Wonderful piece on Smit!!! Thank you for taking the time to share more about this wonderful, brilliant man.
The new Tobacco Prohibition
I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.
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.This one you can google.
Now onto the falsehood......
We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!
Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.
A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......
A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :
''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.
This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''
The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.
Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.
The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.
Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:
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 qickly 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......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.
The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.
Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.
Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.
The actual standard to use is OSHA'S
The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.
The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!
This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS
By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.
Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.
But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.
Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.
The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!
I appreciate your response. It is thoughtful. While metaphor is useful in an intellectual dialogue it is not useful as a vulgarity used to describe a person or a group of people. As we know even facts are sometimes fluid, but as a society and a culture we need to come to some agreement on a set of facts and values that are a framework for a dialogue. If we don't do this we will not have a society but a multicultural environment. But even a multicultural environment is feasible if we accept that we don't use metaphor (or slander) as a legitimate means of public discourse.
My concern with "fact" is in fact the same as yours, however, if one chooses to use the term in a letter as a statement, as in "it's a fact that Obama isn't a citizen", then it no longer becomes an editorial comment it is a statement. We agree that there is proper usage of letters and punctuation in order to communicate. Random letters and spaces are not communication and as a corellary random metaphors and facts are not thoughts. If the issue were freedom of expression then those letters that assert fiction as fact should be in the Arts and Entertainment section of the paper. Just as a painting that depicts an event isn't used as news coverage. I know the analogy isn't perfect but I don't believe we need to have perfection to have civil dialogue.
Ignorance is not a right. It is however a fact of life, silencing truely ignorant people is no more a problem than training a dog to stop barking. Noise is simply meaningless sound.
I contend still, that editors are correcting and formatting letters for organization and comprehension. If I had sent in a letter with random words and spaces it would not have been published. The moderator of these discussions need to use prudence and intelligence to ensure that the dialogue in this valued public forum does not degenerate to name calling and fact creation.
The Department of Justice (you know, Eric Holder...the guy that floats a boat to sue the state of Arizona for enforcing laws the department of justice will not) can rot in hell.
The leaders of strong mayor movements are typically the money power brokers that will gain financially with the change. They can raise a considerable amount of money that the every-day citizen cannot raise. Stand up for quality government.
Go here to learn more.
The US Dept of Justice, Community Relations Service has said that illustrating a need for a commission is a crucial first step. Your statement that a HRC has no legitimate role in municipal government may be one of the very reasons a commission is needed. Does Colorado Springs need a commission? I don't know, but I won't condemn one before looking into it. A lot has changed in 17 years, hopefully any liaison appointed to a new commission would be better equipped to serve. Guidelines for establishing a HRC can be found at: http://www.justice.gov/crs/pubs/gehrc.htm
Yes, we need a group to educate us on the wonders of sodomy.
Did you read Miles' by-line? "Mike Miles, a West Point graduate and former Army Ranger and diplomat, has been Harrison School District 2's superintendent for four years and wrote this in response to last week's cover story." Do you see anything about being a teacher? To me, this is telling. He doesn't value his time as a teacher because he's NOT a teacher at heart. He doesn't like teaching or teachers and it shows in his behavior around the District.
As for the principals' letter, how honest can they be with their jobs on the line? If they say one negative thing, they are fired! People who are being coerced will say whatever they have to say in order to keep their jobs. I wouldn't believe a word coming from the administrative departments at HSD2.
Colleen Ripp Grosner
nrpeace - wow, the first sign of intelligence here. I dream of a day when CSindy letters will contain facts rather than just emotional name throwing
I'm always amazed at the number of people who are willing to give up their civil liberties because Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh says it's a good idea. That's like basing investment choices for a pension fund on the wisdom of Barney the Dinosaur. Barney, Glen and Rush may be annoying to adults, but they are entertainers with wide appeal, and unfortunately from time to time their impressionable audiences go a little too far. Let's hope that the adults step away from their bridge game and come to check on the kiddies soon, before they burn down the house.
Funny how when the police are given vast sweeping powers against brown people conservatives rejoice but give those same police sweeping powers that might affect someone with less suntan and they are up in arms.
For years prior to 9-11 and even afterward conservatives have opposed "real ID" and other federal measures to make fake IDs more difficult to make because they feared it was the first step to being forced to produce identity "papers". But now that Arizona has implimented a law that will do exactly that to anyone with a suntan and a less than perfect comprehention of the english language it's just fine.
Please do accurate research before writing. You do not need your birth certificate, unless of course, your state ID is an obvious fake, as it turns out it was in the case of the trucker in Phoenix you referenced. And since the law hadn't been passed yet, your example is, well... not an example of anything related to your article. And did you really use 'ethnic cleansing' in reference to border policy? Wow. In that case, travel to Europe without a Visa or Passport, and you'll find that the whole continent must be trying to wipe out your race, since they won't let you stay! Fortunately, your final paragraph reveals this 'column' for what it is: Under-informed, one-sided, political bile. If you cared about the real issues at hand, you might choose to learn to facts first, and then write.
