smoke-free", you want tougher regulations. Nice. Think about this the next time you want a smoker to respect your RKBA.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:23:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74: *Edited to add, I've started a new thread regarding OSHA (go here: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=151860[/url]) so that we don't get too far off topic on this thread.
View Quote
OK, no problem. I'll be there, sorry about the thread hijack, Hawkeye.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:26:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Badseed:
Originally Posted By norman74:
Oh, and feel free to punch smokers in the face... let me know how far you get with the "weak" ones.
View Quote
This gives me an even better idea, lets classify second hand smoke as assault. This opens up a wealth of possibilities should you decide to pollute my space.
View Quote
Christ. Irresistable force meets the immovable object. I agree to disagree on this. Out.
View Quote
Badseed; I mean this in no way sarcastically: thank you for being the bigger man on this one. This issue for me is somewhat personal as I have lost 4 grandparents in recent years (two within the last 8 months) to complications and as a result of years of smoking. I also smoked while in high school, and suffered 3 collapsed lungs as a result. I then switched to chew/dip, and did that until about 3 years ago. I managed to quit dipping, drinking alcohol, and caffeine cold turker and all at the same time, and stayed off of alcohol and caffeine for a year; I still don't dip. The alcohol and caffeine I quit simply to be sure that I still could, the dipping I quit so I could hopefully still have a face when I'm 80. I appologize for being inflammatory, and appreciate you being the bigger man. Most exchanges like this turn into week long flame wars, and you're managed to diffuse it almost immediately. With that said, I truly hope that you can and do quit smoking. Thankfully my last two grandparents went relatively quickly, but it certainly wasn't painless. The mere thought of how my grandfather looked 2 months ago dying in his bed, and the effect that sight had on my mother should be enough to make anyone quit. If not for yourelf, than for what your family members will have as their last rememberance of you.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:29:01 AM EDT
I really dislike smoking. I'm not an asshole about it, but I really don't like it when people smoke around me. I've never smoked myself, and never will. But I won't grant my government the right to restrict another freedom! I am voting against this amendment. My standard for voting is freedom. If the bill would restrict any freedom, then I am voting against it, period. CJ
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:29:55 AM EDT
Hawkeye: My wife and I debated the merits of the amendments as well. After all, we don't like people smoking where we are trying to eat and don't believe that caging animals so that they cannot even turn around is particularly nice. Then, we realized a few things: 1. These items don't belong as constitutional amendments. I can see it now: (Announcer voice) "Florida: The pig friendly smoke-free state! It's so important, it's in our constitution!"...kid to Mom: "Gee, Mom, they're wholesome!" 2. We haven't been bothered by smoke in a public place for years, at least not where we couldn't escape it. Of course, we stay out of bars as a matter of policy. 3. Regulation like the pig thing could give the folks of PETA a foot in the door for all kinds of things. 4. When in doubt, vote for less regulation, not more. There are plenty on the books already to keep us safe, well fed, and reasonably educated above most of the free world. We choose not to be a part of the regulation flood. -White Horse
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:37:03 AM EDT
i smoke but i don't smoke in my house or my truck, and usually i don't smoke in other people houses even if they smoke,because they can't smoke in my house when they come over. i can see banning in in stores and places where childrn go. but i can't see banning it in bars or walking down the street. my opion on the big tobacco lawsuits are bullshit. no one is holding a gun to your head to smoke and the warning been on the pack for at least 20 years! it seams that since after the lawsuits started and the taxes went up.that the price of cigs dropped just bought a carton of marlbro for $22 sat.usually no more than $25
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:45:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 6:48:31 AM EDT by norman74]
I agree that the tobacco lawsuits are retarded. All three of my grandfathers (one step) started smoking in the military (two AF pilots and one Army), with cigarettes that the govt. gave them. No one in my family has suggested that we sue uncle sam for getting them hooked.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:48:12 AM EDT
RKBA - aka "The Second Amendment" The [b]Right[/b] of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. That is a Right guaranteed by our Constitution. Driving (with a license of course) is not a right but a privelege. Smoking is a privelege that should not be forced on everyone else. I do not believe in voting to implement any "Constitutional Amendment" because doing so would open the Constitution up for every little penny ante thing that came up! I believe that would degrade the integrity of it. I don't think it is right to tax cigarettes or beer more heavily than gum or Coke. To do so puts one group in favor over another. What would be next...Ammo, Scopes, camo clothing, combat or hunting boots, etc. The liberals will never stop until we are Socialist or Communist! Everybody should pay a fair amount which is somethng the Government has forgotten about. BigDozer66
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:56:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Look at it this way I can carry a gun and stand right next to someone with out infringing on them at all. A smoker on the other side of the room will pollute the whole room . Everybody in that room will smell that smoke and breath it. That infringes on me. No smoking sections mean nothing unless they are designed from the start to clean the air and protect the workers in those areas. That is why the total ban on inside smoking. Please vote Yes to ban smoking were it infringes on anybody else right to breath.
