Michael, you do better when you're not being cynical.
Dr. Mike, I wouldn't worry too much about the demise of the tobacco control movement.
The only people who object to the sensationalized science is us stupid, smelly, stinky smokers.
No, the sky isn't falling, just as it didn't the last dozen times Mike predicted the demise of the antismoking movement.
Mike wrote:
"it has become virtually impossible to express any dissent in the movement."
Not so.
I and many others continue expressing dissent to many statements made and policies espoused by government health agencies and private health organizations about various tobacco and tobacco control issues.
Mike wrote:
"the movement has become divorced from the science." and "It is really the fact that the science is no longer important that concerns me the most personally."
The only cogent examples of the tobacco control movement becoming divorced from the science is the repeated refusals by government health agencies and many private health organizations to acknowledge that smokeless tobacco products pose at least 95% fewer mortality risks than cigarettes and that smokeless tobacco products are at least as effective as nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation among males (especially those from the South and from rural areas).
And yet, I still haven't heard or seen Mike Siegel acknowledge that the tobacco control movement has misrepresented the scientific evidence about the risks of smokeless tobacco products.
your movement isn't divorced from reality, bill? this from the guy who accused me of committing 'rape' for smoking on the sidewalks of seattle? que?
and, mike, thanks for your continued honesty and skepticism. smokers are not criminals and smoking is not a crime.
btw, why is it that so many in the non-smoking world are ok with smoking weed? smoke is smoke, right? anyone got an answer for me there?
Dr. Siegel, your writing remains excellent. Still, I am confused by your tactics and your reasoning.
"It has become virtually impossible to express any dissent in the movement. It has become impossible to challenge the existing dogma of the movement."
It seems like this is pretty much what you’ve been doing on this blog ever since your falling out with the people at ANR. You say there are repercussions and that you’ve been blacklisted because you had your own opinions. Have you thought that maybe you were blacklisted from ANR for reasons other than your position on tobacco control? It is clear that you're ability to make your point is good. But your ability to make your point without disrespecting and humiliating those you disagree with is not so good.
"Second of all, the movement has become divorced from the science. There is no longer a concern about scientific integrity or accuracy in the movement"
Within all popular movements there are some that understand the science less clearly than others. You take no issue with the misinformation posted on the ‘forces’ site and display links to their quotations from this blog. You are empowering ‘forces’, at the expense of restaurant and bar workers in smoking states nationwide. Your concern for scientific integrity seems to disappear when it comes to anyone but ANR, ASH and other anti-smoking groups.
One comment you made about the falsehoods put out by ‘forces’ was that you believe its their job to do what they do and that they can't be faulted for it. That doesn't seem like a principled view of scientific integrity.
"Third of all, the truth is no longer the chief differentiation between us and the tobacco companies. To me, that was the one thing that always separated us from the industry."
You've said many times that you are not questioning the honesty of these groups and you've taken great pains to make yourself clear on this issue.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
I see your point on the 30 minute claims and your criticisms of the MSA. But I think you are asserting yourself in a way that is ultimately going to weaken the movement you seek to protect. The sad result is that smoking bans will take longer to enact. In the mean time more people will suffer and more people will in fact die, because you’ve given credence to entirely untrustworthy organizations such as ‘forces’ through unscrupulous attacks on their opposition.
Jill wrote: But your ability to make your point without disrespecting and humiliating those you disagree with is not so good.
I noticed nothing overtly humilating in Dr. Siegel's writings, but maybe it's just me. But, in any case, it is simply not possible to humiliate those who have no shame in the first place.
Within all popular movements there are some that understand the science less clearly than others.
When the false claims are repeatedly made even after scientific proof to the contrary, it is not a misunderstanding, but a deliberate attempt to propagandize. When you are using arguments to directly influence public policy (including criminal statutes), public opinion, employment policies, etc., there is no room for "misunderstanding."
You've said many times that you are not questioning the honesty of these groups and you've taken great pains to make yourself clear on this issue. ... You seem to be contradicting yourself.
I agree. Dr. Siegel is contradicting himself. I think he is bending over backwards to give the TC movement the benefit of the doubt. I think he was making raising the concerns about the fallacious statements to give you all a chance to prove him wrong. He still can't seem to believe that the TC movement would knowingly deal in falsehoods. Unfortunately for him, he is going to feel the pain of losing his faith in something he truly beleived in (I would say for him it will reach the point of an existential crisis), all because of the people in the TC movement who hold positions similar to your own.
It would be wise to keep in mind that some of the most hardened "atheists" at one time were "true believers" who were spiritually crushed when the ideal turned out to be corrupt (whether they were religious beliefs or ideological ones).
I think cj makes a very important point: "When you are using arguments to directly influence public policy (including criminal statutes), public opinion, employment policies, etc., there is no room for "misunderstanding."
I think as public health practitioners who have gained the public's trust to communicate science accurately, we have the responsibility to make sure that we understand the facts before we communicate them to the public.
It's fine if some anti-smoking groups don't understand the facts, but if that's the case, then they shouldn't be communicating falsely to the public.
I also think it's a sad state of affairs when anti-smoking advocates start to defend the fallacious statements that we are making by attacking FORCES for also making false statements. What FORCES might say or not say has nothing to do with whether we should be communicating the truth to the public or not. Even if FORCES were blatantly lying, that wouldn't justify our distorting the truth. I find that to be quite a sorry justification for these untruthful statements.
Jill wrote: "The sad result is that smoking bans will take longer to enact. In the mean time more people will suffer and more people will in fact die, because you’ve given credence to entirely untrustworthy organizations such as ‘forces’ through unscrupulous attacks on their opposition."
Jill Stevens | 05.15.06 - 9:13 pm
Jill,
Two things. First produce one, just one, death certificate where the "cause of death" specifically states "second hand cigarette smoke". Until you can do that, you haven't a leg to stand on other than your own dislike for the smell of smoke and those who choose to smoke.
Second, IF Forces is unscrupulous for supposedly being untruthful (and personally I don't they are being untruthful), why aren't your favorite comrades and organizations despicable for their outright lies? Please, tell us why YOUR favorite lies are so much better than anything others?
If you and your comrades in arms were so bloody concerned for the health of everyone and the quality of air we all breathe, you'd be screaming for bans on cars and industrial plants which are the biggest air pollutants around. And don't even try to use that sorry argument about outdoor air versus indoor air. If the outdoor air weren't as polluted as it is, then asthma rates wouldn't be increasing as much as they are, especially given the decrease in the number of smokers over the past 20 years.
There is nothing uglier than self-righteousness disguised as "caring for others" when attempting to force others to conform to ones own personal ways.
And to the person who asked why so many anti-smokers enjoy smoking weed, the answer is simple.........it's THEIR choice of smoke, therefore that makes it perfectly safe and alright to use (no matter that it's still an ILlegal product).
Aside from passing laws to inconvenience smokers what has the anti smoking movement really accomplished?
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health there were 70.3 million tobacco users over the age of 12 in 2004, up from 65.5 million in 2000.
2.1 million people tried cigarette smoking for the first time in 2004, up from 1.9 million in 2002.
Despite the news that fewer children are smoking, they appear to be taking up smoking upon turning legal age or admitting to smoking upon turning legal age. The rate of cigarette smoking among 18 to 25 year olds in 2004 was 39.5 up from 38.3% in 2000.
Tobacco companies profits and their stocks prices have risen dramatically since the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.
Cigarette bootlegging is on the rise due to excessively high tax rates.
From my point of view smoking bans, the misleading science behind second hand smoke, which is leading to further restrictions on smokers, is the last desperate act of a movement that has failed to influence the public’s decision to smoke or harmed the industry that profits from smoking.
Unfortunately Dr. Siegel’s worries are well founded. The movement toward the prohibition on alcohol followed the same path. When the Prohibitionists realized that drinkers were not paying attention to their warnings they pushed for a total ban on alcohol, which ended up making alcohol more popular than ever. Unfortunately, drinkers and non-drinkers alike all paid a high price when an unregulated market place became a haven for organized crime.
