KU researchers add to evidence that smoking bans reduce heart attacks
Alan Bavley, The Kansas City Star
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Public smoking bans do more than just clear the air in offices, bars and restaurants — they lead to quick and dramatic declines in heart attacks.
Two teams of researchers came to this conclusion after independently examining evidence from more than a dozen locales in the United States, Canada and Europe that had enacted smoking restrictions.
Not only was the drop in heart attacks almost immediate, the declines tended to be greater the longer the bans were in place, the researchers found.
After smoking restrictions went into effect, heart attack rates dropped an average of 26 percent in a year, one study found. After three years, heart attack rates were down by an average of 36 percent, according to the other study.
“We’re confident that the benefit is real,” said David Meyers of the University of Kansas Medical Center, lead author of one of the studies. “The effect of smoke on heart attack is huge.”
Meyers estimated conservatively that a nationwide public smoking ban would prevent as many as 156,400 heart attacks a year. Nonsmokers would benefit by limiting their exposure to secondhand smoke. Smokers would have a greater incentive to quit or cut back.
“I am embarrassed that the U.S. has not passed a national smoking ban, and yet Scotland, Ireland, Italy and France did,” Meyers said. “But those countries aren’t big tobacco producers, so it was politically easier.”
As of last year, 23 states and the District of Columbia had enacted comprehensive smoking restrictions, according to the American Lung Association.
And in recent years, most municipalities in the Kansas City area have banned smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants. Kansas City health officials have noted a drop in local heart attack deaths as these laws have taken effect.
Meyers’ study, which he did with KU colleagues John Neuberger and Jianghua He, is in the latest issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Also newly published in Circulation, the American Heart Association’s journal, is a study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, that looked at much of the same data and came to similar conclusions.
As recently as four or five years ago, claims that smoking restrictions yielded health benefits were controversial, said James Lightwood, co-author of the Circulation study.
“Now we’re getting a consistent picture,” Lightwood said. “The encouraging thing about the Meyers study and ours is apparently if you take the same data, the signal is so strong that people get almost the same result.”
Evidence linking smoking restrictions to lower rates of heart attack has been mounting for years. One startling study in Helena, Mont., for example, found that the annual heart attack rate dropped 40 percent after the city banned public smoking. After a court suspended the ban, the rate shot up again.
But doubts about the health benefits have persisted because studies of different locales with smoking restrictions have yielded widely diverging results, from big drops in heart attack rates to little or no change, or even a small increase in heart attacks.
By analyzing trends in the data, the two research teams discovered that the differing results were due largely to variations in time periods covered by the studies. Some studies measured heart attack rates just a few months into a smoking ban; others examined a period of several years.
“If you can account for the follow-up time, all these studies start to give you a consistent picture,” Lightwood said.
The KU researchers found that on average, the studies showed a 17 percent decline in heart attacks after smoking restrictions are enacted. But after adjusting to account for the different time frames of the studies, the average one-year drop was 26 percent.
The San Francisco researchers found that heart attack rates dropped an average of 17 percent after one year and 36 percent after three years.
Heart attack rates decline so soon after smoking restrictions are in place because tobacco smoke’s ill effects work quickly on the heart by restricting blood flow and the supply of oxygen and by making blood more likely to clot.
Physiological changes can be measured after just 20 minutes of exposure to tobacco smoke, Meyers said.
“We don’t know if smoking bans would affect emphysema or cancer rates. We expect they would,” Meyers said. “But it would take years to measure.”
While not included in the two new studies, the Kansas City area has seen a decline in heart attack deaths since smoking restrictions have become prevalent, local officials said.
From 2001 through 2006, deaths from heart attacks in a seven-county area on the Missouri side of the state line declined by 21 percent, according to the Kansas City Health Department. In Kansas City proper, the number dropped by 26 percent.
“We’re pretty confident that a lot of that percentage comes from protecting the nonsmokers and helping smokers to quit,” said Health Department director Rex Archer.
Archer predicted that virtually all states and cities will have smoking restrictions.
“There will come a time when the kids of our kids will think it is unbelievable that we ever let people smoke around other people,” Archer said.
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Yeah, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it! What have you got to say now, SHS supporters?
'enry
<] 8 ^ (|)
September 29, 2009 at 4:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Good grief!! How is it that any of us are even alive?
September 29, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I wonder what positive effects not allowing Sunday liquor sales has on liver disease? I bet it's pretty good.
R.
September 29, 2009 at 6:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I bet if there were even more days that liquor sales weren't allowed the over all health of the community would be better. Let's take the religious aspect out of the laws prohibiting the sale of liquor and make it only legal to sell it on Tuesday, Thursday, and, Saturday. For health! For the Kids!
R.
September 29, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
It was said during the smoking ban debate that sometimes the government needs to step in and protect people from harmful things. Things that harm themselves and others. Things that protect them, such as seatbelt laws and indoor smoking bans are some times necessary. It seems to me that people need to expose their livers to less alcohol in order to be their healthiest. One way of encouraging this healthy behavior is by reducing the number of days(Tuesday, Thursday, and, Saturday) in which people can purchase said liquor. For health! For the Kids! Vote for a live cat!!
R.
September 29, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Don't forget cat nip!
R.
September 29, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
Watching the news elevates my blood pressure. Since there is such a big push to protect the public health at all costs, maybe we should ban the freedom of press...
September 29, 2009 at 8:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
How is this news? Its already common knowledge that smoking increases the risks of heart disease, this is common sense lol. I have said once, I'll say it again, the reason there are not chew, liquor bans, etc is because they do not directly effect those around you. If every time I took a sip of beer or spit and it ended up inside others around me those things would be gone too. It's the nature of the habit folks, I walked into a softball game tonight, there was a smoker 10 yards ahead of me puffing away, no wind, I had to smell it the whole way in, had that individual been drinking a beer or taking a chew the whole instance could have been avoided, that is why smoking gets the ban-hammer. I am having a hard time finding counties that went smoke free also trying to chew free, or at least very few if any instances of this happening.
September 29, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
irishemporia (anonymous) says...
Your right, oleboy, it's not news. It would hardly worth the ink it was printed on if it weren't for the few who stubbornly cling to their ideal that poisoning others is there right.
September 29, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
henrycrack,
You are 100% right. smoking is bad, smokers are deadly, our government is here to protect us.
Because a study funded by an anti smoking group is published in a few newspapers that have recieved thousands of dollars in ad revenue from anti-smoking groups it must be the truth.
SMOKING IS BAD!
SHS MAY BE BAD!
SMOKERS ARE FILTHY HEATHENS!
REFORMED SMOKERS ARE WORSE THAN REFORMED WHORES!
I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL A FAT TAX IS IMPOSED ON YOUR BIG MAC.
HOW MANY BANS WERE IN PLACE IN 2001 DURING THIS STUDY?
IT IS OVER!
EMPORIA passed the ban, we are dealing with it , maybe you should to.
I am here from the government, and I am here to help you!
Thank God for the government.
September 29, 2009 at 10:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
And thank you to Alan Blavley for this fluff piece.
I hope you don't consider youreself a reporter.
September 29, 2009 at 10:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Correct me if I am wrong but that nasty ole' government monster did not bring about the ban, in the end the voters of Emporia did right? So how is it the governments fault for enforcing the will of the people? Last I checked voting on measures was about as American as apple pie.
September 30, 2009 at 12:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
good morning goodoleboy,
Can't argue with logic. You are correct and I agree with you 100%.
Re--read my post, I said nothing about a govt. monster. I am serious, thank God the government is here to protect us.
Where would we be without government? It would be total anarchy. We don't have enough government for my taste, but that is being taken care of .
I hope you are not implying that cherry pie is un-American?
September 30, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Good Morning Steve=)
Was not trying to get your dander up, just pointing out that government is inherently innocent in this, the people brought this upon ourselves. There are many areas where you are correct and there is too much government, this instance is not a very good example of that due to the fact we voted this in.
I hear they are going to tax fat people that eat pie next=) I'll stop by with some Pecan pie sometime, wife makes an incredible one.
September 30, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
me (anonymous) says...
lets ban ---vehicles (car accidents)- sugar(obese people) -play grounds(lots of accidents there) -school(germs) animals(bites) -people in public and not in a bubble(germs) but everyone has the right to carry a concealed weapon dont suppose a gun in your belt can cause any harm.
September 30, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
When is our government going to do more about liver disease?
Surely a measure to raise the difficulty level of obtaining alcohol would have similar voting results as the smoking ban. They are both unhealthy and people are concerned about health, both theirs and everyone elses. I think restricting the sale of this .... well ... poison really, to Tuesday, Thursday, and, Saturday would be a step in the right direction. Then people could ween off slowly until we could ration out two and only two glasses of wine a day because it is said to have health benefits. These health benefits can come from nonalcoholic grape juice as well so eventually as we evolve we will discover that their really is no need for alcohol at all. "But R. what about alcohol as a social lubricant?" Some desperate losers might say. Well I would just point to evolution again and say if you can't get a lady without you or her being drunk then you are week and shouldn't reproduce. I'm not making this stuff up folks, it's science! Alcohol is helping people who have no business reproducing reproduce. Obviously this primordial ooze isn't going to control themselves and limit their exposure to alcohol and reproduction on their own so I see no other course of action but that the government step in and do something!
Stop the booze stop the ooze!
R.
September 30, 2009 at 9:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
me (anonymous) says...
whoops I forgot alcohol thanks seriouslyfolks if we ban EVERYTHING live in our bubble with of course our concealed weapons and our veggies what a wonderful safe world we could live in.
September 30, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Dear Friends,
I can understand how some of you might think banning everything would make use safer and healthier. There are several aspects, however, you must consider before you jump to saying we should just ban everything. Here are a few:
1. Who is harmed by the substance/activity? (Only the person doing it or others?)
2. Will banning the substance/activity do more good than harm? (What are the benefits vs. the harms?)
3. Is banning the substance/activity practical?
4. Will banning the substance/activity infringe on someone's rights?
Public Smoking:
1. Everyone in the room is harmed by SHS not just the person using it. SHS can be viewed as a form of physical assault on others.
2. Yes. By banning smoking indoors in public places, the health of a large population improves and the smokers are still able to smoke outside. This also protects others from someone else's harmful actions. Smokers can still frequent the establishments, so little to now revenue is lost.
3. Yes. This is easy to enforce and often doesn't require police intervention.
4. No. Smokers don't have the "right" to harm others with their actions. The smoking ban preserves the right of non-smokers to not be harmed by others. Business owners are not losing any rights, because it is their responsibility to provide a safe establishment for all who enter. Smokers still have the right to smoke as long as it doesn’t pose a risk to others.
Sunday Sales:
1. No one is harmed by buying liquor on Sunday. Sunday consumption is not banned, so what day a person buys the alcohol is irrelevant.
2. No. Banning Sunday sales serves no benefit. Restricting sales and driving citizens to shop elsewhere is harmful to our community.
3. Unfortunately, yes. Business owners must abide by this senseless law or they'll lose the right to operate their business. They are forced operate their business how the religious types think they should or they'll be fined and have their license taken away.
4. Yes. Banning Sunday sales in unconstitutional because there is no reason why a person shouldn't be able to sell/purchase a legal substance on any given day of the week. This restriction infringes on the rights of the store owner as well as the rights of the customer. The decision to sell/buy alcohol on Sunday should be a personal choice; not a government mandate.
Comparing these two, it is clear the smoking ban is beneficial (ban-worthy) and the Sunday sales ban is not. Please do a similar evaluation before you go off on how we should ban everything under the sun. Lose the "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to government restrictions and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.
‘enry
September 30, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
Yeah, you’re right. I should be allowed to take all the fish out of public waters without regard as to how it will impact the population… I should be allowed to drive however I want when I don’t have a license/skills to do so… I should be allowed to shoot and kill someone if I disagree with them… What you are describing is anarchy; not freedom. To truly live “free” we have to be protected from the harmful actions of others. If one person lives the way you suggest, it could ruin it for the rest of us. Our laws keep this from happening. Our laws make our nation great. If you don’t agree, maybe you should move to Afghanistan or Somalia. Enjoy your “freedom” there.
'enry
September 30, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
The entire concept of equal rights in America is flawed beyond belief. It is built on the premise that all people are equal and have equal rights. Have all people evolved equally? Obviously not. Their is not a basis in science to defend the concept of equal rights. Where did they come up with this equal rights crap? Look at the illegals that YY4U mentions above, they have obviously seen this flaw in our system and have decided to ignore the parts of the system that they feel don't further them as people. Some see this as wrong but what is wrong? Is there some sort of scientific test we can do to determine what is wrong and what is right? I have never heard of one if their is and as a highly evolved individual that does not depend on nicotine, alcohol, or other stimulants to survive, surely I would have heard of such a test. It truly is a time for change. I have come full circle on the big government/small government debate in my mind, smaller or no government is the answer. Why should we have an organization that protects people that can't protect themselves? Isn't this counter productive? Isn't it slowing down the inevitable(evolution)? Isn't it time to set aside religious concepts like mercy and charity in this time of great scientific awakening? Right now the government is trying to implement a system that is counter productive to evolution. It is called health care reform. What is the point? If you get a disease or some other kind of illness that is a sign that you haven't evolved, right? Why waste resources on such an un-evolved individual? It you have an accident that is your fault, you are un-evolved and no resources should be wasted on you. The only ones that should receive care under the evolved health care plan are those people that are evolved and get harmed by the primordial ooze that still remains. It should be easy to fund this hcr.
R.
September 30, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Excellent point, YY4U.
Henry, you don't have to move to Somalia or Afghanistan. Just renounce your American citizenship and then you can do all the things you listed above and sanctuary cities such as San Francisco will guarantee you will be safe from reprecussions from the Feds.
