Well sir, if the past is prelude, all those tactics you dismiss are in our future.
Government-subsidized bullying is an infernal machine. The Trotsky who eagerly prosecuted the Red Terror likely did not expect to be hoist on his own petard.
No - there is no room for hate in the tobacco control movement. And I'm not going to sit silently and watch it dictate our actions so long as I'm a part of this movement.
I wouldn't let too many people on the anti tobacco side hear you say that. In my opinion; hate is all they have; they may get defensive. ;o)
If you truly believe that there is no room for hate in the tobacco control movement, you would stop posting attacks on public health advocates with whom you disagree.
In my 20 years of advocacy to reduce smoking, I've read more hateful statements on this blog than anywhere else, except the FORCES website.
Bill:
Public grant funds addicts,cigarette addicts, I don't believe I or anyone else remember voting for you and yours to decide which choices we make in our private lives.
The public funded per deim crowd should look into gainful employment and sweat equity, then re-state your position with some credibility.
Bill, to criticize your views is not to attack you. If that were true, almost 100% of your posts are attacks.
Bill's note is a call for censorship, I'm afraid. It's basically suggesting that if I criticize the tobacco control movement, I must be doing it out of hate.
That's not going to work.
My note was not a call for censorship, but rather an honest observation and a sound suggestion.
In my 20 years of advocacy to reduce smoking, I've read more hateful statements on this blog than anywhere else, except the FORCES website.
Bill Godshall
It seems Bill forgets who/what he is suppose to be "protecting" in his "advocacy to reduce smoking."
Bill, how many families; mothers, fathers, and children, in the public; do you think will be without, money for food, shelter, or any health care at all, after ASH'S inciting of this discriminatory policy ?
BTW, did you contact ASH about “encouraging illegal activities,” yet? Or are you just going to ignore the “fact” that they are and go on "trying" to silence the person that pointed it out for you?
Bill wrote: "In my 20 years of advocacy to reduce smoking"
This is obviously your self-appointed mission and you definitely sound like a preacher.
Trust me, I know how to live my life, even if it doesn't conform to YOUR standards. People lived before you, they didn't need your education. People will live after you, they will not need your education. Get a life and let live.
If there is one single element that was, is and will always be destructive to humanity, it's HATE.
Afghanistan, Irag, bin Laden, Palestine, Hitler, racial discrimination, religious wars, you name it. They were and are fuelled by hate, hate promoted by a few individuals, based on false accusations and made-up "undesirable" traits of others.
"Hate is often a precursor to violence. Before a war, a populace is sometimes trained via political propaganda to hate some nation or political regime. Hatred remains a major motive behind armed conflicts such as war and terrorism. Hate is not necessarily logical and it can be counterproductive and self-perpetuating. [Wikipedia]"
Hate in this movement is all but new.
Smokers used to gather and talk with eachother in the alt.smokers newsgroup until a couple of years ago when Bill Godshall-like trolls started to dominate the newsgroup. Ranting, humiliation and venim against smokers appeared in the posts every day. (I better won't mention the words used here as they would not pass the censor test of this blog.)
I am afraid this will happen here again. Take care, Michael.
BTW, I noticed that most of the ranting comes from former smokers, who feel better humans (who told them so?) after they quit. By humiliating current smokers they keep rewarding themselves to stay smoke-free.
Effect: when many more smokers quit as a result of the anti-smoking propaganda, more hate mongering will appear and the amount of ranting will increase.
So it's not only the anti-smoking organizations themselves who distribute this hate but also the people who quit as a result of the anti-smoking propaganda.
Every piece of paper has a back side. And this back side of the anti-smoking crusade is getting completely out of hand!
Bill wrote:
"If you truly believe that there is no room for hate in the tobacco control movement, you would stop posting attacks on public health advocates with whom you disagree."
It seems to me that this speech IS a clear call to censorship, an attempt to deceive the public and also a personal attack to the blog's owner.
It starts with:
"If you truly believe that there is no room for hate in the tobacco control movement, you would..."
If we take Bill's words as "good", this immediately implies that the Doc isn't truly believing that there's no room for hate in the tobacco control movement, or else it would behave differently. In other words, Michael Siegel is a liar.
"...you would stop posting attacks on public health advocates with whom you disagree."
The suggestion to shut up is quite evident. Apart from that, the speech is quite deceiving. What Bill states is that the posts in whick the Doc criticizes some of the anti's position and activities are hate speech.
