BS: passive drinking?

Subject: BS: passive drinking?
From: GUEST,Mike Morris
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:16 AM

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/brunowaterfield/april/passivedrinkingguilt.htm#comments

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a pint glass forever . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:46 AM

Sheesh... soon they'll outlaw sex.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 03:15 AM

I thought they alread had.

[Maybe that's just in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas?]

John

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:27 PM

You mean *gasp*, I was breaking the law in Kansas for 20 years?

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 01:58 PM

Here's the link , I really don't know anything about the author.

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Morticia
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM

Forgive me for stating the obvious but wasn't this tried in the united states in the twenties with a spectacular lack of success?

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 03:16 PM

No, you could drink all you wanted. It even spawned entire new industries: the Mob, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

Haven't you noticed that with all the anti-smoking blather that arrives nearly every day, there has not been a single actual peer-reviewed scientific report containing disclosure of test methods, subjects, analysis, or any other information that competent persons might use to assess whether the "testing" that's reported actually was done, or if the "conclusions" stated have any validity - for about 5 or 10 years.

All that's published is "The CDC reports that anyone on the planet who smokes a cigarette will make you die."

Alternated with "The DOH reports that anyone on the planet who smokes a cigarette will make you die yesterday."

The absence of any examination of conflicting interpretations is an ABSOLUTE proof of politics rather than science.

"The abject failure of ... scholarship in the Office of ... analysis of ... suggests that what mattered was not that the reasoning was sound, or that the research was comprehensive, but that it delivered what the Bush administration wanted," Whitehouse said.

Ok, so the statement by Sen Whitehouse was on a different subject, and he is a Democrat, but the conclusion can be safely applied to anything published by any US Federal Agency or based on any "research" sponsered by any US Federal funding within approximately the last decade.

March 9 2006 Congress passed a law: Justice Department officials must give reports to Congress by certain dates on how the FBI is using the USA Patriot Act to search homes and secretly seize papers.
Bush's signing statement: The president can order Justice Department officials to withhold any information from Congress if he decides it could impair national security or executive branch operations.

Dec. 30 2006, Congress passed a law: When requested, scientific information ''prepared by government researchers and scientists shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay."
Bush's signing statement: The president can tell researchers to withhold any information from Congress if he decides its disclosure could impair foreign relations, national security, or the workings of the executive branch.

Aug. 8 2006 Congress passed a law: The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors may not fire or otherwise punish an employee whistle-blower who tells Congress about possible wrongdoing.
Bush's signing statement: The president or his appointees will determine whether employees of the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can give information to Congress.

Scientific credibility for ANYTHING BEARING A US FEDERAL ASSOCIATION has been at ZERO (or lower) since the current administration took its place. No comment on other kinds of (mis)information people seem to accept.

Just as it doesn't seem to matter to anti-smokers, it likely won't matter to anti-drinkers. If Bush¹ (as surrogate for Cheney?) gives permission to hate something, the hatred will blossom.

¹ It should be noted though that both the anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns, and particularly the villification of "second hand effects," do have origins in UN and NATO "committees" that may predate the US decision that they're fine ideas for keeping the ignorant occupied.

John

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: skipy
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:22 PM

What about "passive folk music & song" is that doing any harm?
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 06:25 PM

Only to the ears of rock enthusiasts, Skipy.

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Gurney
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 03:43 AM

Passive DRINKING? Is this like the brewery worker who drowned in the vat of beer?









"Was it quick?"   "Well, no. He got out to go to the lavatory twice."




I'd read the article, but it took too long to develop.

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Escapee
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 09:46 AM

I'll give up my Guinness when they pry it from my cold dead hands.
SKP

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Alice
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 10:58 AM

From the World Health Organization web site, peer review international research done previous to the Bush administration.

--
In February 1998, according to usual scientific practice, a paper reporting the main study results was sent to a reputable scientific journal for consideration and peer review. That is why the full report is not yet publicly available. Under the circumstances, however, the authors of the study have agreed to make an abstract of the report available to the media.

"It is extremely important to note that the results of this study are consistent with the results of major scientific reviews of this question published during 1997 by the government of Australia, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California", said Neil Collishaw, Acting Chief of WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit in Geneva. "A major meta-analysis of passive smoking and lung cancer was also published in the British Medical Journal in 1997. From these and other previous reviews of the scientific evidence emerges a clear global scientific consensus — passive smoking does cause lung cancer and other diseases", he concluded.

"IARC is proud of the careful scientific work done by the European scientific team responsible for this study", commented Dr Paul Kleihues, the Agency's director. "We are very concerned about the false and misleading statements recently published in the mass media. It is no coincidence that this misinformation originally appeared in the British press just before the No-Tobacco Day in the United Kingdom and the scheduled publication of the report of the British Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health".

Further information on the health effects of passive smoking is available in WHO's Advisory Kit for World No-Tobacco Day 1998 on the World Wide Web at www.who.ch/ntday, as well as from WHO's Tobacco or Health Unit, Programme on Substance Abuse.

For further information, journalists can contact Igor Rozov, Health Communications and Public Relations WHO, Geneva. Telephone [phone]. Fax [phone]. E-mail [e-mail] or Dr Rodolfo Saracci, IARC, Lyon, France, e-mail [e-mail]

All WHO Press Releases, Fact Sheets and Features as well as other information on this subject can be obtained on Internet on the WHO home page http://www.who.ch/

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:06 AM

I'll give up my cold dead hands when they pry them from around my bottle of single malt!

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:12 AM

The next threat is passive breathing. I inhale air and remove the oxygen, replacing it with carbon dioxide. You have to breathe my used carbon dioxide.

This would not be so terrible EXCEPT that winds blow from West to East (usually). Therefore everyone in England, for example, getting less oxygen because all of their air has been depleted of oxygen by Americans and Canadians (Mexico, Central and South American are in too low a latitude to affect the UK, but they DO affect other places).

The UK is suffering from anoxia, and I for one REFUSE to give up breathing just because some Limeys are gasping for breath! I have enough trouble with the halitosis that wafts into Idaho from Portland and Seattle!

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:20 AM

Most people drink in a responsible manner. When they don't - throw them in jail. I'm in favor of far stricter sentences and heavy fines for drunk drivers.

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:35 AM

.................& then there's passive flatulence!


AAAAAAAAArrgggggggghhhhhhhh!

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:02 PM

I think it's a bit ironic when governments which are partially financed by tobacco taxes, alcohol taxes, and proceeds from legal gambling seek to change the very behaviors which are major sources of their own revenue streams. They should be begging us to smoke, drink and gamble!

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM

I'm amazed that we're not supposed to bring flamible liquids on board an airplane. Until the airline wants to sell us one that is.....

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 04:47 PM

Is this the first step toward the introduction of synthohol made by Merck Phamaceutical?

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Apr 08 - 11:41 PM

Well, all I can say is that I'm danged glad my grandpa left us his still!

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Apr 08 - 10:21 PM

Thought this was a joke - till I saw FAS, Drunk Driving, etc - so it DOES make sense...

Subject: RE: BS: passive drinking?
From: topical tom
Date: 23 Apr 08 - 05:37 PM

The solution would appear to be simple. The powers that be wish us to always drink alone.