Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, May 10, 2010 | 5:16 p.m.
Related stories
CARSON CITY – A district judge has refused to dismiss a suit against the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority that involves a law permitting smoking at certain trade shows.
District Judge James Wilson ruled Monday that the American Cancer Society has standing to bring the suit, partly because citizens will suffer injury if smoking is allowed at the trade shows.
Cancer Society officials filed suit last December saying that people who go into convention centers during and after smoking is permitted will be exposed to harmful tobacco chemicals that can collect on walls, carpets, the ceiling and furnishings.
Voters in November 2006 passed the Nevada Indoor Clean Air Act prohibiting smoking in some indoor places.
The 2009 Legislature amended a stalking bill to permit smoking at trade shows that are not open to the public, are being produced by the tobacco industry or a professional association of convenience stores.
The Cancer Society filed suit, saying the indoor smoking law passed by voters couldn't be amended until December 2009. And it said the Assembly Bill was invalid because it contained two separate subjects – stalking and the smoking provision.
The LVCVA asked that the suit be dismissed because the Cancer Society didn't have standing. Lawrence Sands, chief health officer for the Southern Nevada Health District, joined in the LVCVA's motion.
The Cancer Society argued it had standing because the law “will result in increased indoor secondhand smoke which causes cancer, thereby directly frustrating and impacting the society’s mission and purpose of fighting cancer.”
The Cancer Society says it could not get the Legislature to pass a ban on some indoor smoking so it took its case to the voters at the 2006 election.
Judge Wilson said the Cancer Society had standing to bring the suit on the allegation the Legislature illegally passed a bill with two subjects and the voter-passed law couldn't be amended until December 2009 because of the three-year limit.
There will be additional hearings on the merits of the allegations by the Cancer Society.
The do as I say group just wont let people alone. They don't just want smoking banned when they are there but they don't want smoking when they are not there.
The Liberal Fascists feel the power the current administration gives them and they are on a tear.
All I want out of life is being able to enjoy BBQ, Scotch, and a good cigar. Screw you if you if you can't let me have that.
"There is such a phenomenon as third-hand smoke. There's no evidence whatsoever that it's hazardous to health, but as an aesthetic matter, it's quite noticeable if you're sitting next to someone on a bus who reeks so badly of smoke that you are nauseous. Still, being able to smell something doesn't mean it will give you cancer or any other disease.
"I can't believe we've reached the phase in anti-smoking hysteria that we're now worried about carcinogenic effects of third-hand smoke. When are we going to get to fourth-hand smoke?"
Elizabeth Whelan
President
American Council on Science and Health
212-362-7044
"The claim of dangers from third-hand smoke reeks of the same pseudo-science nonsense that has caused our country to implement so many other unnecessary nanny-state regulations. While the Berkeley study might make for eye-popping news headlines, it lacks the scientific substance necessary to be taken seriously.
"In the end, these claims of third-hand smoke dangers will be confirmed for what they really are--nonsense."
John Nothdurft
The Heartland Institute
Legislative Specialist
jnothdurft@heartland.org
312-377-4000
See more articles by John Nothdurft
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/...
http://www.examiner.com/x-31244-Louisvil...
this right here is there 3rd hand smoke claim remember........
will be exposed to harmful tobacco chemicals that can collect on walls, carpets, the ceiling and furnishings.
Now,the way to fight this trash science is to expose it in open court.........
Media Advisory: Third-Hand Smoke Risk Claims Challenged
On February 8, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a study by a research team from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California describing the alleged risks of third-hand smoke. The researchers claim tobacco residue clinging to surfaces such as clothes and hair pose health risks for children.
Two doctors contacted by The Heartland Institute and a policy analyst for the organization rejected the idea that third-hand smoke poses significant health risks. They can be quoted as follows or contacted directly for additional information.
"There is no bench and lab, and no epidemiology proof of cause of cancer in side stream or exhaled smoke, and certainly no proof of cancer caused by residue of tobacco smoke on clothes, furniture, carpets, or furniture.
"If the cause of cancer were understood, it might be possible for public health officials to make claims of this or that, but mostly they appeal to people's anxieties and ignorance.
"At this point, after expenditures of billions, we know that cancer is mostly increased by age; smoking cigarettes causes cancer; and there are a few--very few--chemicals and electromagnetic/radiation factors that can cause cancer.
"No one, ever, has shown that tobacco smoke residue causes cancer. In fact no one has shown that side stream or exhaled tobacco smoke causes cancer. The issue for anti-tobacco crusaders is smell and preferences, and interfering with smokers, not some serious public health issue."
John Dale Dunn, M.D. J.D.
Policy Advisor
The Heartland Institute
jddmdjd@web-access.net
The Heartland Institute serves as a shill for big oil companies and is a de facto arm of the party of "No." Second hand smoke causes between 150,000 and 300,000 new cases of severe breathing disorders every year, and this has been conclusively proven. I hope the Cancer Society wins its lawsuit because what LVCVA is doing is illegal, and then we can go about correcting Judge Herndon's ridiculous ruling that thwarted the will of the voters in order to do a favor for his contributors.
Smoking in public buildings like the convention center should be a dead issue. It's not a privately-owned business such as a casino and the Cancer Society will win the lawsuit easily. Case closed.
"All I want out of life is being able to enjoy BBQ, Scotch, and a good cigar. Screw you if you if you can't let me have that."
Amen brother! I enjoy all 3 myself.
The 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.
Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:
2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children's height/growth.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
And finally.....
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.
Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/se......
dirk would you care to provide your supposed conclusive evidence as you can see even the sg report found nothing you stated as conclusive.
suggestive means it aint happening!
The Heartland Institute serves as a shill for big oil companies and is a de facto arm of the party of "No." Second hand smoke causes between 150,000 and 300,000 new cases of severe breathing disorders every year, and this has been conclusively proven. I hope the Cancer Society wins its lawsuit because what LVCVA is doing is illegal, and then we can go about correcting Judge Herndon's ridiculous ruling that thwarted the will of the voters in order to do a favor for his contributors.