tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post2442660390213811974..comments2023-05-25T06:44:40.265-05:00Comments on The Motley Cow: Smoking ban: living longer, good for business.Mpetersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-46006296283915213202009-06-24T16:22:24.864-05:002009-06-24T16:22:24.864-05:00Every smoking ban, everywhere, has been rammed dow...Every smoking ban, everywhere, has been rammed down the public's throat by falsely framing the issue as "freedom versus public health," and CONCEALING ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.<br /><br />More than 50 studies have implicated human papillomaviruses as the cause at least 24.5%% of non-small cell lung cancers. This equals over 30,000 cases, which is over ten times more lung cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, are cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. A significant proportion of lung cancers blamed on active smoking are actually caused by HPV as well. Obviously, there is a corrupt, politically-motivated coverup of a far larger cause of lung cancer than radon or secondhand smoke!<br /><br />http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm<br /><br />The anti-smokers lie that smoking bans cause "immediate, dramatic" declines in the number of heart attacks. In the Pueblo study, the death rates from acute myocardial infarction actually increased in the year after the ban, the same time they were boasting that the number of admissions declined! That suggests that people were dying because they weren’t admitted to hospitals when they should have been! And in the Indiana study, they exploited an anomalous spike in acute MIs during the "before" section of the study, to make the "after" part look better! And in the Helena study, the actual death rates from acute myocardial infarction (as opposed to hospital admissions which were the endpoint of the study) were nearly identical in 2001 (before the ban) and 2002 (the year of the ban), and reached their lowest point in 2003, the year after the smoking ban was repealed.<br /><br />http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html<br /><br />If smoking or passive smoking were real causes of asthma, the rates of asthma would have gone DOWN. But the EPA's own report says, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 65 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period. <br /><br />http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0438A-01.pdf/$file/EE-0438A-01.pdf <br /><br />And the CDC says, "Despite the plateau in asthma prevalence, ambulatory care use has continued to grow since 2000... Increased ambulatory care use for asthma has continued during an era when overall rate of ambulatory care use for children did not increase." <br /><br />http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf <br /><br />The government has no right to restrict peoples' liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC. This is a classic example of how the unscrupulous manipulators of public opinion have railroaded Americans into tyranny!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-88057445970383883242009-06-24T16:21:19.820-05:002009-06-24T16:21:19.820-05:00The Tavern League is nothing but a bunch of dirty ...The Tavern League is nothing but a bunch of dirty traitors who sold smokers out on purpose. They refused to question the anti-smokers' scientific fraud (just like the Anti-Smoker-Approved Fake Opposition). If they really wanted to fight, they could have and should have filed a RICO lawsuit for conspiracy, fraud and racketeering against the anti-smokers.<br /><br />http://www.smokershistory.com/definitn.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-61951878454712713062009-06-23T22:25:46.319-05:002009-06-23T22:25:46.319-05:00If air quality was an issue, OSHA would have stepp...If air quality was an issue, OSHA would have stepped in. They do NOT see smoke as an issue. In face, particulated in a very smoky bar are measured in nanograms. A busy street's particulates are measured in tons. Now if you don't think bans hurt business, tell that to the VFW in the Minneapolis area that has now closed. They were the last one and attribute their demise to the ban, NOT the economy. They would know, not some nanny!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-88699434734964253272009-06-23T10:21:35.845-05:002009-06-23T10:21:35.845-05:00Uh, yeah.Uh, yeah.Mpetersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-28192763549297109252009-06-23T09:48:25.382-05:002009-06-23T09:48:25.382-05:00Actually there is nothing compelling about the so ...Actually there is nothing compelling about the so called evidence. For one thing there has never in history been the cause of any disease proven with the risk ratios claimed by tobacco control. I challenge you or any of your buddies at tobacco control to name one. Here is an award winning article in Science that shows that scientist do not agree on such low relative risks. <br />http://nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubesarticle.htm<br /><br />Not only do scientist not accept such flimsy evidence neither do the courts.<br />http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/science-and-the-law/<br />We should not be passing laws based on junk science that can't even stand up in a court of law. If you look every single group that you mention refers back to the 1992 EPA study which was thrown out in federal court because they got caught cheating.<br />http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/2006/10/more-fraud-misconduct-at-epa.html<br />A practice that goes on to this day.<br />http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr23/0,4670,EPAScientists,00.html<br />You also try to claim that the studies done by tobacco control using outdoor EPA/DNR standards was the equivalent to being down wind from a forest fire. WRONG<br />Here is a reality check for you.<br />http://burningissues.org/car-www/medical_effects/comp-emmis-part-sources.htm<br /><br />Also what you fail to mention not one of those studies were peer reviewed. Why? Because it would not stand up to scrutiny. The EPA/DNR standard was meant to be a long term time averaged standard and not to be used the way that they used it.<br />http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/smoke-free-wisconsin-is-at-it-again/<br /><br />But then Tobacco control has never been known for their honesty.Marshallhttp://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-12787992792695352362009-06-23T09:14:15.311-05:002009-06-23T09:14:15.311-05:00As the tobacco lobbyists always like to say, all y...As the tobacco lobbyists always like to say, all you've shown is correlation, not causation. Lots of bars and restaurants go broke every year for all sorts of reasons. Most of the studies I've seen suggested the effects were not great... and I formed my opinion based on the data I was able to find, I didn't cherry pick data to support a pre-formed opinion. Personally, I love the idea of letting people smoke over a beer -- but the health data on second hand smoke is pretty compelling. <br /><br />Moreover, arguing that it's okay for an industry to depend for its profits on a habit that kills people is ... well, probably not supportable ethically.<br /><br />You are, of course, welcome to try. <br /><br />hiho<br />MpMpetersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18399880071535547324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-66377794721779871162009-06-22T23:11:00.251-05:002009-06-22T23:11:00.251-05:00Good for business, you obviously have been drinki...Good for business, you obviously have been drinking the tobacco control kool-aid. All of the studies done by actual economist show that bans do hurt the bar business. Over 300 bars closed in Minnesota and over 300 bars closed in Ohio as a result of the ban. The only studies that claim no economic harm are done and funded by Tobacco control. The lies and scientific fraud perpetrated by tobacco control has caused honest and legitimate scientist like Dr Michael Siegel to leave the movement. And now the Former Winston man who was at one point their poster boy is speaking out against the movement.<br /> href="http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/velvet-glove-iron-fistMarshallhttp://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-3368443198655272972009-06-20T09:40:38.852-05:002009-06-20T09:40:38.852-05:00Now they need to straighten out the upcoming patio...Now they need to straighten out the upcoming patio ban, BEFORE bar owners spend thousands of dollars to build them for their smoking patrons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-28575685240518787282009-06-16T16:15:32.879-05:002009-06-16T16:15:32.879-05:00Because they like to torment you!!!!!
Smoking is ...Because they like to torment you!!!!!<br /><br />Smoking is bad, but your right to choose is also part of the 5 stages of death. Denial - they can't make me run my business this way. Anger - this is my business, so screw you. Negotiation - if you leave me alone, I will continue to pay taxes. Depression - My rights are gone, close it up. Acceptance - My rights to run my own business are gone. Time to close...fire all the help.PaulyWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32673461.post-73740821729754691322009-06-14T14:15:01.071-05:002009-06-14T14:15:01.071-05:00I'm glad to see West Bend Daily News fixed the...I'm glad to see West Bend Daily News fixed the technical problems. I was getting ready to send a letter to "Gripe". How come they never have a problem getting Ann Coulters thoughts? Larry T.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com