Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[cruisinMike]

BTW, a little research and I found the link to where the suit over the EPA study was overturned. Wonder if the poster who said he'd found it read it? It was not overturned because it the judge was wrong about the manipulation of the science/data. It was overturned on procedural grounds. I had a feeling because an appellate court can not overturn a decision based on their interpretation of the facts - the trial court is the trier-of-fact. An appellate court can only overturn a trial courts decision based on procedural error (error of law) or abuse of judicial power.

 

The EPA based their appeal on the court not having legal rights to review the agency report - that the tobacco companies had no legal right to challenge it in court - that the EPA complied with the Radon Act in appointing a tobacco industry member on an advisory committee - that if even if they didn't it was harmless error - that the judge shouldn't have been looking closely at the data used to form the EPA conclusions.

 

Basically - my opinion here - they based their appeal on "nobody but us should be looking at the study and nobody should be allowed to challenge what we tell them"

 

So, to boil it down - the federal court decision (Osteen) was not overturned because the judge was wrong about the data being manipulated - it was overturned on technicalities of procedure and standing.

 

Oh lord, I guess your disinformation knows no bounds. Yes I read it and you should try to understand it as well as the WHO study as well as subsequernt studies since 1998. Allie, I do feel sorry for you. Have a great life. Discussing this further with you has no merit and I feel secure in knowing that with folks like you as smoker's advocates, the non-smoking position is in good hands.

[beachdogboarder]

Interesting but not at all surprising

 

 

http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2004/study-smoking-causes-brain.html

[beachdogboarder]

not at all shocking

 

http://puzzles.about.com/b/2004/12/17/smoking-damages-iq.htm

[beachdogboarder]

Talk about reducing quality of life

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070727153458.htm

[crt37]

Congrats to the state of Iowa. Smoke free as of today!!! Here's the link:

 

http://www.iowasmokefreeair.gov/

 

Smokers continue to get painted into a smaller and smaller corner all the time. Great news for those who want to breathe smoke-free air and not have their right to do so trampled by smokers. A happy day for Iowa.:)

[crt37]

Oh lord, I guess your disinformation knows no bounds. Yes I read it and you should try to understand it as well as the WHO study as well as subsequernt studies since 1998. Allie, I do feel sorry for you. Have a great life. Discussing this further with you has no merit and I feel secure in knowing that with folks like you as smoker's advocates, the non-smoking position is in good hands.

 

It's probably best just to ignore her. She craves attention, witness her 100+ posts on this single thread. Her credibility was shot over 100 posts ago and she still goes on and on and on like the Energizer bunny. Her best ammo is 10 year old studies that have been refuted.

 

LOL though. You're right that if somehow she could be elevated to the spokesperson for smokers advocates, the limits on smokers would probably accelerate!:D

[crt37]

Wow. That was good timing. You have a personal story that totally

refutes the prior persons story. Your story actually covers every point

of the other one but supports your view. You have someone close to you. They are going to die of cancer. They smoked all their life. They happened to have been asked was it worth it ? She responded that it

certainly was. As the topper she only wants to be in a place she

can spend her last few days smoking. What are the odds of that

happening virtually in the middle of your debate project ?

 

HAHAHA!:D What a coincidence, huh.:rolleyes:

[happyshelly]

All i can say again is WOW!!!!!!!!

[vlngirl]

Wow. I'm fairly new to cc and hadn't read this kind of thread before. As a smoker, I'll just say this: just got back from Vision of the Seas, and had no issue being resigned to a few areas to smoke. As long as there is somewhere I can go to have a smoke here and there, that's all I really care about. I wouldn't have wanted to smoke in my room, and I didn't need anywhere inside, particularly as the weather was quite lovely.

 

I understand some people's frustration, but hey, I'm addicted, quitting is really tough, and buying tobacco products is legal...so let us smoke somewhere! And most smokers I know try to be respectful of non smokers. I know I do. I wouldn't think of smoking somewhere that it wasn't allowed. I wouldn't take a cruise that was entirely non smoking, but would continue to cruise on any ship that had at least one (preferably two, perhaps upper and lower deck) place to smoke. Or maybe by then I'll have quit :)

[Gonzo70]

It's probably best just to ignore her. She craves attention, witness her 100+ posts on this single thread.

 

122 & Counting :D

[usha]

Today one of my closest friends - a very rabid anti-smoker - called to say he had to bow out of a planned trip with me and my SO in a few weekends. His wife had to rush to Long Island because her mother, who just went through chemo and radiation a few months ago is sick again - the cancer is back - and she was admitted to the hospital. She's 80 years old. She still smokes - and wanted out of the hospital because she hated it, and because she couldn't smoke there. My rabid friend? He IS the type to get right in your face and ask "was it worth it?" - and has asked his mother in law (and all his sister in laws too) - and she told him yes - it was worth it - she lived 80 good years - and if they would just leave her alone and let her die in peace the last few weeks would be good too. They brought her home - called in hospice - and she's a happy woman for her remaining days.

 

So though I respect your mother's feelings that it wasn't worth it, not every smoker - nor every smoker that gets lung cancer - feels the same Many feel that living their lives doing what they want and like is much better than a longer lifetime of not doing what they want.

How sad; how VERY sad.

And this just goes to show how a person who's addicted to something is willing to die for it. How sad, indeed.:(

[startwin]

How sad; how VERY sad.

And this just goes to show how a person who's addicted to something is willing to die for it. How sad, indeed.:(

 

Can you imagine the feelings - and yes, anger - of her children and grandchildren, that she was so addicted to cigarettes that her abiding thoughts were about smoking to the end. And thereby ending her life early. That really is very, very sad. She thought more of smoking than of her family. Addiction is dreadful.