September 30, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
me (anonymous) says...
alcohol doesnt hurt others? first alot of domistic violence happens in a drucken rage then there is the drunk drivers killing innocent people.how ,many deaths a year from drunk drivers? yes it should be all or nothing you cant smoke in public but you can get drunk with a concealed weapon in your belt and the public is safe because ......there is no second hand smoke.??? I beleive in freedom for ALL you dont like smoke I dont like people getting killed from a drunk driver or a person beat or killed in a drunken rage we cant ban everything that may be harmful because that is EVERYTHING thats the point I was trying to make
September 30, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
open_eyes,
Far more people WOULD do those things here if it wasn't illegal. The simple fact that we have laws against it discourages most people from going that route. Our laws are the only thing stopping us from becoming like Somalia or Afghanistan. All I'm saying is don't bad mouth our laws because they actually make things better for all of us. The good news is that we CAN punish the people you refer to because they're breaking the law. Without our laws that we are “slaves” to, we’d have no way to prevent that sort of behavior. Catching 'em and enforcing the law is the tricky part.
'enry
September 30, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Laws are for the weak and un-evolved! No laws! No mercy!
To have laws that protect weak primordial ooze is a kin to laws that protect birds from cats. It goes against nature. Sell alcohol on Sundays so that weak "people" drink more of it and die sooner. Get out of my gene pool ooze. Do it quickly!
R.
September 30, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
me,
No, the LEGAL consumption of alcohol does not hurt others. I drank a number of beverages last Sunday in a room full of people and no one else felt the effects of my alcohol.
Domestic violence is already banned. You don’t have to be drunk to do it. Besides, what does buying alcohol on Sunday have to do with domestic violence?
Drunk driving is already banned. As are other forms of reckless driving. What does buying alcohol on Sunday have to do with breaking other laws?
Shooting people with your concealed weapon (beyond reasonable force) is already illegal. As are other forms of assault on others. What does carrying a gun have to do with buying alcohol on Sunday?
My point is this. There is no reason to ban the sale of alcohol on Sunday because the SALE does not harm anyone. There is no reason to ban the consumption of alcohol because the consumption does not necessarily harm others. There is no reason to ban smoking because this doesn’t necessary harm others. Banning actions that ARE dangerous to others (like drunk driving and public smoking) makes total sense. There is no reason to ban something before it gets to the point of being harmful to others.
Otherwise, you are punishing those of us who can enjoy the product/activity without harming others. And THAT is unconstitutional.
‘enry
September 30, 2009 at 10:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
I did serve in the military, you pompous ass. (I got a big chunk of my shin missing to prove it.) You had better go buy that one-way ticket!
‘enry
September 30, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
"Selective enforcement of the law is a violation of the law".
So why do sanctuary cities get away with flaunting it? And brag about it?
September 30, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
me (anonymous) says...
ok henryIII you made good points I just think if shs was as dangerous as they now say there would be alot less population when I was growing up people smoked everywhere.I dont like people carrying concealed weapons because i had a alcoholic step dad that loved to get drunk and point guns at us very scary then there is the danger of a child getting a hold of the gun.as for smoking everyone smoking ought to be considerate of others but a ban just takes our freedoms away one ban at a time same with sunday beer sales if you are 21 want to buy beer on sunday that should be your choice.
September 30, 2009 at 11:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
What does "protecting others" have to do with anything? If people cannot protect themselves then they are obviously not evolved and should naturally be selected to die as a result of their weakness. Laws that protect people are based on emotions that cannot be proven scientifically. Emotions should never be considered when making laws. It's ludicrous to do so. It's way too subjective. We have natural laws that are in place, we don't have to waste our time trying to add to them. Let natural law take it's course. Let's stop trying to delay the inevitable.
R.
September 30, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
NO LAWS NOW!
September 30, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Thank you HenryVIII, it's comforting to know there are some people that look at these issues with some intelligence & common sense. SHS is a serious health risk (more to some than others). We Americans in our pursuit of our "freedoms" often disregard the freedoms of others in that pursuit (making it necessary for the "government" to believe it needs to "step in").
The "all or nothing" argument that is often regurgitated here is ridiculous in my opinion. For instance the "alcohol" issue. We already have laws for driving under the influence. If you are irresponsible enough to drive after drinking "too much", and you are "caught", you get a ticket or more (jail time, suspended license, etc.). Other than that, a person that drinks "socially" doesn't affect the health or safety of another.
Matter of fact, the number of accidents/deaths caused by drunk drivers is on the decline (where the number of accidents/deaths caused by drivers texting or talking on cell phones is on the rise). There's discussion about enforcing or "banning" texting while driving. Although I think it's not a very smart practice to talk or text while driving, I don't think it will be enforceable (other than after the fact, if it can be proven that you were texting/talking on a cell phone & involved in an accident).
Unfortunately the "government" can't "ban" stupidity or irresponsible actions.
September 30, 2009 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Unfortunately the "government" can't "ban" stupidity or irresponsible actions."
Natural selection will take care of stupidity if we let it. Laws that try to slow down natural selection are stupidity times 1000. I don't know what you mean by "irresponsible actions", it seems to me that the only "responsible actions" we need to concern ourselves with is keeping our own lineage going and if we do so it is proof that those genes are worthy for future generations. We should not confuse this for love for our children or mating partner or some emotional crap like that but for what it is, survival of the fittest. There is absolutely no need for man made laws when nature has it's own set of laws.
R.
September 30, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Yarrrrr! Lets all be pirates! Rape, loot, pillage and plunder! Let the complainers die by the sword!
September 30, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
True that! YY4U! With our military training perhaps it would be beneficial for us to form an alliance, Survivor style, to help natural selection along!
No mercy! No Laws! They go against evolution!
R.
September 30, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Oh I'm sorry I thought YY4U said that. Sorry goodoleboy. My offer still stands for an alliance with YY4U though.
R.
September 30, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...
Serious,
What I mean by "irresponsible" is someone drinking (alcoholic beverages) beyond the limit or the point where their abilities are impaired and getting behind the wheel, firing a weapon/hunting from a vehicle/not absolutely sure of what you are shooting at, not properly restraining your children (seatbelts, booster seats, carseats, etc), talking/texting on your cell phone while driving (the list can go on and on).
Look at all the precautions/cautions we find on electrical appliances and power equipment to prevent injuries, etc. to you or others. 99% of those cautions evolved from "irresponsible" (and stupid) actions in the past (that resulted in injuries, death and/or lawsuits).
If you've never been to www.darwinawards.com, and you need a good laugh, I highly recommend taking a look. There are some real good stories (including some that'll make you glad they're no longer contributing to the gene pool).
September 30, 2009 at 2:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Back when the Sunday liquor sales ban was coming up on the ballot, I talked to a lady who had formerly been beaten up alot by her drunk husband. They were divorced by then, but their kids still went to stay with him every other weekend. He would go to the bars to get loaded Friday night and then drink all the liquor in the house on Saturday and have to go get more on Sunday. Sunday nights, when his blood alcohol levels were undoubtedly at their peak, was when he would beat the snot out of her and then go after the kids. She would take more of a beating by getting in the way, but she was able to keep him away from them. That's how he got visitation rights.......he'd never successfully hit them. She figured that if he was cut off on Sundays, he couldn't get that to that level and her kids would be safer. There was probably a lot more than just her who voted to ban Sunday liquor sales on that reason alone.
Now, about YY4U and his "illegal freedom" theory. Semi-recently, I spoke with a woman who entered this country illegally and before becoming legal, she learned that one of her kids was being hurt by a family member. This family member told her that if she reported it, the family would take her children from her and have her deported. As an illegal, she had no freedom. Sadly, since the now ex-family used the law to intimidate her so badly, she is frightened to call the law when she should and tries to handle things she shouldn't without the law. She really has no freedom now as a legal, but only because she was once illegal and it could be held over her.
September 30, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
"Look at all the precautions/cautions we find on electrical appliances and power equipment to prevent injuries, etc. to you or others. 99% of those cautions evolved from "irresponsible" (and stupid) actions in the past (that resulted in injuries, death and/or lawsuits)."
This is what I'm talking about. Why do we have all these things to slow down natural selection? The more I think about it the more it angers me! We need to stop protecting people from their stupidity! If they die, so what! People are just a cosmic accident anyway! If we are going to further ourselves we need to let nature take it's course. The biggest problem with health care reform is the "care" part. Why should we care about others health if they are weak and/or sick that's just nature taking it's course. Do other animals do all they can to take care of each other? No!
R.
September 30, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
So power outages slow down natural selection. Well hopefully these unevolved "people" trip and fall in the dark cracking their heads on something and kill themselves that way during the power outages instead of lopping off their own heads with circular saws. Hey we can hope, right?
R.
September 30, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
"his is what I'm talking about. Why do we have all these things to slow down natural selection? The more I think about it the more it angers me! We need to stop protecting people from their stupidity! If they die, so what! People are just a cosmic accident anyway!"
Your a cosmic abortion, you rarely do anything more here then post a stupid youtube link or make some dumb-ass argument that has holes all over it. You are a testament to free speech. Apologies if you get offended but natural selection should have claimed you awhile back, consider yourself lucky=)
September 30, 2009 at 11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Sorry, just finished the preface of "Going Rogue" and well.. lets just tell it like it is=) Do your worst EG, tired of the censorship that goes on here anyways, learn to moderate a forum, or at least hire a competent individual.
September 30, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goodoleboy (anonymous) says...
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege. goodoleboy- 2009
October 1, 2009 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Wow!!! goodoleboy gets really grumpy when he's drinking.
October 1, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
I'd still like to know why if "selective enforcement of the law is a violation of the law" sanctuary cities get away with it all the time. It's not one of those laws that would be extremely difficult to enforce such as texting while driving.
October 1, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
My internet email in mailbox was full this morning with questions about evolution. It hasn't been this full since the days of our Logjam discussions.
