While all of the smokefree advocates in NJ support the inclusion of casinos in the smokefree workplace legislation, and have repeatedly urged the state legislature to do so, there aren't enough votes within the legislature for enactment.
Thus, some smokefree advocates in NJ (not all) have endorsed the compromise legislation that would require all workplaces except casinos to become smokefree, as that will still protect 99% of workers in NJ from smoke exposure at work.
The health advocates in NJ will continue advocating for smokefree casinos in the future. In recent years, it appears that the gambling industry spends more money than the cigarette industry to influence the votes of politicians. And the combined contributions of both industry's has influenced a majority of NJ legislators.
If every smokefree law that was enacted had to cover 100% of workplaces as a prerequisite for health advocates to support, there would never have been any smokefree workplace laws enacted.
The legislative process in one of disjointed incrementalism.
Bill-
I disagree. I think that in 2005, there is no excuse to be making political compromises at the expense of 48,000 casino workers who, frankly, are the ones who most need protection from secondhand smoke. Your suggested strategy of incrementalism worked for the 1980s and 1990s, but in 2005, I think that working for a level playing field for all workers is proving to be a far more successful strategy. It is only when public health advocates express a willingness to exempt certain workers, I believe, that these exemptions gain legitimacy.
I think it is going to be a lot more difficult to go back and amend the legislation to include casino workers then it would have been to simply lay down a hard line and demand protection for all workers. It wouldn't have passed this year, but there would have been a serious shot of enacting it next year.
Now, there is little hope of protection for casino workers for the foreseeable future. It's easy to say: "we'll just come back next year and strengthen it" but I've yet to see that happen in any reasonable length of time.
The bottom line is that the health of the casino workers in New Jersey is being sacrificed in order to say that we got something passed. And that's a tragedy for them.
The casino lobby is very strong, especially in Nevada and New Jersey.
NJ GASP officials have previously aknowledged no smoking ban that includes Atlantic City casinos has had traction in the legislature. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon, either.
And in Nevada, an anti-smoking proposal the lung and heart associations put on the 2006 Nevada ballot mirrors New Jersey's, expressly exempting casino floors.
A Nevada lung association spokeswoman admitted that it would be "next to impossible" to ban smoking in casinos there. They're more worried about the smoking around the slot machines in grocery stores.
Well, this is stupid, greedy, and just plain wrong. All businesses have the right to ban smoking on their premises. Now they claim the right to be free of competition from those who would allow it.
And Dr. Siegel, I take great exception with the dodge that this is about protecting workers. A worker who wants to avoid the minor hazard of ETS must look for a job elsewhere.
There is no right to a job.
I'm puzzled: "organizations representing bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, and veterans' clubs in New Jersey are demanding that state lawmakers provide smoke-free workplaces" Who prevented them from going smoke-free on their own? They are asking for the legislator to restrict their freedom to decide ...
I can't believe this! By whom are these people brainwashed?
Are they not aware of the fact that most of the studies that have described the economic effects of those bans were done by the very ones who advocated the bans? And that the only reliable studies came from their own peers (who don't have any reason to report that there is a damage if in fact there is profit found), showing that the damage is quite substantial?
Are they not aware that the 'protecting the workers from ETS' argument isn't anything more than a lie to be able to make the life of their smoking patrons abominable and that there is no significant scientific proof for this statement at all?
Michael, you oppose the efforts to make pariahs out of smokers. How can you support these smoking bans?!
Those who advocate such bans likely believe they are practicing democratic values, having mistakenly accepted the equation of majority rule with individual freedom. The two concepts are in fact antithetical.
Natural rights are held against the majority, and they are not negotiable. A government may recognize and guarantee those rights, or it may violate them. Neither it, nor a majority of citizens, grants them.
In a truly free nation, the only legitimate weapon for social change is persuasion. If a citizen will not be persuaded, one has reached the end of one's rights in pursuing the matter. The more crimes we create legislatively, the more we divide and weaken society, and we make the nation unfree.
I'm not sure why the medical profession is so given to coercion in acheiving it's aims. Their narrow education certainly doesn't qualify them for running our lives this way. We once had a useful term for the doings of our contemporary social activists: intolerance.
If one truly believes in freedom, one must tolerate much that one disapproves.
I'm sure some unoriginal soul will accuse me of advocating anarchy. Hardly. This nation once had the small number of laws I would aspire to, and it was not nearly as anarchic as the one we have today, when almost every citizen has been turned into a liar and a criminal by the governments.
Brett:
That my friend, was a Homerun.
Do you notice that the only reason the bans get enacted is when the "5 minute and everyone dies" principle?
They extreme stretching of the believed "facts", when we are the longest lived and healthiest generation ever. Meanwhile they have lived through the highest smoking rates during childhood. The cancer rates are still increasing, while smoking has been decreasing over the last 30+ years! Inconsistancies abound, while the extremists say that smoking is the major cause of cancer!
Give me a break. You can protect workers, but you can't save them from a bad enviornment. Isn't it horrible how the extremists expect the perfect air when the cancer rates are ever increasing? Yet the filtartion levels in casinos can arrive at the same "safe" level as the outside air, and better protect patrons.
This through improving on the air by taking more out then what people in parks breath. In nonsmoking homes your still exposed to formaldyhydes, arsenic. Shall I continue with the cancer causes substances which you can't eliminate exposure while having nonsmoking venues??
You can't tell me that a worker can be protected in mines, yet a casino worker can't! Look at the whole picture will you?
Mine ventilation prtecting workers http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...=print&
sid=1677
Dr. Siegel,
There is another much more plausible explanation to the organizations actions. "The poison pill" The bars, and restaurants don't have the clout to fight off the ban. By encouraging the drafting of the legislation to include casinos, they greatly improve their odds of being struck down, since it appears casinos have the clout. Why else would the local hash house worry about losing customers to the casino?
I also don't feel there is any genuine concern from most of the anti-tobacco crowd towards workers. Call me a cynic, but as they are more than happy to encourage employment hiring bias with smoking behavior, and as previously discussed, opens the door to hiring only smokers, and thus negating the overriding concerns. Couple this with their willingness to sacrifice casino workers for the elimination of the last vestige of social smoking, the bars, pubs and hash houses.
Couple this with the absolute refusal to accept alternative means of reducing risks to employees, such that a smoking ban is the only acceptable solution. Roll this all together, and we have a poison pill of a different color.
The solution is the ban, but the effort is in how to stack the deck such that this is the only possible solution for a politician.
As you and I both know, there is no means of protecting against all hazards in the workplace, or is even considered. From the studies I've seen, lung cancer risks in truck drivers run about the same as food service in non-smoking staff. I imagine CHD risks are comparable, although I haven't researched this.
The reason why I use professional drivers is their exposure to workplace smoke is very limited as they spend most of their time alone, but have long term exposure to CO. Very little thought is given to protecting this segment of the workforce.
Another example is Kawachi's study on nurses doing shiftwork suggested that shift work had a relative risk of CHD of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.12 to 2.03). I'm not aware of any legislative attempts at banning shift work. No extensive lobby groups promoting the abolishment of shift work. No full page ads, no canvassing efforts to warn employees of the risks of shift work.
Reducing risks are weighed against the expense of mitigation. While some will say smoking bans are free, what must be considered is a good sized contingent of owners willing to spend big bucks to install improved ventilation, which would reduce other potential hazards of SHS and other hazards, in order to avoid being subject to a smoking ban. Which despite any studies flaunted, tells me there is a potential cost to smoking bans in lost revenues, or at least people are willing to bet their investments on it.
I feel your concerns with workers is real.
With this said, I'd appreciate your take on ventilation. I'm sorry but I don't find a certain individual which dominates the literature all that credible, due to his devotion with the issue, his gale-force wind comments and absolute zero tolerances.
In Canadian politics we once had the good sense to dismiss lies and scandals rejecting political failures. When we saw a liar we were free to expose those lies. Today the Lies of politicians have gone too far They call it over reaching tell bigger lies to get away with the small ones. Today’s Liberal(Left) is perfectly in tune to parroting identical lies of the past, a vile piece of inhumanity we wish today had never been believed.
He challenged the views of science and faith yet was for too long given great credibility by the nations of the world. The UN at meetings in Breton Woods was formed to insure the lies would never be allowed again.
Industry lobbies now not only corrupt the UN they repeat gene protection principles. The Rockefellers are once again spreading the same tripe, which once inspired the liar. The UN has failed in its founding mandate, for what I read in my paper today parrots the words of the liar.
Liberal direction is not right or left leaning but takes popularity from both.
Direction is the third one as taught by Mussolini and proven by the liar as a place we never wish to go again.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripo...eftist/
id1.html
http://www.davehitt.com/feb00/ra...00/
racists.html
Evaluate the Pan Canadian strategy found here
PDF version
http://216.13.76.142/PROntario/P...rategy-
ENG1.pdf
HTML Version
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=ca...Strategy.&
hl=en
Commitment to the strategy at the WHO
http://www.who.int/
dietphysicala...gseb_canada.pdf
Commitments by the provinces and territories
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hl-vs-strat/
This is the version of the Pan Canadian strategy currently stated as the articles submitted to the Romano commission In fact it is a current rewrite. The basis for Goodale’s bill and the WHO commitments was a draft, which was quite different. Particularly with the Taxation plans and individual assessments that could be used to defame and discriminate against anyone who is seen to be overweight. Fat is the new tobacco. Smokers in real practice were in the Ontario experience with the backing of Health Canada. Smokers are stupid, inconsiderate of others, smell like dog crap and kill babies. Considering the overreaching activities in smoking campaigns how far will they go in overreaching for effect? When you consider the population in accepting hatred being advised against smokers. The new campaigns in order to be effective will have to be much more abusive. The hidden agenda of Liberal health advocacy.
I have attached the original Pan Canadian strategy to this document, as it is no longer available from the original source. There is an abbreviated version found at the CSPI site found here.
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/
pr...et_consult.html
The basic need to create a Pan Canadian Strategy based in the views of an American lobby group exaggerations hold no candle to the grown exaggerations which will result in a huge expenditure of public funds and an even larger collection of incredible taxation in the grocery stores 75% taxes on beef products and for industry 300% tax rebates for healthy living advertising expenditures.
The model for anti smoking campaigns has been suggested as the most efficient and funding of 500 million to mirror the federal government expenditures in tobacco control. The net result of smoking prohibitionists? With 2/3 reductions of use and harmful ingredients we saw a 2/3 increase in smoking related diseases. Either smoking is healthy or science by consensus is not nearly as beneficial as the old fashioned kind.
Real science has one rule reproducible proof. Consensus views are akin to fashion shows and campfire stories. Hardly the basis for political leadership and protection of a community.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publi...c/20-3/
b_e.html
The hospitality industry is enduring the devastating effects of 30-40% sales losses due to smoking bans. When they attempted to protest they were called stooges to big Tobacco. What will they call the cattle farmers when they complain about 75% sin taxes on beef products?
It goes without saying when real science is considered relevant as opposed to the cheerleading of consensus views the outcome is clear.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/
opi...#Drmichaellewis
Chronic Disease and Obesity in Canada
Each year in Canada, more than two-thirds of deaths result from four groups of
chronic diseases – cardiovascular, cancer, type 2 diabetes and respiratory. These
chronic diseases share common preventable risk factors (physical inactivity,
unhealthy diet and tobacco use) and the environmental determinants that underlie
these personal health practices, including income, employment, education,
geographic isolation, social exclusion, and other factors.
According to the World Health Organization, over 90% of type 2 diabetes and 80% of coronary heart disease could be avoided or postponed with good nutrition, regular physical activity, the elimination of smoking and effective stress management.
_ The estimated total cost in Canada of illness, disability and death attributable to
chronic diseases amounts to over $80 billion annually.1
The number of Canadians who are overweight or obese has steadily increased over
the last 25 years. Today, nearly one-quarter (23.1%) of adult Canadians, 5.5 million
people aged 18 or older, are obese. An additional 36.1% (8.6 million) are overweight,
bringing the total number of adult Canadians who are overweight or obese to over 59%.2 Of even greater concern, 26% of Canadian children and adolescents aged 2 to 17 are overweight or obese; 8% are obese.3 For children aged 6 to 11 and adolescents aged 12 to 17, the likelihood of being overweight or obese tends to rise as the time spent watching TV, playing video games or using the computer increases. For the majority of Canadians, current physical activity patterns are not optimal for health. Obese individuals tend to have sedentary leisure-time pursuits and to consume fruits and vegetables relatively infrequently.
_ Physical inactivity costs the Canadian health care system at least $2.1 billion
Annually in direct health care costs,4 and the estimated annual economic burden
is $5.3 billion.
CSPI has been busy
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/
fo...rtherecord.html
Others don’t quite see the CSPI theology
http://
www.thirdworldtraveler.co...Prop_Model.html
http://www.johnbrydenmp.com/
repo...eports2002.html
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/n...m/headline/
2790
http://www.junkscience.com/foxne...ws/
fn100600.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,162575,00.html
http://www2.potsdam.edu/
hansondj...1095381279.html
http://www.activistcash.com/orga...view.cfm/oid/
13
http://www.cspiscam.com/
Canadians and the provincial Health ministries are being duped with a bait and switch Compare the original document below with the documents found here. A kinder gentler version is being sold the original has no such niceties.
Condensed version
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/
pd...iveLivStrat.pdf
Full version
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/
pd..._submission.pdf
Federal government newest version
http://216.13.76.142/PROntario/P...rategy-
ENG1.pdf
CSPI Tactics
http://transfreeamerica.org/
cspi...fat_nytimes.pdf
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/f...oods/
index.html
The opening of this document could be considered plagiarized by CSPI
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ow...dms/owg-
qa.html
Statements recanted, yet in Canada we precede based on the lies
Government is being allowed to ignore reality.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/n...m/headline/
2790
http://remotefarm.techcentralsta...om/
042205D.html
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
http://www.reason.com/sullum/122...um/
122404.shtml
http://www.forces.org/evidence/e...iles/
osteen.htm
http://www.thetruthisalie.com/
Perhaps a return to traditional values in respect to science and faith, use of language, which is credited with just one meaning of the word credibility.
To Bill Godshall:
One Question. Do you own a car?
Zippy, I'm sure Bill will answer that question with some such quip as "smoking is not an alternative form of transportation."
However, his position on smoking comes down to this: no one has the right to emit particulates in the air for his own pleasure.
Therefore, by this thinking, all selfish pleasure driving should be banned. The government will set up a new bureaucracy to approve our driving plans.
Oh well, there goes the hospitality industry. That will render moot the banning of smoking in bars, casinos and restaurants.
Brett:
Thanks for your response. I can tell you have done this before, as have I.
The risk of death in a car crash is roughly 1 per 7000 Americans. This is a risk factor that most American accept.
If you ask 100 drivers if the risk of driving a car is an acceptable level you will get 95%+ saying that the risk is acceptable and 5% will simply shrug.
The only respondents that will respond negative will be those that do not drive, and those of a parinoid nature.
Marketing by the pro-ban side has made the average American scared of a "percieved risk" as they ignor the very real risk of performing a common daily activity.
Of course he will not have a straight answer. To give a straight answer will reflect on his agenda, and/or his mental stability.
fxr... Whew! That's a helluva lot of research! I haven't looked at your links yet, but if they support what's in between you've got the makings some nice reporting there! Do you have a web page that lays the whole thing out somewhere?
Dr. Siegel, I've agreed with many of your postings on this blog, but I must say I'm disappointed that you seem to be so taken by the image of casino workers working in a "coal mine." The Antismoking extremists are playing with language, emotion, and imagery with that analogy, and by buying into it you're falling into the same trap you've often criticized them for.
After all, we all *know* that "working in a coal mine" is one of the most "dangerous, dirty, deadly, low class, undesirable" jobs in existence. Who among us hasn't seen images on our TV's/movies of men crawling out of shafts with their skin totally blackened? Who hasn't heard of "coal miners lung" or heard news stories of dozens or hundreds of coal miners dying in their shafts?
Dr. Siegel... think back to the last time you visited a casino. They are almost universally highly well-ventilated, spacious, airy places with general air quality that probably averages far better than that found in the dining areas of your average smoke-free McDonalds. Seriously, would you debate me on this?
You've rejected what amounts to the outright lies of the extremists, but there are a lot of squishy lies along the path that led there. Don't go picking them up and thinking they're daisies.... they ain't.
The AHA study that found that "establishments that allowed smoking were 15 times more polluted than those that did not" ... have you looked at the study? Were the people who carried it out reliable and unbiased? Did they deliberately pick some element to measure that pretty much only exists in tobacco smoke (which would then give a pretty much foregone conclusion that the level of that element would be thousands of percent higher in a place with smoking) and then play a propaganda trick by generalizing their finding into the term "air pollution" ?
Dr. Siegel, I think you know better, but I think you still have many years behind you of not having thought a lot about the language and tricks being used. I think there's probably still a good part of you that assumes "These people are sincere and are probably not lying or trying to pull a fast one."
And I think you'd be closer to seeing reality if you assumed the opposite as your starting point.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
I have a solution that will both protect casino workers from exposures to tobacco smoke pollution and allow smokers to continue puffing away in casinos.
All smokers who want to smoke in casinos can simply to the following website and order their very own nicosphere3000.
http://www.nicosphere3000.com/
ho...me_frameset.htm
I especially like its special gaurantee, and what customers say about the innovative product.
If you order your's today, you might even get it delivered in time for Christmas. You can also use the device at home during the holidays so family members don't get sick from the smoke.
It might even be better that the few anti-smokers in the world would take protective action, like this or this or hang their own non-smoking signs on their door?
Bill G. wrote: "In recent years, it appears that the gambling industry spends more money than the cigarette industry to influence the votes of politicians. And the combined contributions of both industry's has influenced a majority of NJ legislators."
Are you saying legislators can be bought? Or do you mean they get their facts solely from "propaganda"?
If either is the case, who can we trust then?
Bill, if you were a legislator, by whom or what would you be influenced?
Lots of elected officials have been (and some remain) upset at me for exposing their sponsorship, activism and voting records on tobacco policy legislation and their receipt of contributions from cigarette companies and their lobbyists.
Regarding trust, you can trust me.
But I'm too honest and truthful to get elected as a legislator.
Bill, did you ever compare the sponsoring of your pharma friends with that of the tobacco industry?
You see? We supply the evidence with our statements....
Bill wrote
"Regarding trust, you can trust me.
But I'm too honest and truthful to get elected as a legislator."
I think Bill is doing us a favour here, for he shows us what is the real face of the anti-smoking movement.
They accuse the opposition to be "tobacco front groups", that they are "lying and misrepresenting facts". They don't give a iota of evidence and
regularly refuse to even discuss what they report as the truth (as Bill regularly does).
They, for first, post false or misleading statements, without giving any evidence. When asked for evidence, they simply ignore the request and move on. When contrary evidence is reported, they simply ignore it and move on (as Bill regularly does).
They support (or in the best case remain silent about) workplace discrimination against smokers and give poor excuses, such as "the law doesn't forbid it", or "it's for their own good", for their support of such a discrimination. Yep, Bill does that too.
They express their hate and intolerance against smokers, as Bill does regularly: he can't make a statement about smokers without resorting to name-calling of some sort, such as "selfish" or "drug addicts".
But they want us to believe that:
"Regarding trust, you can trust me.
But I'm too honest and truthful to get elected as a legislator."
Commenting by HaloScan
