Second Hand Suck
I can't believe that there aren't bigger things to worry about. Things like, oh, I dunno? Crime, education, Ke$ha... you know, topics that have an impact on today's society.
But no. I make a post in my personal journal that is a response to LiveJournal's Writer's Block question about smoking, and people start jumping down my throat... some people I don't even know.
Now, in my journal I said that there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER for smoking on public streets to be banned because it's a public place. If we're in public and I don't like it? I'll get away from it. If we're at my apartment? Go outside. If we're at your house? It's your place, do what you want to. If we're in a bar and they allow smoking? Go ahead, I don't care. I can put Febreeze on my jacket later.
But then some douchey girl came along and lambasted me with smoking facts, as if I didn't know it could feasibly be bad for you. Yeah sure... all that shit she linked to could be true if one were to smoke... not "passive" or "secondhand" smoking which was what the topic was about.
Then one of my friends told me about her smoke allergies. That's bad for her... she has a problem, obviously, but it's not because of smoke. Sorry. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother her and other people and make them cough... shit it bothers me still sometimes. I'm just telling the truth.
See this shit all started back in the early `90s. In 1993 the EPA wrote this paper called "The Respiratory Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," copies of which can be found here (download) and here (summary).
It went SUPER MEDIA with it's claims that secondhand smoke kills no less than 3,000 non-smokers per year (via lung cancer) in the United States which opened the doors for health nuts and anti-smoking activists to start banning indoor smoking across the nation.
Why?
Because they felt their health and more than that, their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS were being infringed on.
Fuck them.
In July of '98, a Federal Court ruled that the EPA's study showed no link between secondhand smoke and cancer, that they had "cherry picked" their data from pre-existing cases instead of doing extensive research on a wider variety of test subjects (I dunno if that would've been human or not?), and that the EPA had deviated from scientific procedure and intentionally ignored data to arrive at a preordained outcome.
In essence: They made it all up just to get what they wanted because they're a bunch of hippies. I wish I had a better summary of that link and that judgment to show you, but I honestly can't find one.
Now that same year, the World Health Organization did a study in Europe (I suppose because there was so much pressure on the EPA over here in the States) on almost 2,200 patients. The study was held in twelve different centers across Europe over a course of seven years... so, let's say from '91 to '97 and then the press release came out in '98.
Well what did the press release say?
PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER - DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU
In that report, they claim that they were accused of withholding information from the public. Because they did. They lied the same way the EPA lied and the British newspaper The Telegraph called them out on it.
When you read the actual report, it says there is no association between childhood exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer and that the risks of lung cancer being exposed to secondhand smoke as an adult are inconsequential, or in their words, "not statistically significant."
And it gets worse.
Federally funded medical hoobily-has like the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and yes, even the Surgeon General of the United States all believe in the "fact" that secondhand smoke is a killer. What do they base that information on?
That dumbassed EPA report from '93 that was thrown out by a Federal Court.
And even worse, they've inflated the statistics of secondhand smoke related deaths by saying things such as, "Oh, well if you had a heart attack it wasn't because you're a fat bastard, it's because you lived with someone who smoked!" They pin it on anything now. It's a "projection statistic."I had asthma as a kid. I still have it now just not as bad. Mom and Dad both smoked all my life until relatively recent and I know that once she found out she was pregnant with me, Mom stopped drinking and doing all the other drugs. Cigarettes? I'm not sure.
But between my allergies and asthma? It wasn't the cigarettes and smoke in the house that did me in year after year, it was what was outside the house; grass, pollen, cats... except for the mold and mildew, that was in the bathroom. Damn grout and caulk sealer.
Anyways.
I have a lot of health problems but they didn't come about because of secondhand smoke. Am I saying I like smoke? No. Nor am I saying it's good for you. And you certainly shouldn't do it if you're pregnant. Otherwise, your body is free and you should be able to do whatever the hell else you want with it. Smoking in public is one of those things
because NO ONE can be PERMANENTLY HARMED from secondhand smoke.
But no. I make a post in my personal journal that is a response to LiveJournal's Writer's Block question about smoking, and people start jumping down my throat... some people I don't even know.
Now, in my journal I said that there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER for smoking on public streets to be banned because it's a public place. If we're in public and I don't like it? I'll get away from it. If we're at my apartment? Go outside. If we're at your house? It's your place, do what you want to. If we're in a bar and they allow smoking? Go ahead, I don't care. I can put Febreeze on my jacket later.
But then some douchey girl came along and lambasted me with smoking facts, as if I didn't know it could feasibly be bad for you. Yeah sure... all that shit she linked to could be true if one were to smoke... not "passive" or "secondhand" smoking which was what the topic was about.
Then one of my friends told me about her smoke allergies. That's bad for her... she has a problem, obviously, but it's not because of smoke. Sorry. Doesn't mean it doesn't bother her and other people and make them cough... shit it bothers me still sometimes. I'm just telling the truth.
See this shit all started back in the early `90s. In 1993 the EPA wrote this paper called "The Respiratory Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," copies of which can be found here (download) and here (summary).
It went SUPER MEDIA with it's claims that secondhand smoke kills no less than 3,000 non-smokers per year (via lung cancer) in the United States which opened the doors for health nuts and anti-smoking activists to start banning indoor smoking across the nation.
Why?
Because they felt their health and more than that, their BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS were being infringed on.
Fuck them.
In July of '98, a Federal Court ruled that the EPA's study showed no link between secondhand smoke and cancer, that they had "cherry picked" their data from pre-existing cases instead of doing extensive research on a wider variety of test subjects (I dunno if that would've been human or not?), and that the EPA had deviated from scientific procedure and intentionally ignored data to arrive at a preordained outcome.
In essence: They made it all up just to get what they wanted because they're a bunch of hippies. I wish I had a better summary of that link and that judgment to show you, but I honestly can't find one.
Now that same year, the World Health Organization did a study in Europe (I suppose because there was so much pressure on the EPA over here in the States) on almost 2,200 patients. The study was held in twelve different centers across Europe over a course of seven years... so, let's say from '91 to '97 and then the press release came out in '98.
Well what did the press release say?
PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER - DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU
In that report, they claim that they were accused of withholding information from the public. Because they did. They lied the same way the EPA lied and the British newspaper The Telegraph called them out on it.
When you read the actual report, it says there is no association between childhood exposure to secondhand smoke and lung cancer and that the risks of lung cancer being exposed to secondhand smoke as an adult are inconsequential, or in their words, "not statistically significant."
And it gets worse.
Federally funded medical hoobily-has like the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, and yes, even the Surgeon General of the United States all believe in the "fact" that secondhand smoke is a killer. What do they base that information on?
That dumbassed EPA report from '93 that was thrown out by a Federal Court.
And even worse, they've inflated the statistics of secondhand smoke related deaths by saying things such as, "Oh, well if you had a heart attack it wasn't because you're a fat bastard, it's because you lived with someone who smoked!" They pin it on anything now. It's a "projection statistic."I had asthma as a kid. I still have it now just not as bad. Mom and Dad both smoked all my life until relatively recent and I know that once she found out she was pregnant with me, Mom stopped drinking and doing all the other drugs. Cigarettes? I'm not sure.
But between my allergies and asthma? It wasn't the cigarettes and smoke in the house that did me in year after year, it was what was outside the house; grass, pollen, cats... except for the mold and mildew, that was in the bathroom. Damn grout and caulk sealer.
Anyways.
I have a lot of health problems but they didn't come about because of secondhand smoke. Am I saying I like smoke? No. Nor am I saying it's good for you. And you certainly shouldn't do it if you're pregnant. Otherwise, your body is free and you should be able to do whatever the hell else you want with it. Smoking in public is one of those things
because NO ONE can be PERMANENTLY HARMED from secondhand smoke.