Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » On Tenth Anniversary of Smoke Free Air Act, Mayor Bloomberg Eyes Price Increases

On Tenth Anniversary of Smoke Free Air Act, Mayor Bloomberg Eyes Price Increases

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

This week marked the 10th anniversary of the Smoke Free Act, enacted to protect the health of all New Yorkers. An important result of the ban on smoking inside bars and restaurants is fewer premature deaths from diseases related to tobacco, as well as reductions in disease symptoms aggravated by second hand smoke. Mayor Bloomberg believes that 10,000 lives were saved due to the ban.

The ban made all establishments and businesses with employees smoke-free. The law cites the following places specifically:

• All office buildings, factories, and warehouses.
• All private offices and previously designated smoking lounges.
• All food service establishments, restaurants, and catering halls.
• All bars, including bars in restaurants.
• Membership associations.
• All areas of theaters.

• Banks, educational and health care facilities, and child day care centers.
• Shopping malls and retail stores selling or renting goods to the public.
• Sports arenas, roller/ ice skating rinks, billiard parlors, bingo halls.
• Public transportation facilities, reception areas, platforms and waiting rooms.

There is a plethora of disease conditions aggravated by second hand smoke, including asthma, iritis, deviated septum, bronchitis and others.

The ban made smoking socially unacceptable. Initially, store owners believed that the smoke ban would hurt business. Quite the contrary turned out to be the case. Finally, a person could walk into a restaurant and see the other end; whereby, previously you could hardly see more than a few feet ahead of you.

Mayor Bloomberg is now seeking a minimum price for cigarettes and prohibiting groceries from openly displaying cigarettes on shelves highly visible to the general public. The price of a pack of cigarettes in NYC is approaching $13.00 a pack.

Over time, the smoking ban should help to reduce the cost of programs like Medicaid, since fewer hospitalizations for heart and lung-related diseases are expected.

Powered by

About Dr Joseph S Maresca

I've taught approx. 34 sections of collegiate courses including computer applications, college algebra, collegiate statistics, law, accounting, finance and economics. The experience includes service as a Board Director on the CPA Journal and Editor of the CPA Candidates Inc. Newsletter. In college, I worked as a statistics lab assistant. Manhattan College awarded a BS in an allied area of operations research. The program included courses in calculus, ordinary differential equations, probability, statistical inference, linear algebra , the more advanced operations research, price analysis and econometrics. Membership in the Delta Mu Delta National Honor Society was granted together with the degree. My experience includes both private account and industry. In addition, I've worked extensively in the Examinations Division of the AICPA from time to time. Recently, I passed the Engineering in Training Exam which consisted of 9 hours of examination in chemistry, physics, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, probability/ statistics, fluids, electronics, materials science/structure of matter, mechanics, statics, thermodynamics, computer science, dynamics and a host of minor subject areas like engineering economics. A very small percentage of engineers actually take and pass the EIT exam. The number has hovered at circa 5%. Several decades ago, I passed the CPA examination and obtained another license in Computer Information Systems Auditing. A CISA must have knowledge in the areas of data center review, systems applications, the operating system of the computer, disaster recovery, contingency planning, developmental systems, the standards which govern facility reviews and a host of other areas. An MBA in Accounting with an Advanced Professional Certificate in Computer Applications/ Information Systems , an Advanced Professional Certificate in Finance and an Advanced Professional Certificate in Organizational Design were earned at New York University-Graduate School of Business (Stern ). In December of 2005, an earned PhD in Accounting was granted by the Ross College. The program entrance requires a previous Masters Degree for admittance together with a host of other criteria. The REGISTRAR of Ross College contact is: Tel . US 202-318-4454 FAX [records for Dr. Joseph S. Maresca Box 646 Bronxville NY 10708-3602] The clinical experience included the teaching of approximately 34 sections of college accounting, economics, statistics, college algebra, law, thesis project coursework and the professional grading of approx. 50,000 CPA examination essays with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Additionally, membership is held in the Sigma Beta Delta International Honor Society chartered in 1994. Significant writings include over 10 copyrights in the name of the author (Joseph S. Maresca) and a patent in the earthquake sciences.
  • harleyrider1978

    The Mayors a LIAR!

    There are no deaths from second hand smoke and his lowered mortality rate is an even bigger Lie!

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • harleyrider1978

    Tobacco Control Scotland has admitted it has no record of any deaths or demonstrable harm caused to anyone from second hand smoke as the UK Govt pushes forward the idea of third hand smoke, aka Invisible Smoke, without any evidence at all.

    Bill Gibson, The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP) chairman, was interested to know how many actual deaths and respiratory illnesses were recorded in Scotland from passive smoking, given the reported guesstimate 13,000 figure which is repeated parrot fashion year after year.

    He put in an FOI request and found that there wasn’t one death or respiratory illnesses attributed to SHS or tobacco. Perhaps I should repeat that. Not one death has been recorded in Scotland as definitely related to tobacco smoking or passive smoking.

    If we did the same the world over we would get the same answer.

    Remember this story from last year:

    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year.

  • Glen Contrarian

    Boy, oh boy, do we have a winner in “harleyrider1978″:

    B.S. Study: 600,000 People Die Worldwide From Secondhand Smoke Every Year

    Guy, you’re cherrypicking studies. You find one study that’s wrong (using an almost 20-year-old study as your ‘proof’) and you think that all studies must therefore be wrong. Here’s a MUCH more recent study from the CDC:

    Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking…Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung cancer, more than 46,000 die of heart disease, and about 150,000-300,000 children younger than 18 months have lower respiratory tract infections.

    Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of tobacco use – more than $96 billion a year in medical costs and another $97 billion a year from lost productivity.

    And a LOT of those billions are YOUR tax dollars, guy, that are used when smokers wind up in the hospital and can’t pay. But I guess you’d rather spend billions and billions in tax dollars to care for smokers than to have the guts to admit what kind of damage they’re doing to the nation as a whole.