View Quote
Bunch of crap. Sounds like a bunch of anti logic (if there is such a thing) to me. Since guns are dangerous, you having one endangers every one around you. Therefore, we need to ban guns. The second hand smoke studies are as much junk science as the Kellerman study. By voting "yes" to ban smoking, you are giving the all powerful gov't the ability to restrict someone else's leagal activity for your pleasure. BTW, I don't smoke. Never have. Never will. AND I find it disgusting.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 6:57:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
I see you have swallowed the studies on "secondhand smoke", put out by the goodie two shoes. Check the latest info available...
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 7:03:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By norman74:
Originally Posted By liberty86: Don't you think it should be up to the individual business owner to decide that policy???
View Quote
By this logic, do you also think that it should be up to a contractor as to whether or not to provide a safe working environment for their employees?
View Quote
Your premis is not valid in this argument. Second hand smoke is not dangerous. The studies that state so are junk science.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 7:09:54 AM EDT
VOTE NO on Amendment 6! Who are you to tell a private business what they can allow in their establishment? What is wrong with smoking and non-smoking sections. Is that not good enough. If you are at a private business and don't like the smoke, then go somewhere else. And by the way, I am a non-smoker.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 7:17:30 AM EDT
For those who want FACTS, check out this site; [url]http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html[/url]
The EPA Report In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen. This was, and remains, a powerful weapon in the anti-smokers arsenal. If a smoker is only hurting himself, he can argue that it's no one else's business. But if he is hurting everyone around him, all kinds of restrictive legislation can be justified. Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully. Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year. Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable. After reading each of the following facts, ask yourself "Does this fact make the study more credible, or less credible? Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished. Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies. Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably. The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report. Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates. Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30. Fact: On page 3-46 the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalnt of about one-fifth of a ciggrete per day." Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.) Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions. Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies. Questionnaires can be notoriously inaccurate, as discussed in Epidemiology 102, but in this case some of them were not even filled out by the people being studied, but by "surrogates." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay. Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies. . six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship." Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat. Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25) Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25) Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it. Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible? Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level. Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they doubled their margin of error! Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion? Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means: • Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%. • Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.
View Quote
(continued)
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 7:18:41 AM EDT
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable. (See Epidemiology 101 for more details.) This rule is routinely ignored when the subject is second hand smoke. Facts: In review: The EPA ignored more than half of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant. Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification. Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long. Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines." Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer." Fact: The following is another direct quote from Judge Osteen's decision: "In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. Gathering all relevant information, researching, and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS a Group A carcinogen." Most of the media ignored the judge's decision. When confronted with this decision, many anti-tobacco activists and organizations harp on the fact that Judge Osteen lives in South Carolina. The obvious implication is that he's influenced by the tobacco industry in his state. It may also be an appeal to the "stupid southerner" stereotype. Fact: Judge Osteen has a history of siding with the government on tobacco cases. Fact: In 1997 Judge Osteen ruled the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco. So much for his alleged bias. Fact: Although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organizations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate. Fact: Anyone referring to EPA classifying ETS as a Class A carcinogen is referring to this study. Opinion: You should seriously question the credibility of anyone who refers to this study, or any of the conclusions that it reached, as if they were facts. That includes everyone who refers to the EPA's ruling that ETS is a Class A Carcinogen. Once they do, every subsequent statement they make should be considered highly suspicious until it is thoroughly verified. Fact: Most of the information on this page was gleaned from Judge Osteen's 92 page decision, the CRS report, and the EPAs study. You are strongly encouraged to read these documents yourself. You can find the judge's entire decision here. The CRS report is available here. The EPA's report is not available on-line because it's about 600 pages long. It is, however, available to US citizens at no charge. Call (800) 438-4318 if you'd like a copy. Ask for document EPA/600/6-90/006F. The title of the report is "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders." Fact: Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA, still insists that this study is valid!
View Quote
"Safety Issue", my foot!!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 7:56:37 AM EDT
I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and will never smoke myself. However, I would never vote to ban it as that would be anti-freedom. Every one knows smoking is bad now, so if they chose to smoke let them. Erie county where I live has banned it in restuarants except for bars and restuarants that have a separate closed off smoking area. I don't fully support this as I think it should be a choice for the owner to make and I think a separate smoking area is enough without actually closing it off which costs the owner more money. Where I grew up in Chautauqua county they had smoking and non-smoking with no special enclosure and the non-smoking sectinos always stayed smoke free at most of the places we'd go to eat.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 10:03:22 AM EDT
hehe funny stuff...so us non smokers should be the one to quit work so people can smoke. hehehe funny stuff. and for the junk science guy...why dont you go build your house in a nuclear dump site? dont worry about cancer or dieing its only junk science you have nothing to worry about hehehehe
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 10:07:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MrP:
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Look at it this way I can carry a gun and stand right next to someone with out infringing on them at all. A smoker on the other side of the room will pollute the whole room . Everybody in that room will smell that smoke and breath it. That infringes on me. No smoking sections mean nothing unless they are designed from the start to clean the air and protect the workers in those areas. That is why the total ban on inside smoking. Please vote Yes to ban smoking were it infringes on anybody else right to breath.
View Quote
Bunch of crap. Sounds like a bunch of anti logic (if there is such a thing) to me. Since guns are dangerous, you having one endangers every one around you. Therefore, we need to ban guns. The second hand smoke studies are as much junk science as the Kellerman study. By voting "yes" to ban smoking, you are giving the all powerful gov't the ability to restrict someone else's leagal activity for your pleasure. BTW, I don't smoke. Never have. Never will. AND I find it disgusting.
View Quote
I would like to respond to you without resorting to calling what you wrote a bunch of crap. I dont think you would understand [whacko]
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 10:10:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 10:54:08 AM EDT
I used to smoke. After 20 years or so, I decided to quite on New Year's Eve 1999. In the late 1980's the city I was working in passed a law banning smoking in the work place. That included the break room. It really sucked having to stand out in the cold and rain of Winter, especially when the owner of the company felt no sympathy for his employees that smoked. Then the state banned smoking in restaurants. That wasn't bad because I would rather taste and smell the food I'm paying big bucks for. When they banned smoking in bars in order to protect the health of the establishments employees (Like they were innocents forced to unknowingly work in a hasardous environment) that pissed me off. I couldn't sit with my friends and enjoy uninterrupted conversation over an adult beverage. Now that I don't smoke. I still miss having something to do while I'm having a drink in a bar, but I don't miss watching non smokers complain about the smoke (Boy they could get annoying).
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 11:03:28 AM EDT
Friendship Heights, MD tried to ban outdoor smoking. There was a legal challenge and the ordinance went down in flames. A guy I know was the plaintiff, and he doesn't even smoke! How could the FL ban end up any different? Referendum or not, it's unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 11:09:52 AM EDT
I will be voting NO on this pathetic amendment. I am a non-smoker, and HATE the fact that my wife IS a smoker, but the fact remains that no one has the right to dictate to the owner of a restaurant, club, or bar that smoking shall not be permitted in his establishment. Non-smokers have rights..... to go somewhere else. Find a club where the owner has decided NOT to permit smoking. Have a great time! As time passes, the market will dictate whether the smoking or non-smoking places survive. If NO ONE wants to go to a smoking establishment, then the places that allow smoking will either switch their policy or go out of business. Objective of non-smokers achieved! On the other hand, if the party crowd likes to smoke, or couldn't care less either way, then again, the market will choose. I'm sick of the gov telling private citizens what to do. Hell, if it were up to me, a restaurant would be able to hang a big sign out front that said "NO NIGGERS ALLOWED". If the business survived, so be it. If it failed (and I'm sure it would, because the MARKET would dictate that most people wouldn't want to associate with an ignorant racist), then tough luck. It's called FREEDOM, folks. It's an attribute, not a variable. You either have it or you don't. VOTE NO ON 6!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 11:12:47 AM EDT
Election day is a feast for fools: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer31.html[/url] This time for sure! Hahahahahahhahahhahahhaha!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 11:13:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Older_Crow: I'm voting 'NO' on ALL the amendments. I'm sick and tired of the Florida legislature dicking around with the state constitution for political and in some cases financial gains. [pissed]
View Quote
I think the reason this is being submitted as a referendum is precisely because the Florida legislature (gotta luv those Republicans!) WON'T pass such an intrusive and unconstitutional law. It's the assholes over at the American Lung Association who are responsible for this!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 11:18:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 11:22:46 AM EDT by Zaphod]
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Look at it this way I can carry a gun and stand right next to someone with out infringing on them at all. A smoker on the other side of the room will pollute the whole room . Everybody in that room will smell that smoke and breath it. That infringes on me. No smoking sections mean nothing unless they are designed from the start to clean the air and protect the workers in those areas. That is why the total ban on inside smoking. Please vote Yes to ban smoking were it infringes on anybody else right to breath.
