It's too circular to be even interesting now. I'm sure you agree with that at least.
Catch you when England bring the legislation in, that's June I think.
Fat Secret Agent
It's too circular to be even interesting now. I'm sure you agree with that at least.
Catch you when England bring the legislation in, that's June I think.
there is no god
On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................
Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007
ROCK HILL, S.C. Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.
She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.
"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else
source
The foxnews version for you bushies
its an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Originally Posted by vidcc
On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................
Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007
ROCK HILL, S.C. Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.
She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.
"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else
source
The foxnews version for you bushies
Are you sure it wasn't an Ash tree?
Last edited by bigboab; 04-20-2007 at 07:31 AM.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
.
You are going to burn for that one.On the point that smoking serves no "good" purpose, I submit for consideration the story of one Brenda Comer..................
Updated: 11:42 a.m. MT April 18, 2007
ROCK HILL, S.C. Smoking just might have saved Brenda Comer's life.
She said she had just finished washing dishes Monday and stepped outside to smoke a cigarette when an 80-foot oak tree crashed through her roof, landing across the sink where she had been standing just seconds before.
"Honey, I know you fuss at me for smoking," Comer said she told her husband. "But today it saved my life."
So put that in your pipe and smoke it ....... Just do it at home where you don't poison anyone else
source
The foxnews version for you bushies
Are you sure it wasn't an Ash tree?
.Political correctness is based on the principle that it's possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Poster
BT Rep: +1
If it ever came about that smoking was banned everywhere in the UK would there be any point in calling for the legalization of the smoking of Cannabis?
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
Yes, yes there would.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Poster
BT Rep: +1
The point would be?
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
Frog Shoulder
BT Rep: +4
So that people could smoke cannabis without breaking the law.
"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Where would they go to smoke Cannabis if smoking was banned everywhere.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
en(un)lightened
Dr. Williams' contribution to your debate:
The public has become increasingly aware that the science behind manmade global warming is a fraud. But maybe Americans like bogus science in pursuit of certain public policy objectives. Let's look at it.
Many Americans find tobacco smoke to be a nuisance. Some find the odor offensive, and others have allergies or asthma that can be aggravated by smoking in their presence. There's little question that tobacco smoke causes these kinds of nuisances, but how successful would anti-smokers have been in a court of law, or public opinion, in achieving the kind of success they've achieved based on tobacco smoke being a nuisance?
A serious public health threat had to be manufactured, and in 1993 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stepped in to the rescue with their bogus environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) study that says secondhand tobacco smoke is a class A carcinogenic.
Why is it bogus? The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said, "Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one's theory suggests should be present." The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.
In 1998, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
During the late '90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA's statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?
You say, "Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?" My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.
The liberty-oriented solution has to do with private property rights, whereby the owner of property makes the decision whether he will allow smoking or not. If one is a nonsmoker, he just doesn't do business with a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted. A smoker could exercise the same right if a bar or restaurant didn't permit smoking. Publicly owned places such as libraries, airports and municipal buildings, where ownership is ill defined, presents more of a challenge.
The tyranny-oriented solution is where one group uses the political system to forcibly impose its preferences on others. You might be tempted to object to the term "tyranny," but suppose you owned a restaurant where you did not permit smoking and smokers used the political system to create a law forcing you to permit smoking. I'm sure you'd deem it tyranny.
The public policy debate on smoking has been settled through bogus science. My question is, how willing are we to allow bogus science to be used in the pursuit of other public policy agendas, such as restrictions on economic growth, in the name of fighting global warming?
Dr. Walter Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks