A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand Smoke as a Group A (known human) Carcinagen

A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand
smoke as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.

Subject: [illinoissmokers] Judge Osteen's Ruling on the Tobacco Industry's EPA Lawsuit
Date: Sat. 19 Jan 2008 00:27:57-0000
Judge Osteen's Ruling on the Tobacco Industry's EPA Lawsuit: Summary
and Practical Implications
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company 7/23/98
Court Findings
A Federal Court has ruled that the EPA wrongly classified secondhand
smoke as a Group A (known human) carcinogen.
Contrary to statements by the EPA Administrator, the Court's ruling
was not merely procedural. Among other things, the Court found (pp.
89-90) that EPA:
"publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun"
"adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the
Agency's public conclusion"
"aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings
to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict
Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion."
"disregarded information and made findings on selective information"
"failed to disclose important findings and reasoning"
"left significant questions without answers"
"did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information"
"excluded industry by violating the [Radon] Act's procedural
"deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines"
The Court noted as "particularly relevant" the fact that the EPA's
own internal risk assessment experts had told the Agency that the
Risk Assessment did not support a Group A classification
(p.64): "EPA's Risk Criteria Office, a group of EPA risk assessment
experts, concluded that EPA failed to reasonably explain how all
relevant data on ETS, evaluated according to EPA Risk Assessment
Guidelines' causality criteria, can support a Group A
The Court concluded that: "EPA produced limited evidence, then
claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated
ETS causes cancer."

Bottom Line
It may be politically correct to attack secondhand smoke, but it is
not scientifically correct nor, in the Court's opinion, legally
The Court's ruling clearly confirms that:
EPA deliberately misled the American public about the science
concerning secondhand smoke.
EPA was guilty of major scientific and procedural errors in
preparing its Risk Assessment.
EPA cherrypicked information, changed the standards of scientific
inquiry and tortured the data to reach a predetermined conclusion.
EPA abused its power and authority in an effort to force regulation
on secondhand smoke when the scientific basis for the EPA's claims
simply did not exist.
Practical Implications
While it is unlikely that there will be a rush to overturn smoking
bans and restrictions currently in place, this ruling raises serious
questions about whether there is a legitimate basis for severe and
overly restrictive smoking regulations.
Any legislative body currently considering smoking regulations
cannot rely on EPA's now invalid claim that secondhand smoke is a
known human carcinogen.
This ruling should create a new environment to foster the
development of practical and reasonable solutions that accommodate
the preferences of smokers and nonsmokers alike.
Since the ruling goes to the very heart of the science concerning
secondhand smoke, it supports the industry's contention that
litigation concerning diseases allegedly resulting from secondhand
smoke exposure has no scientific basis or merit.

On July 17, 1998, U.S. District Judge William Osteen (Middle
District of North Carolina) issued a summary judgment in the tobacco
industry's 1993 challenge to the EPA's report, entitled "Respiratory
Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorder."
The Court vacated (invalidated) every part of the 1993 EPA ETS
(Environmental Tobacco Smoke) Risk Assessment dealing with lung
cancer (Chapters 1-6 and the Appendices).
The Court granted the industry's motion to move forward on a
supplemental pleading claiming the EPA has had improper influence on
various organizations that have the power to regulate or influence
regulations concerning cigarette smoking.
The Court's ruling highlighted numerous errors in the scientific
process, as well as procedural failings. The Court noted (p. 91):
"EPA's conduct of the ETS Risk Assessment frustrated the clear
Congressional policy underlying the Radon Research Act [the statute
EPA cited as authority for its Risk Assessment]."
"EPA also failed the Act's procedural requirements."
Chapters 7-8 of the Risk Assessment, which deal with effects other
than lung cancer, were not challenged by the industry primarily
because these chapters did not form the basis for the regulatory
efforts to ban smoking that have taken place throughout the country
as a result of the EPA's incorrect and now invalid classification of
secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen.

Your rating: None Average: 3.8 (4 votes)

Until a study comes out demonstrating all the beneficial health effects of inhaling SHS, I do not want to breathe it. Until I see Billy Mays demonstrating on TV how Smoki-Clean will get out the toughest stains, I do not want to breathe it. Until Glade comes out with a Marlboro air freshener scent, I do not want to breathe it. Until Scope comes out with Newport-flavored mouthwash, I do not want to breathe it.


Saying that the corrupt/incompetent EPA could not "prove" SHS is carcinogenic, therefore it isn't is like saying that because the corrupt/incompetent LAPD couldn't "prove" OJ killed 2 people, he must have done it.

how people can be so sure that SHS does no harm when we know that inhaling filtered smoke into the lungs does damage, so how can the unfiltered smoke be harmless?

"What these organizations fail to tell Councillors, the public, or media is that Judge Osteen's ruling met with criticism from the legal and scientific community and was later overturned by a unanimous decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The decision can be viewed at: "


"The EPA appealed Judge Osteen's ruling, and not only did the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismiss Judge Osteen's ruling, but it threw out the case against the EPA altogether. The tobacco
companies had the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but failed to do so. "


On top of all that, this court case is built around a study done over 15 years ago (refers to an EPA document from like '92 or '93), which was a meta-analysis of studies done even prior to that! There are tons more corroborating data that have been gathered over the past 15 years to support dangers of SHS.

Sheesh! I didn't even bother to notice the date of the ruling. I must be getting old.

If you read the legaleze - it says "It's not the habit of the court to question the constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case". Also - "Because the report is not reviewable agency action under the APA, we vacate the judgement of the district court & remand for dismissal'. Sounds to me like this judge didn't even want to hear the case & threw it out.

Also - look at who was benefiting from throwing this out - the surgeon general & ACS (already in the courts as we speak for the same shit). As for the 'studies' that are posted there -nothing new - but it doesnt mean they are accurate, not manipulated - it just means they put the results they wanted to achieve the best results. I posted here on swampbubbles about a year ago, an article by a woman held in high regard at the New England Journal Of Medicine - and she posted all the shs studies ever done, with the results & concuded that the risk was less than minimal on all of them. (dig through the archives yourselves, I have no time for this anymore).

There are judges, lawyers, health professionals, Big Pharma execs, Insurance co. execs, the ACS, Lung Association, etc., etc. who are on boards, who own stock in re-habs & pharmacutical companies who stand to make zillions of dollars on smoking bans (and alcohol bans, & diet drugs, & psychiatric drugs). Just as Judge Cain in Franklin County in Columbus, Ohio is the ONLY judge who is allowed to hear appeals on smoking ban violations is on the board of Maryhaven rehab (and many others, & owns a lot of stock in pharmacutical companies), There's a huge conflict of interest there. However, because the other 6 judges in Franklin County are ALSO on the same boards & own the same stocks - replacing the judge would produce the same result. My point is that it is so crooked, & twisted & corrupt - nothing they say or print has crediblity - except to smoking ban lovers, who will believe anything they say because they don't like the smell of smoke. It's futile even discussing this here because smoker haters refuse to see the bullshit. You're so convinced that shs will kill you dead or cause a disease - and yet, nobody's died of shs - ever. (show me proof of death & a name).

Even if shs is classified as a human carcinagen - so are over 50,000 other known carcinagens you're exposed to daily - that are MORE likely to kill you than shs - and yet, nobody worries about those things. A wood burning stove or fireplace, grilling meat, auto exhaust, paneling & new furniture & cars, the air you breath outside, household cleansers, cosmetics, hair dye. the SUN, - I could go on & on & on - but every single one of THOSE will more likely cause cancer or disease than shs ever will. The Blade published an article saying it was proved that obesity causes more cancer & medical expense than actual smoking does. I can produce proof that the smoking cessation meds can have extremely severe (or deadly) side effects - and yet, everybody wants all the smokers to use them.

