How long does it take someone who gets occasional whiffs of smoke in the great outdoors to die?



1915 No smoking sign - Note how the lady posed in front
of the sign while holding a cigarette in each hand



Not content to have implemented smoking bans in beaches in Vancouver, there is now talk from one City Council that they will ban it in parks because ‘’ Second-hand smoke is a known health hazard, even outdoors, and so banning smoking in parks would help protect children and others from being exposed’’.  

It takes about 20 years, if ever, for a heavy smoker to develop a disease suspected to be caused by smoking. This is why the Center For Disease Control SAMMEC software does not compute any ‘’smoking related’’ morbidity and mortality that occurs before the age of 35 in their computer generated estimates.  How long then does it take someone who gets occasional whiffs of thousands of times diluted smoke in the great outdoors to get seriously sick and die?   Five hundred, a thousand, a million years?  How can outdoor smoking ban proponents insult our intelligence when claiming that breathing tobacco in the outdoors is a health hazard?  They must really think we are idiots!  

And what's this about banning all tobacco products? Are they telling us that smokeless tobacco can also hurt the kiddies in the great outdoors? Naturally there is no talk about banning  pharma nicotine inhalers, patches, gum and lozenges.  Doesn’t nicotine come primarily from tobacco? Aren’t then these pharmaceutical nicotine products much like the smokeless tobacco products they consider banning?  In the face of such incoherency, we can rightfully wonder what ''incentives'' this City Council gets from Big Pharma to consider such absurd ordinances. 

If some people still can't see that smoke-free laws never had anything to do with harming bystanders and everything to do with making Big Pharma even richer, they'll never see it.  If more people don’t wake up, God help us all when they start getting even more aggressive against obesity in a concerted effort to push their wares down our and our children’s throats.  Andrew Phillips has recently written an article in his blog on how medicine is now seriously suspected to be responsible for the rising obesity rates.  You can read it here:  Antibiotics, Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, and the Rise of Obesity

City council weighs outlawing tobacco in parks

HOW LOW CAN YOU GO!

We have exposed in the past about how lowering the permissible BMI (Body Mass Index) levels creates millions of obese people overnight resulting in world-wide claims that there is a severe obesity pandemic. The perfect example of this ‘’obesity by definition’’ phenomenon is a new release from Indian health authorities who have recently adopted their very own norms that establish what makes a person fat. Indeed, while the WHO and many western countries lowered their BMI norms a few years ago from 27 to 25 thus creating millions of obese people across the world, in India they have adopted a BMI norm to be a further 2 points lower than the international level! The result of a 23 BMI norm, as per the article we link to below, is that the new parameters will bring millions of Indian citizens within the bracket of obesity. Reading about an obesity epidemic in the Indian and international papers should be forthcoming shortly since the table has now been perfectly set for the media to go ahead with the anti-obesity propaganda force-feeding. A few extra millions of obese citizens, are not a negligible customer base that can and will surely yield handsome dividends for the Big Pharma shareholders in their anti-obesity drug marketing.

What is further amazing is the way they’re selling these new low standards to the public. The explanation from public health, endorsed by several doctors, is that Indian people tend to be fatter around the waist, therefore a lower BMI target would most certainly be beneficial to their health. However, medical authorities if we can still trust them, seem to now agree that abdominal fat as in an apple shaped individual is a more significant risk for metabolic syndrome that can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular disease, than a pear shaped person. One can’t help wonder then, how targeting a lower general BMI will help a person that genetically carries much of his extra weight around the abdomen as it seems to be the case for men and a good number of women. If a person with for example a 23 ‘’ideal’’ BMI has slim members and a slim top but fat abdomen, how can public health claim that that person is at less risk than a person that has a 27 BMI but is well distributed across his body with no significant abdominal fat? One would think that the reporters would ask such pertinent questions of the medical authorities. Of course that would be too much to expect from today’s reporters!

Revised BMI puts more in obesity bracket