I can agree with most of this.

Cass Sustein also has said that because there is a little Homer Simpson in us we are suseptable to manipulation. That’s not a comfortable mindset from an Obama appointee.

I realize that the whole point of advertising is to nudge and manipulate – but when a government official is saying “hey, we could manipulate these people too” – well, I don’t like that much.

Even if that’s always what’s happening. Openly saying they wanna?

’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on-a-cree-une-peur-qui-ne-repose-sur-rien-31-05-2010-943934.php

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/france/

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien

The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood……

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth……

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

”EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology’s gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19–an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality–the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.”

The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
http://knol.google.com/k/second-hand-smoke #

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ”EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen”……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ”laugh” thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

way to keep it simple dude

and by dude i mean Harleyrider

jk76 said:
way to keep it simple dude and by dude i mean Harleyrider

Agreed.

Cut.

Paste.

Bore to tears.

Hey harley nobody is going to read any of that shit.What an idiot.Beck is not telling you that these are suggestions by medical experts and others who actually study these issues in detail that the intention is to improve public health.You can still smoke and drink and eat any kind of food that will plug your colon.Getting fast food out of the public schools during school hours(the kids can pig out later) might help some of them not to develop diabetes,heart ailments and not get fat.Beck has run out of evil black people to attack so now it’s back to degrading the Jews like Sunstein.

Hey,if I got a billion a year like tobacco control does for media blitzs.There wouldnt be any NANNY STATE!

Harleyrider Davidson said:
The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood……

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED’S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth……

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA’S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

”EPA’s 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology’s gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19–an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality–the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.”

The EPA fought to have Osteen’s decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen’s court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
http://knol.google.com/k/second-hand-smoke #

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA’S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them….Osha has whats called PEL’S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments…[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA’S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air…..now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ”EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen”……milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren’t determined to be a carcinogen….The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0….Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim…..thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree’s claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ”laugh” thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

Thread Hog….

Thanks for repeating the truth about second hand smoke………..

Burnnotice said:
Thread Hog….

funniest I’ve seen today
How ya doin?

Of course Beck is 100% correct. Our government is way too big (in fact it has grown 25% since Obama took office). And, taxes are way too high. And those of us who cherish liberty want nannyism and cronyism (the real corrupting force of big government), gone from our lives. We are sick of it.

Obama does what is good for the unions and bad for America.

If you need to be told how to live and what to think, move to China. They’ll take care of you.

The government is getting involved in every aspect of our lives, do you really want the state of California telling you that you can’t have a huge plasma TV because it consumes too much energy? Do you want carrots instead of french fries? Do you want the Chef at a great restaurant not to use salt just because Michelle Obama thinks salt is bad?

Wake up, people, this is the land of the free, and by that I don’t mean free healthcare and free education but the freedom to make your own goddamm choices! Maybe we should call ourselves the United Slaves, because if Obama and his nanny-state friends get what they want, that’s exactly what we’ll be.

Economists believe in constructing incentives to “nudge” folks… Hardly new or radical… Incentive schemes are as old as modern institutions and are both public and private… Leave it to Beck to transform standard and mundane theory/ practice into insidious plot born of creeping evil… Ho hum… Getting tired of all the attention he gets…

Greg said:
Economists believe in constructing incentives to “nudge” folks… Hardly new or radical… Incentive schemes are as old as modern institutions and are both public and private… Leave it to Beck to transform standard and mundane theory/ practice into insidious plot born of creeping evil… Ho hum… Getting tired of all the attention he gets…

Depends on the ideology of the economist. Personally, I think it’s disturbing you think that using taxes to nudge people is simply SOP. It’d be nice if it weren’t and the government were to get out of the business of social engineering.

Harleyrider… I read the post… Shs was bullchit from the beginning… Kinda like global warming… Kinda like teachers unions are the end all be all of education… Kinda like our southern borders are safer now than they’ve ever been… Its endless…

Haimerej,

Incentives are not simply economic. There are moral and social incentives. Economic incentives are not merely confiscatory… Tax cuts are a type of incentive meant to provide a nudge… Cass is clearly noting that incentives can be aligned without coercion (tax increases are supported by a basket of coercive practices) and so that is clearly not the thrust of his argument or mine. Even if you oppose federal power to the benefit of local control that job can only be done through systems of incentives… The fact that he is misidentified as a brand of tyrant while advocating policies free of coercion would be funny if not so slanderous.

