Dr. Siegel,
You mentioned in your entry yesterday that we did not want to see the "mean" responses you receive.
Actually, I'd very much like to see these responses. I think it would be quite illustrative of the fanaticism and closedmindedness of the antismoking movement.
Just out of curiosity, are these flames arriving in response to postings you make to one or more of the smokefree.net mailing lists? Or are they unsolicited?
Dr. Seigel,
You keep expressing the same shock over the extremism of the anti-smoking movement. A lot of the readers here are not shocked at all. If you were honest with what this movement has always been about - the complete elimination of tobacco use, by ANY means necessary - you would come off as more credible. But instead, you are acting as if there is something "noble" about tobacco control and that certain elements in the movement are running amok. This is not true. There is nothing noble about using the power of crime and punishment to tell adults how to live their lives. ANd, the policy proposals you now see as so repugnant (denial of health care, employment, paternal rights, etc.) were only made possible because of the anti-smoker propaganda apparatus that has been running since the 1970s. The propaganda through the years, through various print, radio, and TV ads, has progressed roughly along this course - from what I can remember:
a. Smokers are stupid pathetic drug addicts. ("The AHA has one word to say about smoking - don't" as smoker pathetically fumbles his pack and it goes down the sewer)
b. Smokers are inconsiderate ("we mind very much if they smoke..." - even a dolphin hates the smokers)
c. Smokers are losers (the "Brook shields commercial")
d. Smokers are animals ("teen-oriented commercial where a girl visualizes a boy smoking as a monkey)
e. Smokers are hurting their children (shows little kids running and the one falls behind coughing) - also billboards saying to "take it outside"
f. Smokers are crazy (right from the mouth of NYC mayor; also in the NY Quitline commercial where a woman going through withdrawl is screaming like a maniac and sends the girl scout running in terror from her)
g. All of the ridiculous "the truth" ads" listing all the scary chemicals that smokers are polluting the air with.
-- I can go on and on..
If you watched all of the ads, billboards, etc. chronologically, you will notice the classic indoctrination techniques being used to turn one group of people against another. Someone really should compile this and put it our on a DVD. It is shocking.
Ny point is that you, Dr. Seigel, had turned a blind eye to all of this indoctrinating propaganda for years. I was just wondering what you actually thought would happen when the majority of the population honestly and truly beleives that there is a small part of the population that is killing them with "second hand smoke"?
Either "second hand smoke" is not the health risk that it has been proported to be, or you have no leg to stand on when you say that legislating against it in private homes is "going too far." You wouldn't allow a parent to bathe his child in benzene or force his child to inhale car exhaust, would you?
Let's get down to the brass tacks and discuss the science. The only way this issue can be resoplved is to get past the propaganda and speak in facts. Since you are the professional, and have researched this, please let the readers know what you have learned regarding the following:
1. What is a safe level of exposure to SHS?
2. Under what conditions and what concentration can exposure to ETS pose a health risk to non-smokers? Please explain the bio-chemical changes that take place in the body that can be traced back to the ETS exposure.
3. Since the population is smoking much less than when I was a child in the 60s/70s (in a smoking household nonetheless), why has there not been a corresponding decrease in childhood asthma, etc. Conversely, why didn't all the kids my age drop dead of ETS exposure?
4. How much active smoking can be considered non-life-threatening (please don't tell me that smoking 5 cigarettes a day is the same as smoking 2 packs a day).
I think that if the scientific facts surrounding ETS can be discussed rationally, and addressed honestly, then a determination can be made as to whether these groups are "going too far," or whether they are truly ridding the world of a "deadly toxin" that is killing almost half a million Americans every year (as they say).
I second Ed. Protecting your critics' anonymity serves no useful purpose, either. These people have the temerity to trash the liberties of their fellow citizens, and their comfort should be attended to?
Perhaps Anonymous could reveal which cigarette company he/she works for.
How dare you Bill. You are way out of line. You want to know why I remain anonymous? Because I am in fear of losing my job and my health coverage if I dare to reveal any peraonal information about me. Thanks to the climate that people like you have helped to foster, this is my only choice if I want to support my wife and pay the mortgage.
I do NOT work for any cigarette company; I couldn't care less about corporate America. All I know is I had the personal experience of being brainwashed as a child and a teenager, so much so that I told my mother that if smoking were ever made illegal, I would turn her in. I also told my mother that she was killing me. Thank God I realized what a dangerous road I was being led down but that didn't happen until I was in my late 20s, before which I was also convinced that I was being murdered.
I am a produt of the propaganda. I resent the fact that I was lied to, and I resent the fact that I was gullible enough to turn against members of my own family who, looking back now, I realized loved me more than I could ever imagine. This is what the crap you are involved with is doing to people.
I have come to recognize and despise propaganda and I don't care what "cause" it is being disseminated under. I will never allow myself to be turned against my own family in the name of any higher goals again. Your propaganda campaign have failed as far as my mind goes. I only hope that I didn't do permanent damage to anyone while spewing out the same vile filth years ago when I was young and thought I knew everything. It really did give me a big kick - thinking I was better than everyone else.
Even if he did work for a cigarette company, Bill, so what? That doesn't make him wrong.
For all your sancitmonious vanity, you're rarely right. You must be a lawyer.
Dr. Siegel, I very much appreciate your clear, well funded and justified analysis of the situation.
I have been a smoker and SHS smoker (my father smoked, my wife smokes) for more than 40 years. I have known from the beginning (long before antis claimed it) that smoking may be risky.
I fully agree that smokers should respect non-smokers and not expose them to SHS if they don't like it, in particular in enclosed places where they cannot avoid smoke (on the job, in public buildings [clarification: a restaurant is not a public building]).
But I also expect non-smokers to apply reasonable tolerance when they might be exposed to a whiff of smoke, they same way I tolerate annoyances they create, such as car fumes, excessive noise.
The problem really is that we all have been indoctrinated by the false claims about health hazards (such as the ones from ASH) resulting in continuously lowered tolerance thresholds, not because of the annoyance but because of (unjustified) fear.
As anonymous suggests above, we somehow have to put things back into perspective. The only ones who can do that are tobacco control organizations (don't wait for them), media and scientists who speak out, debate openly, and accept critisiscm.
(here is an example regarding the oebsity controvery: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article....spx?id=022306B)
I didn't know what tater tots are, so I had to look them up. All those who have visited European friends in winter know that one of the highlights of a winter evening is cheese fondue or raclette, made from cheese containing 50% or more of fat. Typically the dose is 150 to 200 grams per person and evening. We usually have a cardiomobile on stand-by just outside, in case one of our friends should keel over from endothelial dysfunction.
Perhaps Bill Godshall would like to reveal who he really works for, as well as the organizations and individuals that underwrite SmokeFree PA.
"We usually have a cardiomobile on stand-by just outside, in case one of our friends should keel over from endothelial dysfunction." ... and I should add that we don't invite any lawyers (we don't have any among our friends) for fear of being made liable. Unless laywers can make the owner of the delicatessen shop liable, or the farmer, or the municipality
Heck, ed, even Mr. Siegel never answered my question several weeks ago as to the sources of his funding.
Mike, you stated that ASH:
"is now pushing for broad bans on smoking in virtually all outdoors places, including in sidewalks, streets, and parking lots"
As I recall, ASH has voiced support for only two local smokefree ordinance proposals that would ban smoking in streets, parking lots, and most sidewalk areas. One was in Friendship, MD about 5 years ago (which wasn't enacted), and the other was Calabasas, CA a few weeks ago (which was enacted). ASH may have issued a press release or two urging other governments to follow suit, but I'm not aware that ASH is "pushing for broad bans," as doing so entails sending letters to lots of local officials with a model smokefree outdoor ordinance.
You also stated that ASH has:
"now publicly boasted that they are going to break down the barriers to banning smoking in the final frontier - the private home"
ASH has been advocating and assisting legal interventions to protect already injured children, a well as foster children, from being injured by tobacco smoke pollution in their own homes for at least the past 15 years.
But the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project at http://www.mismokefreeapartment.org
Smokefree Pennsylvania, ANSR, SAFE and other smokefree advocacy groups have been advocating smokefree policies (and landlord/tenent contractual leases) for apartment building, condomiums, and other homes for many years.
Besides, even you recently argued that nursing homes (which are people's homes) should be smokefree because they are other people's workplaces.
You also wrote that ASH:
"is promoting policies to fire all smokers from their jobs and to refuse to hire any smoker."
In fact, ASH is not promoting policies to "fire all smokers and to refuse to hire any smoker," as those things could only be accomplished via legislation, which ASH has not advocated.
Rather, ASH has publicly endorsed policies adopted by one or two small employers that requires and assists employees to quit smoking similar to personnel policies dealing with alcoholic employees and those who use other drugs.
And for the past 15 years, ASH has periodically publicly endorsed smokefree hiring policies (usually after cigarette industry funded Lewis Malby at the ACLU and/or PM or RJR PR agencies generate a news story criticizing an employer for adopting a smokefree hiring policy).
You also wrote that "ASH's public claim is not only fallacious, but it is devastatingly misleading" and
"ASH has failed to correct its public statement."
But objective analysis of your numerous criticisms of ASH, ANR and others(in this posting and others) reveals many that can be considered "fallacious" and "devastatingly misleading."
Further, you have not corrected any of your misleading criticisms of ASH
(instead you continue repeating them) even after I've repeatedly informed you of the "necessary corrections or clarifications."
Well, Bill, thanks for clearing that up. You make an excellent case for the proposition that ASH's longstanding fanaticism is not a recent development.
1. What is a safe level of exposure to SHS?
ETS has magical properties, and despite the fact that OSHA safe exposure levels exist for many, if not all, of the gazillions of chemicals found in tobacco smoke, when you put them together to make tobacco smoke they become tainted by the evil tobacco company greed, and therefore much, much, deadlier.
2. Under what conditions and what concentration can exposure to ETS pose a health risk to non-smokers? Please explain the bio-chemical changes that take place in the body that can be traced back to the ETS exposure.
No amount of ETS is safe under any conditions. This is despite the fact that we can make far deadlier substances safe in certain amounts and under certain conditions, such as diesel motor exhaust, caustic industrial chemicals, radioactive waste, and airborne pathogens.
As far as science, rest assured that specially selected data was used to make the 1992 EPA report. This is what almost all of the antismoking organizations use as their primary basis for the claim that ETS is deadly. Don't pay any attention to the federal judge who said it was a load of crap, however.
Oh yeah, we also have that 30-odd person Japanese study that showed that 30 minute exposures to unrealistically high concentrations of tobacco smoke was just as deadly as eating too many tater tots for dinner!
3. Since the population is smoking much less than when I was a child in the 60s/70s (in a smoking household nonetheless), why has there not been a corresponding decrease in childhood asthma, etc. Conversely, why didn't all the kids my age drop dead of ETS exposure?
You're dead already from your early life ETS exposure, it just hasn't happened yet. A whopping 50% of children exposed to ETS die prematurely, before they reach their average life expectancy. Isn't that scary?
4. How much active smoking can be considered non-life-threatening (please don't tell me that smoking 5 cigarettes a day is the same as smoking 2 packs a day).
You should just as well ask, how much glyphosphate herbicide, potassium cyanide, ebola virus, weapons-grade plutonium, or VX nerve gas is deadly? Oh wait - each of these things has a safe exposure threshold, even though it might just be a really itty bitty super teeny sub-microscopic amount.
Just accept on faith that any amount of tobacco smoke no matter how infinitesmally small - even a single molecule - is instantly and totally deadly, no matter what.
Mmmmm... raclette...
I think that is possibly the heaviest, fattiest, most artery-clogging dish I have ever eaten. And definitely one of the most delicious!
One thing that always amazes me about that part of Europe is that people smoke more, drink larger amounts of alcohol, and each much heavier fattier foods than in the U.S., and yet the life expectancy is actually HIGHER. (80.4 years in Switzerland vs. 77.1 years in the U.S.)
Texas Dave, you might be delighted to read this report from WHO (year 2000) http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/e...r2000-
life.html
The USA holds position 24, Japan holds first place, despite the highest smoking prevalence (50% for men). Now hear this from WHO:
"Several factors go into making Japan number one in the rankings. One is the low rate of heart disease, associated with the traditional low fat diet. The national diet is changing, with high fat foods such as red meat becoming common. The effect of tobacco has also been mild until recently, with low lung cancer rates. These rates for men are expected to jump in coming years as the long-term effects of the post-World War II smoking popularity begin to hit."
We are still waiting for the After-WW II effect. These men are probably dead by now, or they will have passed 80 years of age. Anyway, 5 years ago, they were still alive.
If only we knew their secret ....
The low fat-diet doesn't seem to work, so it must be something else: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article....aspx?
id=022306B
For the Japanese it takes over 50 years before the rate of heart diseases shows an effect, in Calabasas it takes only 30 minutes.
So much for explaining the difference in life expectancy ...
You know what? Smokers and non-smokers should emigrate to Japan. You can easily gain a few years of life, it's absolutely free of charge and non-smokers need not complain about SHS, they still got an advantage over their brothers back in ol' USA.
oh, before I forget, I just talked to the Japanese embassy and yes, emigrants from Pennsylvania are banned.
If I had to guess, I'd say that Japan and Switzerland's high life expectancy shows that access to proper housing, employment, and medical care is MUCH more important to the public health than any lifestyle related issues.
America has really lost it's marbles on this one. It's mind-boggling that in a country where 20-25% of the population has no access to medical care for financial reasons that the public health crises that are considered the most urgent are banning second-hand smoke on the sidewalk and labeling saturated vs. unsaturated fats in potato chips.
Dr Siegel, you already know that I do believe ASH's allegations you wrote about in this blog entry which simply parrot Stan Glantz assertions based on Otsuka and his Helena and Pueblo Miracles are simply ludicrous.
However, I thought you might find some of the links on this discussion thread interesting. Last year anti-smoking organizations started talking about startling research discussed at American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, Dallas, Nov. 14-16, 2005 which I assume was the experiment that Otsuka had published in JAMA four years earlier in 2001. It wouldn't surprise me, for I've noted on several other occasions where anti-smoking groups would put out press releases claiming new revolutionary research during some event such as a vote on implementing a ban, but it was just old data "repackaged" simply to achieve the chicken little effect. Anyway, Terry F Pechacek from the CDC wrote commentary in the BMJ to try to support the biological plausibility of these allegations which noted a hypothesis by Law and Wald. That hypothesis conjectures that small doses of exposure yield such a high risk due to platelet aggregation and other unexplained effects, while increased exposures simply add smaller increases in risk of other mechanisms to the extent that active smoking really doesn't increase overall risk significantly beyond the immediate effects of initial low dose exposure. So basically they are saying that a single puff from a cigarette is almost as dangerous as the cumulative effects of the next 100. I don't buy it, but it is interesting.
I thank you for providing such a venue to discuss issues like this with rational dialogue.
Frank - Thanks for pointing this out. But I would only add that even the Law and Wald hypothesis refers to the effects of CHRONIC exposure to secondhand smoke. The chart they show is a display of relative risk of chronic secondhand smoke exposure on heart disease risk. Their hypothesis is relevant to the dose-response relationship between chronic exposure and chronic heart disease. They are not talking about risk of a fatal MI after a 30-minute exposure.
Benpal - You make a good point. If ASH is correct and 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure yields a heart attack risk equal to that of a smoker, then we should see a drastic reduction in heart attacks in Calabasas after March 1. In fact, if that hypothesis were true, we should have seen a drastic reduction in heart attacks just about everywhere over the past decade, when in fact, reductions in heart attack incidence have been quite modest. Finally, raclette sounds delicious. But you're wise to have a cardiomobile on hand, since according to ASH, the endothelial dysfunction documented from a high-fat meal translates into an increased risk of a fatal heart attack.
Bill states I'm not aware that ASH is "pushing for broad bans,"
But also states "ASH has voiced support for only two local smokefree ordinance proposals that would ban smoking in streets, parking lots, and most sidewalk areas. Sounds like a broad ban to me, and for bans that received national attention, I think he must be batting 1000.
And Bill also states "ASH may have issued a press release or two urging other governments to follow suit Now if I'm not mistaken, but press releases cost money, this wasn't an off the cuff remark. The purpose of a press release is to generate media attention. Sure sounds like pushing an agenda to me.
But then redefines pushing and agenda to only a single methodology by stating "as doing so entails sending letters to lots of local officials with a model smokefree outdoor ordinance. . Nice try Bill.
More redefining when he says "In fact, ASH is not promoting policies to "fire all smokers and to refuse to hire any smoker," as those things could only be accomplished via legislation, which ASH has not advocated.
A policy does not require legislative action. But Bill admits ASH has publicly endorsed and encouraged businesses to adopt a policy to Not hire smokers, citing health care costs as reason, and providing tips on loopholes to allow them to do so where state laws have attempted to prevent such discrimination.
Furthermore he obfuscates again by using the term smokefree hiring policies, when in fact he means smoker free hiring policies. Most people would interpret smokefree hiring policy as one that doesn't allow smoking on the job. A smoker free hiring policy people are more aptly to understand as being one can't smoke off the job either. Despite being warned many times of this, he deliberate attempts to confuse the two.
Sorry Dr. Siegel for butting in on comments addressed to you, and while most of this is obvious to even the casual reader, felt needed to be pointed out.
The Mayor of Friendship Heights, Maryland who used his authority to impose the the ban was arrested and charged for attempting to molest a young boy in the bathroom of the National Cathedral. If this had not happened the ban may have stood. No doubt a proud moment for tobacco control.
"The present findings suggest that reduction of CFVR after passive smoking may be caused by endothelial dysfunction of the coronary circulation, an early process of atherosclerosis, and that this change may be one reason why passive smoking is a risk factor for cardiac disease morbidity and mortality in nonsmokers."
The way I read this, it's a theory not a fact. Just what is their proof that any "endothelial dysfunction" has occurred, and how do they define this "dysfunction"? What mechanism is disrupted? Sorry but this means nothing to me as quoted. I'll try to find the paper to read and get back to you, unless you have more information on this topic.
Ed stated;
"No amount of ETS is safe under any conditions. This is despite the fact that we can make far deadlier substances safe..."
I've answered the "no safe level" rhetoric from pharmaceutical nicotine spokepersons before after receiving this threatening letter from American Non-Smoker's Rights.
Feel free to use it to combat their lies.
"Because there is no safe level of a harmful substance".....I love this argument most of all because it proves how scientifically inept these morons are......Do you really want to go there ANR? Because with that mentality you should stop breathing this instant........are you familiar with the harmful substance carbon dioxide? CO2 is fatal to humans at a concentration of 20%, yet with every breath you inhale a concentration of 4%......of a "harmful substance" do you still believe your own B.S. premise? Besides OSHA regulates indoor air quality not the EPA......and OSHA's entire existence is determining safe levels of "harmful substances" in thousands of airborne and otherwise, compounds....."
full post here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....me-to-
stop.html
And by the way I use the title "paid pharmaceutical nicotine spokespersons" after finding the $1,500,000.00 grant from RWJF to the American Non-Smoker's Rights Foundation in Berkley, CA.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...mp;amp;
iaid=143
Although I've never taken a swipe at Bill, that comment to anonymous near the top of the thread was the single most repulsive piece of crap I've seen in a while. A room full of chain smokers has nothing on Bill when it comes to being obnoxious.
Now we see firsthand what Dr. Siegel is talking about.
Just imagine, someone is paying good money for a "high-powered" attorney and the best he can come up with is a retort that sounds like it came from fifth grade recess.
At first I thought, with a few reservations, that this was a reasonably good movement that was just a little intoxicated on its own meme. Now I understand what others are saying. I can't get on board with them.
Bill wrote:
"Perhaps Anonymous could reveal which cigarette company he/she works for."
Perhaps Bill should change his attitude. I read Anonymous' writing with interest. It offers the point of view of someone who believed in the anti's mantra until it realized to have been fooled, then started thinking by itself - a story similar to what happened to the Doc, in some way. A self-claimed health advocate like Bill could have had meaningful things to say about it... too bad he prefers harassing strangers instead of providing some constructive argumentation to the topic being discussed. Oh well, everyone has his way of enjoying himself.
Anonymous wrote:
"You want to know why I remain anonymous? Because I am in fear of losing my job and my health coverage if I dare to reveal any peraonal information about me."
Since only one (or maybe two) employers in the US have adopted a policy requiring all smokers to quit, and since no employers (that I'm aware of) have taken away healthcare benefits from just employees who smoke, it's clear that anonymous' stated fears are totally unfounded or simply contrived.
The only other possible explanation for anonymous' stated fears are that
Michael Siegel has actually created hysteria by his repeated and intentional exaggerations about the prevalence of smokefree firing policies.
As one who has actually been fired from a job for engaging in a legal activity while off-the-job (which wouldn't have occurred had I been a smoker), I find the stated concerns (on this blog) about employees losing their jobs to be insincere, and nothing but another scare tactic (that cigarette companies first utilized more than a decade ago) to elevate the deadliest drug addiction to a protected civil right.
Oh, do tell Bill. Are you reluctant to offer details because the firing was actually for cause.
Your unpleasant nature is reason to ban you from any workplace.
Bill's response above reminds me of the penguins on the movie Madagascar You See Nothing
Most companies discriminating on smokers don't go public. Ted Turner has for many years now discriminated against hiring of smokers.
Ford Meter Box Co. is another. The Who, another. Federal law prohibits the CDC from such, but they would if they could.
Scotts, and Weyco sought public notoriety. Union Pacific, and Crown Labs took away the insurance benefits.
There are more than 6,000 employers who refuse to hire smokers, according to the ACLU, which bases the number on a 1988 Administrative Management Society survey.
This isn't new, but it is now seeing resurgence as tobacco control activists encourage businesses to save money by getting rid of smokers. Now that 7 out of 10 employees now work in a smoke free environment, tobacco control operatives are now seeking other means to coerce smokers into quitting.
The WHO came out with press releases announcing their stance against hiring smokers.
The CDC not long ago issued a statement saying smokers took 6.5 days more sick time per year, jumping from a decade ago when the average was .5 days more. One might contend this is clear evidence that the tobacco control initiative to force smokers into the cold has had an enormous impact on the health of smokers. I personally believe it is a dishonest attempt by the CDC to provide supporting fodder for what is obviously the next front on the war against smokers. It's also quite coincidental that the Weyco CEO also sits on the CDC foundation board.
Bill's termination has been reported in tobacco control publications, and it would be dishonest for him to say his "legal behavior" wasn't in conflict and unrelated to the strategic direction his employers were taking. It is obvious from his comments he harbors some resentment, and may explain some of his animosity against fair employment practices for smokers.
In reaction to Philip Morris’ Accommodation Program, Councilman Mark Pollack and Bill Godshall of ANSR attempted to organize a coalition of health organizations to run a counter campaign exposing Philip Morris’ desire to maintain smoking as socially desirable. The voluntary health agencies, the Allegheny County Medical Society, and the Allegheny County Health Department declined to participate. One reason these groups declined was because they did not want to give Philip Morris even more publicity. The
American Lung Association declined because they disapproved of the tactics being used by non-smokers’ rights groups. The American Cancer Society declined to participate because they were satisfied with how the ordinance was being implemented.
At the press conference that was organized by Godshall and Pollack, the Pittsburgh Director of Public Safety stated that the Accommodation symbol was not an legal substitute for the international No Smoking symbol. Godshall also announced that he filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission because the Surgeon General’s warning was not included with Accommodation Program advertisements. While the press conference did create some negative publicity against Philip Morris and the Accommodation Program, the American Cancer Society disagreed with the level of activism displayed by Bill Godshall and fired him. After a some disagreements with ANSR about the future of ANSR, Godshall created his own organization called Smokefree Pennsylvania. -- Tobacco Industry Political Activity and
Tobacco Control Policy Making in
Pennsylvania: 1979-1996
Fred M. Monardi Stanton A. Glantz †
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Freedom *is* socially desirable. Bullying by scolds who destroy science's reputation for objectivity is not.
So *these* are Bill's real motivations? He's suffered what he perceives an an injustice, so he wants the filthy smokers to suffer the same "fate" as him?!?
Walt Hanley wrote:
"Bill's termination has been reported in tobacco control publications, and it would be dishonest for him to say his "legal behavior" wasn't in conflict and unrelated to the strategic direction his employers were taking."
So Walt thinks its fine for an emplyer to fire a nonsmoker for his/her legal off-the-job behavior, but thinks it outragous that a smoker would be fired for legal off-the-job behavior. Now that's hypocrisy.
Further, that brief excerpt from the article by Monardi and Glantz never even revealed the details surrounding my termination. Therefore, it would be premature for Walt or anyone else (based upon reading that excerpt) to speculate about what occurred or about my honesty.
But then again, making and restating false accusations against health advocates in an attempt to smear them is a problem shared by many posters on this blog.
Bill wrote: "making and restating false accusations against health advocates in an attempt to smear them is a problem shared by many posters on this blog."
Hmmm... is it shared by those who accuse me of "spreading cigarette company misinformation" here too?
Or is that different?
Bill gets me SOOOOO cornfused...
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Bill wrote: "So Walt thinks its fine for an emplyer to fire a nonsmoker for his/her legal off-the-job behavior .."
Are you trying to tell as that you were fired for not smoking off the job? I would guess that your activism was directly related to your job.
Bill,
You stated your firing "wouldn't have occurred had I been a smoker", leading the reader to come to the false conclusion you were fired because you were a non-smoker. Was this the conclusion you wanted the reader to assume?
If so, I call this dishonest. If this was unintentional then I apologize.
Based on accounts published and linked to previously, it appears your termination was directly related to your activism. Is this correct?
It would also appear from the published accounts, both you and your employer were involved with the tobacco issue in PA. Is this correct?
It would also appear your "legal off duty" behavior involved activism in an area which your employer was also involved. Is this correct?
"So Walt thinks its fine for an emplyer to fire a nonsmoker for his/her legal off-the-job behavior, but thinks it outragous that a smoker would be fired for legal off-the-job behavior."
Since I haven't stated my opinion on the fairness of your firing yet, you have reached a premature conclusion.
Again you offer an ambiguous statement leading the reader to the conclusion that your firing was because you don't smoke.
I'm simply trying to ascertain what really happened, as you opened the door with your testimony about being fired in support for your argument.
"Further, that brief excerpt from the article by Monardi and Glantz never even revealed the details surrounding my termination."
True, but from what was written it's very reasonable conclusion that you weren't fired because you didn't smoke.
And it is a very reasonable conclusion that you and your employer weren't involved with the same political issues.
Therefore your "legal off the job activity" wasn't unrelated to the employers business.
"Therefore, it would be premature for Walt or anyone else (based upon reading that excerpt) to speculate about what occurred or about my honesty."
This is true, but my experience with most of your statements, is that there are incomplete pieces of truth to them, but very often highly misleading.
You either are unable to convey your message clearly, or you want the reader to reach false conclusions.
Perhaps it has something to do with your profession.
In my opinion you do this deliberately, and I find this very dishonest.
As to if it really applies to what we were discussing about firing someone be cause they smoke, I believe the burden is on you to justify how this really applies, since it's not a simple case of being fired because you don't smoke, like many were led to believe.
"And it is a very reasonable conclusion that you and your employer weren't involved with the same political issues."
The weren't should be were. Sorry!
In evaluation of many of the anti smoker strategies which in fact suport the cigarette and Nicotene delivery industries as evident in quarterly profit reports. There is an excellent article in BMJ which gives good reason why deception in the common good is a huge mistake which do doubt is already seeing repercussions. Anti smoker advocacy is being seen for what it really is manipulative and deceptive despite international rights of the individual to the best quality information available. Bill and others could well be involved an a criminal act if he is knowingly supplying false or deceptive information internatioal rights violations in programs of anti smoker advocacy could come back and bite them all back.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
co...e231739f0c#SEC4
"Although harm reduction approaches to alleviating the burden of tobacco caused disease incorporate science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is a fundamental human right, distinct from harm reduction campaigns. The obligation to uphold this right to health information should not depend on whether or not public health officials deem harm reduction policies advisable. We encourage that the "utilitarians" of the tobacco control movement become "rule utilitarians" and treat certain strategies (for example, deception) as out-of-bounds. Tobacco control should promote science based knowledge and health literacy. The question of emphasis and content in tobacco risk communication is important and deserves attention. An urgent need for improving the quality of health information on tobacco is demonstrated by the troubling finding that a high percentage of tobacco control experts and advocates report that they would rather see a smoker switch to lower tar cigarettes than smokeless tobacco (a recommendation inconsistent with the science base.)"
Commenting by HaloScan
