Give parents who smoke night in jail
Artikel in de Orlando Sentinel (Florida)
Audrey, de New Yorkse activiste, reageerde op dit artikel:
Mr. Thomas,
You are obviously completely duped, misinformed and entirely out of the drug culture loop (at
least one can believe you haven't been around drugs or pot).
Most of your premise for this article is based on your belief of what a "shotgun" is. The pot
heads of America are laughing at you at this moment. A "shotgun" is received when the giver puts his
mouth almost completely flush with the recipient's mouth, holding the lit marijuana cigarette
backwards in his mouth and blows outward on the cigarette into the recipient's mouth Is this what
you witnessed the parent doing? I didn't think so. Not that technicalities such as this means
anything to you, I'm sure. You still think the child is being abused.
As for everything else you related in this article... it most certainly is anti-smoking
propaganda and has NO basis in fact. Doctors are killing people at the rate of at least 40,000 a
year due to medical errors but they inform you about smoking around children, which might as well
rank up there with acting because they are reading off of a script provided to them, and you react
as if their words are god-like. Problem is, their script was written by a bunch of fanatics who hate
the act of smoking so much they lie about anything to do with it just to try to wipe it off the face
of the earth. Did you know that the American leader in the anti-smoking campaign who has produced
many of the secondhand smoke studies has nothing more than a PhD in Mechanical Engineering? He's
helped write those scripts the doctor rattles off to you. See now, so instead of "the doctor told me
so" you can puff out your superior feeling chest and say "the Engineer told me so." I hope you feel
as good about that.
As for "poisoning" your child... the dose makes the poison. You've been fed a bunch of junk and
you swallow it whole. Next time you decide to barbeque because it's fun for the family, allow me to
be the first to call the police on you, according to your plan. Burning a 10 lb. bag of charcoal is
equivalent to the smoke constituents in 160 cigarettes.
Don't use charcoal? Have one of those fancy gas grills? (Me too). Not so fast... Research shows
that barbequing at high heat creates cancer causing compounds called polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). PAHs are formed on the charred parts of food and in the smoke from the dripping juices and
fat. PAHs are mutagens. Let's not leave out heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs) which also form when
grilling or broiling meats indoors. This has just been added to the cancer risk list. You're not
cooking meat inside too, are you?! Please, someone hand me the handcuffs.
Okay, let's be reasonable. Children haven't in the past and are not now keeling over at the
family barbeque or on the kitchen floor. Why?
Because THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON. But don't let those PETA people near your house because they
have "medical fact" that you are poisoning your child and they'll have you hauled away faster than
you can say "secondhand smoke."
I know you don't get it because you're driven by bias. You hate cigarettes and those who smoke
them. We can't let a simple thing like research on your part get in the way of your discrimination.
Then you'd have to admit that you're a criminal too.
HE WROTE BACK:
Aurdrey, as I sit here thumbing through countless articles from around the world about the
effects of smoking on children, including studies from Harvard, Univ of Arizona, the top children's
hospitals in the nation, all ofit published in ever peer-reviewed journal known to medicine, it
convinces me that delusional does not come close to describing you people.
Audrey WROTE BACK:
Mr. Thomas,
Please cite me just one source from your countless articles that has even conducted a study on
the effects of secondhand smoke OUTDOORS. And remember, indoor air studies and outdoor air studies
are not interchangeable.
As for your "countless" articles, you seem to be unaware that a majority of them are recycled
information from a handful of statistically insignificant studies. That is called meta-analysis.
Were you aware that the EPA report of 1992 that started all of this has been vacated and invalidated
by a federal court judge? Were you aware that the Congressional Research Service, an arm of
Congress, supported the judge's conclusions? Were you aware that there are leaders in science who
feel as you do about smoking and will manipulate the studies in order to reach the conclusion they
seek, thereby making smoking a pariah? Were you aware that in epidemiology there is a standard by
which they judge statistical significance? That standard is finding at least a relative risk of 3.0
or better. Were you aware that research on milk reached a higher relative risk for lung cancer than
secondhand smoke but they dismissed the findings as statistically insignificant? Were you aware that
there are many scientists that do not agree that SHS poses a risk to the nonsmoker? And no, they are
not on the tobacco cartel payroll.
Mr Thomas, you can read all the articles you want and simply repeat them,
OR
you can actually learn about the science used and investigate all sides of the issue. Someone who
is ignorant has no business calling anyone delusional. Especially when you did not (were unable to?)
address the previous comparative examples I provided.
According to your level of investigation, I suppose the world is really flat and there actually
were witches in Salem because the esteemed said so.
HE WROTE BACK:
As I said, delusional.
----------------------------------------------
And this guy gets paid for this??
| 
Zend
deze pagina naar een vriend