Bravo Dr. Siegal - you get it
Now please provide your reasoning why it is not ok to invade a private home to "protect" the children from exposure to second hand smoke but it is ok to usurp the use of private property to the exclusive use of non-smokers to "protect" employees - even if that intrusion results in the loss of employment and the loss of private property through bankruptcy?
There appears to be a little conflict in your logic.
How can we as a society take steps to protect the health of employees but not the health of children in the home.
Michelle
Michelle - Dr. Mike's answer to this most important question will determine his credibility (and that of Forces, to some degree, given their online interaction).
There is increasing political focus on initiatives such as "home care" and "de-institutionalization", that are supposedly intended to provide a better alternative for medical and/or personal support services outside hospital and/or institutional facilities (eg: for the mentally retarded, mentally ill and incapacitated seniors).
In light of the popularity of "workplace" smoking regulations that forcibly protect all paid or unpaid "employees" within any publicly-owned or privately-owned property, the unintended? consequence of the above-referenced initiatives could merely shift any "workplace" regulations from being enforced within institutional caregiving facilities (medical or otherwise) to being enforceable in privately-owned homes as well.
Along the lines of "if you can't take Mohammed to the mountain, bring the mountain to Mohammed" ... if folks can't always be forcibly kept in institutional care and both they and their caregivers regulated there, the government seems supportive of "institutionalizing" anyone's home by making "workplace" regulations enforceable therein too!
Sorry, Dr. Mike, but you've put yourself between a rock and a hard place. Either government-enforced/legislated "workplace" bans must be applied ONLY to government-owned properties/establishments or everyone stands to have their private sanctum they call "home" invaded through legalized theft of Property Rights - through government legislation favouring popular public opinion, lobbyist pressure or merely government corruption of common law self-restriction.
For anyone to have to resort to saying "it's for the children" is quite clearly saying i cannot think of anything else to use as a lever to prove my point.These type of people are the real child abusers,THEY ARE USING CHILDREN !They don't care about the kids,do they really want to split families up ? I sincerely hope this comes back to haunt them.They are peddlars in misery to win an arguement.
The interesting thing about the anti-smoking movement-as opposed to the alcohol prohibition movement of the early 20th century-is that the anti-smoking movement understands all to well the present lack of understanding of the vast majority of Americans of their constitutional rights concerning private property. (A tricky sentence but read it a couple of times and it will make sense, I promise).
Though the motives are somewhat the same between past and present crusades, the anti-alcohol crusade had to immediately press for a federal prohibition of the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol (booze), because it was the only way to do it with a public that understood all too well that their private property rights were inviolable. In other words, in the America of the 1920's it would have been unthinkable for any government, whether local, state, or federal to tell private business owners that they could not buy, sell, import, stock and serve, for profit, a legal product, i.e., booze. For this reason, the "problem" was solved by making booze illegal by constitional action. The rest is history.
Today, however, and this is the legacy of the FDR administration, the general public is so dumbed down and so ignorant of what constitutes true private property rights that when someone who does actually know whats being done (to his rights) files a protest in court, the court gets away with making an ass of him with, incredibly, the tacit approval of the public. It doesn't make it right, it just means they can get away with it and no one cares...and to think millions of people on the government payroll have to take an oath to defend the constitution...oh well..
Not to be outdone by the state level kangaroo court usurpation of rights, the Supreme Court recently got into the act and outsmoked them all by declaring, more or less, Eminent Domain to be a living, breathing bulldozer nationwide, and the Constitution be damned.
How nice.
So, very early on in this smoking war the antis took a close look at what they could get away with. The lawyers first bluffed with a pair of dueces against the private property right's royal flush, and won. They have been playing their cheap hand ever since. Hell, they laugh out loud when someone mentions the fact that the constitution says a man who owns his own business can damn well allow smoking cuz it's legal. Constititional rights?...bwa ha ha ha ha ha ...you gotta be joking, right!?
And this is the real source of perverted pleasure of the antis. They get to have their (your) money and spend it too. All the alcohol prohibitionists got was the satisfaction of winning, and making America as miserable as themselves-whatever that was worth. The smoking antis, however, will never be so hard up because the constitution no longer stands in their way. Hell, they're presently laughing all the way to the bank.
They can make you miserable, put thousands of people out of work, close down businesses by the shovelfull, use your taxes to beat you over the head, act like God, threaten to take away your kids, make you hide like a leper to consume a legal product, and even put you in jail for violating an ever increasing list of unconstitutional laws, and all with an easy sort of arrogant impunity.
Now, finally, I truly understand why Hitler was so popular.
So this, at least to me, is why the antis will never call for a constitutional amendment to do away with tobacco products in America. It isn't necessary, and, being bigger whores than even Big Tobacco, they love the smoker's money a helluva lot more than they pretend to love you.
Michelle asks a very fair and reasonable question - what is the difference between government intervening in the home and in the workplace and why would I support legislative intervention to protect employees from secondhand smoke in the workplace but not children from secondhand smoke in the home.
The answer has to do with the degree of intrusion into personal privacy and individual autonomy that is represented by regulating individual behavior in the home as opposed to regulating conditions in the workplace.
Regulation of behavior in the home is a violation of INDIVIDUAL privacy and autonomy. The home is not a public place where any public is being served. And there are no employees, generally, who are being asked to work to benefit the employer. So intruding into the behavior that takes place in the home is an EXTREME violation of INDIVIDUAL privacy and an EXTREME intrusion into PERSONAL autonomy.
