A Politically Incorrect Doctor. At Last!
July 8th 2008 18:51
The link below is a good one to read if you're a smoker. I've always known that the "Second hand smoke kills" myth was a crock of garbage. Most people of my generation (and even older folks) grew up in smoking homes and didn't get lung cancer. My parents, grnadparents, (one grandmother didn't smoke but her lungs were just fine until the day she died of heart failure), aunts, uncles and cousins all smoked. Not all the kids in the family grew up to smoke and none of them ever got lung cancer. Not just my family was without a death from "second hand smoke" either.
A year or more ago, the World Health Organization published a paper that decried the notion that "second hand smoke kills", too. So, why are we being lied to? What is the cause of this foolishness being foisted off on us? MONEY! That's what. Money and power. How many billion dollars has the government taken from tobacco companies since the famous lawsuits began? How much higher are the taxes that we have to pay to cover those billions?
We now live under the Anti-Smoking lobby's rules that tell us when and where we can light up legal cigarettes. People in some California towns can smoke pot in public but not a Marlboro! If tobacco were really such a danger, why wouldn't it have been removed from the market? Back to MONEY again, folks. Funny how people like Al Gore, whose family made most of its money from growing and selling tobacco products can point their haughty fingers as they deprive citizens of another right while pocketing their tobacco money and enjoying the proceeds of the "deadly weed."
Whether you're a smoker or not, you might want to consider that the rights that have been stolen from smokers today are just the beginning. Certain cooking oils are being prohibited now. What's next? We have lost so many of our rights while being given new "rights" that no one was ever supposed to have (like killing their children). And other rights are in grave danger... if you think the anti-gun lobby is going to back off even after the Supreme Court backed up the Constitution and said we can have our weapons, think again.
Really Long Link
A year or more ago, the World Health Organization published a paper that decried the notion that "second hand smoke kills", too. So, why are we being lied to? What is the cause of this foolishness being foisted off on us? MONEY! That's what. Money and power. How many billion dollars has the government taken from tobacco companies since the famous lawsuits began? How much higher are the taxes that we have to pay to cover those billions?
We now live under the Anti-Smoking lobby's rules that tell us when and where we can light up legal cigarettes. People in some California towns can smoke pot in public but not a Marlboro! If tobacco were really such a danger, why wouldn't it have been removed from the market? Back to MONEY again, folks. Funny how people like Al Gore, whose family made most of its money from growing and selling tobacco products can point their haughty fingers as they deprive citizens of another right while pocketing their tobacco money and enjoying the proceeds of the "deadly weed."
Whether you're a smoker or not, you might want to consider that the rights that have been stolen from smokers today are just the beginning. Certain cooking oils are being prohibited now. What's next? We have lost so many of our rights while being given new "rights" that no one was ever supposed to have (like killing their children). And other rights are in grave danger... if you think the anti-gun lobby is going to back off even after the Supreme Court backed up the Constitution and said we can have our weapons, think again.
Really Long Link
| 74 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
BUT, she bought me a non-smoker's insurance policy (to save money) which meant I had to go "cold turkey." And I did. (Oh, do I miss my cigars, and I'm talking about the good ones using Conn. Valley tobacco -- grown a few miles from my house -- for wrappers -- oh I miss those babies.) And she'd never smoke around my oldest son unless she saw him on the patio doing something he could've got hurt doing and she'd run to help and if the cigarette was in her hand -- as we caught her on camera once with a "gotcha" -- so be it. And who could argue that a cigarette in her hand, ever carefully placed in such a way as to not come in contact with our son beat out a badly bruised noggin'.
I wish young parents would remember this. But they've been Gore'd thanks to his "influence."
I'll say this: though I never got sick, i.e. cancer, to the best of my knowledge from any second hand smoke -- to this day I cannot be in the presence of cigarette smokers. My lungs have changed that much. It's been more a matter of adjustment than any political pique here. But I'm a lot more understanding of those who'd prefer not to have people standing outside of doctors' clinics, hospitals and even family restaurants. Cigarette tobacco, far moreso than cigar or pipe tobacco ruins the taste of food and almost impossible to get out of curtains, furniture, etc.
As for Big Tobacco getting nailed in lawsuits, that didn't bother me as much as the damn pain and suffering amounts awarded by the juries. Since the companies were caught lying, they should've been held reponsible, but to the amount these juries awarded some of these people who knew the stuff they were using wasn't any good? What next--diabetics suing Hershey's? Calling John Edwards, Calling John Edwards ... Brown alert ... Brown alert!
