SUBJ: Smoking (R4) FROM: Snickers 06/11/94 S#: 427631 There was a piece in the sunday paper 6/5/94..written by Robert J Caldwell of copley news service. if you can get your hands on a copy, it makes for interesting reading...its way to long to reprint here. But the basis of it is bad science,bad laws, its covers a mutiple of laws that have been implemented about smoking,household chemicals,AIDS research etc..and what it boils down to is that the laws were NOT put into effect by a solid foundation in scientific fact, but politically motivated by pressure groups. What some of us have been saying for some time, *me* groups taking away YOUR rights. The piece points to a article in the National review, written by Jacob Sullum, that points out that even the National Cancer institute does NOT support the research saying that 2nd hand smoke is bad for you, cause there is NOT scientific data to back up that claim. Quite the opposite in studing over 400 woman who lived for 20 to 40 yrs with 1 to 2 pack a day smokers showed NO ill effects. That studies that try to prove this coralation have taken NO other factors into account..i.e. excersize,bad eating habits, obesity etc etc. this piece does NOT say smoking is good for you, they give that point, as it was first proven in 1964,and backed up since then. They,instead are taking the goverment to task for the over $40 BILLION dollars of politcally motivated laws enforcement needed for these insane laws founded on bad science! Now after YEARS of telling you, that butter is not good, and all the money margarine manufactures have made, they are saying butter was better for you all along! It all goes back to this, everything in moderation, live a life of balance and you will do fine. :> WE REALLY need to speak up, or soon we wont be able to eat,drink or anything without prior approval..is that what you want your life to be? It makes me crazy that here where i live im having trouble finding beef!!! I can get all the chicken fish and the like that i want, but since so many people fear red meat, stores just arnt stocking it. :/ unfortunately i live with a beef lover who hates the above! I think we need to start a "get rid of congress" movement, cause THEY are whats bad for us! ;> -::- SUBJ: : (R) FROM: GH Wells 06/12/94 S#: 443642 I think one of the reasons we now have so many examples of bad laws is that once a bureaucracy is started to fix a legitimate problem, it is almost impossible to keep that bureaucracy from expanding its scope in order to justify its existence after it has solved the original problem. For example, the Air Quality Management District of So Calif has succeeded in reducing smog to the point that it is no longer the irritant that it used to be twenty of thirty years ago. But now they are doing such ridiculous things as installing car-pool lanes on most of the freeways, an idea that can only work if the other lanes of the freeways are congested. In other words, it doesn't reduce smog; it requires that the majority of cars on the freeways are running less efficiently and producing more smog in order to motivate people to join a car pool. If they would just use our gasoline tax dollars to build more freeways and add more lanes to existing freeways until there was rarely any congestion, then there would be less smog produced by cars running in stop and go traffic. Another idea that they are starting to promote heavily is electric vehicles and putting electronic monitors in gasoline vehicles to fine them if they are used in congested traffic. In other words, electric vehicles will be subsidized with taxes collected from gasoline vehicles even though they both use the same roads. This also does not solve the problem; it requires the problem to persist in order for people to be motivated to put up with the hassle of an electric vehicle. There is an easier way to penalize people who drive in congested traffic: just raise the gasoline tax to the point that people think twice before they drive. That's probably what they'll end up doing. But I still say that building more and better freeways is the thing to do because it promotes commerce and a growing economy. The other "solutions" all penalize growth. -::- SUBJ: Don't you get it... (R) FROM: CHESTER E 06/29/94 S#: 462482 G.H.? That is exactly what they are trying to do. The greens don't want growth because that's bad for the environment. Same thing for more highways. The in your face special interest groups that want YOUR rights curtailed, be they property, civil, constitutional, et al, will not stop. They have an ear in Washington and they will use it for as far as the electorate will let them. Soon you will see cigerettes being sold at the corner drug store with prescription only. Gas rationing a la World War II ration stamps will be the norm. Your property will no longer be yours, it will be nationalized. Religious charms and medallions will be grounds for arrest on the charge on religious harrassment. Think I'm kidding? think again, these are all bills under consideration in congress right now. I think it's time to wake up folks, because we are staring a real nightmare in the face. -::- SUBJ: Actually, we liberals.... (R) FROM: Toadsucker 07/02/94 S#: 765587 think economic growth is just fine. The problem is that people like you and even, very often, the media misuse the term. But you are probably right in that "economic growth" as you define it is not something I am fond of. -::- SUBJ: smoking FROM: Lord Ronin 08/07/94 S#: 398967 i agree there mate. I've been smoking a pipe for 33 years. No cancer and I puff 2oz a day now. My complaint is that a vocal minority is mascardaing as the majority. NO SMOKING signs are blatant discrimination. No smoking means that smokers aren't welcome. so neither is their money. In my game store I have people who buy just a small item. WHY? because I allow smoking in the shop. Just like when I was younger. You'd be surprised at how many people enjoy that freedom. More information on smokers rights and oppressive laws can be found in the Smokers advocate, through Phiilip Morris co.