Harleyrider Davidson said:
’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview. http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on-a-cree-une-peur-qui-ne-repose-sur-rien-31-05-2010-943934.php http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/france/ What do the studies on passive smoking tell us? PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low. It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France … I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result. Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you? They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen! The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing? Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything. Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist? The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again. Why not speak up earlier? As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man. Le Parisien

Come on now…You know its “SETTLED SCIENCE” just like hole in the ozone…err…global cooling..err..warming…err climate disruption…etc etc

chucken said:
Hey harley nobody is going to read any of that shit.What an idiot.Beck is not telling you that these are suggestions by medical experts and others who actually study these issues in detail that the intention is to improve public health.You can still smoke and drink and eat any kind of food that will plug your colon.Getting fast food out of the public schools during school hours(the kids can pig out later) might help some of them not to develop diabetes,heart ailments and not get fat.Beck has run out of evil black people to attack so now it’s back to degrading the Jews like Sunstein.

your a fool. you can argue the merits of whether or not schools should offer different choices or if it is any of their business, but your attempts to discredit him are feeble and useless at best. what is going to stop them from banning foods they don’t like because it will drive up costs in their precious healthcare bill. NY is looking to ban smoking everywhere, salt is next, and then whatever else they feel like regulating. It is not the governments job to regulate every single facet of your life. that is the point.

Greg said:
Haimerej, Incentives are not simply economic. There are moral and social incentives. Economic incentives are not merely confiscatory… Tax cuts are a type of incentive meant to provide a nudge… Cass is clearly noting that incentives can be aligned without coercion (tax increases are supported by a basket of coercive practices) and so that is clearly not the thrust of his argument or mine. Even if you oppose federal power to the benefit of local control that job can only be done through systems of incentives… The fact that he is misidentified as a brand of tyrant while advocating policies free of coercion would be funny if not so slanderous.

We’re talking about economic incentive, so the fact that there are other types of incentives is irrelevant. We’re talking about things being put into the tax code here. To say that it’s “free of coercion” misses the point. It’s incentivizing certain lifestyle choices by subsidizing them. Subsidizing lifestyle choices is a distortion of the free market, which Libertarians generally oppose. It’s as simple as that.

Furthermore Greg, this, “Leave it to Beck to transform standard and mundane theory/ practice into insidious plot born of creeping evil” is a simplistic strawman.

He wasn’t merely taking umbrage with theory/practice, but the actual things they wanted to incentivize.

Nanny state! It’s so true, it’s so true. And precisely so because of the total lack of real evidence to feed this paranoia. We are lulled into a false sense of calm. And that is precisely how Fran Drescher and ugly Emma Thompson want us to feel.

Harleyrider Davidson said:
Senior thesis re-posted
Le Parisien

Next time, just post a link to your blog, champ. More people will read it that way.

“Beckermania” has been added to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a legitimate mental disorder.

Thank you Glenn Beck!! I don’t want the NANNY state telling me what I can and can’t do!!! While O’Reilly and others have very stupid interviews on,, Glenn is doing the hardwork all alone.. WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Bad Wolf said:
“Beckermania” has been added to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a legitimate mental disorder.

And you have a disease called “I CAN’T THINK CRITICALLY”

Greg said:
Economists believe in constructing incentives to “nudge” folks… Hardly new or radical… Incentive schemes are as old as modern institutions and are both public and private… Leave it to Beck to transform standard and mundane theory/ practice into insidious plot born of creeping evil… Ho hum… Getting tired of all the attention he gets…

WHY ARE PEOPLE SO LAZY THAT THEY CAN’T HEAR ALL SIDES OF THE STORY. I get tired of poeple not letting other people tell their opinions. Why can’t we have a conversation. You must already be a marxist if that is your opinion..Sick
1

The government is going to have to extract that feces laden burger out of Beck’s cold, dead mouth.

Business enterprises are killing us with their toxic crap, and Beck wants to keep eating poison. Is there anything dumb that Beck opposes? Oh right, birtherism. Too bad those of his minions posting comments on his website and news site haven’t gotten that message yet.

How many of Beck’s supporters do not YET know that Beck called Obama a racist? Too many.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/why-would-beck-want-his-supporters-to.html

Something,

My explanation of why incentives matter is evidence that I am a sick, lazy Marxist… And who has a problem listening to the opinions of others?

First, something says: “Thank you Glenn Beck!!”
Then, without the slightest hint of irony something says: “And you have a disease called “I CAN’T THINK CRITICALLY””

something, if you had a hint of critical thought in that noggin of yours, you’d be a collaborator of mine instead of defender of the biggest liar and dimmest bulb on “news” television.

Glenn Beck deserves to be “thanked” for “just totally distorting everything possible concerning the facts.”

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

something, you’re something else (from another universe).

Harleyrider Davidson says: “The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!”

Right, because we can so count on tobacco companies to tell us that their product is toxic and can kill us. Just like we can count on the oil companies to drill without oversight.

News to Harley Davidson: the gov’t is the ONLY agency in society that CAN protect the public from the private interest of making money. Greed will kill you.

How long you been drinking the KOOLE-AIDE………….smoking has never been proven to cause disease or death….

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409

“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

Harleyrider Davidson says: “How long you been drinking the KOOLE-AIDE………….smoking has never been proven to cause disease or death….”

Riiiiight. Whatever you say Mr. Limbaugh. Oh, BTW, Rush is using a tobacco free source of nicotine these days. It is his one and only good idea that he has ever had, to stop smoking.

Ironic, huh?

So tell us, Harleyrider, what tobacco company do you work for?

I gather toxicological facts dont sway your nazi regulatory mentality………….rush smokes stogies and hates smoking bans as much as the next freedom loving american……….What rally for obama did you finally figure out your a true socialist progressive nanny nazi.

Harleyrider Davidson says: “I gather toxicological facts dont sway your nazi regulatory mentality………….”

I prefer “nazi” science to reactionary propaganda coming from the tobacco companies.

“rush smokes stogies and hates smoking bans”

Which Rush smokes stogies, the one you saw last year or the one who has been promoting tobacco free nicotine vaporizers lately? He hates smoking bans because he is a reactionary liar who could care less about what smokers do to others. It’s not just the health issues here: we nonsmokers don’t want to smell disgusting second hand smoke. We don’t wish to reek of smoke after being around someone addicted to the poison. Empathy is not the calling card of self-centered reactionaries.

Your “toxicological facts” don’t sway mainstream legislators who – like me – understand who is actually drinking Kool-aid here.

Again, I ask, what tobacco companies do you work for (voluntarily or for income)?

As I said, nazi is as nazis do………….

Hitler was a Leftist
Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a “national socialist duty” (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn’t stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction — loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed — anti-tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity.

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

And no,I have never worked for any tobacco company nor do I get even a pack of smokes…………I fight you progressives because thats what you do when the nation is faced with a domestic enemy within its borders…

I gather you never took the OATH!

Recover and Start Living the Good Life
The first thing to do is recognize the symptoms of Antismokers’ Dysfunction Syndrome (ASDS). Don’t be afraid or offended. They aren’t that bad! However, if left to fester and grow, they can develop into nasty illnesses with costly repercussions. Simply review the list of symptoms and see where they rear their ugly heads in the antismoking movement. Also, notice that these symptoms are fairly natural in our human existence without necessarily developing into debilitating psychological disorders. For example, some people will spend an hour preening before stepping outside their front door. This could be considered narcissism but isn’t generally debilitating. On the other hand, if a person refuses to take their spouse to the emergency room until they’ve finished their primping, then there might be a problem. So, let’s just look at these symptoms and call them for what they are: Symptoms.

Narcissism
Megalomania
Phobias
Hypochondria
Victim Complex
Projection
Paranoia appears to also be a symptom (No, YouTube videos are not made by tobacco companies. That is simple paranoia from antismokers who are irrationally afraid of tobacco companies.)

http://www.wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html

Harleyrider Davidson says: “Hitler was a Leftist”

Riiiight; and cigarettes are health food.

You’ve been listening to wayyyy too much Limbaugh or other reactionaries who never graduated from college.

“I fight you progressives because thats what you do when the nation is faced with a domestic enemy within its borders.” You are whack. We’re opponents. You’re a flaky reactionary spouting utter nonsense, and progressives counter stupid and obvious lies with the truth.

Hitler was a racist. That makes him historically on the far, far, far right (further right than you, but I couldn’t guess by how much).

Beck is wrong about Fascists: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/what-is-glenn-beck-politically.html If you’re getting your ideas about them from Limbaugh, another drop out, then he’s wrong too.

Nazi Dreams were Green Dreams

Nazi regime was made up of animal rights advocates, environmentalists, and vegetarians

Nazi Dreams were Green Dreams
By Alan Caruba Monday, September 6, 2010

In a week when Jews will celebrate Rosh Hashanah, the New Year—5771, the connection between the Nazi’s rebellion against the Judeo-Christian worldview and the present-day ideology that drives the environmental movement needs to be exposed.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe and elsewhere around the world, driven in part by the Islamic hatred of Jews, but also reflected in the liberal antipathy to corporations and the financial community, often portrayed as “Jewish bankers”, as history’s favorite scapegoat for economic problems. The situation mirrors Germany in the 1930s.

Few know of the connection, but it is spelled out in “Nazi Oaks” by R. Mark Musser ($12.75, Advantage Books, softcover, via Amazon.com). Thanks to his research we learn that “the highway to modern environmentalism passed through Nazi Germany. By 1935, the Third Reich was the greenest regime on the planet.”

“It is no coincidence that sweeping Nazi environmental legislation preceded the racially charged anti-Semitic Nuremburg Laws.”

In the decades during which I have seen the rise of the environmental movement in America I have also seen its inherent totalitarian drive to not merely alter society, but to completely control the lives of all Americans. It is fundamentally an attack on the American credo of individual freedom and it has become commonplace to suggest that environmentalism has become a pseudo-religion.

Mark Musser is a 1989 graduate from the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, widely regarded as one of the premier environmental institutions in the nation. In 1994, he received a Master of Divinity from Western Seminary in Portland and, for seven years, was a missionary in Belarus and the Ukraine. He is currently a pastor.

The history spelled out in Musser’s book needs to be understood in terms of what is occurring in America today. The title of the book comes from the fact that, “With the oak tree being such a powerful symbol of German nationalism and the German natural landscape, Hitler had oaks planted all over the Reich in hundreds of towns and villages.” The practice was dubbed by Nazi environmentalists as “concordant with the spirit of the Fuhrer.”
“Return to nature” myth

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27376

Harleyrider Davidson says: “Hitler had oaks planted all over the Reich in hundreds of towns and villages.” The practice was dubbed by Nazi environmentalists as “concordant with the spirit of the Fuhrer.”

Burn those nazi oak trees! I always thought that those oaks were fascists!

How easily can I mock the illogic of this article? The Nazis planted trees, so all environmentalists are Nazis.

Riiiight, and cigarettes are healthy.

You obviously hang onto every word that reactionaries like Limbaugh say. Sad, pathetic.

I have an idea; let’s not protect the environment, then in 1,000 year of “freedom” we’ll have no place on Earth that can support humans. What a wonderful scenario for “freedom.”

What’s next? Marx advocated progressive taxation, so all progressive tax plans are Marxist. Take the bait biker; take the bait!

Freedom is what made america great,the ability to choose ones own destiny and purpose in life……..to the backyard garage inventor to the geneticist discoverying the secrets of life……….its the drive for success and the rewards it brings to that freedom which created the culture for great inventiveness to occurr……….Today science is paid for pretty much as a political view point,no great discoveries come from manipulated propaganda such as the second hand smoke science,billions wasted to pursue a progressive liberal and religous backed prohibition movement……the nanny state is born and sucking the life out of real science and persecuting those who dont tow the political line………….Whether its environmentalism or genetics its been taken over by political bosses bent on the nanny state…….environmentalism is the enemy of america not its savior………

You obviously listen to – and believe – the utter nonsense coming out the racist, Limbaugh’s, mouth. There is no truth to you insanely anti-scientific propaganda about the health effects of smoking or how government funding of science affects that science. There is plenty of evidence that industry’s “science” is colored by their interest in making money and will often distort the outcome. Global warming denialism by supposed “scientists” are of this sort of pseudo-science.

YOur concern about the “nanny state” is nothing more than repeating the vicious meme that would have us pull public housing, food stamps, welfare, etc. out from under those relying upon it for life. Your “nanny state” is compassionate government providing the poor with just enough support to prevent them from becoming so angry that they would join a socialist party and threaten to overthrow the “nanny state” with a socialism that would bring “private” corporations into the public sphere and put an end to profit before people. For details on this, see:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/glenn-becks-road-to-socialism.html

musiccityvic says: “You know its “SETTLED SCIENCE” just like hole in the ozone…err…”

The reason that the whole in the ozone is no longer news is because nations quickly acted on the science available. The solution was technological and relatively simple. Unfortunately, the solution to global warming, and yes, human produced greenhouse gases are causing this, is going to challenge a whole industry. That industry has produced fake science to successfully put questions in people’s minds about how we’re changing our environment for the worse.

Beck sees this as a cover for redistribution, but that’s the prism that Beck sees all solutions to every problem that the government deals with. That’s because he’s in the class of people most likely to have their taxes increased as we deal with the debt, the threat and challenges of global warming, etc. Many people making as much as Beck makes understand their increased responsibility to the public interest and pay their taxes in accordance, but Mr. Beck has amassed a small army of 9-12ers, the Tea Party and the Oath Keepers to make sure that his taxes stay low. Beck’s propaganda efforts on behalf of his portfolio are amazing in its success at getting people, ofter people who are nervous about this slow recovery from the Great (Reagan/Bush) Recession.

President Lincoln was on the mark when he said that “you can fool some of the people all of the time.” Luckily, it’s a small percentage of Americans who fall for his anti-scientific, historical revisionist perspective. A small but loud percentage backed by the very deep pockets of the Koch brothers and a number of other wealthy families now pouring a lot of money into Tea Party candidates’ campaigns are trying to push the United States back toward the 19th Century.

Beck likes to tell people to “wake up.” Yes, wake up indeed.

your hole in the ozone was a factory made theory so that green companies could sell their new formulated freon and destroy duponts cornering of the market on it……it takes 2 as much of the new green freon to meet the cooling capacity of duponts freon………cfc;s never did harm anything………guess who the green companies backed for president………Al bore. Global warming is a MYTH!

Harleyrider Davidson says: “your hole in the ozone was a factory made theory….”

Who brainwashed you? I’m serious. Whoever you listen to has done a remarkable job of turning your mind into mush. I don’t know what IQ you started out with, but it’s at an anti-scientific wash-out now. I’m guessing low 90′s…maybe. Perfect fodder for a yellow propagandist like Beck and liar Limbaugh. Cigarettes are healthy, the ozone hole was an industrial myth and now the melting glaciers are a figments of geologists’ imaginations. What elementary school grade did you drop out?

Global warming; this will be easy.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Now you’re going to tell me that Rush Limbaugh knows more that GISS, right?

GLOBAL WARMING EMAILS said all anybody needed to hear…………….your politically D.O.A.

Harley, I realize that you’re in the John Birch Society line of “thinking” about our world. There was a time when even someone as immoderate as Senator Goldwater had The National Review put these irrational reactionaries in their place (way out of the Republican Party), but we’re in a phase of history when the irrational reactionaries are taking over the Republican Party.

As for the e-mails, the senders of these e-mails have been found to have not violated scientific standards. I know, Fox/Limbaugh/Beck didn’t announce this finding because it doesn’t suit their bogus narrative. Read this:

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-in-syracuse/glenn-beck-is-proven-wrong-about-climate-gate

I know that facts don’t matter to you or your ilk, so this is mainly for the benefit of others reading this exchange. Actually facts backfire for the deeply ideological. That is true for too many on the left as well.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/