2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[PatrickHenry]

Personal experience says that a non-smoker cooped up in a closed environment with tobacco smoke is unhealthy. I get nauseous...

If a public environment has adequate ventilation and filters, I have some sympathy for the addicted...

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: We don't create the land, we use it, therefore, we do not have a right to private property. Your logic. My original question stands unanswered.

I say:
You certainly are twisting my words.... or not seeing the logic I expressed. Perhaps it was my explanation, so allow me to clarify.

Land, is property. Your body, is property. You have rights over property in this system of law as a basic, self-evident truth that is enumerated within the bill of rights and the Constitution of the United States, as well as most if not all State Constitutions.

Air, is not property. Air is "collective" property of the world, since without our atmosphere, we (none of us) would exist, nor would the material to provide our existence exist. You can't build a fence around air, but you can own "airspace", which is directly over "land", which is property.

There are rights to "airspace", but you can't physically own air without owning the property beneath it, since whatever you "contained" the air in would have to sit somewhere, wouldn't it?

Governments maintain rights to "airspace" above their nations, based on property rights and national soverignty. Isn't it odd that even communist and socialist nations "respect" the right to property when speaking of "their" airspace?

So, land is property. Air is not property. Airspace is dependent on property.

That, is the logic I adhere to, and the logic defined in our legal rights.

madprophet said: Your rhetorical gymnastics aside, clean air is defined as air devoid of human pollution.

I say:
Sorry, dander is pollution from a human or animal, is it not? Animals provide dander, just like humans. Do animals get to pollute the air, but humans can't? Is this not trying to defy nature?

madprophet said: And to suggest that we should do nothing about human pollution simply because natural pollution exists is nonsensical and, frankly, insane.

I say:
I didn't suggest that.

I suggested we adhere to property rights, and individual rights, AS IS THE LAW, when addressing the issue.

madprophet said: Mercury exists in nature, but you don't want it in your water, do you?

I say:
Are there mercury tests? Is there a way to filter mercury? I guess I have the power to prevent that then don't I? While I have no problem with public water and sewage, it should be voluntary compliance based on use (AS IT IS) in most places.

Your point?

madprophet said: Would you be bothered if they simply dumped radioactive waste on the street?

I say:
Would that waste constitute a danger to others NOT on the property, or contaminate groundwater? If so, there are laws to prevent that BASED on property rights. YOUR POINT?

madprohet said: In closing, I'd like to point out a misconception in your assumptions: No one is advocating the regulation of air, but of human pollution. It's a very subtle difference, I'm sure.

I say:
No, you totally have a problem with reading and comprehension.

I have no problem with the regulation of air quality in PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS (indoors), because indoors it can be shown that smoke can accumulate, and it does provide a "tangible risk" to people who have asthma, or breathing conditions affected by smoke of any kind.

I DO have a problem with the government AT ANY LEVEL interfering in the property rights of individual owners, which is exactly what these laws are doing. REMOVING the property rights of private property owners.

Is this clearer?

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: There is no factual, scientific argument that refutes the hazards of passive smoking. Period.

I say:
There is no test, EVER done to show CONCLUSIVELY, IRREFUTABLY, that any smoke is the SOLE contributor to ANY cancer, or illness.

Unless they are raising people from birth to death in a sealed pure container with filtered air, there is NO WAY to isolate testing to that degree of assurance.

Inhaling ANY type of pollutant, is harmful in some way. The harm is not so much the question as is the RIGHTS of ownership of property, and body.

If the property is owned, the owner has a right to keep you out at HIS discretion, and if it is a business, you have the right to NOT support his establishment if you "disagree" with his property compliance rules. (no shirt, no shoes, no service... or .... jacket and tie requirement... or... exclusive clubs.....or .... SMOKERS ONLY WELCOME)

You want to make this a health issue, and it isn't.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Rick He is repeating the propaganda purchased by Big Tobacco and calling those who don't buy it, nazis. The science behind the risks of second-hand smoke is solid, regardless of the Big Tobacco smoke screen.

I wasn't denying that second hand smoke can kill. I accept that it is harmful but I do not accept that this is a valid reason to ban smoking in private establishments.

Quote by: Rick And by the way, the personal "right" you refer to - the right to pollute the property of others, does not exist.

The right to pollute one's own property does exist and the right to allow others to pollute your property therefore also exists. A bar or restaurant is the private property of the owner and it should therefore be up to the owner to decide whether or not he wants his property polluted.

Quote by: Rick My lungs are a privately owned establishement.

And the bar or restaurant in which your lungs are polluted is in turn a privately owned establishment. You chose to enter an establishment which allows smoking and you therefore chose to pollute your lungs. If you get cancer from it, it is your own fault. You don't have the right to dictate the environment of a privately owned establishment. You don't like it, stay the hell away from it.

Quote by: Rick Basic libertarian environmental theory argues that you can pollute your own property if that is what you want, but that you are liable for damages if you pollute the property of others. Odd to hear so called libertarians arguing in favor of second-hand death as a "right."

Basic libertarian environment theory argues that you have a right to pollute your own environment and that you have the right to allow pollution of your own environment. Smoking in a bar is not polluting your environment; it is polluting the bar owner's environment, with the full consent of the bar owner. Again, you should have no say in the running of a private establishment.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Madprophet And since the Cato Institute is a major source of this anti-science bullshit you people are trying to pawn off as an argument (It's linked twice in the original post on this thread,) I took up your challenge and showed how the "Libertarian position" is compromised. There was nothing clumsy about it. Here, let me demonstrate again: Junkscience.Com, also linked twice in the original post, was founded and is run by Steve Milloy, who spent time as an actual flak for the Tobacco Industry at the PR firm APCO. As a lobbyist he also worked for the American Petroleum Institute, Dow Chemical, the International Food Additives Council, and FMC Corporation. He also happens to be an "adjunct scholar" at Cato. The site was funded from the very start by Philip Morris (who makes my brand of death sticks,) and run through a front group, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was eventually exposed. One, Two, Three, four and five. There are no arguments presented here, just bullshit pumped out by Industry goons to muddy a previously crystal clear subject in order to manipulate a bunch of retards who will believe anything with the words "personal rights" tacked on it. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: There is no factual, scientific argument that refutes the hazards of passive smoking. Period.

If you read my posts, you will notice that I have never denied that passive smoking is harmful. My libertarian position is therefore unrelated to that of Cato. My libertarian position, a true libertarian position, is that passive smoking is harmful, but that this is no reason to ban it in private establishments. If you choose to go to a smoking establishment, you are choosing to inhale smoke and therefore choosing to run the risk of health problems. You don't need fascist legislation to protect you; you need to take responsibility for your own actions, and to respect the rights of others to do what they want with their own environment.

[tinybear]

YouTube - Yul Brynner - Anti-Smoking Commercial

If ya can't believe this guy who can you believe?

[RickSp]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I wasn't denying that second hand smoke can kill. I accept that it is harmful but I do not accept that this is a valid reason to ban smoking in private establishments.

As that is not what this thread is about, you should be more clear about what you are responding to. The original thread starts with references to Goebbels while calling the dangers of second hand smoke a myth. Os chimed in with his own Nazi references, not surprisingly. Repeating bogus "science" pumped up by Big Tobacco is indeed flacking for Big Tobacco, whether or not the flacker has the wit to realize it.

As I noted before in a perfect world the government would have no role in regulating smoking in businesses open for public commerce and traffic. In a perfect world the government would also not provide subsidies to tobbacco farmers or engage in a myriad of other activities. In a perfect world, however, it is highly likely that insurance companies, not government regulators, would effectively impose a ban on smoking in publicly accessible bars and restaurants, so the outcome would not be so different, all posturing aside.

[madprophet]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Air, is not property. Air is "collective" property of the world, since without our atmosphere, we (none of us) would exist, nor would the material to provide our existence exist. You can't build a fence around air, but you can own "airspace", which is directly over "land", which is property.

If air is "collective" property, as you say, then government can and should "regulate it," as you say, for the collective good and as the chosen Representatives of the People. Which means, as much as you dislike it, placing limits on Industrial Wastes that Corporations want to spew into it, no matter how much the volcanoes contribute. It may also mean -- and I have not personally made up my mind on this, but you and Lullaby Chainer aren't persuading me at all here -- that the government can or should regulate indoor air as well.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready So, land is property. Air is not property.

