Public smoking bans may spill over to households

Nov 9, 2011 Full story: CBS Atlanta 21

Smoking bans in public places have had a spillover effect by reducing smoking in homes as well, according to a new study.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
home health aide

Bangalore, India

#1 Nov 9, 2011
The nurse assistant must not only be very skilled in the actual procedures being performed but must also be able to make quick observations of a patient's condition and report that information back to the nurse.
[url=http://www.certifiednurse training.com/get-a-career-as-h ome-health-aide/]home health aide[/url]
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#2 Nov 9, 2011
It sort of stands to reason that, in areas where the awareness of SHS issues has been raised by the flurry surrounding enactment of regulations, that awareness would engender attention to similar issues at home. Also that the effect would show less in homes of the less educated, the poorer, and those in areas where the most people smoke.

Good to read that it is actually helping kids as well. Smokers, of course, will continue to push their sour grapes rants about how taking smoking out of bars is resulting in children being increasingly exposed because the former bar-room smokers are smoking in their living rooms instead.

Still third-hand smoke issues for toddlers sharing homes with smokers, though, even if no one smokes inside.
Freedom

Niles, MI

#3 Nov 9, 2011
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”

The whole issue of the so called dangers of SHS is so overblown, that to anyone with even the most basic grasp of science, it has become comical at best.

Now the fanatics are actually claiming harm from 3rd hand smoke!LMAO!

Here is what their so called science looks like when it is exposed to the light of day.

The United States Federal Court Decision
Judge Osteen

The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter.

EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data....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....Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act.

When an agency changes its methodology mid- stream, as EPA did here, it has an obligation to explain why.

Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer. This should have caused EPA to reevaluate the inference options used in establishing its plausibility theory. A risk assessment is supposed to entail the best judgment possible based upon the available evidence. See Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 24. Instead, EPA changed its methodology to find a statistically significant association. EPA claimed, but did not explain how, its theory justified changing the Agency's methodology. with the changed methodology and selected studies, EPA established evidence of a weak statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.

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.

An order and judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion will be filed contemporaneously herewith.
[Signed] William L. Osteen
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#4 Nov 9, 2011
Freedom wrote:
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
The whole issue of the so called dangers of SHS is so overblown, that to anyone with even the most basic grasp of science, it has become comical at best.
Now the fanatics are actually claiming harm from 3rd hand smoke!LMAO!
Here is what their so called science looks like when it is exposed to the light of day.
The United States Federal Court Decision
Judge Osteen
The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter.
EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data....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....Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act.
When an agency changes its methodology mid- stream, as EPA did here, it has an obligation to explain why.
Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer. This should have caused EPA to reevaluate the inference options used in establishing its plausibility theory. A risk assessment is supposed to entail the best judgment possible based upon the available evidence. See Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 24. Instead, EPA changed its methodology to find a statistically significant association. EPA claimed, but did not explain how, its theory justified changing the Agency's methodology. with the changed methodology and selected studies, EPA established evidence of a weak statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer.
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.
An order and judgment in accordance with this memorandum opinion will be filed contemporaneously herewith.
[Signed] William L. Osteen
Freedom.

Osteen is right. As nonsensical as "the issue" of "secondhand smoke" is, it does serve to satisfy the addiction of sleazy politicians to increased taxation and ever greater Governmental control.

Ronald
TruthBeTold

Waterford, MI

#5 Nov 9, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Freedom.
Osteen is right. As nonsensical as "the issue" of "secondhand smoke" is, it does serve to satisfy the addiction of sleazy politicians to increased taxation and ever greater Governmental control.
Ronald
Whaaa deal with it!

Truth be Told
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#6 Nov 9, 2011
TruthBeTold wrote:
<quoted text>Whaaa deal with it!
Truth be Told
TruthBeTold.

Yes. It's really quite simple. After the 60s 70s revolutionaries seized control of Government and taxpayer funded Government controlled academia, their academic ideological intelligentsia implemented "new economic principles" from which ordinary worker *("middle") class Americans suffer so much from today, and which has spread worldwide from Government's criminal real estate industry. This "new economy" serves to increase price with every decline in demand for Government controlled goods.

The increase of price in response to the decline in tobacco demand is only one example albeit one that sets both legal and propagandistic social control precedence. Since Government nationalized Big Tobacco, both Big Tobacco profits and tobacco taxes collected by Big Government have soared, despite a precipitous decline in demand for tobacco products.