    Oh, but wait – if 98% of the nation’s PhD’s in a certain field tell you something you don’t want to believe, they must all be wrong, right? I mean, your source also thinks global warming’s a hoax, too. I don’t know about you, but when 98% of the people who know the most about something tell me there’s a problem they’ve found in the their field of expertise, I pay attention.

    Guy, here’s a clue: ANYTHING that goes into your lungs that isn’t fresh unpolluted air (except for certain gases one gets in a hospital or dentist’s office) isn’t supposed to be there…and “ANYTHING” includes second-hand cigarette smoke.

    Whatever it is, is probably bad for your body. Second-hand cigarette smoke harms people the same way that smog harms people. It doesn’t cause cancer at anything like the rate that smoking does for the smoker, but just like heavy city smog, it DOES shorten life spans. Not only that, but cigarette smoke

    But will you buy into any of that? If your posts are any clue, you won’t…but there’s something that will. If you’re a pack-a-day smoker, when you get old, chances are really good that you’re going to find you’re significantly weaker than non-smokers of the same age. That isn’t always the case, but in most cases it is. You might try telling yourself that nah, it couldn’t be the cigarettes…but sooner or later you’ll figure it out, and you’ll start hating the cancer sticks for what they’ve done to you, for the addiction that you couldn’t kick no matter how hard you tried.

    I watched this happen, HR1978, to two lifelong smokers – my uncle and my mother – who terribly regretted their decision to smoke, and their inability to quit. The cigarettes were killing them and they knew it, but the addiction was simply too strong. If you’re a pack-a-day smoker, that’s what’s waiting for you. Laugh it off if you like, but that’s the heartbreak that waits for most pack-a-day smokers.

  • Dr Joseph S Maresca

    Comments # 1,2
    Address your comments to first hand smoke also.

    This is the reason why cigs are so high in price. Who will pay for the Medicaid costs which arise from first hand smoke.

    Also, account for smokers who have quit in the equation. Second hand smoke definitely aggravates existing conditions like bronchitis. There should be no debate here.

  • harleyrider1978

    Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

    You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

  • harleyrider1978

    Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

    Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

    An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

    Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

    Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect relationships-like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A different approach to epidemiology might take a broader perspective-placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just one risk factor, including social factors.

    Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

    But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful to epidemiology.”

    But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought it was public health that mattered!

    we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

    Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

    The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of corporate paid witnesses with selective vision? Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
    lives that selective blindness has caused!

    The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

    Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

  • harleyrider1978

    Slim truth in fat and smoking figures

    Michael West
    November 23, 2011 – 11:39AM.

    A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.

    “The numbers are all over the place,” writes Geoff Dunsford in the September edition of Actuary Australia. And they are “big numbers” – the implication being that they are too big.

    “Obesity costs $58.2 billion,” he exclaims, “that’s around twice the cost of age pensions!”

    The sheer size of the numbers, argues the Sydney actuary, perverts government policy. It can lead to poor spending decisions. The credibility of the numbers from the health lobby is therefore critical to government policy.

    The press and the public have been led to believe that the costs to the system are higher than they really are so the government can “justify use of taxpayers’ money on measures to reduce its prevalence and prevention”.

    Dunsford looks at three public health issues: obesity, smoking and depression.

  • harleyrider1978

    Dr Joseph S Maresca
    Mar 31, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    Comments # 1,2
    Address your comments to first hand smoke also.

    This is the reason why cigs are so high in price. Who will pay for the Medicaid costs which arise from first hand smoke.

    Also, account for smokers who have quit in the equation. Second hand smoke definitely aggravates existing conditions like bronchitis. There should be no debate here.

    In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

    The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

    [edited]

  • harleyrider1978

    What proof of smoking harm! There is NONE

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.

    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  • harleyrider1978

    Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008
    Publisher:

    myth of second hand smoke

    BS Alert: The ‘third-hand smoke’ hoax

    The thirdhand smoke scam

    Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..

    TobaccoControl Tactics

    TCTactics aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it.
    The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Harleyrider, you’re welcome to provide links to support your case, but it would be much appreciated if you could present them as properly formatted HTML, so that readers can just click on them rather than have to copy and paste them into their browser search bar.

    If you’re not sure how to do this, here’s a quick and easy tutorial.

    I’ve fixed the ones you’ve posted so far as best I could, but some of them were incomplete.

    Thanks,

    Dr Dreadful
    Blogcritics Assistant Comments Editor

  • Joseph S Maresca

    Harleyrider :

    Address the tar content of cigs, as well as the absorption of the smoke by tissues. Why do walls turn black from smokers? Imagine what that black does to the internals. Also, see this article on tobacco contents which include 4000 chemicals.

  • harleyrider1978

    “Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”

    Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

    Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”

    There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist.

    Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same:

    This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980?s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.

    There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist.

    Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same:

    This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980?s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.

  • harleyrider1978

    The Black Pig Lung Hoax

    It was an outright bald-faced lie.

    “Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig’s lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth.”

    The Black Pig Lung Hoax

    Here is an “oldie but goodie”. This is the article everyone always talks about, but is so difficult to find: April 5, 2001. It was an outright bald-faced lie.

    “Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig’s lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth.”

    SMOKERS LUNGS USED IN TRANSPLANTS

    Chris Watson, vice president of the British Transplantation Society, told CNN that 49 percent of last year’s lung donors in the UK were smokers.

    “We’re not in the luxurious position in transplantation to turn down organs because they’re not absolutely perfect — there are very few perfect organs,” he said.

  • harleyrider1978

    Also, see this article on tobacco contents which include 4000 chemicals.

    About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

    4 % is carbon monoxide.

    6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……

    Also only about 800 actual chemicals have been identified in TS! The rest are conjured up!

  • harleyrider1978

    From an article I wrote:

    We’ve been told for years secondhand smoke is deadly dangerous but we are here alive and there are no deaths from it, not even close.

    It’s an exaggerated, created science all its own. It’s propaganda – fallacies created to have justifications for a new round of tobacco prohibition. I am for freedom, freedom for all people to have their own place in this world, including the smokers!

    Tobacco smoke maybe an irritant to some, but that’s about it. Its chemical makeup has been so exaggerated by tobacco control pundits, it’s insanity. Only 6 percent of tobacco smoke constitutes those 7,000 theorized and identified components of the smoke. Theorized is the word, since the claimed chemicals are themselves so small they can barely be detected. Nanograms, femtograms are the sizes of what can be detected so they theorize the rest. Four percent is carbon monoxide, while nearly 90 percent constitutes ordinary atmospheric air! These figures come from the surgeon general’s report in 1989.

    Oh the pundits may bring up benzene in tobacco smoke. The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 report of the surgeon general. p.130) 0.3 micrograms – 300 nanograms.

    Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year.

    Thus, the “safe” exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours.

    It’s a political movement and it was never about health.

  • G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n

    HR –

    You’re always going to find some quack doctor who’s going to give the answer you want to hear about tobacco, never mind that the VAST majority of doctors will tell you that said quack doctor is a quack and that he – like you – doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    You’re always going to find an institute or organization that will tell you what you want to hear about tobacco, especially when said institute (and the organizations with which it is associated) derives a significant part of its funding from the tobacco industry.

    A part of the time I was stationed on board the USS Camden, I worked in an office with a couple master chiefs who both smoked. Unlike most of the other offices that were painted white, the bulkheads of this office was painted a light beige, or so I thought. One day I wet my thumb and rubbed on the wall and found it was painted white, that it was the cigarette smoke that was turning the bulkheads a different color…

    …so not only was the second-hand smoke enough to turn the bulkheads a different color, but it also had to be having the SAME effect in my lungs.

    But according to you, there’s nothing wrong – all that stuff turning the walls a different color just MAGICALLY goes away when it goes into the lungs.

    Yes, 98-99% of all the doctors in the world are lying to us all about tobacco, it’s all a grand conspiracy, just like Apollo 11 was a hoax, vaccines cause autism, global warming’s a hoax, Obama is a nazi/socialist/Muslim who wasn’t born in America, and the World Trade Center was actually blown up by the guv’mint!

    Good grief.

  • harleyrider1978

    But according to you, there’s nothing wrong – all that stuff turning the walls a different color just MAGICALLY goes away when it goes into the lungs.

    Human lungs ‘brush’ themselves clean of contaminants
    Friday, September 07, 2012 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

    Human lungs contain a tiny network of constantly moving “brushes” that flush contaminants out of the respiratory system, according to research conducted by scientists from the University of North Carolina and published in the journal Science.

    Scientists have known for a long time that the respiratory system protects itself by means of a coating of mucus, which is sticky enough to trap pollutants and keep them from reaching the body’s cells. When needed, the body can expel this mucus through a runny nose or a cough.

  • harleyrider1978

    “The air we breathe isn’t exactly clean, and we take in many dangerous elements with every breath,” said lead researcher Michael Rubinstein.

    “We need a mechanism to remove all the junk we breathe in, and the way it’s done is with a very sticky gel, called mucus, that catches these particles and removes them with the help of tiny cilia. The cilia are constantly beating, even while we sleep.

    “In a coordinated fashion, they push mucus, containing foreign objects, out of the lungs, and we either swallow it or spit it out. These cilia even beat for a few hours after we die. If they stopped, we’d be flooded with mucus that provides a fertile breeding ground for bacteria.”

    But until now, researchers have never understood why the mucus does not stick to or even infiltrate the respiratory cells themselves. The foremost theory, known as the “gel-on-liquid model,” posited that an as-yet-undiscovered watery “periciliary” layer kept mucus and cilia separate. The problem with this theory was always that to the best of scientific knowledge, mucus should eventually dissolve into such a watery layer, not remain separate.

  • harleyrider1978

    Obama is a nazi/socialist

    Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

  • harleyrider1978

    BTW I was navy also and a retired chief! Spent 4 years at NRMC Jax Hospital Command.

  • harleyrider1978

    Also thanks for your service G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n !

  • Glenn Contrarian

    REALLY? Human lungs ‘brush themselves clean’ of cigarette smoke? Boy, the CEO’s of Big Tobacco really love people like you.

    For your education, take a look at this simple Google image search:

    here.

    But I suppose you will think these are all just made up, too.

    You remind me very much of this really likeable guy I knew back on the Lincoln. He was Absolutely Sure that people wouldn’t get dehydrated in hot environments if they would refrain from peeing. The logic, he said, was that if people would hold their urine instead of urinating it, that the body would recycle the water in the urine. He knew this because a family doctor had told him this a long time before. When I invited him to go talk to any of the doctors on board so they could explain to him how the body works, he said, “they’re all idiots anyhow, and my doctor knew what he was talking about.”

    He was wrong, stupidly wrong, and nothing could convince him otherwise. He was willing to ignore what 98-99% of doctors in the world would tell him, just because someone with the title “Doctor” in their name had once told him what he wanted to hear.

    You’re just like him.

  • Joseph S Maresca

    Have you seen the Department of Health ads on TV
    which show charred lungs on x-rays, fingers cut off and other horrendous damage from smoking? Those ads would be ordered off the air if there wasn’t substantiation for the claims. Have you ever heard the smoker’s cough from years of cig smoke inhalation? Clearly, the physical evidence is there. Most of all, the cig manufacturers must post a warning on the side of each pack. Do you think that they did so willingly?

  • harleyrider1978

    As Ive already shown there is no proof of the claims being made on tv by cdc or in the BMJ! Thoses amputated limbs they show are people who suffer from Buergers disease.

    I found where its only 1/8000 smokers develop the disease and since its not ALL, they think that its a immunopathogenesis; the development of disease as affected by the immune system .

    Since all smokers do not develop the disease an immunopathogenesis is considered probable. It has been proposed in Japanese that presence of a gene linked to some HLA antigens might control the susceptibility to the disease.

    Etiology and Pathophysiology:

    Since all smokers do not develop the disease an immunopathogenesis is considered probable. It has been proposed in Japanese that presence of a gene linked to some HLA antigens might control the susceptibility to the disease.

    Socioeconomic conditions, work environment may also play in etiology as the disease is seen more in out door and manual workers. Hypercoagulable state has been observed in association with the disease. Hepatitis B Virus and rickettssiosis may contribute to pathogenesis, but this role is uncertain.

  • harleyrider1978

    Funny thing about those CDC ads running,they are for scaremongering. They dont explain any statistics at all or even the diseases involved or other true causes. So far every claim made by Tobacco Control have turned out to be nothing mote than HYPE,SENSATIONALISM,PROPAGANDA. The Cdc ads are paid for out of obamacare funds! Which are fixing to run out. If you havent noted it yet Big Pharma gives grants to CDC to do junk studies for them in an effort to curb growing resentment to smoking bans by business and the populace like the ongoing 9 southern states economic impact report currently being done by CDC. Friedeman the cdc director last year basically said what the outcome was before the study even began in a normal public release statement. The same thing happened with the EPA junk study on environmental tobacco smoke in 1992-93! Which was later tossed as junk science by a federal court in a scathing 92 page opinion. Lowered CI to garner a higher relative risk factor which were dumped into the governments SAMMAC computer system to CREATE 50,000 deaths a year to second hand smoke!

    Its been a well planned junk science run since 1975 on SHS/ETS when Sir George Godber suggested at a UN health conference on smoking that we should make smokers think their harming others via PASSERVACHEN/PASSIVE SMOKING! The rides over and the world now knows its been a lie as grand as global warming!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I’m done here. This HR1978 is the most willfully-blind shill I’ve ever seen in my life, and that’s going some. There is only one time when he will ever change his mind, and that is when he is old and can no longer deny what cigarettes are doing to his body. It is then that he’ll find the courage not only to admit his error to himself, but also to warn those younger than himself, especially his children. I just hope for his sake (and for the sake of those he influences) that he wakes up before then.

    You can have the last word, HR – I’m done with you.

  • harleyrider1978

    Smoking bans are nothing new we had them before,but of course liberals and progressives dont particularly like their past being exposed:

    Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

    1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

    1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

    1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

    1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

    1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

    1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.

  • http://www.RoseDigitalMarketing.com Christopher Rose

    harleyrider1978, I’m curious as to what point you are trying to make.

    Are you suggesting that smoking is not bad for people’s health? Or is it more that you don’t like the state getting involved in such matters?

    Your last post is very confusing as you switch from criticising anti passive smoking actions to general anti-smoking actions from the early years of the last century…

  • Dr Dreadful

    I think the prudent response to such a Gish gallop as Harleyrider has favored us with is none at all.

    Trying to argue rationally with him is a waste of time. This is clearly a quest he has invested a lot of himself in, so he will have an answer for everything, or more likely about twenty answers.

    I suppose he does deserve some kudos for having chosen one of the less fashionable conspiracy theories as his hobby.

    Fortunately, enough people have first-hand experience of the detrimental health effects of smoking that he doesn’t need to be personally debunked.

  • harleyrider1978

    The anti-smoking war has been running for well over 100 years.Im simply pointing that fact out and that its nothing new. Weve already been down the road to prohibition the same as smoking bans and all failed miserably. Todays smoking bans will be no diferent and repealed in the near future. The Junk Science used to justidy these bans is as old as anti-smoking efforts themselves with no proof of actual disease causation ever and especially after 100 plus years of claiming it causes. It turns out nearly all the claims are OLD AGE related diseases craftily camoflauged as smoking related…….The same applies to second hand smoke claims,no proof just junk studies virulently trying to link them to something and it turns out what they did was use normal body physiological changes to any environmental occurance and called them caused by second hand smoke!

  • harleyrider1978

    I gather you guys dont require proof positive as in toxicological evidence connecting end points to disease causation to justify criminal laws being passed against smokers. Where did having no proof at all suddenly gain the rank of having proof positive…….its simple ENVIRONMENTALISM and the RIO summit in 1975 the same time Sir godber recommended raising hitlers passive smoking lies to the forefront again……..Its called the precautionary principle or better known in state legislatures as the do no harm principle!

  • harleyrider1978

    The precautionary principle itself is a catch 22 argument. It entails giving no proof the same standing as actually having positive proof. In essence it makes a negative a positive which we all know you can never prove a negative. By using this principle we might as well all just kill ourselves as chance living with possible threats that might harm us. Its actually created to let the nazis claim whatever they want and get away with it! Its use must be destroyed as its led to total destruction of the scientific process trying to create proof where none exists to begin with,hense the mountain of evidence we hear the nazis preach all over the place without actually being held to any proof at all!

  • harleyrider1978

    The principle itself cannot stand, it means an end to all we hold dear TRUTH.

    Without truth we have no meaning,we have no future,we have no life,no culture. We have only created hazzards that never existed,a culture defeated by fanaticism and led by radical nut cases passing laws based upon NOTHING! It gives basis to outlawing anything based upon nothing,it lowers the standard of proof in court to that of hearsay evidence to now convict!

    How did it happen,quite simply ENVIROMENTALISM!

    Precaution as Customary Law
    The question whether the precautionary principle is a principle of customary international law has received a great deal of attention, particularly since the principle’s inclusion in the Rio Declaration.

    Rio Declaration on Environment and Development

    The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Personally I don’t have any interest in preventing people from smoking, because (a) if you did ban tobacco it would just go underground and exacerbate the global drug crime pandemic, and (b) if people absolutely insist on shoving rolled-up lumps of tree in their mouths, setting fire to them and breathing in the fumes, that’s their lookout.

    There is something to be said for laws restricting where one can smoke, in that it is nice to be able to enjoy an evening out at a theatre, restaurant or bar without having to contend with tobacco fumes which, unlike, say, marijuana, give off a highly unpleasant odour.

    On a personal note, however, having lived with someone who was both an alcoholic and a heavy smoker, I’d far rather be in the company of someone who smokes too much than drinks too much.

  • G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n

    Doc #30 –

    QFT in its entirety, particularly the part about knowing when not to reply. Someday I’m going to learn to put that particular nugget of wisdom to practice….

  • Joseph S Maresca

    Challenges to these anti-smoking campaigns have to work their way through the court system right up through the Supreme Court.

  • harleyrider1978

    The courts do as the Prohibitionists want when it comes to the bans. Its a political movement and it was never about health. If you havent noticed the same folks pushing bans politically are also pushing anti-gun laws,anti-obesity,anti-alcohol, anti just about anything. Thats the new progressive movement in todays world. Its from the U.N. all the way down to your local mayor who gets promised grants for his town if he pushes forth smoking prohibition or any of the other anti-whatever agendas out there.

    The Inspector General Busted katherine sebelius,Dr thomas Friediman for using federal grants to permit lobbying by its recipients which is illegal under federal law and IRS laws which the Obama administration has told not to pursue legal action against any of these Non-profits or Housed in prohibitional groups for abusing the grant process.

  • harleyrider1978

    More Bad News for Tobacco Control
    July 13, 2012

    There may be “inappropriate lobbying activities” by groups that received the grants, Levinson wrote to Thomas Friedan, director of CDC. Federal law prohibits grantees from using money to lobby, whether at the federal, state or local level, Levinson warned.
    The grants included $7 million to Jefferson County, Alabama for activities like promoting “the passage of a tobacco excise tax by the Alabama state legislature”; $1 million to Delaware’s governor’s office for anti-smoking work that included seeking “sponsorship of a bill that increases excise tax on other tobacco products”; and $560,000 to Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services for working toward higher tobacco taxes.

    Those who wore the smokefree t-shirts to lobby to any city council for a ban and those who showed up to push it from smokefree coalitions no doubt were recipients of this same grant money and they are guilty of a federal crime! Lobbying.

  • harleyrider1978

    More Bad News for Tobacco Control
    July 13, 2012

    There may be “inappropriate lobbying activities” by groups that received the grants, Levinson wrote to Thomas Friedan, director of CDC. Federal law prohibits grantees from using money to lobby, whether at the federal, state or local level, Levinson warned.
    The grants included $7 million to Jefferson County, Alabama for activities like promoting “the passage of a tobacco excise tax by the Alabama state legislature”; $1 million to Delaware’s governor’s office for anti-smoking work that included seeking “sponsorship of a bill that increases excise tax on other tobacco products”; and $560,000 to Nevada’s Department of Health and Human Services for working toward higher tobacco taxes.

    Those who wore the smokefree t-shirts to lobby to any city council for a ban and those who showed up to push it from smokefree coalitions no doubt were recipients of this same grant money and they are guilty of a federal crime! Lobbying.

  • harleyrider1978

    According to IRS rules “no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation… An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

  • harleyrider1978

    The activities to be reported include those which are listed in 18 U.S.C § 1913 and include: any advertisement, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device (such as emails, websites, videos, audio, or other electronic communications), intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government (including local and state governments), to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation. The information should be documented and provided in a word-searchable format that includes the name of the awardee, total amount of the award, date the award was granted, the stated purpose of the award, a list of all activities in the aforementioned list that the awardee carried out with federal funds, and an indication of whether or not the desired outcomes in state or local policy or legislative changes took place.”
    http://www.collins.senate.gov/public/

  • harleyrider1978

    Theres going to be a lot of presidential pardons signed on Obamas last day in office!

  • Dr Joseph S Maresca

    I would be interested to see how a properly framed appeal on the restriction for cig smoking would be voted on by the United States Supreme Court.

  • harleyrider1978

    Was already done on the Tennessee smoking ban from 1900 and was upheld. In 1903 Tenn repealed their smoking ban after the fact.

    The thing here is that even in the 14th amendment the equal protection clause has a short piece in it that basically negates the entire clause.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 1without due process of law1; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    ”without due process of law” that little piece means if they have the votes they can do whatever the hell they want to do and you have no defense at all from it!

  • harleyrider1978

    For a law to be challenged as unconstitutional it must go through the state courts, then the federal courts, and finally it comes to the Supreme Court. Many state courts are currently upholding new legislation that creates a smoking ban in public places. However, the ability for a state court to uphold the laws created in its own state and what it would mean for the Supreme Court to say that same law is constitutional are two totally different things. It is that division between the state courts and the Supreme Court that shows federalism in America. One group must look at the entire nation and the other, just their own constituents. How would the federal Supreme Court’ decision differ from the state Supreme Court rulings in states such as Wisconsin, California and New York, that allowed legislation of smoking bans in restaurants and bars? The differing opinions between the courts, the comparisons of privacy on a national stage and state stage, and who is affected by each opinion are the major factors that would affect the Supreme Courts opinion as compared to each state Supreme Court.

  • harleyrider1978

    When the constitution of the United States was written there was no mention of privacy, but since the Supreme Court has ruled on certain issues and vaguely defined what privacy is, challenges of what it covers are coming to courts constantly. As it relates to smoking bans in public places such as restaurants and bars, state courts have said that laws banning smoking in those places are constitutional and will be enforced. The issue has yet to come to the Supreme Court, however, when the court finally does look at this they will be not only looking at one state’s law, but rather whether or not the states can take away the choice from the individual business owners as to whether or not smoking is permitted in their place of business. One can look at the high court’s opinions on privacy which tend to error on the side of conservativeness to make the educated guess that the court will say banning smoking in people’s places of business is a choice those owners must make and that the state law can only cover federal buildings, parks, and areas of that nature.