Simply put - if a restaurant has a separate smoking section, you will never ingest shs. If there is a bar, pool hall, etc. that allows smoking & has no enclosed smoking section - you have the option to not enter. IF you choose to enter, the odds are slim to none that the shs you may be exposed to in the few hours you are there, will cause any problems at all. Unless you live in a small, smoke filled bar on a daily basis for hours & hours every day, you have nothing to worry about - the cleaning products you or your wife uses are more cancer causing - a proven fact - (but I bet that won't make you scrub the tub for her.) And, if you're in a bar, you're not there to get healthy anyway. People don't go to bars for health reasons - they go to drink alcohol (the fumes are carcinagenic), stay out too late, hang out with disreputable people, & have unprotected sex (if they get lucky). Just being outside on a nice day is more more carcinagenic than shs. The sun is one of the worst, most proven, carcinagens known. And guess what? Lots of people who never smoke & have not been exposed to shs get lung cancer - some people are predisposed to cancer, others are not (my husband's cousin used to be head cancer nurse at St. Vincents). My guess, is that all this tizzy the smoker haters are in over shs has nothing to do with their health - it's because they don't like the smell. Even if you were in a bar or pool hall where smoking was allowed,, it's unlikely you'd be standing directly next to the mouth of a smoker so as to inhale his shs. Your paranoia borders on the absurd - more absurd when you consider that you don't seem to acknowledge, or even care about the known, worse, carcinagens you're exposed to daily (over 50,000 a day). Selective paranoia.


Microwaved Food
Simple logic makes you think that heating something with a microwave is just like heating something normally. It is not. A perfect example of this is human blood. Before human blood can be transfused, it must be warmed. If this is done in a microwave, it will KILL the patient. Microwaving is not an ideal form of heating something, and we recommend using other types of heating to warm food. But we understand the microwave is almost a necessity in this day and age, so if you have to use if, you must understand the dangers.

The most striking issue is the use of plastics in a microwave. Studies are finding all kinds of potent carcinogens in microwaved plastic, which can seep into your food. If you need to microwave anything, even prepared TV dinners, take them out of their container and use a microwave safe plate or ceramic dish. No plastic, and especially no plastic wraps! Also do not warm a baby's bottle in a microwave. We have not been able to find any direct studies linking specific cancers to microwave use, but the proof of carcinogens being formed in food by microwaves, especially when plastics are involved, exists.

Hair Dyes
It is becoming more and more clear that hair dyes are not very safe. Chemicals such as diaminoanisole and FD&C Red 33 are found in hair dyes, and scientists have directly classified both of these as carcinogens. This evidence is also supported by separate studies that link hair dyes to such rare cancers as: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and multiple myeloma. Another study claims that at least 20% of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma found in women is caused by use of hair dyes.

We do not have extensive detail on specifically what is bad about hair dyes, but experts have estimated that 20% of the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cases found in women may have been cause by use of hair dye. Until more studies are done on this, or a hair dye proves itself to be safe, use hair dyes as sparingly as possible.

Talk is a mineral that is mined and used in many household and cosmetic products. When talc is processed a minute fiber that is very similar to asbestos is not removed, and ends up in the products you take home. Talc is in many things in small quantities, but poses the biggest threat in powder form such as baby powder, medicated powers, perfumed powders and designer perfumed body powders. Inhalation of these powders has been linked to lung cancer, while ovarian cancer has been directly linked to women who use these powders in their lower region. Numerous other cancers may be linked to talcum powder use, but there isn't enough evidence to support it.

Meats and Eggs Cooked at High Temperatures
When foods such as meats and eggs are cooked at high temperatures, heterocyclic amine compounds are formed inside the food. In-depth studies of this are very recent, but scientific testing on animals suggested a link between these compounds and cancer of the stomach, colon, liver, oral cavity, mammary gland, skin, and cecum. Older studies conducted on fried foods suggest a link between these compounds to breast and colorectal cancer. This whole topic is very new, and quite shocking. Fried meats are not good for you anyway, so removing them from your diet is going to be a health improvement for multiple reasons. But grilling and other types of cooking may also be hazardous, so please stay educated on this topic and be careful not to cook at temperatures that are extreme.

Everyone knows that pesticides are not good for you and can be poisonous. But what you didn't know is the extent of impact researchers are finding on pesticides and cancer. Pesticide "Bombs" in the home, termite control products, flea collars on pets, insecticides in the garden or orchard and herbicides for week control have all been proven to have direct impact on cancers, especially childhood cancers. The risk of leukemia increases by FOUR TO SEVEN times for children 10 or under whose parents use home or garden pesticides. Use of any of the aforementioned products can also be directly linked to increased risk for childhood brain cancer.

Lanolin is a harmless product normally used on a baby's skin. The problem is that studies have found contaminates in Lanolin including carcinogenic pesticides and DDT. Make sure any Lanolin product is proven to be rid of these contaminants.

There is no startling evidence to say that cosmetic use will give you cancer. But the worrisome aspect of cosmetics is three fold. First, cosmetics are not regulated strongly by the FDA. The FDA only comes after a cosmetic after it has entered the market and generated complaints. They also do not require pre-market safety testing or FDA approval. Secondly, the human skin is extremely permeable. This means that things you put on it soak into your body and into your bloodstream including your cosmetic products which were not meant to be in your blood. Thirdly, many studies have found contaminants in a wide array of beauty products, and althought we could not find any direct studies that linked cosmetic products other than hair dye and talc containing products to cancer, we believe the risk is there.

List of chemicals to avoid in your cosmetic products

X-Rays and Gamma Rays
Exposure to these two types have radiation have been proven to be carcinogenic. The cancers they have been linked to include leukemia and cancers of the lung, breast, thyroid, salivary glands, stomach, colon, bladder, ovaries, central nervous system and skin. Childhood exposure to these two types of radiation seems to be more potent and more likely to develop leukemia and thyroid cancer in children. 55% of X-radiation exposure in humans is classified as medical or dental X-Rays, while the other 45% is from natural sources such as radon. While x-rays may be a necessity in certain medical situations, avoid them if at all possible. Also ensure that your home is tested for radon.

Mycotoxins (From Mold)
A Mycotoxin is a toxin produced by certain organisms in the fungus kingdom. There are a variety of Mycotoxins, many of which are hazardous to the health, and many of which can be carcinogenic. When the right conditions are met, including temperature and humidity, Mycotoxin producing fungi can contaminate foods. In the food industry it is common for food producers to take measures against Mycotoxins, and the government has regulations on how much Mycotoxins can show up in foods. But trace Mycotoxins are in many of the foods we eat, and overtime these trace amounts can prove to be carcinogenic. Cheaper produced foods, and foods prepared with less care can be more likely to be contaminated with Mycotoxins. Moldy cheese, cereals, fruits and vegetables can all develop Mycotoxins. Many foods are on the long list of foods that contain Mycotoxins, but the ones that are known to be carcinogenic are found often in corn, wheat, nuts and cheeses. Wine and other alcohol can contain Mycotoxins due to the yeast used when brewing, but fermentation destroys most of the carcinogenic Mycotoxins. The bottom line is that the responsibility for Mycotoxins lies on the food industry. It is their responsibility to test for Mycotoxins in food produced, feed given to livestock, and in their crop, and take measures to prevent it. The consumer can do nothing to control Mycotoxin intake except stay away from cheap Corn, Wheat, Cereal, Alcohol and anything with mold on it. Studies have linked breast cancer directly to Mycotoxins, and have found a number of Mycotoxins prevalent in tumors removed from breasts.

Unhealthy Diet
Yes, a healthy diet can do a long way towards avoiding preventable cancer. Not only does a poor diet lead to heart disease, but many studies show a spike in cancers in the overweight and obese. You don't have to be a diet "nut" or be super skinny to qualify for having a healthy diet. We recommend ensuring your intake of vitamins and minerals through fruits, vegetables and a multivitamin. Obviously if you struggle with weight you know it's a battle, but hopefully now we can add a motivation for you, that obesity not only leads to heart disease and diabetes, it can lead to cancer.

Excess Sunlight
This is probably the most widely known carcinogen next to tobacco. Sun exposure and sunburns have been proven time and time again to lead directly to skin cancer. Skin cancers are most common in light-skinned people, although they also occur in people with darker skin as well. Recent studies suggest that children and young adults are most likely to contract cancers from sun exposure, so it's up to you parents to keep your kids educated and protected against sun exposure. Remember people, sunblock is your friend!

Not as widely known as a carcinogen, many studies have linked alcohol drinking and the risk factor for a number of cancers. Drinking alcohol increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx, larynx, and liver in men and women, and of breast cancer in women. Studies have shown that risk factors begin to increase after consumption of 1-2 drinks per day, and grow as the number of drinks per day increase. Moderate alcohol consumption should still be considered a healthy activity, but bulk consumption and daily consumption of more than 1-2 drinks should be considered a serious health risk.

"Asbestos" is the name given to a group of minerals that occur naturally as bundles of fibers. While this is a very broad classification, it is fitting since asbestos are found in such a large amount of materials. The building and construction industry uses asbestos regularly. Over 5,000 products contain asbestos. Asbestos can be directly linked to lung, larynx, oropharynx, gastrointestinal tract, and kidney cancer, as well as Mesothelioma?a relatively rare cancer of the thin membranes that line the chest and abdomen. Nearly every American will become exposed to asbestos at some point in their life, but daily exposure is usually to blame for these cancers. If you work in the field of shipbuilding, asbestos mining, brake repair, demolition, drywall removal, and firefighting you are more likely to be exposed to asbestos. If so, when you are doing so it is best to wear a protective mask, and then immediately shower and clean your clothes after such exposure. It is up to the government to remove asbestos from things that may exposure humans and they have done a good job.

Cell Phones
There has been debate since the inception of cell phones about their possible link to brain cancer and tumors. There have been some studies that have attempted to link cell phone use to brain cancer, but the bigger, more recent, and more credible studies have all found no link. Conspiracy theorists argue that the cell phone companies are fueling many studies attempting to prove cell phones to be completely safe, but right now it seems that different researchers are debating this fact, with the current edge going to NOT causing cancer.

Artificial Sweeteners
Since the introduction of artificial sweeteners there has been much debate on their impact on health. While lowering your sugar intake can undoubtedly be proven to be healthy for most consumers, the debate over the safety of their alternatives is in question. While studies on animals have linked a number of animal cancers to "old generation" sweeteners (saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame), there are no definitive reports linking any human cancers to use of artificial sweeteners. For "new generation" artificial sweeteners "acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame", there hasn't been anyway near the amount of studies and inquiries made to provide any definitive answer. Until further notice, we can only wonder about the carcinogenic effects of certain artificial sweeteners. In the meantime, we suggest using artificial sweeteners in moderation and abiding by the old adage that "too much of anything is bad for you".

Caffeine is a very tricky drug to diagnose in respect to carcinogenic characteristics. Some researchers attempt to link heavy caffeine intake via coffee to bladder cancer, and cell mutation associated with spreading of cancers (via caffeine's inhibiting of the protein kinases used in the body to "fix" damaged dna) , but no definitive studies have proven any of this. More studies have shown positive anticancer effects in relation to caffeine intake. Until a definitive study comes out, we cannot fully pass judgment on caffeine, but of course, in regards to any drug/chemical you intake, its always best to practice moderation.

Water Flouridation
The CDC estimates that over 66% of US households receive fluoridated water in their homes. While dentists praise the healthy effects this has on teeth, skeptics have questioned the health risks of fluoride since it was introduced in the US, over 60 years ago. Since then a number of studies have attempted to link the fluoride in water to cancers, specifically osteosarcoma (a fairly rare bone cancer). For the most parts studies have been extremely inconclusive, mostly struggling due to the lack of ability to run an accurate test experiment. As it stands, it is proven that fluoride is crucial to a child?s tooth development and helps prevent tooth decay, but its links to cancer are inconclusive. Regulating your fluoride intake with bottled water or by contacting your local water company and making sure their level of fluoride is moderate is recommended.



"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".


'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Can you please cite the authority that wrote all of that gobbledegook ?

When George Carlin used to do the news, he reported that scientists had determined saliva causes cancer... but only when swallowed in small amounts over a very long period of time.



So, because Judge Osteen's ruling agreed with your position, it was OK, but when an Appeals Court disagreed with the legality of him even seeing the case and threw it out, there was something nefarious going on? And no one had anything to gain by the original decision - seems to me that the plaintiffs, BIG TOBACCO, had something to gain.

And you are going to doubt the accuracy of studies - no, it doesn't mean that they weren't manipulated, absolutely. But really, if you want to take that stance, unless you provide some direct evidence, you need to doubt every medical study ever done, including the studies you want to cite as well.

Although, to be fair, one metastudy of shs research shows the largest correlation that can be found involves the likelihood of not finding a link between shs and deleterious effects is strongly correlated to being funded by a tobacco company. Hmmmm....

wombat - No, it is the reason they gave for dismissing it on appeal. (as I said above - "If you read the legaleze - it says "It's not the habit of the court to question the constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case". Also - "Because the report is not reviewable agency action under the APA, we vacate the judgement of the district court & remand for dismissal'. Sounds to me like this judge didn't even want to hear the case & threw it out."

