make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Columbus County considers tobacco ban

READ MORE:

COLUMBUS COUNTY, NC (WWAY) -- Tobacco has long been king in Columbus County, but tonight commissioners will consider a tobacco ban. At tonight's meeting, the County Commission will decide whether to prohibit smoking and tobacco use in county buildings.

They may also consider an updated policy for county-owned vehicles. A recently-rescinded policy prohibited smoking in county cars. A new proposal would allow smoking in cars permanently assigned to one person.

The commission meeting starts at 6:30 p.m.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.

»

Whether or not...

Whether or not second hand smoke is bad is not the issue for me. I truly do not care what you put in your body (IE drugs, cigs, beer, etc)as long as it does nothing to hamper someone Else's quality of life or safety. That is my issue with smoking in public places. When someone decides to go into a restaurant they expect a good meal, not a meal tainted with the smell of smoke.

The second hand smoke SCAM

They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien

Seriously??

Let's start from common sense, shall we?

Would you agree that the human body tries to deflect and fight things that are perceived as harmful to its own wellbeing? Unless you're a complete moron, I'm sure you can agree with me on this point. After all...try to pick up something that is scorching hot, and the body immediately tries to free itself from contact. If you're in a body of water, your body will try to keep you afloat so you don't drown. Anyone who has ever attempted to smoke a cigarette has also become intimately familiar with the concept of self-preservation. Inhalation sets off a series of internal safety mechanisms to expel the offending, burning, painful inhaled smoke. To me, that says the body does NOT want to inhale smoke, and it's an innate self-preservation method. Would you not also agree that extensive, long-term smoking does significant damage to the body? Again, unless you're an idiot, you have to agree that SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH. So firsthand or secondhand, doesn't matter: The body wants neither.

A simple google search will show you TONS of research data that proves that smoking is harmful.

I think it's time for you to wave that familiar white flag, Frenchie. Surrender. Your argument is ridiculous.

Pal, you can spout all the

Pal, you can spout all the baloney you want to. Smoking kills. Even if it did not, why should those who choose not to smoke be assaulted with the stench of those who do? Smoking is a nasty, stinking, filthy addiction and smokers should be isolated from non-smokers.

Well

Whether second-hand smoke is harmful or not...why risk it. Futhermore why smoke at all. Anyone who smokes is either of lower intelligence, no common sense, or just stupid enough to do something that is proven to kill people. I have no sympathy for smokers with cancer...you did it, you pay the price

If they allow

smoking in patrol cars used to transport prisoners, it will only be a matter of time before a wise attorney begins filing lawsuits for exposing prisoners to second hand smoke.