As you have said, air IS property, it is not private property, it is public property. You said it, not me.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That, is the logic I adhere to, and the logic defined in our legal rights.

Maybe the problem is that your "logic" is convoluted and always formed to justify a pre-existing opinion.

And as the government does indeed regulate air pollution, said "logic" is not, in fact, "defined in our legal rights."

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Sorry, dander is pollution from a human or animal, is it not? Animals provide dander, just like humans. Do animals get to pollute the air, but humans can't? Is this not trying to defy nature?

Grasping at straws much? Animals exhale carbon, say no to Kyoto!

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I didn't suggest that. I suggested we adhere to property rights, and individual rights, AS IS THE LAW, when addressing the issue.

You're certainly doing a good impression. I quote:

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR, and if you think you do, tell me how much luck you have putting every single polluter OUT of business?

And:

All living things use and pollute the air. (cows, methane) How could any man, or government, assume some infitinte power to "regulate" the air?

Yup. Mighty fine impression.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Are there mercury tests? Is there a way to filter mercury? I guess I have the power to prevent that then don't I? While I have no problem with public water and sewage, it should be voluntary compliance based on use (AS IT IS) in most places.

Got it. Let the poor drink mercury.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Would that waste constitute a danger to others NOT on the property, or contaminate groundwater? If so, there are laws to prevent that BASED on property rights. YOUR POINT?

Okay, sorry, I should say, what if they dumped radioactive waste on their own "private" property. After all, the groundwater has to be either their private property or "collective" property, like air, and we both know what you think about regulating "collective" property like air.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, you totally have a problem with reading and comprehension.

Or perhaps you have a problem expressing coherent thoughts.

Have I mentioned yet that I'm on the fence? I like smoking in bars.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have no problem with the regulation of air quality in PUBLICLY OWNED BUILDINGS (indoors), because indoors it can be shown that smoke can accumulate, and it does provide a "tangible risk" to people who have asthma, or breathing conditions affected by smoke of any kind. I DO have a problem with the government AT ANY LEVEL interfering in the property rights of individual owners, which is exactly what these laws are doing. REMOVING the property rights of private property owners.

We've already established that air is public, "collective" property.

And were you not the one who brought up "volcanoes" and industrial polluters? You've made it clear so far that you don't believe the government should "regulate air" at all. So which is it?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Is this clearer?

You couldn't be less clear if you were singing "My Little Buttercup" and tap dancing to a Waltz.

By the way, is Lullaby Chainer your sock puppet?

[Osborn F Enready]

Rick said: Os chimed in with his own Nazi references, not surprisingly. Repeating bogus "science" pumped up by Big Tobacco is indeed flacking for Big Tobacco, whether or not the flacker has the wit to realize it.

I say:
All I said was thanks for the links Rick, aside from my usual accusations of big government ruining the justice system of our nation.

As far as the petty name-calling and labelling..... sticks and stones Rick, you show more of your ass than making any coherant point.

Rick said: As I noted before in a perfect world the government would have no role in regulating smoking in businesses open for public commerce and traffic. In a perfect world the government would also not provide subsidies to tobbacco farmers or engage in a myriad of other activities. In a perfect world, however, it is highly likely that insurance companies, not government regulators, would effectively impose a ban on smoking in publicly accessible bars and restaurants, so the outcome would not be so different, all posturing aside.

I say:
Yea, great reason to support authoritarian nanny-statism.....

Does this mean you are posturing or "flacking" for defeatists, who think we should just accept that we will never have constitutional justice again?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Rick As that is not what this thread is about, you should be more clear about what you are responding to. The original thread starts with references to Goebbels while calling the dangers of second hand smoke a myth. Os chimed in with his own Nazi references, not surprisingly. Repeating bogus "science" pumped up by Big Tobacco is indeed flacking for Big Tobacco, whether or not the flacker has the wit to realize it.

I was perfectly clear in what I was responding to:

Quote by: Me Quote by: Rick And my lungs are my property. You want to trash yours that is also your business, but leave my property alone. Since when was a privately owned establishment your property?

I quoted your property related statement; not the health related statements in the OP. It was you who started the debate over property rights with your statement that you lungs are your property. I simply responded to your post.

[madprophet]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy If you read my posts, you will notice that I have never denied that passive smoking is harmful. My libertarian position is therefore unrelated to that of Cato. My libertarian position, a true libertarian position, is that passive smoking is harmful, but that this is no reason to ban it in private establishments. If you choose to go to a smoking establishment, you are choosing to inhale smoke and therefore choosing to run the risk of health problems. You don't need fascist legislation to protect you; you need to take responsibility for your own actions, and to respect the rights of others to do what they want with their own environment.

You never made that distinction in your original challenge. The original question was whether or not a "Libertarian position" was influenced by Big Business or if it was just a coincidence. Let me quote your whole post:

The "libertarian position" is not about benefiting big business; it is about protecting the rights of everyone. It benefits big business, small businesses which are now in financial trouble because of smoking bans, smokers and even the non smokers who are too short sighted to see the gradual erosion of their personal freedoms. So what if it happens to coincide with big business interests? Unless you can argue that the integrity of the position is somehow compromised by this, it makes no difference.

As "second-hand smoke is a myth" is not only a "Libertarian position" in this thread, but also the title of this thread, and links were provided to Cato, the premier Libertarian Think-Tank, I showed that, yes, "Libertarian positions" are indeed comrpomised by their proximity to Big Business interests.

Only later did you add the qualifiers "my" and "real" to the term "Libertarian position." Your positions and the definition of "real libertarian" are irrelevant, both to the discussion of this reccuring "coincidence" and to both of my examples.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: madprophet You never made that distinction in your original challenge. The original question was whether or not a "Libertarian position" was influenced by Big Business or if it was just a coincidence.

The post which you challenged the libertarian position of was a post regarding my libertarian position. The position you challenged was therefore distinct from the position of Cato (see post 50).

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: that the government can or should regulate indoor air as well.

I say:
You selectively chose to disregard the rights to airspace above owned property, didn't you? Yes.

The rest of this argument can be summed up right there.

As for regulating indoor air? Tell me when I can come over and "approve" or "disaprove" your indoor air, imposing loss of property or expensive modifications or reparations for your lack of attention to the law.....

Let me see your papers, subject!

madprophet said: As you have said, air IS property, it is not private property, it is public property. You said it, not me.

I say:
And your lack of reading comprehension failed to note that the BUILDINGS contain air, and are "thereby enclosed" and they have a right to all that space encompasses. Lool up airspace rules for your area, to be exact, will you take the LAW BOOKS WORD?

madprophet said: Maybe the problem is that your "logic" is convoluted and always formed to justify a pre-existing opinion.

I say:
Show me using logic, where I am wrong?

madprophet said: And as the government does indeed regulate air pollution, said "logic" is not, in fact, "defined in our legal rights."

I say:
All law is not legal. Bad laws are made and passed everyday, and it is the test of time, public acceptance, judicial review and PUBLIC DEMAND that dictate the outcome.

It is much easier to create and pass bad law in todays system, as well as much harder to remove bad law, mainly due to bi-partisan control of all elected and appointed seats. They pass laws that help keep them in power, and the only time those laws are removed are when people demand it if they slip past judicial review.

For an example of that, look at how sponsorship and media coverage of debates is "arranged" to only cover major party canidates, today, in EVERY election.

By simply fixing the election system, and ensuring a right to debate to all canidates that meet basic ballot access requirements that are clearly and infinitely defined, this entire system could again claim to "represent" the people. They know this, and that is why the bi-partisan majority is pushing electronic voting (riggable, sometimes no paper trail), and setting higher and higher ballot access requirements in every state.

They fear debate, because it exposes the lack of logic they base their entire platforms on.

madprophet said: Grasping at straws much? Animals exhale carbon, say no to Kyoto!

I say:
You miss the point.

All things on earth pollute in their own ways, living or not. Humans have the capacity to pollute more due to their unique place at the top of the food chain, and evolutionary chain. Our only superior is nature itself, much of which we have believed we could alter or eventually "control". We are now learning, as we could have logically concluded long ago had we the TECHNOLOGY THEN, that we do now to back up the theories, that man is inherantly and indefinitely dependant on nature to some degree that may never be "defined" other than some (x) gray area.

All societies pollute, as do all men. The question is what level of pollution is a clear "threat" to the rights of others, or the entire collective according to some.

My argument is that the right to property, contains clear and basic fundamentals to keep the system coherant, functioning and "acceptable" to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our basic common threads that bind us as a nation.

As a property owner, I have the right to construct a building that is within the boundaries of my land. If I open that building to the public, as a business, I have the right to set the rules for those that VOLUNTARILY come on to my land, in to my building, to partake of the services or goods that I provide VOLUNTARILY. If I am a smoker, and I open a business, it is going to be a smoking establishment, much like a non-smoker has the right to open a non-smoking establishment. This is my perogative, as I own the land, the building, the business, and control who is hired, fired, or allowed to enter or partake of my services. Likewise, you own your body, your money or goods for barter, and your labor. You have the option to not partake of my voluntarily provided services if for any reason you disagree with my business policy, services, goods, or public relations, or just about any other damn reason under the sun.

If I post a sign that says "This is a smoking establishment, and must agree to accept all health risks, or any other risks associated with voluntarily entering the establishment, the services of which can be cancellable and revoked at any time by the propreitor" I would be fully within my rights to deny you entry if you threatened legal liability against me for smoke inhalation while you voluntarily patronized my establishment.

Why should the government have the right to step into your home, or business, to regulate and fine, impune upon, or remove your property due to "provable damage" that has been done to you?

This line of logic clearly shows why toxic waste, and smoking are two different categories.

Second hand smoke is a risk we are fully capable of assessing, as smoke and the act of smoking are "noticeable" by smell, sight and hearing. By further posting notices to the fact that the establishment is a smoking establishment, the owner is going out of his way to provide information to the consumer on whether or not "the consumer" wishes to patronize the establishment, on that premise.

[Osborn F Enready]

madprophet said: Yup. Mighty fine impression.

I say:
Touche'

Nice out of context quoting. O'Reilly and Limbaugh would be proud.

madprophet said: Got it. Let the poor drink mercury.

I say:
What do the poor have to do with this, and how the hell does it apply in the reference to which you site?

Are you inferring I am anti-poor? I am poor, so explain that for me.

madprophet said: Okay, sorry, I should say, what if they dumped radioactive waste on their own "private" property. After all, the groundwater has to be either their private property or "collective" property, like air, and we both know what you think about regulating "collective" property like air.

I say:
Do you really know what I think?

I believe, and it is written, that people have a right to a specified amount of airspace above and below their property. Each areas ordinance differs somewhat, but property rights are a basic principal when viewed reasonably and common sense regulation is required to maintain justice in a system of property.

Is it not common sense that one "controls" the air that their "structures" contain? If not, how could anyone ever paint anything, since the amount of pollutants in air-borne applied paints is very high. It is because these pollutants don't pose a significant health risk when "used sensibly", and the consumer has a right to be sensible, or be punished for not, when they harm others recklessly, regardless of property rights. For example, I may own the property, but if I took a can of "legally available" spray paint and sprayed it in your face so long you couldn't breathe, and died or were seriously injured, I could still be held accountable for the "infringement of your rights" to be secure in your person, papers and effects.

Second hand smoke poses no such risk. The most complex studies only show evidence "pointing to" second-hand smoke, but there are very real questions that exist about how much "other" pollution the person inhaled on a daily act of living life.

If a person works at Monsanto in the chemistry department, and is regularly exposed to airborne, harmful fumes, but also happened to inhale second hand smoke and died of cancer, is it fair to say that even though they never smoked a cigarette, second hand smoke definitely caused their cancer and eventual death? (or emphesyma, CPD, or whatever the ailment)

There is much more analysis to say what is and is not conclusive, but as sure as the sun does shine, smoke of any type is harmful in some degree.
Do we as INDIVIDUALS have a right to stand next to a bonfire on our own property? A burn barrel? A fire to keep warm because the heat is out and the temperature is 3 degrees? Then why not a cigarette?

We are capable of making that choice, and to deny that is to deny the competence of people to assess and evaluate risk. Perhaps it is we deny our faults in our education system, that we blame others for our own short-comings?

madprophet said: Or perhaps you have a problem expressing coherent thoughts. Have I mentioned yet that I'm on the fence? I like smoking in bars.

I say:
That could be. We all have our own unique styles.

As far as being on the fence, I couldn't agree more that you have the right to be on the fence, and encourage the right to be on the fence about more issues, implying choice of the individual.

I know I sometimes come off as a rude dick, and for that I apologize. I just write that way, and after going over the same topics several times I find myself getting a little more terse in later posts on the topic.

I admit I can be a little difficult, but the points are what really matter I think, and I try to look past others faults since I know and recognize my own. Nobody is perfect. I apologize if my style offends you.

madprophet said: And were you not the one who brought up "volcanoes" and industrial polluters? You've made it clear so far that you don't believe the government should "regulate air" at all. So which is it?

I say:
I believe there is a very clear, when reduced, middle line between sensible regulation, and intrusive regulation. I think that line has to be viewed from the Constitutional common threads we have drawn, or disperse the union and start again. For the last 156 years, we have had a two-party domination over laws at almost all levels of government, and largely for the last 50 years, only because roadblock have been built to keep valid third party canidates out of elections at all levels. Without that "well founded, well rounded" debate, ideas are lost, points aren't made, essential core ideals aren't being expressed, and the public is being negated an opprotunity for "true" representation of all people.

Republicans aren't ALL wrong, nor are Democrats. There is however clear and evident truth to the fact that they work together to isolate power between them, and have for many decades in every form from gerry-mandering to lobbyist laws, lack of congressional repeal of the oppositions laws, the allowance of the vaguely defined executive powers, including the Kings power of proclamation via the right to Executive Order.

Because of this, I think it is clear as time has progressed with law, that we are becoming an authoritarian system from the core out.

We need to re-localize the governments as much as possible, and focus on the real issues, and once that is done common sense law-making becomes much easier, much more appeal to the public, and much less cost to all of us.

madprophet said: You couldn't be less clear if you were singing "My Little Buttercup" and tap dancing to a Waltz. By the way, is Lullaby Chainer your sock puppet?

I say:
I don't tap-dance, don't like Waltz music as a rule, and rarely if ever sing.
Is this a tactic I should employ?

As for Lullaby, he is a person as am I, and we have no ties other than mutual respect for our positions as people.

I don't mind the insults, but I can't speak for Lullaby. I have thick skin, and at least you address the issues and make an effort to debate. Much more than I can say for some who have patronized debate forums in general.

I guess its all about the "spirit" of how the "dispersions" are cast.

Mine are meant to instill provocation of thought, at the expense of a jib or two at my expense. I live with it.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: madprophet Are they a secret? Are we not supposed to talk about the words in the brackets? Are they classified? Eyes only? Should I be whispering?

No, the problem is, (and I don't know why I have to explain this to you again) you commented on the words you added in RESPONSE to ME. If you're purposely trying to be this foolish, it isn't funny. I can't hold your hand through every single detail, mad.

This is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.

Quote by: madprophet Woo, that's some argument! I'm awash in citations and precedent! I can't breathe!!! Could you perhaps be a bit more specific? Which personal rights described in the Constitution? Where? Are there laws or court cases that expand the definitions? I know it's a lot of trouble to open your copy of the Constitution that you keep on the coffee table next to the bible, or to do a Google search to confirm information you have in your brain, but could you at least try to convince me? I have mentioned that I've an open mind on this subject, right? I have not made up my mind either way. And I probably lean your way seeing as I'm a smoker who frequents bars and strip clubs.

No, I'm not going to do that. I'm sick and tired of having to treat you like a five year old. At this point, you're going to have to help yourself. Google should be useful.

[madprophet]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The post which you challenged the libertarian position of was a post regarding my libertarian position. The position you challenged was therefore distinct from the position of Cato (see post 50).

No it wasn't. It was Osborn's Libertarian position, that Rick maligned and you defended. And hey, look at that, Osborn endorsed the original post and the "Libertarian position" I used as an example!

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Thank you for the in depth article, and links Lullaby. I am sure the anti-smoking nazis won't have much to say except "we deny everything", stupid science is wrong anyway if you believe...... :rolleyes:

Honeslty, if you can't keep these things straight, there's no use coming out to play, is there?

[Osborn F Enready]

Quote: