AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Sorry Keebler, you always share a lot of great information on these boards, but occasionally everyone makes a mistake.
Now I'm sure that plenty here will think that I am mistaken in what I am about to say, but I ask that you all will at least hear me out.
I take offense to the(likely innocent) repitition of one of the biggest HEALTH LIES that has ever come from the overfunded entity known as "tobacco control." (And believe me, they have told hundreds!)
To whit, I refer to the statement that:
"exposure to one hour of second hand smoke can cause heart a attack"
This assertion is entirely unproven, but has taken on a life of its own!
First, this MSN article that you linked in your thread is three years old (circa 2009):
It cites the HELENA "heart study" and its similar cohort, the Pueblo FAIRY TALE, both of which claimed that heart attacks were diminished in these cities, after they had each instituted public smoking bans.
BOTH of these so-called "studies" were NOT scientific studies at ALL .. but the deliberate statistical compilations of one
who is an unapologetic anti-tobacco opportunist and PROFITEER! Dr. Glantz is well-known for his penchant to gerrymander and "cherry pick" his "scientific" statistics; while seeking to "prove" whatever his paymasters at Tobacco Control might care to disseminate.
Stanton Glantz presents himself as a cardiologist (as he somehow got an appointment at the cardiology dept. at UCalSFO), when in fact, his real credentials are in STATISTICS.
Glantz once worked as a NASA statistician, but found that he could make MILLIONS more, by creating the kind of anti-tobacco "science" that helps Johnson & Johnson to SELL their PHARMACEUTICAL QUIT PRODUCTS! (Sales of which increase by some 300% with every state-wide public smoking ban!)
In fact, the Helena Heart study, was no "study" at all! But ONE Powerpoint presentation given at a mid-western medical convention, that was culled solely from hospital admission statistics! Granted, "Dr. Glantz" must have spent hours sifting through this data to have found ONE HOSPITAL that reported a drop in heart attack admissions, following a local town-wide smoking ban. But this is exactly why the "statistics" from this little hospital were promulgated far and wide, by the PR MACHINE that IS Tobacco Control!
"Tobacco Control" is an extremely LUCRATIVE business! After all, it extracts an extra tax from each and every pack of cigarettes sold in this country, to create its own funding! Then it garners tax-exempted donations from interested parties - so that it can hire thousands of writers and lobbyists, to chronically NAG smokers into quitting, or banish us from polite society!
TC has also found that the most effective way to strong-arm smokers, is to frighten their unwitting peers into believing that our tobacco smoke somehow creates a "health hazard" for non-smokers - which is wholly unproven, and completely ludicrous!
Please see the longest study ever undertaken on second-hand smoke exposure by Dr.s Enstrom and Kabat, who followed the non-smoking wives of active smokers for 38 years. The result? There was NO STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE that ETS caused any adverse health effects in non-smokers who were LIVNG WITH a smoker!
But the minions of TC will never write any press releases containing THIS peer-reviewed study!
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ("charitable" entity of J&J) has been a leader in taking BOTH the Federal Tax exemptions now afforded to "charitable" contributors to the TC cause (since the 1999 Master Settlement Agreement), AND plenty of lurid and FREE "back door advertising" for their quit products!
I guarantee that no other corporate entity would ever be allowed to disseminate the kind of shocking, prejudicial, and inciteful advertising, that is broadcast into our homes by the likes of NYQuits, ASH, or "Smoke Free (any State)"! While J&J either manufactures, or is the licensee, of every major "quit product" on the market - including nicorette, nicoderm and Chantix.
In fact, RWJF eventually grew tired of dealing with Uncle Sam as a tax middleman, and decided to FUND its OWN Tax Exempt entity: known as The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids!
But getting back to the assertions made about the towns of Helena and Pueblo in this MSN article, (which is typical of those spawned by TC's incessant "press releases") ...
