Excessive amounts of secondhand smoke...

Excessive amounts of secondhand smoke lingering in County

There are 40 comments on the Marshall County Tribune-Courier story from Sep 11, 2012, titled Excessive amounts of secondhand smoke lingering in County. In it, Marshall County Tribune-Courier reports that:

By David Green Tribune-Courier Reporter BENTON - Marshall County residents "are exposed to very dangerous levels of secondhand smoke," according to a report delivered to the audience at a meeting of the Marshall County Smoke-Free Clean-Air Coalition recently.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Marshall County Tribune-Courier.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Idiot Marshall co

Paducah, KY

#23 Sep 13, 2012
Need to get rid of custom auo then less there might not be a shortage of Vaseline !
sneekers

Lexington, KY

#24 Sep 14, 2012
Why dont you live in a plastic bubble if you dont like smoke because its every where...trucks airplanes cars motorcycles do I need to go on.you sound like a liberal minded cry baby..........

“Sitting Waiting Wishing”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#25 Sep 14, 2012
Highly doubt that smoking will be outlawed all together. That is what you seem like you want. Tobacco is a HUGE industry.. and is one of the biggest cash crops (other than mary jane, which is #1 here in KY)...

I say if someone does not likke smoke, stay the fuck away from the person when they smoke. You cannot get rid of every shred of the secondhand smoke out there.. that would be impossible!

LOL@ Idiot Marshall CO.. you're funny.

Since: Sep 12

the twilight zone

#26 Sep 14, 2012
it isnt possible for smoke to linger anywhere, i had to chime in on this because it so stupid. wind and air currents constantly shifting through the world make it impossible for pollution to completly stay in 1 area, it can cause a short haze that moves quikly but doesnt linger anywhere if it did we would have all been dead years ago from breathing all these pollutaints

“Sitting Waiting Wishing”

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#27 Sep 14, 2012
triskiadekaphobia wrote:
it isnt possible for smoke to linger anywhere, i had to chime in on this because it so stupid. wind and air currents constantly shifting through the world make it impossible for pollution to completly stay in 1 area, it can cause a short haze that moves quikly but doesnt linger anywhere if it did we would have all been dead years ago from breathing all these pollutaints
True story.
Hmmm

Dunmor, KY

#28 Sep 15, 2012
If you want clean air...... Move to the mountains lol.
really

Richmond, KY

#29 Sep 15, 2012
While they're banning cigarette smoke in all the public places, too bad they don't ban people from getting out in public smelling like a chemical factory from all the perfume/cologne they have on. Some people smell like they have doused themselves with half a bottle of the stinking stuff. Why can't people just take a freaking shower every day and quit smothering everybody who has to get in an elevator with them or sit next to them in a restaurant, etc.?
confederate1989

Greensburg, KY

#30 Sep 16, 2012
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.

Le Parisien
...
confederate1989

Greensburg, KY

#31 Sep 16, 2012
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.

cot.food.gov .uk/pdfs/tox201208.pdf

"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.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#34 Sep 16, 2012
or factory emissions.
bodine

United States

#36 Sep 21, 2012
Hell shampoo probably causes cancer. We are in a society of chemicals. That's the problem. Its life! You will never be able to stop people from smoking. Not unless you outlaw tobacco in all. That would never happen. If it would, you can bet Kentucky would be the last to sign the bill.
Hookah

Louisville, KY

#38 Oct 15, 2012
This ban mustn't apply to those hajies who have an establishment built on indoor smoking (hookah lounges). Could it be that local officials are cutting them slack out of fear of being considered discriminators?

Bottom line: All business owners should be able to decide, at their discretion, whether to allow smoking in THEIR place of business. If you don't like the environment that is controlled by those who OWN the place, don't patronize it!

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#39 Oct 16, 2012
The Marshall County Smoke-Free Clean-Air Coalition really sounds like an unbiased organization to be reporting on the harmful effects of smoke! Hahaha That's like me starting an orginazation called The Coalition Against New Country Music and putting out a report on how harmful it is to your ears.
be fair

Lexington, KY

#40 Oct 16, 2012
Hey if you want to ban tobacco, you might as well be alcohol too. Wait, too much money made in alcohol. sorry, didn't know what i was thinking.
Smokers Death Face

Winnipeg, Canada

#41 Oct 16, 2012
Hmmm wrote:
If you want clean air...... Move to the mountains lol.
If you want to smoke move to Bulgaria
Smokers Death Face

Winnipeg, Canada

#42 Oct 16, 2012
bodine wrote:
Hell shampoo probably causes cancer. We are in a society of chemicals. That's the problem. Its life! You will never be able to stop people from smoking. Not unless you outlaw tobacco in all. That would never happen. If it would, you can bet Kentucky would be the last to sign the bill.
Must be Jethro bodine, 5th grade education
Smoke free

Ironton, OH

#43 Oct 18, 2012
Smoke free would be great , don't see it happening. People buy cig but want handouts for their kids needs. That is the thing that irritates me

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#44 Oct 18, 2012
sneekers wrote:
Why dont you live in a plastic bubble if you dont like smoke because its every where...trucks airplanes cars motorcycles do I need to go on.you sound like a liberal minded cry baby..........
you sound like a small minded nicotine addict.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#45 Oct 18, 2012
Hookah wrote:
This ban mustn't apply to those hajies who have an establishment built on indoor smoking (hookah lounges). Could it be that local officials are cutting them slack out of fear of being considered discriminators?
Bottom line: All business owners should be able to decide, at their discretion, whether to allow smoking in THEIR place of business. If you don't like the environment that is controlled by those who OWN the place, don't patronize it!
It USED to work that way. Doesn't anymore. If you don't loke the business laws and regulations, then don't open a business.
Butch

Arlington, TX

#49 Oct 21, 2012
ANY amount of TOXIC TOBACCO SMOKE is dangerous! BAN ALL SKOKING, EVERYWHERE, NOW!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lexington Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 1 hr Don Barros Serrano 148,874
Todays Your Birthday !! 1 hr slneasome 1
Antonio Brooks Shooting 2 hr AJP 2
paris ky forum (May '10) 2 hr SLEDGEHAMMER 10
Hillary or Trump? 2 hr Hitlery Sux 147
Lexington Shame Festival 2 hr Username 13
Chance 3 hr NeedThaLowDown 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lexington Mortgages