View Quote
It seems to me that your desire to breath infringes on the smoker's right to enjoy his selected vice.... You do not have a right to enter into ANOTHER PERSON'S place of business and tell THEM what THEY should do. YOU have the right to go SOMEWHERE ELSE where the establishment respects your wishes. Likewise, a smoker has NO RIGHT to enter ANOTHER PERSON'S place of business and light up if the owner of said business does not allow the practice. Last time I checked, this was America. Then again, I think the title of G. Gordon's new book pretty much says it all... Edited to add: Okay, here's a thought for all you pro-gun, anti-smoking types: You're at the range enjoying your chosen hobby. The smoke from the firearms drifts across the fruited plane where some granola-munching, tree-hugging asshole decides to complain. Are you advocating that the government come down and infring upon YOUR rights to shoot in response? I didn't think so...
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 2:37:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 3:56:00 PM EDT
Coming home from work this afternoon I had to stop at a red light. Some jerk in a pickup truck (with a Proud Union Member sticker) was smoking in front of me. The smoke went into my vehicle and I had to smell the shit. Now can any of you people tell me what "right" this asshole had to affect my breathing of a known cancer causing substance? Why isn't my right to sit in my own vehicle and enjoy clean air greater than his right to "do whatever he wants to do, even if kills him"? Since I'm moving back home to Florida next year please vote for this law. The sooner we stop a substance that it very dangerous the better off we all will be. I would much rather spend my money on .223 ammo than pay for cancer treatment for stupid assholes.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 4:25:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Older_Crow: I'm voting 'NO' on ALL the amendments. I'm sick and tired of the Florida legislature dicking around with the state constitution for political and in some cases financial gains. [pissed]
View Quote
I DESPISE smoking. But not as much as I despise NEW legislation. NO NEW LAWS.
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 4:28:53 PM EDT
How utterly and patently STUPID! What next? Ban farts in public places? I agree that if a business wants, they can and should have a no smoking policy. But force them to? And a ban outdoors? Things are a lot worse than I thought. I want my country back!
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 4:45:49 PM EDT
hehe So why don't they do what CT did when they banned your right to own firearms (hehe). Pass a law, don't change the state constitution. (hehe) The stupid gun LAWS, not amendments to the constitution are why I refused a job transfer to your overtaxed and restrictive socialist state. hehehehe
Originally Posted By evhwg: hehe funny stuff...so us non smokers should be the one to quit work so people can smoke. hehehe funny stuff. and for the junk science guy...why dont you go build your house in a nuclear dump site? dont worry about cancer or dieing its only junk science you have nothing to worry about hehehehe
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 4:54:24 PM EDT
Please take note: most people don't object to many of the proposed amendments. This is what makes them so dangerous!! ALL of them could be handled by passing LAWS at the state level. They are an excuse to get a constitutional convention going so draconian gun laws, state preemption, state income tax, more gov't control over our lives can and will will happen. It's not about smoking or pregnant pigs...
Originally Posted By Hawkeye: Well, I think I have made up my mind. Zaphod, I think you convinced me. I dont want to be telling a business owner what he or she can and cant do inside their establishment. I will just make a conscious choice not to go to places with a level of smoking that I am not comfortable with. Thanks for all the replies. Oh, and by the way, not everyone over at the Lung Assoc. are @ssholes. I know a few. [;)]
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:06:09 PM EDT
Think back 30 years when owning firearms was fun, everyone had them, shooting, hunting, self defense was accepted as the law of the land, people were held accountable for their actions. No one worried that a neighbor would report you to a citizen tips line because you owned a firearm. Vote NO, HELL NO on all of the proposed amendments. The legislature can address them all by passing laws and sending them to the governor. It is not about smoking or pregnant pigs, it is about attacking/changing the constitution.
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
Originally Posted By Older_Crow: I'm voting 'NO' on ALL the amendments. I'm sick and tired of the Florida legislature dicking around with the state constitution for political and in some cases financial gains. [pissed]
View Quote
I DESPISE smoking. But not as much as I despise NEW legislation. NO NEW LAWS.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/30/2002 5:26:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/30/2002 5:41:24 PM EDT by crowboy]
Lets take this logic a little further- At least 50% of all drivers can't drive, so lets ban bad drivers( they ARE hazardess to everyones health, Ban them... Fast food is very bad for your health and WE who dont eat it are tired of paying the medical bills for fat peoples Heart attacks, Ban it... Alcohol has been proven to cause Major health problems as well as social problems and deaths from drunk drivers, I am tired of being around drunks, Ban drinking... Lack of proper excersize causes thousands of deaths every year, I am tired of paying your widows and childrens Social Security survivors benefits , pass a law that says everyone has to work out on a regular basis... Alot of Parents are too ignorant to raise their chidren properly which costs the rest of us alot of Money for Jails and re training of these idiot kids, pass a law that if your stupid you cant have kids... Certain kinds of music bothers me and is a health risk to my Ears, Pass a law that you cant play music in your Car that bothers me... We could go on and on couldnt we? If you dont like smoking then dont smoke but leave the rest of us alone, the Law banning certain personal activities may come after you next.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top