Dr. Siegel, That's an interesting theory. The fact that there are no other doctors who have come out to publicly support your claims still makes me wonder if there isn't something that's been left out of this analysis. Your only supporters are people aligned with industry interests. If you are correct about the antismoking movement, there would have to be some other doctor somewhere, who doesn't receive "big pharma" funding that would stand by you. There's got to be more going on here than what meets the eye.
"Your only supporters are people aligned with industry interests."
Jill, do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do I have industry interests? If so, which ones? Can you name at least one?
Do Annette, Walt, Walt H, Michael McFadden, si, Michelle Gervais, Brian, etc. (sorry if I forget somebody) have industry interests?
Doctors in general should have other interests than SHS, they should take care of their patients. And since it seem that SHS is not an issue in general, why should they bother?
Most doctors don't even know enough about epidemiology, a science which is much closer to mathematics than to medecine. In fact, it has little to do with medecine at all.
"there would have to be some other doctor somewhere, who doesn't receive "big pharma" funding that would stand by you."
I know some, but they are not advocating because there is nothing to gain.
Mr. Siegel--
The hiccup about the tobacco industry vitiates your movement's credibility: they only exist because there is a demand for tobacco--and there always will be, with or without advertising, and even if it were rendered illegal. People have every right to demand it, and others have every right to serve the demand.
A monetary interest does not automatically invalidate anyone's arguments, despite my jests about how your movement has its monetary interests as well. As far as anyone's claims that they are only acting in the interests of others: claims to altruism have always been bogus; *everyone* acts on their own interests *all the time.*
Mike wrote:
"There is truly no room for any dissent. Anyone who challenges the established dogma is instantly accused of being a tobacco industry mole, a traitor, or a lunatic who has gone over to the "dark side.""
That's a bunch of crap. Dissent has driven the tobacco control movement.
For twenty years, I and others have repeatedly dissented from the established dogma of the large health and tobacco control organizations and government health agencies that have huge tobacco control budgets.
And yet, nobody in tobacco control has called me "tobacco industry mole, a traitor, or a lunatic who has gone over to the "dark side.""
If it weren't for dissent within tobacco control, there wouldn't have been counter ads on television from 1969-1971 (as none of the large health groups supported Banzhaf's Fairness Doctrine petition to the FTC).
- there wouldn't be any smokefree workplace laws (which weren't supported by the large health organizations until the late 1980's).
- there wouldn't be cigarette tax hikes (which weren't supported by the health groups until the 1990's),
- there wouldn't have been a huge public outcry against cigarette industry marketing to youth (as ACS, AHA, ALA didn't support those campaigns by STAT),
- there would be far more preemptive laws enacted at the federal and state level to protect the cigarette industry,
- there wouldn't have been a ban on cigarette billboard ads and the near ban on cigarette sports sponsorships, and there wouldn't have be $8 billion in settlement payments to states, all of which resulted from the state settlements,
- the 1997 global bailout would have been enacted by Congress that CTFK, ACS, AHA, APHA and 50 other organizations endorsed and lobbied for,
- and the Philip Morris and CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA probably would have been enacted by Congress.
Ben, you are aligned with industry interests because your goals compliment what the tobacco industry wants. That doesn't mean that you are part of the industry or any connection to it. In means that you're interests are in alignment with those of big tobacco. If you look at the column of quote posted along the right hand side of the site you see Smokers Club, Forces and Hit & Run. These are all groups aligned with industry interests. There isn't a single doctor who even passively lends support to Dr. Siegel's accusations. There upwards of a million MD's in this country.
I've said this before, if the power of an idea is in its ability to move people then there is something wrong here. This is a very clear and persuasively written blog - yet no one else is on board except groups like Forces, Smoker's Club and Hit & Run.
If the science is truly fallacios and the anti-tobacco movement so engrossed in lies and deceit, it seems unfathomable that no one else would speak up except those aligned with industry interests.
"Ben, you are aligned with industry interests because your goals compliment what the tobacco industry wants."
I eat bread, so my interests are aligned with my baker's interests? I drive a Toyota, so my interests are aligned with Toyota's or the automobile industry's interests.
Are you so brainwashed?
I don't even care about the tobacco industry, I buy their products out of convenience. If they didn't exist, I'd grow my own tobacco.
FORCES, Hit & Run, Smokersclub, etc., defend the right of grown-ups to choose their own lifestyle and they fight the nanny attitude of so many politicians.
Maybe Big Tobacco proclaims the same goals, but for other reasons.
Jill, don't you have any better arguments?
"..yet no one else is on board except groups like Forces, Smoker's Club and Hit & Run."
Jill, again a fallacious claim: I'm not associated in any way with FORCES or any Smoker's Club. And if I was, what's wrong in trying to be informed?
"- there wouldn't be any smokefree workplace laws.
- there wouldn't be cigarette tax hikes,
- there wouldn't have been a huge public outcry against cigarette industry marketing to youth"
Bill, you call that dissent? Do you think we are stupid enough to buy this? Your whole list is based on fallacious claims about health hazards of SHS, it is about gaining power and getting money. That's exactly what the ATI wants.
You forgot a few small details in your summation of today's tobacco control fascists there, Mike.
Not only do they not allow dissent (anymore for Mr Godshall, as opposed to allowing the dissent his ilk has spread throughout your movement, until there was no more room for dissent, think Hitler rallying the troops prior to his takeover of the government, and the dissent allowed by his regime afterward for an apt comparison), they are actively rabid in their pusuit of draconian measures to insure that those who would stand up to them have neither the credibility, nor the resources for a prolonged battle. Add the downright hatred and discrimination they advocate against the users of this product, all the while hiding behind their stated intentions of doing this for "our own good". Hmm, who would wonder there is so few to risk their livelyhood, proffesional standing, reputation against such a combine, and with no personal gain for themselves, why should they risk all to dissent from the rabids?
Those of us accused of being "aligned with tobacco co interests", for the most part, detest big tobacco, I may smoke, but like so many others here, my hard earned dollars aren't going into the rabids coffers, at least as little as I can help by manufacturing my own, and my cause is to keep the rabids from being able to dictate to me and the rest of us, how, where and when I may live my life as I choose. No one forces anyone to enter an establishment, and each owner can be trusted to make the best decision for their business when it comes to which clientele/workers they prefer to attract.
Even if all the BS that has been spread accross the media where to magically be proven true, the relative risk of danger is still so low as to be a joke, especially in comparison to so many far worse forms of pollution we are exposed to, it still wouldn't justify the hatred and vindictive, punishing approach which seems to be the agenda tobacco control has been praying for.
Mr. Bill cites examples of dissent being tolerated and even being successful within the tobacco control movement. What he seems unable to see however is that all the samples of dissent he notes are ones where the "radicals" dissented from "the mainstream." The radicals were successful, as he points out, and were indeed SO successful that they have now taken over the mainstream and turned it INTO a radical extremist movement.
Today's dissent takes form from the other end of the spectrum: those who object to the radicals and the crazies and their fantasies that wisps of smoke drifting from an on-stage actor against the heat driven air flows will attack audience members, or that people will be collapsing and dying of heart attacks because they're in a park with someone smoking, or that significant amounts of microscopic smoke particles will battle their way through 5 mile per hour breezes to crawl up children's noses and down into their lungs from 20 feet away.
The dissent today is the rational mainstream of the past, and the new mainstream, the radical mainstream, has succeeded almost entirely in crushing it. If you check out the Rapid Responses to the originally hotly disputed Enstrom/Kabat study of few years ago you'll find that there were very few medical doctors willing to come to E/K's defense... and almost without exception they were RETIRED and had nothing much to lose by taking such an unpopular stand. Medical researchers today know which side their bread is buttered on and there are very few willing to risk their reputations and livelihoods by questioning the new mainstream.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
The fact that there are no other doctors who have come out to publicly support your claims still makes me wonder if there isn't something that's been left out of this analysis
With so many people and organizations working to prevent disease by first and second hand tobacco smoke, there are going to be differences of opinion.
However, the central issue they all agree upon is that second hand tobacco smoke contains cancer causing carcinogens which cause disease and the public should be protected from it.
Suggesting that all people around the county and world need to speak with one voice and agree on everything is unrealistic as most all of the people working on tobacco issues are volunteers.
Oh Bennyboy, I don't know what to do with you. Why so defensive? I have no reason to believe that you are a part of Forces or Smoker's Club. And there's nothing wrong with trying to be informed. That's part of the reason I am here myself. Why would I have a problem with that?
You missed the point of my post - which is why there isn't much support outside of this site (and pro-tobacco groups) for the types of claims that Dr. Siegel so clearly outlines on this blog. If this is a marketplace for ideas, here's one that you can bounce around and beat up or ponder or do whatever you want with it. It's just an observation.
Jill, I honestly wonder if you realize the extent to which your thinking shapes your language and thus further influences your thinking.
Note where you conclude by saying:
"If the science is truly fallacios and the anti-tobacco movement so engrossed in lies and deceit, it seems unfathomable that no one else would speak up except those aligned with industry interests."
This is truly circular thinking since anyone who DID speak up would then be identified by you as being "aligned with industry interests" as per your introduction to that post where you said "Ben, you are aligned with industry interests because your goals compliment what the tobacco industry wants."
I.E. once someone criticizes the tobacco control movement they are by your definition "aligned with tobacco industry goals" since the tobacco industry WANTS the TCM to be criticized. Thus it becomes logically IMPOSSIBLE for someone to criticize the movement WITHOUT being so "aligned."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
I see Jill ,you've been practising your set speeches with Mr Siegel on numerous previous occasions to glean how he responds, so that you can incorporate it to effect the most damage to his credibility now.Well done to hit the top spot yet again with your disingenious ploy.If you recollect i questioned you on the need to have your questions answered in such a peculiar way that they were obviously going to be used for some mischevious purpose.Now that was some several days ago,so EVERYONE PLEASE NOTE THESE COMMENTS ARE NOT NEW AND ARE INTENDED TO CAUSE MAXIMUM DETRIMENT.A NEW ALLTIME LOW FOR THE RABID MOVEMENT.Jill are you suggesting that these games are more adult in nature shame on you were you also not the voice of "another blogger in disguise" where you attempted to solicit a response to discredit certain individuals.You see Jill we know that you have no genuine concerns for anyone other than yourself.You are unfortunately the epitome of the proverbial goodtime girl,gold-digging and back stabbing but where do you hope to end up?What is your goal?
I imagine Jill thinks that argument is pretty clever. It is actually circular.
In other words, si, Jill speaks in Bad Faith. Is she really Bill in drag? Bjill?
Si, Ok, so I'm not perfect. But why don't you attack my argument instead of me?
I think some it has to do with the media and the laziness that seems to be rampant in health "journalism" these days. One would think that a requirement for any "health" reporter would be that they understand the terminology. Every night I hear the silliest stuff on the news in the health segments. All these guys do is regurgitate the latest press release. Witness the bird flu hysteria.
When was the last time you heard a reporter at a press conference say "hey - are you talking absolute or relative risk?"
"Ok, so I'm not perfect. But why don't you attack my argument instead of me?"
Jill, Michael McFadden explained it very nicely and logically without attacking you. You don't seem to understand:
"I honestly wonder if you realize the extent to which your thinking shapes your language and thus further influences your thinking."
"However, the central issue they all agree upon is that second hand tobacco smoke contains cancer causing carcinogens which cause disease and the public should be protected from it."
They agree, because they have an agends, not because a causal association is proven.
You can repeat it over and over again, but that still doesn't make it true.
Read the history of eugenics, you will find the same "scientific" arguments.
Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The US Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those they thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963 when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, by far the state with the most sterilizations, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II they justified the mass-sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.
A word to Bill who is so keen on "legislation". Legislation can be used to justify almost anything. Your unlimited trust in legislation is unlimited trust in those who legislate. According to you, they can't err. You should know better ...
"over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States"
I did attack the argument, Jill. Tautologies are meaningless. And yes, I was making fun of the similarities between your and Bill's invalid arguments. I beg your pardon.
Jill,
Instead of debating issues and arguments in a rationale, civil and respectful manner, the delusional and angry smokers who post on this blog (and on their pro smoking websites and blogs) nearly always resort to (and indeed rely upon) personally insulting others who write or say something that they don't want to read or hear.
And the more convincing your arguments are, the more insulting names they will call you.
But don't worry, as the overwhelming majority of people who read their personal insults quickly and correctly dismiss them as whackos.
Also, it appears that as their insulting name calling increases and intensifies (especially in more respectable media), increasingly more people actively advocate smokefree laws, cigarette tax hikes and other effective smoking control policies.
I'd like to see them come up with names that are even more offensive than Nazis and jihadists, as that could help us reduce smoking even more rapidly.
Bill, you initiate most of the namecalling here, and you know it. A response in kind is entirely justified.
Brett, my last post was to Si. Maybe Michael McFadden did answer, I might have missed it. When I get a chance I'll go back and look at for it. If you know where that was and you have a link, I'd appreciate it. I didn't mean to make it a tautalogy or whatever. It just seems to me like a reasonable question.
Jill-
Actually, there are quite a few physicians and even a number of tobacco control advocates and researchers who agree with my stance on the 30 minute claims. The reason they are not speaking out, however, is that the movement is a kind of McCarthyism and dissent is not tolerated. They would be risking their careers and their reputations if they came out publicly and supported me. This is PRECISELY why the dogma of the anti-smoking movement can go essentially unchallenged from within.
But you are quite correct about one thing: there IS more here than meets the eye. Eventually, I think the truth will come out and we'll get to the bottom of the "30 minute" nonsense. Until then, I'm willing to treat it as an innocent mistake. But regardless of the innocent intentions that I am willing to assume, the mistake needs to be corrected and an apology needs to be made to the public for misleading them so badly. Without that, the tobacco control movement will not be able to withstand the loss of its credibility that is certain to come.
Bill-
You're right about those examples, but they are not really examples of any dissent with the "dogma" of the movement. If anything, they are examples of where organizations failed to keep pace with where the rest of the movement was at. In other words, where advocates had advanced to a much further level of policy advocacy than organizations. This isn't what I am talking about. What I'm talking about is when organizations and advocates are all on the same field and have accepted a certain dogma. In those cases, I don't think there is any room for dissent, as I've found out in the past year or so.
MJM-
I think you nicely pointed out the circular reasoning in Jill's argument about the only ones finding offense with the 30 minute fallacious claim being aligned with "industry interests." That's precisely the point I wanted to make in this point. Anyone, even if in the tobacco control movement, who comes out against the established dogma of the movement is going to be discredited instantly as being "aligned with industry interests." That's what has happened to me over and over again - and I'm a long-time insider in tobacco control. Imagine a physician making such a statement. He or she would be attacked as a tobacco industry shill before they could finish their statement!
Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I don't think most smokers commenting on this site are "aligned with industry interests" in the first place. Certainly, they do not support price increases and tobacco industry efforts to maintain high prices for this product.
Finally, with regard to Erik's comment that: "With so many people and organizations working to prevent disease by first and second hand tobacco smoke, there are going to be differences of opinion":
I want to make it clear that I don't view this as a difference of opinion. If that's all it was, I would certainly not be accusing anti-smoking groups of making "fallacious" statements. Believe me, I'm more careful than that, and if I thought for a minute that this was merely a matter of having a different opinion, I would never make such a strong statement.
I believe what is going on is not a difference of opinion, but a COMPLETE MISREPRESENTATION OF SCIENTIFIC FACT. Let me say that again lest anyone having read Erik's comment might have come away with the wrong idea.
I believe what is going on is not a difference of opinion, but a COMPLETE MISREPRESENTATION OF SCIENTIFIC FACT.
But don't worry, as the overwhelming majority of people who read their personal insults quickly and correctly dismiss them as whackos.
Who is/are the overwhelming majority, Bill? You?
When you write such undiluted drivel, can you really be surprised that people feel the need to insult you?
What choice do you give them?
Dr. Siegel continually remains civil and professional in his replies - even when he has been "personally attacked". I don't imagine it's always easy, since he's as human as the rest of us "common folk"
Jill, your main goal seems to be the attempt to make this blog appear inconsequential by implying Dr. Seigel is alone in his assessment and perception of the tobacco control movement - well, except of course for those ridiculous little smoking bloggers and their silly little websites; and of course anyone who is "aligned with tobacco company interests".
My question for you, Jill is: why then, do you care what the man says?
Do you honestly think your smug and self-righteous tone will change hearts and minds about this issue? Or do you just enjoy being like that annoying little microsoft paper clip that pops up and offers to "help" whenever it decides the user is too stupid to know what he's doing?
And Bill, stop whining about being called a Nazi. If you can't take the heat, stay away from the ovens. It must be SO annoying when you're actually within earshot of your screaming victims. So, though we love to have the opportunity to torture the torturer, you're free to confine your playmates to others of your own "Superior Race".
On the other hand, it's encouraging to know that you feel compelled to spend so much time here defending yourself and your raison d'etre. Maybe the tide IS beginning to turn.
I'd like to add the following observations.
Concerning this topic. Dr. Siegel, I think the response to this message clearly make your point. Take this comment by Jill, "Your only supporters are people aligned with industry interests." She later attempts to soften it by generalizing the statement, the context for which it was originally used shows it's true intentions.
Godshall would be highly insulted if Jill had said "Godshall has agreed with you on several points and his interests are aligned with the smokeless tobacco industry."
I also agree with Mike McF's assessment of the radicals taking over the chicken ranch.