  • harleyrider1978

    As of 2000, only three states have had their law challenged to their state supreme court. California, New York, and Wisconsin all have had the law challenged and each court had a 3-2 decision favoring the legislation (Van Geel 21). The fact that the courts’ opinion would completely change based on one vote means that the law in those states will constantly be disputed.
    No law or opinion by the Supreme Court will make every person in America happy.

  • harleyrider1978

    Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court compares the three opinions by the state courts and then looks at their own opinion, they must take into account the other forty seven states. Just because those laws work in three states does not mean that the legislation should be passed everywhere. The high court must look at the consequences of their decision and what would happen should they favor the law. Though it should not come into play, one of the major crops in the country when it was first settled was tobacco which makes it a very important part of the country’s economy, and tobacco in and of itself is not illegal which is another reason why the court would be hard pressed to say that it is not okay to allow in people’s private businesses.
    The court must also look at whether someone’s constitutional rights have been infringed upon.

  • harleyrider1978

    Not only would they have to look at the owners who lose the business from their smoking clientele, but also whether or not the non-smoking patrons who attend the restaurant are being forced into a position that they should not have to face with regards to breathing in the smoke. Some can argue that this whole issue should be thrown out with the legislation that accompanies it and leave all items like allowing smoking up to each individual owner because it is a private issue that is dealt with at the time of opening the business. Others could argue that this is a public issue, as are all health issues, and that the Supreme Court needs to address whether or not the Constitution favors economy or public good.

  • harleyrider1978

    Should the court look into the legislation about the banned smoking, they would be looking at a takings issue. Something has been taken from the business owner, the smoking customers, or at the same time a healthy environment to eat has been taken from the non-smoking people of that area. It will all depend on which group gets to the high court first. In the past with other takings issues, the court has favored the economy over the individual because the economy affects everyone. An example of this was the case of Wickard v. Filburn. In this case a law, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, allowed a farmer to have only 11.1 acres of wheat. The farmer grew the 11.1 to sell, but then did more for his own personal use instead of buying it from another farmer. There was a penalty to pay if one went over the 11.1 acres and it was fought to the Supreme Court. The court held that since the act occurred after legislation was passed which charged people for going over their allotment, the farmer would have to pay for the additional acreage (317 US 111).

  • harleyrider1978

    The court favored the state’s decision to have this law so that the economy could be boosted and a decision like this shows that they favor economy of individualism. State courts cannot regulate items that affect commerce, only the federal government can. In Gibbons v. Ogden the court established that the Constitution defines federal power to regulate commerce and no part of the power can be exercised by a state (22 US 1). This decision showed that the court will not allow state legislation to affect the economy. State powers do not include regulating the economy and that the states cannot create laws that ultimately control businesses.

  • harleyrider1978

    These two cases are a huge reason why when the ban in public places gets to the Supreme Court, the court will likely side with economy over a few individuals who do not want to get second hand smoke.
    A central question arises out of the aforementioned items: “If state governments know they cannot regulate commerce, why pass a law that in many cases will control the economy of the state?” (Baker 4). The division of power between state and federal courts, or federalism, is now evident in the issue (Janda 61). It is because of federalism that the state courts try to pass laws like smoking bans. Each state must push the boundaries of their powers to find out what is crossing the line. The state legislatures are in the difficult position of finding what they can do while fighting not only the national constitution, but also their own state constitution.

  • harleyrider1978

    When the constituents of a particular state have an uprising and want a law passed, such as smoking bans, it gets passed at the state level and until it is challenged to the Supreme Court, it stays in place. The state supreme courts are in a position that they must uphold issues that affect their own state constitution and the national constitution, but cannot make a landmark decision on whether or not something is constitutional by the national standards until the higher court makes its opinion public, which can only get done once a law’s constitutionality is challenged up through the state and national Supreme Court.

  • harleyrider1978

    The highest court must not only look at the law and what it has done so far, but what a decision to uphold it would do across the country. As soon as they say that a smoking ban is constitutional, there will be an even larger push than there is now to get smoking bans in every single state. Once the smoking bans are passed, more radical ideas will start to emerge and eventually the court will be making a decision on whether or not tobacco is a legal product in the country anymore. Each state court, on the other hand, can say it is constitutional because, “there is always the higher court to overrule them” (Farber 94). Their decision, while important, is also solely based on the impact it has on their own state, not the other forty nine. Since each has a different opinion based on who the decision is going to affect, federalism is fairly important here.

  • harleyrider1978

    As long as the country has the court system set up like it does, the state courts can worry about their own state and the federal courts will care about the country as a whole.
    Federalism divides the state’s power and the federal government’s power. Clearly, when the issue reaches the Supreme Court, the court will rule on the side of the economy and remove smoking bans, if they do this for no other reason than past rulings on issues where economy and individual rights were involved. It is good for democracy to have a way for an issue to go through each state and then finally be resolved as a topic for the entire nation. Whether the Supreme Court sees this as a takings issue or a privacy issue, the fact remains that because of the commerce clause in the Constitution, the court will say that any law that ultimately affects the economy is only something the federal government can do and that any state law banning smoking in places of private business practice is unconstitutional.

  • harleyrider1978

    My opinion of the topic is that smoking bans are unconstitutional. It should be up to each individual owner if they want to have patrons smoking or not. Tobacco is not illegal and I’ve seen so many differing opinions on second hand smoke that I just say it’s a hoax. The Supreme Court will most likely error on the side of the economy once again with this issue as they have in the past. That is completely correct in this case. If a person does not want to live in a polluted city, they move to the suburbs or a different area of the country. Why should this be any different? There will still be restaurant owners who do not allow smoking even if the ban is lifted in the states that have one. This country was primarily founded on choice.

  • harleyrider1978

    People did not want to be hassled because they chose one religion over another, so they traveled here for a fresh start. By eliminating someone’s choice to smoke, you remove a founding principle of the United States. I personally do not smoke, but at the same time, who is anyone to tell someone else they are wrong because they are doing something that is completely legal. When someone gets behind the wheel of a car with .10 alcohol in their blood, they are putting others’ lives directly at risk. When the person next to me lights a cigarette, the air gets a little cloudy, but when I go home later, my livelihood is not being challenged. With all the problems of poverty, homelessness, rape, drunk driving and the like in this country, I think petty issues such as abortion, gay marriage and smoking in public are worthless to the court’s time and should never even have to go that far.

  • harleyrider1978

    Works Cited:
    Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case16.htm. 22 US 1. November 29.
    Farber, Daniel. “The Constitution’s Forgotten Cover Letter: An Essay on the New Federalism and the Original Understanding.” Michigan Law Review (1995) 94.
    Janda, Kenneth, et al. The Challenge Of Democracy. (2004): 60-79.
    Van Geel, T.R., Understanding Supreme Court Opinions 3rd Edition. (2002): 22-24.
    Wickard v. Filburn (1942). http://www.agh-attorneys.com/4_wickard_v_filburn.htm. 317 US 111. November 29.

    The above is a legal opinion on your question I had in files and just found.

  • harleyrider1978

    Here seems to be the entire argument against the bans:

    State courts cannot regulate items that affect commerce, only the federal government can. In Gibbons v. Ogden the court established that the Constitution defines federal power to regulate commerce and no part of the power can be exercised by a state (22 US 1). This decision showed that the court will not allow state legislation to affect the economy. State powers do not include regulating the economy and that the states cannot create laws that ultimately control businesses.

  • harleyrider1978

    Since there is no public health threat and we have proof positive that bans destroy economic activity thru the takings issue the bans are indeed unconstitutional.

  • Dr Dreadful

    ”without due process of law” that little piece means if they have the votes they can do whatever the hell they want to do and you have no defense at all from it!

    No it doesn’t.

    You’re ignoring the semi-colons, which divide and separate the clauses in Section 1 from each other. “Without due process of law” refers to the deprivation of life, liberty or property, and to nothing else.

  • harleyrider1978

    due process simply means that when the state passes a law via vote and it affects people they have the right to be heard and thats it!

    Due process is met when procedural process has been adhered to.

    Simply put they can pass whatever they want by vote as long as you get a chance to be heard and argue against it,true theres much more to it but the basic premise I just showed is it in a nutshell! The 14th forced due process onto the states as under the 5th it concerned only the federal government. There is no protection from unjust government at all even the courts get threatened by the Judiciary to adopt its opinion or they will replace the justices or add to them. Which is what FDR did to get the court to quit knocking done his progressive new deal policies……..

  • harleyrider1978

    Judiciary should have been Executive Branch

  • harleyrider1978

    During the 1930s, the Court used the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down federal legislation as well, particularly legislation associated with President franklin d. roosevelt’s New Deal. In 1937, Roosevelt proposed a court-packing scheme in which Roosevelt would have sought to overcome Court opposition to his programs by appointing additional justices. Although the plan was never adopted, the Court quickly changed its position on substantive due process and other issues and began to uphold New Deal legislation. Now, a majority on the Court, including Chief Justice charles e. hughes and Justice benjamin n. cardozo, abandoned the freedom-of-contract version of substantive due process.

  • harleyrider1978

    Now with what FDR did basically threatening the high court how can anyone expect justice in any court if ever!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Gish Gallop”, indeed. This guy could give Secretariat a run for his money….

  • harleyrider1978

    Yes indeed everything is fine until the high court gets told to follow a new path and screws another group of citizens…say the obese folks ehh!

    House Committee: Public Health and Human Services*, Judiciary B

    Principal Author: Mayhall
    Additional Authors: Read, Shows

    Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

  • Dr Dreadful

    due process simply means that when the state passes a law via vote and it affects people they have the right to be heard and thats it!

    No, Harleyrider, that is not what it means. In law, due process means that the state must respect the rights of the individual. The right to be heard is certainly one of those, but it is very far from being the only one.

  • harleyrider1978

    I said when they vote thru a law and everyones due process rights are aknowledged and part of the procedure they can do what they want…….. BTW smoking bans have already been to state courts on the 14th amendment and found constitutional. Its the takings or economic grounds that havent been before the courts yet.

  • harleyrider1978

    Either way you go the courts nearly 99% of the time back the banners at every turn. When you read the opinions its like they are carbon copies of all other opinions on the subject. Like John Banzhaft wrote the opinions and said send em to any judges who need them when our junk science is attacked or any other part of a ban is attacked. This holds true even in the Federal cases especially Judge gladys Kesslers court opinions.

  • Joseph S Maresca

    I can envision that the United States Supreme Court will view cigarette smoking restrictions as a local issue because local health departments are more apt to know the needs of citizens living proximate to their area of jurisdiction.

  • G l e n n C o n t r a r i a n

    Oh, I see now, thanks to HR –

    98% of all the doctors in the world are lying when they say that smoking is very bad for you, will eventually shorten your life by as much as decade or maybe even more, and is bad for those who are exposed to second-hand smoke.

    Yes, those doctors are ALL LYING! Just like 98% of all the world’s climatologists are ALL LYING about anthropogenic global warming! Just like 99% of the world’s doctors will tell you that YES, vaccines are a Very Good Thing and NO, they don’t cause autism – they’re ALL LYING, too. And the dentists who say that flouridated water is a Very Good Thing – they’re ALL LYING, too.

    Yes, HR, everybody with a PhD. is LYING to you, so I suggest you go get your guns and go hide in the woods before the people in the Black Helicopters come and get you….

  • harleyrider1978

    I suppose you didnt get your copy of the Gloabal warming emails that blew the lid off that HOAX! The smoking hoax is just another example of propaganda gone wild. Proof isnt there is it!

  • Dr Dreadful

    They did nothing of the kind, as anyone with a modicum of critical thinking and knowledge of the way science works is well aware.

