Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 10 to 18 of 30

Thread: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

  1. #10
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp View Post
    Yeah, it must just be a big conspiracy.

    ASH is a member organization of the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids which was funded by Nicoderm interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, $70,000,000.00 worth of funding to be exact.

    "....gee why would an alternative nicotine product manufacturer -J & J/RWJF want its competitor -the tobacco companies' products to be banned?...." Perhaps to continue selling $500,000,000.00 worth of smoking cessation products annually.

    They (RWJF/Johnson & Johnson Company) will fund any organization to spread lies to insure that the alternative nicotine product revenue stream continues.

    link- http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...th-ash-is.html

    Will there be an investigation into this nationwide government scandal?
    To the average non-smoker as I am, it might appear that the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Non-Smoker's Rights, the American Medical Association, countless research Universities around the country, etc. are lobbying our politicians for smoking bans for health reasons.

    However, upon some investigation it is clear that these NGO's are backed by $446,000,000.00 + from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) which has direct ties to the Johnson & Johnson Company, and J & J is the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ via its wholly owned subsidiary ALZA. Recently, the buyout of Pfizer means J & J profits even more from the passage of smoking bans thru additional sales of Nicotrol and the new smoking cessation drug Chantix.

    The data supplied to these NGO's and subsequently our politicians should be viewed as highly dubious at best, since it comes from the largest manufacturer of pharmaceutical nicotine products which benefits by selling their alternative nicotine products like Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicotrol, etc. when tobacco nicotine use is prohibited via smoking bans.

    In fact according to this industry watchdog pharmaceutical nicotine product sales is a $500,000,000.00+ annual business almost exclusively owned by the Johnson & Johnson conglomerate, of which RWJF is an entity and single largest shareholder of J & J stock, with a $5.4 billion dollar holding.

    For whatever reason our local lawmakers seem to ignore the conflict of interest, if they know about it at all. I am curious if some of these local lawmakers receive campaign support from any or all of these special interests........Are local media outlets, or attorneys general interested in investigating? We'll see.

    link - http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...into-this.html
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  2. #11

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    I don't like your opinion. I've told you that. Now I'm questioning why we need a second thread for this opinion. I don't see a problem with that.

  3. #12

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Citing posts from a blog is certainly more authoritative than studies by the Mayo Clinic or Centers for Disease Control. Obviously the blog has no agenda.

    Sort of like the conspiracy theories that have aliens causing 9/11 and the like.
    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!?

  4. #13
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by WrestlingTerp View Post
    Citing posts from a blog is certainly more authoritative than studies by the Mayo Clinic or Centers for Disease Control. Obviously the blog has no agenda.

    Sort of like the conspiracy theories that have aliens causing 9/11 and the like.
    That is a laughable comment/opinion.

    Why bother to read the information given in the blog? Why bother to check the studies listed? Just discount anything that doesn't match your opinion.

    You are just to lazy to read.

    If you had bothered to read, the blog writer cites many studies from very reputable universities and government agencies as well as other research groups.
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  5. #14
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Okay, let's assume that second hand smoke is perfectly safe. If I am in a restaurand and an adult at the next table is yelling as loud as he can, should everyone just ignore him because yelling isn't illegal, or should he be escorted out because he's preventing everyone who doesn't like yelling from enjoying their dinner? Same with smoking.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  6. #15
    NCAA Champ ccbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    1,144

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by Spider View Post
    Okay, let's assume that second hand smoke is perfectly safe. If I am in a restaurand and an adult at the next table is yelling as loud as he can, should everyone just ignore him because yelling isn't illegal, or should he be escorted out because he's preventing everyone who doesn't like yelling from enjoying their dinner? Same with smoking.

    A irrational comparison and has nothing to do with the statements argued in this thread.
    If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them.

    ~Paul Wellstone~

  7. #16
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbig View Post
    A irrational comparison and has nothing to do with the statements argued in this thread.

    Agreed that it isn't relevant to this thread (don't agree that it's an irrational comparison), but I didn't want to resurrect the other one. My point, and then I'll leave you to your scientific debate, is that smoking is intrusive to those in its vicinity on many levels, not just health.
    Last edited by Spider; 09-17-2008 at 09:32 AM.
    Atrophy: what you get when you win atournament.

  8. #17

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbig View Post
    Why bother to read the information given in the blog? Why bother to check the studies listed? Just discount anything that doesn't match your opinion.

    You are just to lazy to read.

    If you had bothered to read, the blog writer cites many studies from very reputable universities and government agencies as well as other research groups.
    Its difficult to take a blog seriously that provides few direct links to the studies cited but rather cherry picks snippets to support an obvious bias. Most of the references are back to other articles in the blog, or to obviously biased libertarian links.

    For example, it cites a Johns Hopkins study to support the hypothesis that second hand smoke is harmless, yet clicking on the link in the blog to the study shows the actual conclusion of the study:

    http://www.jhsph.edu/global_tobacco/...ore_bars2.html

    Conclusions: In Baltimore City, most bar employees are continuously exposed to secondhand smoke in their workplace. Sufficient evidence has shown that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Moreover, continuous exposure at the concentrations found in this study poses serious health risks, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. To achieve complete protection for all workers and patrons in Baltimore, MD, smoke-free initiatives in all occupational settings are required.
    Did you bother reading any of the citations I provided by recognized research organizations, even one overseas? Or do you prefer to rely on vodoo science? The preponderance of research evidence supports the premise that second hand smoke is a danger to health.
    "Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!?

  9. #18

    Default Re: Smoking bans based on effects of second hand smoke are a sham!

    I don't need a study to know that second hand smoke can send my better half to the hospital.
    "All my life I have tried to pluck a thistle and plant a flower wherever the flower would grow in thought and mind." -- Abraham Lincoln

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •