okay, looking at the plus side (and there are many)...
1) this does NOT put an end to the continuing health education for the public. it does help put on some brakes on the runaway train anti-smoking has become.
2) which means that because there is a segment of the population [and please hear my words] WHO CHOOSE TO SMOKE, not all the cash flow has to dry up overnight. (NOR all the jobs that also exist connected with it)
3) not allowing the NAAGs to break the kneecaps of non-participating manufacturers (if it's a freemarket, keep the hell out of it) could help continue putting pressure on Big T to either begin divesting or switching their focus.
4) states can begin to wean themselves off the money.
5) and letting private businesses and private individuals make their own informed decisions lets the market decide what it wants and doesn't want.
6) which can help curb the slowly rising tide of blackmarket tobacco
7) and let's us maintain an emphasis where everyone keeps screaming it belongs - keeping all the adult fun stuff out of their mitts until their old enough to make their own decisions.
which is obviously 18. and to anyone who wants to argue that they're still 'kids' then - if they're old enough to wear a uniform, get shot at, be taught to kill, and VOTE, then they are old enough to decide for themselves as to whether or not they wish to smoke
slow change tends to be lasting change. i doubt all the people who've gotten used to not smoking are going to rush to the habit. but going back to the policy that people are responsible for their own choices would do more for the public good than all the 'NO-[fill in the blank]'.
we also get an opportunity to do a couple of things thanks to the idea of letting the people drive the market;
a) continuing to learn how to clean the air, which could evolve into an outdoor practice where people don't have to loose jobs because a plant closes
b) continuing to learn how to accommodate diversity instead of making different groups the 'exiles du jour'.
this is an excellent opportunity for us to retake our individual responsibilities, and learn how to move forward with some compromise instead of perpetual tyranny.
well, at least that's my hope.
sorry posted twice but realized this is the spot for this info;
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
capri | 03.21.06 - 12:33 pm | #
Annette wrote:
"we also get an opportunity to do a couple of things thanks to the idea of letting the people drive the market;
a) continuing to learn how to clean the air"
The people and their elected officials(most recently in Calabasas) have been very successful at continuing to learn how to clean the air by simply advocating and voting for smokefree workplace laws and smokefree outdoor laws.
Regarding the topic of this thread, the States could have (and still can) receive what they though was the full amount of MSA payments (that large cigarette companies are threatening to reduce due to an MSA clause regarding collective market share) if they simply raised cigarette taxes and if they would collaborate with tobacco control and fire prevention advocates in lobbying for Self Extinguishing Cigarette laws in 44 other MSA states (NY and MA have already enacted those laws).
Cigarette tax hikes can be swiftly implemented in any or all of the 46 MSA states if the large cigarette companies don't send the amount of MSA payments that the States are anticipating.
For future strategy, Self Extinguishing Cigarette laws should be enacted in all 46 states, as doing so would increase the collective market share of the Participating Manufacturers because it is significantly more costly (per pack) for the Nonparticipating Manufacturers to comply with the Self Extinguishing Cigarette laws than for large cigarette companies.
The latter strategy would be a rare win win opportunity for the States, for tobacco control and fire prevention advocates, and for the largest cigarette companies.
Bill there has been much evidence that chronic exposure to highways, and streets creates disease.
You can see just two studies I have found on this. On shows that police officeers(nonsmoking) have higher risk of heart problems, the other is the fact that 50 M (150 feet) from roads will contribute to disease.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...190613/?
a=25647
How is it that we can have miners working with gas powered machines in their shafts, but tobacco isn't able to be safe? You have never answered this question.
You keep talking how urban areas are safe, well I question this, as these studies show my reasoning.
You can add Nevada and South Carolina to the list of states which have recognized and publicly admitted that they are hopelessly addicted to cigarette sales revenues
Yes, they have taken in alot of money.
We need to work extra hard to make sure these states do not stall on protecting workers by passing indoor smoking bans.
Also, the states should not be allowed to protect their income streams by reducing appeal bond amounts.
However, there are a good things that came from the MSA, one of them being the release of documents from tobacco companies:
http://www.projectscum.org/
l. duguay wrote:
"How is it that we can have miners working with gas powered machines in their shafts, but tobacco isn't able to be safe? You have never answered this question."
I wasn't aware that anyone ever asked me that question.
But it's important to remember that miners aren't allowed to burn tobacco (or anything else) in mines because it increases air pollution and poses risks for explosions.
As far as your inquiry about why "tobacco isn't able to be safe?," I suspect that is because nobody has yet developed a safe form of tobacco, although smokeless tobacco companies and pharmacuetical companies have developed alternative tobacco and nicotine products that are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes.
"continuing to learn how to clean the air by simply advocating and voting for smokefree workplace laws and smokefree outdoor law"
bill, it's this kind of commentary (constantly) that comes across as incredibly self-involved as well as myopic.
please try to address the following questions from without running away this time?
1) do you see how using anti-smoking as its foundation, public health is becoming a more intrusive presence in our lives, compromising our sense of personal responsibility as well as our autonomy?
2) do you truly believe that someone else smoking a cigarette next to you on a street corner is the equivalent of having even a hybrid vehicle 'exhaling' in your face?
3) do you have any concept of people having a right to be different from one another? [don't tell me about harm, because will tell you how that is subjective]
ah, for instance - one minute, you cry out against the toxicity of someone smoking but you would prefer to add more chemical in the mix to make it "self-extinguishing".
4) last question, do you have any concept of a bigger picture in all this?
"pharmacuetical companies have developed alternative tobacco and nicotine products that are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes"
hm. which pharmi's bill? and got any stock in skoal or copenhagen as well?
"But it's important to remember that miners aren't allowed to burn tobacco (or anything else) in mines because it increases air pollution and poses risks for explosions."
So you're saying it's perfectly safe and OK for miners to operate equipment powered by internal combustion engines?
Do internal combustion engines not "burn" gasoline or other fuels? Do the spark plugs or other electronic componments of these devices not pose the risk of explosion?
Does the combustion of motor fuel not produce carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and a host of other aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are known Class A carciniogens?
Does any of that matter to you?
Or do you just want to make it so people can't smoke under any but the most onerous circumstances?
Yep, I figured as much.
That's not surprising, as those in denial of their obsessive hatred of tobacco often go to amazing lengths to try rationalizing their actions to prevent people from smoking.
In response to Annette's questions, my answers are:
1) No. Smokefree laws and policies increase personal responsibility among smokers.
2)I don't know, as I don't allow smokers or any automobiles to exhale their pollution directly in my face. Unfortunately, I and others are still forced to inhale diluted levels of emissions from cigarettes and automobiles.
3) I'm confident that my understanding of individual rights is far greater than Annette's, which I attribute to taking several courses in law, being a member of the ACLU for a decade, living with an attorney for 18 years, and working with many attorneys during the past 20 years.
And contrary to Annette's opinion, harming others with air pollutants is not a recognized individual right.
4) Of course. That's the only reason why I'm posting on this blog.
Finally, I've never owned any stock in USSTC, and I wouldn't advise anyone to buy USSTC stock in the near future (unless you want to lose money).
"I'm confident that my understanding of individual rights is far greater than Annette's."
Your life seems to be governed by law. As recent events and history have shown, individual rights can be bent and twisted at will. I wouldn't trust my life in individual rights. If it's legally right, it still might not be right.
a) continuing to learn how to clean the air"
The people and their elected officials(most recently in Calabasas) have been very successful at continuing to learn how to clean the air by simply advocating and voting for smokefree workplace laws and smokefree outdoor laws.
Bill Godshall
Yeah, this "cleans the air..." (sarcasm, BTW.)
All this is a distraction from what they "should" be addressing.
http://scorecard.org/env-
release...te_code=06#maps
city: Calabasas county: Los Angeles
http://www.csac.counties.org/?id=49
CALIFORNIA
County: Los Angeles
Average individual's added cancer risk: 1100 per 1,000,000
HAP with the highest contribution to cancer risk: DIESEL EMISSIONS
http://scorecard.org/env-release...6037&
county_p=1
Diesel emissions are the predominant source of cancer risk in Scorecard's assessment of hazardous air pollutants.
http://scorecard.org/env-
release...ons.tcl#sources
Tobacco users in Calabasas have a better chance of "NOT" GETTING CANCER in their vehicles with the windows rolled up, Bill...
"And contrary to Annette's opinion, harming others with air pollutants is not a recognized individual right."
Yet, you own a car or two, don't you? You have air conditioning at home and in your car? You are taking a plane from time to time? Is it an individual right or just a loophole ASH hasn't discovered yet?
thanks for your answers bill.
here are my counter questions;
1) then why is it still acceptable practice to sue the tobacco industry when we're perpetually being educated (and now bullied) regarding the risks? and if you ram anti-smoking into our lives how is THAT the smoker's choice to be responsible for the self?
2) if you do not know the difference of toxicity between those two things, but have no problem repeating constantly how 'toxic' cigarette smoke is, how could i possibly believe any of your information, never mind be convinced by your arguments?
3) bill, i couldn't care less who's course you sat in on or who you lived with. if you had any true working awareness of individual rights, you would not be so ready to dismiss any, ANY, one else's concerns in the matter; nor would you be so unaware of the perpetual intrusion that is happening in all our lives.
as for 'harming others with pollutants'; i've learned that just because someone else does something that inconveniences or can possibly threaten my wellbeing doesn't mean i'm a victim, unless i choose to be.
harming others with pollutants seems to be incredibly subjective when you consider a) the EPA rolls back the official status of carcinogens on behalf of the highest bidder, b) how much the pharmaceutical industry rakes in each year feeding people all manners of chemistry, c) as does the food industry, d) you don't have a problem with alcohol though that too is a toxic substance and yes, it does too others harm.
but on that note, what about your own inconsideration regarding self-extinguishing cigarettes? let's increase the toxicity so they can either die off quicker or finally get with the anti-smoking agenda, eh bill?
4) aware of a big picture are you? where does THIS little plan fit into it? http://www.reason.com/rb/rb031706.shtml/
Your arguments are lost on Bill, the air could be black with diesel exhaust and concentrations far exceeding EPA guidelines......yet Bill would be complaining about the guy in the next town 50 miles away who is puffing on a cigarette...outdoors.
He seems to have a financial interest given his anti-tobacco rhetoric:
"....pharmacuetical companies have developed alternative tobacco and nicotine products that are 99% less hazardous than cigarettes."
....a pharmaceutical interest perhaps? Go ahead Bill give us the names of your Pharma clients.
Bill says:
"being a member of the ACLU for a decade"
Obviously, you quit some time ago. Maybe it was when you embraced your weird brand of majoritarian fascism? Regardless, you don't strike me as a person who gives much of a hoot at all for civil liberties when you support the right for them to just be voted away...
Maybe it was that 18 years of living with an attorney.
Ed,
Is their really a need to lower ourselves to their level?
Innuendoes are for those without a valid point. While I'm not proud of my recent comment, it was made to illustrate a point about innuendoes.
"I'm confident that my understanding of individual rights is far greater than Annette's, which I attribute to taking several courses in law, being a member of the ACLU for a decade, living with an attorney for 18 years, and working with many attorneys during the past 20 years."
I'm not impressed at all by your credentials, Bill. I'm sorry to say, courses in law and living with an attorney doesn't make up for the apparent lack of human qualities you demonstrate.
"Cigarette tax hikes can be swiftly implemented in any or all of the 46 MSA states if the large cigarette companies don't send the amount of MSA payments that the States are anticipating."
It's so easy, isn't it? Was the MSA about financing the states? Not one word about public health? You finally drop the mask!
actually walt, i thought you did a great job with that recent comment! very funny.
eddie p, i gotta admit, i've been interested in finding out what you're talking about!
but i don't know if it's appropriate unless it directly matters in a particular debate.
Walt,
In the discussion regarding the health effects of tobacco smoke, Bill's sole contribution was to call smokers "cigarette fiends".
I hate to say it, but I've gotten to the point where I feel that the attacks and vicious lies made by Bill, Jill, Erik, and their assorted cronies are personal.
They don't listen to reason; They don't care about civility and courtesy. They view this as a game, an amusement, akin to bear bating or perhaps a side show. And compromise, for them, is only something smokers have to do.
I appreciate and admire your eloquence, Walt. But I am so, so tired of being abused, denounced, and trodden upon by these sanctimonoius, hateful, and abusive individuals.
If they want to hate, fine. But as they sow, so shall they reap, and they are cultivating an enemy in me, and in others.
The smoke haters are no longer a group to be debated, as they have long demonstrated that there is no possibility of rational debate with those who justify their actions under color of false righteousness.
This is no longer a game.
The smoke hating movement must be defeated, discredited, and utterly destroyed.
ed psycho: I concur that the anti smoking movement must be eradicated.
As far as 'states' being addicted to tobacco money, it simply demonstrates the outragous contention that smoking tobacco costs society so and so many billions or trillions of dollars. Just from Michaels blog it becomes clear how much SURPLUS comes out of smoking due to taxes. The hypocracy is glaring.
To the person who is posting the article that shows that traffic pollution is associated with mortality.
The article spoke specifically about sulfer emissions which are produced primarily by older diesel engines. Diesels in this country are in the process of being switched over to low sulfer fuel so they won't produce nearly as many harmful pollutants. However, they will still produce some. Which brings me to my second point.
Why you are emphasizing this issue?You are showing that air pollution - even outdoors - can cause disease. If anything, this gives credibility to the dreaded Calabasas ordinance. But more importantly it seems that if people are already at risk from tranportation pollution they would be even more motivated to reduce additional sources of pollution - especially indoors where smoke can remain trapped for extended periods of time.
Since he's refused to offer backup of a few examples for his assertion that I spread "cigarette company misinformation" here despite 12 requests (now 13) that he do so, I really shouldn't feel any drive to come to Bill's aid.
However, he's said that he has no Pharma monetary interests and I think we should accept that. I would class Bill largely in two of my nine categories: Idealist and Controller. His behavior and statements fit very well with both those profiles with maybe just a bit of the Neurotic thrown in for kicks.
It's important to remember that the Antismoking movement has NOT generally been a singular vast centralized conspiracy, although it's become more of one since the MSA has given it the big bucks to hold these massive multi-million dollar planning conferences. A lot of the direction and directions at any given time may be coming from the top down but the people working together in it are there for a whole bunch of different reasons.
Of course it would be nice if the Bills, Jills, Hornfusses (sorry, can't find his name right now), Eriks and such at least showed some willingness to address issues brought up, give reasonable answers to questions, and stop it with the multiple personality syndrome games, but they're not ALL working for Big Pharma and if we start thinking they ARE it'll weaken us. You need to appreciate their motivations to understand their attacks and be able to defend against them in the right ways.
OK... off my soapbox and back into the mudpit....
;>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Of course it would be nice if the Bills, Jills, Hornfusses (sorry, can't find his name right now), Eriks and such at least showed some willingness to address issues brought up
Ok. I will address one. Have we determined whether Jill is actually the chain smoking mother of 4 who exposes her children to her smoking as Dr. Siegel suggested or is that someone else.
but they're not ALL working for Big Pharma and if we start thinking they ARE it'll weaken us.
I am working for big Pharma. Did it work? Are you weakened? 
Jill states:
"Why you are emphasizing this issue?You are showing that air pollution - even outdoors - can cause disease. If anything, this gives credibility to the dreaded Calabasas ordinance."
The problem with this argument is that secondhand smoke concentrations are in far, far, far smaller concentrations than combustion engine exhaust levels.
So no, it doesn't give crediblity to the Calabasas ordinance......it demonstrates that their pharmaceutical nicotine agenda far exceeds any level of common sense, and as Dr. Siegel points out serves only to discredit the tobacco control movement.......so I for one support Calabasas, I hope more nutjobs push for outdoor smoking bans.
Bill,
I'm curious about your statement that there exist smokeless tobacco products that are significantly less harmful than cigarettes or cigars. What exactly are you talking about?
Doesn't the anti-tobacco community always make it a point that no form of tobacco use (smokeless or otherwise) can ever be considered "safer" in any way? Or is there actually some diversity of opinion on this?
Marcus isn't the science of toxicology wonderful?
It actually can help in telling people what confounding factors and the weight in on an issue. 
"Have we determined whether Jill is actually the chain smoking mother of 4 who exposes her children to her smoking as Dr. Siegel suggested or is that someone else."
erik, you never did answer me as to why you thought YMOF was a chain smoker -
AND... 'she' was writing in because she was feeling duped by the anti-side because she'd been busting a hump keeping the smoke AWAY from her kids.
as for mike suggesting that YMOF was jill in 'disguise', i've got a couple of reasons for believing he's right.
as for what michael mcfadden was talking about, i read that as urging us to stay focused on the facts rather than on our foes because that distraction could weaken our ability to reason things out for ourselves. which i'm ashamed to say does apply to me.
finally, speaking for myself, no erik, you did not weaken me. if anything, you're helping to strengthen my resolve. i distrust you, and especially your motivation, even more.
Also, I have to admit that for the first time, I don't agree with Marcus. Even though I would like to see a large chunk of the anti-tobacco movement discredited, and personally I would like to see at least some of the current bans overturned (in bars and private clubs especially, where I think it is ridiculous) I do not want to see huge portions of the country go berserk in order to do it.
If I had the choice between a long slow boring fight to regain the right to smoke legally in a bar or club (which is really where I think the balance should be set), vs. an insane catastrophe where the anti-smoking movement sends 1,000,000 smokers to prison or the unemployment line before getting completely discredited and having the pendulum of opinion swing quickly in the other direction then I will take the long slow boring fight.
as for mike suggesting that YMOF was jill in 'disguise', i've got a couple of reasons for believing he's right.
Really? What are your reasons?
It doesn't matter of course whether YMOF was Jill or Erik. I initially pinned her on Erik after her first posting, but it could have been Jill. The general point to be learned from YMOF though is that we need to remember the fundamental dishonesty and manipulative behavior of many of those advocating smoking bans. Dr. Siegel is an exception, but an exception is exactly what he is. The YMOF will come back as a "nonsmoking waitress with lung cancer" and in many other guises: I saw them play those games back in the 1990s on the alt.smokers newsgroup and with a bit of experience it's usually possible to separate the likely fakes from the real ones.
The Antis playing those games though don't really care too much if you expose them... they count on having an innocent wider audience out there who won't believe the exposure and who will sympathise with the poor victim who is being jumped on by the evil smokers. And they also hope that someday you'll make the mistake of jumping on a REAL YMOF who turns out to be willing to offer proof of herself... and then they've won a double victory.
They play dirty and nasty and to win: they don't care who they hurt along the way because their goal, the elimination of smoking, is all that matters.
We don't have to play as nasty as they do because we have a very powerful weapon on our side: truth and information. Every time we can expose one of their lies we win and we show the world the dirty feet under their robes.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
"Really? What are your reasons?"
1) the writing style - no typos nor grammatical mistakes. if she was a young mother of 4, she very possibly wouldn't have the educational level she seemed to.
2) especially when she began talking about being with 'at risk' youth at her j.o.b. there's a certain level of competence that one is supposed to have in that position. if she started having pups early (as she suggests by saying she's a Young Mother of FOUR kids) it's unlikely that she had the credentials before becoming a mother and just as unlikely of getting them while being one.
3) i also found it interesting that she seemed to be looking for 'permission' from us to smoke around her kids. yet all of the smokers who responded did not tell her it was alright. they did affirm that they 'survived' it, and did encourage her to be skeptical (i really liked airplane eric's post to her), but aside from giving her some slack as an individual (as in being non-judgemental, which you can pick up a dictionary to find out the meaning of) no one told her to light up around her kids. and mike was particularily professional in his response.
4) yet YOU erik, considered her to be a chain smoker (based on what?) not to mention the line "mother of 4 who exposes her children to her smoking". neither one of those statements is supported by the exchange which to me suggests that either you where in on the joke, or were simply looking to get a little more mileage out of it; but why would you do that to someone you would want to "protect" from us?
5) jill's response 'to the gentleman who suggested giving poison to the kids' - was also very instigating as well as in-correct. even if jill was just feeling her position very strongly - then why didn't she go after YMOF at the kneecaps like she has been known to do with rest of us?
none of those patterns support YMOF as being a YMOF, but they do lend themselves easily to the concept of someone playing a part. and jill didn't outright deny it when it was mentioned.
i will say this; i agreed with the doc's assesment of her being charming. i'm going to miss her too.
Walt, Michael, Dr. Mike, and everyone,
Now that I've emptied my stock of venom and had a pleasant evening (BTW, you all need to see the movie Capote. Wonderful film. Lots and lots of smoke.), I'll offer an apology to Bill for my strike below the belt.
I wish he'd be man enough to do the same.
Regardless, I still think it's beyond laughable for Bill to hold up the fact that:
1) he seeks to reassure us that he supports civil rights because he was a (former) member of the ACLU, but supports absolute majoritarianism... jeez, Bill, why did you quit? Stop supporting civil rights or something?
2) the basis for his claim to his superior understanding of civil rights and the legal system is that he took a couple of college classes and lived with a laywer for 18 years.
Hell, the thought of living with a lawyer for even a day is enough to make the contents of my stomach curdle. This dude did it - apparently voluntarily - for almost 20 years!
Annette,
I enjoyed your Sherlock Holmes type analysis, you could be right. No way to tell though.
In fact, many of the names on this blog could be the same persons to try to increase the number of comments. Wouldn't be the first time a blog did this.
if she was a young mother of 4, she very possibly wouldn't have the educational level she seemed to.
Oh boy. Annette, I know its late, but do you really mean that?
Ummm, people, that Bill belonged (or still belongs?) to the ACLU is NOT a good thing. It proves even further the kind of person he is. The ACLU is a despicable anti-American group. Do a little homework... they do not protect civil liberties the way you've been led to believe. They're dangerous and a threat to, not a defender of, civil liberties overall.
UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS ABOUT THE ORIGINS (of the ACLU)
http://www.etherzone.com/2004/
be...eam091604.shtml
I have been having some exchanges with members of two libertarian e-groups and decided to do some more intense study of ACLU. I wish I could say that this mollified my feelings but it made it worse. What I found out about its origins horrified me. It was the political goal of many of the founders of ACLU to destroy this country and everything it stood for.
And then more from a former ACLU lawyer:
http://www.jeffbrokaw.net/notes/...-to-be-idiotic/
While I respect that early work of the ACLU, I believe whatever good it did in the past has been vitiated by the harm it has done in the present by its fanatical secularism and apparent abandonment of common sense.
It has to be recognized that the ACLU’s mission is political. It is an organization of elitists convinced of their sincerity, goodness, intelligence and right to social-engineer American culture and government without ever having to be elected by the people they would govern, and to accomplish their purpose through people like themselves: equally elitist lawyers sitting as judges over mere mortals.
The ACLU was founded by socialists and communists (for that and more see http://www.freerepublic.com/focu.../1293149/posts)
Finding out that Bill is/was an ACLU member is like finding another item in the treasure hunt.
The ACLU originally came out against the "sidewalk smoking ban" in Friendship Heights, MD. I'm pretty sure that the ACLU doesn't support the lifestyle discrimination being advocated by many smoke-free groups. Being acquainted with the law does not mean that one does not misinterpret or misunderstand. Both sides of the abortion debate have people who knowledgeable of the law. Yet diametrically positions are held.
And to think I used to be a contributing member of the ACLU. Blech!
Now I need a disinfecting shower and a course of antibiotics just from thinking about it.
"Also, I have to admit that for the first time, I don't agree with Marcus. Even though I would like to see a large chunk of the anti-tobacco movement discredited, and personally I would like to see at least some of the current bans overturned"
I did make that statement sort of tongue in cheek ".....so I for one support Calabasas, I hope more nutjobs push for outdoor smoking bans"
But I do believe outdoor smoking bans would be the tipping point where local lawmakers and the general public finally see the smoking ban scam for what it is....a scam, void of scientific merit and credibility....then the repeal of smoking bans on private businesses will begin.
erik,
education takes time. it doesn't matter how old you are, or whether you do it by taking classes or by a lot of reading, it takes TIME.
you have precious little of it with one child, never mind 4.
but you obviously want to paint me as an elitist, so have fun.
To the person who is posting the article that shows that traffic pollution is associated with mortality.
That would be me Jill…
Why you are emphasizing this issue?You are showing that air pollution - even outdoors - can cause disease.
Jill Stevens
I am emphasizing this issue because this is what they SHOULD be addressing not a “legal” product they CAN “NOT” PROVE KILLS “EVERY” PERSON ACUTELY EXPOSED TO IT. But one that they “KNOW” KILLS “EVERY” PERSON ACUTELY EXPOSED TO IT.
The tobacco bans are nothing more than a “placebo” for the public, Jill. The tobacco bans do not cure/stop/slow down the diseases. But, they ease the public’s mind about their chances of getting the diseases because of the “overblown” death “ESTIMATES/GUESSES” associated with tobacco products.
People WILL continue to get the diseases, people WILL continue to die. The public needs cures and in highly polluted areas higher standards for ventilation to protect them; not the promotion of discrimination toward legal product users that does nothing but, line the pockets of “addicted” politicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry with a substantial amount of money.
If you would rather twist my post into support for your “illusion” that the Calabasas outdoor air is “safer” because tobacco can no longer be used “outside” (or inside for that matter!) Feel free. I just hope you are not a resident there and decide to walk outside more often because of it… (In other words Jill, your chances of getting the diseases in Calabasas ARE THE SAME NOW AS THEY WERE BEFORE THE BANS, JUST IN CASE YOU MIS READ!)
"The tobacco bans are nothing more than a “placebo” for the public, Jill. The tobacco bans do not cure/stop/slow down the diseases. But, they ease the public’s mind about their chances of getting the diseases because of the “overblown” death “ESTIMATES/GUESSES” associated with tobacco products. People WILL continue to get the diseases, people WILL continue to die"
yes, people will continue to die, simply because we do. we're supposed to. i suspect that even if we wiped out every disease or what have you, nature would correct that imbalance somehow. or, we'll just get so sick of seeing each other, we'll take care of it ourselves.
aside from that, i very much agree with io. for the points s/he makes and for a few others.
i am not looking to repeal all smoking BANS. in fact i'm tired of looking at it as 'bans'. alcohol is once again an excellent parallel for what i'm hoping for. for instance, you don't drink in a courthouse, why would you smoke in one?
why is it so troubling to you antis to recognize boundaries and respect differences?
you want us to defend tobacco as safe, and i'm not about to do that. i personally enjoy it enough to take the risk to smoke, just as anyone who drinks does the same.
what i am saying is that it is NOT as harmful as so many other things we are perpetually exposed to. and i am quite convinced based on my own experience as well as what i'm learning, that it is NOT the tremendous threat that it's constantly being trumpted as for NON-smokers who might hang around it, and on top of it, usually don't! and there IS a choice of what people wish to do, so far, but not if you (the anti's) have it your way.
you take it all out on big t because they've lent themselves so easily to be demonized. yet you fail or refuse to see that the tobacco industry is simply a glimpse of the expanded, corporate power structure and how it affects our lives constantly on a socio-political level.
and just like the other industries you don't have any issues with (yet), tobacco also provides a certain amount of employment in an era where manufacturing positions are ever decreasing. there IS a cost, there IS a sacrifice to other people that you do not see.
you refuse to recognize that this constant extremism is costing other people their livelihoods as well as a pleasure of life that is as valid as norbert hoisting a beer in a pub.
you are making it repeatedly clear that it is no longer your rights that you're upholding, but a power trip you're riding.
and the worst part is, when we have an enemy that's easy to target, it doesn't always occur to us that it may be a decoy.
you don't like gays marrying, don't marry one.
you don't like abortion, don't have one.
you don't like tobacco, don't use it.
and remember, there are boundaries that apply to anti's as individuals and as a group, just as there are for tobacco users.
for instance, you don't drink in a courthouse, why would you smoke in one?
Annette
Using tobacco does not effect the thought process like using alcohol, Annette.
I pose this question; you wear perfume/cologne (it smells) in a court house why shouldn't you be allowed to use tobacco there? (It is a legal "smelly" product, also...)
you want us to defend tobacco as safe, and i'm not about to do that.
Annette.
If you had enough evidence supporting "responsible use" was just as safe or safer than any other "smelly" legal product on the market; would you?
That would be my post above to you, Annette. Sorry about that... :o)
I think it is obvious that Young Mother of Four was really Jill. There is a statistical association between the presence of Jill and the absence of YMOF and between the absence of YMOF and the presence of Jill. Like I said, you never see Clark Kent and Superman at the same time and that should be a give-away. Haven't you all noticed that YMOF has suddenly disappeared, ever since Jill returned? A miraculous coincidence? I think not.
I feel quite deprived, because YMOF was truly a charming young woman, and I miss her dearly. Her innocence and her sincere quest for the truth were models of virtue for all of us.
YMOF - RIP!
Smoking effects my mind the same way Ridalin effects the minds of your children.
Increasing tobacco taxes to suppliment MSA payments will only force more of us to grow our own.
Haven't you all noticed that YMOF has suddenly disappeared, ever since Jill returned? A miraculous coincidence? I think not.
I feel quite deprived, because YMOF was truly a charming young woman, and I miss her dearly. Her innocence and her sincere quest for the truth were models of virtue for all of us.
YMOF - RIP!
Michael Siegel
That is a shame, I thought the same about YMOF... Maybe we can still enlighten Jill, though. IMO, there is "ALWAYS" HOPE...
Texas Dave inquired:
"I'm curious about your statement that there exist smokeless tobacco products that are significantly less harmful than cigarettes or cigars. What exactly are you talking about?
Doesn't the anti-tobacco community always make it a point that no form of tobacco use (smokeless or otherwise) can ever be considered "safer" in any way? Or is there actually some diversity of opinion on this?"
As is the case with many smoking and tobacco policies, a diversity of (or at least two different) opinions exists within the public health community on tobacco abstinence versus tobacco harm reduction.
Virtually all government health officials and agencies in the US (e.g. Surgeon General, CDC, NCI, SAMHSA and State Health Departments)
and most well funded health organizations (e.g. ACS, AHA, ALA, CTFK) espouse "abstinence only"
for any tobacco product (regardless of the product's risks).
But many public health and smokefree policy researchers and advocates (including me) advocate truthfully informing smokers of the known risks of different tobacco/nicotine products, and advocate tobacco harm reduction products (i.e. smokeless tobacco products and/or NRT) for cigarette smokers who cannot or who aren't ready to quit using nicotine.
The difference between these public health paradigms is similar to the difference between heroin addiction treatment providers (who only support total abstinence) and methodone maintenance advocates (who understand that drug maintenance can sharply reduce health and safety risks for addicts who cannot or who aren't ready to quit).
hey io,
first, i was speaking for only myself. i didn't want another smoker feeling like i was speaking for her/him as well.
i don't wear perfume/cologne because the stuff i like is always more than i can afford! in the building i work in, there have been concerns about sick or tight building syndrome but so far, nothing they can pinpoint. yet i am aware of my own responses when here for extended periods of time versus a week off.
there is no smoking in the building. (they're *so* proud!) lots of labs! a lotta perfumes, cleaning solvents, copiers, air freshners, baby powders and a variety of food stuffs, but no tobacco smoke. oh, and this building was one of those earmarked as "having a little asbestos problem", but that's all better now!
i just don't have it in me to worry about it. i've got a little fan at my desk along with a water fountain and that seems to help my sinuses. i don't have to work where the highest concentrations of deoderizers and perfumes (and freaking radios, can't stand that when i'm working) are, and i can go outside to a particular spot to smoke (that's still there so far) so i can cope.
as for 'what is safe', geez i just go by how much i can put up with for how long. you're talking to a woman who used to smoke filterless while working at a toll station, not to mention all the recreationals (oiy how many) that have passed thru my system (or not).
my viewpoint on all this is, we can't sacrifice other people's rights for our own. in fact, protecting theirs (just speaking for myself) helps to protect my own. so allowing businesses to decide for themselves (and their workers as well) what clientele they're looking for, letting people have places to "hoist a beer" and/or a smoke with their mates, or not, depending upon a personal choice, and leaving public buildings where the public congregates most to me is fair. if you've got your own damn office, i think you should be allowed to.
yeah, i'd still get bugged (and start wheezing) around someone who'd taken a bath in their (obviously) favourite cologne but i'm not into going after every individual's kneecaps.
personally, i think the most important thing that should be focused on is regarding SHS and kids. my mother smoked, my father (when he was around) almost always had a pipe or cigar, and honestly, i liked it. it meant for me that they were close by, you know? just a kid thing. the only time i couldn't stand it was when they were inconsiderate about it, like not rolling down the car windows or if i was nauseous and i was in my mom's room watching tv (because that's where the tv always was).
there was plenty wrong with them, but the smoking wasn't it.
i absolutely despise the concept that people would loose their children for smoking around their kids. what bullsh*t. there's far worse behaviours that affects kids. the smoking you can be aware of and monitor yourself on. the parents who have kids as trophies are the ones that scare me.
You're missing something, Bill:
"The difference between these public health paradigms is similar to the difference between heroin addiction treatment providers... and methodone maintenance advocates..."
You're bifurcating. There's a third way you don't acknowledge and that is the way of the decriminalization advocates, who think heroin use should be legal.
Decades of having heroin be illegal hasn't stopped people from using it to this day. It's just made the problems associated with heroin use much much worse than the problems of heroin use iself.
Is that what you want for tobacco?
But heroin IS legal, or morphine and equivalent substances are anyhow. They're legal when they're used in hospitals or prescribed by doctors. In fact, I'd guess that there are FAR more people currently using (and in many cases abusing) prescription morphine, Dilaudid, Oxycontin, codiene, Vicadin, and the like than there are people using heroin or methodone. Even heroin itself was originally a prescription medication; it's not an invention of some illegal drug cartel, it's an invention of the legal drug companies.
I'm not suggesting that heavy duty pain killers don't have a legitimate medical use; they certainly do. But I think we should be honest about pharmaceutical pain killers; they are one of the most rapidly expanding group of abused drugs.
Same for pharmaceutical nicotine. Used to be when I went to the drug store, that the tobacco display was 10 times bigger than the "stop smoking" products. But now they each take up almost equal size behind the counter. (And I'm guessing almost equal revenue for the drug store). There are TV and radio ads for the Nicorette and Nico-lozenges and Nico-lollipops that bear eerie similarities to the old cigarette broadcast ads. Some of them even advertise the "great new minty taste", for those menthol lovers out there. They give out coupons for them, discounts, specials, and they sell them to customers as easily (or easier) than they sell cigarettes.
I think that what this whole thing is about REALLY is two sets of nasty corporations, "big pharma" and "big tobacco" fighting over turf. And right now "big pharma" is using some pretty dirty tricks to punish anybody who gets their nicotine from "big tobacco".
I think that's what's ultimately behind things like Calabasas and Weyco and all that stuff. Not that I believe that the Mayor of Calabasas is personally on the "big pharma" payroll; I think he's just a hypocrite who's trying to take political advantage of the situation by posing himself as a leader in a movement which seems to be popular at the moment. But it is "big pharma" that REALLY gains from all this.
Dave,
I think you are right on with your depiction of Mayor Groveman. I was going to offer a wager on his re-election. The actions of the Mayor (Groveman) are not surprising. Groveman is planning on running for assemblyman of the 41st district (Sacramento? maybe?). He has out campaign financed his primary running opponents, (mostly financed by lawyers). Groveman is looking for any and all airtime he can get, as in such contests, name recognition (good or bad) can be useful. While it backfired for most if not all of the aspiring AG's with hopes of governorship with the MSA settlement. It would do my heart good to see Groveman's political aspirations snuffed out by the pissed on/off voting smokers of California.
I believe this should be a stern warning to everyone considering earmarking taxes for public health promotions, as this is only a taste of things to come. CSPI has been lobbying for junk food taxes mimicking the examples set by tobacco control, if these ever come into play, you can expect major obesity denormalization campaigns to begin, sponsored by the slim fast, and sweet n low folks. I noticed on Koop's shapeup.org contains banners by sweet n low.
I'm surprised Banzhaf hasn't taken the opportunity to promote his other noble cause, attacking the soda, and junk food industry. One could virtually take the arguments laid by the model ordinance, and substitute obesity, and declare public consumption of soft drinks a public nuisance and a major source of litter, and a bad example for children, and severely restrict soft drink consumption in the name of public health.
I read somewhere where Banzhaf has even gone to such lengths as suggesting child custody should be decided by such issues as a parent allowing a television in the childs bedroom, as this leads to obesity. While Banzhaf compares smoking to urinating in public, I consider his actions to be the equivalent of defecating on liberty, and thus should be considered a public nuisance.
Mr Godshall:
Have you ever or have you not ever tried:
Smoking/chewing/snorting/ a tobacco product.
Snorting/ingesting cocaine, meth, shrooms, perscription black beauties, brown&clears, yellow jackets...and on.
Swallowing/ingesting, psylis. mushrooms, peyote buttons, chemical papers.
Drinking wine, liqour, beer, cold meds.
Taking ANY pills/perscriptions from a DOCTOR.....
If so in the positive, you have just acknowledged you are a risk to me in some fashion in some way to my life... You have decided what you will do will AFFECT my life, and I will have to deal with the EFFECT you have caused me!!!!
Since drug prohibition laws cause far more harm than they prevent, it makes no sense to enact similar laws for tobacco or cigarettes.
In contrast, cigarette tax hikes, lawsuits against cigarette companies, smokefree workplace laws, smokefree outdoor laws, smokefree employment policies and other reasonable and resonsible smoking policies reduce cigarette smoking with virtually nobody being arrested, imprisoned, or shot at.
Bill wrote: "In contrast, cigarette tax hikes, lawsuits against cigarette companies, smokefree workplace laws, smokefree outdoor laws, smokefree employment policies and other reasonable and resonsible smoking policies reduce cigarette smoking with virtually nobody being arrested, imprisoned, or shot at."
Which reminded me about earlier discussions about "atmospheres of hate"... and an old news article:
==========
Pregnant woman shot over cigarette 18-year-old refused to stop smoking 10/05/02By Michael Perlstein
Staff writer/The Times-Picayune
Most people cringe at the sight of a pregnant woman smoking. Some people feel strongly enough to say something in protest. But one local man took matters into his own hands early Friday when, according to police, he shot an expectant mother who refused to put out her cigarette.The bizarre scene unfolded about 12:40 a.m. when the 18-year-old woman walked out of a convenience store in the 1500 block of Forstall Street, New Orleans police spokesman Juan Barnes said. The woman, in the ninth month of her pregnancy, had a bag in one hand and a lit cigarette in the other.As the woman made her way to the sidewalk, an unidentified man began railing against her for smoking while pregnant. The woman railed back, Barnes said, telling the man something akin to "mind your own business," except using more colorful language.At that point, the man pulled out a handgun and aimed it toward the sky. He tried to fire a shot, but the gun jammed, Barnes said. That prompted the man -- known to the woman only as a strange character from the neighborhood -- to examine his weapon to figure out what went wrong.Suddenly, the gun went off, striking the woman in the left shoulder, Barnes said.The woman was rushed to Charity Hospital, where she was treated for the gunshot wound. From there, she was rushed to University Hospital to determine the health of the fetus. Everything checked out OK, Barnes said, but the excitement apparently sparked early labor..."
=======
Of course Bill *did* say "virtually", although that word might be stretched if you counted the number of people in prison right now who wouldn't be there if it weren't for high cigarette taxes leading to smuggling, prisoners losing "good time" due to breaking prison smoking bans, and people imprisoned for failing to pay smoking fines or for smoking on planes or at airports and such.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
"In contrast, cigarette tax hikes, lawsuits against cigarette companies, smokefree workplace laws, smokefree outdoor laws, smokefree employment policies and other reasonable and resonsible smoking policies reduce cigarette smoking with virtually nobody being arrested, imprisoned, or shot at."
bill, are you truly serious about this stance?
prohibition of alcohol was supposed to clear up all evils, and all it did was increase alcohol's black marketablity.
Bill also wrote:"...Self Extinguishing Cigarette laws should be enacted in all 46 states, as doing so would increase the collective market share of the Participating Manufacturers because it is significantly more costly (per pack) for the Nonparticipating Manufacturers to comply....
The latter strategy would be a rare win win opportunity for the States, for tobacco control and fire prevention advocates, and for the largest cigarette companies."
With the only losers of course being the smokers.
And thus Bill has exposed what he has so stoutly denied: that he is indeed, by any reasonable definition of the word, an "Antismoker".
So Bill, for the 14th time, may I ask you to name several examples of the "cigarette company misinformation" that I'm spreading here?
Do you have ANY clue as to how wonderful a job you're doing in showing the real value of your side of the argument on these issues?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Annette,
While most of your comments make a lot of sense, your statement Don't like abortion, don't have one is akin to saying Don't like terrorism--don't blow up a building or maybe Don't like capital punishment--don't give a lethal injection or perhaps Don't like child abuse--don't beat your children. A right to be born is more important than the right to choose to end another's life.
"A right to be born is more important than the right to choose to end another's life."
Is there a right to be born? That would imply an obligation to procreate, wouldn't it?
Where you born because you had a right to be born or because your parents decided they wanted somebody to be born?
Actually, Benpal, I am not implying that anybody has an obligation to procreate. However, an abortion is the death of an already created person. It is not the prevention of a pregnancy where there is no child but the termination of a pregnancy where there is. If anything, it would imply an obligation to let a life continue.
In answer to your second question, family rumor has it that I am here because my brother (in the mischievious, innocent way of little boys) found my mother's diaphram in the drawer of her nightstand and poked tiny holes in it with a pin. So, no my parents originally didn't want me to be born but once I was created, yes, they wanted me to be born and loved me just as much as if I had been planned. (Just as I love my four "surprises" just as much as my one "planned" child.
piper,
because of the focus of this blog, i'd rather not discuss this here. but if you are interested in debating this further, please leave a comment on my blogsite (homepage) that you would be interested in doing so and we could talk about it there?
Annette,
Hello and thanks for replying to my comment. While the core issues discussed on this blog remind me alot of the abortion debate eg. Planned Parenthood raking in all kinds of money performing abortions in the name of women's health and the anti-tobacco organizations and states raking in all kinds of money in the name of health or Margaret Sanger's views reminding me of some of the more radical anti-smokers viewing smokers as second class citizens
www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm
I agree that a tobacco blog is not the appropriate place to discuss abortion.
For those who may be interested please check out
www.michaeljr.org
for an eye opening view from one young lady who had an abortion
Thanks, Annette, for inviting me to your blog and I look forward to discussing this with you in the near future. Take care.
piper,
planned parenthood does not "rake in all this money" from abortions. they are one of the few enterprises that lives up to its name - PLANNED Parenthood.
their services focus on the health of fetus, baby, and mother. they provide counseling that aids women's reproductive and overall sexual health, not to mention birth CONTROL. which, i am sure much to your personal ire, does NOT automatically mean abortion.
abortion is an intensly personal and emotional situation. and i am tired of people screaming about how "it's killing a life", while they support a war that's killing other people's 'viable' children and often their own as well.
the same types of people that have a tendency to scream about 'mother's being murderers - also tend to scream for capital punishment. they also tend to be the first ones who scoff at the idea that a defendent uses 'i wasn't a wanted child' as part of their defense.
it would seem that murder, like everything else, is in the eyes of the beholder.
well, here's what I'VE beheld;
people who have children to increase their public assistance.
children who were not wanted, until they reached an age when suddenly they became a marketable commodity and utilized as such.
children who are pranced, pampered, spitshined and polished, while they suffer sexual, physical and/or emotional abuses that the rest of the world doesn't get to see because of the glare.
children who weren't wanted, but brought into the world because someone couldn't take responsibility for making a choice, never mind responsibility for a child.
children waiting for adoption all over the world, and never being cared for, and creating children of their own in order to be loved by something.
children who were brought into this world deformed mentally and/or physcially because even though it was learned early on that the fetus would not have a viable life outside of the womb, the mother and/or parents 'believed' that abortion is wrong - and brings this poor life into the world to suffer, but at least feeds the PARENTS' EGOS!
planned parenthood does NOT get federal money, does NOT legislate to dictate people's choices! they legislate on behalf of individuals who face questions that are best left between those individuals and whatever association with the divine she or they may have.
that is why i am not pro-life, nor 'pro-abortion', but pro-CHOICE. your well-being and happiness is based on your own values. i have precious little right to dictate to you what to do.
but i have plenty of right to fight your insistence that your way, whatever it is, is THE way to live.
that stand is often difficult to maintain, but it is not worth an endentured servitude to public opinion that way too many people tend to demand.
i revoke my invitation piper.
i respectfully asked you to move this conversation away from this blog. you chose not to, thinking i suppose, that i wouldn't reply. you couldn't respect a valid request. why should i assume that you would respect a valid argument.
don't say another word about the anti-smokers unless you're willing to witness your own behaviour.
McFadden wrote:
"And thus Bill has exposed what he has so stoutly denied: that he is indeed, by any reasonable definition of the word, an "Antismoker"."
Does anyone else agree with McFadden's truly bizarre assertion that anyone who supports self extinguishing cigarette legislation is an "Antismoker"?
Until now, I've never read or heard of anyone (other than cigarette lobbyists and folks they paid off) who opposed fire safe cigarette legislation.
Perhaps McFadden (or anyone else) can explain just how smokers are harmed by laws that prevent America's leading cause of fatal fires.
Well, geez Loweez, Annette, I'm not sure what I quite said or did to provoke your ire in such a way. I was just expressing my opinion on the similarities I saw between anti tobacco and the abortion issue. I'm not an experienced blogger but I thought it was ok to express an opinion.
PP does indeed make most of their money from abortions. Read their
financial report if you don't believe me. I have no problem with birth control even though as I stated earlier I am a result of failed birth control.
I'm not sure why you came to the conclusion that I support the war but the last I looked there isn't a draft so that my best guess would be that the people over there are there by choice.
Yes, there is a difference between capitol punishment and abortion. One is taking the life of somebody who has been convicted of murder or perhaps rape. The other is the taking of a totally innocent life.
Actually, medicaid does pay for a lot of abortions so it looks like PP is getting their money from the governments. They also receive about a third of their money in government grants.
Obviously you and I have a different way of looking at things and unfortunately there are a lot of abused children in this world whether they were wanted or not. As far as the physically or mentally challenged, who are you or I to say that their quality of life is of such poor quality that they shouldn't be allowed to live. I imagine there are plenty of people in wheelchairs or parents of Down's Syndrome children who would rightfully take offense at that statement (and it wouldn't have much to do with feeding their egos). And no matter what the circumstances in which a child is conceived shouldn't that person at least have a chance at life. We cannot predict with any certainty that a child born into bad circumstaces will not totally rise above the condition and become somebody great or even just somebody that is loved and admired.
No matter your opinion or mine, neither of us can change the fact that abortion stops a beating heart.
I'm sorry you revoked your prior invitation for me to speak on your blog, I already have. Erase it if you want.
I am still bewildered at exactly why you are so upset with me. More than likely we come from different backgrounds and obviously have a difference of opinion but all I wanted to do was have an intelligent, reasonable, thought provoking conversation and try to understand another point of view without being hated on. I can say all I want about anti-smokers (this is after all a tobacco blog) and please witness your own behavior and don't be so concerned about mine. Take care
But Bill, didn't you just recently post this? "Doesn't the anti-tobacco community always make it a point that no form of tobacco use (smokeless or otherwise) can ever be considered "safer" in any way? Or is there actually some diversity of opinion on this?"
And yet here you are telling us that a "fire safe" cigarette is "safer", and safer how? what extra chemicals, that you Anti types are always screaming about killing you, would have to be added to the mix to make them "fire safe"?
Also, where did you get the figures that state that smoking is the "leading cause of fatal fires"?
Or is this yet more of the propaganda used to "denormalize" smokers?
the exchange between myself and piper a few comments back is exactly why i did not want to bring this issue into this forum.
michael s., this is your site so obviously it's your choice to decide whether to let the exchange between myself and piper to remain or be deleted.
but as i requested in an exchange between other commenters, could they be either deleted as a whole or left as a whole? thank you.
Piper, I think what may have set Annette on the defensive, is the idea that while you may be on her "side" of the tobacco issue, the mindset you show of believing it's ok to tell others how to make their decisions is the same thing thats being fought by those who say the Anti's have taken this beyond the realm of a health issue and are delving into the punish the miscreants ideology. While you have evry right to your beliefs regarding tobacco use or abortion, you don't have the right to condemn someone else for not believing as you do, and you certainly don't have the right to advocate taking away anyones else's beliefs to match yours.
Don't you see that the same type of mindset is whats behind the Anti push? that it must be as you believe so therefore everyone else must believe as you do? I believe it is every persons responsibility to assure that they don't wind up with unintended pregnancys, and if they do, it is their decision how to deal with that matter, especially if the circumstances were rape or incest. Freedom is just that, the liberty to pursue your own dreams, but not at the expense of others rights or liberties, including the LEGAL right to choose an abortion. Just because you define life at conception, does not make it so, I personally define life as that stage where the fetus could live independantly, outside of the mothers womb, until that point, in my opinion, it is just another zygote. And until and unless, we as a society, can end child abuse, neglect, depravity, human trafficking of minors, overpopulation, the abuse of systems originally intended to help a family regain financial independence, etc,etc, we have no right to reproduce, or to prevent others from aborting, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one, if you don't want to inhale second hand smoke, don't go where people smoke. Working to make it so people dont have the choice to make is certainly trying to tell others how they must live their lives, and is not your job, your responsibility, or even your place. Look after your own affairs, let your views be known by all means, just don't rail against the same type of behaviour when it affects you, and then champion the same behaviour when the shoe fits the other foot, it's called hypocrisy, and it will leave a very unpleasant taste in most.
thank you jerry.
Hmm... I bet Bill is pleased... LOL
Jerry,
I can say in all honesty I am not trying to be hypocritical or condemn anybody's point of view. I was truly interested in understanding Annette's point of view and I did not mean to attack her nor her point of view (at least not until she attacked me). I was only trying to understand her position.
I think you have to agree with me though that just because something is LEGAL does not make it right. Once upon a time, slavery was LEGAL but that sure didn't make it right. Right now smoking bans in privately owned businesses are LEGAL but they are not right. So please don't spout LEGAL at me as you might get the same bad taste in your own mouth.
I respect your view that you think life begins when a child can live outside the womb and I think that could be considered a reasonable view by most. Unfortunately, abortion is legal through the entire pregnancy, just not in the first trimester as most people believe and babies are surviving outside the womb at as early as six months, and in some cases earlier.
Just as the wise Dr. Siegel and FORCES are trying to inform people about the truths of smoking that you won't see the mainstream media talking about, I think that it is important for women to make informed decisions about abortion and have access to information that is not widely known and that PP is certainly not sharing with their clients.
I have enjoyed reading this blog for several months now and have learned a lot. I was always hesitant to join in as I felt that there are plenty of experts giving their opinions and my opinions were not informed enough to offer much of value past what has already been said. Nor do I have any type of degree or education beyond high school (as I didn't almost ruin my life when I didn't have an abortion when I found myself pregnant and unwed at age 17.) and therefore have no credentials to lend to my name.
On the abortion issue (and remember Annette made the first abortion comment, not me)I am very informed and thought I would offer a comment and my viewpoint. Although I may have attacked your viewpoints (I'm not sure how else to have a discussion or debate when people have opposing viewpoints), I certainly never attacked your character as you both attacked mine just because I have a different point of view. This is not my blog site but in respect for Dr. Siegel, I think that everybody here has a responsibility to discuss things in a calm rational manner without character assassination when somebody is just speaking the facts. Take care.
I apologize for my above post coming across signed anonymous. I forgot to put my name.
Ah, but Piper, connecting murder and abortion is not just a viewpoint, it is a soundbite designed to provoke a particularly distasteful image. You stated that murder and abortion are the same thing, without any qualifiers for when in the pregnancy the abortion takes place. Accusing someone of murder is hardly tolerant of their beliefs. Exactly how do you believe I attacked your character? I was sharing my viewpoint that you seemed to take offense with the tactics used by tobacco control groups on one hand, then tried to use the same tactics to sway others to your viewpoint IE: abortion equals murder. While I will defend your right to believe that, I will fight back when you use that belief in an atempt to accuse others of committing such horrors as murder. If you truly respected my viewpoint of life begins when the fetus can survive, unassisted(beyond natural caring, feeding, etc), outside the womb, then how can you also claim it is equal to murder?
Please, link to a site where this is being discussed again, I truly would like to hear what your viewpoint is, completely, and be able to question you on some of the specifics of your views.
I also am very glad that you are trying to get your viewpoint out for others to be shared, I certainly don't want to silence you in any way. But if the topic at hand is the methods used to bring about a change you desire, and those tactics include preventing others from having their free choice, I'm afraid we will never be able to agree. I wholeheartedly wish that abortion were not an issue, as well I wish that tobacco use were not being made an issue, If we could have a world where there were no unwanted pregnancys, no deaths that could be linked to one possible causal factor, to the detriment of investigating other causes or combinations of causes, we would still find someone to hate for what they have/do/say that we dont agree with. But I am not trying to attack you personally in anyway. I am just pointing out that it looks like you agree with some of the tactics used by anti-tobacco when applied to abortion arguments, but are appalled by them when used against tobacco users, if this is not true, please tell us how it differs from tobacco to abortion?
here are some of 'my' facts.
the comment i originally made was not to begin another topic thread. it was addressing the concept of choice in the face of other people who believe that their values MUST be mine.
no one else seemed misdirected by that statement so i don't think my meaning was obscure.
i do have very strong feelings about this issue, am somewhat informed around them as well, could go further in comparison between that and pro-choice tobacco but because of the nature of that topic as well as the topic of this blog i thought it would be inappropriate for me to state my position any further here.
having a response made to me, which included more statements on the issue rather than just taking it up somewhere else, felt too familiar to some of the debating habits of the anti's that comment here. in that respect, i have to admit some of my ire was misdirected but i do not retract what i said nor when i chose to say it.
i did not delete piper's comment on my blog and just finished replying to it.
jerry's interpretation of my response is rather accurate.
Bill I tell you something. "lip" cigarettes are awful! I never had a problem with my throat till those came to canada.
In the over 20 years I have smoked I have never put a burn, or lost my firecone. In the last 5 months I have put 2 holes on my carpet, had a cigarette burn after I have extiguished it (in the normal method of crushing it in an ashtray)
I have had to relite many cigarettes.
I have had the cone fall off the cigarette.
I have put out the cigarette half way through, and it relit while I was gone. (yes I crushed the cone and compressed the end of the cigarette)
These cigarettes are fire starters, not fire safe.
I have many others tell me the same thing. Don't tell me your right, I have much more expertise with my thousands of extiquished cigarettes before this was mandated by tobacco extremists.
Jerry and Annette,
I have posted to Annette's blog and thank you, Annette, for giving me the opportunity to do so.
Jerry, where I come from, calling somebody a hypocrite (which you called me)is a personal attack on character so that is how I felt that you personally attacked me.
Pertaining to your comment about free choice and you and I never being able to agree if I don't admit that everybody should be free to choose, I bet that we can agree on some choices. I bet we agree that although I should have the choice to smoke right here and now with my five year old son in the room, I shouldn't have the right to choose to burn him with that same cigarette when he misbehaves. I bet you and I both agree that consenting adults have the right to choose to have sex, but I bet we can both agree that a man doesn't have the right to choose rape. I could go on and on with choices. Some are appropriate. Some are not.
I feel that I can respect your point of view with when life begins without necessarily agreeing with it, so that is how I can say that abortion is taking life as I believe that life starts earlier than you believe it does.
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I am using the same tactics as anti tobacco (Unless you mean that I don't think everybody should have a choice in every thing they do)but if you explain that to me, I would be happy to try to explain myself. Take care.
After reading the blog concerning this issue I see that the forum seems to have turned to a direct attack to piper who stated solid facts about planned parenthood if anyone cares to check before jumping to conclusions with the aide of checking ones facts. I always thought that the anti smokers were the group that judged and condemned smokers and were closed minded (overall) but after reading Anette's answer to piper along with Jerry's it appears to me that the real problem may just be the Liberal viewpoint of the smokers???
Yes i am prolife but i am also a former smoker (30+ years) who has managed to be smoke free for over a year now.
Anyway you cut it, life can't be ended because it'e inconvenient or not planned as it seems to me God should be the judge if life continues or not.
I'm not trying to change your blog or topic but getting upset because Piper was correct is incorrect.
Here is where we disagree Piper, in stating that choosing abortion is taking life, and in also choosing to call that murder, you have absolutely thrust your view and your beliefs on others, same as in the tobacco control pantheons. The onus is now on you to provide proof that this life taken is murder, I can take the life of a dog, a cat, a germ, is it taking life? Yes, is it murder? A person shoots a pregnant woman, she survives, the fetus is destroyed, at which point or where does the law decide that this act is a murder? How far along in that pregnancy does the woman have to be for it to be considered murder? 3 days? 3 months? or viable outside the womb? I also disagree with aborting after the first trimester, but not to the extent that I will fight to have all abortions overurned because of it. I remember the back alley illegal abortions that took place prior to Roe v Wade, I also remember the many deaths of both mother and fetus due to the many contributing factors involved in the illegality of those abortions.
Is the answer to outlaw the procedure entirely, especially when it is historically proven that the act will occur whether legal or not, and given the extended dangers inherant when done while not under the scope of lawful procedures? Using this same lesson from history, we know that tobacco use will not cease, even if the Anti's make it illegal, it would be added to the list of forbidden substances that the current drug war is failing at so miserably, and it would also create much more crime, death and anti societal behaviors by making criminals out of ordinary citizens. No one has the right to tell another human what they can do or not do to their own body, and until the fetus is deliverd, it is still a viable part of the womans body. making laws to force these women to be outlaws will not prevent any deaths, and will only add misery and pain to an already extremely personal choice. The same can be said for smoking prohibtition, if allowed to continue to the point of punishing people for their choice to use this product, especially without proving the harm of the product, nor the benefit of their policies for dealing with it(and coercion by making a person criminally liable for smoking is NOT a benefit, either to the smoker or society) is despicable, and not to be tolerated. Any business, person, entity that chooses to not smoke or not allow smoking on their private property has that right, and has had it all along. Forcing that entity to become a criminal for their actions will only escalate the situation to where we have outright violence, as has been happening and reported already. Is it the right or duty of a right to lifer to assassinate a doctor for performing an abortion? ANd if so, how is this justified?
To call abortion murder, is to call a smoker a murderer, for some believe that SHS kills, yet you have said you take offense to those tactics when used by Tobacco control, why then is it not offensive to claim a person murders an unborn zygote? That is the parallel drawn between tobacco control tactics and your statements. As for calling you a hypocrite, you may wish to reread my first post on this subject. I said the actions of using the same tactics were hypocritical, if you found that to be calling you a hypocrite, then you must have felt that the statement was made directly at you, which was not my intention, and I do apologize for the confusion. But I stand by my assertion that using tactics called deplorable in one instance then using the same type of tactic, or applauding it, are very hypocritical actions.
Thank you Piper for picking a peck of pickled pepper.Abortion should to be left to the individual(s) concerned .To enact laws making abortion illegal is going backwards in time .This sort of backward puritanical thinking is indeed identical to what is happening with ever more ridiculous anti smoking laws.I thought the Salem witch trials marked the end of the holier than though crap but obviously Bill and co still believe it to be progressive.It is progressive in as far as altzheimer's disease ,which according to statistics smokers suffer less of.It's so nice of Bill to be so concerned about the possibility of smokers inadvertently starting fires but to demand that smokers subject themselves to even more chemicals.....???? and then consider pipe smoking or cigars ,are these to be chemically altered to suit ?How much insurance do you carry ? More chemicals could mean litigation and you demand it !You remind me of the radio station Voice of America !But you aren't so why constantly act like it .
Hey there Jerry,
I'm not sure how stating my opinion is the same as thrusting my opinion on others but I won't get caught up in semantics here. As I stated earlier, I have no medical (or otherwise) degree to my name but you can't be certain when life starts either. I myself would rather error on the side of life when I am not sure. And why is the onus on me to prove when life begins and not on you to prove when it isn't yet a life.
As far as shooting a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, it rather depends on where the crime occurs. If it happens in a national park, the shooter can indeed be convicted with a federal law. If it happens in certain states (not on federal property)the shooter cannot be held responsible for the death of the fetus.
The back alley abortion thing is basically some propoganda that the PP and NOW organizations have focused on as a SCARE TACTIC (sound familiar) and also does make a pretty good soundbite (Kind of like Abortion is Murder). You may be interested to know that a lot more deaths of pregnant woman undergoing abortions have occured since abortion became legal than from those backalley abortions (alot more). This is partly due to the fact that since abortion was legalized a lot more abortions take place (and therefore more opportunities for abortions to go wrong) and partly due to the fact that abortion providers do not have the same stringent laws apply to their facilities as other surgical facilites do. So, yes, I do believe that outlawing all abortion (except to save the life of the mother)is certainly reasonable and would save lives of women, not just fetuses.
Gee, Jerry, no, I don't think anybody has the right to assassinate an abortion provider (not everybody that believes in the rights of the unborn are weird fanatics) no matter how wrong his actions are as I'm sure you don't think anybody has the right to assassinate Bill G, no matter how wrong his thought processes are
Just found another thing we agree on--the drug wars are failing miserably. Don't quote me on this but it is my understanding that growing wacky tobaccy was originally outlawed because Dupont had just invented nylon and didn't want the competion of clothing made from hemp. Dupont must have had deeper pockets and better political connections that the marijuana farmers. But just as some laws are wrong some are right. Total chaos prevailed when Abe talked about slavery being wrong but I bet we can agree that slavery being outlawed was a good thing.
A fetus is not part of a woman's body. My arm is a part of my body. My leg is a part of my body. I can control the movements of my arms and legs. All my children were in my body at one time but they were definitely not part of my body that I could control. Otherwise I would have made them quit kicking me in the bladder so much when I was trying to sleep.
Not to get into semantics again, but technically a person is only a zygote for a very short period of time before he becomes an embryo (I am using these definitions the same way that they have been defined by doctors)and most women don't even know they are pregnant when they have a zygote inside of them so technically there are not too many zygotes being aborted.
I found difficulty seeing the logic in your zygote/second hand smoke analogy. If "Second hand smoke kills" was indeed a fact instead of scare tactics and questionable statistical evidence, I would have to concede that second hand smoke does kill and yes that would be murder. But we both know that the second hand smoke thing is a bunch of crap. If not, I would have been dead a long time ago, as much smoke as I have been exposed to in my life. Second hand smoke kills is certainly not a FACT and Our OPINIONS on when life begins may differ but you have to accept the FACT that when under ordinary circumstances a zygote/embryo/fetus is permitted to grow there is indeed a life. That is why I can be pro-choice about smoking/drinking/marijuana/ but believe firmly that abortion shoud not be an acceptable choice. Take care.
Ciscokid,
Thank you for your support. Although a non-smoker (congratulations on your success in quitting) you don't sound like an anti-smoker. I was beginning to think I was the only conservative (Yes, indeedy, I am a member of the vast right wing conspiracy)commenting on this blog. I do feel better that at least me, you and Rush (he does have FORCES as an award winning site on his website after all)share some of the same points of view. I always assumed that for the most part people that were fanatically anti-tobacco must be mostly liberal as it is the blue states that started with and have most of the anti smoking laws. If there are any other people that lean to the right on this blog, I'd sure love to know it. Take care, and thanks again, ciscokid
Bill, do you *really* think you can get away with taking people's comments out of context here and get away with it? Just because you slide along avoiding answering questions like mine (this is request # 15 Bill) doesn't mean that we'll hold you to absolutely NO standards.
Bill, you exposed yourself to be what you have so stoutly denied: that you are indeed, by any reasonable definition of the word, an "Antismoker" when you ignored any concern at all about the smokers who might have to pay higher prices for or be injured by unsafe "self-extinguishing cigarettes" and instead simply crowed that it was a "win-win" situation for "the States, for tobacco control and fire prevention advocates, and for the largest cigarette companies."
We now know who you care about Bill... and it's not at all for the smokers unless they're willing to jump on your bandwagon, quit smoking, and offer you thanks for ruling their lives.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Dr. Siegel rightly questioned recently what business it is of ASH's to be concerned about the economic welfare of companies by promoting hiring/firing policies for smokers. Dr. Siegel concluded that it's just ASH's way to further the hate of smokers agenda.
The same question applies to anti-smokers promoting "fire-safe" cigarettes. What business is it of theirs to concern themselves with "fire safety" policies? Fires are started by all sorts of things (and most fires caused by cigarettes are at the hands of drunks according to one of the Fire Safety councils.)
The same conclusion applies (one made years back): That it's just another way to make the product undesireable in order to frustrate the smoker into quitting.
I can back up l duquay's testimony and more. Girls with long hair trying to relight the cigarette that is now shorter have set their hair on fire. A big burning chunk fell off the end of one and wasn't discovered until the smell of burning hair -- of the person's dog that was sitting on the lap. Dozens of people have reported feeling sick to their stomachs and coughing terribly when they never ever coughed before, causing people to ask if there is some toxin added. More matches are used and when it's relit it flames up because it's more paper than usual at that point.
The people to blame are the anti-smokers and the legislators they lead by the nose, not the tobacco companies who these people forced to create a product they said they weren't ready to.
"Fire-safe" cigarettes are just another tool of the anti-smokers to harass smokers -- and in so doing have created a fire-UNsafe product.
McFadden wrote:
"Bill, you exposed yourself to be what you have so stoutly denied: that you are indeed, by any reasonable definition of the word, an "Antismoker" when you ignored any concern at all about the smokers who might have to pay higher prices for or be injured by unsafe "self-extinguishing cigarettes" and instead simply crowed that it was a "win-win" situation for "the States, for tobacco control and fire prevention advocates, and for the largest cigarette companies.""
If McFadden thinks that preventing people (most of whom are smokers) from burning up in cigarette fires is the mark of an "antismoker", I can only wonder who dissected McFadden's brain.
i find it interesting, that a cigarette that is real tobacco without additives tends to be less likely to keep burning when not smoked. like a pipe or cigar, if you don't keep it going, it goes out.
yet, instead of arguing for less chemicals in the tobacco, like the kind that make it burn faster, they want to put MORE in.
the more i hear from the anti's about their ideas of keeping people 'safe', the more they sound extremist.
questions for the anti's:
is it your goal to stop all tobacco use by everyone?
what will be your goal after that?
What I find astonishing is the amount of effort being exerted to promote "self-extinguishing cigarettes".
I believe this illustrates the lack of objectivity seen in the minds of some.
If we use the numbers. 400,000 people killed by smoking, of those 800 by fires. And we assume that all 800 deaths would have been prevented had they been smoking self-extinguishing cigarettes. What percentage is that of the 400,000?
2/10's of 1 percent?
Does the chemicals used to treat the paper to make it extinguish, increase the risk of health issues? It's probably too early to say, but even the slightest elevation in risk would (1%) would make the potential 800 minisqule in comparison.
To me, a reduced CO and benzo-a-pyrene smokes would be a much better investment in research, than self-extinguishing cigarettes.
To me this is akin to insisting on water tight compartments for the titanic while ignoring the number of life rafts.
I personally like the idea of a RIP cigarette provided
1) It substantially reduces fire hazards, and
2) Doesn't contribute any additional health risks.
Who wants to make those guarantees, so I know who to sue?
Remember it is the government which is mandating these requirements, or have we not learned our lessons yet?
personally, i simply enjoy a good smoke. but more and more, i need to fight for, rather than just live my own life.
it seems that no matter how much i respect the boundaries of those who do not smoke, it's not enough for those who are anti-smokers.
what ELSE will be expected of me to have my own choices respected? better question - with all that's been done so far, will any more compromise, silence or capitulation to the anti's finally result in a truce on this matter?
So Bill, after 18 years, who dumped whom?
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