Obviously, Bill's constant name-calling of smokers and his advocacy of social discrimination against them isn't hate speech at all, but when you dare to criticize the anti's movement, you do hate speech, regardless of what you say.
IMO, nothing worse than a "reformed" smoker, drinker, cusser, you name it. They will always try to show you the errors of your ways and "fix" you.
When someone loses a loved
one to [insert disease or cause dujour here]it seems (to me) that can give one a reason to fight against that disease/cause. I understand that, it is human nature to better ourselves so that horrible feeling should never happen to anyone else. We have to have something/someone to blame for our hurt/loss/angst/anger/hate.
And if we can build a lifetime career out of it, so much the better!
Unfortunatly, it is getting harder and harder for many to see the forest because of that one tree in your vision.
Mr Godshall-this was the nicest comment I could give to you, consider this source: the addicted fiend who so appreciates your not putting me in town square, shooting me, and charging my husband for the bullet.
Everybody has the capacity to love and hate, but people apply love and hate differently.
While public health advocates hate cigarette smoke and love all smokers,
the extremists who comprise FORCES hate public health advocates and love their own deadly drug addiction.
Bill wrote:
"While public health advocates hate cigarette smoke and love all smokers"
Interesting. I presume Bill would define himself as one of those "health advocates" he's talking about. The consequence is that he loves smokers. Oh my.
BTW, Bill is actively supporting firing or rejecting smokers because, well, they are smokers. How this can be seen as an act of love is frankly beyond me.
You can call it tough love, as it provides smokers with an enourmous financial incentive to quit smoking.
I certainly wouldn't work for many years without pay to reduce smoking unless I loved smokers.
In contrast, if I was an antismoker (as many commenters on this blog have falsely claimed), I'd act like FORCES by claiming that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer, that tobacco smoke pollution isn't harmful, and that public health advocates grossly exaggerate the hazards of smoking (as that encourages smokers to continue smoking and to die prematurely).
Now it's 'tough love'! He should save that crappy justification for members of his own family. When you justify your actions by going next door and interfering with the affairs and rights of your neighbor in the name of 'tough love,' nobody would blame said citizen for emptying a load of buckshot up your backside. What arrogance!
Bill wrote:
" You can call it tough love, as it provides smokers with an enourmous financial incentive to quit smoking."
So, if i understand correctly, you love smokers, but you decided to use the stick instead the carrot with them (for their own good, of course!).
And in your vision of reality, your constant name-calling and insults against smokers is part of this "tough love" strategy, right? Scorn them, so they will realize how much they are miserable and they will quit (for their own good, of course!).
Well, i'd prefer to be loved by a king cobra.
Keep your "tough love", Bill. Either I own myself or you should produce a bill of sale that says otherwise.
Out of curiosity, do you believe abortion should be illegal (since you've skipped off into other realms lately: junk food, etc.)? It's a woman's body, but there is at least one death involved.
Actual, not statistical that is.
At any rate, some people's "though love" is hard to distinguish from "domestic abuse'.
When someone shows me "tough love", I often often respond with "tough shut-the-Hell-up".
At least it's honest...
As far as I can tell, Bill loves only his high opinion of himself, and the exercise of power over others.
Let's call it "tough lust,"--for power.
Perhaps Bill should use his "tough love" with a different target. Why not rats and cochroaches? At least, we'd have a chance to limit their numbers.
Just as drug free hiring policies and random drug testing provides financial incentives for drug users to quit, smokefree hiring policies do the same for smokers.
And just as offering employees who are addicted to alcohol, cocaine or heroin the choice of successful drug treatment or being fired has provided many alcoholics and drug addicts with the incentive necessary to overcome their addictions, smokefree employment policies do the same for smokers.
Bill, you already said that, and someone already pointed out that alcohol abuse is mind-altering and absolutely devastating for health, cocaine and heroin are ILLEGAL almost worldwide, while tobacco is absolutely legal.
So what's the point in parrot-repeating a statement that has already been properly debunked?
Malice Disguised as Virtue
Noted author Taylor Caldwell originally wrote this article for a magazine in 1967:
"There are those in this world whose 'love' is not only a wicked lie, but is a cover for unpardonable vindictiveness, a secret desire to cause pain, a sadism. There are those who are not to be trusted for a single moment, for they are innately malignant as well as hypocritical. They are the "whited sepulchre" of whom Our Lord spoke with such anger and scorn. Give in to them for a moment, doubt that they are entirely evil, tolerantly admit they might be right in one thing -- and they will fall upon you, believing your defenses are down and you have surrendered yourself as a victim. They love victims."
