0

How do you stand on a proposed statewide ban on smoking in indoor public places?

February 12, 2009

Photo of Nancy Johnson

Nancy Johnson (Director, Bonner Springs Senior Center in ) says...

I generally support the smoking ban, but I think all venues should have the opportunity to do what they want to accommodate their customers.

Photo of Monica Sorensen

Monica Sorensen (Bonner Springs High School student council executive president in ) says...

Because smoking has proven to be harmful, I completely support the ban. It's your choice to harm your own lungs, but not mine.

Photo of Gene Myracle, Jr.

Gene Myracle, Jr. (Basehor city superintendent in ) says...

I understand the health issues ... but I feel that states are taking away the right to free enterprise ... by not allowing a business owner to market their own rules when trying to operate under all the other imposed state regulations.

Comments

CarolT 9 years, 8 months ago on How do you stand on a proposed statewide ban on smoking in indoor public places?

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.

More than 50 studies have implicated human papillomaviruses as the cause of over 22% 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!

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

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.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

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.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0438A-01.pdf/$file/EE-0438A-01.pdf

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."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf

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!

0

Sign in to comment