  • harleyrider1978

    Global Warming Slows to Crawl, Puzzles Scientists

    April 4, 2013

    For years climate scientists and environmentalists have made grim predictions about the future of humanity on a planet suffering from intense global warming. However, a two-decade pause in global warming is causing more skepticism about global warming. Some view the trend as an indication that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is false but others says the temporary cooling trend only makes the stakes greater in the long run, says Graham Lloyd, environment editor for The Australian.

    http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23029

    Anything to keep the lie alive!

  • harleyrider1978

    That last sentence is a bridge between the November, 2009 “Climategate” emails and the current batch. The focus of the 2009 release was to show how some of the major climate scientists involved with the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had abused science to allege that rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere were driving global temperatures up exponentially in the last half of the 20th Century. “Hiding the decline” refers to the “trick” that some of the climate scientists tried to use to minimize the natural variability in global temperatures as evidenced in past centuries by the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The “trick” took the form of the infamous “hockey stick” graph that portrayed stable temperatures for centuries and then a rapid rise in temperatures after 1950.

  • harleyrider1978

    If temperatures in the past—when CO2 levels were much lower than today—exhibited natural variability, then some of the major global warming premises are suspect.

    The comments from some of the scientists on the IPCC team are quite revealing in both the old and the new email releases. Some of them refer to climate science as a “cause,” not a discipline governed by the laws of nature and the scientific method. To them, what is important is rejecting any notion that man-made CO2 emissions are not a dire threat to the planet. That “cause” is critical for two reasons: first, because their political and ideological beliefs tell them that; and, second, because they are addicted to the billions of dollars in research grants that only seem to go only to scientists who adhere to the global warming doctrine.

    The IPCC crowd is enjoying its funding largesse and is determined to keep it—even if it means pushing universities to pressure scientists whose work contradicts the global warming orthodoxy or putting pressure on scientific journals not to accept papers from scientists who don’t toe the line.

  • harleyrider1978

    In the meantime, governments that are using the IPCC as justification for declaring war on carbon energy sources are hindering economic growth when it is crucially needed and are making the poor even poorer by driving up energy costs. I once listened to a presentation by Dr. John Christy, a climate scientist at the University of Alabama/Huntsville. Dr. Christy believes that the earth has warmed slightly over the last century, but he does not see evidence of catastrophic warming coming our way. He does share the concern of the email leaker regarding the plight of the poor.

  • harleyrider1978
  • Dr Dreadful

    Unlike the smoking one, Harleyrider’s newest hobby horse is an example of a conspiracy theory that’s dangerous, since nothing less than the welfare of the planet and every living thing on it is at stake.

    There’s plenty of readily available material both to support the reality of anthropogenic global warming and to refute all of the nonsense in comments 76-79, but there’s absolutely no point in my explaining or linking to any of it here because Harleyrider will just ignore it and post a dozen more comments full of misinformation. Actually, I fully expect that he’ll do that anyway.

  • llort

    …when your resource managers walk around whistling It’s Too Late Baby the question might well be moot

  • Glenn Contrarian

    HR –

    You’re doing a wonderful job at shilling for those who don’t give a damn about whether you live or die as long as they get your money. But at least, thanks to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act you’ll be able to get the health care that should be the right – the right of every American. So when you start developing lung cancer from your cigarettes or when you get sick because of the spread of disease thanks to global warming, you won’t be denied the health care you need.

    I’ll be waiting right here to see you say, “Thank you, President Obama”.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Yeah, I know, shame on me.

  • harleyrider1978

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

    Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

    Read more: Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

    Your quite right Owebama is at the center of all the trash science right now!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    HR –

    But even with the problems you will eventually develop from smoking, you’ll at least be able to get health care coverage thanks to President Obama…

    …and I’ll be waiting here for you to say, “Thank you, President Obama for the Affordable Care Act”.

  • harleyrider1978

    I wouldnt count on Obamacare lasting very long it seems even the democrats are starting to see its a failed system before it even gets going.

  • harleyrider1978

    Oh didnt I tell ya Im on tri-care and excempt from owebamas socialist care program.

  • Clav

    TriCare, Huh? Isn’t that provided by the government? As such, it is, by definition, Socialist.

  • Dr Joseph S Maresca

    We’ll know very shortly about the Affordable Care Act in implementation. The proof in the pudding will be how many companies opt to pay the fine versus those that agree to the program. I still think that the Hill Burton Program should be kept and funded.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    HR –

    I’m on TriCare Prime, myself…and as Clavos points out, it’s very much a socialist health care system. I’m quite satisfied with it, too…especially since we military retirees are automatically covered by TriCare Standard in thousands of places overseas. Heck, if you’ll check the TriCare Overseas Program website, you’ll find that there’s hundreds of places just in Manila that take TriCare Standard.

    That, sir, is why I’m so eager for America to have single-payer health care, because that’s essentially what TriCare IS. There’s no good reason why the rest of America can’t have it, too. The only ones who wouldn’t benefit from it are the giant health insurance companies that actually DO have their own forms of “death panels” (“I’m sorry, your insurance policy doesn’t cover chemotherapy. Please remember our company’s slogan: Don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly” (a tip of the hat to Rep. Alan Grayson)).

    This is why the people of the nations that have longer life expectancies than us (we’re in 40th place on the list, and all but one of those nations with longer life expectancies have single-payer health care – CUBA has a longer national life expectancy)…this is why they look at us like we’re freaking nuts because so many of us don’t realize that health care is and should be a right and not a privilege.

  • Igor

    There’s an interesting one-hour documentary that sums up the case for GW and Alternative Energy at: Operators manual.

  • Dr Joseph S Maresca

    I think that nations with longer life expectancy have better food-period. The single payor system is probably the way to go. Time will tell. If industry rejects Obamacare by canceling health insurance and paying the fine-people will be forced into a government system or the single payor system. The single payor system can work by taxing the junk food and putting the proceeds into the health insurance fund.