[Captain Jake]

Scary Eh? Thanks crt37 for your great attachments-------------BT

[abcten]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllieInMD

Today one of my closest friends - a very rabid anti-smoker - called to say he had to bow out of a planned trip with me and my SO in a few weekends. His wife had to rush to Long Island because her mother, who just went through chemo and radiation a few months ago is sick again - the cancer is back - and she was admitted to the hospital. She's 80 years old. She still smokes - and wanted out of the hospital because she hated it, and because she couldn't smoke there. My rabid friend? He IS the type to get right in your face and ask "was it worth it?" - and has asked his mother in law (and all his sister in laws too) - and she told him yes - it was worth it - she lived 80 good years - and if they would just leave her alone and let her die in peace the last few weeks would be good too. They brought her home - called in hospice - and she's a happy woman for her remaining days.

 

So though I respect your mother's feelings that it wasn't worth it, not

every smoker - nor every smoker that gets lung cancer - feels the same Many feel that living their lives doing what they want and like is much better than a longer lifetime of not doing what they want.

 

 

Wow. That was good timing. You have a personal story that totally

refutes the prior persons story. Your story actually covers every point

of the other one but supports your view. You have someone close to you. They are going to die of cancer. They smoked all their life. They happened to have been asked was it worth it ? She responded that it

certainly was. As the topper she only wants to be in a place she

can spend her last few days smoking. What are the odds of that

happening virtually in the middle of your debate project ?

 

Mark, many thanks for exposing Allie as a fraud. How pathetic. I actually had missed her little made up story since I have stopped reading her posts.

[FrancescaH]

That's what I said - it was about cardio vascular - not lung cancer and SHS - which is what this thread has been about - and the data and science I've provided is about. I freely admitted in response to your first post that I haven't researched cardio vascular. So, in essence you just restated what I said - it's about a diff topic than what I've been discussing and providing data on. You're trying desperately to call me out on a topic I've never discussed here :) If/when I have time to research the cardio vascular effects of SHS and become educated on it we can discuss it if you like.

 

 

Silly me, I thought this thread was about smoking rules for RCCL ships and was sidetracked, mainly by you I might add, to the discussion of scientific evidence showing whether or not second hand smoke was bad for the non-smokers. I had no clue that the only organ in my body that matters in terms of smoking are my lungs. I guess I was wrong then to bring it up!

[abcten]

Scary Eh? Thanks crt37 for your great attachments-------------BT

 

I really like those attachments as well, crt37. I 've saved many of them in my computer for future use. Keep them coming.:) The pictures are a bit small but if you click on them with your mouse it enlarges them and they are easier to see and read.

 

Everyone probably has their favorites. My 3 favorite are:

1) the one showing the smokers all huddled together smoking in Malboro Country.

2) The dried up wrinkled hag that is smoking

3) the picture of the baby and the second hand smoke...to highlight and emphasize the cruelty of smokers and their second hand smoke.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Do you think she may just be some 16yo kid out to stir things up.

 

I don't think any adult would really act like she does.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Oh lord, I guess your disinformation knows no bounds. Yes I read it and you should try to understand it as well as the WHO study as well as subsequernt studies since 1998. Allie, I do feel sorry for you. Have a great life. Discussing this further with you has no merit and I feel secure in knowing that with folks like you as smoker's advocates, the non-smoking position is in good hands.

 

You right. If you respond to her she will just post again:mad:

[cruisinMike]

Do you think she may just be some 16yo kid out to stir things up.

 

I don't think any adult would really act like she does.

 

Not sure about that but she does parrot just about every tobacco or tobacco friendly website there is. Her posts are pretty much verbatim from these sites including the disinformation associated with the WHO, the misinformation in the abstrat on the WHO, refuting of the Appeals Court decision to reverse Olsteen (something she wasn't even aware of), and the multitude of refuted points she has tried to make. Her stated intention is to be a smoker's advocate and it appears she has finally found sites on the web that can be copied and pasted (without having to think about it). She has relied on disinformation from 10 years ago and is unwilling to "educate" herself on more recent information concerning SHS.

 

Quite honestly, her rants won't change the prevailing change in the wind. I'm sure we can all look forward to her rants again sometime today to answer every single post in this thread. However any credibility she could have had with me (and believe me there was not much I could find to begin with) went out the window with her post about the friend's, was it grandmother, who just wanted to go home and smoke in peace.

[abcten]

Not sure about that but she does parrot just about every tobacco or tobacco friendly website there is. Her posts are pretty much verbatim from these sites including the disinformation associated with the WHO, the misinformation in the abstrat on the WHO, refuting of the Appeals Court decision to reverse Olsteen (something she wasn't even aware of), and the multitude of refuted points she has tried to make. Her stated intention is to be a smoker's advocate and it appears she has finally found sites on the web that can be copied and pasted (without having to think about it). She has relied on disinformation from 10 years ago and is unwilling to "educate" herself on more recent information concerning SHS.

 

Quite honestly, her rants won't change the prevailing change in the wind. I'm sure we can all look forward to her rants again sometime today to answer every single post in this thread. However any credibility she could have had with me (and believe me there was not much I could find to begin with) went out the window with her post about the friend's, was it grandmother, who just wanted to go home and smoke in peace.

 

Indeed. It's ironic. She has become a mouthpiece and pawn for the very same companies that got her and millions of others hooked on tobacco. These tobacco companies hook addicts and slowly kill them with their tobacco products. She supports the tobacco companies not only with her money in buying their products but with her misinformation campaign. Maybe the tobacco companies will build a statue of her (coughing and hacking, of course) on their campus honoring her as a true hero of tobacco.