Looks like there's something in the air around these people that intoxicates their gray cells. Or maybe it's the absence of something in the air that is poisoning them?
As a cure, I recommend a 24/7 stay in a Designated Smoking Room.
After a week they will feel like a reborn world habitant.
Is this guy the new front man for Al Qaeda ? HE'S DOING A DAMN GOOD JOB FOR THEM .It's about time somebody took him to task before he destroys the credibility of the US. An arrogant man in a cullender publicly intimidating and threatening someone and nobody has the balls to stop him?Why are soldiers dying in Iraq on the pretext of saving democracy when this guy is running amok ?Is he really the pride of the rabids ? Bill?????
Here's another one borrowed from "The Corporation". In this excellent documentary the makers analyze corporations on the criteria which define a psychopath:
- Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
- Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships
- Reckless disregard for the safety of others
- Deceitfulness: repeated lying and conning others for profit
- Incapacity to experience guilt
- Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawfull behaviours
Big corporations score on all criteria according to the documentary. The anti-smoking movement is reaching a high score on these criteria too by now...
I wouldn't be surprised if GW bans smoking outside building entrances very soon.
Legal action is an excellent way to achieve reasonable goals.
By the way, ASH's office is surrounded by the GW campus.
There are usually better ways of achieving goals than threatening people. Sometimes people who are threatened will actually fight back.
"Reasonable"???
I think sometimes its a good idea to steop back and not to take things too seriously. I saw that post earlier on the ASH website myself.
I'd say holding an individual personally responsible isn't the best of ideas as a matter of course. But it isn't like the folks at GW can't handle it. They are big boys. Banzahf huffs and puffs, I am willing to bet that the folks at GW aren't losing a whole lot of sleep over his latest effort to clear building entrances of tobacco smoke. And maybe it will even work. It certainly attracts attention and raises awareness of the issue.
Activist judges, right Bill?! What a good little ACLU'er Bill is.
"Banzahf huffs and puffs, I am willing to bet that the folks at GW aren't losing a whole lot of sleep over his latest effort to clear building entrances of tobacco smoke."
Banzhaf is not suing the University, dear. He's suing an employee, and individual. It's an intimidation tactic that Banzhaf commonly uses, the same as when he sues school districts to get soda machines off campus.
"And maybe it will even work."
Of course they capitulate! Here you have a multi-millionaire litigious brat, who makes his living by suing people. On the other side, you have an individual who maybe makes 100k a year.
"It certainly attracts attention and raises awareness of the issue."
It's grandstanding, and barratry. And you've obviously never been a defendant in a lawsuit.
Which makes me think, here's where smokers could take a page out of the smoke haters book. As I recall, some confederation of tavern owners is pressing a lawsuit against the city of Appleton, WI regarding some technicality over enforcement of the smoking ban there.
The City of Appleton will of course marshall its army of attorneys, financed by deep public coffers and likely prevail. What they need to be doing instead is filing individual lawsuits against the council members who voted for this ordinance. I'm sure the attorney for the bar owners can think of a reason. Banzhaf always seems to be able to find one.
Even if the plantiffs lose, the defending council members will have to dig deep into their own pockets to defend themselves. A thousand lawsuits naming indivudual county supervisors, city council members, and unelected health board members as defendants will really get people thinking about whether or not its worth it to support anti-tobacco.
And maybe it will even work. It would certainly attract attention and raise awareness of the issue.
It's too bad Banzhaf didn't try this stunt 10 years ago. ASH might be operating out of a street corner telephone booth today.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
"It certainly attracts attention and raises awareness of the issue" So pep pill Jill where do you draw the line ?How far will you go or accept as being merely raising awareness ?You are getting precariously close to the events of 9/11 and don't spout your innocent diatribe .Osama bin Banzof is threatening a person who is guilty of what? I would seriously question your morality when you treat him as being something to joke about,oh excuse his little foibles?Care to express concern to his intended victim and family ?Well i hope you get the free ride you hope for ,the rabids have never sunk to these depths before.
McFadden wrote:
"It's too bad Banzhaf didn't try this stunt 10 years ago."
Ten years ago Banzhaf was advocating and assisting litigation to protect suffering people who were being harmed indoors by the disrespectful actions of cigarette addicts.