'love' = the anti smokers' claim that they "care" about others' health in their crusade to end smoking.
secret desire to cause pain, a sadism = smoking bans that delight them most when they see smokers standing out in the rain.
Give in to them for a moment,... and they will fall upon you = Compromise leads to greater restrictions (smoking sections to no smoking indoors -- and then outdoors -- at all).
Cigarettes kill 100 times more Americans than all illegal drugs combined, and about 4 times more than alcohol.
hmmm... i smell junk science...
Whoops! One correction: the Reputation quote from not from Caldwell. It's *somewhere* round this durn blog in the last day or so though! LOL!
:>
Michael
Bill wrote:
" Cigarettes kill 100 times more Americans than all illegal drugs combined, and about 4 times more than alcohol."
I suppose that, if i ask for some evidence backing this claim, my request will fall on deaf ears, right?
Note: evidence means "real" evidence. Quotes from fanatic's websites or fascist organizations count nothing.
Bill,
Apparently the only measure of the negative effects of a substance that matters to you is premature death. Violent crime, DUI's, Sexual Assault, Divorce, Un-Employment are all of little import. Alcohol by far has the most negative and far reaching consequences in society. I don't understand why you would like people who smoke to be un-employable? Can you please explain?
Bill,
Maybe you should try to ban alcohol since it causes more pain and suffering than almost anything else.
Opps!!
We tried that already, didn't we?
Ryan wrote:
"I don't understand why you would like people who smoke to be un-employable?"
That is a misrepresention of my clearly stated position.
First of all, if smokefree hiring and firing policies were adopted by one third of all employers, many smokers would quit smoking.
But even if two thirds of all employers adopted smokefree hiring and firing policies, smokers still would be employable by the employers that haven't adopted that type of policy.
"But even if two thirds of all employers..."
Would you make it a law then that not more than two thirds of the employers go smokefree?
Even if they hire smokers, smokers would still have to go outside to smoke. And since you promote smoking bans indoors and outdoors, they would have to go home for the breaks, unless they have children at home, in which case they would have to go to hell.
Is that how you see it?
Bill wrote:
"That is a misrepresention of my clearly stated position."
Excuse me, *sir*, but it seems a clear contradiction of yours. You encourage workplace discrimination vs. smokers, and at the same time you don't want smokers to become unemployable. Well, once every employer has adopted your "policy", who's gonna hire the smokers? Foreign countries? Aliens? You, perhaps?!?
Care to explain it, bill? And since you're here, care to explain your apparent contradictions about smuggling and MSA? Not that i count too much on it...
tR1cKy's comment is very flattering, but it is very doubtful that every employer is going to adopt a smokefree employment policy.
But if that were to occur, cigarette consumption and cigarette smoking rates would decline so much that most smokefree advocacy organizations would declare victory and go out of business.
"Most smokefree advocacy organizations would declare victory and go out of business."
Yeah, right. what about the obesity epidemic you and your ilk are already turning to to keep your coffers full? Then what about the diabetics, the physically inactive. You yourself, Bill, have already taken the stance that the way to combat obesity is not with education, not with changing little things like adding additional physical activity to the school day, no, you and Mr Banzaff have already fired the first litigation shots in the war on obesity, which if anybody remembers, was not at epidemic proportions until the anti's junk science retooled the obesity indicators to create an "epidemic" virtually overnight a few years ago. Anybody remember when they changed the BMI (Body Mass Indicators) in the last decade?
Get off your high horse Bill, you are starting to contradict yourself heavily on these posts. On the other hand, it has done a LOT in my community, to show the civic leaders just how irrational you Anti types are. so maybe I should say, keep up the good work, when you don't allow for any reasonable differences in point of view, keep spouting the same, proven, junk science, ad nauseum, it does make it much easier to show the general public just what fools are leading your crusade, thank you Bill.
Bill wrote:
"tR1cKy's comment is very flattering, but it is very doubtful that every employer is going to adopt a smokefree employment policy."
Well, let's try to sort it out. You encourage every employers to fire smokers, and at the same time you don't want smokers to be unemployable. But if every employer would adopt your policy, smokers would oviously become unemployable. So you're promoting a smoker-free workplace policy, and at the same you hope that some employers WON'T follow it, right? Well, that's a little weird...
Uh, BTW, and about the smuggling problem and the MSA thing? No, no, ok, just kidding...
tR1cKy wrote:
"You encourage every employers to fire smokers, and at the same time you don't want smokers to be unemployable."
I've never encouraged all employers to fire smokers, and neither has ASH (as Mike Siegel has falsely alleged). But for the past fifteen years, I've defended the right of employers to adopt smokefree employment policies, as has ASH.
There's a huge difference between defending a right and encouraging everyone to exercise that right,
as neither ASH nor I (nor anyone else) have sent letters to every employer urging them adopt a smokefree employment policy.
Regarding tR1cKy's inquiry about the smuggling issue and the MSA, I already responded to that question on the thread where it was first asked.
But once again, the threat of cigarette smuggling declined sharply after numerous states enacted "gray market" cigarette laws from 1999-2002.
Those laws, which were advocated by State AGs prohibited the reimportation of cigarettes into the US from other nations.
Bill, you should have already noticed that your semantic tr1cks don't work with me. So why don't you drop them and start replying seriously to questions and objections? It seems to me that you're trying every possible tactics to avoid those questions. And this is, in my opinion, a sign of cowardice.
No, you didn't encourage employers to fire smokers, nor did Banzhaf, in the sense that neither you nor Banzhaf did knock at their doors and told them: "Hey employers! Fire all smokers!". But there are many other ways to encourage a policy, that don't involve knocking at someone's door or writing letters.
In the specific case, you stated repeately that firing smokers is legal, moral, of common use, socially accettable, responsible, good in saving medical costs, good in reducing "cigarette addiction" & so on. You invited people here (Leroy) who said that firing smokers should be every employer's duty. Frankly, it's hard to think that by doing so you didn't encourage this policy.
Then Bill (and i hope that the Doc won't edit out this since i consider it important) i think that you are acting like an hypocrite every time you refer to this policy as smoke-free. In the specific, you and those like you don't want to get rid smoke from workplaces. You want to get rid of smokers from workplaces. So you should call it with its real name, smoker-free. Funny, while typing those words another expression came up to my mind: Juden-frei. A concidence?
And finally, you still failed to address my question.
About this:
"Regarding tR1cKy's inquiry about the smuggling issue and the MSA, I already responded to that question on the thread where it was first asked."
No, Bill. You didn't. You just called me a disturbed individual and suggested that mine and other posts are a clear sign that smoking causes brain damage, remember? Bad memory? Eat more fish. Now, would you please address my objection? Thanks.
Then you say:
"But once again, the threat of cigarette smuggling declined sharply after numerous states enacted "gray market" cigarette laws from 1999-2002.
Those laws, which were advocated by State AGs prohibited the reimportation of cigarettes into the US from other nations."
Bill, as i stated clearly, my concern wasn't on grey market cigarettes (i.e. internet sales or reimportation). It was on black market cigarettes, that means contraband sales or stolen cigarette sales. I don't think you're too stupid to catch the difference. So, you're once again skipping my objection.
Now, would you like to ditch the RJWF playbook and address my objections once for all? Yes, you can always ignore them and pretend that my post has never been made. But other people will read and judge. And i don't think that continuing to avoid those questions will benefit your reputation or credibility.
tR1cky- I am honored and proud to be nicotine tobacco brain impaired with you! Thanks for your past statements and thanks in advance for your future ones- it's nice to know there is another token addict/labrat around here.
And yes I think smoker-free is the word Mr Godshall was really looking for. (love the comparison verbage too) I myself liken this all to our past Puritan Witch Hunting roots here in the good ole US of A. Illustrious humanitarians all way back then.
"Puritan Witch Hunting roots"
..which actually makes the anti-smoking movement a relict of the past.
All progress of mankind obviously was not picked up by these guys, eh?
Bill responds to tR1cKy's question about blackmarketing by stating that the attorneys general advocated grey market legislation which "prohibited the reimportation of cigarettes into the US from other nations".
So the AG's lobbied for and got legislators to pass a law. Heck, we once had a Constitutional amendment passed which specifically prohibited the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes". That sure sure as hell caused the entire alcohol business to come to a grinding halt, didn't it?
Better brush up on your economics lessons.
Capri, thanx for your warming words. Actually i'm not so much an addict (there are days in which i don't have a smoke until after dinner!), but it obviously doesn't matter. What i am seeking here are clear answers, or clear statements, from Bill. I'm ok with the fact that he disagrees with me, and i'm even ok with him advocating things that i consider repulsive, since he's entitled of his own opinions exactly as me. I'm not ok when he double-talks, as in my opinion he did with the smuggling problem.
About the smokefree question, you should remember that, until a few years ago, "smokefree" meant "getting rid of smoke from workplaces". Now "smokefree" has suddenly (and swiftly) turned into "getting rid of smokers from workplaces". Well, i think that this misuse is intentional. I think that the "smokefree" term is being used with the precise intention to give the thing an appearance of "social good" and to have the public forget that what those people are really encouraging is social discrimination against a target group.
Say it: smokefree. See how it sounds polite, positive, and politically correct? See how it gives instinctively a sense of social acceptance? With a "clean" expression like this, employers will be less reluctant to adopt this policy, and the gross public will be more likely to back it, in many cases without even realizing that what they are supporting is a policy whose goal is to turn smokers into workplace outcasts.
Remember the tp-talk listserve? It's the one the Doc has been kicked off of because he dared to speak against some of the anti's goal and tactics. The acronym "tp" stands for "tobacco policies". Well, i bet one euro (it's grossly $1.20) that in tp-talk there's precisely such an indication: "Let's not call it anti-smoking, or no-smoking. Let's call it smokefree. It's wonderful! It sounds good. It sounds acceptable, it gives a sense of freedom when you hear it. Let's call it this way and we'll have more success, because those cretins in the streets won't even think about what it means. They will simply hear the word and find it good."
We need to be aware of that. We need to think with our own heads and judge by ourself, or else we will be turned into many "useful idiots".
I agree with tR1cKy that we need to make a distinction between smoke-free policies and smoker-free policies. There's a world of difference between the two, and I find it somewhat disingenuous to refer to policies to deny employment to smokers as smoke-free policies. They are not. They are smoker-free. A smoke-free policy would just get the "smoke" out of the workplace, not the "smoker."
I totally agree with the content of this article the hate mongers need to be arrested and brought to justice on the world stage. More proof in what is being praised is contained in this article I submitted to the BMJ today. The campaign for hatred needs to be dealt with.
Scientific buffoonery;
It would have to be seen as the most intriguing question of our era; to understand how, with all the most educated of scholarly voices abdicating for world wide smoking bans, how not one of those participants has the vision to see outside the box. To understand with very little imagination how beneficial it could be to society as a whole to simply look at the product before punishing it’s victims. When we view tobacco as one of the most dangerous products on the shelf, does it make sense to anyone it is also the only product on the shelf with no list of ingredients. While we are well informed as to the contents of, the smoke it could produce, it is downplayed how significantly the quantities present, individually or as a whole, represent a substantial risk. It is indisputable, the lack of ingredients list can be directly associated to the potential harm. If we look at what is revealed it is also indisputable many of the toxins and carcinogens could not be derived from the burning of Tobacco alone. The scientific community as a whole can still err in the description of the product as tobacco, either through lack of proper information or as a deliberate act to substantiate political will. Either excuse adds to the misinformation being supplied to the public with a scientific community rubber stamp of approval, contrary to well- established rules of informed consent. Human rights are no longer a priority in fact are being deliberately ignored in seek of the greater good. A major mistake, one which one-day, will greatly expand the list of names attributed to the Darwin awards. The danger is, the words scientific integrity could also be included on that list of casualties.
Simplistic regulation barring the use of known dangerous ingredients would reduce the harm of the product in its use. If as advocacy would proclaim the protection of health is the purpose for anti smoker advocacy perhaps the mortality figures stated as preventable could be greatly reduced by regulating the products. Of course, this would result in a decreased risk to non-smokers and the most efficient means of solving the problem at hand. Perhaps advocacy would be less effective if the numbers were reduced and we could deal with a more significant problem of violence and impunity, which is the most prominent effect of anti smoker advocacy.
The alternative is relying on case research studies investigating the effects of a range, of millions of possible combinations in the products being consumed. Predictably, we see a wide range of determined theoretic results of little scientific value. Further confusion added by the absolutes of smoking debates resulting in biases which undermine the credibility of any research study, with the current indicator being, who paid for the study as a judgment of integrity. No matter how much care and integrity was incorporated by the researcher, his absolute credibility will be determined by who pays the bill.
Is this the best we have to offer in the realm of scientific discovery? Facts by consensus and that consensus determined by the size of our gang, our ability to create facts or having the finances to establish those facts in the media and through that a silencing of all opposition. Public confidence in the process is understandably reserved to say the least.
It was revealed to me today the president of mychoice.ca in Canada was threatened with death on her doorstep for nothing more than a perceived threat she represents, as a non-smoker advocating for nothing more than respect of her neighbors in community. She has never stated smoking is not dangerous and has consistently stated it is, in every public discussion. She was once given an award by her peers speaking out on the topic of violence against women. Now she is disassociated from integrity in her opinion, in advocacy against the same topic, Hatred and Violence. Where are the advocates rushing to her aid and praise this time around? Have our values now changed so absolutely it is permissible to excuse the abuse of others as long as we can create a good enough reason? Not original in fact in 1930s Germany those same assessments were made Praised and encouraged internationally, using the smoking issue as a wedge to join the parties in health advocacy lobbying, we know how that turned out, how soon we did forget. On the other hand, perhaps we are smarter now and are assured the results will be different. Consistent with the insanity theory of repetitive actions expecting a different result. Lunacy? I would say so.
Are we so bent we cannot see the damage to us all here? The bullies are campaigning confidently and without fear of reprisals, for barring a smoker from Employment, Housing or Community Many others join in declaring child abuse against parents in custody hearings could be justifiable. The Ontario Government dispensing hatred to our children endorsed and applauded, at a site they call stupid, it’s very name screams violence, this is indefensible by a government in a civilized society yet no one noticed. The same Government ministry has recently announced a couple of decries of note; "Quit or be punished" and more recently "Fat is the new tobacco" Will the term fat have a similar wide berth of definition in science, so we can repeat the process in the coming decade? Now they approach our homes the castle to some will be a fortress to others, defending their fading right to escape from their insidious tormentors.
The diagnosis should be clear we could do a lot better. The alternative again could be defense of a momentous lawsuit on our horizon in the civil rights abuses against the victims of both the product and the gang of bullies. Justice will have the final say in the campaign of hatred, a deliberately created pandemic in our culture.
Does a smoking ban result in protection of non-smokers who now deal with an increasingly meaner more violent society? Do we reduce preventable death by ignoring the cause? Can any deny informed consent is not well served in our current approach?
If any are determined enough to answer yes to any of these questions; a self-examination is in order, to understand your need to express intolerance and abdicate for crimes against others for the use of a legal product.
Food for thought From the British Medical Journal; http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
co...fb51ee231739f0c
Hello, I read the article THERE IS NO ROOM FOR HATE IN THE ANTISMOKING ISSUE and I have to say who ever wrote that must not see the real suffering. I'm sending this in hopes that someone out there could give us info now to help a child. We have a 6 yr old grandson who's father died three yrs ago and he has since been shared between grandparent, ONLY THE OTHER SIDE CHAIN SMOKES. When we pick him up he wreaks of smoke and of course is coughing most of the time. We've been through mediation and even have a report about this from the mediator ALL TO NO AVAIL, it just continues and continues. He just starts to clear up and is able to sleep through the night without coughing and then we have to send him back. Now the other grandmother has changed doctors and they have him on an inhaler and WE ARE POSITIVE SHE IS NOT TELLING THE DOCTOR ABOUT THE SMOKE. Short of breaking the bank and losing our home to continue to battle this what is a person to do? They are in extreme denial about the smoke and it's effects and continues to yell that his cough is genetics or school germs etc... even though he never had this problem for four years before living there. Help help help, it's really tough not to hate people like this. Jeri Balco artistmusicplayer@yahoo.com
Is this your child? Are you a parent?
Jeri,
You should contact Professor John Banzhaf at the George Washington University School of Law. His web site is: www.no-smoking.org.
Jeri Balco wrote:
"When we pick him up he wreaks of smoke...Now the other grandmother has changed doctors and they have him on an inhaler and WE ARE POSITIVE SHE IS NOT TELLING THE DOCTOR ABOUT THE SMOKE. Short of breaking the bank and losing our home to continue to battle this what is a person to do?
A question and a cheap solution:
Why do you think you can smell the smoke on your grandchild, but the doctor can't smell it on either of them?
Ask the other grandmother to have an exhaust fan put in the wall of a room to vent the smoke outside. Offer to pay if needed. Shouldn't cost more than a couple of hundred bucks.
Commenting by HaloScan
