Disqus - Latest Comments for snowbird

Re: Ky. House May Consider Statewide Smoking Ban This Week

snowbird — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 01:05:26 -0000

" No one has the right to make
health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the
detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the
“toxic effect of second hand smoke”.

For additional info
http://tctactics.org
http://The truthisalie.com
http://Tobakkonarht.com

Re: Knox County Health officials want smoking ban in Barbourville

snowbird — Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:03:18 -0000

There is no safe level of second-smoke
Having said that, that means there is no safe level
of chlorine in your drinking water
More infio
http://thetruthisalie.com

Re: UK Wants to Ban Smoking in Cars with Children

snowbird — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 22:56:11 -0000

Parents know best

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children

represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of
parenthood. The
autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to
subject a child to is not to be
interfered with lightly.
It should only
be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of
severe harm
to
the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is
only
minor
risk involved is unwarranted.

For more info
http://Tobakkonaeht.com

Re: ‘Third-hand smoke’ can cause serious health problems, U.S. study warns

snowbird — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 02:02:27 -0000

Parents know best

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children
represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of
parenthood. The autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a
child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in
cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm
to the child.
Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor
risk
involved is unwarranted.

Re: Dragging it out: SU continues to consider implications of banning smoking on campus

snowbird — Mon, 27 Jan 2014 17:42:54 -0000

Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?
If anybody believes that then I have some ocean front property in
Ohio I would like to sell them.
For more info
http://Tobakkonacht.com
http://Thetruthisalie.com

Re: Surgeon general pushes end to smoking

snowbird — Sun, 19 Jan 2014 00:15:40 -0000

Smoking could be one of many causes of Lung Cancer
http://fightingback@homeste...
http://thetruthisalie.com

Re: Divided city council takes step toward smoking ban

snowbird — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:06:55 -0000

The Mayor and council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's business

Re: Climate Change is a Sin—Here's How to Repent For It | Culture | Religion Dispatches

snowbird — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 22:55:24 -0000

Climate Change

In the past,
scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
too small to
cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
to look for
other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
experiments show that
fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
enough, so there is no
longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
cause of the recent warming
trend.

The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the
Earth's
temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to
blame
for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can,
much
less do, to correct the situation.

Thomas Laprade

Re: Illegal To Smoke With Kids In Car

snowbird — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 12:32:30 -0000

Parents know best

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children

Let me explain what I mean by
substantial threat of severe harm and minor
risk.
If an infant is riding
in a car without a car seat, there is a substantial
threat of severe harm
should the car be involved in an accident. In fact, if
the car is in any
major accident, severe harm to the child is almost
certain. Death is likely
if the accident is severe. The connection between
not being in the child
restraint and suffering severe injury or death in an
accident is direct,
immediate, and definitive.

On the other hand, exposure to second-hand
smoke in a car in most cases
merely poses an increased risk of upper
respiratory or middle ear infection.
The likelihood, more often than not, is
that the child will not suffer any
harm. What is involved is only an
elevation of risk for an ailment. There is
no certainty of harm, nor is
there any substantial threat of severe harm.
The harm, if any occurs, is
removed in time from the exposure and in most
cases it is impossible to
directly connect the exposure with the ailment.
Thus, the connection is
neither direct, immediate, nor definitive.

This difference is not subtle.
In fact, it is so stark that it serves as the
basis for deciding when
society should interfere with parental autonomy
regarding exposure of their
own children to health risks. Generally, causing
harm to children or putting
them at substantial risk of severe, direct,
immediate, and definitive harm
is viewed as something for which there is a
legitimate government interest
in interfering with parental autonomy. Simply
placing children at an
increased risk of more minor health effects is not
something for which there
is a legitimate government interest in interfering
with parental
autonomy.

If we extended the argument of the supporters of this proposed
legislation,
then we would also have to support laws that regulate a wide
range of
parental activity that takes place in the private home which places
children
at increased risk of adverse health effects.

We would have
to ban parents from smoking in the home. We would have to ban
parents from
drinking more than a drink or two at a time in the home. We
would have to
ban parents from using insecticides and pesticides.

We would have to
ban parents from allowing their children out in the sun
even with the
"partial protection" of sunscreen.