The National Bureau of Economic Research did a NATION WIDE study to "test" Dr. Glantz's assertions. A synopsis of their findings can be found in this Reason magazine article:
Moreover, Dr. Michael Siegel who is a professor of Behavioral Sciences at Boston University, and who spent 20 years advocating for public policy relating to smoking, is so disgusted with the lies that Tobacco Control so routinely promulgates, that he writes a daily blog to point out the innacuracies of TC's latest scare tactics.
Here, Dr. Siegel he upbraids the former Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, for making misleading statements about the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco and Health, that were completely UNSUBSTANTIATED by the scientific findings of the Report!
SURGEON GENERAL'S COMMUNICATIONS MISREPRESENT FINDINGS OF THE REPORT; TOBACCO CONTROL PRACTITIONERS APPEAR UNABLE TO ACCURATELY PORTRAY THE SCIENCE
Rather than sticking to the carefully-reviewed science in the detailed and thorough report, the press release and other related communications of the Surgeon General regarding the findings of his report were sensationalized in a way that makes these communications quite misleading.
The report documents an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers who are chronically exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke. However, instead of simply reporting that finding to the public, the Surgeon General distorted the science to communicate to the public that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can increase heart disease and cancer risk.
It may be interesting to note that Richard Carmona's appointment as Surgeon General was quietly declined for renewal, just 3 months after the "Smoking and Health" Report was published. Many opine that he may have been lucratively rewarded by TC interests, for compromising his scientific integrity, to give the special interests some "quotable quotes."
Just as Dr. Glantz is regularly rewarded.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now, but with this last parting thought:
If it were true that Environmental Tobacco Smoke is as dangerous to the health of non-smokers as TC would have us believe, why is there even ONE Baby Boomer alive in America today?
Thanks for hearing me out.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aunty, your last link is making this post WIDE and very difficult to read.
You can take the link to www.tinyurl.com to rectify. Thanks!
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96222 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- That quote was not from myself, rather directly from an article that I posted, for which the sources are always cited.
If you have a problem with second hand smoke getting a bad rap, though, you are free to breathe all you want.
If any person with any degree of heart risk wants to breathe in second-hand smoke, as long as they do it of their own free and are not captive, well, that is their choice, too.
I cannot retract something someone else said. Yet, I am firmly convinced of the dangers of inhaling toxic fumes and particulate matter that I must have thought it something that others might also want to consider the matter and read and then decide for themselves.
"We are what we eat" is a popular reminder. Well, we are what we breathe, too. In more manners of speaking than I think most are aware.
Each person deserves the right to decide what goes into their body. I think that may be what we are both saying.
I will also say that, even if someone says second-hand smoke may not (may being the key word here), there are other health issue for innocent bystanders.
The chemicals from second-had cigarette smoke have often caused me seizures. I'm not alone there, either.
For those with MCS (multiple chemical sensitivities), severe symptoms can occur that last for days.
For those with asthma and other reactive lung issues, second hand smoke CAN kill - and sometimes even immediately. That's no joke.
If the issue of free will is being contested here, free will is great - at long as everyone has it. Second hand smoke often gives others no choice at all.
As for if second-hand smoke can cause a heart attack, I have no doubt about that at all.
If fact, even the fumes from a highway can do that. The petroleum fumes from a hot road, itself, couple with exhaust from vehicles, have been linked to a rise in heart attacks, most notably around rush hours.
While some may dispute that, too, there have been observational articles regarding that which should be easily searched.
But, I'm sure you won't find a control study with volunteers. Still, it's important information that can help us figure out how we might prevent damage to ourselves and others.
And, it may not be exactly from the smoke or fumes, themselves, as - in addition - the myriad of other stress reactions that occur in the body with the smoke / fumes / chemicals having lighted the fuse. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Thanks for the Tiny link, TooToo!
Actually, looks like I dragged in a link from my storage site, which I have corrected.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't smoke - anymore. Figure I should say that before adding to this topic.
I am 53, and grew up with smoking parents. Just like in the tv show Mad Men, everybody seemed to smoke back then, and they smoked in cars with kids, in the house, in fact, they smoked everywhere.
I have no heart or lung issues. I don't know any other boomer who developed them as a result, either. Seems to me that the explosion of asthmatic and chemically sensitive children occurred after this era.
As a lyme/babesia patient, I figure we have bigger fights to fight than this one. Second hand smoke? If you don't like it, move away from it. Bad lyme guidelines and articles published by CDC lyme 'experts'? That's another story and it does affect our health negatively and we can't choose to move away from it.
Posts: 161 | From vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
randibear
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 11290
posted
hmmm my father always smoke and the four of us and mom breathed his cigarette smoke until i was old enough to leave.
-------------------- do not look back when the only course is forward Posts: 12262 | From texas | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- I had severe breathing problems as a child, and cognitive issues as well . . . and heart issues. That lung damage from childhood has never gotten better.
My parents smoked indoors, in the car, etc. Tar streams formed on the wall in the upper foyer
(years later to be officially identified as cigarette tar when a painter could not cover over the streaks and wanted to get to the bottom of it, taking samples to a professor at the state university science labs).
No doubt tar also made it to the inside of my and my siblings' lungs, too, if it wound up all over the walls.
My father died of lung cancer. My mother also needed a respirator and had other kinds of lung disease (although both had stopped smoking 20 and 10 years before their respective deaths).
When I grew up in the '60's - they did not know better. We do now.
To tell others to just move away from it is insensitive and not always effective. Just keep it away from those who don't want it.
We don't fart in others' faces out of courtesy. Creating chemical residue that can damage others' bodies and lives deserves at least that same courtesy. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
OK, I'll play ... The MSN article above was released by AP, which cites the Institute of Medicine as the source of the report.
Leave it to the Brits to divulge how the Institute got its information - Which, according to this article:
" ... 11 key studies of smoking bans in Scotland, Italy, the U.S and Canada."
The two Glantz studies were prominently mentioned in this UK Daily Mail article:
In Helena, Montana, for example, they recorded 16 per cent fewer heart attack hospitalisations in the six months after its ban went into effect.
and
More dramatically, heart attack hospitalisations dropped 41 per cent in the three years after Pueblo, Colorado, banned workplace smoking.
Which, from my perpective, raises the question:
"Just who was it that formulated the other 9 "studies" that were NOT done by Dr. Glantz? Were they perhaps undertaken by some of his minions in Tobacco Control, who are regularly funded to produce "scientific evidence" that is designed to "fit the facts around the policy?"
With Tobacco Control now a worldwide movement, sanctioned by the WHO, this is highly likely!
Especially given that not even the 2006 Surgeon General's Report could safely say that an hour's exposure to tobacco smoke could CAUSE a heart attack, just that it might cause "changes in circulatory function." (Carmona simply chose to exaggerate the facts beyond the realm of truth in his press statements!)
No doubt, when one climbs a flight of stairs, or jogs to the end of the block, there are "changes in circulatory function" as well!
Frankly, I'd like to see a meta-analysis of heart attack statistics where people are regularly exposed to: Bar-B-Q Grills, or campfires ... or scented candles ... or plug-in air fresheners or clothes dryer sheets! (The latter three of which, all make MY nose and stomach do flip-flops!)
And Keebler, I would absolutely agree with you on this:
"Each person deserves the right to decide what goes into their body. I think that may be what we are both saying."
Which is a fair and balanced observation. But in the case of smokers and "blanket" smoking bans, we have been told that "It's my way, or the highway."
Please tell me why ONE camp should be given EXCLUSIVE sovereignty over EVERY "PUBLIC" SPACE, to the complete detriment of the other?
Are asthmatics and other non-smokers UNABLE to read a sign posted at the entrance of any PRIVATELY owned hospitality establishment, that might warn them that this is a "smoke-friendly" venue? Do they fail to retain the executive function to walk away and take their entertainment dollars elsewhere? Of course not!
The Constitutional tenets of Freedom of Assembly would strongly indicate, that it is the right of the PEOPLE to decide - not the government - as to where, and with whom, they might choose to associate! What right does local government have to tell a private business owner, whom among his patrons, he may, or may not, serve? And what are the implications for all of our "settled laws" concerning the rights of "consenting adults?"
Frankly, if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from chemical allergies or asthma, I would certainly NOT want to unwittingly endanger your health!
On the other hand, I do not believe that your specific need to avoid the same particulates that liberally fill our streets from auto exhaust, should qualify as a Constitutional exemption of my right to seek the company of my peers - or to exile me from every corner of society!
These laws give smokers two choices: conform to someone else's idea of a utopian society, or stay at home. Most of us are staying at home.
Which brings me to the second glaring lie that has been promulgated in the articles linked above - the bogus assertion that "business has not suffered" with the institution of these segregationist smoking bans.
But that would take another post.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- Regardless of one's "political" stance on this matter,
for those reading this thread who may be new to lyme and lyme treatment it may be important to be aware of this from one prominent LL author and a view that most other LLMDs also support:
posted
I have a book written by a doctor about babesia, and he actually recommends nicotine patches to help with the fatigue - keep oneself alert.
Not politically correct, but it's only nicotine, not the cigarette with the tar and all the zillions of chemicals.
And I agree that business owners should not be dictated to in this sense. The clientele can choose to patronize or not. However, in the workplace, it makes sense not to let people smoke as other have no choice but to be there and cannot move away.
As far as being insensitive about people's right to move away from second hand smoke, I disagree. There are many, many things we consider dangerous and so we choose to avoid them or not.
The thing is, whether it's the right to allow smoking at your pub , or to treat your patients with whatever it takes for however long it takes to make them well, I really hate to see the government taking part and outright banning anything.
Posts: 161 | From vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't smoke - anymore. Figure I should say that before adding to this topic.
I am 53, and grew up with smoking parents. Just like in the tv show Mad Men, everybody seemed to smoke back then, and they smoked in cars with kids, in the house, in fact, they smoked everywhere.
I have no heart or lung issues. I don't know any other boomer who developed them as a result, either. Seems to me that the explosion of asthmatic and chemically sensitive children occurred after this era.
As a lyme/babesia patient, I figure we have bigger fights to fight than this one. Second hand smoke? If you don't like it, move away from it. Bad lyme guidelines and articles published by CDC lyme 'experts'? That's another story and it does affect our health negatively and we can't choose to move away from it.
Posts: 161 | From vancouver island | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Yes, yes, the "don't pee in my swimming pool" argument - another of anti-tobacco's unseemly advertising jingles, designed to pit citizen against citizen, and to disparage the intelligence and integrity of those who happen to enjoy tobacco.
Nearly everyone in my family smoked, and so far, they have all survived to their early 80s.
Oh and BTW Keebler, your parents' painter could have solved his problem with a simple sponge mop and some warm soapy water.
No one is trying to ENCOURAGE any Lyme patient to smoke.
All I am saying is that Glantz's so-called "findings" as to second-hand smoke and heart attacks were completely OVERBLOWN, and deliberately designed to incite fear, and loathing - if not outright prejudice.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- Soap and water did not solve the painter's problems. He did that, and much more. The tar streams were impervious to all methods he had at that time.
Finally, they used used wallpaper to cover it all over. Now, there may be other methods, steaming & scraping likely one.
Apartment managers have never found soap & water to be enough to clean apartments after smoking residents have moved out. Special cleaning teams are required. Now there are special paints, too.
------------
I do not see this as pitting anyone against anyone, except those who just want to breathe clear air.
Anyone who wants the smoke can do that in their own space - where ever that may be - just not air that is to be shared.
The out of doors provides lots of space but in tight quarters, smoke can really make many sick, even the effects of lingering smoke can make people feel ill after the fact.
It's not a personal judgment. And it is not about politics, per se.
Action involves reaction. It's really a chemical thing. Smoke can do ____ to ____.
If I were to spray perfume for 20 minutes, what action might that have on those around me?
It's just a fact that smoke & other chemicals emitted into the air, or left on goods can make some people feel ill right then and later from the residue that wafts.
It can impact others' health in a variety of ways that may not be clear to everyone. If anything we do can make someone else feel ill, why create that suffering?
Too many days are lost to feeling ill. Those who work in tight quarters are especially deserving of the best working environments possible that will promote their health, not crush it. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Keebler -
Apparently I have an oil-based paint on my walls, and it's ridiculous how easily any tar washes right off of my walls - which I do every few months.
BTW most landlords are required by law to paint and refurbish an apartment when a new tenant moves out - so what's the difference? In my state, a tenant can request that an apartment be painted every five years, whether they move or not.
I have no problem with smoking being restricted in office buildings (where I normally work), or PUBLIC places - like town halls, motor vehicles dept. and the like. If you MUST visit or work in such places, I agree that everyone should be accommodated.
But I don't believe that private restaurants are PUBLIC venues - as no one is ever REQUIRED to enter one, for any reason. Patrons do so by choice.
Moreover, the owners of many of these establishments, as well as many of their employees, are smokers themselves! And many many of these small, privately owned establishments have recently been forced into closing, by a local smoking ban!
Please imagine if you had run a family owned business for 30-40 years, and you suddenly lost between 20%-50% of your sales! How long do you think you could stay in operation with that kind of an income loss?
This is exactly what has happened to tens of thousands of small business owners, since smoking bans have come into vogue! But because State restaurant revenues are calculated by sales taxes - if a CHAIN RESTAURANT, that can weather losses at some few of their many sites, then picks up the clientele of former local businesses - as far as the State is concerned - there has been "No Financial Damage" with smoking bans!
So here again - we're talking "statistics" - and how they can be manipulated to support ones' own position!
I think that requiring the owner of a neighborhood bar to tell his patrons to step outside in freezing winter weather, or in a summer thunderstorm, is ridiculous - if not downright cruel!
Moreover, women who smoke (and there are LOTS of us), are forced outside with the requirement that they leave their drinks on the bar. This exposes them to the possibility that a drink might be spiked, or to attacks in dark alleys, where there are no "bouncers"! In fact, there have been dozens of documented incidences of rape, that have been directly related to the smoking bans.
Moreover, most Animal Humane Societies would prosecute an owner who kept his dog outside in all kinds of freezing or inclement weather. But apparently the "anti- tobacco folks" apparently have the attitude that anyone who smokes is some sort of criminal, who is "less than human" and therefore undeserving of any protection from the elements. (Even though most smokers pay way more in taxes than the rest of the population!)
In fact, the laws in MY state have forced some REALLY elderly assisted living tenants out-of-doors in winter! The local paper told of a 90 year old lady who was forced outside to the bus stop shelter on the grounds of her facility! Can you imagine how much she pays per month to live where she does - and yet she is treated with less respect than the average Golden Retriever?
Our War Veterans who used to like to have a drink and a smoke in their PRIVATE CLUBS, or who live in VA hospitals, are also now forced out of doors! Is this how we should "thank" our veterans, who risked their lives for our "freedoms" and for the freedom of people in OTHER countries?
Would it break these facilities' hearts to provide a separate ventilated room for these aging smokers? That never seemed to be a problem before the present "nannies" came along with their scare tactics and their open disparagement of people who happen to enjoy an "alternate lifestyle" to their own. And a LOT of these edicts were based on the same trumped-up "research" of Stanton Glantz and his friends!
Now OUTDOOR BANS are being implemented, based WHOLLY on Richard Carmona's ERRONEOUS Statements about ETS! (The same ones that Dr. Siegel has soundly criticized in the post above!) So at what point does one assume that the great outdoors can eliminate annoying or potentially dangerous concentrations of smoke?
New York City has just banned OUTDOOR smoking at public parks, open plazas, and beaches - and several town and state parks around here are starting to follow suit.