Mr. Godshall's desires to keep things "internalized" leads to the situation where people within can't oppose radical ideas.
Since public criticism is not allowed, a radical idea can be brought forth and made public, despite internal opposition to such proposals. The disenting members can not speak publicly in fear of showing public disention within the rank and file of the community. Hence it is nearly impossible to quelch what the group may feel is over the edge. The same goes for questionable studies.
Furthermore, any attempts to question such studies externally are met with the typical rhetoric of "industry interests" or "pathetic nicotine addicts." Two of the most frequently used rebuttals in tobacco control. It's a crutch.
Internal attempts to question the study are met with, fine but keep it quiet, we don't want the public to know. The study is released, an all you can do is bitch and moan amongst yourselves internally. While the radical proponents diseminate such.
One other crutch held by many within tobacco control is the "end justify the means". As of late, it seems more and more, the weaker arguments being presented often end with "besides, it encourages smokers to quit". To speak against a measure which encourages smokers to quit is heresy, and may be reason why some are lured into the ends justify the means trap.
Take for example Jill's remarks on off duty smoking discrimination. The extent of her denouncing was and I'm paraphrasing "well it's not very fair".
The public at large should take heed. With so much money being poured into this special interest groups being run by the more radical elements which are willing to sacrifice basic rights of privacy, in an ends justify the means mentality, with a total lack of oversight and control, spells trouble. I know there must be disention within the ranks over the smoker discrimination issues, but the only public voice heard have been yours and ASH UK. ASH UK having taken it to the press.
I can understand the desire for some unified voices, but the tactics being practiced today absolutely do not allow for disention. Since these involve public policy, the disenting opinions need to be heard. A majority and a minority report.
It is clear, the tobacco control community is afraid of public discussion, and only wants to operate in a propaganda mode. And from my perceptions, this reluctance to discuss publicly their positions indicates their arguments are weak, as with a house built of cards.
Again, the public should heed the danger signs when individuals such as Mr. Godshall want to keep discussions secret and private.
It's too bad the rules governing corporations under Sarbanes-Oxley don't apply to special interest groups.
Simple Jill go back to when you first posted these questions and look at the responses.You are devious and conniving when you post honest questions then that is the time to talk.Anyway you still owe an answer or two to the points i raised with you.People who play power games rarely have much to say.
"Your [Dr. Siegel's] only supporters are people aligned with industry interests. -- Jill
The only group I am aware of that are aligned with tobacco industry interests is the CTFK. And I'll wager they don't support Dr. Siegel's position.
ASH UK on the other hand is opposed to worker discrimination. Quick Jill call the secret tobacco police and report them for acts against movement. Eject them from all secret communications, as they can no longer be trusted. They are promoting smoking!
HEADLINES: ASH UK now promoting smoking!
BYLINE: Jill
Bill, Jill, Mike, Eric and whoever else I might have missed,
I can understand SHS being an argument as a "public health" issue (even if I believe you've over stated the dangers), and just about every smoker I know has no problem not smoking around non-smokers if they object. What I can't understand is how you can cross the line into one's personal health and lifestyle choices and defend your agenda as a matter of "public health". It's a dangerous place to go when to try to impose on someone's free will because you don't like their choices. I don't think I'll ever understand why the hell it's so important to you to make my life so miserable until I finally capitulate and bend to your will to cease smoking.
Just for once I'd like you to put yourself in my shoes and think about how you'd feel if someone taxed your favorite food until you could barely afford it, told you you would lose your job if you ever ate it again, banned you from eating it anywhere where you might be seen eating it all because it might increase your risk of dying 2 years sooner than the rest of us poor slobs. Wouldn't you say - hey - why do you care what I eat - you don't have to eat it?
For the life of me, I just don't get your obsession with my habit. I just don't get why your so intent on interfering with my personal choices. Informing me of the risks you are worried about is one thing. Encouraging me to quit for my own good is within acceptable bounds. Trying to coerce me by whatever twisted means you can conjure up is just plain sadistic IMHO.
Dr. Siegal
I believe that you are being extremely nieve.
Your theories of what has gone wrong with the anti-tobacco crusade all blame external forcings.
The very second that any anti-tobacco fanatic went beyond providing information and inviting others to consider quitting smoking - they stepped over the line into bullying and exhibited a perverse obssession with control of others.
That is what drives the crusade - not compassion, not desire to build a healthier society - I am not even sure its about money anymore.
There exists in these fanatics - a naked raw greed for power and control. That is why so many are obsessed with outdoor bans and bans in places like separate smoking huts where non-smokers never go - or in the case of my friend - the need to deny even the comfort of a cup of coffee to a smoker.
The last thing the anti-tobacco crusade is interested in health/wellbeing of others.
Michelle
I believe Michelle hits the nail on the head. It's all about power: when you are able to take someone's own body as a hostage, you have the ultimate means of executing power.
I believe it's not only a problem of the amti-smoker movement, it's a crisis in the medical society as a whole.
It's a sign of the helpnessless of the medical society which is not able to cope with the *real* health problems of the world and therefore attacks the easy targets. Like a frustrated adult who hits his/her child after he/she has been fired.
That goes for the anti-smokers movement, that goes for the WHO (who are only interested in getting enough funding to keep up their administrative moloch and therefore accept billions of dollars from Big Pharma to fight Western 'lifestyle' diseases, not the really bad ones of the Third World that do not raise profits) and that even goes for governments that rather fight smoking than try to solve issues that really could make the world a better place to live.
The Health community itself is ill. It's about time we find a cure.
Ill?
jIll!
bIll?
LOL!
The cure is to get all government funding out of education and medicine; the benefits are not worth the loss of freedom at the hands of propagandists for authoritarian government who finance themselves and their predatory policies from stolen money.
Both classes have amply demonstrated they are not to be trusted to respect the rights of the citizenry. Their egregious moral ignorance can only be attributed to vanity or natures tyrannical. They must learn to earn their living in the only just way: voluntary exchanges of goods and services.
Of course, at bottom, this is the fault of the voters, many of whom allow themselves to be conned by these two classes, plus the legal profession, into believing the government can provide them something for nothing. Other voters deliberately seek to bully their fellow citizens, for reasons I have never understood. Free people don't have self-appointed overseers.
For my part, that is the purpose of these long conversations: to convince people to back off from the tyranny a-building before our eyes.
That rant about the rentseekers would be mine.
I just don't get why your so intent on interfering with my personal choices. Informing me of the risks you are worried about is one thing. Encouraging me to quit for my own good is within acceptable bounds.
Margaret, you make some good points. I think people should be able to endulge in a slew of non-healthy behavior almost everyone does. The only legitigate deviation from this is when individual self choice harms others such as the asserted right to "right" drink while intoxicated.
The way I see it, banning second hand smoke in restaurants is no different than current health regulations which require employees to wash their hands and handle food properly.
I suppose one could argue a libertarian line that restaurants should be off limits to any health regulation whatsoever and for people to just take their chances as to e-coli or other health risks present.
However, I think most people want restaurants to have some health regulations for known risks.
However, I think most people want restaurants to have some health regulations for known risks.
And those who went to the expense of installing expensive air filtration systems for their smoking areas provided more than adequate protection for "sensitive" non-smokers.
But that wasn't enough for you, was it? You don't give a damn about PEOPLE at all. You only care about the exercise of power and control over the personal choices of those you consider inferior to yourself. Your cause has created the worst kind of bigot.
Your washing hands and handling food properly line is a ludicrous piece of hyperbole, but it's also an excellent example of the crusader mindset.
Dr Mike:
You are the GateKeeper, it is going to be the loneliest place to be for you for a while. You will thrive and survive to tell the story another day. Your children, when they are old enough, will be very proud of you. Which that in itself should give you stamina to follow the truth...no matter where it leads you. I apply the same rules to me. No matter where it leads me, I want the truth-and as I have said before, My shoulders are more than big/strong enough to carry the load, as I believe many of us here are able to - Kathleen, annette, margaret, michelle, judy and all the guys who are way smarter than me. We have all stood in front of the mirror and seen the truth about ourselves and learned to accept all that we are, and are capable of.
Sorry all if I am speaking out of turn, or projecting on to you-but that is part of what makes we , The Smokers, different from so many others. With chagrine we acknowledge our failings, habits, foibles, likes, dislikes, attitudes-but without apologies. There is a difference there you know.
Ya know, that lopsided grin of "yeah, I know, but it's just me being me" kind of life. And we all better be damn proud we do just that!
Erik wrote:
"However, I think most people want restaurants to have some health regulations for known risks."
But a sign on the door warning you this is one of them and you might want to go elsewhere isn't good enough for you, is it?
HEALTH REGULATION #1
The risk of exposure to SHS lies behind this door. Enter at your own risk.
(Exceptions to this risk: 30 minutes exposure will not give you a heart attack, cause hardening of the arteries, or cause cancer. (The air conditioning may trigger an asthma attack though))
HEALTH REGULATION #2
It is a well-known fact that some employees do not wash their hands. Enter at your own risk.
HEALTH REGULATION #3
Some customer/employee is likely carrying a virus which may sicken/kill you. Enter at your own risk.
Bill wrote: "Instead of debating issues and arguments in a rationale, civil and respectful manner, the delusional and angry smokers who post on this blog (and on their pro smoking websites and blogs) nearly always resort to (and indeed rely upon) personally insulting others who write or say something that they don't want to read or hear. And the more convincing your arguments are, the more insulting names they will call you."
LOLOLOL!!! Bill, this is just TOO funny to even ARGUE with! Do you honestly have NO idea how reversed from reality your view is? And how easily it's seen that way by anyone who reads Dr. Siegel's blog for even a few minutes?
Oh.. and... I believe for the 10th time, would you like to try to defend whatever shreds of honor you might still be trying to cling to by outlining a few of the many "inaccuracies" etc that I have posted here?
Or is honor beyond a four letter word for you?
:?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Erik writes, “The way I see it, banning second hand smoke in restaurants is no different than current health regulations which require employees to wash their hands and handle food properly.
"I suppose one could argue a libertarian line that restaurants should be off limits to any health regulation whatsoever and for people to just take their chances as to e-coli or other health risks present."
Unless the health and fire inspectors come around regularly, no one, patron or employee, would know if they were in exceptional jeopardy walking into a bar or restaurant. And that’s a legitimate role of government. Now how in hell does that equate with working in a bar or restaurant, or patronizing a bar or restaurant, OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL, knowing full well all those tales about secondhand smoke being a health menace? Maybe they should ban smoking in bars and restaurants for the sake of that guy fresh off the boat from the jungles of Borneo, who might not have gotten the message?
For Jesus’s sake, Erik, get a life.
There is a huge huge massive immense difference between smoking bans and other regulations for restaurants and bars.
Health regulations for the most part were developed and implemented in order to reduce illness and death related to infectious diseases. We can recognise and measure the health benefits that accrue and balance the cost against the benefit.
However, when, 30 years after reducing the smoking rate by half - there was still no recognisable health benefit, that is the cancer rate continued to rise, the incidence of heart disease didn't slow down - how did the anit-smoker fanatics continue to justify the expenditure of billions of dollars - why the second hand smoke scam of course! They continue to beat a dead horse.
While Dr. Siegal and others spend billions trying to scare the population with insignificant relative risks - other scientists went out and damn near cured breast cancer (survival rate is now sitting at 86 %).
Now - would joe q public - if advised of these facts continue to support a radical agenda of persercution and harrasment against smokers if they knew how little the health benefit has been. Would they continue to tolerate the economic damage of the bans?
I don't think so!.
Michelle
Instead of debating issues and arguments in a rationale, civil and respectful manner, the delusional and angry smokers who post on this blog (and on their pro smoking websites and blogs) nearly always resort to (and indeed rely upon) personally insulting others who write or say something that they don't want to read or hear.
I really shouldn't mention this to you, Mr. Godshall, but do you not see the hypocrisy in your own argument, as it makes for such a good laugh.
One doesn't have to go looking for another quote from you for example, it lay right within the middle of the statement you are making.
You can't make it into the next paragraph without having to rely on insults to make your point.
For someone who wants to be seen as wearing a white hat, you sure go out of your way to muddy it up.
Now what part of your remark do you see as respectful?
Dr. Siegel,
The point of making fallacious claims is to get legislation passed - period. It doesn't matter whether the claims are true or not. The general public also doesn't care whether they are true or not. As I have stated earlier, we have had those in highest authority lie about much more urgent matters; it just doesn't matter. Suporters of a person/idea/ideology/etc. will continue to beleive whatever they already want to beleive, and make any sort of excuse to rationalize the deception away. With the smoking issue, you already see the false claims downplayed as a "misunderstanding", "misenterpretation," etc. You yourself cannot seem to fathom the idea that promoters of a cause will intentionally spread a falsehood to futher the cause. But, this happens all the time, because the "cause," whatever it may be, becomes the be all and end all, truth be damned.
Even if later on it comes to light that publicly stated claims were lies, it still doesn't matter. Look at the "reefer madness" propaganda from way back in the 1930s. Everyone looks back at that now and laughs, but nevertheless marijuana is still illegal over 3 generations later and users face prison time for indulging in its use. And, we also have the additional societal cost of a violent criminal enterprise engaging in its trade. (I am using this an an ilustration of my point about falsehoods being used to further legislative action, not to make any comparisons one way or the other regarding marijuana vis-a-vis tobacco.)
Since you were/are part of the anti-tobacco movement, you must know that the goal of the movement was never solely to reduce smoking and inform people of the legitimate health risks associated with tobacco. Those may have been part of the means to an end, but the end game was always the promotion of a "smoke free society." Consider those words carefully (they are not mine). "Smoke-free society" means the complete elimination of smoking anywhere, any time. The true believers in a smoke-free society will stop at nothing to make that vision come alive.
Because of the propaganda that has placed smokers in the same category as murderers and child abusers, the general public will not oppose further measures to create a smoke-free society (or more accurately, a tobacco smoker free society), as most truly believe that they are being rescued from a clear and imminent threat to their well being.
If I sound cynical, it's because I have no faith that there is a great thirst out there for "the truth" about anything. I have seen and heard too much over the years to think otherwise. I also think that if anyone thinks there will be mass outrage over falsehoods used to promote the anti-tobacco agenda, then he/she is smoking something other than tobacco (or weed for that matter)in their pipe. Maybe it's just me.
cj,
Your point on "reefer madness" is quite on the mark. As a matter of fact many of the arguments are the same.
I read a paper a while back that held the thesis that much of the animosity towards marijuana use was somewhat racially motivated. But the efforts were extremely successful because of the duplicity of the press.
Mr. Godshall has put forth that smoking Marijuana isn't as harmful as tobacco smoke, but has failed to substantiate those claims, and has ignored these challenges on several occasions.
Mr. Godshall
Just who are you including in your angry and delusional smokers? Please be specific, as you have used this phrase quite frequently. Or is this just a convient way of ambiguously personally attacking anyone who disagrees with you, with a shotgun.
Sorry Walt - but Mr Bill is partially right.
I am very angry, what I'm not so sure about is the delusional part.
Just what delusions are you referring to Mr. Bill?
I am angry that the Tobacco Control Movement (TCM) can't seem to accept the fact that I have been informed of their concerns about my increased risk for disease and have decided for myself that I enjoy tobacco more than I fear for my health. My life and health should be my choice.
Is that a delusion? Should Mr Bill's preference take precedent over my own?
I am angry that the TCM keeps lobbying to raise taxes on cigarettes with the admitted purpose of coercing me into quitting a product I enjoy. Is that a delusion?
I am angry that the above additional taxes going back into the hands of TCM and other pet projects of politicians, when they pushed them through under the guise of helping to pay for the supposed increased cost of smoking. Is this a delusion?
I am angry that TCM will not support any accomodations for people who choose to continue to smoke. No well ventilated smoking rooms, no sheltered smoking huts, no smoking in my own car in the parking lot, no smoking outdoors where someone might see me, no smoking in my own hotel room. The message I am getting is we don't want to make your smoking illegal, we just don't want you to smoke anywhere. Is this a delusion?
I'm angry that TCM distorts, abuses and misrepresents science as a means to promote their agenda, as Dr Mike does a good job documenting here. Is this a delusion?
I'm angry that individual liberty is being undermined in the name of "public health". Is this a delusion?
Try addressing those for starters. There are more reasons that I'm angry but I don't want to overwhelm you.
Walt H., in fairness to B. Godshall, by calling smokers "angry and delusional" he's at least managed to tone down a bit from comparing them to rapists, torturers and murderers as he's been known to do in the past:
http://www.theagitator.com/archi...ives/
012460.php
Great link, jreth! Godshall got his "butt" kicked (couldn't resist) and apparently didn't risk exposing it again.
Looking forward to the day us "angry, delusional" smoking bloggers make as big an impact (in our pajamas) as the one that brought about "Rathergate". Won't that be something!
Thanks Kathleen! And as a proud member of the "Angry and Delusional Smoker's Society," I give you this humble offering. If anyone knows how to post it here directly, please feel free.
http://freefilehosting.net/file/...le/?id=pN/
zm6ve
jreth,
Who's the author of the book, or dare I need ask!
LOL
Oh c'mon Walt H., the author is pictured quite clearly on the cover. His cartoonish character is so recognizable that bothering to name him would be downright superfluous.
Michelle wrote:
"And those who went to the expense of installing expensive air filtration systems for their smoking areas provided more than adequate protection for "sensitive" non-smokers."
Nearly all, if not all, of the restaurants and bars visited at
http://www.tobaccofreeair.com/tools.htm
had those air ventilation systems (whose sales reps claimed eliminated tobacco smoke), and their PM 2.5 particulate levels were still well above what is permitted outdoors.
If those ventilation systems truly eliminated smoke, the PM 2.5 levels
in those facilities would be below
30 ug/m3 instead of above 100, 200 or 300 ug/m3.
Just 30 seconds (not 30 minutes) of exposure to tobacco smoke pollution causes me incapacitating headaches that can last a day or longer.
Either Michelle is still in denial about the harm her smoking imposes on other people, or she enjoys harming other people.
jreth wrote: "Walt H., in fairness to B. Godshall, by calling smokers "angry and delusional" he's at least managed to tone down a bit from comparing them to rapists, torturers and murderers as he's been known to do in the past:
http://www.theagitator.com/archi...ives/ 012460.php "
Jreth, that's not the only time Mr. Bill has done such. For example, from just a couple of months ago he wrote Philip Dawdy of the Seattle Weekly, saying "
"Your op/ed failed to mention lots of other freedom hating laws that infringe upon people's self perceived rights to urinate, defacate, spit, fornicate, assault others, shot guns, blow up bombs, etc. in public.
Just as you think it should be a right to force carcinogenic tobacco smoke into other people's lungs, other people also think its their right to force a part of their body into another part of someone else's body. But rape was also outlawed."
Two years (I believe the first quote is from 2 years ago) doesn't seem to have done much for Mr. Bill.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Just 30 seconds (not 30 minutes) of exposure to tobacco smoke pollution causes me incapacitating headaches that can last a day or longer.
I suggest you see a psychoanalyst for your hypochondria. I think you might be angry and delusional as well.
Walt Wrote:
"I read a paper a while back that held the thesis that much of the animosity towards marijuana use was somewhat racially motivated. But the efforts were extremely successful because of the duplicity of the press."
Yes Walt ... though it wasn't the only motivator for marijuana prohibition, a lot of it had to do with its use being associated with the "Negro/Jazz" subculture back then. Alcohol prohibition earlier (first the 18th Amendment and later the Volstead Act - a classic example of creeping incrementalism) was similarly aimed at working-class European immigrants and their "foreign" customs. What you are seeing now with tobacco is an attempt to associate its use with "lower class" (socially, educationally, culturally and/or economically) people, and even criminals as per some of the posts here. It's the same trick again and again.
This propaganda technique is effective for 2 reasons. Not only does it break the back of any unified opposition, but it also allows the unaffected group to feel morally superior to the affected group. By associating something with an "undesirable" group, it becomes easier for the unaffected group to fall for blatant falsehoods because it feeds into the preconcieved notions already held about the affected group.
"Just 30 seconds (not 30 minutes) of exposure to tobacco smoke pollution causes me incapacitating headaches that can last a day or longer."
I'm willing to test your claim. Next time we meet, I'll be happy to blow smoke into your face for 30 seconds.
If you're incapacitated by headaches for the next day, I'll know your symptoms are actually psychomatic, and not just bald faced lies.
"Your op/ed failed to mention lots of other freedom hating laws that infringe upon people's self perceived rights to urinate, defacate, spit, fornicate, assault others, shot guns, blow up bombs, etc. in public."
Wow, people who do all that sound like terrorists with really bad personal hygiene. Very creative to say the least.
But, I have to ask. Fornication? Bill, I don't think you're helping your side at all with this sort of comparison. Who's your sympathic audience in this op/ed letter? How many people have never "fornicated," and let's not even count the ones who've done so in public places?
(sigh) Nevertheless, I'm sure that all two of them must certainly have posters of you tacked onto their bedside walls by now.
You know, I don't know much, but I do feel safe in assuring Bill that no smoker will ever spit or urinate anywhere on or around him. Even if his head's on fire and the nearest water is ten miles away.
jreth, you hit upon an interesting point there. Mr. Bill equates blowing up bombs, smoking, and fornicating. At the same time he notes that a passing 30 second exposure to wisps of smoke leaves him incapacitated with headaches for 24 hours.
This actually DOES seem like an indication of a real psychological problem. The second chapter of Antibrains focuses on a subgroup of Antismokers I called "The Neurotics" and I examined how nicely secondhand smoke played into those with a need to fear the environment around them while still commanding some degree of respect from people they would express those fears to. I've always placed Mr. Bill more in the later, and much smaller, category of "The Idealists", those who've simply been brainwashed by the years of propaganda about secondary smoke... but he may well have tipped over the edge.
That would also explain some of his lack of response to so many direct questions in this blog: a true "Idealist", believing in their own delusion, will always leap to defend themselves with further convoluted delusions. A "Neurotic" still has enough of a grasp of reality to be frightened by information/arguments that threaten their view and will tend more to simply block it out and forget that they even saw it in the first place... they're more prone to real "cognitive dissonance" problems.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Hey Bill...
If you're going to single people out for personal reprimand and attempts to make them feel guilty...
Either Michelle is still in denial about the harm her smoking imposes on other people, or she enjoys harming other people.
...at least get the name right. You quoted MY post, not Michelle's.
But I imagine all women look and sound the same to you... especially if they give you an "incapacitating headache" by smoking within a few thousand miles of your dainty little nose.
I'd be willing to bet that if someone invented a way to make tobacco smoke totally invisible, you and the rest of the whiners would never even be aware it was "assaulting" you.
It is tiresome to ruled by phobics.
Dr. Siegel, I think I have another one to add to your "Anti-smoking Groups Make Completely Fallacious Scientific Claims" list:
Letter to the Editor
The Capital Times, Madison, WI
April 14, 2006
http://www.madison.com/tct/opini...d=80216&
ntpid=2
...In five minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke, your body starts closing off arteries.[...] Heart attack rates fall between 30 percent and 40 percent when comprehensive smoke-free work sites are introduced.
Maureen O. Busalacchi
executive director
SmokeFree Wisconsin |
Madison
There’ve been many here who’ve disputed Dr. Siegel’s contention that secondhand smoke is any kind of a long-term health risk, and I have to say that I believe they got the better of the argument, and by a wide margin. Not only are the anti-antis supported by the weight of the epidemiological evidence, but they have as well a genuine epidemiologist who agrees with them – and an anti-smoking crusader to boot! – Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, president of the American Council on Science and Health, who, it seems, is as incensed as is Dr. Siegel at all the lying and exaggeration going on.
When the New York City ban went into effect, as most on this blog know, Dr. Whelan jumped into print with a condemnation of Mayor Bloomberg’s contention that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers, a statement she labeled “patently absurd.” Moreover, she agreed with the Enstrom-Kabat study, saying that “There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease.” Now, Dr. Siegel disagrees with that, but thus far I don’t think he’s made any kind of a serious case to counter it.
Too, Dr. Whelan had something to say about the contention some months back by the Air Resources Board of the California EPA (which Dr. Siegel seems so fond of) that exposure to secondhand smoke upped a woman’s risk of beast cancer – and never mind, as Dr. Whelan wrote, that the “study” was preliminary and was neither peer reviewed or published. She also noted that most scientists remained silent on “the travesty.” Sound familiar?
While another member of ACSH, Jeff Stier, said at the time about the N.Y. City and N.Y. State bans, that anti-tobacco activists are exaggerating the dangers of secondhand smoke. “Cigarettes are bad enough on their own,” he said. “You don’t have to make things up.”
Two other things which I believe can’t be repeated enough. First are the OSHA PELs. Have any of the antis on this blog ever addressed the fact that on-site measurements in bars and restaurants seem always to be way below the point where whistles sound (the ORNL study, for example)? It seems to me that they avoid PELs like the plague. And second, of course, is ventilation/air cleaning equipment. When, Dr. Siegel, are you going to come out and say that a well-ventilated bar can absolutely lower the level of ETS to a point where even the most rabid of the antis would appear like a drooling imbecile if he maintained that the air was still not safe?
It’s not only the lies and exaggerations of tobacco control groups that should disturb everybody with any personal integrity, it’s as well their adamant refusal to admit a proven solution to their cooked-up problem. Only typhoon-force winds blowing through a bar, it seems, will satisfy these obscene control freaks.
5 mins? That's nothing. Mr. Bill gets an aneurysm from 30 secs.
MJM,
And is there ever, do you believe, a combination of a neurotic personality with a sociopathic personality? Hmm... Let me see if there are any candidates.
Bill
Even though you confused my post with someone elses, I believe I will answer you anyway because your post touches on something I have been wanting to say for some time.
Everyone feel free to respond to this - this is new thinking for me as part of the process of throwing off 30 years of anti-smoking brainwashing.
You mention that you get incapaciting headaches if exposed to shs. Please allow me to express my most sincere sympathy with your disability. Headaches are not fun - and being prone to headaches that incapacitate for hours on a moments notices is a disabiltiy.
However, Bill - in my job - I am inundated with headache complaints from people who believe that the source of the headache is some identifiable contaminant.
IF the the world was to stop every activity that gives someone an incapacitating headache - we would literally be paralyzed. The one I get most often is that the auto exhaust beside busy roads is causing headaches and provoking asthma attacks.
You have a disability Bill - whether it is "real" as in an exagerated response to exposure or "unreal" as in psychosomatic - the pain and the effect are the same.
There is no one on this planet who can save you from your own body and your own disease process.
By supporting smoking bans - you have removed smokers from contained smoking areas (like restaurants and bars) where you had a reasonable chance of avoiding the smoke - to uncontrolled smoking areas (like doorways and sidewalks) where you have no chance whatsoever in avoiding the contaminant in question.
I would like to ask Bill - how is this helping you? or any other person who experiences unpleasant responses to SHS.
I have a great deal of sympathy for those who can't walk - but I don't feel any particular need to require that every building every where be made wheelchair accessible. First the cost to small businesses to provide accommodation for wheel chair accessibility is prohibitive and should not be imposed on the basis that someday, somewhere, someone who can't walk may wish to purchase something from you. Yes that means that people in wheelchairs experience a smaller world than I do. Its not fair - and neither is life or the world.
You have a disability that does not allow to you comfortably enter establishments where smoking is allowed. Again, I see no reason to impose the prohibitive costs of a smoking ban on every hospitality establishment on the off chance that you or someone like you may wish to enter and order a drink someday. Yes that means you will experience a smaller world than me - and that isn't fair - but neither is imposing your disability on me and forcing me to live in your disabled capacity.
By the way - do you have trouble entering a church. Testing has shown the particulate levels in churches are as high as 800 ppm - as bad as any smoky bar - caused by the burning of incense and candles with many of the same contaminants and other many more exotic ones than are contained in cigarette smoke.
But somehow - I never hear people like you claiming that going to church causes them a headache - I often wonder about that!
Bill - unless you are willing to alter your lifestyle to deal with your own illness - as long as you continue to insist on imposing the restrictions of your illness on others - you are running the very real risk of "sympathy fatigue".
When smokers become tired of suffering cold, wind, rain and heat in order to accommadate your demands, there is a very real risk that at some point, they will decide that they just don't care anymore.
You have as much a responsibility to avoid SHS as I have to be considerate of your disability. If you don't care to undertake your responsibilities seriously - why should I care if you suffer for it?
Michelle
Just the Facts-
Thanks for the tip.
Harry-
I very much respect Dr. Whelan. We've had conversations about these issues, and although we ultimately disagree about some of the science, our areas of agreement are large and we both are quite appalled at the misrepresentation of the science that is going on.
Excellent points - as always, Michelle. I know I should stop "picking on" Bill - especially now his disability(ies) are being fully revealed. He obviously can't help himself.
I see that Dr. Whelan has also commented negatively on the (NYC) Bloomberg mandate that medical laboratories report the results of special diabetes-monitoring blood tests, along with the name and contact information of patients, to the City Department of Health.
"This new diabetes regulation is, in short, a harbinger of more intrusive legislation to come -- all in the name of "public health." It is high time to reflect on the question of what role (beyond education) the government should play in implementing 'interventions' meant to protect us from ourselves."
Yes, it IS high time. The reflection should have begun long ago with voices of credibility and influence such as those of Doctors Siegel and Whelan shouting loudly and encouraging others to stand with them. Even if there was disagreement as to the extent of the misrepresentation, "professional" protest would have gone a long way to stemming the tide of intrusive regulation.
Dr Whelan goes on to say:
"At the very least, the citizens of New York should have been given an opportunity to weigh in on this issue before it was implemented."
Problem with that is that even if they had been given that opportunity, the vote would have been preceded by a carefully planned, relentless campaign of "public health" propaganda designed to ensure the desired outcome. And any dissenting voices would have been reduced to a whisper.
Man - I am soooooooo glad I got out of NY when I did.
What's next? Bright red D's tatooed
on their foreheads banning diabetics from donuts?
Can I get a link to that article Kathleen?
My apologies for attributing Kathleen's previous comment to Michelle.
But as is the case with other drug addicts, some cigarette smokers are in so much denial about thier own addiction that they either refuse to accept the fact that their behavior harms other people, or they just don't care.
That's also why legislation and litigation are far more effective measures (than eduction) to protect most people from tobacco smoke pollution.
While a few idiots may continue falsely claiming that tobacco smoke isn't harmful and calling smokefree advocates hateful names, increasingly more smokefree laws and policies are being enacted every week.
In addition to workplaces, smokefree policies are rapidly spreading to outdoor public areas, condominiums, apartment buildings and other homes (especially those with children).
The political clout of the cigarette industry and selfish smokers has declined rapidly and will continue declining in the future as cigarette consumption further declines.
The smoking war is nearly over, and there are only a few mop up operations left.
But as is the case with other control freaks, some
control freaks are in so much denial about thier own obsessive need to dictate the lifestyle choices of others, that they either refuse to accept the fact that their behavior harms other people, or they just don't care.
We're not in denial, Bill. We just want you to accept it!
We do deny you or anyone else has any right to do anything about our habit, which you consider such a problem. Tough.
Oh sure, you and your ilk have marshlled the power to persecute us, but persecution of your fellow citizens is nothing to be so proud of.
"The smoking war is nearly over, and there are only a few mop up operations left."
I have heard that somewhere else already. Reminds me of the war in Iraq. No sound justification and not the guts to admit it.
"But as is the case with other drug addicts, some cigarette smokers .... While a few idiots may continue falsely claiming .... selfish smokers.
Name calling, Bill? Your arguments and the legislation are based on many fallacious claims. You call that a victory? Of what?
While you're out there gloating about your smoking bans Mr. Godshall, the tide is turning and you're too obsessed to even realize it.
The law did not pass in NH, did not pass in Michigan, Florida is having problems implementing theirs, did not pass in Virginia, nor Maryland, did not pass in France, bar owners in Quebec have won round 1 of a judiciary saga and going for round 2. Manitoba is on appeal and will probably end up in Supreme court. British Columbia won DSR's.
Ireland is fighting.
All in all there are far more places where total bans aren't in force than places that are and more than ever pro-choice and pro-fairness people are being heard.
Not to mention the help we're getting from the pro-ban extremists' fallacies and exaggerations.
It took your side 50 years to help you with your headaches, believe me it won't take us that long to bring back common sense to the issue. There is one thing that we have on our side that you don't, and that is integrity and truth. That is more than what is needed to turn the tide the other way. Mind you, a few of the millions your side enjoys wouldn't hurt to accelerate matters.
Mr Godshall
"THE SMOKING WAR IS OVER?? Don't You and the gang from "Squirrel Hill" Have a few problems yet? Like renforcement,I hope the anti cartel takes the position as "enforcer"
Another problem that might jump right up and bite you is the 50 million Americans that still take their freedoms seriously and get a bit riled at finger waggers and gossipers that believe their own propaganda.
You will recognise the opposition in the next national election when supporters of the gossipers are sent into political exile. No my friend this war is just beginning.
Actually, I foresee defeat. The U.S. has become one more authoritarian regime, albeit a tyranny of the majority. This nation was founded to free its citizens of the political philosophy expounded by Herr Godshall; his victory is freedom's loss.
Margaret: Yes, here's the link to that article by Dr. Whelan. And you'll find more info from and about her on the ACHS.org site.
And Willie-boy, no need to "apologize" in your sarcastic manner. Truth is that Margaret, Michelle and Kathleen - and most of the rest of us here - DO speak with one voice, so you may be forgiven for not being able to distinguish the difference.
And to underscore that point, I'm going to repeat here Margaret's response to you because I think it should henceforth be repeated in EVERY response to your pompous drivel:
"But as is the case with other control freaks, some
control freaks are in so much denial about their own obsessive need to dictate the lifestyle choices of others, that they either refuse to accept the fact that their behavior harms other people, or they just don't care."
Note that I said it a bit "louder" to be certain you heard the echo of your own words.
Here's another echo: The political clout of the ATI and selfish control freaks has declined rapidly and will continue declining in the future as public tolerance for the consumption of unadulterated horseshit further declines.
Your posturing and protests to the contrary, the "mopping up" is just getting started.
And you never did tell us what color YOUR pajamas are. (See my comment on Dr. Mike's post about the British Heart Foundation)
Another thing: "While a few idiots may continue falsely claiming that tobacco smoke isn't harmful ..."
There may be a few idiots who claim that, but could he please supply a few names? What most of us are saying is something a lot more nuanced, but I think Godshall's talent for nuance is on the same level as his talent for irony. That is, none, nada and nil.
I AM NOT a bigot! Some of my best friends are (pick a minority), and THEY don't care if I think they're inferior.
Those who claim that I'm an antismoker who has no respect for the rights and dignity of smokers really don't understand or appreciate my advocacy to preserve the rights of smokers.
On several tobacco control listserves, including the one from which Mike was expelled, I've been opposing "tobacco prohibition" proposals by other advocates. Here's an excerpt from one note I recently posted.
"Advocates of alcohol prohibition (which didn't criminalize drinkers, but rather sellers and transporters of alcohol) didn't realize the many inintended harmful ramifications of their well intentioned policy proposal following World War 1, which included the huge shift in alcohol consumption from wine and beer to smuggled hard liquor and home-made moonshine, the poisoning of many who drank contaminated moonshine, the dramatic rise of organized crime, skyrocketing rates for murder and other violent crimes, and the rampant corruption of police, prosecutors and judges.
A similar prohibition of tobacco (or cigarettes) would bring about many of the same inintended consequences. The street gangs that now control the sales of heroin and crack would start making far more money by selling cigarettes by the case, carton and pack. And as now occurs with other contraband, everybody who illegally sells cigarettes would carry guns, while drive by shootings and gang wars would escalate in every city and spread to every other community. I don't want any part in that kind of tobacco war, and will do whatever it takes to prevent that from occurring.
Cigarette consumption has dramatically declined over the past four decades with virtually no violence, arrests or incarcerations. I think it has been the most compassionate drug addiction reduction campaign ever, and I'm very proud of that fact."
Behold King Bill... A legend in his own mind.
He thinks there's a difference between a "compassionate" dictator and a dictator.
So when do we get put into ghettos (without our children of course) so that we can no longer emit wisps of smoke ANYwhere a non-smoker might be and given our ration of one cigarette a day since Bill's only helping to reduce consumption but not prohibiting it completely?
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Those who claim that I'm an antismoker who has no respect for the rights and dignity of smokers really don't understand or appreciate my advocacy to preserve the rights of smokers."
I'd have to read the whole thing twice to be sure, but what you listed has only your interests at heart.
All you said was you don't want to lose the tax revenue smokers pay. In fact, from other posts, you love tax increases from smokers.
Everything has to do with how your life would be upset by prohibition, it has nothing to do with the interest of smokers.
You even state how you are in a war on tobacco. Well, guess what, Mr. Anti-Smoker, that's what smokers smoke.
It sure is weird though. You push smokeless tobacco even though tens of millions of smokers have quit without even thinking about trying that addictive drug (you pusher). I think it's been asked before, but does anybody pay you to push that stuff?
I don't know one ex-smoker who even thought of using that stuff. Why are you trying to put that thought into people's heads?
I feel your "compassion" Bill, everytime I fill your coffers with those "sin" tax hikes you're so fond of.
"At the core of modern liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as
all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic
and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." (PJ O'Rourke)
Lurker101,
I respect your political views but please don't assume that there is necessarily a "liberal/conservative" divide here. Comments like this give the impression that all those who are not politically conservative are automatically in favor of smoking bans. While conservative and liberal alike all have a hand in voting for smoking ban legislation, opponents of the bans cut across political lines too. Let's try to look beyond the "politics" that keep us divided and find some common ground.
With that said, you may find this take on political leanings interesting (if you haven't done so already) as it goes beyond the whole "liberal/conservative" thing:
http://politicalcompass.org/
cj,
Believe me, I don't have any politcal views. I am a practicing middle-of-the-road non-political, non-religious, live and let live kinda guy. I don't even know who PJ O'Rourke
is even. I just thought it was a fair description of how some people think - like "my way 100% of the time" and thinking society should bend over backwards to please them. I just copied and pasted, thats all. I don't judge people based on which politcal party they're aligned with, it all boils down to what kind of person they really are anyway. So, looking back and based on your comment, I should'nt have pressed the "publish button" posting something I really don't (or care to) understand.
See, I am just one Lurker of probably hundereds who read this blog. I don't post much because I'm not a very articulate/creative/flamboyant writer like you guys. I just read with glee as some of the more over-zealous antis are roasted with intelligence.
So, cj, I officially retract my post.
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Have a good evening.
Don't retract it, Lurker. O'Rourke's statement is perfectly correct.
Another gem: "The trouble with liberals is they aren't"
Not that one's political persuasions dictate one's view on this issue, of course, cj, but without generalization conversation is impossible.
Well, I'm extremely liberal but I'm totally opposed to the anti-smoking mentality.
In my leftie opinion, what we're witnessing today is a classic example of a scenario Chomsky has written about, wherein one industry (however powerful) can lose its capitalist clout by standing in the way of a bunch of other industries. In this case, the tobacco industry has lost its clout because (1) the major corporate polluters---big oil, automotive, heavy industry, travel, etc.---can (& do) blame all major pollution-related disease on smoking, (2) the pharmaceutical industry wants to get in on the always lucrative nicotine trade, and (3) large property owners (chain businesses, office building landlords, etc.) would much rather re-circulate their indoor air than ventilate (true ventilation being a much more expensive prospect, and the smell of tobacco smoke being the sine qua non that true ventilation isn't taking place).
Not to mention the sheer intolerance of the intelligentisia, most of whom, like Chomsky, make their livings by means of government force.
Brett,
I was trying to make a point about finding our common ground on this issue without being distracted by political lablels (I certainly wasn't asking Lurker001 to "retract" the post).
As you can see, people like Melle (who have a Chomsky bent politically) are in agreement with you (I guess you are more of the Ayn Rand school of thought?) about the anti-smokling hysteria. This is a good thing. We can learn things from each other and can disagree on theoretical ways of reorganizing society and the means of production, etc. But, that's all theory. In the real life here and now, we have what I believe to be an egregious, organized propaganda campaign of deception carefully crafted to turn non-smokers against smokers, with the end game being to criminalize smoking in any and all situations.
We don't have much disagreement there, and yes Rand has her influence on me, but I'm in neither the conservative nor the liberal camp; it depends on the issue. I enjoy pithy putdowns of the social conservative as well!
However, I believe that the big government-should-provide-for-us mentality to be both morally wrong and the means by which the Wars on Vice have come to tyrannize us. There's nothing theoretical about it. Once one hands the government the power to arrange society as one sees fit, one has no defense against those who would rearrange you. Government is not the proper means to lasting social reform: private persuasion is the only legitimate weapon.
This is why I'm so critical of the intelligentsia. They should know better, but too many of them are more interested in either taking other people's wealth by force to pursue their own purposes, or to feel good about themselves. Everyone's liberty suffers as a result.
Drat, cj, that 11:16 post would be mine. Cheers!
Brett: I definitely didn't come here to get into a political war, but before you start spounting off against Chomsky you ought to (1) get your facts straight and (2) actually read a word or two he wrote.
"Makes his living by government force"---an Ayn Rand phrase if ever there was one (and I can't think of any other thinker who'd say something so dumb)---is particularly inaccurate applied to Chomsky, who's a professor at a private university (MIT). And I doubt you could find me a single example of what you call his "sheer intolerance": you're probably thinking of Molly Ivins or somebody.
OK ... rant over.
Melle--
MIT takes plenty of public money, as do most private universities.
I've read a lot of Chomsky. I disagree with him most of the time. He has manufactured much consent among his fans himself. His antipathy to the producers of wealth is particularly silly, as his class lives off of them. Sorry. Sure, plenty of capitalists violate others rights, but that doesn't change the fact that free enterprise (yes, better terms are needed)is the only just source of wealth.
His linguistic work is a dead end, too, as far as I'm concerned. Deep structure has about as much evidence of its existence as Freud's id, ego, and superego: none.
The intolerance of the professoriat is well documented, with speech codes, their collusion to keep non-liberals off their faculties, their atrocious treatment of graduate students and non-tenured faculty, and their campus smoking bans, along with their constant insinuation that only the unintelligent disagree with them. I said nothing specific about Chomsky as I know nothing specific about him.
So called liberal (I find the label a misnomer) philsophy leads to the power of the anti-smoking movement. I suggest you reconsider your adherence to it.
These considerations are not at all irrelevant to the issue at hand.
And Melle-
Naturally, I don't find the notion that those whose livlihoods depend upon the taxation authority are living by government force at all dumb. It is simply a fact. One may approve or disapprove of the fact, but it remains real.
I have as much disdain for Ivins as you may, though at least she earns her living in the private sector. I don't know if she still smokes, but I do remember her writing about ten years ago on this issue. She offered the sanction of the victim usually demanded by social activists, crying mea culpa about her habit, but also demanding that non-smokers should extend respect to smokers, considering the concessions and taxes demanded of them. As most of us here know, expecting common decency from the preponderance of anti-smokers is just whistling for the wind.
I find Rand's fiction ludicrous from the point of view of artistry. Her non-fiction on the relation of the the state to the individual I find irrefutable, assuming, as I do, that the rights of the individual are of the highest value. To denigrate her work in this area is to dismiss that notion. I suggest you re-read it.
For those holding up the cross to the vampire of politics: the persecution of smoking is a political issue. Let's call things what they are.
Brett: Not gonna do this here. If you want to hammer this out, name the (appropriate) venue, and I'm there.
Melle--
I don't see what's inappropriate about this venue, as it's political philosophy that leads one to one's concrete opinions about policy. Nor do I have a weblog on which to duke it out with you.
Please note that most of my observations were responses to subjects raised by yourself and others, so I don't believe I'm terribly out of line, though our host will make that determination.
This venue is for discussing questions of scientific accuracy in research and the way it's reported.
I don't have a weblog either, but I just found this forum: http://www.debatepolitics.com/. Will that work? We can both register under the names we use here, start a thread on "Capitalism vs. Leftism" or whatever, and off we go. (I can't really get started until tomorrow, however.)
No thanks, Melle, I don't care to register on websites. E-mail may be the way to go.
I'm very clear on my positions, so I'm unlikely to be persuaded away from them (I used to be leftish), especially on my contention that leftist positions lead inexorably to arbitrary policies that tyrannize the individual.
I'm aware that all the scientific hand-waving is an attempt to establish the anti-smoking tyranny as non-arbitrary, to which I reply, free people are not ruled, merely advised, by scientific opinion. Therefore, I do not bite when my opponents as ne to critique the science, as I don't accept their political premises. Scientists and doctors are not philosopher-kings.
Brett & Melle - I have to agree with, was it CJ? - who said this issue crosses the political divide. I believe it unites otherwise conservative/liberal minds in a rather unique way.
I tested that theory by posting a request for opinion on the (conservative) Townhall soapbox forum a couple of weeks ago. The responses I got indicated that the folks there were mostly ambivalent about smoking bans in that they believe they infringe on rights, but are probably a "necessary evil in the interest of public health". I think with some education about the ETS propaganda, even some conservative NON-smokers would support our cause.
Of course, I did hear from one true example of "Right Wing Nut" who was hysterical about what she called the "outgassing" of chemicals from smokers even when they aren't smoking(!)- and she obviously considers smoking a SIN as well.
I then did a little agitating on a local forum that calls itself "Progressive" in viewpoint about various issues. I have to tell you that's where I heard the nastiest comments and insults. "Smoketards", "We kicked your saggy, raspy, smokie asses to the curb.", "Take your pea-brain and your poison and go smoke in traffic", etc. There were a couple of smokers there trying to defend themselves, but not really getting anywhere, although obviously their opinions on other more PC matters were respected.
Again, I think education is the key - but I suspect a majority of die-hard, younger "Progressives" are beyond influence because they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated.
As someone who has wandered the spectrum from a fascination with "leftist" politics during my youth to becoming a Reagan Republican during the top of my corporate career and moving still further right in recoil from Slick Willie's antics; I have now settled somewhere in the middle. I suppose what that means is I don't trust ANY of them and I have seen BOTH sides bow down to this issue.
No matter what our political philosophy, this is a place where all of us meet in the middle. Maybe us nasty old smokers can set an example for the rest of this "polarized" nation.
The real divide, Kathleen, is between those who would rule their fellow citizens, and those who would tolerate them exercising their freedom. Both of the Big 2 political parties subscribe to the former, differing only in some of their targets, which is why I call them "Socialist Party A" and "Socialist Party B."
Most of the citizenry is similarly divided within themselves, wanting government to leave them alone to exercise their liberty, while hammering those they disapprove of with prohibitions, incarceration, and confiscation. In addition, most of us expect the government to force others to provide us with the necessities and even the luxuries of life.
Living within one's means while letting live those of different values, with toleration and respect, is the true liberalism, and is a dwindling art.
Kathleen:
I then did a little agitating on a local forum that calls itself "Progressive" in viewpoint about various issues.
---
Would you mind terribly to point the way to this forum? I'm facinated reading this kind of stuff, kinda like watching a train wreck... 
Kathleen/Xylog:
I think the forum Kathleen means is The Stranger's forum, particularly the "Stop the Smoking Ban" thread. (Kathleen---if that was you posting as "Sonoma"---good stuff. I posted there for a long time, & so did M. McFadden, but it got too stupid.)
The Stranger is a Seattle weekly newspaper which claims to be "progressive" but would more accurately be called "Bobo" (short for "borgeois bohemian"; see the book _Bobos in Paradise_ for more info). They had a good debate on the bans going, till one anti-smoking poster, a complete troll that everyone hated, suddenly brought 3 or 4 friends (or sock-puppets) on board & they reduced the discussion to the level Kathleen witnessed.
Brett:
I don't want to post my e-mail address here, but if you post yours I will write you.
Brett wrote:
"is why I call them "Socialist Party A" and "Socialist Party B.""
Brett, you may find this interesting.
I watched the 3rd party debate during NJs last gubenatorial election. The Socialist Worker's Party candidate came right out and said that they were against the cigarette tax and would get rid of it. She was the only candidate that unequivocally said this, and she raised the issue herself. In all fairness, the ban subject itself never came up (at least that I can recall). But, since she was in favor of repealing the tax, I guess she wasn't towing the "public health" party line. I'm not trying to prove any point here (I'm sure you can cite examples of those on the "left" who support smoking taxes and restrictions), but I thought hearing something like this from the Socialist candidate was very interesting. You would most likely disagree with most of her other positions, but it just goes to show that once in a while your position can be supported by someone who you think may not be supportive. I think that is a good sign for whatever that's worth. Take care.
First I agree with Melle that we should NOT start debating Chomsky and Rand here. If that's your pleasure you might want to choose some relatively neutral turf, like www. debunkers.org in the Philosophy section and wail away. But let's concentrate here on what "unites and not divides" us.
Second, I agree that Anti lives on both sides of the aisle and even, surprisingly, in the Libertarian loge. You might want to read Sullum over at www.reason.com but if you look at the comments, you'll see smoking bans become the "yes, but.." (or "no butts") even among many of the CATO groupies.
But-- see my post about Durbin et al in the thread where Siegel mentions him (above, about 3? ) and I can only remind you that if the Democrats gain control of the House, Waxman will again become an important committee chairman, and Dem control of the Senate will give power to Lautenburg, Durbin and Harken, all of whom never met a law against smokers or a ban on our presence that didn't delight them.
One also has to remember that McCain was the driving force behind the (failed) senatorial efforts that later wound up as the extra-legislative Master Settlement Agreement. McCain would have imposed a $2/pack federal tax and a lot of draconian and federally-mandated bans.
IOW, if you're really serious about the issue you have to become that dreaded of all creatures, the single-issue voter, and play politics like chess.
Yes melle - that was me. "Stranger" is a good name for it. I decided I'm way too old to play there... And most of them are too self-absorbed to learn much anyway.
I figured if I turned one actual "free-thinker" onto some of the info that's available, maybe it was worth it.
Melle's right. Please let's get off this Rand/Chomsky sideshow and take it to another venue. The considerations may not be irrelevant to the issue at hand, but if you broaden the issue it loses force and invites a falling-out that can only be bad for our position. That's exactly what the Godshalls of this world would like -- that we get off the main argument and go at each other's throats.
Nor do I agree with Brett when he says that it's "political philosophy that leads one to one's concrete opinions about the policy." I happen to think that that's secondary to, first, what the science tells us -- or doesn't tell us -- about the supposed dangers of ETS, and, second, that genuine and strong outrage against a mountain of lying by prestigious oranizations and individuals doesn't need a political philosophy to support it. All that exists on its own before we think in terms of political philosophy and that do-gooders should keep their big noses out of other people's business.
But Harry, believing the science should dictate the law *is* political philosophy!
Kathleen, I checked out that forum.
O.
M.
G.
Of all the comments I have read vis the Smoking Bans, this has to be the stoopidest....most inane...most moronic comment in defence of a ban;
"We won't need fresh air pumped in after 901 passes because THE AIR WILL ALREADY BE FRESH."
(in response to the fact that air needs to be circulated with or without smoke in a building)
My God, suggest to this idiot to put a sealed plastic bag over his head, the air inside is fresh...
DUMBEST PERSON EVER!
Hi, guys.
I'm coming in a long time later to a 'dead' thread, but I had to laugh and belatedly compliment Michael McFadden (honoured be his name) on the hilarious, if typical, example of hypocracy represented by the posted quote of Bill:
'"Your op/ed failed to mention lots of other freedom hating laws that infringe upon people's self perceived rights to urinate, defacate, spit, fornicate, assault others, shot guns, blow up bombs, etc. in public. '
So Bill - purveyer and promoter of SPIT TOBACCO compared smoking and SPITTING IN PUBLIC to violent assaults and terrorism.
Do I really need to comment, or has Bill got that covered already?
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
