PACT Deaths

Abdul | October 31, 2007, 1:22pm | #

So, if smoking is banned in the casinos, will the employees live forever?

How do I get me one of them jobs?

M | October 31, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Isn't gambling the whole point of those places?

dbust1 | October 31, 2007, 1:35pm | #

I can only assume that these facts come on the heels of the recent announcements about a new casino in Pittsburgh. How ironic that a city that once had the dirtiest air in the nation (black skies at noon) should be concerned with the "dangers" of second hand smoke.

JBinMO | October 31, 2007, 1:49pm | #

Casinos are useing slave labor?

Paul | October 31, 2007, 2:06pm | #

Oh hey, you know those people that go around with real human lungs and show you a smoker's lung, then compare it to the non-smoker's lung? The non-smoker's lung was presumably exposed to a lifetime of second-hand smoke, so why doesn't it look at least half as bad?

The Ridler | October 31, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Does anyone who writes for this blog or who posts here believe in anything but constant negativity?!

New World Dan | October 31, 2007, 2:09pm | #

While I oppose smoking bans on principle, I gotta admit that it's a hell of a lot nicer going to the bars now that MN has the statewide smoking ban in place.

Mr Anonymous | October 31, 2007, 2:16pm | #

1,800 nonsmoking Pennsylvania casino employees will die from lung cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses

Am I the only one who has never met a non-smoker with emphesyma?

Paul | October 31, 2007, 2:26pm | #

Am I the only one who has never met a non-smoker with emphesyma

You are not, sir. I too have never met a non-smoker with emphysema. Or a non-smoker with one of those voice box thingies and a hole in their throat from...second hand smoke. I almost doubled over in laughter when I wrote that, but it's true.

Juanita | October 31, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Your right to smoke ends where my personal air begins, and secondhand smoke kills children. Why do you people hate children?

antagonist | October 31, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Juaniat,

I don't hate children. i think they taste good. Especially when smoked.

Paul | October 31, 2007, 3:00pm | #

I thought free speech was alive and well until 60 days prior to an election.

I'm assuming you're being ironic here. Because if you are, it's golden.

BTW: besides the chattering classes, who pays attention to elections more than 60 days prior to?

J sub D | October 31, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Why do you people hate children?

Juanita, It's because they won't get real jobs, and I'm not allowed to have sex with them.

R C Dean | October 31, 2007, 3:26pm | #

I thought free speech was alive and well until 60 days prior to an election.

Don't forget, that's sixty days prior to both the primary and the general.

In a Presidential election, that essentially means no free speech during the preceding calendar year.

J sub D | October 31, 2007, 4:04pm | #

Ok I screwed up my courage, threw a disgust filter in, here goes ...

Whew! It's a Wiki article, not a site for those perverts. Paul, your consideration for others is noted and appreciated.

AlfromAlberta | October 31, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Repace is an internationally renowned secondhand smoke "scientist"? He is a fucking parasite. As for his claim that smoke is 20 times the OSHA, where did that come from? Oh yeah, his ass.
OSHA has measured ETS and results can be seen here http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html. Lets try 25,000 safer than OSHA PELs.

LightningBoy | October 31, 2007, 7:35pm | #

Juanita; "Your right to smoke ends where my personal air begins, and secondhand smoke kills children. Why do you people hate children?"

That crap goes both ways.
Your "personal air" (you know,...that air with your name on each molecule) stops at the front door of my restaurant business. Once inside, your breathing MY air, and I prefer it with the scent of stale Marlboro and fresh brewed coffee. Your personal preference for a smoke free environment is irrelevant if you make a bad decision for yourself and enter private property where smoking is permitted.
Try exercising your brain by making a wise choice for yourself, and don't go there. See it's easy, and no one who doesn't specifically want to be, is ever hurt.
It's called CHOICE, try thinking for yourself instead of relying on the government to do it for you.

Kevin | November 1, 2007, 1:06am | #

If Repace believed his own tripe, it would be hard to escape being noticed with his respirator suit.

So much for the deadly effects, he is soo scared, he can't resist visiting every venue a wisp of second hand smoke can be found.

I really hope he is working hard to protect his own employees from the "deadly effects".

One also has to wonder if his employees have been properly informed and if they actually made a conscious decision to work in such a hazardous environment without proper safety gear. Repace of all people should know what he subjects his workers to. Should the labor board be advised and hopefully an investigation launched?

Kevin | November 1, 2007, 1:55am | #

I do so love to hear the parroted prose spewing from those who believe mimicking others makes them seem intelligent.

Has anyone heard this little tune before?
"Your right to smoke ends where my personal air begins, and secondhand smoke kills children."

First unless you hold tittle to it, you have no claim on the air or do you have any legal right to tell others what they may or may not do with their own bodies, For reference see Roe VS Wade. You don't like the smoke in the bars? Get off your ass and leave, they don't make a lot selling prune juice anyway.

Second; primary smoking takes 30 years for the effects to be seen in statistics among smokers who are usually adults by that time.

If second hand smoke is now believed to be more deadly than smoking, perhaps you should consider starting smoking to protect yourself, but only if you are submissive to the fears promoted by the lunatics of science.

Second hand smoke kills no one, just ask Sir Richard Doll. Oh Yea, he avoided smoking and died anyway, so much for benefits.

Statistics promote virtual fears by the most crude methods of so called "science" we know. Epidemiology was meant to find direction never could it create a scientific fact Because if it ever did we could guarantee that fact was a methodological error. The epidemiology process has to; by statistical probability produce just as many positives as negative findings. The lack of negative findings should indicate to anyone with a shred of intelligence and the fortitude to investigate the research, a substantial level of deception is afoot. Ecological Fallacy absolutely destroys the insignificant proof they tell us is irrefutable[look it up]. We are being taken to the cleaners by a hail of ad agency spin, promoting; cessation devices, Insurance premiums and any other product which will increase sales and profits through a joint effort.

What is really scary in all this is the promotion of Public Health as the reinvention of Eugenics is the big winner in the paternalist marketplace, where fear rules all intelligence.

joe | November 2, 2007, 11:59pm | #

You know, when you go away for a few days, it's really striking how shallow some of the commentary on this site is.

Kevin | November 8, 2007, 4:40am | #

Mussolini defined fascism as an industrial socialism. Few today ever considered who are the largest promoters of political correctness or the large scale health care promotions, targeting individuals directly that smoke or are overweight.

For the same reason I would not trust a tobacco company to provide health reliant information Neither should I be forced to rely on other conflicted industries for the information which forms the basis of my choices.

At the moment the Tobacco industries from a high road perspective, are dispensing much more accurate and informative advice to the public than the total of the major medical institutions, which in retrospect is an entirely unsettling state of affairs. Scientific research should never be utilized directly to play an advocacy role, its very credibility is sustained in absolute unbiased non participation. Much as we should be able trust the news media groups to report the news as opposed to creating it. Those who do participate abandon the role of scientist to become politicians. A role which they can never reverse, at least not within the confines of credibility. A Government which is dedicated to protect its population from imposing harm on themselves, is the opposite of one which respects their rights of autonomy.

Practitioners who utilize scientific information and take an active role in treating patients or protecting the public from environmental concerns can no longer be confident the information at their disposal is sound or scientific which places us all at increased risk.

At the World Health Organization the process of HIA health intervention promotes exactly those twisted demands of political science in place of what is required. A process which teaches how to connect all human activity to health effects.

The call to stakeholder partners, who will profit from a campaign of fear, is unconscionable and well below what we expect from Health care professionals. The promotions of Smoking alternatives, Charity Foundations and Big Pharma are obvious as are the deliberate actions obscuring the secondary supporting benefactors of fear promotions such as Insurance companies, Banks, Investment houses and Government taxation which causes large poverty increases and invokes directly an entirely preventable higher health risk to society, by its secondary effects such as smoking and obesity.

Medicine and science is loosing credibility in an age of information where too much is laid bare for all to see. It is becoming common knowledge, little we hear from these so called unbiased sources, can be trusted, leaving us what to form our opinions?

Back to the old superstitions and alternate sources of snake oils and potions which are rebounding as a direct result of that loss of faith.

How much early mortality will result from medical grandstanding and paternalist politicians dispensing medical advice to their populace? Populations consisting entirely of protected children? Children in turn controlled by the fear death, as opposed to accepting its inevitability.