If we are banning outdoor smoking now - why aren't we ALSO banning diesel engines and open picnic fires? Either the gasses and particulates of ALL combustion is dangerous - or it's NOT dangerous!
So which IS it?
And why is my cigarette considered a public nuisance, while your city bus exhaust, or family barbecue grill, is not? Can you begin to see the hypocrisy here?
If it was YOUR life that had been "marginalized" in such a way - I wonder if you wouldn't start to feel like a black woman living in Mobile, AL in the 1950s!
At what point can we rightfully delineate between "risk" - and overtly sanctioned intolerance?
[ 06-05-2012, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: AuntyLynn ]
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- No one is saying that "city bus exhaust, or family barbecue grills" are not problems (especially when the chemical charcoal starters are used).
All kinds of chemical and particulate matter that comes into anyone's lungs is of concern. Vehicle exhaust is a terrible insult to everyone's health. Electric cars will help that.
Most who barbeque have become skilled at controlling the smoke for the most part. They are outside. Usually the grill only smokes for a short time and then the food is ready - so there are differences.
But cigarette smoking started out as the topic.
Smoke does marginalize me. I cannot breathe around it. My lungs shut down, I pass out and then the seizures hit - hard.
I can't even be in a place that has been "smoked" so to speak.
I know many with similar reactions to smoke. They have a right to enjoy a meal out if they like - or a drink in pub if that's what they like.
Why should they be clobbered by cigarette smoke that would not be of their choosing?
This is not about intolerance. It's about becoming very, very ill. For some, death could occur that night. Asthma can kill quickly.
And you can't tell who has asthma, cystic fibrosis or other lung conditions by just looking around the tables at a restaurant. Still, such a person would have a reasonable right to know they can go out, eat and enjoy breathing.
Yet, even for someone who just feel moderately ill from smoke. That $20 dinner (or much more) can be ruined from smoke.
The workers' health is of utmost importance and most support their right to clear air.
Smoking is a choice; breathing is not. -
[ 06-01-2012, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Keebler ]
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funding of the anti-smoking movement, as of July 28, 2007, selected from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Public Health Active Grants List. The University of Illinois at Chicago has eight grants for a total of $12,645,576; The University of California - San Francisco $10,270,538 (consisting of $9,871,538 to Steven A. Schroeder, who is a former president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and $399,000 to Stanton Glantz); the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has four grants totalling $7,430,000; American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation five totalling $6,648,178;
EndQuote
Or ... one could go to rwjf.org and search the grants section - although they "cloak" their grant information much more now, since the "smoker's rights activists" began revealing their agenda publicly.
So? Still think that the anti-smoking movement is just a crowd of altruistic citizens, lobbying their State Legislators for the "common good?"
Think again.
These guys are first class rent seekers.
And when they hit Texas or your Heartland States with their "clean air" bills, they will use the SAME BOGUS "no financial damage" studies with YOUR legislators, as they did with mine. Written by Misses Scolio and Lal, who are AUSTRALIANS, and who were paid under a Glantz research grant to make what happened in MASSACHUSETTS look just "rosy" for restaurant owners.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
FYI, the state Veteran's Home here has a "smoking room" where the residents/staff are allowed to smoke in a well ventilated room.
-------------------- I have a good time wherever I go! Posts: 665 | From Lost Wages, NV | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Glad to hear it! The Nannies here ONLY granted quarter to - get this - convents and priest's homes!
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read all the comments bc I am neuro-impaired but I can say that as a Canadian I am appalled that a smoker can get all the wonderful FREE healthcare that he/she wants yet keep on smoking with nare a care in the world!!!
The gov't gives them FREE smoking-cessation help, it makes my blood boil to think how much $$ I'm spending on Lyme (which I got while doing HEALTHY activities like camping) vs. so much of our population..
These posts irk me for that reason. Rights for smokers.. c'mooon. Stop smoking or you don't get health insurance. I have no problem with that as a tax-paying, compassionate Canadian.
