Dec 19, 2008

Workplace smoking ban dies despite a workable compromise ignored by GOP

Despite overwhelming support for an indoor smoking ban that includes bars and restaurants, the bill - House Bill 4163 - died in the early morning hours of Friday as the Conference Committee tasked to work out a compromise between the Senate passed version and the House passed version could not reach an agreement to present to their perspective bodies.

The House passed a version in December of 2007 that included exceptions for casinos and others, and the Senate passed a complete ban in May after intense pressure from non-smoking advocates finally forced a vote. The six-person bipartisan committee met for three days to find a compromise, but the bill was sabotaged by Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, who assigned two staunch opponents of the ban to the committee.

All bills not passed on Thursday and Friday die, and they must be reintroduced in the new session that begins in January. Sen. Ray Basham, a tireless advocacy for smoke free workplaces in Michigan for the past decade, vowed to reintroduce the bill next month.

“I am absolutely crestfallen over this; as close as we came to seeing this effort through only to come up empty-handed, it’s very difficult,” He said in a press release. “But I haven’t given up hope over the last 10 years, and I don’t plan to start now. Going into year 11, this will remain my top priority, and I don’t care whose name is on the bills as long as this issue gets some traction.”

Although this is the farthest the bill has ever progressed in Michigan, Basham vowed to push a ballot proposal in necessary.

“This is certainly a setback, but not a defeat,” Basham said. “I will keep pushing for the health of all men, women and children in this state, and if the Legislature won’t take action on behalf of the people, I’ll see to it that we put this issue on the ballot and before the voters. I know I will see smokefree air for all Michigan workers some day, it’s just too bad it won’t be today.”

In fact, this is the first time a ban ever received a vote in Michigan, and it was voted on three times in the House and once in the Senate. The majority of lawmakers voted for it in some form. Anti-smoking advocates wasted no time in bombarding legislative offices with emails expressing their disappointment in the failure to protect the health of Michigan residents

Detroit area lawmakers were under the mistaken belief that a ban in the Detroit casinos would send people to the Native American casinos, costing Detroit much-needed jobs. Numerous studies have shown that is not true. The conference committee found a workable compromise, but the Republicans members didn’t bother to meet to consider it. The House and Senate session lasted a marathon 25 hours, beginning at 10 a.m. Thursday and continuing into 11 a.m. Friday.

The chair of the Conference Committee, Rep. Brenda Clack, called a meeting for 12:30 a.m. to consider the compromise, but subscription only MIRS reported that because Clack “was a little late,” Sen. Alan Cropsy, R-DeWitt, and Rep. Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, left and could not be bothered. Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond, never bothered to even show up. All three GOP members voted against the bipartisan public health issue.

The promising compromise was to pass a complete ban with an exemption for casinos until 2011. By that time, the state would be renegotiating compacts with the Indian tribes and at that time the state would insist that the tribal casinos go smoke-free.

This is a bipartisan issue, and both Democrats and Republicans have voted both for and against the bill. We need to protect the health of Michigan residents like 34 other states and 50 foreign countries have protected their residents.


Anonymous said...

That compromise was not without it's problems and did not have the backing of Detroit reps, putting its passage in doubt.

As I think MIRS noted, going into re-negotiations with a predetermined mandate three years from now would not have pleased the tribes and almost certainly would have been tied up in federal court for years if implemented.

Connecticut tried a similar move with its 2 Indian casinos this year and backed down when faced with lawsuits and withheld tax payments.

And finally, that compromise wouldn't have helped the state's tobacco shops, cigar lounges and cigar bars, which rely on smokers exclusively for their business model. That made other lawmakers' support dubious.

But as I said before, the Senate wanted a "perfect" bill or wanted to kill the issue. I don't know which. The did not bargain in good faith.

It might end up on the ballot, but raising $5 million to put to there won't be easy -- and drags out the issue until 2011.

Hopefully, they'll have REAL compromise discussions next year.

Not Anonymous said...

If it was a workable compromise, it would have worked. Being that it didn't work, that by definition means it's an unworkable compromise. It's too bad that one side, after losing, must attempt to lay the blame for the defeat at the feet of the other side. The fact is that there was a bill, it went to conference to become law and the conference committee couldn't get it done.

