Doctor debunks the anti-smoking data and other legislative nonsense...
|I heard Dennis mention this article yesterday and interview the doctor who wrote it today. Dr. Gio Batta Gori is a renown epidemiologist and toxicologist and for whatever reason, the WaPo decided to publish his piece.|
Here's a snippet...
So we're basing scientific studies and are forming public policy on nothing more than anecdotal assumptions? Great. One thing to note here is that no one is saying second hand smoke isn't unhealthy, all we're questioning is how unhealthy. Is it worth the panic that the prohibitionist anti-smoking zealots have caused?
The answer there is an emphatic no. The risk of cancer due to second hand smoke is largely exaggerated. There's no reason to ban smoking outdoors as several SoCal cities have done. There's no reason to force privately owned businesses to prohibit smoking.
It kind of makes you wonder what else are scientists with agendas lying about... Global warming perhaps? Is global warming really humanity's fault? They talk all about CO2 emissions, but fail to note that over the last century as temperatures have increased, during that same period CO2 emissions have dropped. Maybe those scientists are using the same computer models that back in the 70's were predicting a global freeze or reports that had us running out of landfill space by 2000 due to the overwhelming amount of garbage we produce. That's the best part about liberal agendas... you can talk and talk and talk, throwing out opinions as if they were facts and never be held accountable to them by the MSM. It must be nice.
And then in the name of energy conservation, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced a bill that would ban incandescent light bulbs... You know up until now, I'd thought the banning trans fats in restaurants was the dumbest piece of legislation going. Levine's bill is completely f*cking retarded. If you want people to buy florescent bulbs because they're more energy effficient, you don't start by banning he competition, you make the alternative more attractive. Pass tax breaks for the manufacturers and tax incentives for the consumer. You don't make light bulbs illegal.
It's like California (and the rest of the country for that matter now that the Dems are in charge) is being manhandled and driven right off a cliff by a bunch of 2 year olds in the Democratic party. And dumb 2 year olds at that! "We don't like this... ban it! This makes us feel bad... ban it! Personal responsibility and a free market system? Rubbish! We know what's best for everybody!"
What a bunch of crap.