Jill wrote:
" your ability to make your point without disrespecting and humiliating those you disagree with is not so good. "
Like Mr Bill's ability to make his points without disrespecting and attempting to humiliate (as selfish, sadistic, depraved, delusional, child-abusing etc) the smokers here with whom he disagrees?
And as somebody up there mentioned, Siegel has never done that to anyone-- either side.
As for Forces, whose readership I'd imagine is something like 0.0001% of the readership and viewership of the mass media, but which is straight-facedly held up as though it were at least the Murdoch Empire, whenever I've read it, they've scrupulously backed up their points with citations. As, it seems to me, most of us do here. Yet rarely do we get a direct response to our documented facts or documented critiques. Neither do we get an adult debate on the points. All we seem to get is a change of subject, a charge of Murder One, or an ad hom epithet.
Jill, must we be subjected to your variations on a theme ? This is about the third or fourth speech you've made,same rhetoric different words.You continually labour the same point,Dr Siegel has stated his reasoning and even though you don't like it ,that is your problem.There is little to gain by constantly trying to flog a dead horse,but perhaps you haven't realised that it is dead.Your rabid cohorts are the ones who are in desperate need of appreciating the basics of science,not Forces.If you don't like the comments made by Forces then go write to them,but to suggest Dr Siegel should do so is getting someone else to do your work for you,and i thought you were a seriously committed rabid.In Eik's absence are you taking on the role of the dogma driven village idiot?At least Eik doesn't try to give himself a suave and sophisticated air of condescention .Perhaps that is the reason why rabids view things in such a tunneled perspective,they are constantly looking down their noses at those who would oppose their agenda ?
"...because you’ve given credence to entirely untrustworthy organizations such as ‘forces’ through unscrupulous attacks on their opposition."
Jill, I haven't seen one single word from you condemning the false claims of the anti-smokers. Do I take it that you bash Forces because you don't want to bash ASHes as long as you are in bed with them?
You are still short of even one single case where you can prove Forces is NOT providing valid references to go along with their opinion.
Richard Smith was the Editor of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) for 25 years. He was, perhaps, one of the most widely respected professionals of our day.
Richard Smith became all too familiar with the tactics and behaviour of the self-appointed enforcers of orthodoxy within Tobacco Control, as evidenced by this comment in the wake of the controversy over the Engstrom & Cabat study:
"Not long ago I was something of a hero of the antitobacco movement-- because I resigned my professorship at Nottingham University when it accepted money from British American Tobacco. I felt somewhat embarrassed by the whole episode. I was no hero. But now I'm a pariah for publishing a piece of research funded by the tobacco industry. Because of some sort of personality defect that is common among editors I'm more attracted to being a pariah than a hero, but I don't think that I deserve to be a pariah."
The attacks on dissent and dissenters didn't start with Dr Siegel, and have never been dependent on the personality of the dissenters.
Mike wrote:
"What FORCES might say or not say has nothing to do with whether we should be communicating the truth to the public or not."
Since Mike's allies are primarily affiliated with FORCES (instead of the anti smoking movement), it is inaccurate for Mike to continue using the term "we" to refer to the anti smoking movement.
I suggest that from now on Mike correctly use the term "we" to refer to his lying colleagues at FORCES.
Bill wrote: I suggest that from now on Mike correctly use the term "we" to refer to his lying colleagues at FORCES.
Bill Godshall 05.16.06 - 3:41 pm
Bill, you have it wrong.........Dr. Siegel's lying colleagues ARE the anti-tobacco, anti-smoker, anti-free choice folks just like you.....in case you forgot, the good doctor himself is anti-tobacco.
The difference between him and you/your kind are that he has the intelligence AND the spine to admit the truth and not lie in order to force people to live according to his personal preferences.
Unfortunately you and your kind are so miserable with your lives you feel the need to try and control everyone elses. The fact that you all have to resort to lies and total distortion of facts speaks volumes about your characters.
See what I mean - if you dissent, you are ex-communicated from the tobacco control movement. Bill doesn't like what I have to say, so he disavows any connection to me as a colleague in the tobacco control movement. McCarthyism is alive and well. Let's hear it for blacklisting! Thanks, Bill, for this excellent demonstration of my point.
Bill unlike yourself since your such a caring professional (hypocrite),Mike's "allies" does he have any ? are primarily affiliated with Forces.I surmise that you are suggesting that since the majority on this blog will support Mike on his quest to try to bring some sanity to the rabid movement before it drops off the edge that he must have some connection to Forces since the majority "are affiliated to Forces".Almost that he now represents Forces.Bill you must have been smoking some weird stuff tonight to come up with this,though of course i've misquoted or deliberately refrained from understanding what you meant.Who the hell do you think you are ?Are you the official spokesperson for the rabid movement ?Do you represent every rabid in the gang ?And who are you to suggest that i and everyone else are affiliates of Forces? Better still Bill Forces come across to me as not having an axe to grind (unlike you) do not wish to control people (unlike you) base evidence as security for their decisions which you can clearly see (unlike you and your maladjusted cohorts.Finally the one thing which pulls all of us together (unlike you and your less than able protege Jill) WE ALL SEEK THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. but not that Godshallian truth it is tainted with R A B I E S.
Mike wrote:
"See what I mean - if you dissent, you are ex-communicated from the tobacco control movement."
Portraying oneself as a victim of a vast conspiracy is another inaccurate claim. The naive folks at FORCES may fall for that crap, but public health advocates know better.
Bill-
I never suggested it was a conspiracy. I was just pointing out that you stated that I was no longer in the tobacco control movement, a statement which anyone can see is accurate as it is just a few comments above. You are essentially "kicking me out" of the movement, at least in your view. You are entitled to view me however you like, but don't deceive people on my blog by suggesting that you did not "ex-communicate" me from the movement in your own view. If that was a mistake, you are free to apologize, but don't deny you stated what is clearly written above.
Bill at least have the balls to add your name to your spurious and deceiptful comments so the readers know whose is behind the denials and the author of inaccurate claims.What aren't you prepared to claim and state to further your agenda.I hereby promote you to Witchfinder General -go do your worst ?
Never fear. Mr Bill can't "deceive" anyone on this blog, which is really what's got him so hopping mad. ( And I do picture him hopping.) It's also not difficult to see why he defends the other guys who lie and try to rationalize their lies. I think he's personally lost the line between lies and truth-- not just crossed it but lost it. And as I said somewhere else: Humpty Dumpty in Wonderland.
Meanwhile, I think it's not so much McCarthyism -- or (at least it's not in this particular aspect) as the old Love It or Leave It.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Since Mike's allies are primarily affiliated with FORCES..."
"I suggest that from now on Mike correctly use the term "we" to refer to his lying colleagues at FORCES."
To which Dr. Siegel responded with:
"See what I mean...Bill doesn't like what I have to say, so he disavows any connection to me as a colleague in the tobacco control movement. McCarthyism is alive and well. Let's hear it for blacklisting!"
I think Bill is just using a tactic you endorsed some time back. I don't remember where I originally found this, but it was probably at the FORCES website:
"Siegel advises anti-tobacco activists 'Do not get into arguments with the industry about scientific evidence... Instead, the best approach is to expose the tobacco industry ties of the so-called scientists making the arguments.'"
James,
You are correct. I made a mistake - I have since attempted to retract that article (and have written ANR to demand that they remove it from their website), but ANR has refused to allow me to post any correction, clarification, modification, revision, and has refused to remove my article at my request. It was a learning experience for me, and it helped show me the extent to which there is a lot of dogma in the movement that one can easily fall into and become trapped in. That was really what was behind my "Challenging Dogma" posts, where I periodically reveal a piece of dogma which I used to believe but which I have now come to reject.
I can't undo the mistakes that I've made, but I can apologize for them, correct them, and try to move forward as a better public health practitioner and individual.
But you are most correct in pointing this out.
Dr. Siegel,
My post wasn't really aimed at you and your past...behavior? I remember you writing on this. I was pointing this out for Bill's benefit. LOL
In other words, Bill, you're attacking the messenger, not the message.
To paraphrase Bill, "Naive public health advocates may fall for that crap, but folks at FORCES know better."
Commenting by HaloScan
