[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Go Smokefree and Christophe Elson, Steven George. Steven George said: Smoking in Missouri Legislative Offices May be Challenged: (KMOX) – A federal complaint has been filed over the … http://bit.ly/fAZY8L [...]

I can’t visit my Reps because I have a pet dander allergy – Is there a way to file a complaint to ban representatives that have pets?

This is great. I have a peanut allergy and would like to make a law curtailing representatives from consuming peanuts before they meet with their constituents. Might someone refer me to a lawyer that will take up this action I’d like to file.

Judd is the same whiner who’d, along with Pam Lindsey, sued the Fenton Chrysler plant and the UAW in 2003 using the ADA. She lost.
Now she gets this Univ. city wuss, who’d gotten her rear kicked in a ban vote, and sic the Feds on them.
With leaders like this we’ll see the GOP taking more and more seats in General assembly.

In 2008 this paper was produced in America and concludes that nictotine and hence active smoking and passive smoking leads to less asthma. It also gives the aetiology (causation) why nicotine and the biologial process that reduces asthma in recipients.

The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE. ”

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abstract/180/11/7655

Asthma Death Rates Are Lower in States With Higher Rates of Smoking. The states of Utah and California, which have the lowest rates of smoking at 13.0 and 17.1 percent of adults respectively, are also among the states with the highest death rates from asthma. (Asthma Deaths, 2000; and: Smoking Among Adolescents, 2001, and Smoking Among Adults, 2001. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003 State Health Profiles, Atlanta, GA: US Deparment of Health and Human Services, 2003.

http://www.smokershistory.com/SmokAsth.gif

The EPA’s Sorry Status Report on Children and Asthma
“America’s Children and the Environment. Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses,” Second Edition, US EPA, Feb. 2003. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman boasts that “This report marks the progress we have made as a nation to reduce environmental risks faced by childen,” including “Implementing the Smoke-Free Home Pledge campaign, designed to protect millions of children from the risks of tobacco smoke at home.” On pdf p. 75, “Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995.” The graph on pdf page 67 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period.

http://www.epa.gov/opeedweb/children/publications/ace_2003.pdf

The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization…

This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization…

This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

Geez, Harley, after getting banned by so many message boards, you’d think you’d cool your boilerplate spamming just a tad. I guess being banned so many places (KC Star and Indianapolis Star are just the 2 latest) gives you more time to spam sites like KMOX. mntvernon’s another one. Without you spammers, this board would be 100% pro-smoking ban. As usual.

Can’t have that, can you?

Ahh! GeneO I thought you gave up after going bankrupt with the rest of tobacco control over there at the defunct tobacco.org website.

Did RWJF decide to give you nazis a stipend to hang on a few more months!

Or did you hit the road to do door to door nicorette sales now for J AND J!

I recommend a webcam in legislative offices. This is also the green solution, and will support legislator meetings with MOST disabled citizens, not just those with asthma.

Gene, yeesh how many boards do you spam with your failed tobacco control agenda that more and more people are starting to see through? Just know if anything, it is posters like YOU who should be banned from posting things that decry the VERY TRUTH harley posts, which at least do clearly point out that your side just uses any junk science study they can to push for more indoor and outdoor smoking bans.

Woohoo(not) for more idiotic politicians that call for selfishly banning smoking in a legislator’s office. Is the world coming to an end in federal government, because Congress and Senate members are permitted to smoke in their individual office if they wish? KISS(poster just above me) posted an extremely great idea in requiring all legislator’s offices to have webcams, so those sensitive to smoke can still talk live to their representative or senator. Why is it anyway that as our country’s smoking rate has declined in recent decades, asthma rates have gone up, and we continue to trail countries like Japan for the country’s average lifespan? Never mind Japan has a higher smoking rate, as well.

Our country for once needs to move on from always blindly adopting everything the hysterical anti-smoking agenda wants(including very selfish outdoor smoking bans, such as ones that I sometimes see colleges adopt), and for once, respecting the personal liberties of both non-smokers and smokers. If smoking affects a minute minority of people(and why should their rights supercede over everyone else?), then why can’t simple solutions like webcam meetings, and simple courtesy(like asking someone not to smoke, if it bothers another person enough) suffice on this issue? Breathing perfume makes it tough for many(though not myself, the smell of it is just annoying) to breathe, so why isn’t anything being done about that? Or factory pollution, etc? Bottom line: demonizing a minority to impose your preferences(just because you’re annoyed by the smell of cigarette smoke, and that’s totally fine to me that some don’t like the smell) over others(via smoking bans, and all other forms of anti-smoking legislation) is NOT right, and never will be.

