What a pathetic sick society.It speaks volumes about living in a democratic ,christian country.Why bother sending troops to Iraq when you can't even sort out this homegrown mess.Do the varying degrees of Government tier serve any vital purpose,since they seem pretty reluctant to do anything here.What about a scenario of a black disabled single parent who smokes,that should be 4 elements of discrimination ,now there are laws regarding discrimination aren't there? you sure?
Calabasas quotes, not by ed psycho:
"All your lungs are belong to us!"
"I, for one, welcome our new smoke hating overlords."
"Step 1: Ban smoking. Step 2: A divine miracle occurs. Step 3: Profit!"
"In Soviet Russia, you can never find a non-smoking place. In Calabasas, the non-smoking place always finds YOU!"
Congratulations to smokefree Calabasas.
I hope that some independent researcher (in addition to those from cigarette companies) studies the impact of Calabasis' ordinance on adult and youth smoking rates.
Bill, don't worry, Calabasas officials will cook up an impact study.
Calabasas is THE litmus test. Any anti-smoker activist who supports the actions of Calabasas can no longer even try to rationalize to themselves -- let alone convince others -- that they really do what they do out of their regard for public health and and/or their concern over the health of people who smoke. (Trust me, I gag as I say that to make my point).
As Dr. Siegel has said himself, there are just some things that aren't right (by applying basic human and American standards to it) no matter what the result of it would be.
So support (and applause) for this is the utter and complete destruction of any facade any anti-smoker managed to maintain up to this point.
This is the point where it's appropriate to say (playing on the antis field for the sake of argument)that I'd rather be addicted to nicotine than fascism.
Bill, stick a fork in you. You're done.
Actually, that line should read I'd rather crave nicotine than fascism.
I believe one of the most intriguing aspects of Calabasas, is the self-righteous shall inherit the earth, or at least California. Instead of making smoking in public illegal, what they have done is promote self-righteousness. Ed is smoking a cigarette over in a isolated place far away from anyone. Jill spies Ed partaking of his vice. Jill walks within 20 feet, and suddenly Ed is now a criminal, not for what he was doing, but because Jill decided to impose in his space. Ed must now leave, or be forced to alter his behavior immediately. Ed leaves the area, and Jill continues to follow, demanding that he extinguish his cigarette or be in violation of the law. Ed must eventually be subservient to Jill or face up to 6 months in jail and $1000 fine.
Jill went to great lengths to expound on the virtues of the "will of the people." Over 150 years ago, the will of the people in southern states was the rights to maintain slaves. The elected officials represented these views, and the state law accommodated such. Does the will of the people make it "right"?
actually, walt, slavery never left us. it's still a thriving business in libya, the sudan, etc. but the PC term these days is 'human trafficking.
of course, in the western, more advanced countries, it's called 'public health'.
Walt H. - great point as always. And the scenario you present is really not all that far-fetched if you look at the actual text of the law.
Just the Facts - I think you're right on the mark in suggesting that Calabasas is really a sentinel policy (a litmus test as you say) in that it forces tobacco control groups to declare themselves. Are they evidence-based groups that determine their agenda based on rational, reasonable science-based policy analysis, or are they simply on a crusade?
Bill Godshall wrote:
"I hope that some independent researcher (in addition to those from cigarette companies) studies the impact of Calabasis' ordinance on adult and youth smoking rates."
Independents like Glantz?
Or when it comes to air quality, the always independent Repace?
LOL
Sorry to muddy a thread with off-topic, but Dr. Siegel could I pull you back over to the 20 minutes/ 30 minutes lanes and ask you if my posted understanding of prostacyclin (as merely a mechanism of homeostasis) is correct or all wet? I do sincerely like to get all my facts straight and not, like Ohio, make idiot statements on My side of that fence. Thanks
If any Calabasas smokers are marched off to jail for smoking outside, there's a good chance the event will be all over the news. Maybe then, a debate will finally ensue over just exactly what "science" was used to justify the outdoor smoking ban and whether such bans really serve the public's interests - health or otherwise.
Are all the anti- smoking zealots now off to live in the "Nirvana" they've helped create P-L-E-A-S-E !Leave the rest of society behind you are surplus to a liberal,democratic,free society.
Walt- I'm sorry; could you repeat your comment on the prostacyclin? I'm not sure where that comment was.
Mike Siegel inquired:
"Are they evidence-based groups that determine their agenda based on rational, reasonable science-based policy analysis, or are they simply on a crusade?"
If the Calabasas ordinance significantly reduces involuntary tobacco smoke exposures, cigarette consumption and cigarette addiction rates among Calabasas adults and youth (as smokefree advocacy groups and local officials hypothesize), the ordinance will have proven to be a rational, reasonable science based policy.
This will likely prove especially true when compared to current state and federal drug control laws that impose overly punitive criminal sanctions (e.g. felony convictions, lengthy prison sentences, steep fines, asset forfeitures, child seizures, government housing and educational loan prohibitions, voting rights suspensions, etc.) upon
those who are convicted of selling, possessing and/or using marijuana, heroin and crack cocaine.
Calabasas' new ordinance could even prove to be the single most effective
and civilized public policy in history to significantly reduce a deadly drug addiction.
wow, that sounds like what they said prohibition would do.
btw, bill. you'll notice that YOUR question got answered on the anti-smoking groups refuse comment thread.
seeing as your request for answers was responded to (and so quickly yet!), perhaps you could respond to some of the questions that have been posed to you by others?
Calabasas must be a wonderful place if their crime rate is so low that they can make this a priority for law enforcement.
In communities and states that have yet to go smokefree, you read ban advocates saying, "We are not trying to penalize smokers. All we're asking is they go outside."
Don't believe them. 10 years later, they'll come after you there, too.
Annette,
Bill cannot or will not respond to questions. Debating you would mean that you are more than an addict or stooge of big tobacco.
My hope is that someday laws such as was enacted in Calabasas will be seen as silly as sodomy laws or masturbation laws seem now. At one time people could be institutionalized for masturbating. It was dirty, polluted the mind, and yes some believed it spread disease. These policies were at the time reasonable, rational, scientific, and very civilized.
whoa! okay, now i'm nervous.
if i don't die first, i'll go blind! wiu 9-4' j we
I'll say it again and again ... there will be NO outrage over this policy.
As an example: they announced this the other day on WABC radio in NYC. The newscaster had recently given up smoking. After he read the story, the hosts said something like "why do you care about this story? You don't smoke anymore." On the radio station's website, they also had a poll question about the effect of NYC smoking bans on youth smoking rates. The only choices were something like "it had an effect", "it didn't have an effect", and "I don't smoke and I don't care."
There are many many people who couldn't care less about laws, regardless of how unjust, that do not directly affect them. Now that people who smoke are becoming smaller in number (at least outwardly; there are more "closet" smokers out there than you may realize), laws like this can be safely passed because they affect a smaller and smaller amount of people.
We are becoming a society of more and more selfish, insular, and inward-looking individuals. Don't expect any outrage over anything like unjust smoking prohibition laws; when much worse has been done by the powerful in this country and you just end up with sycophants making infallible dieties of their leaders.
Exposing lies does not matter because hardly anyone minds being lied to anymore, especially by those who "know better." Appealing to a sense of common decency does not work because of the propaganda machine that has effectively partitioned smokers off from the rest of "decent" society.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the mass outrage. When people in their 80s can be forced out of their nursing homes to smoke 25 feet away in the freezing cold, and nobody understands the inherent barbarism in that, I really don't think anyone is going to give a damn about not being able to smoke outside in some california town.
you may be right anon, but what the hell? if there's a fight to be made and it's just a few of us who resist, that's enough.
that's why and how the anti's got their steam up in the first place. THEIR rights weren't being respected. now it's gone to the other extreme.
i'm hoping we can get to the wobbly place of balance before the damn seesaw slams down on the other end again.
Bill's comment about "reducing a deadly drug addiction" are we talking about "meth" "crack" etc etc which kills pretty effectively why no it's about tobacco ,you know when you get stoned on it and go around mugging ,commiting murder and generally being incredibly anti social.Why prioritise tobacco at the top of the list,even sniffing your lighter gas as you refill can terminate your existence way before smoking tobacco will .
Dr Siegel
About prostacyclin. This is ny understanding but I'd like to be corrected if and where I;ve gone wrong.
Prostacyclin is-- metaphorically at least-- like natural aspirin--the body produces it-- and in greater amounts when and as needed-- to counter any excess platelet aggregation. So if ETS-- or anger-- leads to stickiness of the blood, the body just releases some extra prostacyclin to handle the situation and return the blood to "normal." Homeostasis happens. No harm done.
Assumption #2. If ETS-- or anger-- makes the blood less senstive to the usually circulating levels of prostacyclin, the body sends out more, enough more to do the job. So the rising prostacyclin reported in several studies of people exposed to smoke are simply showing that the homeostatic mechanism is fine and doing what it's meant to. And probably does a hundred other times every day-- or at least every week-- in response to a list of stumuli that just haven't been studied.
I would genuinely appreciate your correcting any false assumptions or mistakes becuase I'd like to understand this.
As for Calabasas, unfortunately I agree with Anonymous (above) tho it's certainly a good litmus test of what kind of country we are-- or are becoming-- and what we can count on at least for the near future. I suggest saving up to buy a small desert island (whether you smoke or not.)
"If the Calabasas ordinance significantly reduces involuntary tobacco smoke exposures, cigarette consumption and cigarette addiction rates among Calabasas adults and youth [...], the ordinance will have proven to be a rational, reasonable science based policy."
Rational, Bill? Where do you take this one from? It is YOUR rationale, that's why approve of it. But it's not everybody's rationale.
Reasonable science based policy? Is "science based policy" defined as "because the ends justify the means"?
I'm still hoping to wake up one day to find out that I'm not living in Bill Godshall's world of law-addicted species.
Walt-
You're understanding of the role of prostacyclin in inhibiting platelet aggregation is very accurate. The only one thing which I don't think is true is that the body can simply release more prostacyclin to make up for the decreased sensitivity to prostacyclin of the platelets. Studies have shown that tobacco smoke exposure results in increased levels of platelet aggregation, so apparently the homeostatic mechanism is not enough to compensate for the injury to the platelets.
However, with that said, there is no reason why the homeostatic mechanism wouldn't be able to withstand a 30 minute exposure to secondhand smoke, and it is therefore ridiculous to suggest that a single 30 minute exposure will increase the risk of a heart attack because of this or that it will reduce the ability of the heart to pump.
Benpal-
I think you've accurately pointed out the flaw in Bill's reasoning. A policy is either rational or not. The policy doesn't become rational based on its effects. That's a dangerous ends justifies the means argument. By the same reasoning, one could argue that a policy which denies medical care to smokers is rational if it turns out that such a policy results in massive smoking cessation. That could very well happen, but it doesn't mean the policy is rational.
Mike Siegel wrote:
"A policy is either rational or not."
The Mayor and all City Council members in Calabasas concur with me that the policy is quite rational, but I suspect that it will prove significanly more rational than any other type of drug control law.
ben and Mike Siegel disagree, but their judgement of rationality appears clouded by subjectivity.
And the Supreme Court found it rational to uphold segregation. They concurred with anti-desegregationists.
And Bill being the consistent fellow he is would have stood with them, arguing if they say so, it must be right.
--------
Status or official position does not preclude one from being anything more than just another prone-to-flaws (in all manners) human being. And that any are elected by the people does not give them any more legitimacy. Hitler was democratically elected and so was Hamas (the former by the duped and the latter by the hateful -- both kinds of people Bill depends on to "prove" he has the number of people to back him).
But look who I'm talking to... a man who has flunked an ultimate "public health" credibility test in supporting Calabasas.... and uses Communist China as a supportive example of government regulating behavior!! And who calls the fundamental core on which our country was founded (expressed by someone in the simple terms, "This is America, A free country") as mindless patriotism for the "refuge of scoundrals"!!!
Bill the Socialist, folks.
May all who read here observe what is behind the anti-smokers and their crusade.
"ben and Mike Siegel disagree, but their judgement of rationality appears clouded by subjectivity."
Bill, your judgement of rationality appears clouded by narcissism.
It's gotten you fired before, too.
Dr. Siegel, you wrote: "Studies have shown that tobacco smoke exposure results in increased levels of platelet aggregation, so apparently the homeostatic mechanism is not enough to compensate for the injury to the platelets. "
I ask: Tobacco smoke exposure at *what levels* have that result?
Unless the levels producing that effect are directly comparable to those found in decently ventilated nonsmoking sections of restaurants then simply making a statement such as the above is misleading in the current political context where it and others like it are used to outlaw such accomodations.
So, I ask, what levels?
:?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Dr Siegel-- Thanks. I'm going to reread some of the prostacyclin studies, since my top of the head recall was that the body did indeed raise the levels of prostacyclin in response to ETS (which, in itself, was supposed to be "incriminating" ) but that the blood did return to normal in due time, as I recall a couple of hours. But: First, I may be absolutely wrong in that recollection or second, the intervening mechanism was time, not addiional prostacyclin. IOW, the extra prostacyclin wasn't enough, but a couple of hours respite from the source of exposure was. But unless or until I can reasonably back that up-- or come up with another question-- I accept your conclusion and thank you again.
Michael-
The studies that have found increased levels of platelet aggregation in nonsmokers exposed to tobacco smoke were experimental studies. I will have to look at the actual studies to see what the levels of secondhand smoke were to which they exposed the subjects. I agree with you that it would be valuable to have actual observational studies where this is studied in people exposed to secondhand smoke in actual realistic settings, rather than in a laboratory setting.
Walt-
You are correct, actually, that the platelet activation effects do eventually return to normal. In the study on platelet aggregation, the activation of the platelets returned to normal 6 hours after the exposure. However, after 4 successive days of exposure, the level of platelet activation was similar to that in smokers. In other words, although it does to back to normal after a few acute exposures, there is something about repeated exposure that decreases the body's ability to return the system back to normal.
But this, I would note, also shows why the claim that a 30-minute (or is it 20-minute, I forget) exposure to secondhand smoke makes it harder for the heart to pump or increases heart attack risk is fallacious. Because it will all return to normal after that 30 minutes is over. Repeated exposure is clearly required to have atherosclerosis take place.
"after 4 successive days of exposure"
mike, is that after 4 successive days at the laboratory levels, correct?
which is valuable, but it doesn't include as walt mentioned, real life exposure.
just as importantly it doesn't take into account what mjm, marcus aurelius, eric and benpal have offered regarding even an open window nevermind adequate ventilation.
Can you tell me what specific study or studies you;re referring to? The one where it took 6 hours and the one about the 4 days? I'd like to look them up.
Had a chance to look into Sinzinger and it seems that the return to normal was, according to one source ,60 minutes, per another, it was 40. And the exposure was to the smoke from 30 Gitanes (a knock-out strong cigarette) in a small chamber, 18m3, that was apparently unventilated. If that's so, it doesn;t seem to be connected to real life, and the bounce-back time was short.
FWIW--
In my travels on SS Google I happened on several studies that seemed to show that aspirin taken by active smokers-- taken up to 14 hours before they smoked-- erased any and all changes in platelet aggregation and circulating endothelial cells caused by their smoking. Didn't note the URL but the one of the 2 I read was: Blanche et al, Atherosclerosis 179, 1992; the other was Davis, Can Med Assoc J 126, 1982. But IOW the aspirin was show to be preventive. And if so for active smokers, the how 'bout for the guy sitting next to them at the bar?
Bill can't afford to answer questions, as his positions and arguments are always wrong.
Good points, anonymous, and you've chosen the right word: "barbarism."
Sorry, Mr. Siegel, you have dedicated your life to a barbarous career. I have hopes for you, however!
In one of your comments on another thread, you pointed out your opposition to abortion prohibition. Are you aware that most such laws were passed at the behest of the 19th century medical establishment? They thought themselves quite progressive.
The political opinions of doctors are rarely consistent with the principles of liberty. Most of us outside the profession who have the moral fortitude not to be frightened by the profession's imprecations know that.
And si--
Most of the externalities associated with drug addiction, such as assault and theft, are a direct result of drug prohibition, another bad policy encouraged by the medical profession.
I really do respect the the deep education of doctors in the field of medicine. Most of their political theory is that of children.
I thought America was a free and democratic country. I hope our children will see the end of this anti-smoking madness!
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
