Secondhand Smoke Trial Judgement

This is a post which should have particular interest for bloggers, such as this one, this one and this one (who has finished smoking yet defends the rights of those who do), plus many others who believe secondhand smoke, unless in a very enclosed environment, is a serious danger to health.

 In Maryland, US, there has been a trial which the British MSM has ignored.

David Schuman and his wife live in a 'village' designed by Greenbelt Homes Inc. (GHI). His neighbour in the adjoining 'town house' terrace is Darko Popovic and his wife.  Mr Popovik and his wife enjoy a smoke, yet for the past couple of years Mrs Popovic has given up smoking and Mr Popovic has reduced his smoking to a few of an evening in his garden.  He used to enjoy it more when his wife joined him and they could sit outside mulling over the day's events.

Mr Schuman however is not a smoker.  He detests smoking and, according to his evidence has health issues which are affected by secondhand some. He has constantly complained to GHI about the smoke from the Popovics' cigarettes permeating his home.  Although the homes are what would be called new builds, he insisted that GHI's building standards were adequate and paid thousands in having all windows and doors resealed.

Mr Schuman wasn't happy with the responses from complaining to both GHI and Mr Popovic over the years. (He now refuses to discuss the matter with the Popovics), so he took both to court asking for $300,000 from GHI because they wouldn't tell the Popovics to stop smoking because they were breaking the rules of the 'village' and another $300,000 from the Popovics.

Earlier in the case the judge stated the $300,000 claim from Schuman against GHI was not credible, but let a similar claim against the Popovics stand.

The verdict?  You can read it here, but considering the judge's family history, he has shown his personal experiences are not considered in his judgement.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is when James Repace, the biophysicist hired by the plaintiff, found the same level of 'cancer-causing' particles with his monitor in the smoke-free courtroom as he had in Schuman's living room with Darko Popovice smoking outside his own home, was the clincher.

Credit to Judge Albert Northrop for refusing to be influenced by propaganda.  I do not condone smoking, but I do respect the right of people to smoke if they wish and smokers I know are responsible and social individuals.

Tweet

What's Missing from This Article?

An article in today's Daily Mail states that 'Children with asthma are twice as likely to need hospital treatment during the month of September'.

It goes on to say hospital admissions for under-16s in England were 58% higher during that month last year and the previous September, according to data from the NHS Information Centre.

Yet why aren't smokers mentioned? We're repeatedly told that smokers cause asthmatic problems for children but there's no mention of them here.

Do smokers puff away more in September than any other month? I doubt it. Not with the cost of cigarettes.

Perhaps it's because smoking and passive smoking is nothing to do with asthma. Perhaps it's because smoking has been used as an excuse for billions of pounds to be directed to a section of society and yet, in the case of child asthma proper investigation hasn't been initiated.

Let me say here that smoking is a choice. Most smokers wouldn't smoke anywhere which caused problems for others. For my own experience they're a very accommodating section of society. Som people complain about the smell and it sticks to their clothes: it does and it's not pleasant even for smokers. Yet the other evening I attended a small meeting in a hotel where the smell of burned/stale fried food permeated the atmosphere far worse than cigarette, pipe or cigar smoke. Nobody complained and they meet there on a bi-monthly basis. When I asked at a tea break if anyone was aware of it I was told "yes of course, but it's a cheap venue".

Far too often smoking is deemed to be the 'habit of evil' yet, without the taxes from those who smoke, the NHS would probably grind to a halt. We'd still have the diseases which are presently related to smoking but we wouldn't have the finance to cope with them.

This fellow blogger and this one will be pleased to read a newspaper article which doesn't blame smokers - because they're not the problem. I'm pleased too. Time the anti-smoking lobbies encouraged researchers to look out of the box, but they won't of course; they're funded by government to protest against the smoking sector of society and therefore any in depth research into asthma is curtailed although these figures show it's desperately needed.

The quangos such as ASH would lose their jobs if more articles like this appeared in the MSM. More people would wonder if smokers were being punished for little or no reason. Bring it on!

Tweet

Fines and Justice

I thought I'd post this in support of Nick Hogan, the ex-landlord who has been imprisoned for permitting smokers in his pubs.

Isn't it time more flexibility was applied to this law? Other countries have a much more sensible approach which doesn't endanger businesses. Are the government going to ban cars, buses, lorries next? Their emissions are far more dangerous to the average person than any second-hand smoke.

How many people are walking our streets having not paid court fines for crimes to do with knives and sex offences? Possibly far more than you think.

Thanks to TheBigYin and the Filthy Engineer

Tweet

Beware of Mid Life Check

This past week, on local radio, I've heard a public service advertisement for 'The Mid Life Check'.

Out of curiousity I thought I'd have a look at midlifecheck.co.uk. Fine so far. It would seem that you enter details of your lifestyle and once the information is processed you will be given advice on how to improve it. That sounds ok.

Then I read the 'help':

What if [sic] will happen to my information?

All personal information is confidential. We can't use it and we don't forward it to anyone else. We may use general statistics or data to help us understand how people use the NHS LifeCheck service.

Ah! There's the catch. More data collection by government. They can't stop trying to gain personal information from us can they. Sadly, many will innocently log onto this site without realising their input is stored and may be used for other purposes.

Yet another 'I Spy' government programme.

Tweet