That litigation helped pave the way for highly successful and very popular smokefree workplace policies and laws.
Perhaps Mike Siegel can explain why he thinks it is "going way to far" to reduce the amount of tobacco smoke pollution going into buildings and bombarding nonsmokers at building entrances (where a dozen cigarettes may be burning simultaneously).
Most municipalities banned the outdoor burning of dried leaves decades ago to reduce air pollution and protect public health.
Its time to apply those laws to the burning of dried tobacco leaves.
"reduce the amount of tobacco smoke pollution going into buildings and bombarding nonsmokers at building entrances"
You really worry about a few micrograms of PM2.5 from a few grammes of dried leaves? I hardly think this qualifies as "bombardment" Bill. Your statements are intentionally sensationalstic, increasingly hysteric, and demonstrate a "penny wise and pound foolish" attitude.
Banning smoking within 25 feet of doorways will of course do nothing to stop transportation or industrial pollution from entering buildings, despite the fact that these sources of pollution are so intense and volumonous that their effects are generally observed and measured throughout an entire metropolitan area, not just in the doorway of a building on a college campus.
I will also reiterate that transportation and industrial pollution are mixtures of chemicals substantially similar to tobacco smoke. Why is tobacco smoke being singled out, when other pollutants are basically made up of the same ingredients? Do you ascribe magic properties to tobacco smoke because you hate it so badly?
Take your hate somewhere else, you deceitful coward.
MAZOLTOFF, mike!
I've been away for a while. I see the usual suspects still think their cruel intolerance is some sort of virtue.
People who spend their lives trying to violate their fellow citizens' rights, using g deserve all the hatred and the reciprocal violation of their rights they may experience.
Popularity, Mr. Godshall, is no determinant of the right. Of course, I'm sure you only resort to that argument when your view is held by the majority. When it isn't, I bet you revert to indvidual freedom as your justification for your desires.
Almost all anti-smokers are very bad people.
psycho ed wrote:
"Banning smoking within 25 feet of doorways will of course do nothing to stop transportation or industrial pollution from entering buildings"
Outdoor pollution laws, automobile exhaust restrictions, zoning laws, and building set-backs have already dramatically reduced the amount of transportation and industrial pollution that enters buildings.
Banning smoking within 25 feet of a building entrance will sharply reduce the amount of tobacco smoke pollution that enters a building.
Bill, as we have learned in physics and from the many lawyers around us, outdoor pollution from transportation knows that it is not allowed to enter buildings (hence we aptly call it OUTDOOR pollution). So it just stays outside, hiding in a corner and waiting to be blown away.
Tobacco smoke has been purposely designed by PM and RJR to enter buildings right away, without even trying to dilute.
You can argue this until you are blue in the face. By and large, voters make the decisions in this country and thank God.
Ed, your beliefs are your beliefs. I hope they serve you well. The anti-smoking movement has some issues it needs to deal with, but its case is persuasive and effective. Even without it, I think you'd see bans springing up. People are no longer willing to inhale someone else's tobacco smoke and do nothing about it. Like they just did last week in Appleton, people are stading up to say "ENOUGH!"
The Appleton vote was a resounding win for anyone who believes in the right to breath smoke-free air. This was the second vote and it only included bars. It was passed by a higher magin than the original ban which included both bars and restaurants. The message is clear. Even bar goers want smoke-free air.
"By and large, voters make the decisions in this country and thank God.
...
The message is clear. Even bar goers want smoke-free air."
No, dear, you said it yourself: voters want bars to be smoke-free, not necessarily the patrons.
"By and large, voters make the decisions in this country and thank God."
Thank God? Shall we? What was his first name again?
"By the way, ASH's office is surrounded by the GW campus."
Good for them, the get a smoke for free.
Jill repeats the democratic fallacy, that majoritarian bullying is the principle upon which this nation was founded.
Individual liberty is that foundation. Besides, I'm sure you don't really believe this. If the majority voted the other way, would you sit down, shut up, and accept the smoking? I doubt it.
The god and his mistress pep pill jill,do you think that you will always be able to hold the majority ?the lies and deceipt you spout here and the fact that you want to have osama bin banzofs children since you fawn over his very name suggets will be your undoing.It's called imploding,where a larger and larger group squabble over an ever decreasing command structure,view the last months worth of rabid press releases.So many demi-gods all competing for who can say the most outrageous statements.Get on with it,press the self destruct and leave the rest of us to work things out.
As much as I think the idea of "majority rules" is an appealing one, I don't think that in general, we want majority opinion to be dictating public health policy matters. I think the reason we have elected and appointed officials in government is to exercise judgment in considering the science and making rational decisions to appropriately protect the public's health, while weighing the need for intervention against the need for regulation.
That the public supports widespread outdoor smoking bans doesn't justify this policy for me. I think what ASH is pushing for here is beyond the realm of science and public health. And their actions are beyond the realm of reason.
Well sir, I don't think public health policy should be dictated by the medical profession, either. They're too idealistic, not to mention as enamoured of their authority as any medieval clergy.
Unfortunately, "elected and appointed officials" aren't too sharp at understanding science or enacting truly rational laws; they get played on by special interests, intimidated by the letters PhD, and love to appear "righteous" even as they indulge in the sin of power.
The laws of Calabasas were produced by "elected and appointed" officials. Case rests.
Bill claims that banning smoking within 25 feet of a building "will sharply reduce the amount of tobacco smoke pollution that enters a building."
By how much? From 2 picograms to 1 picogram? Can it even be quantitatively measured?
Has ANY study WHATSOEVER measured tobacco smoke pollution within a non-smoking building when people smoke by the doorway outside it?
Given that automobile exhaust and cooking vapours are comprised of basically the same chemical makeup as tobacco smoke, how would you differentiate air contaminants originating tobacco smoke as opposed to those originating from other forms of pollution if the air quality inside a building were to be observed in an experiment?
PM2.5 is PM2.5 whether it comes from a car or from a cigarette. So are carbon monoxide, acrolien, benzo-a-pyrene, ammonia, hydrazine, formaldehyde, etc.
Are you really this dense, Bill? I bet you do very poorly in live debates. Take your hate somewhere else.
No one would have to smoke in doorways if there was a nice, well ventilated smoker's lounge provided within the building now would they?
How about a nice little atrium in the courtyard?
Care to explain to me why this solution is so unacceptable to the pro-ban side?
ed psycho wrote: "By how much? From 2 picograms to 1 picogram? Can it even be quantitatively measured?"
If I was Bill, I would respond with: "That's a full 50% less, it must be done, for the sake of public health!"
Mike wrote:
"I think what ASH is pushing for here is beyond the realm of science and public health. And their actions are beyond the realm of reason."
To be consistent, do you also think that outdoor air pollution standards are "beyond the realm of science and public health"?
And do you similarly think that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are "beyond the realm of reason"?
Bill,
That's a good and fair question.
The answer is that I don't think that outdoor air pollution standards are beyond the realm of science, public health, and reason.
There's a big difference - you can't avoid outdoor air in its entirety (and it is average ambient levels of pollutants that are measured). But you can avoid a few people congregated on a street corner smoking.
Moreover, the smoke being produced by those smokers doesn't create the level of pollution in the AMBIENT air that we are talking about with air pollution. Sure - as a point source, there may be high levels immediately around the point source; but you can simply walk away.
All a Risk Manager is is a person who determines the insurable risks and buys the necessary insurance at the best rates. I see no connection between this job title and the policies of the administration of the school. If there was a perceived exposure then the risk manager would look at it's costs and determine if insurance was available to cover it, get a price for it, and then determine if the company or school could expect a claim and for what amount. Actually I would think general liability insurance would cover it unless specifically excluded by the contract with the carrier. If this is true the Risk Manager has performed his function.
If ASH wants to sue someone, I suggest God because he allowed the plant to thrive. At the same time God designed the wind and the dynamics that would cause the smoke to enter the building.
Accordingly ASH and their comrads could be held responsible for causing the gathering of smokers outside the doors of the building, therefore creating any peril to those in the vacinity. Through their actions the smokers are congregating where they are allowed to smoke. If smokers were dispursed throughout the area then smoke from individuals would be better disbursed by the atmosphere of the area.
Asmatics or those allergic to smoke would be better advised to avoid GWU and attend a college or universoty in a more rural setting. Or wear a face mask, like Michael Jackson.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