. We would have to ban parents
from allowing their children to ride giant
roller coasters. We would have to
ban parents from serving their children
foods that contain trans-fats. We
would have to ban parents from serving
their children peanuts before age 3.
We would have to ban parents from
allowing their children to drink soda that
contains sodium benzoate and
citric acid.

And more:

a.. Allowing their infants to play with walkers;
b.. Allowing their
children to watch more than four hours of television
every day;
c..
Failing to ensure that their children get adequate physical activity;
d..
Owning a wood-burning stove;
e.. Failing to filter water that contains
trihalomethanes;
f.. Not boiling their babies'’ bottles before serving them
milk;
g.. Not breastfeeding their infants;
h.. Allowing their children
to watch violent television programs;
i.. Allowing their children to watch
R-rated movies;
j.. Serving alcohol at a party;
k.. Allowing their
children to drink alcohol; and
l.. Failing to keep vitamins out of the
reach of children.
One could easily argue that 'If you love your children,
[these are all
things] you should learn not to do.' That may or may not be
true, but what
is clear is that we should not interfere with parental
autonomy by banning
all of these things.

The question I find
interesting is why a child advocate would single out
smoking around one's
children as the sole example of a situation in which
the government
interferes with the autonomy of a parent to make decisions
regarding the
exposure of her children to a health risk. What is it about
smoking that,
among all of the myriad above health risks to which parents
often expose
their children, it is the one and only one that is chosen to be

regulated?

I fear that the answer is that there is a moral stigma
attached to smoking
as opposed to these other risky parenting behaviors. And
I also fear that it
is the anti-smoking movement that has contributed to
this moral stigma. What
it ultimately comes down to, I'm afraid, is that the
anti-smoking movement
is starting to moralize. We are starting to try to
dictate societal morals,
rather than to stick to legitimate public health
protection.

It's a dangerous line that we're crossing. Because once that
line is
crossed, there's little assurance that the autonomy of parents to
make
decisions regarding raising their children can or will be adequately

protected.

Re: KY Lawmakers Introduce Statewide Smoking Ban Legislation

snowbird — Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:02:40 -0000

Government Power the real hazard

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has
nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of secondhand
smoke.

Indeed the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous
threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades throughout the body
politic.

This cancer is the only real hazard involved--the cancer of
unlimited government power.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect
public places, smoking bans have actually targeted many privately owned places
such as bars and shops, places whose owners should be free to ban smoking or not
and whose customers are free to patronize or not. Outdoor bans even harass
smokers in places where others' health is obviously not the issue.

The
decision to smoke or to avoid second hand smoke is a question for each individual
to answer based on his own values and judgment. This is the same kind of
decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives. All lifestyle
decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; many are
controversial and invite disapproval from others, but the individual must be
free to make these decisions.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom
of choice for a minority is being seriously limited by a majority made
baselessly fearful through massive media campaigns often funded by tax
dollars.

The real threat we face, no matter how strongly it is denied by
the anti-smoking lobby, is the systematic and unlimited intrusion of government
into our lives.

Elected officials are in office to serve us, not vice
versa.

Re: Utah prison system extends smoking ban to every inmate

snowbird — Tue, 07 Jan 2014 22:22:00 -0000

Smoking ban in prison
Smoking is the least of all dangers facing an inmate.
He can be raped,
wounded in a prison brawl, killed by another inmate; he can
lose his wife,
children and friends; even under the best of circumstances,
his future is
bleak.
And we want to turn this guy into a sweet, healthy-conscious New
Ager?
This is like telling a starving man to stay away from
non-organically
grown produce.
The anti-smoking lobby, mixing lofty ideals
and authoritarian impulses, as
most crusaders do, want inmates to take
programs to help them break the
habit.
Why would a method that often
fails when applied to well-adjusted citizens
be successful in the tense
environment of prison life?
Depriving inmates of cigarettes is an imposition
of middle class values on a
population that is largely under-educated and
thus, as statistics show, more
likely to smoke.
Inmates are paying their
dues and their cell is their home. How far can the
state invade someone's
privacy?
And what's next? A ban on fantisies and masturbation?
Can prisons
be transformed into peaceful, healthy havens? Probably not.
If inmates
receive unnecessary, cruel treatment, the backlash might be worse
than
whiffs of second-hand smoke.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Re: Very Few States Have 'Smoking Ban In Cars With Kids'; Will Florida Be One Of Them?