If you think the compromise was good for what you wanted, then that's great for you. But obviously those that opposed the compromise didn't think the compromise was a good one and wouldn't go for it.

Compromise means that each side must put aside their principles and choose something less than they want. I don't know what your opponents offered in the way of a compromise, but apparently your side couldn't accept their positions either.

It was a bad bill. It was a flawed bill. It shouldn't have reached the conference at all and hopefully, if they present the same bill next year it will go down to defeat and there will be no need for a conference committee.

Anonymous said...

Again, mcbluster tries to blast Republicans when a smoking ban was in the hands of the Democratic House and it was killed by the Speaker. If second-hand smoke is indeed a killer, the only conclusion that can be reached is that Andy Dillon doesn't mind if casino workers die premature, horrible deaths. Even this so-called compromise, which would not have worked, allowed casinos to keep "killing" its employees. What a nice compromise that is.

McBluster's only goal is to be a partisan hack. He goes after the Republican members of the conference committee, even though all three were warmly praised in a press release from the citizens group most actively pushing for the ban. Again, I guess mcbluster knows more than these idiots do.

Here's a point that should have been raised earlier. McBluster likes to talk about the "studies" that show that the ban would save lives. But when I finally followed his link, it went to a CDC report that merely tracked the number of states with smoking bans. That report references a Surgeon General's finding that says second-hand smoke has dangerous materials and that the only way to be COMPLETELY RISK FREE is a full ban in a restaurant, rather than, say, a no-smoking section. Well, of course. The only way to never inhale or be exposed to second hand smoke is if it is banned. The only way to be 100 percent risk free from an auto accident is if cars are banned (something Pelosi might support). The only way to be 100 percent Risk Free from the sun is to never to out in the sun. But the links from McBluster don't tell us what the increased risk is...and whether or not we can be 100 percent risk free in every walk of life.

It's possible to find the names of people who died from asbestos exposure or from black lung disease. I'm still waiting for the names of bar and restaurant employees who were killed by second hand smoke.

Communications guru said...

Well, it may have had problems, and it may have had trouble getting by the Detroit Reps. But we never even got to that point. The Republican members of the conference committee never even bothered to show up to hear or talk about the compromise. The total ban got 50 votes in September in the House. I think the compromise would have shaken six votes lose in Lame Duck.

As for tobacco shops and so-called cigar bars, the bill could have been amended at a later time to exempt them You know when I was a smoker, I went to the store to buy cigarettes, not to smoke them there. But, I could live with that compromise.

I don’t know if it would end up in federal court in three years. Non-smoking bans are inevitable. We are only one of 16 states that do not have workplace smoking bans in place. In three years, I doubt the Native American casinos will have any problem with a smoking ban.

You are correct, the Senate members of the conference committee did not bargain in good faith.

It may end up on the ballot, and the tobacco industry will pump a lot of cash into killing it. But I think there is enough support to get it passed.

Communications guru said...

Well, it may have been a workable compromise, but we will never know because the Republican members never bothered to show up to discuss it. For any compromise or negotiation to work, one side has to be willing to negotiate, but the Republicans on the conference committee were against the bill. That’s why Mike Bishop assigned them to the committee: to make it seem like he was doing something, but he knew the two GOP members were against any kind of ban.

The fact is that a smoking ban passed both the House and Senate, but the minority who voted against it killed it. There was no doubt people want a smoking ban the question is how extensive it should be.

You are wrong again, it’s a good bill that should have been approved years ago. It will be passed: either in the legislature or by a vote of the people. Once again, the majority of lawmakers voted for a workplace smoking ban, 81-67 to be exact. This is the farthest the bill has ever progressed in the 10 years the ban has pending. In fact, this is the first time it was ever voted on, and it was approved when it was voted on. It will take the next step in the next session.

Communications guru said...

When the smoking ban was “in the hands of the Democratic House,” they approved it twice, and it got the majority of votes the third time, anonymous troll. How “was it killed by the Speaker?” Andy Dillon voted for the full ban, including casinos.

