Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity


On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:49:07 -0400, "ian@xxxxxxxxxx" <iann@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Jim Gysin wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:47:03 -0400, "ian@xxxxxxxxxx" <iann@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Janet wrote:
"Mike Burke" <mburke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ados64hc53e6sk11r234chndjsv0gctt7i@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:18:23 -0400, "Francis A. Miniter"
<faminiter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not to mention that 2.5 per 10,000 works out to an extra -
and unnecessary - 12,500 deaths in England, and 75,000
deaths per year in the USA.
Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate
epidemiologists. I'm willing to bet that those 10s of thousands of
deaths cannot be attributed to smoking any more than they can be for
exposure to other atmospheric or environmental pollutants.

As I said upthread, they are statistically irrelevant, and when
officially asked to advise the military chiefs here in Oz, the
military medical authorities said as much.

Even ignoring their fascist behaviour, it's grasping such fatuous
arguments that destroys the zealots' credibility entirely.

Mique
I don't even give a damn about tobacco deaths. I JUST DON"T WANT TO REEK OF
SMOKE AND HAVE SPLITTING HEADACHES EVERY TIME I RIDE ON A TRAIN OR PLANE! Or
eat out. Or spend time in a public place. And before the public-place
smoking bans, that is precisely what happened. Certainly, there should be a
level playing field. Allowing smoking in casinos but not in bars isn't fair.
(BTW, lots of us got completely out of the habit of going to bars or
nightspots of any kind because the smokers made them uninhabitable. Of
COURSE most of the cusotmers smoke. They drove everyone else away. There's a
wine bar near where I live that is non-smoking, and it is PACKED virtually
every night. I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of those who go there
wouldn't if it were the smoke-filled den of yore. It has only recently
crossed my mind that I could go out to a place and listen to music and have
a drink in actual comfort.)
I agree. In the bad old days, whenever I went out with a bunch of
friends, there was always somebody who would say "Oh, they don't allow
smoking there, lets go to X", and nearly always, the non-smokers were
expected to be 'good sports' and cater to the smokers.

So the solution is to punish other people (smokers) because you're
unable or unwilling to stand up to your smoking friends?

The fact is that we are not all isolated units when we are making our
social decisions, and somehow the way these social decisions get made
have always favored accomodationist outcomes, which effectively meant
that we'd all end up with stinky clothes, breathing foul air in dirty
places.

You had choices. You took the path of least resistance. And for that,
you want to blame others and take *their* choices away from them.

Drain what I said of all subtlety, add a dash of moral
self-righteousness, and I guess you might say that. I wouldn't.

We don't group ourselevs into non-smoking and smoking friends, we just
have friends, and when some smoke, people end up going to smoky places.

By choice.

I am very glad that we can all go and sit in restaurants and bars now
and not be subjected to that any more. It is, as many of my friends
agree, wonderful. Some of the ex-smokers among them credit these
anti-smoking efforts with helping them to quit, and they are grateful
for them.

I'm sure that when we get around to banning fast food, some of the
ex-obese among your friends will credit these anti-McDonalds efforts
with helping them to lose weight, and they will be grateful.

I don't believe that society should do nothing about the elevated levels
of fat children we are now seeing, and forcing fast-food & other food
places to stop using trans fats is, therefore, a good idea.

Wow. You're quite the busybody, aren't you? Where and when does it
end? When is everyone's diet and lifestyle healthy enough for Ian to
back off and allow people to make their own choices for themselves and
their families?

Personally, I support *informing* people of the risks of things like
trans-fats, but beyond that, I believe that people should be allowed to
make their own informed decisions, and that includes taking their own
informed risks.

--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity
    ... deaths per year in the USA. ... Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate ... And before the public-place smoking bans, ... Allowing smoking in casinos but not in bars isn't fair. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity
    ... deaths per year in the USA. ... Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate ... And before the public-place smoking bans, ... I don't believe that society should do nothing about the elevated levels of fat children we are now seeing, and forcing fast-food & other food places to stop using trans fats is, therefore, a good idea. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity
    ... deaths per year in the USA. ... Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate ... And before the public-place smoking bans, ... Allowing smoking in casinos but not in bars isn't fair. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity
    ... deaths per year in the USA. ... Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate ... smoking bans, ... COURSE most of the cusotmers smoke. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity
    ... deaths per year in the USA. ... Maybe this is why Mark Miller's medical scientist friends hate ... smoking bans, ... COURSE most of the cusotmers smoke. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)