snowbird — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:14:00 -0000

Parents know best

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children

Re: Smoke Free Campuses at SAMC

snowbird — Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:25:09 -0000

Smoking is the number 1 preventable cause of death?
No one can prevent death, only postpone death.
If one can prevent death you would be immortal

Re: Hawthorne ponders more restrictions on smoking

snowbird — Sat, 16 Nov 2013 01:29:14 -0000

“Second hand smoke exposure is the third-largest cause of death in the U.S.”
No one on this planet ever died. solely from second hand smoke
For more info
http://fightingback@homestead. com
http://thetruthisalie.com

Re: Passive smoking

snowbird — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 01:51:55 -0000

Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed
with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them

Re: Thunder Bay bus terminal herd smokers into small pen | Canada | News | National Post

snowbird — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:23:54 -0000

No one on this planet ever died from second hand smoke
http://tctactics.org
http://fightingback.homeste...

Re: Plantersville smoking ban takes effect July 6 at restaurants, businesses, public buildings

snowbird — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:28:56 -0000

If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?

There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.

As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.

Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Canada
Ph. 807 345-7258

Re: Herbert supports 'concept' of ban on smoking in cars :: The Salt Lake Tribune

snowbird — Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:45:26 -0000

Parents know best, Mar. 20/12

While I appreciate the desire to protect children from second-hand smoke
exposure in cars, I'm afraid that the suggestion to ban smoking in cars
occupied
by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and
autonomy
of parenthood.
The autonomy to make one's own decision about what risks to subject a child
to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases
where there
is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.
Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk
involved is unwarranted.

Thomas Laprade

Re: City officials pass smoking ban

snowbird — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 23:36:50 -0000

GOVERNMENT INTRUSION BIGGER HAZARD THAN SECOND-HAND SMOKE

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke.

Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved – the cancer of unlimited government power.

The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision?

Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion.

Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices – places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks.

The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on.

All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it.

Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.

That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.

Re: Bill to ban smoking in cars with children passes the House | The Salt Lake Tribune

snowbird — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:36:52 -0000

Parents know best,
While I appreciate the desire to protect children from second-hand smokeexposure in cars, I'm afraid that the suggestion to ban smoking in cars occupiedby children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomyof parenthood. The autonomy to make one's own decision about what risks to subject a childto is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases where thereis a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk involved is unwarranted.Thomas Laprade

Re: Bill to ban smoking in cars with children passes the House | The Salt Lake Tribune

snowbird — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:36:15 -0000

Parents know best, Mar. 20/12

Thomas Laprade

Re:

snowbird — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 01:12:55 -0000

Parents know best,

While I appreciate the desire to protect children from second-hand smoke
exposure in cars, I'm afraid that the suggestion to ban smoking in cars
occupied
by children represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and
autonomy
of parenthood.
The autonomy to make one's own decision about what risks to subject a child
to is not to be interfered with lightly. It should only be done in cases
where there
is a substantial threat of severe harm to the child.
Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor risk
involved is unwarranted.

Thomas Laprade

Re: Sanford: Another record year for climate change

snowbird — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:54:27 -0000

Climate change..

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish NationalSpace Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In aseries of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists haveshown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes intheEarth's temperature.In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output weretoo small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the needto look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these newexperiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact largeenough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as thecause of the recent warming trend.The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth'stemperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blamefor the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, muchless do, to correct the situation.Thomas Laprade

Re: Smoking ban a healthy choice | Letters | Opinion | Sudbury Star

snowbird — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:54:31 -0000

Parents know best
I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children
represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The
autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be
interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of
severe harm
to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is
only minor
risk involved is unwarranted.

Re: Smoking ban a healthy choice | Letters | Opinion | Sudbury Star

snowbird — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:14:05 -0000

I'm afraid that the proposal to ban smoking in cars occupied by children represents an
unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and autonomy of parenthood. The autonomy to
make one's own decision about risks to subject a child to is not to be interfered with lightly.
It should only be done in cases where there is a substantial threat of severe harm
to the child. Interfering with parental autonomy in a case where there is only minor
risk involved is unwarranted.
for more info
http://tctactics.org
http://thetruthisalie.com