The majority of the internet emails I got are along the lines of wanting to know how I can be so confident in my obvious evolutionary superiority and can others have the same confidence. Well the answers to those questions is best answered with a story and then some more questions.
For me it stated as a child, like most people, I noticed that we are all different, some darker some lighter, some shorter some taller, some homely some (like myself) very attractive. As I got older I started to notice some people would try not to look at some people and try to look at others. I would catch people just staring at me. When I would catch them they would kinda half smile and look away kinda embarrassed like they knew they shouldn't stare but couldn't really help themselves. After discovering all this I still wasn't sure what all this meant. The puzzel pieces really started coming together just a few months ago. I was at the Wal-mart getting some bean sprouts, tofu, and a new Yoga mat (I go through one about every two months) and I noticed that not only were people enjoying looking at me but I was starting to get kinda sick feeling looking at them. I gathered up my pompous purchases and put them in my Earth friendly recycled green hemp shopping tote and headed for the register. I seriously was not feeling good. Was it really from looking at all those ugoes? I wasn't for sure until I got to my Prius and was silently backing out of the stall and locked eyes with myself in the rear view mirror. I had to stop for a minute and just stare at the reflection. I started to feel better the more I looked. An hour later I decided to leave the parking lot and go home where I have many full length mirrors and many clothing options, all fabulous. After many hours of reflection (pun intended LOL ;-) :0 :-p rofl lol ;0) I came to realize that I was evolved and very good at it. I have not had a moment of doubt since that day.
Now to the questions. How can you know if you are evolved or just primordial ooze? Well here are some questions you can ask yourself?
1. Do I enjoy looking at my own reflection?
B. Do I catch others just kinda staring at me?
3. Am I jealous of others or are they jealous of me?
IV. Do I drive a hybrid?
6. Do I find tofu to be delicious?
7. Do I describe things that you normally don't taste as being "delicious"?
*. Am I offended by anything I have read in this post?
IX. Do I have a sense of humor?
X. Have I been fooled into thinking that Serious is serious?
Ask yourselves these questions and if you do you will be well on your way to knowing if you are evolved. Ultimately you will just know or not. These questions are only meant to help you if you can even be helped. You're welcome for my time.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 9:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Seriously,
It is truly enlightning reading your thoughts. A mirror to the soul, so to speak.
I have before proclaimed my support for your run for president, but your stance on Booze, and ooze has given me SHT's
Second Hand Thoughts. As booze,(not the ooze) makes up a good part of my income, and any attempt to ban it would have a negative effect on my well-being, I must re-consider your bid for King of the world.
I hope I have mis-read your comments, and probably have,Too much booze can cause brain ooze.
October 1, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
seriouslyrfolks, you are wise beyond the ken of many ;-)
October 1, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Steve
As my theories "evolve" I have come to believe that any sort of restriction on alcohol is counter productive to natural selection. People should be allowed to purchase alcohol when and where they please. The jury is still out on whether the consumption of alcohol is unhealthy or if it is healthy. Either way it will either advance the humans if it is healthy or it will weed out the ugoes. So you can still support me for my bid for president. If I win it will be further proof(not that there really needs to be any) that I am awesomely evolved.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Thanks open_eyes.
Would you guys(you and Steve) like to be in an alliance with YY4U and myself?
It will be awesome.
We're thinking about building a fort.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Oooh! Oooh! Yes! Can we hang a sign on the outside that says "No Gurls Allowed"? (Yes, that also means YOU, Sarah Palin!) We'll call it the "Center for Advanced Conservative Studies", and make it out of cardboard!
As long as we don't build it directly under the treehouse made out of Saran wrap called the "Center for Advanced Liberal Studies". I get SO tired of seeing their nosehairs all the time.
On second thought, lets allow "gurls" in after all. And we'll invite those "treehouse folk" down to join us in gathering thrown candy at the parade ;-)
"Alfalfa" open_eyes
October 1, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
That sounds like a great plan. I have asked methusla and biscuitboy to join our alliance as well.
It's going to be awesome!
R.
October 1, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Bunkers are good. Plenty of bugs to eat.
R.
October 1, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
And I'm usually all wet so I'll be in charge of the moat
October 1, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sheesh, ole crack is back, reincarnated in the form of Henry VIII ! Its so obvious who HenryVIII is !
Oh and I move that we adopt a by law for our alliance that absolutly prohibits crack, a.k.a. HenryVIII from joining or if he/she/they are allowed to join, he/she/they will the be the first to be eaten or be used for fish or crawdad bait !
October 1, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
In my opinion, too much exposure to crack/HenryVIII and all the other tyrannical banners, causes severe oozefactilosusabnormalitus of the brain and that folks is a really bad health hazard to every human on the planet, far worse than smoking, shs and booze !
October 1, 2009 at 3:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Hey, we got enough for a city commission club!
October 1, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Read this comment by Mr. David Meyers, " “We don’t know if smoking bans would affect emphysema or cancer rates. We expect they would,” Meyers said. “But it would take years to measure.”
Almost the same exact thing has been said throughout all of the so called scientific test conducted by all of the scientific institutes, who receive their funding from big pharma companies ! You see the " key words " in this and all statements about smoking, shs, etc. is " WE DON' T KNOW IF ", think about it people and also think about the fact that these researchers may be " biased " , because of funding issues !
October 1, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
It's obvious to me that methusla and YY4U are one in the same because they share the same opinion on something. What other possible explanation is there for 2 users to have the same opinion on something. Yeah, must be the same person.
It’s against the rules to have more than one account on this site. You know what else? It’s also against the rules to constantly try to guess who the other users are. methusla/YY4U, why can't you just follow the rules and leave me alone?
'enry
October 1, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
YY4U/methusla,
It's not a matter of the task being too hard. It's a matter of not wanting to do anything for an undeserving, pompous fool. Also, I'll never agree to stay sober on Sundays! That is what the work-week is for.
'enry
October 2, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Science has proven that "staying sober" is beneficial to the survival of the species. A small amount of alcohol is healthy thus it is beneficial. An evolved person knows this and limits their exposure to alcohol to only that which is healthy and helps him survive. I realize it is desirable to "get drunk", this is another example of feelings and emotions slowing down evolutionary progress.
R.
October 2, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Henry/Crack
When are you going to regress and start posting peoples personal/private info again and prove to everyone on this thread that you are indeed ole cracky, reincarnated in the guise of HenryVIII, you are fooling noone, because if and when someone doesn' t agree with your way of thinking, you revert to the old cracky tactic of attacking those who don' t agree with your way of thinking, so I say again, you are fooling noone, except, maybe Gwen and the Gazette, you pompous a$$.
YY4U and myself may have similar thoughts and beliefs, however our style of putting those thoughts and beliefs into print on these threads is nothing alike, however HenryVII and crackinsack not only think and believe in the same, identical frame of mind but they also write and act alike exactly the same on these forums, therefore my dear Watson, I deduce that they are one in the same person !
October 2, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
methusla speaks the truth and is of great value in my alliance.
R.
October 2, 2009 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
YY4U's smoking keeps the malaria carrying mosquitoes away from the bunkers making him a great value to our alliance.
R.
October 2, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla, aka YY4U, aka seriouslyfolks,
I find it hard to believe you all posting within minutes of each other is purely coincidental. You all share the same point of view and you all post around the same time. (just long enough in between posts to log out and log back in under a different name) There is no question that you 3 are in fact the same individual indulging his sick sense of self importance.
How many other identities do you have on here? I used to think poor crackinsack was getting ganged-up on by a group of malicious users, but now I see it was just one user using multiple ID’s to badger her. Perhaps I should bring this to the Gazette’s attention…
'enry
Note to the Gazette staff: I really have no idea if these users are actually the same person, nor am I attempting to discover their identity. I simply posted the above to give ‘em a taste of their own medicine and maybe show them how outrageous and unwarranted their accusations are.
October 2, 2009 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Henry or whoever
Several posters posting within minutes or seconds of one another being the same person makes a lot of sense, NOT !
You have the same steel trap mind as the other alter ego of yours and the same powers of deduction, which is none !
You seem to forget that crack made the statement, threat or whatever, after he/she was banned from these forums that he/she would return, stronger than ever. Therefore if crack was in fact a she, what better guise to return to these forms, than the guise of one of historys most ruthless, non-caring, maniacal rulers than King Henry VIII ! Think about it !
And Henry if the Gazette sees fit to ban me from these forums, I too shall return stronger than before, because if crack can do it, so can I.
Bear in mind that on these forums you get what you give and sometimes you get more than what you give .
October 2, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
methusla,
If you click my user name, you'll see:
"Joined: Dec. 12, 2008"
When was crackinsack banned? When did she threaten to return with such vigor? Back in 2008? I think not. Your logic doesn't make any sense, good sir. I suppose crackinsack could have contacted HenryVIII to purchase the account name, but why wouldn't she just create a new account and save herself the money?
I don't really care who you think I am, but I'm getting sick (and somewhat tired) of reading about it. It’s getting really old. crackinsack is long gone, so bringing her up all the time is irrelevant and distracting. Have you nothing else to talk about? Don’t you see that by talking about her, you are giving her what she wants? She may not be able to post to the site, but thanks to you (and others like you), her “legacy” lives on. I can picture her reading this at home and grinning in delight as she revels at the impact she has had on you. Do us all a favor and let the memory fade. Stop feeding her ego.
Unless you want me to constantly accuse you of being someone you're not, I suggest you show a little common courtesy. Thanks and have a fantastic day!
'enry
October 2, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry.....You do have to admit you sure sound like her.....don't you.....uh,uh,uh....?
October 2, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
paulkersey (anonymous) says...
Crack, you said,
"It's a matter of not wanting to do anything for an undeserving, pompous fool."
Whatever happened to "say something nice, or don't say anything at all?" A little teeny bit of double-standards going there? I think so.
October 2, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
Well...she is my sister, so that makes sense! Just kidding! LOL! Had you going there didn't I? Besides, how do you know I "sound" like her? I'm not even making any noise other than the tapping/clicking noise from the keyboard, but I doubt you can hear that. To me, methusla and YY4U sound the same, but I don't assume they're the same person.
paulkersey and others,
This will be the last time I respond to any post that references “crackinsack”. If you want me to read your post, consider your message, or respond to you, I suggest you address me properly.
Good day,
'enry
October 2, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
We are indeed multiple people but we have one purpose and that is to survive. If anyone threatens us we will do what we must to survive. I caution all who oppose us to think very carefully about how you deal with us. The tribe has spoken.
R.
October 2, 2009 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
YES WE CAN!
October 2, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Survivor: Gazette
Sounds like a new reality show!!!! Tune in!!! LOL
October 2, 2009 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Disclaimer:
I did not check or worry about my posting time, nor did I check to see if my syntax or wording sounded remotely like anyone else's.
October 2, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
HenryVIII,
The fact is you have a penchant for using the exact copy of that other persons comments, to the letter, is why you are thought to be that other " person " !
Can' t think of anything origional to say on your own, except " quit picking on me " , " I am going to report you to the Gazette " and " just kidding " , of which all just happen to be exact quotes letter for letter by that other" person ".
It makes no difference when you joined this forum, the point is you need to get some new origional material and stop plagerizing that other " persons " material and then, just maybe, you will be thought of as being who you say you are !
Each person has his or her unmistakeable style, also known as individualism, whether it be in printed, written or spoken word, etc. and you have the unmistakeable style of that other " person " in every word you write and each and every thought you put to paper, computer screen or forum, so if people on these forums percieve you as someone else or someone you are not, it is because you seem to have a lack of indiviualism !
October 2, 2009 at 2:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
YY4U,
That's easy! You simply had 2 different Internet browser windows/sessions open at the same time and you were logged-in as a different user in each. You typed each message and then clicked 'post' one after the other. I can see through your trickery! LOL
'enry
October 2, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
Who, me? Um…er...that is...what I meant to say was... I can't say for sure, but I would assume that is how someone could go about it if they were so inclined... Purely speculative, of course...
‘enry
October 2, 2009 at 3:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
'enry......I knew you would make some reference to how I could know what you sound like.....but you and everybody else reading this page knew what I meant. The point is all of our writing styles reflect much about us as individuals...the more individual we are...the more it is reflected.
This has all been gone over before but the truth is I could not change my user name and fool any regular,thinking reader of these boards for more than a few minutes. I might pull it off for a few hours but only with super human effort. The way we write is as individual as the way we sound and is virtually impossible to change.
Bottom line is however that I don't really care who you are...I care about what you say.....all the rest is an interesting past-time.....nothing more.
October 2, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryVIII (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
Yes, I knew what you meant. I was only giving you a hard time. I guess I'm just not very good at analyzing the way people write, because most folks "sound" the same to me. Unless there are a lot of grammatical errors in their posts or something, I can't really differentiate between the subtleties in their writing styles. It just doesn't stick-out to me.
"...I only care about what you say..." How sweet. I'm glad to know you care! ;) Although, technically, I’m not really “saying” anything. LOL! Just playin’, my friend, just playin’.
'enry
October 2, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
OK everyone, let's give Henry a break.
I know for a fact that Henry is not that other poster.
They just think alike.
And if we don't lighten up on enry he is liable to form an alliance with that other person. Then our club would be in trouble! Survivor Gazette indeed:)
October 2, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Well our odds are still pretty good if they do form an alliance because our numbers are already so great(and so are we).
R.
October 2, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
open_eyes (anonymous) says...
Actually, I think Certain alliances by the "other" side actually help our cause. Imagine taking smugness and delusions of self omnipotence and multiplying it X 2. All we'd have to do is throw some rope and shovels outside our impenetrable fortress (make sure they clear the moat) and sit back and do nothing as they either hang themselves or dig their hole deeper. I'm thinking if we attach the shovel to the rope then we can retrieve them without even leaving the fort. As we pull them across the moat the pirahna will pick the bones clean and we won't even have to mess with the remains. I'm already busy drawing up our fort plans with Wile E. Coyote - we'll be putting in the order to the Acme Manufacturing Company soon. They usually deliver within seconds.
October 2, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
open_eyes.......ROFLMAO
October 3, 2009 at 5:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )