Unlike the folks in England, where smoking still occurs in many workplaces, residents of California have enjoyed and have become accustomed to breathing smokefree air in all indoor workplaces for nearly a decade.
Since the policy process is constantly evolving, it is understandable that people in societies with less pervasive smokefree policies simply cannot appreciate the freedom (to breathe smokefree air) as much as people in societies where smokefree policies have been more pervasive for many years.
From interviews I've read, the citizens of Calabasas are pleased with the decision. If they aren't, they can kick their rascals out at the next election. This was a local ordinance -- something on the line of "No Spitting."
Yes, a single exposure to secondhand smoke can't hurt you. How about two, or twenty, or two hundred, two thousand? When does it go from being a nuisance to a hazard? I think about this daily as I walk the streets of London inhaling tobacco smoke (when I can no longer hold my breath). Until next June I'm denied the right to hoist a beer in a pub (almost none is smoke-free) without being gassed, and the "non-smoking section" of most restuarants is like being in the back row of the old non-smoking sections in airplanes. Talk about choice and rights.
If a person started to pump a syringe full of a toxic gas into the air -- because it's his right, and he enjoys it -- would we let him?
The Calabasas story has been pumped up in this blog originally to make a point about science. Are we there yet?
As for Marimount (RIP) and Levy, they said that smoking "only" killed 100,000 Americans each year. There's a relief.
bill,
i need to say this for my own sake; do you have any idea how ignorant and pompous what you write can sound?
the words come across as educated, but there doesn't seem to be any learning. they bully, but they don't convince
in their repetition, it reminds me of a toddler banging his spoon on top of his plate while getting red in the face because he doesn't feel like he's getting enough attention.
they lack respect for any potential audience and they never seem to be interested in anything other than their own utterance.
if there's a question, it comes across as rhetorical sarcasm. if there's an answer, it's seldom the one that was asked for.
i'm aware of what you claim to represent, but at least for myself, that's not what i hear communicated.
and, in all fairness, your words aren't the only ones that come across like that from the anti-smoking side.
norbert,
why would do you need so desperately to hoist a beer in a pub? or why not invest in a pub that specifically would cater to non-smokers?
i certainly don't want to deny anyone else the right to get plastered if they want to; but i also don't wish to be dictated to so that s/he can feel free to pursue a different 'vice.
let's find some way to all play in the sandbox nicely; or at least let different kids play in their own.
I couldn't disagree more with Annette. I don't believe Bill sounds pompous or ignorant at all. Bill made the excellent point that perception of what is "extreme" depends on perspective. Insert your own example of how historic policies have been abandoned as public sentiment. What is considered "extreme" now or in one place may seem totally normal somewhere else.
Pointing it out isn't pompous and it isn't ignorant.
steve,
i'm accustomed to you disagreeing with me.
as for the point about extreme being a matter of perspective, that's what we're debating in the discussion thread.
this was a reply to eric that i wrote the other day, and decided to repost it here.
nothing happens in a vacuum. that, like my first post on (shameless plug coming) my blog, i see all events as susceptible to a fulcrum effect.
in other words, if things have been slanted to one side or another, it takes more effort - not equal, but more - to get things moving on the opposite side. but then we need to be aware of achieving balance once the motion has started or else risk going too far in the new direction.
non-smokers DID have to put up with an awful lot of crap from tobacco users who didn't have the sense, or didn't care, to respect those around them. it took tremendous effort just to get people to respond to it seriously. look at what we (smokers) are going through now. it was the same for them.
that's a big part of my theory as to what's happening now. we're struggling to hang onto our civil liberties because it IS continuing in the anti- direction, and no longer just with smoking.
those of us who are standing and speaking up need to keep the same lesson in mind. non-smokers' concerns are valid. i see a lot of extremism, but that doesn't mean that their concerns are invalid. and we are all in the same boat - learning to accept that we live in a world where other people have rights too. the world, indoors or outdoors, does not have to be perfect in order to be better.
do you realize that there is a very good possiblity that in dealing proactively with the smoke/nonsmoke situation, we may be finding some viable options regarding other pollutants that we are consistantly having to battle?
perhaps most importantly we need to remember another lesson. we were 'jacks' to Big T's giant, but now there are more giants to contend with.
the larger any entity gets, whether it's government or corporate, the individual's concerns and well-being is that much further away from being recognized. we are all responsible for upholding our own freedoms and in so doing, are learning how to recognize and protect the rights of other as well. if we choose to remember that.
if not quite clear, see here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...27771202/
#40493
Get a load of this.
http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/n...ias/money/cm/
nw
This guy smokes for over 40 years. Every single pack he picks up afer 1964 has a warning on it saying that the sticks that come in the box are bad for you.
Then in 2000 he gets sick, files a lawsuit and cashes in on 50 million freaking dollars?
What, in God's name is the $50 million for? Reading lessons so the guys kids can learn to read the cigarette pack warnings?
Actually, the judgement for the 50 million is a good sign.
Dr. Siegel was concerned, as many others, that the MSA had precluded injured plaintiff recoveries.
The decision today...
Altria Group Inc.'s (MO) (MO) Philip Morris USA (MO) unit Monday exhausted its appeals to overturn a $50 million punitive damages award from a deceased smoker lawsuit filed in California
...shows that some relief is still possible for individal plaintiffs despite the MSA.
What is it for? Punitive damages are to punish and deter bad conduct. It is the only thing that motivates corporations to take any actions. Large corporations are only motivate to change by large punitive damage awards.
OJ Simpson had punitive damages awarded against him as well.
I think this action by ASH-UK is significant because it breaks down one huge barrier to the return of the tobacco control movement to some sense of reason and sensibility in its push for smoke-free laws:
Bill is actually on to something. The British are not as practiced at the judgemental and intolerant attitudes towards smokers as say Californians. The idea that there may be a right to privacy, the absence of government, interference outside of the bedroom is alien to many nannyists.
"...shows that some relief is still possible for individal plaintiffs despite the MSA"
in that case the MSA should be null and void because all of this is bullsh*t. i'm not even sure that i'm that thrilled about the award at all, but certainly not that amount.
why? because it's the 'poor smoking victim' crap that's chewing away at our sense of being personally responsible. and the slope just gets slippery from here.
Ryan wrote:
"The idea that there may be a right to privacy, the absence of government, interference outside of the bedroom is alien to many nannyists."
If anyone in Calabasas thinks the recently enacted ordinance violates any of their legally protected rights, they are free to file a lawsuit against Calabasas challenging the ordinance.
As for ASH-UK's current position, I claim that it is only a temporary one. They'll fall in line with the Banzhaf Brigades. One day the 'tobacco control movment' will have smoking banned on Pluto.
Norbert Hirschorn MD - are you a doctor?
Here's a little diversion.
http://www.overopinionated.com/s...com/
smokers.htm
Those of you who told the "Mother of Four" that its OK for her to smoke around her kids, you've shown yourselves to be truly uniformed. Particularly the gentlman that recommended children be given poisons to build their immune system.
"Unlike the folks in England, where smoking still occurs in many workplaces, residents of California have enjoyed and have become accustomed to breathing smokefree air.....Since the policy process is constantly evolving, it is understandable that people in societies with less pervasive smokefree policies ......"
Bill you sound so sophisticated and enlightened, I wonder how much pharmaceutical nicotine money it takes to become so enlightened.
Erik wrote: "OJ Simpson had punitive damages awarded against him as well."
And the "real killer" that OJ is looking for is off hiding in a cave with Jimmy Hoffa watching over the bulging stacks of millions of body bags holding all the victims of secondary smoke.
So Erik, burn any good tires in your home lately?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
"Those of you who told the "Mother of Four" that its OK for her to smoke around her kids, you've shown yourselves to be truly uniformed. Particularly the gentlman that recommended children be given poisons to build their immune system."
JILL! hey, how are you? was wondering where you went off to. glad to see you're well. have a nice night.
Jill wrote: "you've shown yourselves to be truly uniformed."
I most certainly am NOT "uniformed." Never worn one in my life!
(whooops... wait a sec... Catholic grammar school and two years of scouting... darn... guess Jill's got more on the ball than I thought!)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissectig Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Yea...there's nothing wrong with the guy's uniform. But his advice to giv yo kids poison to bild up der immune syterm stil got me laffing.
Michael Mc, even you probably aren't advocating parents give their kids poisons to help build up their immune system. Shit, why don't we just move back to Love Canal. I hear the real estate is real affordable there.
Hey Annette, I'm well. Busy with work. Hope all is well with you too.
Dr Hirshorn,
You asked "If a person started to pump a syringe full of a toxic gas into the air -- because it's his right, and he enjoys it -- would we let him?"
I suppose you call this science?
People respire toxic gases, therefore under your logic people should not be allowed to gather since they are poisoning the air of others.
Carbon monoxide is exhaled with every breath, metabolized by living organisms.
Carbon monoxide is held to be the chief constituent within tobacco smoke attributed with causing CHD which is attributed to the bulk of the claim of ETS related fatalities.
Instead of presenting the facts, you rely on a fear of hypodermics, and mysterious "toxic gases" to create and image of fear within the mind of the public.
This isn't education, and it sure isn't science, and it's not informed consent, it is propaganda plain and simple, and you sir are guilty of propagating it.
Public policy shouldn't be driven by fear.
"JILL! hey, how are you? was wondering where you went off to."
Jill, apparently, has been quite busy. For those who didn't realize it, she has been "playing the part" of Young Mother of Four.
I thought there was a similarity in the writing style of the two personas.
I thought she pulled it off pretty well though.
Didn't anyone notice that Jill's absence coincided perfectly with the mysterious appearance of Young Mother? And that her reappearance coincided with the disappearance of YMOF? And that you never saw the two discussing issues together. That would have been the most convincing way to pull this off without anyone catching it.
It's kind of like Superman and Clark Kent. You never saw them at the same time. Yet that ultimately was a clue that something was up.
Very nice work Jill! I like to see that kind of creativity. I'll miss Young Mother though. I actually found her to be quite charming! A little innocent (relying on this blog discussion as the source of her decision-making regarding the health of her children), but charming nonetheless!
"poisons to build their immune system"
okay, at the risk of taking this discussion way off the path, i think this IS worthwhile to note.
1) ingesting small amounts of poison over a period of time is an ancient practice to (hopefully) develop resistance.
2) alcohol IS a poison.
3) psilocybins (magic mushrooms) are poisonous mushrooms.
4) this little jewel i just found about arsenic and mercury being used to treat syphilis: http://www.karenblixen.com/
medic...calhistory.html
5) and of course, vaccines! "Long before the causes of disease were known and long before the processes of recovery were understood, an interesting thing was observed: if people recovered from a disease, rather than succumbing to it, they appeared to be immune from a second bout with the same illness"
http://www.accessexcellence.org/
...es_how_why.html
6) last but not least, in terms of things poisoning us that we don't know about yet, how about aspartame?
http://www.wnho.net/
kids_being_p...ng_poisoned.htm
i can't remember where it comes from but what's that saying? - "it's the dose that makes the poison" and i would add, "or the cure"
Jill, apparently, has been quite busy. For those who didn't realize it, she has been "playing the part" of Young Mother of Four.
Perhaps Mike, perhaps. But have you considered the possibility that a chain smoking mother of four in the house, exposing her children to cigarette smoke took on the persona of Jill.
Then, of course, there is a chance that Jill is a chain smoking mother of 4 herself and she just signed with various sides of her persona.
erik,
jooc, where did you get the idea that YMOF was a 'chain smoker'?
"ingesting small amounts of poison over a period of time is an ancient practice to (hopefully) develop resistance."
This is known as homeopathy.
"Homeopathy calls for treating 'like with like', a doctrine referred to as the 'Law of Similars'. The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a particular case, then chooses as a remedy a substance that has been reported in a homeopathic proving to produce similar symptoms in healthy subjects. The remedial substance is usually given in extremely low concentrations. Dilutions are performed by a procedure known as potentization."
"...shows that some relief is still possible for individal plaintiffs despite the MSA"
Relief? What relief? It's all about money. And who is paying the $50 Mio? Those who are banned from Calabasas.
"... because it's the 'poor smoking victim' crap that's chewing away at our sense of being personally responsible. and the slope just gets slippery from here."
I fully agree with Annette.
Erik wrote: "Punitive damages are to punish and deter bad conduct. It is the only thing that motivates corporations to take any actions."
This is just crap intended to nourish hate and reassign responsibility to where the money is.
Did the corporations smoke?
benpal,
Please don't don't mention that useless "medicine" called 'homeopathy'.
Some replies:
Yes, I am a physician, originally in internal medicine, now in public health. I used to smoke and lived with a three-pack a day smoker for 23 years.
Unless one is poisoned by carbon monoxide (poorly vented wood stoves, car exhaust, cigarette smoke) there should be none in the breath -- we breathe in oxygen, breathe out carbon dioxide.
Karen Blixen was badly poisoned by mercury, so also many other famous (and unknown) people getting this old and dangerous medicine. Used to be called 'blue mass', and also in the salt form called 'calomel.'
Norbert, the reason I ask about you being a doctor, is the following statement by you:
"Until next June I'm denied the right to hoist a beer in a pub (almost none is smoke-free) without being gassed, ..."
I find it somewhat strange that a physician is so scared sh*t about ETS, that he does not dare go into a pub with tobacco smoke - to drink alcohol.
Drinking a beer is toxicologically the equivalent of sitting in a room with 4 zillion smokers. If you don't have the nerve to sit in a room with 10 smokers, how can you even think of drinking a beer?
I read the news today... oh boy.
One single sick smoker gets 50 million dollars for proving how many cigarettes he smoked.
Meanwhile, 50 million smokers are in increasingly in danger of losing their health insurance and/or employment if they can be proved to have smoked a single cigarette.
So let me get this straight... tobacco is SOOO addictive, and the tobacco companies are SOOO manipulative and evil, and their marketing was SOOO hypnotically convincing, that this one guy deserves 50 million dollars from Phillip Morris for his suffering. But meanwhile, the other 50 million smokers in America now at risk for losing their jobs or insurance are making a bad lifestyle choice completely of their own volition for which they should be punished.
I know it seems like inconsistant public health policy, but it's really not; in both cases it was good money for the lawyers and good PR for the politicians.
Norbert are you sure you are in London ? If you can smell so much "tobacco" smoke you obviously are able to differentiate it from vehicle fumes which swamps everything else.Methinks you are suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning CAUSED by vehicle exhaust fumes.If you can't find smokeless restaurants to your liking where are you looking ,perhaps SOHO isn't the most ameniable location.Sorry just realised you're in London Ontario .
Dr Hirschorn,
Carbon Monoxide is synthesised in the body by the heme oxygenase enzyme (Hmox). The human body excretes this internally produced gas in the blood stream through respiration.
I do not disagree that carbon dioxide is the primary constituent exhaled, but the body itself does produce carbon monoxide through this enzyme, and it too is exhaled as a byproduct of nothing more than living. I stand by my original contention.
i guess no one bothered reading the one about the aspartame, eh?
look, the point was about how we are perpetually being 'poisoned' in our foods, in our medicines, in our needs in general.
fire good/fire bad - remember? what it is, and how it's being used determines how 'bad' something is.
who is using it is determined by the individual making a decision to take an action. and in the case of the minor, guess what - if YOU'RE the parent, YOU take care of it. you chose to have the child, the child is YOUR responsibility.
until it reaches the age when you kin boot the little fledgling outta the nest. at that point, i hope the kid has learned survival skills because the world is dangerous AND its wonderful. but staying in a shell doesn't let you experience either.
@Norbert:
When does it go from being a nuisance to a hazard? I think about this daily as I walk the streets of London inhaling tobacco smoke (when I can no longer hold my breath).
If you look at the site of the London Air Quality Network, you won't mind about ETS in the streets. The common Londoner looses 10 years of his life because of the London air anyway..
Annette asked me for some of the civil liberties sites I visit, here are a few across the board:
Tobacco taxes
http://matrixbookstore.biz/tobacco.htm
Endangered? thinktank
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=10594
Our UK brethren (England, Scotland, not sure if any Ireland folks on there)
http://www.thebigdebate.org/
A place to sound off at American Leaders-and get it mailed to them.
http://www.congress.org/congress...ngressorg/home/
And I'm still trying to get someone to attempt this: Unintended Consequences -
http://www.crystalballprize.com/
A lawyer site, that hasn't yet addressed the whole ban issue as it applies to business rights, or have they? As they are fighting Eminent Domain across the country...
http://www.ij.org/
Another think tank:with the Precautionary Principle article under events:
http://www.aei.org/default.asp?f....asp?
filter=all
capri
and from the Madison, WI state journal, yes spitting has become a topic of city gov't once again....we are minimesanfran, or minimecalabassas KA.
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/....php?
ntid=77004
"Better do your spitting now in case price goes up
DEAN MOSIMAN dmosiman@madison.com
March 20, 2006
Hold that loogie - or maybe not.
A Madison City Council member is proposing to set the cost of a ticket and quadruple the maximum fine for spitting phlegm, mucus, tobacco juice or even flicking a cigarette butt in public places - including sidewalks.
But that doesn't mean the city is putting together a gob squad.
The longstanding law is so rarely enforced that police don't even have a standard fine amount if they write a citation.
"It's certainly nothing I see in court very often," Municipal Judge Dan Koval said. "I've never had a trial on it."
The city attorney's office, noting that the city doesn't have a bail amount - the sum a police officer writes on a ticket - for the offense, asked Ald. Mike Verveer, 4th District, to introduce an amendment to the law with clear fines and raise the maximum penalty.
The proposal would keep the minimum penalty at $10 per offense, raise the maximum penalty from $25 to $100, and set a bail amount at $50.
The proposal, Verveer stressed, doesn't signal a crackdown on spitters, groups of people dropping butts on the sidewalk outside bars due to the city's smoking ban, or spitting chaw if the City Council grants an exemption to the ban for chewing tobacco.
"I'm certainly guilty of expectorating from time to time when there's phlegm in my throat," he said. "I certainly do not expect or would not want Madison cops going around looking for people spitting or tossing their butts out of bar entryways."
Mayor Dave Cieslewicz agreed, saying police won't be targeting spitters but that the city would have a clear set of fines if the need to enforce the law arises.
"It might make some people spitting mad," he said."
marcus wrote:
"Bill you sound so sophisticated and enlightened, I wonder how much pharmaceutical nicotine money it takes to become so enlightened."
Since I've never received any funding from any pharmaceutical company, it appears that marcus will continue to wonder.
bill,
he didn't say 'funded'.
From the Norbert Hirschhorn MD post:
.. right to hoist a beer in a pub (almost none is smoke-free) without being gassed" ...
... If a person started to pump a syringe full of a toxic gas into the air ...
Dr. Siegel, you had posted previously that you view ETS (indoors) as a serious health hazard (presumably caused by repeated exposure over time, please clarify if I am incorrect), not as an acute poison.
You also feel that, in most cases, exposure to ETS outdoors poses no risk.
Given this, what is your take on Dr. Hirschhorn's statements?
I have to ask Norbert Hirschhorn MD how the provincial law will change anything?
In 2003 the city council voted that all bars and restaurants will be smoke free. How is the provincial law stopping you right now?
Certainly you are not worried about going onto the patio's right now? (where smoking permitted) It's only -10 Celsius now. This may or may not change depending upon the interpretation minister wants to implement, and of course other "pressures".
In other words what exactly are you say your waiting on? The health minister says there is high compliance (albeit from intimidation). You have already got what you are complaining about!?
Dr. Norbert says:
"If a person started to pump a syringe full of a toxic gas into the air"
Oh, you mean, like when someone drives an automobile, or cooks on a barbecue grill?
"I'm denied the right to hoist a beer in a pub (almost none is smoke-free) without being gassed"
Being the intemperate hypocrite you are, go right ahead and drink your liver yellow in your smoke free bar.
But first let me show you the gruesome pictures of a liver with cirrhosis:
http://www.cheerzhangover.com/im...irrhosis-
lg.jpg
And when was it decided that going to a pub is a "right?"
Heal thyself, "Doctor".
Ah yes, welcome back miss uncongeniality. Back to throw a few more rocks at the scorned?
Did anyone read the screed she referred us to? She calles it a "diversion," as if it is something bright and cheery, however it is nothing but a statement of animosity toward people who smoke.
Excerpt from:
http://www.overopinionated.com/s...com/
smokers.htm
"Smokers, what are they good for?
I really dislike smokers. I'm not going to get an Uzi and start blowing them away, but if they all die of lung cancer, you won't see me crying."
Can you post things like this and REALLY expect us to believe that you have anything but contempt and hatred for people who smoke?
It is beyond disturbing that you would actually wish that I or anyone else would die of lung cancer.
Take your hate somewhere else.
Hi Michael, I try to avoid having conversations with myself as much as possible. It gets confusing. I don't think you should be surprised that a young mother of four would rely on this site for health information though. As a doctor I am sure you have seen studies that show how uninformed people can be - especially young people who are known for making decisions based on faulty reasoning. This by the way, explains why tobacco company documents talk so much about targeting teenagers. They are the only ones that can be reliably convinced to start smoking.
And Ed. I didn't mean to "heap scorn" on you. I actually didn't write the content on that site. I just thought it was a unique perspective that people might be interested in seeing. I really didn't expect anyone to take it that seriously.
In spite of my spirited comments on this site, and in spite of what you might think, I really don't hate smokers. I do support policies that marginalize the LEAF. My hope would be to do that with as little impact as possible on those who are already involved with using it. Clearly some toes are going to have to be stepped on. But it shouldn't go to the point where human beings - smokers or not - are harassed or looked down upon.
Ahh, I love the smell of herbicides and cleaning products in the morning...
Dr Hirshorn said: "Until next June I'm denied the right to hoist a beer in a pub (almost none is smoke-free) without being gassed, ..."
I say: Why don't you go to a pub that *is* smoke-free? Besides, we don't want people like you "hoisting" any beers in public – you should do your drugs in your own home, away from children and innocent people. And when you're done with rehab, we'll expect to see you in the alcohol prohibition movement.
Hirshorn also said: "I used to smoke and lived with a three-pack a day smoker for 23 years."
I say: (WTF?) Then according to your "scientific research" you should be ready to kick any day now, eh?
Replay: Here's a good letter to Calabasas and to all those fascist antismoke wackos everywhere:
--------------------------
An Open Letter to the People and Mayor of Calabasas
As we watched the news of your city's new smoking ban and the mayor and others touting the supposed benefits, we couldn't help but laughably notice that all of these people were either standing in, or surrounded by, freshly sprayed, chemically-laden lawns.
Obviously, the fungicides, herbicides and pesticides from these lawn-chemicals, constantly permeating the air and perpetually breathed in by your populace, are the preferred method of obtaining the cancers and illnesses your misguided resolution against tobacco so fearfully tries to protect you from.
As you carry these lawn chemicals into your homes on your shoes and clothing where they become permanent additions to your toxic living space (as these chemicals don't break down indoors but build up in your carpets--contaminating you and your children and eventually spreading to your bedding, your skin, lungs and bloodstream), consider also the fact that it is the chemicals in many cigarettes which can cause the most harm to smokers, and today many tobacco products are without these chemical additives--some actually contain Organic tobacco--which make them far less dangerous to non-smokers than your dull-witted crusaders would have everyone believe.
Of course, a certain amount of protocol should be in place regarding second-hand smoke in confined areas where children are present and in public buildings; but many bars or restaurants should still have the choice whether to go smoke-free or not.
In further regards to indoor contaminants: most commercially available household cleaners contain many more of these same toxic chemicals along with a variety of industrial solvents, which cause most of the chronic and fatal illnesses among the population that your foolish crusaders seem to fear the most. Combine these with the constant out-gassing of chemicals from paints, varnishes, synthetic carpeting and furniture, glues, adhesives, and chemical perfumes and dyes and you'll begin to see that cigarettes are the least of your problems.
These are the real killers in our society, as evidenced by the death of Dana Reeves of lung cancer. It is not certain where she could have contracted the disease, but it wasn't from second-hand smoke. Sort of makes your whole case a fallacy based on ignorance and fear-based fanaticism.
Outside smoking? Don't be ridiculous. It's the chemicals, you idiots.
Sanctimony Jill, pure sanctimony.
Dr Siegel set up that discussion thread with the objective of facilitating an open debate on the veracity, or otherwise, of certain epidemiological study findings. The fact that you apparently have nothing sensible to add to the debate speaks volumes.
However, to adopt an 'alter-ego' as a debating tactic is normally seen as bad form on discussion sites, and would often result in your being banned. At the very least it showed an immense level of disrespect for Dr Siegel and many others who are trying to engage in serious debate.
But then disrespect seems to come easy to you, doesn't it?
For example, why do you conclude that those who take a different view to yourself are uninformed? This is a bit arrogant, to say the least, and any impartial observer of the discussion thread would certainly conclude quite the opposite.
You also have an unhealthy contempt for young people "who are known for making decisions based on faulty reasoning" Really? Just as well the anti-smoking lobby are targetting the young so actively then, isn't it?
I also feel that you are somewhat disingenuous when you post a link to a piece of unadulterated hatred, passing it off as a "diversion" (as if we are meant to be amused or entertained by such bile), then to claim that you didn't intend for anyone to take it seriously! Far from being a "unique perspective", all I read was a standard anti-smoker rant. You may not have written it, Jill, but you were clearly sufficiently impressed by it to think it worthy of sharing with others.
So, you support policies that marginalize the LEAF (sic. - I presume that you mean the tobacco LEAF)? If, as you say, you don't hate smokers, why don't you support policies that make tobacco consumption safer, and that minimize the offence caused to sensitive non-smokers?
Does that cause you a problem, in that 'safe' smoking wouldn't eliminate the object of your real hatred?
Whether you really do wish it or not, Jill, smokers are being harassed and looked down upon - big time - and you are among the saintly group that are responsible for this.
Well put Brian, Thank you!
So let me get this straight...
Dr. Hirschhorn has to hold his breath while walking down the streets of LONDON (!!!) because of the tobacco smoke. Yet he's overjoyed that when a ban comes in place those streets will then be the hanging out place for hundreds of thousands MORE smokers that he has to walk through?
And then after finally finding his way into a pub where he can breath fresh alcohol laden, beer smelling, stale vomit tinted air, he'll have to hope that he's picked one where the owner doesn't wink at the smokers or one where a fist fight over someone smoking won't break out. And if he survives that then he'll have to walk back out through a cloud of smokers hanging at the front door between drinks?
And he's looking forward to THIS rather than the current situation where most of the smokers are ensconced inside pubs with a good bit of their nasty "fumes" being collected by various sorts of air filter devices and where there is a goodly selection of places to eat and drink where there is NEVER a smoker lighting up because they don't go to those places and where there is rarely a smoker, much less a cloud of them, blocking the door on his exit?
I sure hope Dr. Hirschhorn isn't a psychiatrist!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
yes, ditto brian, thank you.
Dr. Hirschhorn said, "If a person started to pump a syringe full of a toxic gas into the air"
I'd have no problem with that at all Doctor, as long as they were pumping out the picograms and nanograms and micrograms that a cigarette does.
How about a syringe full of arsenic for instance? Your person would have to pump it 165,000 times for me to get the same amount of arsenic that I'd get from drinking a 16oz glass of EPA-Approved-As-Safe tap water.
So bring on your syringes Doctor... and I hope you've been keeping up your thumb excercizes cuz yer gonna need 'em!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
I am inspired this evening by a quote that I will paraphrase from today's FORCES, which I think perfectly sums up the situation in Calabasas:
"People are free to smoke so long as it is under conditions set by people who hate smokers."
That's not exactly what I would describe as "free," now, is it?
It seems these people have nothing to say when confronted with facts or common sense, they can only win through lies and deceit. Their argument is purely emotional.
A woman reeking of toxic perfume and standing on a chemically sprayed lawn in a chemically sprayed neighborhood was taking signatures for smoke-free ohio... crazy, man. When I confronted her about her hypocrisy she seemed taken aback at the very notion of being questioned ( I guess no one had up to that point), and then muttered some inanity about "saving the children" (so they could roll around on her chemically treated lawn, no doubt).
The concept of natural and organic tobacco totally befuddles these people, too. Most don't even know what the word organic means – but I know the concept nearly derails their entire argument.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate some smoke-free establishments and buildings, that's not a problem for me.
But bars and clubs where I go to for music will never see the likes of these people in them and I resent their attempts at legislating morality where they'll never set foot. This makes me want to personalize it and find out who these people are, find out what their vices are, expose them for the frauds we know them to be.
"[American fascists] use every opportunity to impugn democracy. . . They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.." -- Former Vice President Henry A. Wallace, the New York Times, April 9, 1944
"I would like to outlaw contraception...contraception is disgusting -- people using each other for pleasure."
-Joseph Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League
Common council passes "tobacco bar," chewing tobacco exemption
Kristian Knutsen on Tue, 03/21/2006 - 11:27pm.
http://www.thedailypage.com/dail...daily/node/
1156
Here is just a bit of it:
"Tuesday, March 21 marked the sixth meeting of the year for the Madison Common Council, but it was the first to take on and address a controversial proposal. In a meeting that included the testimony of nineteen public registrants, and a three hour discussion on everything from the public health aspects of spitoons to the definition of "doobie" to arcane parliamentary procedure, the council voted 12-8 in favor of creating an exemption to the city's tobacco ordinance.
Introduced a month ago, this exemption defines and allows a "tobacco bar," which would permit the smoking of all non-cigarette forms of tobacco in taverns which accrue more than 10% of their receipts through the sale of tobacco. Additionally, they may not serve food, and they are be subject to city auditing for verifying sales. At this point, the only bar that will be able to fit these criteria is Maduro, the downtown lounge for which the exemption was expressely created.
Additionaly, the exemption removes chewing tobacco from the city's tobacco ordinance, meaning that consumers of tobacco products not intended for smoking my use it in any Madison tavern. In fact, this change allows the use of chewing tobacco in much of the city where it was previously prohibited, including locations such as the city council chambers or at public schools."
Long read thru the Madison City Council, sorry-but as you read the whole thing-look at this as the microcosm of what's happening all over. We must VOTE out these rediculous type of "folks" who are legislating AMERICA out of existence!!!!!!!!
But cigar/tobacco shops and chewing tobacco are good to go...
Read the actual statements made by these city clowns......it is HELL living here these days and I would like to just sit them all down and ask them exactly what they think they are PLAYING with in Madison. They are like children at University, playing the mind games.
I am sick of them all, with all their "fixes".
That said, I will keep the pressure on every day with my postings and trying to publish letters to the editors.
Keep on truckin as we used to say back in the day.
Mr Godshall---This is for YOU and how some are retreating from Mr Ira Sharenow here in WI, now that he is in his happy Kalifornia!Sorry folks, I had to stoop down to his level here. His bud got locked out of the far left wing forum here in Madison WI. and the article really was ok to read that Ira Sharenow put out there, from Kalifornia, he just won't leave WI alone.
"[quote="sharenow"]My new category got locked, so I will have to post here. Does Isthmus have a stated written policy on what gets locked?
In any case, Susan Smith from WSJ had a nice piece.
http://www.madison.com/archives/...19:548081:
LOCAL
Operation, Monopoly, Candyland
Wisconsin State Journal :: LOCAL :: D1
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Susan Lampert Smith[/quote]"
capri
There were two articles in this morning's Indianapolis Star that caught my attention:
California and New York have the highest air pollution of all 50 states according to the EPA.
Govenor signs into law that individuals have every right to defend themselves in instances where they feel their life is threatened.
I liked the first article based on the smoking bans indoors and out in California and a picture formed in my head of bonze skined blonds on the beach or on Rodeo Drive being killed by toxic air pollution.
The second scared the hell out of me based on the mind sets I read at sites like this. According to the article we are the third state to pass such a law. I invision an insidence where a deranged mother of four kills a person passing by her home smoking a cigarette, "for the sake of the children".
Many people on the streets today have been convinced that smoking kills, if they are packing what is preclude them from taking action to save themselves from SHS. It sounds ridiculous now, but it will happen.
What will be your perception of the dead, the shooter?
"Govenor signs into law that individuals have every right to defend themselves in instances where they feel their life is threatened."
Does that mean it's ok to beat up Hummer owners and those who run industrial plants? How about people barbecuing? With a fireplace?
I still say if we are going to target one form of smoke we should target them all.
perhaps it means that if we're going to target one type of people, we should target them all, eh?
Well Annette, non-smokers got all the consideration they deserved well over fifteen years ago. They're just being selfish bullies, now. All the talk about public health is a conceited dodge to assuage the consciences of those who have them.
Doctors are always quick to point out the fact of their MD's, as if that makes them more than human, always disinterested, never wrong, never cruel, and never just plain evil.
Poppycock!
The only thing it proves is vanity.
Commenting by HaloScan