Second-hand smoke is indeed a killer, and there is no doubt about the scientific fact of that. So, in your warped mind, if there is not a total ban, then we get nothing? That makes no sense.

What press release are you talking about where “all three were warmly praised in a press release from the citizens group most actively pushing for the ban?” The fact is, all three Republican members voted against the ban. Are you doubting that? Why would three people who voted against the bill, work to get it approved? The answer is they were there to kill it. Bishop could have assigned two of the nine Republicans who voted for the ban to the conference committee.

That old, false car and sun argument again. Here’s the difference: cars and the sun have a useful purpose. Cigarettes do not.

Anonymous said...

But cigarettes are legal. Are they not? (and, if the sun didn't have a useful purpose, would you and your fellow Dems try to legislate against it?)

Here's a question I have. Lots of people agree that second-hand smoke is dangerous and they dislike the smell of smoke when they eat. Yet they still go to those restaurants that allow smoking. Why is it then that people would willingly choose to go into a restaurant and threaten their health? Isn't that odd?

Read sunday's freep column by Brian Dickerson. He tells it pretty much like it is. He gives Bishop and company blame for the collapse of the bill, but he also nails Dillon and the Detroit-area Dems in the House...something you won't concede, which eliminates the shred of credibility you might cling onto.

Not Anonymous said...

It wasn't too long ago that people only complained about the smell of smoke. They didn't complain that their health was in danger. I used to bowl and many in the bowling alley used to smoke. I used to come home with my clothes smelling of smoke, even though I wasn't smoking. But like most normal people, I wash my clothes after I've worn them so that I can wear them again. Now, I was only in the bowling alley for about three hours a week.

I also remember that smokers were curteous when they smoked. If they were sitting across from someone and they were having a cigarette, they would point their exhaust towards the ceiling where the fans were so that it would dissipate, rather than just fire it at the person across from them.

When I did smoke, my window was always open in the car. Just the little crack would take the exhaust out the window rather than having it float around the car. To this day, I catch myself putting my window down a crack every once in awhile even though I'm not smoking.

If people were so concerned about second hand smoke, people wouldn't have friends that smoked. Granted, people have noticed a difference in the smell since smokers moved outside, but when they come back in, the smell is still on their clothes. People carry extra cologne with them to spray on themselves to hide the smell after going out for a smoke. Now people are complaining that they are "allergic" to cologne and have to take medical leave due to too much cologne around making them ill.

Society has become less tolerant of people's freedoms, people's choices and people's rights and make claims of health hazards.

I read a question once that I thought was very insightful. We have statistics on everything nowadays. So here's the scenario and the question.

I'm driving down the road. I have a lit cigarette in my hand. It slips from between my fingers and down between my legs. In my frantic search while driving to retrieve my cigarette before roasting my chestnuts, I lose control of the car and strike a telephone pole. Because I'm not wearing a seat belt either, when I die, do the statistics say that my death was due to smoking or due to the lack of a seatbelt?

Communications guru said...

Yes, cigarettes are legal, but that does not give the minority the right to endanger the health of other people. Your sun crack just shows your ignorance.

First, there are people out there, like you for instance, who do not believe secondhand smoke is dangerous. I know it’s hard to believe that’s the case with all the scientific evidence out there, but it’s true. Second, many people do not think an hour or so of exposure will harm them, but the U.S. Surgeon General has found there is no safe amount of exposure to secondhand smoke. Third, many people are under the mistaken belief that if they sit in the non-smoking section they are safe. Fourth, some people are not going to let a small minority from keeping them from going to there favorite bar or restaurant.

What a bunch of BS. I have said repeatedly, 10 of the 12 Detroit Representatives are under the mistaken belief that they were saving Detroit jobs. I have no idea how you can blame Andy Dillon. He allowed a vote on the bill more than a year ago back in December 2007. Up to that point, no one had ever allowed a vote. He also allowed a vote on the total ban. It got the majority of votes, but not the required 56. He assigned people to the conference committee who had voted for both versions of the bill. This is the direct opposite of what Bishop did. Please explain what Dillon did wrong or how he could have dome more to pass this?

Communications guru said...

This is just one more false argument. Secondhand smoke is not just annoying, it’s deadly. We have known that since 1986 when the U.S. Surgeon General issued the first report on the dangers of secondhand smoke. The evidence in the 20 intervening years as only reinforced that finding. So, your rant about cracking windows, washing clothes and cologne are ridiculous.

This is not about tolerance, people's freedoms, people's choices or people's rights it’s a public health issue.

Wow, what a ridiculous scenario. Even you know the answer to that one. Have you ever heard of any type of cancer that killed instantly? Me neither.

Anonymous said...

Asbestos exposure and black lung disease did not kill instantly, yet there was no difficulty finding specific victims. Yet it appears that with all the danger of second-hand smoke, we can't find a single victim. Why? The answer is obvious: Mike Bishop and his Republican friends go in and change the cause of death on death certificates. Yeah, that's it. Those darn Republicans. That's the only plausible explanation for the lack of any victims.

Communications guru said...

Were on that false argument again. The scientific evidence is there, and I have provided links to it. I am still waiting for the scientific evidence that backs up your position that secondhand smoke does not cause disease and death.

Not Anonymous said...

This is turning into a one note cry from you.

Nobody has said that second hand smoke is healthy. You've asserted that second hand smoke causes death, but you can't prove it. Yes, you keep providing the same link to the surgeon generals reports and their opinions, but there are no facts. Just opinions.

This isn't about health. This is about freedom. If your favorite restaurant has been your favorite restaurant, and they haven't banned smoking, then they became your favorite restaurant while allowing smoking. If you had any character or principles, you wouldn't have that restaurant as a favorite restaurant because you'd have not eaten their due to them allowing smoking.

Where was your concern for the employees health when you discovered the place was a smoking establishment?

If the owner is concerned about second hand smoke, he'll ban smoking. If he thinks it won't cause his business to decrease, he'll ban smoking. Contrary to your statements, businesses do lose business when a smoking ban is put in place. I proved that with several links from several states in a previous post.

We do not need government to tell us how to live.

Communications guru said...

You're dam right "This is turning into a one note cry from me." That's because I have a simple fact on my side: Secondhand smoke is deadly and causes death and illness. I have continuously challenged you to provide evidence to support your claim it is not, and you cannot. The Surgeon General is the authority on public health in this country, and he is basing his alleged "opinion" on scientific fact and research. Secondhand smoke kills. Can I make than any clearer for you? If you have something that proves otherwise, please provide it. If you are correct when you say, "Nobody has said that second hand smoke is healthy" then the debate is over. Why are we allowing a small minority to engage in something that is not healthy to bystanders? No one is saying they cannot continue to endanger their health; they just can't do so to other people.
This is about protecting the public health, nothing more. It's not about "freedom" or choice, it's; about protecting the public health.

Wait, how is it fair that I cannot go to my favorite restaurant simply because it caters to the minority? They are the ones endangering other people's health, not me. It boggles my mind that people are bending over backward to protect a minority whose actions endanger the health of innocent bystanders in the name of what they call freedom.

Sorry, anonymous troll, businesses do not lose customers when a smoking ban is put in place. If anything, they gain them because the people whose health cannot tolerate secondhand smoke come back. I provided a link to a study spearhead by former Republican Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema who blocked the workplace smoking ban like Bishop that proves bars and restaurants do not lose business when a smoking ban is enacted. How is it possible that less than 25 percent of the population can cause bars and restaurants to lose business? Do the more than 75 percent of nonsmokers stop going to bars and restaurants now that it's safer for them to go to these places? That's as ridiculous as the rest of your rant.

The government is not telling you how to live your life, it's trying to discharge its constitutional duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, just like the responsible governments in 34 other states and 50 countries are already doing.

Anonymous said...

It boggles his mind that people bend over backward to protect a minority whose actions endanger the health of innocent bystanders.

The people who did that were the Detroit-area House Democrats who voted against a complete ban on smoking...only they weren't protecting freedom, they were protecting the profits for out-of-state casino owners who, by the way, also contribute to their campaign funds. Had those Democrats voted for the ban, there would be no smoking in bars and restaurants. That's the with it.

Not Anonymous said...

You've provided links to opinions. NOt facts. Not even ONE fact. It never ceases to amaze me that people whine about others health because they happen or choose to be around a smoker. You'd think that if this was true, people would be dropping dead all over, but it doesn't happen. It takes smokers years to develop cancer from smoking, if they ever do. But you're whining about the serious health hazard of being around a smoker. Second hand smoke has not been proven to be a danger. You haven't proven it with ANY of your posts or links. You've proven opinions. I think you're a horses ass, but I can't prove it. You may have puffy cheeks, they may be full of whiskers and we all know that what comes out of your mouth is crap, but that doesn't prove that you're a horses ass. It's jut my opinion of you. I'm sure the guy you outed here thinks you are too. That makes two of us with that opinion of you and I suspect there are others. Because he offers that opinion, by your standards I can now say that it's proven you are a horses ass.

It's okay, I don't expect that you'll understand the correlation between your so-called proof and others saying the same thing about you as being proof. You're a liberal. I don't expect intelligence, nor even common sense out of you.

Anonymous said...

Actually, there is substantiated proof that he is a horse's ass.

Communications guru said...

“Second hand smoke has not been proven to be a danger?”

Unbelievable. It has been a scientific fact since 1986, and the research has only reinforced that. It’s fact. Once again, anonymous troll, any facts to back up that baseless, absurd opinion of yours? I’ve asked you that about 10 times now, and I’m still waiting. You can’t even find a tobacco company financed scientist to make that ridiculous claim.

So, are you also denying cigarette smoking does not cause harm? Have you ever read the side of a cigarette pack? Is that Surgeon General warning just an opinion? You are sad.

I’m very happy you think I’m a “horse’s ass.” That really wounds me coming from a cowardly troll who is so afraid to be identified with the shit he writes that he’s afraid to even choose a unique screen name. Thank you so much for the compliment. I guess that’s from the frustration from me kicking your sorry ass in debate all the time.

The guy I “outed here?” “Outing” someone means you revel something someone is hiding. I have never done that. Perhaps you’re talking about brett? The fact is, that’s probably you, so that means only one person thinks I’m a “horse’s ass.” If either one of you thinks that of me is a compliment. He was an inept as you trying to make an actual argument. That’s just further proof you are one in the same.

You “don't expect that you'll understand the correlation between your so-called proof and others saying the same thing about you as being proof. You're a liberal. I don't expect intelligence, nor even common sense out of you.”

That’s rich. Here’s the difference between you and I: I’m offering scientific research to back up my opinion on the dangers of secondhand smoke. You offering nothing; not even a tobacco industry financed researcher to make that claim. Not even one. There has to be one out there. Keep looking, brett/anonymous troll.

Communications guru said...

Then produce it, anonymous troll.

Not Anonymous said...

Now THAT REALLY HURT. I thought my screen name on here was very unique. I haven't seen anyone else using it.

Good God. Is that the best you can do? Repeat your opinion links as scientific facts?

You don't win debates on here. All you do is act like a horses ass by trying to degrade anyone that disagrees with you.

I'm not going to look up the guys name again to see if that's who it is you're talking about. But it is very telling that you admit to outing someone you disagreed with.

You know organ grinders with the little monkeys could only play one tune. You're exactly the same. One tune. Government is good, people can't be trusted with freedom. The only thing that I can't figure out is if you're the organ grinder or the monkey. So horses ass sounds right.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how quickly and completely he loses it. I'm starting to feel guilty for yanking his's like I'm toying with someone who is mentally challenged.

Communications guru said...

Come on, anonymous troll, you are not that stupid. Anyone, thousands of people, can use that anonymous name. Only one person can use the registered screen names of Communications Guru, Republican Michigander or ka_Dargo_Hussein, for instance.

The Surgeon General's conclusion from both 1986 and 2007 are based on scientific research, fact and evidence. You are the one making the ridiculous claim that secondhand smoke is harmless. Once again, any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim? Any science to back up that outlandish claim?

I don't see how I act like a "horse's ass." I give back what I get. I also never admitted to "outing anyone" because I didn't.

Here is the thing about the government: its people, you and me and my neighbor. The legislature has a constitutional duty to pass laws for the protection and promotion of public health. Check out Article IV Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution. You should also attend a local planning commission meeting when a site plan for a commercial building is up for consideration. They must meet things like the number of parking spaces, the height of the building, the distance from the road to the front of the building and the number of trees and shrubs. But you think something as deadly and unhealthy as secondhand smoke should not be regulated?

Read a local health department inspection report that addresses things like the temperature meat is stored at, barring vegetables from being stored below meat and the cleanliness of the kitchen, but you think something as deadly and unhealthy as secondhand smoke should not be regulated?

Communications guru said...

What is it I have lost, anonymous troll? Certainly not a debate, especially with a lightweight like you.

Let me know if you ever want a debate on the issues.

Not Anonymous said...

Your comment: The Surgeon General's conclusion from both 1986 and 2007 are based on scientific research, fact and evidence. You are the one making the ridiculous claim that secondhand smoke is harmless. Once again, any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim? Any science to back up that outlandish claim?

My response: You keep saying that, but you don't prove it. You give the surgeon generals opinion, but you never have shown the "scientific research, fact, and evidence." You also keep saying that I and others are saying that second hand smoke is harmless. Please prove where I have said that. You can't. You only read what you want to read and don't check anything out.

Your comment: Here is the thing about the government: its people, you and me and my neighbor.

My response: Not anymore. They are career politicians. They are supposed to be our employees and our representatives in government. They are now pigs feeding at the trough. The trough is supplied by the confiscation of the peoples money. Example: On CNN a couple of days after the election, they had a piece where lobbyists were holding a meeting for the newly elected members of Congress. They interviewed Rep. Steny Hoyer who had newly elected Rep Mark Schauer in tow. They then interviewed the lobbyist putting on the meeting and the lobbyist was asked if he'd be giving money to these new Reps. He said yes. When asked how much, he stammered then said they were going to start with $5,000 each. So, before Schauer even takes office, he's being handed $5,000 by a lobbyist. Do you think that money is coming back to the people of his district? Sorry, that was a dumb question. You do think it will. But everyone with any common sense knows that the money will be stuffed into Schauers pocket to buy his votes. Which are supposed to be OUR votes.

People get elected now not to represent the people, but rather to get the exhorbitant pay, the dollar perks and paid for life health care. Not to mention the pension that will go on for the rest of their lives.

Elected office is about power. Nothing else. It's not about the people, it's about power over the people, prestige, and the perks that they accumulate during their time in office. The Republicans proved this during the 12 years they held both Houses of Congress. They came in saying that they were going to change the way Washington works. They only thing they changed was to get more money coming to them and less to the Democrats who were out of power. They then spent the people's money, increasing the debt left by Clinton, who increased the debt left by Bush 41, who increased the debt left by Reagan, who increased the debt left by Carter and so on.

The Republicans had it made. They decreased taxes, which brought more revenue in to the Federal Government, then they proceeded to spend it and more. The Democrats came in in 2006 claiming they'd be bipartisan. They haven't.

In recent years, we've had sex scandals (from both sides), we've had housing scandals (from both sides), we've had payoffs both in money and material perks (from both sides). Running for office is nothing more than applying for a job to become a criminal.

This financial crisis we're in is no different. We were put in this crisis by corrupt politicians that think and thought that they knew better than the American people and their policies, lack of policies, regulations and lack of regulations, their laws and their lack of laws created this problem. Their proposal to fix it is not to fix what they're doing wrong, but rather to penalize the American people, and add taxes and fees to fix a problem that is their own creation.

You're one of the sheeple that are allowing them to continue to screw the American people. While the country is going broke, you're worried about second hand smoke. You're worried about the myth of global warming. You whine about a war on terrorism after we were attacked on our own shores.

You keep explaining away Kwame Kilpatrick, William Jefferson, Charlie Rangle, CHristopher Dodd, Barney Frank, and avoiding the obvious of Rod Blagojevich and the politicians that have come out of Illinois (that actually made it through without going to jail) yet, the country is headed to a deep recession and you want more taxes, more regulation and more government interference.

Oh yes, and you worry about what name a person uses rather than dealing with the issues. Debate you? You have no idea what debate is. You claimed you debunked Anonymous not long ago. You have debunked nothing. You saying it, doesn't make it so. I think Anonymous has it exactly right. You are mentally unstable, not to mention intellectually lacking with no common sense. Or better put, no horse sense, which is what makes you a horses ass. And that is being kind to you.

Communications guru said...

You’re joking right, anonymous troll? How do I show the "scientific research? This is from the press release announcing the 2007 report; “U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona today issued a comprehensive scientific report which concludes that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” Note the words “comprehensive scientific report.” What does that mean to you, troll?

“Updating the Evidence
Twenty years ago, the 1986 Surgeon General’s Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking concluded that secondhand smoke exposure was a cause of disease in nonsmokers. That Report, which was one of the first major reports to investigate this topic, concluded that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer among nonsmoking adults and several respiratory problems among children.

Since that Report was published, hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and several additional major reports on the health effects of secondhand smoke have been published, and the evidence on these health effects has become even stronger.

The Surgeon General’s Report that we are releasing today, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, documents beyond any doubt that secondhand smoke harms people’s health. In the course of the past 20 years, the scientific community has reached consensus on this point. “

Note the words, “peer-reviewed studies and several additional major reports,” and “beyond any doubt that secondhand smoke harms people’s health.” What does that mean to you, troll?

You’re joking again, right troll? “You also keep saying that I and others are saying that second hand smoke is harmless. Please prove where I have said that. You can't.”

I sure can. In this very thread at 2:46 p.m. you said, or some other anonymous troll said, “Second hand smoke has not been proven to be a danger.” Are you denying that? So, once again, any science to back up that outlandish claim?

As for the rest of your wordy and false rant, like I said before, here is the thing about the government: it’s people, you and me and my neighbor. Your cynicism is your problem. Tell you what, if you feel that way, then stop voting.

P.S. Clinton left a budget surplus.

PSS. I did debunk Anonymous, which is you, troll. Why don’t you try this, instead of calling me names like mentally unstable, try using some facts and logic in your rants.

Good luck with that, anonymous troll.

Not Anonymous said...

Second hand smoke has not been proven to be a danger. That does not mean that it is not a danger. It means that there isn't any scientific proof. They have zero proof that it's a danger. They have suspicions, it seems likely, but it has not been proven yet. There has not been one death attributed to second hand smoke.

NOtice that I didn't say that it was harmless. I said there is no proof.

I'll worry about my namecalling when you stop with your namecalling. I don't start calling people names. I only do it in response to someone else doing it first. You have done that right from the start. The fun part is that you still think Anonymous and I are one and the same.

It must be rough on you at "Cloudy Acres".

Communications guru said...

Secondhand smoke has been proven to be a danger, harmful and deadly, and more than 20 years of research and scientific evidence have proven that. In fact, “hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and several additional major reports on the health effects of secondhand smoke have been published, and the evidence on these health effects has become even stronger.”

Once again, anonymous troll, that’s what you are until you register with a unique screen name that people can click on. I guess when name-calling is all you have you have to stick with it.

I’m still waiting for the scientific evidence and research that proves your point. Try the Phillip Morris web site.

Not Anonymous said...

You're really ridiculous. You've been asked to prove your assertions and you continually throw out opinions as facts. This has turned into a did so, did not, did so, did not. That's not debating, that's just childish arguing. The amazing thing to me is that you're so willing to believe opinions because they fit with what you want to believe so that you can exert control over other people's lives. You'd be dangerous if you had any influence. As it is, you're not dangerous, you're just an extremist or a crackpot. Thank God for you that you don't have to exhibit any intelligence to cast a vote. Thank God for the rest of us that you're only legally permitted one vote. We'll just have to guess if you're one of the liberals that gets his vote counted more than once.

Communications guru said...

I have scientific fact and research on my side. I’m still waiting for the scientific facts to back up your claim. Every time I ask, you just attack me. That speaks volumes.

Merry Christmas, anonymous troll.