West Kentucky Star

Western Kentucky

(56) Comments

No Smoking
PHOTO:Star file

Hopkinsville Smoking Ban Passes First Reading

By AP

HOPKINSVILLE, KY - Officials in Hopkinsville have conducted a preliminary vote to implement a smoking ban in that city.

The Kentucky New Era reports the Hopkinsville City Council passed a first reading of the measure during a meeting Tuesday night. The mayor cast the deciding vote. Approval of a second reading must take place prior to the law taking effect.

Mayor Don Kemp said the measure is "progress". He also said that it follows other cities in western Kentucky such as Paducah, Owensboro and Henderson that have passed smoking bans.

Opponents of the ban said they want business owners to have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking in their establishments.

Published 05:44 AM, Thursday Oct. 04, 2012
Updated 06:28 AM, Friday Oct. 05, 2012

Please login to leave a comment.

View (48) Comments
- Name: john d.
  
  10/11/2012 3:51:32 PM
  
  Naa I own no tobacco stocks I just smoke! Nobody is going to tell this KENTUCKIAN of 7 generations he cant smoke in a public place!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Kyle W.
  
  10/11/2012 4:20:42 AM
  
  John must own a lot of stock in a cigarette company. Using that soapbox pretty hard.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/10/2012 7:10:08 AM
  
  NO PROOF TO ANY ANTI-TOBACCO CLAIMS JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Judy T.
  
  10/9/2012 8:27:34 PM
  
  Wow! for a change we have John d with facts instead of those with the "learned phrases".
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: W H.
  
  10/9/2012 1:41:19 PM
  
  The score so far, after 50 posts: John D - 24 Everyone else - 26 If we could get unions in the discussion, John and Daniel could break some kind of record!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Estelle B.
  
  10/9/2012 9:48:50 AM
  
  John d. you made some wonderful statements. thank you for telling the truth!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Kyle W.
  
  10/9/2012 6:11:35 AM
  
  What is a choise establishment? Fancy smokers club?
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: PBT D.
  
  10/8/2012 9:56:02 PM
  
  News for everyone! If OBOZO wins in a few weeks, breathing in a little smoke will become the least of your worries.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 6:05:46 PM
  
  Id suggest you try fresh air breaks,its easy and you will enjoy the brisk walk and guess what no smokers will be hanging out at the doorway upon your exit from the free choise establishment. The business owner keeps his rights and you wont have to lose sleep worrying about your next smokefree target! Its a win win for freedom,but you dont like freedom ehh!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 2:23:07 PM
  
  Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework) Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid history. The three antismoking crusades of the last century have been eugenics-driven. In eugenics, health is erroneously reduced to an entirely biological phenomenon and where a self-installed elite attempt to engineer/breed a “better” human herd. In addition to a genetic aspect, eugenics views tobacco and alcohol as racial poisons needing to be eradicated (negative eugenics). Antismoking was rife in early-1900s USA. Smoking and tobacco sales were banned in quite a number of American states. http://www.americanheritage.com/artic.... Dillow (1981) notes that the bulk of antismoking claims were fraudulent and inflammatory. Dillow fails to note that the antismoking crusade of the early-1900s USA was eugenics-driven: Eugenics was mainstream in the USA at this time. At the turn of the last century, eugenics was mainstream in the USA, the UK, some European countries, and a number of Scandinavian countries. The USA appears to be the most prominent. The mega-wealthy in the USA (e.g., Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Kellogg) were supporters and funders of eugenics (and antismoking, anti-alcohol) – and still are. Rockefeller and Ford were also prominent supporters of Nazi eugenics. (Rockefeller also created the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Foundation, and the American Lung Association in this eugenics framework). Rockefeller and Ford had trade agreements with the Nazis through the 1930s ...
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 2:20:06 PM
  
  Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later. 1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10). 1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children. 1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says. 1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do." 1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee. 1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 2:18:44 PM
  
  If you must know it was the ACS,ALA,AHA created after the last failed smoking bans and alcohol prohibition movements collapsed in the 1930s. A lead prohibitionist Rockefellor created them and endowed them to go forth and put a new face on Prohibitionism masking it from a public totally alienated to their cause. So they tossed away the Bibles and the Billy Sunday sermons for white lab coats and created epidemiology as a new way tp preace their prohibitionism to the masses without ever having to show any actual factual proof of harm anywhere!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 12:15:49 AM
  
  They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’''''' World-renowned pul-monologist, 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 undeniable 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?
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 12:14:25 AM
  
  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.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 12:09:37 AM
  
  Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. 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 ...
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Dan t.
  
  10/8/2012 12:08:23 AM
  
  Also a non smoker myself (for 4 years)but believe in our rights as stated on a piece of 'ol'paper' be it right OR wrong to some.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/8/2012 12:00:04 AM
  
  According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........ They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire. They concluded that: All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/7/2012 11:57:29 PM
  
  Funny thing there willy c you never mention who the complaintants were in judge kesslers courtroom the ACS,ALA,AHA among others who recived grants to make junk science on second hand smoke and to go out and lobby after reciving grants from BIG PHARMA for that task as well as illegally using CDC and HHS grants for the same purpose. Judge Kessler was also conviently the Judge who heard the EPA junk study case after it was tossed by Federal Judge Osteen some 5 years before. She ruled his court had no jurisdiction since EPA wasnt going to use the study for a regulatory rule,which is exactly what they were going to do with it until they got sued.... But she never once questioned the findings of his 4 year long investigation into EPA's lowering of Confidence intervals to achieve a higher relative risk factor just so they could claim second hand smoke a carcinogen. The entir mythology is total fabrication from begining to end! BTW no ordinary citizen would have known about Judge Kessler and your first post gave you away as one of Ellen Hahns NAZIS!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Dan t.
  
  10/7/2012 7:37:43 PM
  
  willy c. I'm going to call you out as a fake and someone WHO had a loved one (like myself- father) die of lung cancer! You spout all this cr@p back to the early 70's AND NEVER SAID the government put a 4 or 6 pack of cigarettes into each meal they issued to us in the military. WHAT about your fabled government/U.S.D.A/scientists and all others not mentioned? WOW Rant on fellow for you lost all support with your second post. Guess your saying people in this time and age is not smart enough to stand UP WIND of someone that has a legal right to express their rights with a LEGAL product? O forgot your a socialist and all for the GREATER good!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: willy c.
  
  10/7/2012 5:40:25 PM
  
  John d., like 3 generations of americans, has been taken in by the tobacco industry. John big tobacco, hereafter referred to as BT will do and say ANYTHING to protect their cash cow. Surely you see that in the history of their denial that nicotene is addictive, that smoking causes lung cancer. In their targeting adds towards children, in their including ingredients it cigarretes that helps the body absorb the nicotene more easily. They have done the same thing in the studies you site in your letter. They have hired authors and scientists paying them big bucks to support claims that second hand smoke is not harmful. I could site the studies and instances for page after page but lets skip to the chase. On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris and other major cigarette manufacturers.[157] Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[4] In particular, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had: conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking; publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and destroyed documents relevant to litigation. The ruling found that tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that second-hand smoke causes disease, notably by controlling research findings via paid consultants. The ruling also concluded that tobacco companies continue today to fraudulently deny the health effects of ETS exposure.[4] On May 22, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court's 2006 ruling.[158][159][160] You can't believe everything you read. The tobacco companies have been lying to us for years and still are.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: willy c.
  
  10/7/2012 4:29:01 PM
  
  I was in a smoking experiment in the early 70's sponsored by the tobacco industry. I got free cigarettes for participating. They gave me the brand i smoked for free. I smoked a cigarette that was connected to a machine to measure how hard i drew on the cigarette. I then had to keep all the butts for two weeks in a baggie for them to test. Next they switched me to "light" cigarettes and I kept these butts. At the end of the experiment I smoked one of these light cigs thru the machine. I now realize they were testing to see if I would suck harder on the light cigarette to get the amount of nicotene that i needed. They knew from this experiment that they could market light cigs, and people would think they were being healthier, but in reality their customers would just suck harder to get their nicotene, stay addicted, and maybe even buy and smoke more of their cigs to stay "high".
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: willy c.
  
  10/7/2012 4:18:33 PM
  
  No Dan, I'm not trying to get in your house or car, especially if you smoke! :) I'm just speaking from experience. The experience of a child who lived with parents who were militant smokers. Both my parents died at an early age from smoking related illness. I miss them every day and wish they hadn't been smokers. I also smoked for 24 years. I believe subjecting children to smoke is an unintentional form of child abuse similar to a mother smoking during pregnancy or a heroin addict doing heroin during pregnancy. Long ago we didn't realize the harm it caused, but now we do, unless you're John, a smoker who will believe any research as long as it supports his opinion. In the long run smoking is a part of natural selection, but not a very efficient one, It will kill you, but not usually fast enough to keep your genes from being passed on. If smoking killed people quickly instead of very slowly, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But that would have been very bad for the tobacco industries business.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/7/2012 6:08:49 AM
  
  Equal protection of the law to all of us is what it means. Laws cannot be made to target specific groups or minorities. But for some reason they do it anyway. If they can get away with that they can reinstitue slavery or reinstate Jim Crowe laws simply by an act of voting. White only water fountains again anyone!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Bobby M.
  
  10/7/2012 12:37:50 AM
  
  You are correct, John. The Equal Protection Clause clearly protects me from suffering from your addiction. Your right to smoke, just like your right to swing your arms wildly, ends at my nose. Get help, if you can't go twenty minutes without a cigarette you need it.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 6:17:41 PM
  
  Bobby have you ever heard of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE or the 9th amendment;;;; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 6:14:09 PM
  
  Earl Obama has been pushing the bans via his office and ability to coerce states and cities to pass smoking bans let alone the illegal use of Federal grant money for lobbying. CDC HHS have all been warned to cease and decist from further lobbying theu thos estimulus grants. No doubt Federal warrants will be issued in kentucky for these smokefree groups using those funds. Federal Government Continues Progress to Prevent Tobacco-Caused Disease While States Fall Tragically Short "President Obama's administration has confronted the tobacco epidemic head-on," said Charles D. Connor, American Lung Association president and CEO.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Bobby M.
  
  10/6/2012 6:00:48 PM
  
  I'm not going to read the comments but I am sure there was at least one person whining about their rights being violated. There is no right to smoke, period. There certainly is no right to smoke in public any more than there is a right to have sex in public. If your addiction is so strong that you are afraid to spend twenty minutes away from a fix then you have a lot larger issue than can be addressed here. Get help.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 11:21:38 AM
  
  Actually its been obama behind the smoking bans for the last 4 years or didnt you realise that!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 11:06:01 AM
  
  Dang Earle thers that many smokers that you cant find anywhere to go thats smokefree.!!!!!! With that many smoking voters youd think these politicians would be in fear of their collective cronie positions especially the mayor. Id even dare the Mayor to an open debate on the subject of smoking bans. Would he accept I highly doubt it Id leave him looking like Romney did Owebama the other nite!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 10:13:01 AM
  
  Your welcome,lets not let prohibitionists ruin Hopkinsville too.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 9:50:41 AM
  
  1. Smoking lowers risk of knee-replacement surgery While smokers might go broke buying a pack of cigarettes, they can at least save money by avoiding knee-replacement surgery. Surprising results from a new study have revealed that men who smoke had less risk of undergoing total joint replacement surgery than those who never smoked. The study, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, appears in the July issue of the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism. What could be the connection? Knee-replacement surgery was more common among joggers and the obese; smokers rarely jog, and they are less likely to be morbidly obese. After controlling for age, weight and exercise, the researchers were at a loss to explain the apparent, albeit slight protective effects of smoking for osteoporosis. It could be that the nicotine in tobacco helps prevent cartilage and joint deterioration. 2. Smoking lowers risk of Parkinson's disease Numerous studies have identified the uncanny inverse relationship between smoking and Parkinson's disease. Long-term smokers are somehow protected against Parkinson's, and it's not because smokers die of other things earlier. [10 Easy Paths to Self-Destruction] The most recent, well-conducted study was published in a March 2010 issue of the journal Neurology. Far from determining a cause for the protective effect, these researchers found that the number of years spent smoking, more so than the number of cigarettes smoked daily, mattered more for a stronger protective effect. Harvard researchers were among the first to provide convincing evidence that smokers were less likely to develop Parkinson's. In a study published in Neurology in March 2007, these researchers found the protective effect wanes after smokers quit. And they concluded, in their special scientific way, that they didn't have a clue as to why. 3. Smoking lowers risk of obesity Smoking — and, in particular, the nicotine in tobacco smoke — is an appetite suppressant. This has been known for centuries, dating back to indigenous cultures in America in the pre-Columbus era. Tobacco companies caught on by the 1920s and began targeting women with the lure that smoking would make them thinner. A study published in the July 2011 issue of the journal Physiology & Behavior, in fact, is one of many stating that the inevitable weight gain upon quitting smoking is a major barrier in getting people to stop, second only to addiction. The relationship between smoking and weight control is complex: Nicotine itself acts as both a stimulant and appetite suppressant; and the act of smoking triggers behavior modification that prompts smokers to snack less. Smoking also might make food less tasty for some smokers, further curbing appetite. As an appetite suppressant, nicotine appears to act on a part of the brain called the hypothalamus, at least in mice, as revealed in a study by Yale researchers published in the June 10, 2011, issue of the journal Science. No respectable doctor would recommend smoking for weight control, given the toxic baggage accompanying cigarettes. This recent Yale study, however, does offer an inkling of hope for a safe diet drug to help obese people control their appetites. 4. Smoking lowers risk of death after some heart attacks Compared with non-smokers, smokers who have had heart attacks seem to have lower mortality rates and more favorable responses to two kinds of therapy to remove plaque from their arteries: fibrinolytic therapy, which is basically medication; and angioplasty, which removes the plaque by inserting balloons or stents into the arteries. There's a catch, though. The reason why smokers have heart attacks is that smoke scars the arteries, allowing fat and plaque to build up in the first place. So, one theory as to why smokers do better than non-smokers after such therapies is that they are younger, experiencing their first heart attack approximately 10 years before the non-smoker. A study published in an August 2005 issue of the American Heart Journal, however, states that age alone is not enough to fully explain the survival differences and that "the smoker's paradox is alive and well." No alternative theories have been put forth since. 5. Smoking helps the heart drug clopidogrel work better Clopidogrel is a drug used to inhibit blood clots for those patients suffering from coronary artery disease and other circulatory diseases leading to strokes and heart attacks. Smoking seems to help clopidogrel do its job better. A study by Korean researchers in the October 2010 issue of the journal Thrombosis Research builds upon work by Harvard researchers published in 2009 that demonstrates the benefit of smoking at least 10 cigarettes a day. It seems that something in cigarette smoke activates certain proteins called cytochromes, which convert clopidogrel into a more active state.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 9:41:59 AM
  
  Pete P youd be surprised to learn tNot 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one...... But then again not one claim about smoking has ever been proven where the end points meet to prove disease causation not a single one and they try and claim shs/ets is a killer LMAO!!!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 9:38:52 AM
  
  THERAPEUTIC EFFECTS OF SMOKING AND NICOTINE http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/6/2012 7:15:18 AM
  
  Dan T youd be right,,these smoking bans are being directed from washington d.c. by owebama. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/federal-government-continues-progress-to-prevent-tobacco-caused-disease-while-states-fall-tragically-short-137655658.html Federal Government Continues Progress to Prevent Tobacco-Caused Disease While States Fall Tragically Short "President Obama's administration has confronted the tobacco epidemic head-on," said Charles D. Connor, American Lung Association president and CEO.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Dan t.
  
  10/6/2012 12:53:56 AM
  
  Terra S. The people pushing this do not give a rats tail to anyone. If your to stupid to stand up wind of a skunk then you are a skunk. But then again only a human after time will adjust to the smell and not notice it. Like a lot of the smell from D.C. in the last 3 1/2 years.lol
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Terra S.
  
  10/5/2012 11:57:44 PM
  
  Property rights obviously don't exist. I hope the waiters and waitresses in Hopkinsville have some way to add to their income. If they see the reduction in tips that we saw here in Paducah, they will be hurting badly.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/5/2012 10:11:54 PM
  
  Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5. [Environmental somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu syndrome?]. [Article in Swedish] Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin C. SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge Sjukhus. Abstract Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster. Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a., arsenic, carbon monoxide ("generator gas poisoning"), mercury ("oral galvanism"), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields ("electric allergy") and repetitive movements ("repetition strain injury", RSI). The typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology. The community is often placed in difficult positions by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8170802
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: J W.
  
  10/5/2012 2:28:31 PM
  
  I'll accept the correction there john d. I was unaware of the exact medical necessaties of it, but I'll accept that its irritation rather than allergy that is causing the coughing and sneezing effects.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/5/2012 12:16:32 PM
  
  J.W. Its impossible for people to be allergic to smoke as smoke contains no proteins at all. Irritation type reactions is what your really defining. But people with a smoke phobia should seek mental health help as they are truly suffering a somatization complex. With 70% of venues already smokefree any ban would simply affect mom and pop operations and put them out of business. The simple answer has already been made smoking sections or totally smoking or non. Now its simply a matter of utilizing free choise but then anti-smoking advicates who are working over the hopkinsville town council have no use for free choise. They have but one aim PROHIBITION. Kentuckys state representatives can see thru the farce and know full well the B.S. second hand smoke science is JUNK SCIENCE. Hopkinsville city council would do well to send these public health advocates packing back to WKU along with Ellen Hahn and her B.S. parade. Ive openly challenged Miss Hahn and her inner circle to an open forum debate on shs/ets for which they will not accept. Of course why would anyone want to be publicly shown to be fools as Al Gore has so brilliantly done over the global warming junk science.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: J W.
  
  10/5/2012 8:47:01 AM
  
  While I've not seen the actual numbers, I do tend to agree with you john d, and thanks for the actual numbers on that. I have always wondered just how dangerous (long term) second hand smoke really is. My issue on this argument has nothing to do with the health aspect of it at all. As I stated before, I was around secondhand smoke for the majority of my life through parents and other relatives. I'm healthy as a horse. My OPINION was based more on the fact that a meal is more enjoyable when you aren't having to battle the smoke to eat it. I have no problem with people smoking, I have no problem with people smoking around me, but others aren't as forgiving. I know people who have allergies to smoke of any kind, whether it be cigarette or from a bon fire, they spend the rest of the night and most of the next day coughing and sneezing there head off. Their is not really any long term side effects to this, but is it really fair to them that someone elses smoke cause them pain? I believe every business owner should have the right to decided whether to allow this act or not. BUT, it is my opinion that people should use respect and courteousness when around others who may or may not mind the smoke floating around them.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/5/2012 6:25:32 AM
  
  Another Junk Study from CDC most likely funded by a grant from big pharma like their 9 states economic harm study on smoking bans! Below explains how the Junk science of car bans is so JUNKY! Thats why CDC didnt include any measurements of anything in their study.Its normal tobacco control propaganda,questionaires to get a science by headline story tossed out there for the liberal media to spread like poison. Chris Snowden does an excellent job debunking the junk science of car ban science! Just open the window! http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/03/just-open-window.html
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/5/2012 6:16:15 AM
  
  Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: john d.
  
  10/5/2012 6:14:39 AM
  
  We’ve been told for years secondhand smoke is deadly dangerous but we are here alive and there are no deaths from it, not even close. It’s an exaggerated, created science all its own. It’s propaganda - fallacies created to have justifications for a new round of tobacco prohibition. I am for freedom, freedom for all people to have their own place in this world, including the smokers! Tobacco smoke maybe an irritant to some, but that’s about it. Its chemical makeup has been so exaggerated by tobacco control pundits, it’s insanity. Only 6 percent of tobacco smoke constitutes those 7,000 theorized and identified components of the smoke. Theorized is the word, since the claimed chemicals are themselves so small they can barely be detected. Nanograms, femtograms are the sizes of what can be detected so they theorize the rest. Four percent is carbon monoxide, while nearly 90 percent constitutes ordinary atmospheric air! These figures come from the surgeon general’s report in 1989. Oh the pundits may bring up benzene in tobacco smoke. The average cigarette produces roughly 300 micrograms of benzene (1986 report of the surgeon general. p.130) 0.3 micrograms - 300 nanograms. Benzene is normally found in fruits, fish, vegetables, nuts, dairy products, beverages and eggs. The National Cancer Institute estimates that an individual may safely ingest up to 250 micrograms in their food per day, every single day of the year. Thus, the “safe” exposure to benzene from one day of a normal diet is roughly equal to the exposure experienced by a nonsmoker sharing an airspace with smokers for over 750 hours. It’s a political movement and it was never about health. ...
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Dan t.
  
  10/4/2012 7:10:31 PM
  
  WOW willy c. Your post seems like your wanting to get into our houses/homes? Is this your thought?
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: willy c.
  
  10/4/2012 6:11:42 PM
  
  Ms. Estelle, your rights end when they affect other peoples rights. The dangers of second hand smoke are well documented, regardless, there is nothing more disgusting than trying to eat a meal out and having cigarette smoke blowing in your face. These laws won't be reversed. Rather, in our lifetime smoking will be banned in all cities and all public places. It's amazing now to look back and realize how accepted cigarette smoking was. Imagine being cooped up in a plane with a dozen smokers. Or a child riding in a car with 2 parents who smoke, or a child living in a house with 2 chain smoking parents. Gasp, hack, hack, cough.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: Estelle B.
  
  10/4/2012 9:24:46 AM
  
  Such a terrible shame to treat hard working people like they have commeted a sin if they light up during a meal. There is hardly anywhere to go out and eat anymore without this ban. I think in time it will be reversed due to our rights being over looked but until then I'll eat at home. I and many of my friends will never support any city issues if they have this ban.
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: J W.
  
  10/4/2012 9:03:01 AM
  
  I tend to ride the fence on this issue a little bit. I, for one, enjoy being able to go to a restaurant without having to worry about smelling and tasting smoke throughout my meal. But I don't believe the gov't should have the right to step in and tell business owners what they can and can't allow in their businesses (within the standard legal boundaries of course). My mother smoked for years, but I can only remember a handful of times that she smoked in a restaurant and she quit smoking at all well before the smoking bans existed. It's more of a matter of respect for others than it is about rights. Have respect enough for someone not to smoke in crowds, or where others may more likely be affected by your decision. It's past time for gov't regulation to take a backseat to good ole' common sense!
  
  Report Abuse
  
  Name: eddy a.
  
  10/4/2012 7:10:40 AM
  
  Business owners should have the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking.But this will not happen the Mayor said it is "progress".Should the Mayor have said it is "prohibit".To forbid by authority of the government big brother will tell you what you can do and can not do,where is true freedom.
  
  Report Abuse

Western Kentucky

Weather

Traffic Now

Most Commented Stories

Video