Oh btw did you know that where I live it is illegal to smoke in a car with children under the age of 16?? Yay.
Posts: 72 | From out there.. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
I think EVERYONE has a right to health care - Lymies, the obese, diabetics, motorcycle riders, parachutists, people who engage in risky sexual encounters, ... LIFE is a risk, and no one should be denied humane treatment.
Unfortunately, here in the States, one must have a JOB to get health care - and those are in very short supply.
Must be nice to be a Canadian, who will have routine testing and hospitalization paid if s/he needs it.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
nonna05
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 33557
posted
This is one major post to follow with brain fog..
I do think that smoking and drinking with Lyme symptoms quickened my brother's death at 52 . One year ago......Lack of medical attention .... His was a bad , bad story.....
Posts: 2563 | From Denver,CO | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Sorry to hear about your brother, Nonna. Wow, you've had a really tough year!
It's a proven statistic that lack of access to medical care shortens peoples' lives.
As a U.S. smoker, I pay an extra tax so that the children of people who can't afford to care for them, can have health insurance (and I am proud to help) - but I have no health insurance for myself.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I respectfully disagree. When the hazards of smoking as well known, there is absolutely no reason why any one of us should be subjected to this vile habit. Clean air is not a privilege, it is a right. And to clarify what I said earlier, I was referring to 'free' healthcare.
Smokers should pay more as should people with addictions who REFUSE help. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's health? Oh I forgot - it's someone else's fault or responsibility. Nope. Canadians are tired of paying for other people's appalling habits. We just can't afford it anymore.
"It's a proven statistic that lack of access to medical care shortens peoples' lives." So does smoking.
Many of us with parents/grandparents from the 'old country' where even food was scarce know that they often lived long and healthy lives. Natural foods, no video games, gas-guzzling SUV's, exercise, fresh air... Most of what we ingest/breathe is completely foreign to our bodies..thanks to an 'excess' vs. the opposite. Simple, healthy life = longevity and better quality of life.
Posts: 72 | From out there.. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Horsefly -
I believe you have missed the point.
No one is asking to intrude on YOUR precious airspace; that is, if one can first make the erroneous assumption that only non-smoking, tea sipping, churchgoing, political uber-conservatives, retain the exclusive right to potentially occupy every cubic foot of airspace across the whole wide planet.
In fact, I'm sure the majority of my peers would be more than happy to segregate themselves from those who live under the cloud of anti-tobacco hysteria. This is all we submit - that we retain the civil right to access some social venues where we can freely assemble with each other, without threat of being criminalized for using a LEGAL product.
As for your further mistaken assumption that only non-smokers pay taxes, I suggest you consider that tobacco users are daily extorted for revenues that you are not obligated to remit - which ultimately lightens YOUR personal tax burden. Just try to imagine the tax burden that would be levied upon your own wallet, if tobacco was made illegal, and your government was suddenly forced to "take responsibility" for its own actions!
Moreover, since you acknowledge the premise that smokers die prematurely (the average age said to be 72, which many wonder just how "premature" that is); we are, in fact, SAVING you money, by willingly removing ourselves from the public retirement and health care roles, sooner than "ye who are without sin."
As for the simple life of our grandparents, you seem to forget that most of them cooked over indoor coal or wood-fired stoves, and lit their homes with kerosene every evening. With all of that exposure to the products of combustion, how on earth did they live healthy and productive lives? Perhaps it was because they were not exposed to above-ground nuclear testing, which many claim is the reason why the majority of lung cancer victims are NON SMOKERS.
Our grandparents did not have access to the vitamin supplements that I have taken for decades. And what gives you license to assume that I do not cook the same wholesome meals, or raise organic vegetables, just as my grandmothers had?
You make a major mistake when you blithely assume that smokers do not take steps to counter the effects of their habit; while widespread obesity among non-smokers, with its resulting diabetes and heart disease, takes more lives each day than tobacco ever has.
**edited**
[ 06-05-2012, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Lymetoo ]
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic