Sir--
None of these efforts are legitimate, and your attempts at damage control cannot change that fact.
Please accept the fact that you have been pursuing an error.
Just as the sky never fell despite Chicken Little's repeated assertions, outdoor smokefree policies and laws will NOT "hurt legitimate efforts to protect workers from secondhand smoke," as Mike Siegel continues proclaiming.
Rather, smokefree workplace laws are precursers for smokefree outdoor laws.
After people begin breathing smokefree air indoors, they also want to breathe smokefree air outdoors.
More than 40% of Americans already live and work in jurisdictions with laws that protect at least 95% of workers from tobacco smoke pollution,
and more than 75% of workers in the remaining jurisdictions already have smokefree workplaces.
Meanwhile, new jurisdictions enact smokefree laws every week, Utah's Senate just approved smokefree workplace legislation, and it appears that Ohio and Arizona voters could approve similar laws in November.
Now that you mentioned "wildfires," they are another excellent reason for smokefree outdoor laws, as just occurred in a Texas town
http://www.kcbd.com/Global/story...y.asp?
S=4391193
From the very article Bill has just quoted (and probably didn't read, except for the title):
"Levelland's City Attorney Richard Husen wrote the ordinance. He says violators will be ticketed, but only those who leave lit cigarettes unattended to burn, or if they flick cigarettes out of car windows. When we asked how long the ordinance last the attorney answered with a question himself, "When will it rain?" And until that question can be answered, smokers in Levelland will need to keep their cigarettes out of dry areas."
It seems to me that things like smokefree air, protect-the-workers, protect-the-children, [insert_anti_tobacco_mantra_here], have nothing to do with this particular ban, that is something like banning smoking near a gas pump.
Warning; Those easily insulted by non-politically correct views; please save your immortal soul, protect your offspring avoid other global calamities ending in the destruction of the universe and read no further.
Lets get radical for a bit. I’m saying way out there in left field among the kooks and deranged individuals. Away from government sensibilities decreeing the product needs no scrutiny, it is the victim that needs to be blamed. Taking the product off the shelf, until it could be proven safe for consumption solved tainted tuna. Dealing with the product missed a huge opportunity in taxing the hospital patients for costs to health care. How do we in our wisdom, define a cigarette? Medicinal benefits would define it as a drug requiring a drug classification. Environmental issues would require monitoring by the ministry of the environment. Cigarettes are believed to be, by the federal Government and the World Health Organization, best suited as a political issue now regulated by the political consensus driven Ministry Of Health in an apparent vacuum well insulated from the knowledge of other departments.. A ministry whose head scientist is limited by lack of training it appears his background has been dedicated to political study. He is not well equipped to handle the issues of public safety at hand outside of the political implications, which promote through slander and segregation special taxation in direct contravention of the Canada health act. Ad agency spin in “Social Marketing” describes through the ministry website directives; attempts to direct what Canadians think as opposed to understanding what we actually do think. Gomery touched on that line of thinking and the dangers to integrity of Government process through political party branding. The 47,000 preventable deaths of smokers are currently, and we believe wisely, being cured by protecting non-smokers from inhaling less than 1/100,000 the concentration inhaled by smokers. This would indicate the powers that be find those smokers deaths inevitable and acceptable. Further to use those deaths as an abstract for political expediency is also an acceptable act. Deaths of 1/2 of the current 6 million smokers are actually seen to be inconsequential The fact the figure describes smoker deaths not non-smokers deaths can also easily be dismissed in kind, as long as the product produces profit, taxation levels will be maintained, which serves quite well the majority of community. The arguments of science and common sensibilities would have us actually punishing the manufacturers. Contrary to public belief that has not yet happened. In fact tobacco settlements removing manufacturers from further future liability in the United States were marked up and passed on to consumers, as were all the special billing for universal health care in Canada known as tobacco taxes. Stated to be cost to healthcare yet amounts are consistent with WHO recommendations price increases as “5% above the inflation rate for the next 5 years” Elimination of advertising and sponsoring of public events goes straight to the manufacturers bottom line. Not much wonder the Federal government was investing pension funds in big tobacco; profits have never been higher and cost of production never lower. Allowing unrestricted cheaper imported products to flow into Canada to compete with domestic regulated products again increased the share equity position.
Soon similar taxation of the Pan Canadian strategy will expand the plan into the grocery stores. Hardly an attempt to hold manufacturers responsible, if indeed they are creating a health risk, efforts are aimed at passing liability again to the victims. The proposed 75% taxation of hamburger and 300% rebates to healthy food advertisers will suit a public need for increased taxation and party branding among media groups profiting from the promotion. It can be assumed the damage to the cattle industry will be temporary as were the detrimental effects to the hospitality industry through the imposition of smoking bans.
If truth were known the only one, of all the 5000 ingredients in Tobacco smoke all with safe levels measured in milligrams per cubic meter of air is of course dioxin. Dioxin requires 3 ingredients Ammonia, Organic material and a low temperature flame. Recent research in Japan showed no Dioxin in the paper or the Tobacco however Dioxin did exist in the smoke. At the world trade center Dioxin levels monitored at levels below .16 Nana grams per cubic meter of air were considered safe. Co-incidentally the same safe level referred to by James Repace as his known safe level in air water and food he states according to the US government. It could be suspected the no safe level is actually predicated on this level of harm as are predictions of 42% of the public will get cancer at some point. This percentage is very close to the known risk of persons with maximum accumulated state levels of Dioxin stored in their body fat. Even without smoking we will all likely reach the maximum saturation or state level due to other sources.
Fat really is the new tobacco.
This would say the medical charities and the health departments have been a little short of entire honesty in what they know is likely the most predominant cancer risk in smoking. This would allow us a new radical thought lets say a government 40 years ago banned the use of chlorine in cigarettes how many of the 47,000 preventable deaths would have actually been prevented. By rough calculation 2/3 the same level smoking has been reduced in that time frame. In the same period smoking related diseases increased by the same 2/3 level. A simple examination of dioxin poisoning and medical outcomes in fact will show clearly a Dioxin parallel to everything they say about smoking and the related diseases. If in fact you take their numbers as gospel you will by examining the side of a cigarette package and a few calculations quickly see; The levels of dioxin produced by a single package are in excess of 2 milligrams 1 milligram of Dioxin inhaled by a smoker every day will ultimately lead to the punishment the Ontario health department spoke of in “quit or be punished”. We shut down an incinerator in Toronto with dioxin levels a million times lower. Yet the government in efforts of protecting 6 million smokers fails to announce the full harm or do anything to reduce it. One can only conclude the death penalty is alive and well and living in Ontario. Industry health and safety controls are in fact a fictional political euphemism.
Note; the diesel trucks hauling the Toronto garbage are producing Dioxins thousands of times higher than the original incinerator. Simply increasing the temperature of burning by as little as 300 degrees could, have eliminated the dioxin in the original incinerator. But hey that’s just the radical view. Your doctor does know best. Huge sums being paid in the trucking deals are simply a matter of public demand among a public who were largely unaware a problem existed, prior to ad agency media campaigns of yet unknown origin.
"Rather, smokefree workplace laws are precursers for smokefree outdoor laws.
After people begin breathing smokefree air indoors, they also want to breathe smokefree air outdoors."
We know what the next 'logical' step is, as always. Very 'logical'.
Go ahead, Bill, keep marching 
"Rather, smokefree workplace laws are precursers for smokefree outdoor laws. After people begin breathing smokefree air indoors, they also want to breathe smokefree air outdoors." We know what the next 'logical' step is, as always. Very 'logical'. Go ahead, Bill, keep marching Soren Hojbjerg
The next logical step Soren would be to see this for what it truly is; the banning of LEGAL product users, prejudice, discrimination, promotion of hate, destruction of freedom, destruction of science, violation of property and human rights, economical destruction, intolerance, promotion of dictatorship, promotion of prescription drug use, family destruction, employment destruction, and downright; inhumane...
Hi iopener,
I completely agree with you. But the more ridiculous the 'regulations' become, the sooner that whole thing will collapse.
Of course smokers will have to hold their ground in foxholes. But if Osama bin Laden can do that, why shouldn't we be able to?
And of course lung cancer deaths can be quite handy too. They are rising in the US, not in response to smoking. You just wait and see....
Yep, Soren. Apparently, a huge rise in the incidence of asthma has accompanied the huge drop in the prevalence of cigarette smoke. Anti-smokers take this as evidence that ETS is somehow responsible for the rise.
Hi Brett,
I think the 'cause' of rising astma is in fact 'clean' air. We need to be exposed to some dirt, in order to function properly. Removing all dirt causes malfunction!
In contrast to Soren's absurd claims, lung cancer incidence and mortality has been dropping among US males since 1990, while lung cancer incidence and mortality among US females is now peaking and will decline in the future.
Lung cancer incidence and mortality rates are strikingly similar to, but with a 25 year lag time, to cigarette consumption patterns.
That's because cigarette smokers continue facing risks for lung cancer(although gradually reduced) for 25 years after they quit smoking.
Hi Soren,
I am happy to hear it!
As for Bill's "absurd" claim that the drop in Lung Cancer is due to the Anti smoking movement; I totally disagree! Here is the real reason for the decline and it has absolutely nothing to do with a legal product;
http://www.p2.org/p2results/
2418_historyfinal.pdf#search='Federal%20Pollution%
20Prevention%20Act%20in%201990%20to%202000'
Federal Pollution Prevention Act in 1990 to 2000 An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure:
For the period 1990-2000, NPPR calculated that more than 167 billion pounds of pollution were prevented, calculating air, water, waste, and energy efficiency measures as reported in the surveys;
Does anyone else agree with the absurd claim of iopener2000 regarding the causes of lung cancer?
I didn't think so.
Welcome to the real world, Bill!
Just for the record: for 2005 lung cancer deaths in the US are on the increase. They are now up to 163.500, according to ACS.
Does anyone else agree with the absurd claim of iopener2000 regarding the causes of lung cancer?
I didn't think so.
Bill Godshall
LOL, good try Bill;
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/nws/content/
nws_1_1x_air_pollution_linked_to_deaths_from_lung_
cancer.asp
Air pollution – mainly from vehicles, industry, and power plants – raises the chances of lung cancer and heart disease in people exposed to it long term, according to a report in the March 6 Journal of the American Medical Association (Vol. 287, No. 9: 1132-1141).
The researchers couldn't find a level of air pollution that didn't increase death rates.
That means it's more difficult for regulators to decide pollution limits than if harm didn't occur below a certain level, Pope said.
But it also means every reduction in air pollution will likely lower death rates, he said.
of course they have to say;
Smoking is the main cause of lung cancer, said Pope.
Or you would be out of a job, Bill. ;o)
Just for the record: for 2005 lung cancer deaths in the US are on the increase. They are now up to 163.500, according to ACS.
Soren Hojbjerg
Soren, could you post the site you read this information on, please.
Iopener: http://www.lungevity.org/site/ep...e/
15638_447.htm
Courtesy Soren in a previous post.
Califormia is the state that first started with regulating anti-smoking but "...a 2-week-old baby in the Los Angeles region has already been exposed to more pollution than the federal government deems acceptable over a lifetime" and "The concentration of cancer-causing air pollution in California is so great that, just by breathing this air, children will accumulate cancer risks that are pretty astounding"
Thank you benpal! Here is a little something for Bill to criticize. ;o)
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/
Editorial%201-4.html
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
By: James P. Siepmann, MD
We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science. Every article/study has some bias in it, the goal is to minimize such biases and present the facts in a comprehensible and logical manner...
...Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information.
Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story...
References (I back up my statements with facts, will those who respond do the same?)
"But do kids get more cancer as a result? That is unclear, experts say. Theoretical risks do not always translate into actual cancer cases."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/
09/16/MN47628.DTL
Not when it comes to;
"102,000 tons of the most common toxic emissions are released in California. Traces of benzene from gasoline fumes, hexavalent chromium from metal-plating shops and diesel exhaust from trucks and buses are widespread."
The Theoretical risks ALWAYS translate into cancer cases when talking about the legal product tobacco, though; don't they? Thanks, Wiel!
Ultimately, I think this is going to hurt legitimate efforts to protect workers from secondhand smoke because it is only a matter of time before the public and policy makers start to question the justification for these policies.
Given that cigarette smoke is a know class A carcinogen, I don't think one has a fundemental right to spew the substance in a public place anymore than one has a right to spray asbestos.
Commenting by HaloScan
