Television is the new movies
Smoking Ban
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2007
I know this has nothing to do with television and is far away from what I normally blog about, but I have to get this off my chest. I saw this article in the Topeka Capital Journal:
"Sen. David Wysong's personal agony is ushering to the foreground the debate on a possible statewide ban on indoor smoking.
The Mission Hills Republican pitched a bill Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee that would prohibit smoking in any indoor area with the exception of private homes, tobacco-related businesses and private clubs.
"Someone asked me why I would take on a controversial subject such as smoking," Wysong said. "Because I learned that my sister-in-law had been diagnosed with lung cancer. We lost her in the fall. Because I have now lost three family members to tobacco-related cancer. And because, bottom line, it is the right thing to do."
Prospects for passage of the sweeping legislation are unclear, but there will be fervent opposition from bar owners and tobacco and liquor lobbyists, as well as lawmakers who prefer to defer to local officials on the matter. Advocates will include doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, who link smoking with cancer and death.
Currently, 21 states have smoke-free laws and 17 cities in Kansas, including Lawrence, Olathe, Overland Park and Hutchinson, have adopted some form of smoking ban. Topeka doesn't have an ordinance restricting smoking indoors.
Ron Hein, lobbyist for Reynolds American, said the cigarette manufacturer was "unequivocally opposed" to a ban on smoking in indoor places, such as bars, restaurants, medical facilities and child care centers.
"This legislation is the epitome of government infringing on the personal property rights of the state's citizens and the state's businesses," Hein said.
Marlee Carpenter, vice president for government affairs for the Kansas Chamber, said the organization was working against Wysong's bill because while it "may be perceived as politically correct, enacting burdensome regulations and mandates is economically incorrect."
Dr. Howard Rodenberg, director of health at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, testified on behalf of the bill. He said tobacco use was the most preventable cause of death and disease in the state. Cigarette use is responsible for the death of nearly 4,000 Kansans each year and second-hand smoke kills an estimated 250 Kansans each year, he said.
"Taking action today to protect Kansans from second-hand smoke can have an exponential impact on future use of tobacco by changing social norms," Rodenberg said.
The committee plans to vote on the bill next week, said Chairman John Vratil."
Source: The Topeka Capital Journal
I don't know where to begin. This really pisses me off. It makes me so angry that I am having trouble organizing my thoughts. So please bear with me.
So because some jerk wad Senator lost 3 family members to lung cancer he's going to try and ban smoking inside any place in the whole state? First off, his quote was:
"Because I learned that my sister-in-law had been diagnosed with lung cancer. We lost her in the fall. Because I have now lost three family members to tobacco-related cancer. And because, bottom line, it is the right thing to do."
He does not say that it was because of "second hand smoke", (which I'll get to in a minute) they were probably smokers! I'm sorry that he has lost 3 family members to lung cancer, that is a horrible way to go, and a terrible loss. But does that mean the state of Kansas has to suffer his loss also. Again I reiterate the fact that they were most likely smokers! Because I lost my uncle to skin cancer does that mean we should ban tanning? Every one knows that smoking causes health issues. Does he really think banning it in public places is going to stop people from smoking? No it won't.
Ron Hein is completely right when he says that "This legislation is the epitome of government infringing on the personal property rights of the state's citizens and the state's businesses." it's more jerk wad's in the senate thinking they know better than the American (or in this case Kansan) people on what is best for them. NO! I'm going to go out on a limb and say that because he's a senator he doesn't know what is best for the Kansan people. I pray to whatever lack of god there is that this bill gets nixed in the house.
As for the death rates for Kansas, I'd believe that 4,000 a year die from cigarettes. But for the country as a whole, I'm pretty sure that the number one most preventable death is from cholesterol/obesity. Therefore (by logic) if cholesterol/obsity is number one in the country that means that it is number one per state too!!
I do not believe the statistic for second hand smoke. Here's why (this is from a national standpoint and I got this information from an episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! who have a group of researchers):
Where the American Association, the Surgeon General, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association got their information was off a paper that was written by the Environmental Protection Agency. I quote "Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths per year among non-smokers...are estimated to be attributed to ETS (second hand smoke) in the United States." Sounds pretty bad huh? But in 1998 Judge Osteen, a federal court judge, blasted the EPA for the study saying "EPA's procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law." "...EPA 'cherry picked' its data." "EPA deviated from acceptable scientific procedure...to ensure a preordained outcome." So translation: THEY FAKED IT! They intentionally ignored the facts and published what they wanted. Not very good for a scientific study huh?
Other smoke free advocates cite a study from the World Health Organization entitled "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let Them Fool You." But the actual report has a completely different conclusion. "Conclusion: Our results show no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk." And for adults the study admitted that the increased risk of lung cancer from second hand smoke was not statistically significant.
The groups that were mentioned before have inflated the amount of deaths from second hand smoke from 3,000 to up to 50,000 a year. But of course this isn't based on hard data it is a projection based on mortality rates from heart disease and other causes of death. If some one dies and they were around second hand smoke they say...oh they died of second hand smoke just to get this number up to scare the American public.
If you accept the EPA's own study the anti smoking fanatics will say your chances of dying of lung cancer increases by 25% if you are exposed to second hand smoke if you are a non smoker living and working around smokers. But they fudged the calculation. The chances of dying of Lung Cancer for people exposed to second hand smoke are 1:80,000. The chances of dying of Lung Cancer for people not exposed to second hand smoke are 1:100,000.
That seems like a big difference but when you do the math the actual difference in these figures is: The chances of dying of Lung Cancer for people exposed to second hand smoke are 12.5 out of 1,000,000 people. The chances of dying of Lung Cancer for people not exposed to second hand smoke are 10 out of a 1,000,000 people. Which is statistically of no significance.
As you can see second hand smoke is not dangerous for you. People may not like second hand smoke, and that's fine. But smokers should have the same rights as non-smokers other wise its discrimination! So if you are a smoker, if you believe in equal rights, or have a smoker friend (which everyone does) contact your representative and tell them you do not want this bill passed.
Thus ends my ranting. Goodnight!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)