It looks to me, like it's NOT that the appeals court proved Judge Osteen wrong on his first ruling at all. The appeals court simply chose to not deal with the case & dismissed it & gave a hokey reason to do so. They didn't want to deal with it. So just because this was dismissed on appeal, does not mean Judge Osteen was not corrrect in what he stated about the studies, etc. The appeals court did NOT disprove ANY of that. They simply gave a flimsy reason to dismiss it on face value.

el mahico - the articles that darkseid put up are valid - I"ve seen them before & most of what I read on it was documented. You know another biggie? Teflon coating on frying pots & pans. I read a huge article by a medical man on that one - the teflon coating leaches out into the food you cook & it IS carcinagenic. From what I understand, lots of employees who work in the factories that are in contact with this teflon coating are getting lung cancer among other things. Want another? Popcorn fumes - especially movie gallery butter & other flavorings. Factory employees are getting whalloped with large numbers of lung & other bizarre cancers from the fumes of the flavoring agents. Want another? The hair dye article is not new - they have proven it to be carcinagenic. I don't know how many of you men have ever spent time in a woman's hair salon, but you really need to try it sometime. Not the hair cutting places that don't color hair of course (Bo-Rics, etc. do not do hair color), but the salon's that do. The salon employees (hair stylists, colorists, shampooers, manicurists, receptionists & cashiers) are all exposed to the fumes of not only the hair dye, but also permanents (any type of permanent wave, curl, etc.) - the fumes off of the permanents can grab your lungs & eyes with just the fumes. My point, is that if the smoking bans were passed to 'protect the employees' - then why doesn't anybody seem to give a damned about the employees I mentioned above? To put the smoking ban in a different perspective, as it would compare to a hair salon - how about if I wanted to get my hair cut & styled, but wanted to go to a nice one, and not just a quick 'bo-rics' type? What if I did NOT want to be exposed to the fumes of hair dye & permanents & hair straighteners? Should I be allowed to demand that NO hair salon can do those procedures because I or others may be 'offended' or have to breath it? What if the same laws were applied to hair salons & forbid them from doing these procedures anymore because of the 'hazards'? Gotta protect the people & the kids, ya know. Never mind the fact, that as an adult, I know full well walking into a hair salon, that somebody may be getting their hair colored, straightened or curled - it is my RIGHT to demand that ALL hair salons in the state of Ohio NOT be allowed to do so, and if I see them doing such a procedure, is there going to be an anonomyous phone number that I can call to file a complaint? You may laugh at my example - but I can guarantee you, that the fumes of one or two women getting these procedures is far more intrusive & carcinagenic than shs in a restaurant with a smoking section.

Here's another - I hereby declare that restaurants & bars be forbidden to grill meat, or use wood fueled fireplaces. Same logic.

Darkseid didn't even touch on household cleansers - almost every single one of them is dangerous to breath or come into skin contact with. Proven fact. Now, put the wife in a small, windowless bathroom & have her scrub your icky soap scum out of the shower & wish her well. I HAVE been there, and the fumes can almost knock you out. Darkseid's comment about the talc is correct - I have read a few articles that even said that some of Johnson & Johnson baby products were under fire. And, how about that nice bowl of potpourie & scented warming oils that make your house smell so nice? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I also read an extensive study about alcohol fumes being carcinagenic (the pouring in a bar) - I was very surprised to read that, who knew? I did post it on either here or toledotalk about a year ago, but it said that basically, the fumes were as bad or worse than shs. I'm not convinced of that one yet - but it's what the study said.

I suggest wombat & the rest of the smoking ban lovers get a serious grip - it isn't going to be shs that kills you. One out of ten smokers will get cancer (the ACS says so) - that means, that 9 out of 10 will NOT.

Wow, Starling, now you kind of made it personal....

1) You have a complete misunderstanding of the legal process. You throw it to "legalese" and hokey verdict, that the Osteen decision is correct but voided on a technicality, that they just didn't want to hear the case. Malarkey. The appeal did what it was supposed to do - vacate the decision BASED ON THE LAW. That's a done deal. End. Period. Fin. That's a pretty much absolute victory. They're nullifying the idea of even having a decision, why bother with trying to nitpick the points of the verdict itself?

2) So, I don't get it, if someone tries to debate you on the shaky science you present, it makes them a ban lover? If you read my posts, you may notice that in essence I am (a) supporting the ACTUAL SCIENCE of the process, not the hodge-podge of innuendo, myth, rumor, and conspiracy theories that are trotted out to try and debate the adverse health effects of smoking and SHS (b) I do say that there is a public health element that does bear to be addressed. BTW, if you recall from way back when, I have stated that I didn't even vote yes for the damn ban, but I do support people's right to put it to a vote. So I'm a smoking ban lover, eh? I bet that it would be comforting to be able to lump people who disagree with your view on the science in one category, the better to vilify them to make your points seem remotely valid.

3) Has anyone on this thread ever stated that there aren't other environmental toxins? Many that are common right in our own homes? I don't see gross denial of that (although, I think quite a few of the claims above are overstated) El mahico is right, though, that it is important to cite your sources for such large claims.

4) Cancer is not the only outcome of smoking/second-hand smoke. Emphysema, bronchitis, other COPDs, heart disease, etc. Which the beloved Osteen ruling did not rule on.

wombat - I apologise for getting riled up, and no, of course your comments don't automatically pin you as a smoking ban lover. However -
#1 - No, if you go back & read the legaleze, you will see that the Court of Appeals did not overturn Judge Osteens ruling - they simply said that it was not the job of that court to decide the matter & dismissed it. (the actual wording is this - "It's not the habit of the court to question the constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case". Also - "Because the report is not reviewable agency action under the APA, we vacate the judgement of the district court & remand for dismissal'. THAT, sounds to me, like the Appeals judge didn't even want to hear the case & threw it out." - BUT, nowhere, does it say that the Appeals judge overturned Judge Osteen's ruling. I don't claim to be a legal eagle, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the Appeals Judge did, how he handled it.

I also realize, that it is an older case. Currently however, there are several more in the courts as we speak. The surgeon general & the ACS has been brought to task on many things concerning all of this. I also realize that there may be some shs studies that possibly do suggest a slight 'hazard' - but for every one that does, there are many more that do not show that. My only point (and darkseid's I'm sure) in dragging up all the other carcinagens you're exposed to daily, was to make the (huge) point, that by comparison, the micro amounts of shs you may be exposed to in the micro amounts of time that you are exposed to them, pales beyond comparison to those other serious carcinagens - that nobody talks or wants to hear about. My 'get a grip' comment was not aimed at you so much, but at the paranoid people who seem convinced that shs is the kiss of death.

And while I didn't intend my comments to be a personal attack at you, wombat - I still believe that my hair salon scenareo is comparable to the smoking ban scenareo. In that, a group of people want to enter & enjoy a business, but do not want to be exposed to what they perceive as a health hazard by entering - even though other patrons do use & enjoy

Ms. starling02 - I get the distinct impression that you are a smoker.
If so, may I inquire as to how long ?

Respectfully submitted,
el mahico

el mahico - I won't bite your head off. I do wonder why you ask, or care. But yes, I am a smoker. My older sister gave me my first cigarette at age 17, and I got sick & coughed a lot & she laughed her ass off at me. In all my young wisdom, I practiced (blowing smoke out the bathroom window - nobody in my house smoked I'd have caught holy hell by my parents) - thinking, "I"ll show HER!". I didn't smoke a often or a lot, until I ran away from home about 6 months later to Toronto, Canada, where I stayed for 3 months (1969, in the dead of winter). Basically living as best as we could on hand-outs (you could not get a job in Canada if you were not a citizen) - we were often cold & hungry & smoked what we could find - it helped take the edge off everything. Long story short - I've been smoking ever since. I've used it to calm my nerves since I was 17 - and it works. I have wondered, in the last few years, that if they'd known about adhd when I was younger, perhaps I would have managed my teenaged angst another way. But I don't handle those types of meds well at all - they mess with my head. And, I honestly question how easily "they" diagnose people with add & adhd. Entirely too many people claim they've been diagnosed with it - I have to wonder why that is. Kind of off track dragging add & adhd into this - only reason I did, is that while I've always been tagged as 'scatterbrained', maybe I could have been diagnosed with one of them. Maybe those drugs would have helped me manage my stress levels better, rather than smoking. But I doubt it. And it's not just smoking bans I am against - it's ANY bans. This country (world) has gone off the deep end with this stuff. Anyway - you asked.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.