However, a restaurant is a public place that serves the public. It is also a workplace in which workers work for the economic benefit of the employer. While it is certainly some degree of interference into the operations of the business to regulate carcinogen exposure among employees, it is simply not the same thing in terms of the violation of privacy. There really aren't the same kinds of privacy rights when you are talking about employing other people and serving the public.
In addition, you are talking not about INDIVIDUAL rights, but about BUSINESS rights. There is a big difference there as well.
I realize that people may not draw the line the same place that I do in terms of where one balances the autonomy of business owners with the protection of workers' health, but I think all would agree that there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. I hope I've explained clearly enough why I place that line where I do.
Dr siegal - thank you for replying - I am sure that must have taken some hard thought on your part and not a little soul searching.
In your answer - you are very clear in saying that you are drawing a line between business and home - not for any logical or ethical reason but because you think a line needs to be drawn "somewhere".
Are you aware Dr. Siegal that the line has already been legally drawn and regulations are currently in place to regulate employee (and to the same extent public health under OSHA and Labour laws currently in place in both your country and mine?
How can you personally justify drawing a line in the sand that exceeds the pre-existing laws that regulate the exposure of people to hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in businesses for every other substance.
Is there something about tobacco smoke that I don't know - like its as toxic as car exhaust or mustard gas.
And let me remind you Dr. Siegal - that what you are espousing is not as harmless as personal opinion. You have spent a lifetime supporting the anti-smoking movement and usurping government privaledges to enforce your opinion on others?
Every public health study has shown that economic status is the greatest predictor of health and longevity. How many people have been deprived of income and jobs as a result of your "personal opinion" being made manifest in law? How much stress? How many heart attacks, strokes, break-up of families due to financial stress and illness has anti-smoking caused?
While I can appreciate that you may have embarked on your chosen career with noble intentions - at what point should you be held responsible for your "personal opinions".
Michelle.
Hello Micheal,
I came from a very toubled home and the last thing on my mind was my parents smoking. I am nearly fifty and my bad childhood memories stay with me. I think it is disgusting, it also insinuates smokers are bad parents, which I find personally outrages and vindictive.
The number of non smokers and smokers will outweigh the smoke haters. The more extreme the demands of the smoke haters become, the more repugnant they will be seen to be. They will, eventually, go too far and turn opinion against them. As I recall it started in a very innocuous way in Germany with regard to the Jewish persecutions. That anyone involved in the anti smoking lobby did not see the potential for the extremist views now being put forward is extraordinarily short sighted and naive
Dr. Siegel,
I know we have covered this before but I want to respond to your distinction betwen regulating behavior in a business versus regulating it in the home. I think the issue here is the rationale that has been used to ban smoking in the workplace. More or less, ETS has been deemed to be so dangerous that it should not be allowed in places like bars and restaurants, in the interest of protecting the health of employees (and, in some statements, the health of the patrons as well).
I will try to keep the conversation strictly limited to the rationale behind the bans, since that is the root of the other issues that you are concerned with.
Let's make some assumptions first:
1. Patrons of an establishment have an absolute choice to either patronize the establishment or not. In other words, if smoking bothers them, they simply do not have to enter a smoking establishment, period. There is no right to a state-imposed pleasant dining experience.
2. Employees have a least a nominal choice as to where they choose to work (I am not naive enough to believe that there is any choice to work or not to work, but that's a discussion for another blog altogether!). In other words, they can choose to work in the many, many existing smoke-free businesses, both "blue-collar" and "white-collar", that have chosen to eliminate smoking based on employee preference or other reasons. Many businesses have done this without state intervention.
3. Children, being completely dependent on parents for support, food, clothing, and shelter, have no choice whatsoever as to where they wish to live. They cannot, in most cases, simply choose to leave the home where smoking is present.
My point is this: If you accept the rationale behind workplace smoking bans, and you accept the invountary nature of a child's residence, then you end up with something like this:
A. The state should intervene to protect people who are voluntarily exposed to ETS.
B. The state should NOT intervene to protect people who are involuntarily exposed to ETS.
Now, I postulate that one cannot credibly support the argument by simply expressing concerns about personal privacy and liberty. I do not disagree with your ideas thereof, but they are not strong enough, in and of themselves, to support the idea that the state should not intervene into homes where parents smoke. The reason is that the private individual is not granted the liberty to inflict severe harm unto another person, including his/her children.
Now, the anti-smoking prohibitionists are taking the accepted rationale for the workplace bans to their only logical conclusion. If the power of the state must be used to protect those who are exposed to ETS of their own free will, then it only stands to reason that the same remedy must be applied to situations where those exposed have no choice in the matter.
Once the rationale of "protecting the workers" was accepted as a justification for state-imposed workplace smoking bans, then the groundwork was already laid for further prohibition efforts.
