Smoking ban flounders in lame duck

By Todd A. Heywood 12/17/08 4:03 PM

Despite a full court press by the Michigan Department of Community Health, the proposed ban on smoking looks like it will not pass in the last days of the lame duck session of the state legislature. Both houses have passed smoking ban plans, with the Senate passing a bill which would ban all smoking in public, but the House voting to exempt casinos in Detroit. The two bills are currently in a conference committee where members of both houses are trying to hammer out a deal before the end of the lame duck session.

The Associated Press is reporting that a compromise deal has been floated that would allow some businesses to opt out of the smoking ban by paying for a special permit.

Bookmark & Share

Viewing 14 Comments

CarolAST 2 weeks ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since the anti-smoking movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 2 weeks ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

So a non-smoker's right to avoid environmental catalysts like cigarette smoke that might trigger other biological carcinogens never enters into the equation?

Society's right to limit costs it must pay for elective consumption of a co-contributing carcinogen is of no concern?

We should all ignore the studies that show cigarette smoke is carcinogenic with or without exposure to HPV?

What am I missing here?

And while we're at it, how do you feel about paying for HPV vaccinations for everybody?

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 2 weeks ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Those studies are worthless junk, because they're based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires. It just goes to prove that you don't even bother to look at the trash you believe in. You just rely on mass media hype and deliberate lies by corrupt demagogues with a political agenda.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 2 weeks ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

And you're a reputable scientist with a body of peer-reviewed work?

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 2 weeks ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Your so-called scientists are nothing but quacks, funded by the POLITICIANS to do a hit job against smokers, whose lies have never been challenged for that reason. And all your so-called “independent” reports have been done by the same little clique, ring-led by Jonathan Samet.

Jon Samet has been an anti-smoking activist since the Fifth World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1983. He was one of three “consulting scientific editors” and “prepared draft chapters or portions” of the 1986 Surgeon General Report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking,” and was also involved in the 1984, 1985, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2004 SG Reports, and was Senior Scientific Editor of the 2006 Surgeon General Report, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke.” He was also a member of the Science Advisory Board of the so-called “EPA” Report on ETS, the key chapters of which were actually secretly written by an anti-smoking activist crony of Samet's, using illegal pass-through contracts to conceal his role. Samet was Chairman of the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) committee which produced the fraudulent Monograph on Smoking and Involuntary Smoking in 2003. In 2005, Samet and three anti-smoking activist cronies formed a majority of the voting board of the ASHRAE Position Document on ETS. In addition, he committed perjury in 1998 in the State of Minnesota lawsuit against the cigarette companies, and testified in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against them as well.

http:www.smokershistory.com/Samet.htm

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

After doing some research, it appears that someone posting under “CarolAST” and using the email address we have on record has a rather lengthy history of leaving inflammatory and hostile comments across other sites that post any articles that you perceive as anti-smoking. Would you like to disclose your qualifications to make your claims? Would you also like to cite any judicial action against Jonathan Samet with regard to claim of perjury?

Without further substantiation of your qualifications or clarification on your accusation about Samet, your comments will be regarded as trolling.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

You just can't stand to see anybody contradict your lies. And you can't read, either, otherwise you wouldn't need to be spoon-fed these links.
Samet's perjury about heart disease
http://www.smokershistory.com/samethd.htm
Samet's perjury about ulcers
http://www.smokershistory.com/heliquot.htm
Samet's concealment of HPV role in laryngeal cancer
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlaryn.htm

And you don't have a single substantive response to the charge that anti-smokers deliberately use defective studies to falsely blame tobacco for diseases caused by infection; nor to the charge that your so-called “independent” reports have all been concocted by the same little politically coinnected clique, ring-led by Jonathan M. Samet.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Your posts are doing nothing to further your point except push a website.

Point to any lawsuit or charge by law enforcement against Samet in which he is charged with perjury. If you can't do that, then you are doing little more than libeling him and using this site to do so.

As for “substantive response”: the topic of this post is the status of an anti-smoking bill as of the end of Michigan legislature's lame duck session, not the validity of claims regarding cigarette smoke as a carcinogen. Would you care to get back on topic?

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

All of your side's legislative successes are based on deliberate lies, fraud and deceit, on keeping the public ignorant and preventing discussion of these fundamental issues. That's why my comments are relevant to a discussion of your legislative agenda. And stuff the pettifogging – we don't need a lawsuit or action by law enforcement to know that that scumbag Samet lied under oath, in order to libel US, smokers – which you and your movement have been doing with impunity for six decades. So stuff the phony outrage, too.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

One more time, since you apparently avoided the link in the last reply:

Michigan Messenger's comment policy

And thank you for finally disclosing your personal position — a smoker. No matter whether we disagree/.agree as to whether cigarette smoking has a causative role in certain cancers, smokers do not have a right to force second-hand smoke on others; perhaps that's a fundamental reason why nonsmoking legislation has had more success of late.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

No, you avoided my refutation of your dishonesty. You anti-smokers clearly believe that you have license to suppress public discussion of facts which are harmful to your agenda. And the reason behind your ill-gotten gains is scientific fraud funded by the federal government, shoved down the public's throat by mass media who are mere propaganda organs for the American Cancer Society et al. And it's you anti-smokers who do not have the right to force your will on US. To restrict peoples' liberties requires more than mere personal whims rationalized as the (supposed) will of the majority (which the majority proved they don't support by patronizing businesses that allow smoking). That is why your side committed scientific fraud to falsely claim dangers from secondhand smoke.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

How would you like to have a cup of coffee forced on you every time you went into a public venue? Nobody's expecting you to do that, though, are they? It's somebody else's choice to drink coffee, somebody else's choice to expose themselves to health risks that coffee might cause, whether coffee alone or combined with other agents causes illness.

And if a majority of the public were non-coffee drinkers and were expected to drink the stuff in order to frequent a business, they not only stop frequenting the business but make such forced coffee drinking illegal. They'd also argue that coffee drinking is unsafe for some consumers — like children — in order to make their case, but not necessarily as the only reason why forced coffee drinking should be banned in public venues.

You're having difficulty on the issue of rights alone without screaming “fraud”.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/

CarolAST 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

If your ilk were the majority, you could have kept your smoke-free establishments in business. But you could not, because the majority did not care about them. So, because the majority did not support your agenda, you eliminated their freedom of choice, using false claims, based on deliberate scientific fraud, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases in non-smokers as your specious pretext.

reply edit reblog flag

1 /people/CarolAST/ /people/CarolAST/following/

Rayne1 1 week ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

If smokers were the majority, you wouldn't need to harass any anti-smoking sites as you have been.

reply edit reblog flag

-1 /people/Rayne1/ /people/Rayne1/following/