Comments on: Smoke Free Is Good, But Compromise Is Better

By: Is Smoke Free Indy Playing with Fire? | Indiana Barrister

Is Smoke Free Indy Playing with Fire? | Indiana Barrister — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:01:15 +0000

[...] under a rock you know I am not a big fan of expanding the current Indianapolis smoking ban because, like 81-percent of the rest of Marion County, I think the current compromise works just fine. Adults can [...]

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:26:07 +0000

Paul – you’re right – I wouldn’t equate the two, but neither would I recommend playing with a .22 calibre pistol just because it’s not nearly as effective as .50 calibre. Both can be deadly.

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:54:40 +0000

Shorebreak,

I’ll look at the website you provide. However, I would note that I have looked at many. I have never found a credible, scientific source that said asparamente is a health hazard. You make it sound like that it is only industry studies saying asparamente is not dangerous. That is not true. Certainly you wouldn’t equate drinking a diet coke with smoking a cigarette.

By: Think Again

Think Again — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:43:30 +0000

Lindsay: I meant we’ll have a total ban within that timeframe.

By: Lindsay

Lindsay — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:00:11 +0000

I couldn’t agree with Think Again’s last statement, “In ten years we’ll look back and wonder what the fuss was about.” It’s sad when Elkart, Franklin and Hancock County (to name a few) all have comprehensive laws but the “big city” does not. It’s shocking for people to visit here from the 25 other states that are smoke free and they go, “wow, you can still smoke inside workplaces in Indianapolis?”
Secondhand smoke is a legitimate health hazard and the government has an obligation to regulate it. I can’t wait until that day!

By: Think Again

Think Again — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:40:21 +0000

Paul: please don’t pout words in my mouth.

It is a completely reasonable conclusion, that when businesses obtain government approval for operation, i.e. liquor license, zoning laws, health laws, that the appropriate agencies with jurisdiction can and should intervene when the evidence is overwhelming.

It’s really not a huge leap. Smoke is dangerous, to workers and patrons. It is the result of a completely active choice made by patrons. It is not the result of something oozing out of the walls in a passive manner.

In fact, it is not beyond reason to argue that is is the obligation of the appropriate govt. agencies to mitigate public health issues which they can reasonably address. It’s not overreaching by government. It’s their job when something this clearly causes harm. Some things are harder to track down…but this one really is a no-brainer. It’s not about the bar owner’s “right” to allow smoking when smoking so clearly damages lungs. It’s something we can change and should. And we will.

Old habits die hard. In ten years we’ll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:38:22 +0000

Paul, I’m not buying that. First, let’s look at industry studies of Apspartame. We immediately know that there’s bias when we see that 100% of Serle sponsored studies (74 studies in total) show no harmful effects, yet 92% of independent studies (total of 92 iindependent studies) show harmful effects.
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
.
So we know right away that the aspartame folks are hiding things. If there’s nothing wrong, why is there such disparity between industry sponsored results and independent results? Of all people, I would expect you to have the skills to recognize the disparity and understand that a deeper level of scrutiny is required.
.
Take a look at this independent study, published in March 2006. Read the blue highlighted section – it’s a two minute read. It concludes with the following:
“The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake. On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.”
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/8711/8711.pdf

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:55:00 +0000

I would note there was some medical evidence asparatame can cause cancer, but only in extremely large quantities that no human being could ever consume. Equating drinking a diet coke with smoking is a stretch to say the least.

By: Paul K. Ogden

Paul K. Ogden — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:45:16 +0000

I’m sorry Shorebreak…when credible sources actually come forward and call aspartame a “killer” and provide some scientific proof, I might be inclined to consider it. Until then there is no way I’m putting asparatame on the same level as nicotine.

I’ve looked into the claim that asparateme is a health danger and never could find any credible source to confirm that. At the best (or worst), I’ve seen some documentation that it may actually cause you to crave sweets more thus offsetting the zero calorie nature of the product. But even that is not a health danger and certainly does not make it a killer.

By: Shorebreak

Shorebreak — Thu, 14 May 2009 13:44:30 +0000

The Smoke Free Indy folks are either pushing a politically motivated agenda, or their simply ignorant.
.
Why?
.
Because while they complain about the effects of second hand smoke, they ignore the fact that nearly every single business that serves snacks or beverages is serving food that’s filled with aspartame – a known killer. They’ll finish their campaign, pat each other on the back and say “Mission accomplished”. And when they leave, customers will continue ordering Diet Cokes, filling themselves with known carcinogens.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/