The only way out of what you call a "dilemma" is to honestly assess the true dangers of ETS. You have provided several examples of where you believe the case has been overstated, but you have not shed much light on exactly how dangerous it actually is, and under what conditions. If you are worried about misinformation being used to enforce misguided public policy, then you have to provide the actual accurate information regarding ETS. You have gone about this backwards, I believe. You have attempted to explain the overstatements in terms of the actual disease being discussed (i.e. heart disease, hardening of the arteries, ear infections, etc.), but you have not specifically pointed out any conditions where ETS would not be considered a clear and present danger. And, as long as ETS is considered a clear and present danger under all circumstances and in any quantity, then I'm afraid there is nothing you can do to prevent child abuse laws from eventually considerring parental smoking to be a form of child abuse.
You are a doctor and have researched this, so I think you can educate us all in this regard.
CJ, you raise some excellent points and I look forward to Dr Mike's response.
I have a similar, related "problem" with the impending English and existing Scottish bans. (I live in Soviet Scotland where our ban is growing arms and legs at a rate of knots). ASH UK are at DEFCON 2.
The Health Minister, Patricia Hewitt said, in the House of Commons on February 14th 2006, something like this: "95% of all passive smoking/SHS related deaths occur in the home". How/why on earth could they then ban smoking in pubs and clubs? We know that people, following a ban, tend to stay at home and smoke more in front of the kids. IF there is a clear and present danger from SHS (and I have yet to see any solid evidence supporting the SHS/ETS theories) surely a ban on smoking in public places is EXACTLY the wrong way to go?
Another figure used was that of the SHS related deaths of bar staff. This was, in my opinion, a paltry 0.5 per cent. Not that I'm saying 0.5% is worth ignoring but surely ventilation and/or separation was the only logical choice?
I think I am asking the same question as you are, but in a slightly different way.
I dont have a crystal ball, but to the anti's, a home ban is the next Phase of the Master Plan.
How else will they stop all the needless deaths?
CJ-
The major threats from secondhand smoke (other than asthma) come from chronic exposure. Thus, the biggest concern would be people exposed to secondhand smoke for many years - the key place where this occurs is the workplace. Levels of secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants are considerably higher than in the home, and the duration of exposure is quite comparable, if not higher in the workplace (you are exposed 40+ hours per week, while in the home, most people are not exposed for this long a time). So it does seem logical to me to be primarily concerned about secondhand smoke exposure among workers.
Again, I don't think that secondhand smoke exposure in the home is not an important concern - it's just that I don't think a legislated solution (as opposed to education and persuasion) is appropriate.
Doc, do you have any figures for work place deaths caused by SHS?
It's just that I've never walked into a bar to be told "Old Joe is no longer with us. SHS got him".
I am not being facetious, I am genuinely curious.
"It's just that I've never walked into a bar to be told "Old Joe is no longer with us. SHS got him"."
There's a reason you've never heard that phrase uttered Colin:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
PS OSHA acceptable levels are the safe exposure level for 40 hours per week, and the govt. testing in the above link proved SHS is 500-15 times safer than OSHA levels.
I know I've read that somewhere (Scotland? UK?) smoking is banned in private homes for a several-hour period before any state worker (eg visiting nurse) enters the house. So it's already begun.
Then too, does anyone else remember -- I think this was maybe 6-8 years ago-- when OSHA was threatening to impose its ergonomic and safety standards to the home workplace? To apply even in a sole proprietorship? I remember newscasters going into people's home offices, pointing out the OSHA violations that would have to be "corrected" (often at huge cost) and also saying that some home offices could be closed down by inspectors and their "proprietors" fined! Back then public uproar made them retrench. Since then we've become ever more accepting of this incremental government intrusion (and ever more prudish) , and I'm not so sure the public would do much more than shrug.
Walt, the "shrugging" riles me almost as much as the lunatic ravings of the anti's.
The guidelines here in Scotland is that we are not allowed to smoke for one hour prior to a visit from any employee of the local council so that includes nurses, doctors, and also painters, plumbers, electricians etc coming to do repairs if you live in a rented council house, but there is talk of extending that to any workmen that visit your home, as it then transmogrifies into their work-place....
I also work from home and smoke in my work-place. I fully expect to be targetted soon.
Deep joy.
Dr Siegel, this is where we differ considerably. Business rights are often indistinguishable from individual rights. Often they are one in the same.
When anti-smokers succeed in pitting business against business, it is often large chains against the mom & pop type businesses. Large chains tend to support smoking bans to the detriment of mom & pop venues.
There's clearly a market for both smoking and non-smoking. Big chains would like nothing more than to squash uniqueness.
My deep sympathies, Colin. (And soon, I guess, my empathies since the nutsiness is global and obviously contagious, and will soon be at my door.)
Dr Siegel--
In your article you say:
"I am the first to say that childrens' exposure to secondhand smoke is a terrible thing..."
Why would you be the first-or even the last-to say that? A terrible thing? How
terrible? For healthy children? How does it affect them? How does it affect them terribly?
Most of us over 40 grew up almost constantly "exposed" to people's smoke and yet... here we all are. I never knew a sickly kid in grade school or high school. The first asthmatic I ever met was at college-- and he was the only one. And yes that's anecdotal but it's also official. This from a report of the De Toqueville Inst:
"According to the government's National Health Survey , in 1970, 62% of children were exposed to smoke at home; in 1988, 42.4% of children; in 1991 (the last year for which we have data) it was 37%. (NHIS, 1988, 1991) And yet:
"The rate of reported asthma deaths among young people more than doubled between 1980 and 1993...The overall rate of death from Asthma among all people from birth to age 24
increased 118% [during the same period.]"
Finally, as you indicate, ear infections (and upper and lower respiratory infections) are ubiquitous in childhood, among all children regardless of whether or not their parents smoke, are caused by bugs, which are usually spread from kid to kid in the classroom-- and often from the kids to their teachers and parents. How would it be determined , unless by fiat, that a partuicular germ or virus was somehow or other "caused" (or introduced) by a smoking parent as opposed to all the other sources of contagion and the existential reasons why a bug takes hold?
I suppose every cold in Johnny's 2nd Grade class could be blamed on a smoking parent, who cultured it in his kid, who then passed it on to his friends. So there we have it: The cure for the common cold. Jail smoking parents.
Dr Siegel adding together a couple of the issues as i see them (1) you refer to SHS as being the problem for workers over "many" years (2) the majority of kids in the 50/60's growing up in a SHS atmospere with few casualties.If kids stay at home for say 18/20 years can you suggest an approximate timescale for workers exposed to possibly higher concentrations of SHS using the same style of criteria ? Since the advancement of air conditioning to such levels that can be achieved today does this not further delay the duration of time before exposure starts to cause concern ?It seems to me that theoretically if kids survived SHS in the middle of the last century bar staff etc could survive longer nowadays.Yes i think i've probably chosen the wrong way of saying things but hopefully you will appreciate my point.Bar staff etc are not expendable and should be able to work in a safe enviroment but the dangers of SHS are in the duration and concentration of exposure is caution being milked to excess ?
Dr. Siegel, from where do you derive the difference between a private home and a private place that employs people and invites the public to enter? I'm sorry but it sounds like it is merely your personal opinion that you are using to define and compare "privacy rights" between the two or determining which is "extreme" and which is acceptably intrusive -- your own yardstick for the "line in the sand."
I respectfully disagree. It just doesn't work that way. Private property is private property and private ownership. There is NO distinction. Labeling it INDIVIDUAL vs BUSINESS rights is a rationalization. If anything, intruding into private business is extreme and intruding into private homes is ultra extreme.
The dissenting opinion (beginning on page 23) of Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Graves in the case brought by a Lexington County hospitality group against the local smoking ban explains it best. It is based on a whole lot more than one man's opinion: http://www.nycclash.com/Kentucky.pdf
Excerpt: Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, or providing services to many people, is not sufficient to transform private property into public property. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not the size of the customer base or the work force. Customers or employees who object [to smoking] may go elsewhere . They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed . By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government is taking part of his property by regulation. (emphasis mine)
JustTheFacts: "Customers or employees who object [to smoking] may go elsewhere . They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed ."
Note the last sentence. So much for the ridiculous claim that anyone has the 'right to clean air'. Rubbish. There is no such right.
Walt-
Your point about not being able to pinpoint the exact cause of a middle ear infection (not being able to conclude that the infection was caused by secondhand smoke exposure as opposed to some other cause) is precisely one of the reasons why I think it is so disturbing that anti-smoking advocates are calling for smokers to be referred to family court if their child gets an ear infection. It may be the case that the parent smoking had nothing to do with the ear infection. There is really no way to definitively determine this - so how can you start sending parents off to court when the child's infection may well not have been caused by the smoking?
As far as the discussion over business rights goes, I agree that this is a personal opinion of mine - however, I do think that society seems to accept this opinion as a general matter - that there is a greater degree of privacy and autonomy when it comes to the private home then when it comes to a public place and a workplace. For example, I think society universally accepts safety regulations in the workplace that we also quite universally would not accept in the private home. I have never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't regulate the sanitary conditions for food preparation in a restaurant, such as mandate that employees wash their hands after using the bathroom. But at the same time, I think people would be appalled if the the government passed laws mandating when they must wash their hands in their own homes.
So while it is definitely true that I am expressing my own opinion, I do think there are at least some accepted societal norms that support a different treatment of regulating individual behavior in the home compared to safety in public places and workplaces.
I have never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't regulate the sanitary conditions for food preparation in a restaurant, such as mandate that employees wash their hands after using the bathroom.
But in your we have a one cause, one effect situation, Michael, which is totally different from regulations based on some inaccurate epidemiologic cause and effect statement as we see with ETS. One can scientifically prove that a germ on a hand contaminating food causes an infection, but that is quite different compared to multi-factorial cases like between ETS and other diseases. I think we have an immense difference in RR values here...
"I have never heard anyone argue that we shouldn't regulate the sanitary conditions for food preparation in a restaurant, such as mandate that employees wash their hands after using the bathroom."
Most health regulations pertaining to cooking food in restaurants are related to factors that the average person may not be aware of, due to lack of access or due to lack of special tools and training. Restaurant patrons are generally not allowed in the food preparation area. Furthermore, they do not generally carry things like microscopes and thermometers.
How can I know if my meat was cooked to 165? How can I know if my milk or eggs were refrigerated appropriately? Are there rodent droppings under the sack of flour used to bake the bread?
Of course, we have health inspectors to do this.
Other risk factors are similar in nature. How can I tell if an odorless pollutant is present at a dangerous level in an industrial location? Or perhaps if a semi driver has driven eighteen hours straight? Or if my cook has washed their hands?
We have safety inspectors to do this.
Of course, if I want an extra rare steak, or foie gras, or caesar salad with raw egg, I can order these things with informed consent.
By contrast, consider smoking. The presence of tobacco smoke in an establishment is immediately apparent to even the most casual observer. Special tools and training are not required to detect its presence. If you continue to patronize a smoking establishment, when you have the option not to, it really does constitute acceptance of any risk associated with tobacco smoke.
The solution - if you don't like tobacco smoke - is to turn around and leave and never come back. That option has existed for the smoke hater since, oh, about the early 1500's.
But it is never good enough; smoke haters are called smoke haters for a reason.
"I do think there are at least some accepted societal norms that support a different treatment of regulating individual behavior in the home compared to safety in public places and workplaces."
But Dr Siegel,
The "societal norms" you refer to that support regulation of smoking have been deliberately cultivated by the anti-smoking movement and have their basis - at least in part - on fallacious claims.
I think, if the anti-smoking movement would just leave bars and taverns alone, there would be no problem.
But the whole "we're not imposing prohibition on smoking, we're just saying you an smoke anywhere you want except inside, or outside" mentality, does itself a disservice through its absolutism and inflexibility.
When the smoker no longer has a stake in public life, how can they enjoy or participate in it?
"When the smoker no longer has a stake in public life, how can they enjoy or participate in it?"
Or continue their willingness to fund it?
"I think, if the anti-smoking movement would just leave bars and taverns alone, there would be no problem."
Truer words were never spoken. Even just a few bars and taverns in each city would be enough to put this matter to rest for everyone but the very few who exist on the outer edges of the lunatic fringe of the anti-smoking movement.
jreth
I drink very little and never to excess. I haven't eaten out in 3 or 4 years. Bars and restaurants don't matter to me and never did (although I do think it would be nice if there was a place where I could seek comfort when I travel).
However, this issue has gone way beyond being able to smoke in the hospitality sector.
Smokers are losing the right to universal health care, they have lost confidence in their hospitals. Psychiatric and confined patients are forced to accept unwanted medical treatment (smoking cessation) in order to access health.
smokers have lost their parental rights in cusody hearings and foster kids have been removed from the homes of smokers.
Our employment opportunities are becoming limited and their gearing up to attack our homes if there are children present or if the homes are attached to other homes.
We have denigrated, demeaned and insulted and treated like lepers.
We have never been consulted as all of these decisions have been made to affect us.
governments have raped and pillaged our wallets at will.
Now do you honestly believe this is all about being able to smoke in a bar.
I think what you mean is the bar smoking ban is the straw that finally broke the camel's back.
Michelle
Buckshot on different subjects--
ETS & ear infections:
I do want to make it clear that I wasn't in any way buying into the premise that ETS causes infections. If I seemed to it was merely "for the sake of argument."
Beyond identifying the microbe It's impossible in any case to pinpoint the "cause" of any infection. One can merely postulate a host of possibilities as to why, when Dick and Jane are both exposed to the same bug, only one of them gets sick. But even then the postulates would have to have a demonstrable biological impact in order to be considered as an adjunct cause. "Because Jane's mother smokes" has about the same legitimacy as "Because Jane read a comic book" (unless you could show the comic book was the vector of the germs.) So we're back to "correlation is not causation.:
A long way of saying that I don't buy the premise that there IS a causal link between parental smoking and common childhood infections. None has been demonstrated. The studies that attempt to indicate causality -- at least the ones I know of -- have been based on questionnaires (often telephone surveys) which to start with are unreliable (especially when it comes to the key question "Do you smoke?), contain faulty recall (how many colds did your kid have last year?) etc. etc. The researchers, none of whom seem to be open minded, then attempt to quantify the unreliable answers and project them on the entire population of the US, wherein we get Really Impressive Numbers. But it's all quite dubiously based on questionnaires, unaccounted for confounders , statistical projections and no demonstrable biological mechanism.
As for the notion that "the public seems to accept...", "the public seems to accept" that 30 minutes of smoke can give them a heart attack. In any case, the legislators "seem to accept" it. And as I previously noted, Arkansas's governor said that he based his ban on the Helena Miracle-- which the public (and the NY Times) seems to accept.
Finallly, I think it's pitiful that smokers are down to bargaining for "even [oh please] just a few" bars. Sort of like blacks settling for "just a few" Woolworth counters.. The premise also presumes that rights derive from government, and if we whinge and weedle enough, maybe they'll "let us" have some. "Even just a few." Our founding documents would argue with that point.
And even as someone who supports Roe v Wade (at least as it's written) I'm amazed that the only choice this nation seems to support is the choice to kill babies (but not, apparently, the choice to own a bar where your customers can smoke.)
Michelle and Walt -
I understand completely where you're coming from and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And believe me, if I owned a bar and also happened to win the mega-millions lottery to cover my legal fees, I'd be the first one to defend my property rights all the way to the Supreme Court. Until and unless that happens though, I don't see what other choice I have besides the pathetic one of insisting that at least some accommodation be made for smokers in public life.
And call me defeatist, Walt, but it appears to me that the "right" to breath "clean" air has already trumped private property rights in the legal sense. Because, you see, apparently the "right" not to breath SHS is sacred and holy and endowed by the Creator, and so fundemental to mankind that it's ludicrous to even compare it to a mere "constitutional right." And that is the mindset at work here, it is, and even armed with mega-millions and "mountains" of proof that SHS is really harmless, it probably wouldn't be worth the bother of trying to battle the matter out in court anyway.
The truth as I see it, is that this whole issue isn't really about the Constitution, or anyone's health, or even anyone's rights (real or imagined). It's not about principles, or facts, or what is right or just. No, the whole messy thing is nothing more than good old-fashioned, irrational, hysterical hatred manifesting itself as gross discrimination against smokers. Plain and simple.
In light of that, what's so wrong with aiming for "separate but equal" status? It IS, afterall, the tried and true strategy. Look, we're already halfway there as it is. We've already been chosen for deliberate persecution, we've been labeled, we've been drummed out of society and now we're living in the wilderness for however long (no wait, we're not allowed there either). Anyway, all that's left now is to start begging for a "few more counters at Woolworth's" while we wait to be redefined by our "disadvantage" or "disability," gathered up into "voting bloc," and finally "granted" the "right" to actually exist within society again.
It's either that, or what? War? Activism? Starting our own penal colony by getting every smoker to move into one state with a legislature we can run ourselves? And hey, I'm up for any of that if smokers ever get around to actually pulling into a cohesive group that's able to act. Until then, though, I expect nothing but punishment until the day that we've finally earned our "disability" stripes and whatever "protections" may then be forthcoming.
Ah well, on the brighter side - maybe I'm wrong and Dr. Siegal is right - and the tobacco control movement really will bury itself in an avalanche of lies before much more damage is done. One can always hope.
Not sure where Mike's been the past decade, but family courts in many states have been protecting children from tobacco smoke pollution for well over ten years.
As one who helped establish PA's first child custody award based upon parental smoking more than fifteen years ago, I also find Mike's lack of concern for children injured by tobacco smoke to be a callous disregard for the welfare of children.
"I also find Mike's lack of concern for children injured by tobacco smoke to be a callous disregard for the welfare of children."
Bill, you don't see what you don't want to see, do you?
Apart from being hurt by being taken away from their parents, did the children you "protected" have any symptoms definitely caused by ETS?
Bill you may have this rosy image of yourself as being Santa Claus but you are far more akin to the grinch,but in your case you will never see the error of your ways and will continue to help wreak havoc on families for the good of the cause.Now if someone could wind you up and point you in the right direction............
This is why I am so troubled. We really are apparently willing to break up families in order to "protect" children. The reasoning is scary to me.
jreth--
My comment, which had the slight odor of soapbox, wasn't directed against either you or your sentiment, but was rather an expression of astonishment and disgust that that's the position we seem to have been put in. And your second post is certainly another clear-eyed assessment.
Unfortunately, the mid ground of "separate but equal" which I too have asked for back down the road, has been effectively demolished, at best seen as a "loophole" which, where it exists, has been eagerly "filled." (One thing the Aunts have understood perfectly is how to divide and conquer. Ban it in restaurants but not in bars, and you can count on the restaurants to whine "it's not fair" and demand "a level playing field" a closing of the "loophole" instead of demanding autonomy for all.) And if rational compromise (live and let live) has been bypassed by Them, the smokers themselves aren't totally blameless. They've accepted each and every galling new limit and have , bit by bit, bought in to the propaganda by dutifully feeling shame . With downcast eyes they've been kicking the dirt instead of kicking their opponents.
You realize, if smokers had had the balls to do a boycott, I mean en masse, the bans would have been over within months of the first one. So yes, I do conclude that the only way out of the woods is to stand up and fight, though I despair at ever really mustering an army.
In New York City as late as the late 60s it was against the law for homosexuals to gather together in "public places," and it was common for gay bars to be raided and rousted. After decades, one night, they spontaneously had enough at a bar called The Stonewall which led to what got known as The Stonewall Riots. And it finally made their point. Google it and you'll see. Some day, possibly, smokers will do the same, if they haven't already waited too long. Till then I'd say the very least they can do is to personally boycott the restaurants and bars that throw them out on the street; speak up-- publicly-- when crap gets spooned out about 30 second heart attacks,; stop accepting anti-smoking nonsense from friends; and start making noises in letters to the editor and with local politicans because the more people do it the more people WILL do it because they won't feel alone.
If you think about it, there were more blacks than whites in apartheid South Africa, and probably even in the American south; and though Jews were a minority, they waited far too long in the Warsaw Ghetto before they staged an uprising--what if they'd acted sooner, before there was a ghetto? Will smokers wait to be ghettoized? I wouldn't bet they won't.
Dr. Siegel, There are many forms of child abuse that are criminal but will never result in children being removed from homes. I've seen some conclude that SHS should be viewed as child abuse, and I've seen some in custody hearings argue correctly that the "father's home is not as safe because he exposes our child to SHS." But I've never seen anyone so far suggest that children should be removed from homes for it. I may have missed it in your posts. Where are you seeing people advocate for outright REMOVAL of a child when SHS is present?
Jill says:
"There are many forms of child abuse that are criminal but will never result in children being removed from homes."
List them for us please.
Jill, if you want to know where we are heading, read this:
CHILDREN AND TOBACCO SMOKE AT HOME: In at least fifteen states and several foreign countries, courts have held that, if parents subject children to tobacco smoke, it can be grounds for denial or even revocation of custody. While most such legal proceedings have been brought by the nonsmoking parent, in several cases complaints were filed by relatives or outsiders such as physicians, and willful exposure of children to tobacco smoke is increasingly being characterized as child abuse, child neglect, and/or reckless endangerment
Regulations prohibiting smoking around foster children will be much easier to enforce and monitor than many existing ones [the total invasion of homes!] related to general cleanliness, unattended children, wholesome food, home sanitation, immoral conduct, etc. It’s obviously much easier for even a young child to state whether a foster parent has smoked in his or her presence than to evaluate how clean the house usually is, whether the food is wholesome, or whether there have been “inappropriate” bodily touchings or other immoral conduct. Moreover, if the agency adopts a policy that the strong odor of tobacco smoke, or the finding of ashtrays, cigarette butts, cigarette packs [and matches, ligthers as detailed further down in the document], etc. in a foster home, creates a presumption – which can only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence – that smoking occurred in the room, its job of enforcement will be further simplified. In any event, significant exposure of the foster child to tobacco smoke can be easily ascertained even days after the exposure by a simple urine, saliva, or blood test if a child is unable or unwilling to provide the information [baffling the very personal rights of a child, forcing he/she to go against his/her own parents?].
The terms “smoke” and “smoking” include not only the physical act of puffing or inhaling smoke, but also the carrying or possession of any lighted cigarette, little cigar, cigar, pipe, or other product which emits any smoke of whatever kind and in whatever amount. [which emits any smoke? How about a car? how about an open fire place, barbecues?]
This says it all:
INDEED, NO SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL BODY HAS EVER CONCLUDED THAT TOBACCO SMOKE POLLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IN NONSMOKERS.
Note: This article cleverly mixes "custody" (biological parents) and "foster care". For a child, there is (shouldn't be) any difference: home is home, home is were they are loved and respected.
(comments [..] and emphases are mine)
and here is the link: http://ash.org/fostercarepetition.html
"INDEED, NO SCIENTIFIC OR MEDICAL BODY HAS EVER CONCLUDED THAT TOBACCO SMOKE POLLUTION DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER IN NONSMOKERS."
Dr Mike-there is your gauntlet. The OUTLOUD THINKING that "guides" those that would exterminate THE SMOKER.
Prove SHS/ETS DOES NOT cause CANCER.
I'm not aware of any legal provision that precludes children from being removed from the home in cases of child abuse. I don't know what Jill means when she states that there are many forms of child abuse that are criminal but will never result in the child being removed from the home. Removing children from the home is, in fact, the ultimate remedy in cases of child abuse - obviously, this doesn't happen right away but it is the ultimate remedy if other remedies are not effective in preventing the abuse. So in fact, if advocates are pushing for treating smoking as child abuse, then they are indeed pushing for removal of children from the parent as the ultimate remedy to the problem. And that's what I find so disturbing.
Robert McMillen, MD.
"Changes from 2000 to 2005 in U.S. Adult Attitudes and Practices Regarding Children’s Exposure to Secondhand Smoke"
http://www.newswise.com/articles...519848/?
sc=rsmn
The abstract contains a very telling quote:
"Regarding household practices, support increased from 69 to 77 percent for smoke-free homes; and from 79 to 90 percent for smoking bans when children are present."
Given this "study", I say it is only a matter of time before smoking is outlawed in private homes. It seems a vast majority of people would have no problem with it.
Given Jill's previous track record of attempting to be disingenious and endeavouring to follow in Bill's footsteps i wouldn't be surprised that there are elements of her diatribe that bemuse the best of us.Of course it's all a red herring designed to refute and damage the credibility of Dr Siegel.She is well aware that her seemingly innocuous questions can easily be refered and answered should she take the trouble to comprehend the earlier discussion.Still it obviously amuses her in some way.
Mike wrote:
"Removing children from the home is, in fact, the ultimate remedy in cases of child abuse - obviously, this doesn't happen right away but it is the ultimate remedy if other remedies are not effective in preventing the abuse. So in fact, if advocates are pushing for treating smoking as child abuse, then they are indeed pushing for removal of children from the parent as the ultimate remedy to the problem. And that's what I find so disturbing."
The overwhelming majority of family court interventions to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution have simply ordered the parents or other legal custodians to ensure that the child is in a smokefree environment.
Instead of focussing on reality,
Mike seems to be more interested in trying to generate anger and contraversy by jumping to conclusions about things that might happen after court orders are repeatedly violated.
Sorry Bill you are living in a simpleton's cloud cuckoo land .You are fully aware of the softly softly approach,as soon as that has been accepted in theory then it's moved up a notch,you've said that is the modus operandi (and no Bill i'm not going to dig out the reference).So cut the bullshit and accept that smokers are getting wise to the con tricks of the rabids.This will result in less crap being spouted by you and we may be able to concentrate on the issues at hand,without the tarted up window-dressing you try to give everything.
It looks like Bill now admits that treating smoking like child abuse is, in some cases (where there are repeated violations of a court order), going to tear parents away from their children. I find that unacceptable. How does it protect the child to break up their family? To me, THAT is criminal!
Mike wrote:
"It looks like Bill now admits that treating smoking like child abuse is, in some cases (where there are repeated violations of a court order), going to tear parents away from their children. I find that unacceptable. How does it protect the child to break up their family? To me, THAT is criminal!"
It looks like Mike would prefer that children die or continue being hospitalized instead.
I'm only aware of one case in which a judge actually revoked custody from a parent due to the parent's smoking, and that occurred after the child was repeatedly hospitalized and after the parent repeatedly violated court orders not to smoke in the presence of the child.
Now compare that to the thousands of children who have been taken away from their parent(s) simply because a parent was using an illegal substance (with zero harm done to the child).
"Now compare that to the thousands of children who have been taken away from their parent(s) simply because a parent was using an illegal substance (with zero harm done to the child)."
Illegal substance? By what standards? Because somebody decides it is illegal, the same way somebody decides that the WMD in Iraq have to be destroyed, irrespective of collateral damage?
"It looks like Mike would prefer that children die or continue being hospitalized instead."
Bill, there are 2 basic flaws in your argument:
1. There is no proof that children die of SHS, no more than adults.
2. SHS is not equal SHS. Neither legislation nor enforcement officers will be able to judge whether a whiff of smoke poses any health hazard.
As Banzhaf holds up on his website, even the presence of matches or lighters>/b> in a home is sufficient proof that a child is severly exposed to SHS to warrant prosecution. And it is up to the defendant to prove his/her innocence!
http://ash.org/fostercarepetition.html
Contrary to the claim of Banzhaf, the WHO study concluded that SHS protects children from lung cancer (RR=0.7
.
In contesting the fact that if ETS is deemed child abuse it means that children will be ripped from the home, Bill argues:
"The overwhelming majority of family court interventions to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution have simply ordered the parents or other legal custodians to ensure that the child is in a smokefree environment."
?????????
If this isn't a case of Bill finding his "play dumb" game some form of personal entertainment then an IQ test is in serious order.
Bill states he is only aware of 1 case where a child was removed from his/her family, yippee Bill i didn't know you were THE SOLE SOURCE of information for THE WHOLE OF THE USA.Your authorarative comments count for NOTHING when the discussion is regarding potential FUTURE events.Quit trying to be the walking encyclopedia and browbeat everyone into accepting everything you say as factual,it isn't !If you wish to abuse children by ripping them out of their family home then that is your prerogative ,just count me out as one of your subservient lackeys ,my name isn't Jill.
Ok so I'm kinda new to the conversation, but I fell some conversation needs to be made about illegal substances ,foster care, and the abuse on Bill.
Not that I agree with Bill, but as Dr Seigal has pointed out in other statements personal attacks aren't the answer. Just confound him with logic.
First, illegal substances that aren't harmful to a child. Can someone please name an illegal substance that is not mind altering and can not cause a parent to be neglectful of the child? Better yet could someone name an illegal substance that isn't harmful to the child that a person can't OD on? Or lets look at it one more way, if its illegal shouldn't the person be prosecutted and put in jail thus not being able to care for the child? ok so I guess there are no illegal substances that are not harmful to children.
Second, foster care is rarely a good option. you run the risk of foster parents that are just in it for the state check. Now I know there good foster parents out there, but that is something to remember. Also the foster system is so over run with children right now that even the good families have to many kids. So looking at it from the point of view of the child I can not believe that this is a good option for children who have loving parents who just happen to smoke.
In conclusion, I think you'll find that Bill is just misguided in his facts, and if he truely looked at the points he has made he may find that there are no illegal substances that can not harm a child, and that foster care is a farcicle response to SHS in the homes.
Matt as you state you are new to the conversation ,but feel free to put your points to Bill and see what he comes back with.But please don't seek to castigate those of us who have been around here for a greater lenght of time and who have tried on numerous occasions to debate with Bill over numerous issues .I suggest you look back at all of the previous threads to get a feel for how Bill deals with serious debate.As to your opening point since tobacco isn't illegal the only person who makes reference to illegal drugs is Bill and his marijuana.So i'm not quite sure as to what point other than a general perception you are making.I readilly accept your comments over fostering as i think the majority of people here have already visited this area of concern.Perhaps if you endeavour to provide a little TLC to Bill you may turn up trumps.Good luck !
I was raised by a single mother who smoked all the time around me. Sometimes it bothered me, but most of the time I didn't even think about it, it never caused me health problems. Overall it was no big deal.
If I would have been removed from my home just because my mother smoked around me, it would have devastated me. It would have been very traumatic and probably messed me up for life. I can't begin to think about how sad I would have felt and how hard I would have cried if the state took me away from my mother who loved me. I'm so thankful I grew up in the 1980s and not the scary time we are entering. You people who say "SHS is child abuse, take the kid away" are so cold.
Siegel, you are such an idiot. No need to elaborate. Just look at your blog.
Ever had middle ear infection? It is agonizing and can lead to deafness and other complications. And while a kid is going through it they aren't developing or learning too well either.
As for tobacco, it kills because it causes radiation poisoning. One of the active ingredients is Polonium 210, the same stuff that killed ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko in London.
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic...ments/Po-
en.htm
The worst of it is that when children breathe it their risk of cancer is far higher than the risk in adults. That is because their cells are still dividing, so DNA errors caused by the hard radiation are multiplied manyfold into adulthood.
Lets not blame the tobacco, the idiocy is allowing farmers to use radioactive fertilizer. If tobacco grown in this way was heavily taxed then "market forces" would make tobacco safer.
Until then, more education is needed. People who poison the air that children breathe should be stigmatized and if they won't stop exposing children to this serious risk then legal sanctions are definitely needed.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
