Oklahoma now has its very own dictator!
- Thread starter tigerlily
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Shocking. People like this make me sick:
As I've said before, people like Fallin think there's something wrong with us just because we've made lifestyle choices she doesn't respect enough to take the time to fully understand.
I'm starting to think that the only way to beat this crap is to openly vape everywhere and ensure your cigalike doesn't have a red tip and to hold the inhale until the vapour's gone. What then do they have to ban?
Last edited:
Well it's no wonder. Look at the garbage she was fed (Provided) by the Oklahoma Department of Health
DEBUNK
"...other tobacco‐related contaminants."
Name calling is a well-known propaganda technique. Referring to miniscule (harmless) trace quantities of minor tobacco alkaloids as "contaminants" is a scare tactic.
"Secondhand vapor carries chemicals with it that impact non‐smokers/non-vapers."
Impact how? There isn't a shred of evidence that exhaled vapor has caused, or is even likely to cause, any effect--good or bad--on bystanders.
"...bystanders can get just as much nicotine exposure from secondhand vapor as they do from secondhand smoke."
I haven't seen any definitive proof of this, however Health New Zealand pointed out that both smokers and vapers absorb most of the nicotine before they exhale. [http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm] German researchers (Schripp, et al. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? [Indoor Air. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI) reported measuring seven micrograms per cubic meter of nicotine in an 8 cubic meter chamber after use of an e-cigarette. That's not enough for bystanders to experience any improvement in their attention, memory, reaction time, or ability to concentrate. [Notice that the DoH never describes the effects of nicotine. Just let the reader believe that the effects are the same as getting drunk.]
"MRI images indicate that there are changes in the brain after one hour of moderate secondhand smoke exposure to cigarettes, most likely due to nicotine exposure."
1. What are these changes? Are they necessarily harmful changes?
2. That's with smoke exposure. Was this experiment performed on those who inhaled exhaled vapor?
"...exposing bystanders to harmful chemicals at some level."
The key words here are "at some level." The dose makes the poison. If the quantity does not exceed the NOAEL (No observed adverse effect level), then the exposure isn't harmful.
We could truthfully report that that all drinking water contains chemicals that are harmful at some level--but not necessarily at the level you're taking in. Since nobody's getting sick, odds are good the levels are harmless.
DEBUNK
"...other tobacco‐related contaminants."
Name calling is a well-known propaganda technique. Referring to miniscule (harmless) trace quantities of minor tobacco alkaloids as "contaminants" is a scare tactic.
"Secondhand vapor carries chemicals with it that impact non‐smokers/non-vapers."
Impact how? There isn't a shred of evidence that exhaled vapor has caused, or is even likely to cause, any effect--good or bad--on bystanders.
"...bystanders can get just as much nicotine exposure from secondhand vapor as they do from secondhand smoke."
I haven't seen any definitive proof of this, however Health New Zealand pointed out that both smokers and vapers absorb most of the nicotine before they exhale. [http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ECigsExhaledSmoke.htm] German researchers (Schripp, et al. Does e-cigarette consumption cause passive vaping? [Indoor Air. 2013] - PubMed - NCBI) reported measuring seven micrograms per cubic meter of nicotine in an 8 cubic meter chamber after use of an e-cigarette. That's not enough for bystanders to experience any improvement in their attention, memory, reaction time, or ability to concentrate. [Notice that the DoH never describes the effects of nicotine. Just let the reader believe that the effects are the same as getting drunk.]
"MRI images indicate that there are changes in the brain after one hour of moderate secondhand smoke exposure to cigarettes, most likely due to nicotine exposure."
1. What are these changes? Are they necessarily harmful changes?
2. That's with smoke exposure. Was this experiment performed on those who inhaled exhaled vapor?
"...exposing bystanders to harmful chemicals at some level."
The key words here are "at some level." The dose makes the poison. If the quantity does not exceed the NOAEL (No observed adverse effect level), then the exposure isn't harmful.
We could truthfully report that that all drinking water contains chemicals that are harmful at some level--but not necessarily at the level you're taking in. Since nobody's getting sick, odds are good the levels are harmless.
""""Changes in the brain"""".
Massive scare quotes, I had """"changes in my brain"""" from reading this crap.
Massive scare quotes, I had """"changes in my brain"""" from reading this crap.
"Most likely due to"? Well, if that isn't a truly scientific conclusion, I just don't know what is....
(Gov. Fallin's *real* fear: That nicotine exposure will improve brain function, which will cause people to vote for her opponent.
)
Well I'll be..........Mary Fallon is a Republican.
(Usually somebody will put the word "Dems" into the topic heading when there are bannings, if the bannings were done by Dems)
It would be more fair to put the word "Rep" into the topic headings where massive bans are carried out by Repubicans, wouldn't it?
So it's not totally a partisan issue, after all?
(Usually somebody will put the word "Dems" into the topic heading when there are bannings, if the bannings were done by Dems)
It would be more fair to put the word "Rep" into the topic headings where massive bans are carried out by Repubicans, wouldn't it?
So it's not totally a partisan issue, after all?
I worked in an industry who's product had strong benefits with insignificant risks. We got a good chuckle about how wrong the media reports were regarding our product. Not worried because the engineering data was strong in our favor. Should it go to court we would win based on facts. Well, there was no court. The government regulated us out w/o any hearing. Had we the CASAA equivalent we could possibly be in business today.
Damn that sucks emus
can you say any more about it? I find this stuff fascinating (and depressing lol!).Damn that sucks emus
Thanks.
Merry Christmas
sorry to hear that Oklahoma has taken a turn away from individual freedom, yes She is a Republican , sad to say there is a marginal difference between the two.........Democrats are a bit more overt in their "looking out for our best interest", Republicans talk the talk during their campaign only to do the same when in office........
Why I'm an independent/libertarian that leans to the right. The Repubs will just bankrupt the country/take our freedoms slower. They almost all are just trying to buy votes.
I would be more ok with it if their reasoning was it distracts employees. Harmful or not clouds of vapor can still be distracting.
But trying to say its because of health reasons is like beating a dead horse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But trying to say its because of health reasons is like beating a dead horse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is why everyone needs to become a lobbyist.
Most elected officials, even if they want to do the "right thing" can not research every issue and depend on the research done and handed to them by others. Doctors do this too. Trade industries hire the lobbyists (BP reps for doctors) that hand them the research they depend on to base their decisions on.
We need to hand them our side of the story.
There's no signs this is a political issue. Repubs end up doing the same thing as Dems only Repubs are more covert about it. Dems bow to public pressure easier. Repubs bow to corporate pressure. And sometimes it's both.
Most elected officials, even if they want to do the "right thing" can not research every issue and depend on the research done and handed to them by others. Doctors do this too. Trade industries hire the lobbyists (BP reps for doctors) that hand them the research they depend on to base their decisions on.
We need to hand them our side of the story.
There's no signs this is a political issue. Repubs end up doing the same thing as Dems only Repubs are more covert about it. Dems bow to public pressure easier. Repubs bow to corporate pressure. And sometimes it's both.
A video to backup Alkan's post.
This was filmed in 2007. It's gotten much worse since then.
The Video You Need To See Before You Spend Another Second Arguing About Health Care
A list of other BP doings on 60 minutes, for history 101
Search results for big pharma - CBS News
This was filmed in 2007. It's gotten much worse since then.
The Video You Need To See Before You Spend Another Second Arguing About Health Care
A list of other BP doings on 60 minutes, for history 101
Search results for big pharma - CBS News
I thought this was the type of stuff CASAA works to prevent. Did they not get the chance here?
If not, why not?
If not, why not?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