Someday in the future, all these left-wing fringe elements will get their way. It's not just some ploy from the fear-mongers out there. Decent, hard-working men will have to stand in quiet rage, while watching women cast their ballot RIGHT NEXT TO OURS. The idea of it makes me nauseous. Science shows that women have smaller brains then men (female brains weigh on average 100kg less than male brains). You can't expect them to wrap their meager supply of gray matter around the truly big issues of our day, weigh alternatives impartially, and exercise their franchise with the same logic as a man. No, and you can't expect them to perform tasks, even simple ones, as well as men can. Their little heads are too precious to be preoccupied with the mundane and sublime. Better to leave them to that middle ground: the kitchen, the bedroom, the small places that a man needs tidy to ensure he can do his work as intended. Start paying women like they're men? Might as well pay the Irish to be bankers! Idealism has its place, but not in the world of men.
I have yet to work in a job where a woman who matched me for experince, skill and performance has been paid one penny per hour less than me. These studies fail to compare apples to apples. For instance, they say "medical profesion" but fail to deliniate surgons from GPs. More men tend to be surgons while more women tend to become GPs. Surgons make the big bucks. Not because they are men but because surgons have more training and are more valuable to the hospital. Why don't more women become surgons? Who knows. Maybe they prefer the lifestyle of the GP over that of the surgon. The same goes down the line in all catagories of these studies. Men tend to go for jobs with bigger paychecks while women go for jobs with more intangible benefits.
So in order to solve this problem you need to force women to enter career feilds that they have no desire to go into. We need to make them go into professions that pay more instead of seeking careers that make them happy. Only when women are as miserable as men can was acheive true equality of the sexes.
Jake, you need to take your anti-psychotics... You're getting a bit wild and rambly in your postings. Blaming this conspiracy of Republicans that you see hiding under every darkened streetlight isn't going to fix the problem caused by crooked leadership from both sides of the aisle. Colorado hasn't managed to find more than a handful of honest folks to engage in government in the 20 years I've lived there. Those that have been honest are all but burned at the stake for not joining in the festival of coruption.
My first concern about a change in City Government is the prospect of a disproportionate increase in influence by big money interests. Centralizing governing power in a single individual also means that these interests can maximize their political power by channeling campaign funds into ONE candidate's campaign.
Just as important is the idea of strengthening the Council's fiduciary powers to create a checks-and-balances effect. Our City Council represents the citizens of Colorado Springs, and thus the Council's political power must not be allowed to be washed away by a strong mayor.
Thank you for your time.
The ONLY way a Mayor could be worse than what we suffer now, would be if that STRONG MAYOR were Republican! LMAO! Until C.Spgs., takes a shift towards government FOR the people, our community will continue to wallow in the manure pile the neocons have in place today!
Truly doubtful that things will shift soon. As bazaar, and, foolishly parrot like "teabaggers" are, they ARE VERY organized! We liberals tend more toward the "it will eventually balance out" theory. We tend toward DIS-organization.
Taking our city back into this century will require a very long, difficult stretch of time! Our only real hope springs from the total loss of services we are only starting to experience! This loss of services WILL get worse, public maintenance, non-existent now, watch the total decline that is headed our way!
To my friends who tout themselves as "Republicans", yet aren't wealthy..just under informed. Guy's, I've said it a million times, open your eyes, at least watch while the party you want running this community, run it into the ground!
The next person who makes a legitimate argument for strong mayor will be the first. The case made here is absolutely pathetic - devoid of facts, but full of adjectives. We get it, the strong-mayor will be a "visionary." Unless of course he or she isn't.
A mayor who is a politician that may or may not possess city management/leadership skills, OR a professional manager with education and experience in running a city? I'm a captive audience when a strong-mayor advocate can articulate why the former is better than the latter. The current system isn't broke, just some of the council members.
McElhany et als do not cover one significant aspect of the issue: who will actually be "managing" the day-to-day operations of the city? The new mayor? Okay, so what qualifications will he/she have in order to do this? Will the voters elect him/her on the basis of such professional qualifications? The point behind the professional manager/elected council model was to put the actual management into the hands of a professionally trained and experienced administrator--who would work AT THE PLEASURE OF THE ELECTED COUNCIL. Perhaps that last should be rephrased for further emphasis: the appointed manager would be ACCOUNTABLE TO THE ELECTED COUNCIL. This city has had some fine managers--George Fellows comes to mind--who can be credited with growing and maintaining a proud and beautiful and economically successful community.
The McElhany argument includes the notion that a "strong mayor" (with or without managerial expertise) "who might make less than half the previous city manager's salary." This is a community of nearly half a million people, with a budget in the billions. Do we really think we are going to get good leadership at for $105K/year? How many of the authors of this article would take the job for that salary?
Misogyny..alive, and, well. Oppression, by any other name. Sad, really, the heart of the issue still comes from the fact that most wage setters, are men, and, I'm sure they fathered some daughters along the way...kinda' makes you wonder where their head is, HUH, REALLY?
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation