I had to chuckle when I saw this thread start up. As a chemist and environmental scientist, I see a lot of foolishness like this.
Sometimes it comes from whack jobs, sometimes from paid mouthpieces/industry fronts and sometimes just from people who may mean well, but just don't really understand what it is they're looking at. On 6/1/04 7:59 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Everyone seems to agree, though, that passive exposure to cigarette smoke > has been proven harmful. *Harmful,* mind you, not merely annoying. But there's > one little problem with this assumption. It has no basis in fact. None. Zero. > >(http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf) In M.G.'s case, it looks like a combination of the first two cases. I'm not picking on M.G., but rather the authors of the report cited. Robert Levy is a policy guy for that renowned medical and public health research organization, the Cato Institute. [Note: for those who aren't familiar with the Cato Institute for the Libertarian think that that it is, the preceding was sarcasm.] While Levy is well-versed in constitutional law, he has no background in science or medicine. Rosaline Marimont has little medical background either, though she reportedly is at least a scientist. She's also a prominent contributor to pro-tobacco groups, has written several essays criticizing the focus of public health groups on tobacco and has testified against local legislation in Maryland to restrict smoking in public places. But even if the authors were actually legit, here's question to consider: why should anyone accept a single report from the Cato Institute over a broad array of medical organizations that have recognized cigarette smoking as a leading cause of disease and death for at least 40 years? Here's a publication that debunks the silliness that Levy and Marimont put forth: http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.498/pub_detail.asp excerpt: "In this report, scientists at the American Council on Science and Health refute Levy and Marimont's key arguments (presented below) as unscientific and inflammatory. ACSH's critique concludes that the estimate of 400,000 annual deaths due to cigarette smoking is indeed reliable and may even be an underestimate." On 6/1/04 8:27 PM, "Victoria Heller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > More and more evidence is mounting that nicotine actually helps Parkinson's, > Schizophrenia and Alzheimers. Here is just one of many articles...... > > http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board5/messages/813.shtml In Victoria's case, it would appear she just doesn't understand what she came across, which serves as a reminder that there's a lot more to doing research than just being able to surf the Web. While Victoria is right that there have been studies showing possible benefits associated with nicotine, what she apparently missed was that this has absolutely nothing to do with smoking cigarettes since the studies were conducted using nicotine patches. Here are a couple of other articles about the same study. Nicotine Patch for Memory Loss? Seniors' Memory, Focus Improved by Nicotine http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/78/95666.htm Could Nicotine Be Good For You? Doctors Say Nicotine May Help Memory http://www.wpxi.com/health/2980512/detail.html excerpt: "During happy hour, the drinks flow and so does the nicotine. Bar goers can either take a drag or drink a nicotini * the latest concoction of tobacco leaves soaked in vodka. "You've got 2 different buzzes, the nicotine buzz and the alcohol buzz!" says bar patron, C.J. Raimondi." Maybe this "nicotini" concoction could serve as a way to accommodate those needing their fix without having to expose others to harmful secondhand smoke. To adopt Mike Atherton's strategy, perhaps some enterprising brewmeister might try coming up with a tobacco-enhanced "nico-beer" for those who prefer that to the harder stuff. I'd suggest the same for wine, but even I don't have that much faith in chemistry... And just to further demonstrate my point that this researcher in no way advocates smoking, here's an article on some other work by the same fellow: Early Nicotine Use May Lead To Lasting Addiction, Study Finds http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/09/030910073801.htm excerpt: "The brain continues to develop throughout the teenage years," Levin said. "Early nicotine use may cause the wiring of the brain to proceed inappropriately. In essence, the brains of adolescents who use tobacco may be sculpted around an addiction to nicotine." By the way, did anyone else see the Strib article about the ban that Bloomington is going to look at? http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4806654.html This is kind of keen. It not only further weakens the "don't make our city an island" argument by adding one of the higher-populated suburbs to the mix, but it also serves to weaken the "city as liberal nanny-state" argument just a little. Last time I checked, Bloomington tends to lean a bit towards the right of Minneapolis or St. Paul... Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
