KU researchers add to evidence that smoking bans reduce heart attacks

Public smoking bans do more than just clear the air in offices, bars and restaurants they lead to quick and dramatic declines in heart attacks.

[Confederate1989]

Oh ya........in your dreams. Among all the hyperbole from the anti-tobacco forces. the heart attack studies are the biggest fetch yet..........http://www.spiked -online.com/index.php/site/art icle/7451/

The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’
Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true

[The Hero]

If tobacco products are so bad, they should be made illegal to sell. The government (Fed, State, and Local) will not do that because they love the revenue too much.

It is all a game to make the government look like they care. In reality, they still want you to use so they have the money.

[Old Joe]

Even the American Cancer society says it takes up to 20 years of smoking to cause Major heart and lung problems. not 3 years of smoking ban keeping you away from a couple of wiffs of Smoke..

[SarcasmIsALostAr t]

Confederate1989 wrote:

Oh ya........in your dreams. Among all the hyperbole from the anti-tobacco forces. the heart attack studies are the biggest fetch yet..........http://www.spiked -online.com/index.php/site/art icle/7451/
The myth of the smoking ban ‘miracle’
Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It's not true

Just wondering where the credibility of someone who posts the Stars and Bars is at? I'm willing to bet it's not within spitting distance...

(at least not on this subject....)

[mazed]

Old Joe wrote:

Even the American Cancer society says it takes up to 20 years of smoking to cause Major heart and lung problems. not 3 years of smoking ban keeping you away from a couple of wiffs of Smoke..

"Washington, Apr 17 (ANI): Only 10 minutes exposure of small doses of second-hand tobacco smoke or smoke from cooking oil and wood could adversely affect the cardiovascular function in both men and women, according to a University of Kentucky study."

[Confederate1989]

mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
"Washington, Apr 17 (ANI): Only 10 minutes exposure of small doses of second-hand tobacco smoke or smoke from cooking oil and wood could adversely affect the cardiovascular function in both men and women, according to a University of Kentucky study."

Lord I bet you still believe the world is flat.........second hand smoke is 945 water vapor fool.......it aint gonna hurt anyone or give them a heart attack,,,,,,,

[Confederate1989]

Anyone who'd like to get a taste of just how these nonsense statistics get made up and WHY they get made up should check these three links:

http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210....

shows how researchers promise the "right" kind of answers to ban funders before even doing the research and how they juggle numbers to create "right" answers even when they don't exist.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php...

shows how the nonsense 14% drop number was produced for Scotland: a good example of what's been done in all these "instant heart attack cure" studies.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715...

offers strong criticisms for the grandfather of these studies: the "Helena Heart Miracle." Read "100 Days," "1,000 Days," and down near the bottom you'll see "Independently Confirmed??" where how the "evidence" of what they did was almost wiped from the Internet.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

[mazed]

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>Lord I bet you still believe the world is flat.

Or possibly even that smoking is neither harmful nor addictive.

[SarcasmIsALostAr t]

Confederate1989 wrote:

<quoted text>Lord I bet you still believe the world is flat.........second hand smoke is 945 water vapor fool.......it aint gonna hurt anyone or give them a heart attack,,,,,,,

Humans are born with bodies that are 78% water. See I can pull meaningless facts out of my ass just like you Jim Bob ;)

[azmac]

SarcasmIsALostArt wrote:

<quoted text>
Humans are born with bodies that are 78% water. See I can pull meaningless facts out of my ass just like you Jim Bob ;)

I see that is all you people have is snide remarks, no facts. Just remember 2/3 of all cancer deaths are non-smokers and smokers hold all the longevity records.

[Freedom]

mazed wrote:

<quoted text>
"Washington, Apr 17 (ANI): Only 10 minutes exposure of small doses of second-hand tobacco smoke or smoke from cooking oil and wood could adversely affect the cardiovascular function in both men and women, according to a University of Kentucky study."

Oh brother...

You forgot about meat smoke...that is some really nasty stuff...eh?

Perhaps you will tell the reader just what the number one source of cancer causing fine particulate matter is...and then perhaps you will tell them what the number one source of (ehh hheemmm) "global warming" is?

If not...let me give them a clue...

Just when will you and your self righteous moral busybody comrades turn your sights on the meat addicts?

Are you behind the times...or are you with them?

First they came for the smokers...

[The Hero]

That grave stone is a little to close to being right!

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
I see that is all you people have is snide remarks, no facts. Just remember 2/3 of all cancer deaths are non-smokers and smokers hold all the longevity records.

[Freedom]

SarcasmIsALostArt wrote:

<quoted text>
Humans are born with bodies that are 78% water. See I can pull meaningless facts out of my ass just like you Jim Bob ;)

Tell us...would you be willing to apply the ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to those you do not like?

How many other forms of smoke have "no safe level"? Perhaps you know of some kind of a list?

[azmac]

The Hero wrote:

That grave stone is a little to close to being right!
<quoted text>

To close

[SarcasmIsALostAr t]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Tell us...would you be willing to apply the ridiculous standard of "no safe level" to all forms of smoke that contain known carcinogens...or only to those you do not like?
How many other forms of smoke have "no safe level"? Perhaps you know of some kind of a list?

There you go muddying the water. Let's focus on the issue of secondhand tobacco smoke and cross other bridges when we get to them.

[Freedom]

SarcasmIsALostArt wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go muddying the water. Let's focus on the issue of secondhand tobacco smoke and cross other bridges when we get to them.

The ridiculous standard of "no safe level" is what these bans are based upon. The side you appear to defend came up with this standard so you can either defend it or admit such a standard is based on complete hypocrisy.

What other forms of smoke have "no safe level"?

[Lil Ticked]

SarcasmIsALostArt wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go muddying the water. Let's focus on the issue of secondhand tobacco smoke and cross other bridges when we get to them.

Yes ! After tobbaco let us all go after anything that produces fine particulate matter.
No more campfires.
No more Wood burning stoves.
No more grills.
No more internal combustion engines.
No more fossil fuels.
FIRE BAD!
I am sure glad that fire had nothing to do with the civilization of man.