They swore to uphold the Constitution, and they are massively violating it! The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers’ studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they’re cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
http://www.smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html

For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

I don’t know about whether this board would be 100% pro-ban. Just think about how frustrated Judd would be if she were trying to get a Red Hot Riplets out of the vending machine on the 4th floor, not exactly an ideal situation for asthmatics, either.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/01/20/bill-rekers-potato-chip-woes/

Ah, and now another spammer, Carol AS Thomson has chimed in with her dingbat boilerplate. These whackjobs spam because no one would ever pay any attention to them otherwise. They’re just lonely!

And MapReader, they don’t post “TRUTH” they post cherry-picked studies that fit their agenda. Notice how actual, real scientists _don’t_. Thus harleyrider can find studies he likes and ballyhoo them all over the internet, but real scientists and people interested in the “TRUTH” know science doesn’t work like that, and that you need a bevy of studies reproducing results, to come to a consensus.

And the consensus on secondhand smoke is it’s harmful. Read the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, which examines the literature to that time.

TRUTH” know science doesn’t work like that, and that you need a bevy of studies reproducing results, to come to a consensus.

reproducable results gene,anti-tobacco has never ever reproduced anything except that shs/ets is harmless

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute states “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states “An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable.” Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

Your garbage isn’t real science, because it’s based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection. That’s why the Surgeon General’s supposed “mechanism of tobacco carcinogenesis” is really caused by infection. And, all their so-called “independent” reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he’s now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That’s how they make their reports “unanimous!”

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.html

More linking from Carol, more copy/paste oh-so-scientifical nonsense from the high school dropout John Erkle.

–Your garbage isn’t real science, because it’s based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore infection

Wrong, carol. Straw man. Google cancer and infection, and you’ll get a plethora of sites that deal with infection as a cause of cancer. No nutjob conspiracy websites necessary. Nice re-promotion of your own site, by the way. The more links on normal sites, the more chances yours might show up on google, maybe as high as page 300,046! Do you think the mainstream sites you try to hijack won’t catch on to your PR and ban you even faster than they’ve banned harley?

Gene I aint been banned,and carol has a PHD behind her name,whats yours got

PROPERTY OF RWJF…………LMAO

how about this from the Indy Star:

8:34 AM on January 26, 2011

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

8:35 AM on January 26, 2011

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

8:51 AM on January 26, 2011

This comment was left by a user who has been blocked by our staff.

How do I know it’s you? Because of the next message:

semipublic

9:35 AM on January 26, 2011

Google “generalsn” and “harleyrider1778″ and “harleyrider1978″ and “harleyrider1976″ and you’ll see these paid shills posting pro-tobacco propaganda nationwide, and even overseas. . . .

How long are you going to allow your site to be used as a cesspool, Indianapolis Star?

Wasnt me gene I comment there all the time!

Sure it wasnt you!

Go tell your beloved Surgeon General to Google cancer and infection. All your anti-smoking reports pretend that those studies don’t exist. And you’re a liar for pretending that my site doesn’t link to studies on the National Library of Medicine. And you’re an ignoramus to believe that links to sites affect rankinga. Google hits make ranking – try sugeon general lies, that page has only been up since January, and it’s original work. And what do you mean, “hijack,” you slanderer? Do you think you could “hijack” the Surgeon General’s website by linking to it? And remember the reason we have to do this – because the mass media are censored by anti-smokers. It would be sooo nice to just sit back and let the Mighty Wurlitzer do it all for you, like you get to do.

>>carol has a PHD behind her name,whats yours got

Oh, No, tell me you didn’t play the education card?? Nice, from a high school dropout purporting to “correct” the entire medical and scientific communities(!)

Gene you have no clue what my education is,Graduated reitz high school evansville ind. Associatiates degree in electronics and need only 22 credits for bsee in electrical and eletronic engineering from floriduh a and m!

Whats your specialty besides propaganda and lies!

Aw, this was a really nice post. In thought I’d like to put in writing like that furthermore – taking time and actual attempt to produce a good write-up

I love it.

After a tirade about how all spam/hijack accusations are ignorance and lies, we get a flat-out admission of guilt, complete with feeble justification:

“And remember the reason we have to do this – because the mass media are censored by anti-smokers”

Perfect!