Blog post by LawProf Ann Althouse (Law Professor)
- Thread starter mpetva
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Outstanding comment, Kristin!!!
I'll second that. The girl is smart as a whip and apparently never sleeps.
Kristen - loved this, "How is that improving public health? It's like banning all low-fat products, leaving the high-fat products on the market and telling obese people to just quit eating anything they enjoy with fat in it. Oh, but here is a nasty-tasting, low-fat pill you can take that is "safe and effective" with a 7% success rate getting people off fat. But it may cause you to want to kill yourself."
I just had to point out this comment from someone else...it's totally and completely spot on.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
It would have been more helpful if Ann Althouse had done some legal research about the legality (or lack thereof) of the DOT's attempt to ban the use of e-cigarettes on airlines.
I thought that was an EXCELLENT comment, Vicks. I figure it had to be written by a very astute vaper!
Thanks for the kudos everyone. It was a bit verbose but I think part of that was the flu meds! I seem to have lkilled the comment thread, though! I was hoping to get some exposure for CASAA.
Of course, it looks like a smoker's rights person posted after me. Sometimes they can twist things just as bad as the antis. While I agree some of the science of SHS & THS is suspect, I don't think people can really argue that smokers don't suffer consequences of smoking. What smoker smokes for 20+ years and doesn't feel it - we don't really even need researchers to tell us what we already know. I mean, tobacco companies couldn't exactly hide the smoker's cough and other stuff related to smoking. You're inhaling smoking and you're winded and hacking up black stuff and you don't connect it to smoking? Duh. Although I agree with Dr. Siegel that the evidence supports itself - the anti-smoking groups only hurt their cause when they misrepresent/hide studies to further their agenda and we know they do just that.
Thanks for the kudos everyone. It was a bit verbose but I think part of that was the flu meds! I seem to have lkilled the comment thread, though! I was hoping to get some exposure for CASAA.
Of course, it looks like a smoker's rights person posted after me. Sometimes they can twist things just as bad as the antis. While I agree some of the science of SHS & THS is suspect, I don't think people can really argue that smokers don't suffer consequences of smoking. What smoker smokes for 20+ years and doesn't feel it - we don't really even need researchers to tell us what we already know. I mean, tobacco companies couldn't exactly hide the smoker's cough and other stuff related to smoking. You're inhaling smoking and you're winded and hacking up black stuff and you don't connect it to smoking? Duh. Although I agree with Dr. Siegel that the evidence supports itself - the anti-smoking groups only hurt their cause when they misrepresent/hide studies to further their agenda and we know they do just that.
Kristin, We are closer associated with the smoker than the antis and in many ways their problems are our problems. In terms of symptoms, I honestly only occasionally had a smoker's cough for the better part of 43 years. It was only when they threw the RIP into the smokes that I started having issues. I was pretty active most of my life so I suppose I worked my lungs pretty well and didn't have some of the typical smoker issues.
I feel the SHS and THS issues have always been over blown. If you consider how many people smoked when I grew up and they smoked everywhere, you'd have to believe that the issues of SHS would have been dramatic, but they weren't. I used to spend two or three weeks with my aunt in NJ every summer when I was young. We'd play cards from the time we got up until the time we went to bed. I don't think there was a minute that went by that she wasn't smoking and she was a 1st grade teacher. I don't know if they smoked in the classroom, but I wouldn't doubt it. I do believe SHS may be detrimental, but it would take some serious exposure.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that smokers have been pushed way past what should have been the limit. When they started passing laws that took all indoor smoking in places of business was banned, they had gone too far and now they're heading outside. It won't stop at that unless people start backing the antis off.
I feel the SHS and THS issues have always been over blown. If you consider how many people smoked when I grew up and they smoked everywhere, you'd have to believe that the issues of SHS would have been dramatic, but they weren't. I used to spend two or three weeks with my aunt in NJ every summer when I was young. We'd play cards from the time we got up until the time we went to bed. I don't think there was a minute that went by that she wasn't smoking and she was a 1st grade teacher. I don't know if they smoked in the classroom, but I wouldn't doubt it. I do believe SHS may be detrimental, but it would take some serious exposure.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that smokers have been pushed way past what should have been the limit. When they started passing laws that took all indoor smoking in places of business was banned, they had gone too far and now they're heading outside. It won't stop at that unless people start backing the antis off.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
