Ravenwood - 06/10/03 03:30 PM
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. [...]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."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."
Check out this 'Best of Ravenwood' from September, 2002 [minor changes made]:
The second hand smoking scare is pretty remarkable. It started aboutIf you don't believe me, go look for yourself.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.
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