Health costs, no more than say a hundred grand, and anything above that else goes into the state's anti-smoking programs to keep kids from starting up or poor fund to help indigent patients. (Though I wonder how "indigent" when I see them in local convenience stores buying cartons of cigarettes and toilet rolls of lottery tickets. Poverty stinks--especially self-imposed poverty.)
If the gov't wants to cut down on smoking related health costs, etc. it should invest in getting people to use their heads and buy non-smokers' policies. No tests necessary except on the examining tables. Money talks--but the FEAR of losing it for your loved ones SHOUTS.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I started smoking in 1961 and have yet to have any lung trouble because of it. My daughter smoked for a couple of years but quit when she and her husband started their family. He still smokes, but he does it outside (everyone smokes outside at their house.) I have no problem with being courteous and keeping my "nasty habit" to myself. But there are places where you can't even light up outdoors and places where your neighbors can call the police on you for smoking in your own home (whether or not they can really smell the smoke). For a time, there was serious talk of forbidding truck drivers from smoking on the job (even in their own trucks!) Imagine a few hundred nicotine deprived truckers all having withdrawls behind the wheel! Now that could present a real danger!
In Nevada, we used to be able to smoke in restaurants. They had both smoking and non-smoking sections. It worked out fine and there weren't many complaints. Suddenly, the law was passed and all restaurants became non-smoking. Now they're threatening to do the same to casinos! There are already several non-smoking casinos, by the way. When California went to non-smoking bars, lots of them went out of business. It'll probably be much the same with the casinos.
I guess what really ticks me off is that the whole thing is based on a lie. A lie from the likes of Al Gore, no less. How much more money and aggravation is he going to be allowed to cost us before he finally gets run out of town on a well-deserved rail?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
And it is stupid for people to smoke willing for years, and then turn around and sue the tobacco companies for their health problems. That's like the junkie suing the drug dealer. Or the Alcoholic suing Budweiser.
I am a diabetic and I liked that one about diabetics suing Hershey's Maybe I could get away with it John Edward where are you when I need you? Just kidding.
Rudysoho talk about out crazing yourself, I thought you were pro-choice, or is that just for killing babies.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Looks like Ruby is a typical liberal, doesn't it Lester? She's only "pro-choice" as long as the choice is something that pleases her! LOL
Comment by Earl Leonard
Earlsthoughts
While, without being a medical expert, Im always going to struggle being able to justify tax hikes on tobacco, I defininetly see the banning of public smoking in a similar light to water restrictions in a drought, or compulsary seatbelts... if more people just did the common decent thing and didn't smoke around anyone- just because they REALLY STINK- we wouldn't need laws banning them.
I mean seriously, they really really smell. Claiming your personal right to smoke in public is like claiming a right to smear dog poo all over yourself in public, I mean sure, maybe a law against it seams a little harsh on personal freedoms, but really, cant you wait til you get home and lock all the doors and windows?
E,
Comment by Earl Leonard
Earlsthoughts
E.
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I'm not suggesting that we should be able to light up any time and any place with no regard for others. What I am saying is that smokers have rights, too, which are constantly being violated. Having smoking and non-smoking places used to work just fine, until the non-smokers griped their way into control. I don't smoke around others if it bothers them. Its called having manners.
As for a reliable study, the World Health Organization did one and found that "second hand smoke kills" is nothing but a propoganda lie by the non-smoking nazis.
Comment by Earl Leonard
Earlsthoughts
Oops, I just opened up the whole `nanny state style policies enable individual irresponsibility' cause and effect question can o' worms didn't I?
But no, `non-smoking' sections didn't work that well, mate. (To reiterate, I really don't think smokers have any idea just how badly they smell. I'm sorry, but seriously my god the stench!) I know, I know, I seam like a typical `liberal'; seemingly in favour of personal freedoms, unless it's freedom to do something I don't like... (Wait, both `sides' do that!) But yeah, I really hate the little gaspers.
As to my writing style being familiar... aside from `Earl' and the slightly more descriptive `Earl of the rcs' (with or without spaces) I also comment around the intertubes as The Census Taker. Particularly on comicbook and music based blogs. Maybe we've come across each other before?
Regards and cigars,
E.