Blitzkrieg in the Bluegrass State


The pleasure police are pushing for a state wide smoking ban in Kentucky. UPI and the Louisville Courier-Journal are not very clear whether the anti-smoke nazis will try to pass a ban on public buildings or "public buildings"; the latter being publicly accessible buildings that anti-smoke nazis try to wield control over. Either way, it is the same old game plan. Keep pushing for incremental bans until eventually all tobacco is outlawed. Most interesting is the way nobody even questions the junk science any more.

The Jefferson County Smoke Free Coalition released a poll showing people there are aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke. [...]

"We already know the dangers of secondhand smoke," Julia Brackett, director of advocacy for the American Heart Association told the Louisville Courier-Journal. "What's next is a grass-roots effort to bring the community together on the issue."

Oh, a poll. That is scientifically conclusive. I guess that in medieval times the Earth actually was flat because polls showed that more than 50% of the people believed it to be true. What the lifestyle nazis won't tell you is that study after study that has attempted to link lung cancer and second hand smoke has come up dry.

Check out this 'Best of Ravenwood' from September, 2002 [minor changes made]:

The second hand smoking scare is pretty remarkable. It started about 7 years ago [1993] when the [EPA and] World Health Organization (WHO) started studying the effects of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Long before the results of the study came back, pleasure police recognized ETS as a good way to advance their agenda. They immediately started demonizing and attacking ETS. In 1998, the WHO concluded their study, and immediately tried to bury the results. Under pressure from the British media, like the London Telegraph, the WHO finally released their findings. Although the WHO released a biased and misleading press release entitled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer," the facts were clear. When using a statistically large sample, there was no significant risk for non smokers that lived with or worked with smokers.
If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.



Comments (1)      top   link me

Comments

i think that there should not be a smoking-ban because you make a choice to go into a restaurant or not and you are a guest in a place. i am not a smoker and will never be one. and the 18 year old girls that talk about his issue at the concil meetings that complain about being around smoke all day are not forced to work at that place. yeah, they get a lot of money in tips but there are better high paying jobs.

Posted by: molly anderson at October 6, 2003 5:43 PM

(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014

About Ravenwood
Libertarianism
Libertarian Quiz
Secrets o' the Universe
Email Ravenwood

reading
<Blogroll Me>
/images/buttons/ru-button-r.gif

Bitch Girls
Bogie Blog
Countertop Chronicles
DC Thornton
Dean's World
Dumb Criminals
Dustbury
Gallery Clastic
Geek with a .45
Gut Rumbles
Hokie Pundit
Joanie
Lone Star Times
Other Side of Kim
Right Wing News
Say Uncle
Scrappleface
Silflay Hraka
Smallest Minority
The Command Post
Venomous Kate
VRWC


FemmeBloggers


archives

search the universe



rings etc

Gun Blogs


rss feeds
[All Versions]
[PDA Version]
[Non-CSS Version]
XML 0.91
RSS 1.0 (blurb)
RSS 2.0 (full feed)
 

credits
Design by:

Powered by: Movable Type 3.34
Encryption by: Deltus
Hosted by: Bluehost

Ravenwood's Universe:
Established 1990

Odometer

OdometerOdometerOdometerOdometerOdometer