Hard working overtaxed Californians often ask me where this Government imposed "new economic principles" is leading? I always give them the example of the Lowenthal grocery bag harassment taxes the politicians have imposed on elderly grandmothers, and other overtaxed food eaters in the State. Big Obama, though, has gotten one up on the California Lowenthal gang. He is imposing a Christmas tree tax on hard working Christians, and others.

Source: http://goo.gl/Nw36Q

Ronald
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#7 Nov 9, 2011
Freedom wrote:
The United States Federal Court Decision
Judge Osteen
Yeah, yeah. Just because you were absent for a while doesn't mean we've lost touch with reality to where you can sneak that line of crap back in on us.

Take it outside, Bubba.

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T8U...

That link is to a thread entitled "Osteen doesn't make it". Anyone interested can find all the arguments they want on this judge's discredited opinion.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#8 Nov 9, 2011
Freedom wrote:
Now the fanatics are actually claiming harm from 3rd hand smoke!
No, now medical science has proven harm from 3rd hand smoke. Just as medical science has long since proven that addicts are basically incapable of realistic thought regarding the object of their addiction. So, we can probably understand your arrogant error, but it doesn't mean we are likely to be persuaded by your rants, be they ever so energetic.

You're a bore, boor.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#9 Nov 9, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
No, now medical science has proven harm from 3rd hand smoke. Just as medical science has long since proven that addicts are basically incapable of realistic thought regarding the object of their addiction. So, we can probably understand your arrogant error, but it doesn't mean we are likely to be persuaded by your rants, be they ever so energetic.
You're a bore, boor.
Excused my lapse. Science doesn't "prove" things. I meant that medical science has DEMONSTRATED harm from 3rd hand smoke.

Also that medical science has long since SHOWN that addicts are basically incapable of realistic thought regarding the object of their addiction. As for your being a bore, I got that part right.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#10 Nov 9, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
No, now medical science has proven harm from 3rd hand smoke. Just as medical science has long since proven that addicts are basically incapable of realistic thought regarding the object of their addiction. So, we can probably understand your arrogant error, but it doesn't mean we are likely to be persuaded by your rants, be they ever so energetic.
You're a bore, boor.
Hugh Jass.

Excellent point fatty. Ever since the 60s 70s revolutionaries seized control of Government and expensive taxpayer funded academia, the Government administered "junk science" revolutionary academics conjured up has been used for purposes of furthering revolutionary objectives.

One needs not look only at Government devised "junk" tobacco "science". Following the revolution, Government political operatives seized control of the medical industry. they proceeded to introduce "junk" medical "science". This was done as a means to consolidate control over the masses and to increase their level of burdensome taxation. Government promoted the most absurd use - often very dangerous uses - of Government controlled medical "services".

Notice now, though, with the disastrous failure of Utopian 60s 70s revolutionary economic schemes, Government has begun to promote - through Government controlled revolutionary media outlets - the commonsense idea that much of Government's "junk" medical "treatments" are both unnecessary and dangerous.

Ronald
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#11 Nov 9, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Hugh Jass.
Excellent point
Thank you.

“Your delusion isn't my reality”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#12 Nov 9, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent point fatty.
How old are we again?

“Your delusion isn't my reality”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#13 Nov 9, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>

One needs not look only at Government devised "junk" tobacco "science".
Ronald
Junk science?? Like the kind BIG TOBACCO financed for years??

It isn't junk science to state that tobacco kills more people every year than any other "product" on the planet.

The only "propaganda" surrounding tobacco has been the 50 or more years of disinformation and lies supported by BIG TOBACCO.

Tobacco is the only product that if used as directed, WILL KILL YOU!

Wanna know why people demonize smoking...its because it is a filthy, foul smelling, noxious, socially unacceptable behavior that fouls the air of everyone in the area of the addict getting his/her fix.

Truth be told!
FBOMBER

Winnipeg, Canada

#14 Nov 9, 2011
Here in Winterpeg they are starting to ban smoking in parks and other outside areas. I love it. As a lifelong non-smoker, I suffered for decades in restaurants etc, until I just stopped going. I'm able to go again due to our society smartening up. Suffer puffers, suffer.
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#15 Nov 9, 2011
Truth__Be__Told wrote:
<quoted text> Junk science?? Like the kind BIG TOBACCO financed for years??
It isn't junk science to state that tobacco kills more people every year than any other "product" on the planet.
The only "propaganda" surrounding tobacco has been the 50 or more years of disinformation and lies supported by BIG TOBACCO.
Tobacco is the only product that if used as directed, WILL KILL YOU!
Wanna know why people demonize smoking...its because it is a filthy, foul smelling, noxious, socially unacceptable behavior that fouls the air of everyone in the area of the addict getting his/her fix.
Truth be told!
Truth__Be__Told.

Well, of course that is preposterous nonsense. Ever since the White man discovered the tobacco indigenous western hemisphere, there has never been a single death proven to have been caused by smoking tobacco. On the other hand, prior to the discovery of the western hemisphere, nearly 100% of the then non smokers died. I don't know how you feel about it, but I don't like them odds.

Tobacco smokers live just as long as do non smokers, and longer - often MUCH LONGER - than great numbers of them. This is especially true of cigar smokers, who usually far outlive non smokers. Non smokers are a sickly bunch. This is because they were not fortunate enough to have been raised in homes of decent tobacco smokers where they could have enjoyed the benefit of developing "tobacco smoke associated" strong immune systems. Millions of our unfortunate immune deficient non smoking friends simply drop dead, without prior indication, after getting a whiff or two of secondhand tobacco smoke. Non smoking is such a needless waste.

Ronald

“Your delusion isn't my reality”

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#16 Nov 9, 2011
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth__Be__Told.
Well, of course that is preposterous nonsense. Ever since the White man discovered the tobacco indigenous western hemisphere, there has never been a single death proven to have been caused by smoking tobacco. On the other hand, prior to the discovery of the western hemisphere, nearly 100% of the then non smokers died. I don't know how you feel about it, but I don't like them odds.
Tobacco smokers live just as long as do non smokers, and longer - often MUCH LONGER - than great numbers of them. This is especially true of cigar smokers, who usually far outlive non smokers. Non smokers are a sickly bunch. This is because they were not fortunate enough to have been raised in homes of decent tobacco smokers where they could have enjoyed the benefit of developing "tobacco smoke associated" strong immune systems. Millions of our unfortunate immune deficient non smoking friends simply drop dead, without prior indication, after getting a whiff or two of secondhand tobacco smoke. Non smoking is such a needless waste.
Ronald
I defer to the medical community on this...after all they are the authorities and subject matter experts!

Truth Be Told
Ronald

Long Beach, CA

#17 Nov 9, 2011
Truth__Be__Told wrote:
<quoted text>I defer to the medical community on this...after all they are the authorities and subject matter experts!
Truth Be Told
Truth__Be__Told.

Uh. In case you haven't been paying attention, revolutionary Government nationalized Big Tobacco long ago. We can only wonder how "expert" and unbiased the testimony of Government controlled Big Medicine is. After all, revolutionary Government's Big Medicine subsidiary is one of the primary beneficiaries of Big Tobacco money - second only to that of Government licensed lawyers.

Ronald
bar60

Columbus, OH

#18 Nov 9, 2011
Truth__Be__Told wrote:
<quoted text>How old are we again?
how old do you wanna be?
TruthbeTold has Alzheimer's,.... asking a stranger how old he is as if the stranger would know.
Laughing out loud.
Dr Phil

New Market, MD

#19 Nov 10, 2011
bar60 wrote:
<quoted text>how old do you wanna be?
TruthbeTold has Alzheimer's,.... asking a stranger how old he is as if the stranger would know.
Laughing out loud.
I beleive Ewegene was referring to both himself and that mouse in his pocket! ;-)
bar60

Columbus, OH

#20 Nov 10, 2011
Dr Phil wrote:
<quoted text>I beleive Ewegene was referring to both himself and that mouse in his pocket! ;-)
of course !!!!!!!
the mouse( LOL-aka-JDH )does his thinking for him,

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.

Preventive Medicine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fast food marketing targets black children in US Dec 1 Zombie Corpse Rental 1
Genetic and Environmental Influences Are Equall... (May '14) Jul '14 friend DUHZ it again 13
Sex, Drugs and the Quest for the Female Viagra (Feb '11) Jun '14 Alix 29
Suicide rate climbs among middle-age adults (Nov '08) Jan '14 Maddi 27
Mental distress is less in locals or less discu... (Apr '09) Jan '14 Caryl 4
Free Birth Control May Be On Horizon (Oct '10) Dec '13 Diane 185
Total smoking bans work best (Dec '13) Dec '13 DR EDIT 15
More from around the web