Well, where in the name of all that's holy does this assertion come from? Of course, every agency and research institution in the world affirms not only the dangerous effects of second-hand smoke, but new evidence shows that short-term exposure to relatively small amounts of smoke is highly toxic to human health. You may start with the National Institutes of Health, the University of Minnesota and the World Health Organizations of the UN, then add the American Cancer Society, Heart Association and the American Lung Association plus every pulmonary and oncology organization in the world.
If you believe you have evidence refuting 60 years of increasingly solid research affirming the dangers of second-hand smoke - produce it. Now - what? I don't support what? Ridding us of alcohol? Or the garbage burner? How do you know what I support and don't support? First of all, we tried prohibition and it created far more health risks as a bootlegged product of criminal enterprise than it has as a regulated beverage. Furthermore, the mere use of alcohol, while possibly dangerous for some (we don't know how many) is not lethal when used as directed - moderately.. The consumption of alcohol in and of itself is not a health hazard even to the user, let alone those in the vicinity of the user. Abusing it very often leads to addiction and self-destruction plus the fact than about 95% of domestic abuse cases and other assaults can be directly attributed to alcohol abuse. All are illegal results of abuse. Drunk driving is illegal and dangerous to both user and everyone in the vicinity of his/her driving. I would support a screening test for potential alcoholics if that were possible today if only to be able to predict the likelihood of addiction by a young drinker genetically predisposed to the disease. Alcoholism is a deadly disease to the alcoholic and her/his family. But that's yet another story. Tobacco is *always* addictive and lethal when used as directed. Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, including heroine, opium and cocaine. It's use is predictably lethal with every drag and every breath taken in a room full of it. It usually takes far longer to die from smoking than it does alcohol, which can be immediately lethal when its influence spawns a murder or a DWI fatal accident. But both are deadly. I'm recovered and recovering from both. Now, as to the garbage burner and polluting cars: Dain's apples and oranges comparisons ignore reality. Anyone concerned with clean air is concerned with all clean air - burners and automotive exhausts and all other pollution. Obviously we deal with those sources in different ways. And efforts to mitigate those polluters is always under way. Not as quickly as we might wish for, but we're working on them as well. But don't dare suggest those issues are not being addressed when they are. Trying to address the unreadable remainder of this post I'll leave to others, but it's clear, Mr. Lyngstad is either confused or deliberately muddying the issues by linking unrelated matters to a smoking ban. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul -- on 6/20/04 1:41 AM, dain lyngstad wrote: > Andy and everyone else, second hand smoke has not been proven harmful! Alcohol > has been and continues to be a great health risk yet it does support the > system with large amounts of taxws so noone suggests we rid ourselves of this > most dangerous vice. Andy doesn't support this but he and many others rail > against tobacco and yet noone mentions the garbage burner downtown spewing > mercury and other dangerous toxins into our air. Noone feels the need to ban > cars which poison the air and kills people and the earth. Why? This appears to > me to be a power grap for the edification of miss guided folks trying to prove > they care only after they gave us the problems I've just mentioned, and > profited from them. Let the owners of bars and resturants set their own > agendas and let US choose where we would like to go. Surely those who wish for > a nonsmoking (but polluted) environment will pay to for it(such as the dakota > bar and grill) and let those who choose otherwise be able to choose. > Dain Lyngstad/edina/phillips 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
