Welcome to the Society of the Rejected
Dr Siegal,
This seems so sad...
Are you going to push for a public retraction?
I wish you well.
Dr. Siegel, unfortunately, you are just now coming to the realization that the anti-smoking movement is not one of science, but one of politics.
So, *of course* dissent is not tolerated; if you are not towing the party line then you are of no use to the party. Out you go, into the cold.
Doc, you deserve that. You're a heretic and a miscreant. You will burn into hell's flames for your whole afterlife. Obviously, those flames will come from burning tobacco leaves.
My comment about Mike's misuse of the term "we" wasn't a personal attack nor an ex-communication.
Instead, it simply suggested that Mike should be truthful about his alliances, instead of wearing a black hat while repeatedly claiming to wear a white hat.
Mike was never kicked out or ex-communicated from the tobacco control movement, and I certainly haven't been annointed as the movement's grand pooh-bah.
Rather, Mike autonomously decided to quit the anti smoking movement and to begin collaborating with those who advocate elevating cigarette smoking to a protected right, who deny the hazards of smoking and tobacco smoke pollution, and who make ad hominem attacks against smokefree advocates.
Besides constantly criticizing health organizations while never criticizing pro smoking organizations, in the past year, Mike has publicly opposed the following meausures to reduce smoking:
- smokefree workplace laws if they contain any exemptions (as most do),
- cigarette tax hikes,
- outdoor smokefree laws,
- protecting youth from tobacco smoke,
- employer smokefree hiring policies,
There's an old saying about those who look like a duck, walk like a duck, and talk like a duck. Quack, Quack.
WHAT ABOUT ARSESHOLES BILL ? it's back to the softly softly approach now .Your explanation of your comments don't possess any credibility and are inexcusable to us who disagree with Dr Siegel but who would never sink as low as you have in order to throw a couple of cheap shots.No Bill your lame excuses do not cut any ice,nor vindicate your involvement in this. Boy you've really hit the alltime low...
Sigh. Bill, all of those unethical, immoral policies make YOU the bad guy for promoting them, not Dr. Siegel for drawing a line between right and wrong.
Ducks are pretty. Jackboots are ugly (and carry crap under their soles).
What a wonderful antismoker Bill is!
Full of rhetoric and he can prove nothing. Prove it Bill, PROVE it! Perhaps Mike does not criticize pro smoking orgs because they don't con people with false information like antismokers do. Bill speaks of smoking being a protected right? I personally believe that many of his kind should be protected by walls and windows with checker sunlight and a locked door. And the funny part is, you antis call us liars. I understand that you are inverted, but you guys are truly overtaking yourselves, now!
...and I know the old say too, Bill, it goes like this: wears jackboots, walks like a duck and speaks Heil, Heil, Heil! Reminds you of somebody you know?...
The problem I see with Dr. Siegel is not one of integrity or courage, that’s for sure. The problem is that he does not yet realize who and what he was/is associated with. Antitobacco has as much to do with science as alcohol prohibition did – from incidental to irrelevant. Antitobacco is healthism, and that is IDEOLOGY. Healthism and the cult of health always flourished in oppressive regimes and there is a reason for that; it is the manifestation of a political view: your personality and liberty are shrunk to a skin that belongs to the collective. An oppressive regime BY DEFINITION does not respect its subjects, and one of its most powerful tools is hatred – hiding behind the thin finger of some excuse.
Having made these premises, it seems to me that Dr. Siegel advocates what many people I know and respect want: they want to be “a little pregnant”. They want just enough castor oil to set things “straight”, and then we’ll put the bottle away. NOT! Those who administer the oil soon learn the thrill of holding the spoon, create a self-rewarding system that makes heroes out of no gooders, and soon castor oil runs by the rivers. And those who jettison their guts as a result become “scientific” evidence of their own weakness. I call that confusion.
Healthism does not allow reason, science and debate. You either are pregnant with it, or you are not. If you are, you better carry on the rotten pregnancy, deliver the grotesque Leviathan and “enjoy” the consequences. If you are not, then you have to reject antitobacco in toto and fight it to its destruction - for there may be a tragic difference between what Michael wants and what his ex-colleagues want. He is finding out from his ex-colleagues that I am right – once again. One cannot support smoking bans and then be outraged when the antis take away the dignity of smokers, for a smoking ban DOES rip away the dignity of smokers! Personally, I’d rather have 1,000,000 kids taking up smoking than 10,000 of them turning into little brown shirts who beat up their smoking friends “for their own good”. This is the society the antis are working really hard for, so we have to fight them in kind. I respectfully submit that Michael has a choice to make – not with the public, but with himself.
Bill Godshall:
"My comment about Mike's misuse of the term "we" wasn't a personal attack nor an ex-communication."
Oh really?
Bill Godshall earlier:
"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."
Sure looks like a personal attack and an ex-communication to me. It also clearly demonstrates who's really the liar around here.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"There's an old saying about those who look like a duck, walk like a duck, and talk like a duck. Quack, Quack."
Let's see. Bill works for:
- smokefree workplace laws
- cigarette tax hikes
- outdoor smokefree laws
- protecting youth from tobacco smoke
- employer smokefree hiring policies
yet he pushes smokeless tobacco. What's that make him?
Quack Quack Quack
pro smoking organizations? i don't even think the tobacco companies are allowed to be pro smoking.
Godshall: "and I certainly haven't been anointed as the movement's grand pooh-bah."
And who in hell ever thought you were even a candidate, an insignificant twit like you? What is this, some kind of colossal joke? Or do intellectual and moral perverts like Godlshall now get anointed to be grand pooh-bahs? Well, come to think about it, yes, I guess they often do.
Hmmm... a part of Dr. Siegel's (99% correct) defense of himself includes this:
And I suppose that the research I am presently doing, which is the first of its kind to document that restaurant smoking bans lead to a dramatic decline in youth smoking initiation, is just a ruse.
Dr. Siegel, this is where you begin to lose me (support-wise).
It'd be one thing if after advocating for, and getting, smoking bans it was surprisingly discovered that a byproduct of it was an effect on youth smoking. But this kind of study goes looking to prove that effect. An effect one doesn't try to prove unless it was a result one desired and hoped for from the start and then wants to promote as a reason to ban smoking in "public places."
We are told that smoking bans are demanded and implemented by force of law under the state's police power to "protect" people from exposure to ETS. That is the only impetus by which these bans could have been enacted through law. Or isn't that the reason? The study you're preparing alarms and saddens me.
It supports the allegation that restaurants, bars, casinos, bowling alleys, bingo halls, pool halls, VFW and American Legion Posts, and any other place where a private individual puts their life-savings into a private business are seen as nothing more than collateral damage in the war on smoking. The risk and damage inflicted upon them by the crusaders for the Smoke-Free Society.
JustTheFacts wrote:
Hmmm... a part of Dr. Siegel's (99% correct) defense of himself includes this:
And I suppose that the research I am presently doing, which is the first of its kind to document that restaurant smoking bans lead to a dramatic decline in youth smoking initiation, is just a ruse.
Dr. Siegel, this is where you begin to lose me (support-wise).
----------------
You've forgotten that Dr. Siegel is still one of THEM.
BTW, if Dr. Siegel is going to be the first to document that restaurant smoking bans lead to a dramatic decline in youth smoking initiation, then why was this same claim made in my city years ago in regards to one of the benefits of having a smoking ban in our restaurants?
Just the Facts-
You're quite correct that reducing smoking is NOT an appropriate justification for enacting smoking bans. I devoted a post to this precise point a while back, when some anti-smoking groups were using this as a justification for widespread outdoor smoking bans.
By examining the effects of smoking bans on youth smoking initiation, I'm not suggesting that this is an appropriate justification for the bans - I'm just trying to find out what the effects of these smoking bans are.
Hopefully I have made it clear enough that I'm not suggesting that we pass smoking bans for the express purpose of reducing smoking rates.
Restaurants would not be a considered venue for youth smoking initiation,certainly not in my books .Perhaps things are really different in the US but i'm used to EATING as the primary reason for going into one.So if your studies are showing you some surprises PERHAPS we as social lepers can have the bars returned back to us.As a question, at what age do you need to be before you can go into a restaurant (is it customary to serve alcohol ?) if so then it must be 18/19 back to the question of what constitutes an adult.I can't quite fathom the cause and effect of restaurants having an impact on smoking any more than supermarkets showing an increase/decrease in smoking behaviour.
Dr. Siegel: "I'm just trying to find out what the effects of these smoking bans are."
Dr. Siegel, I have never seen one study produced by the "usual suspects" of Tobacco Control NOT find the effect being fished for. And once you produce it, then what? It's just an interesting thing to look at? I'll take you at your word your intent is not to use it for anything to do with smoking bans, though I admit I'm struggling to believe there isn't some "useful" purpose you have for it behind it. But come on now, if not you, then it will be all the others who will enter it into evidence with state legislatures and city councils as proof that they should ban smoking to "save children's lives." While YOU agree that "reducing smoking is NOT an appropriate justification for enacting smoking bans" the dictators in power don't seem to need just that anymore to bring down their legal gavel in the name of "Public Health." Your study will hand the Bills and Jills another weapon to employ as they parade the "children" around the council chambers, sickeningly using the emotional appeal, "By banning smoking you will keep this poor child from becoming another dead smoker." (oh get me a hanky).
Which brings us to: [It's a study to find if] "restaurant smoking bans lead to a dramatic decline in youth smoking initiation" (though you left out the word "restaurant" in your answer to me) which prompts a reasonable question from si about which "youth" associated with restaurants are you talking about?
"Assuming" is a dangerous thing to do but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume (guess?) that you mean the young men and women who WORK in these restaurants. Knowing how you don't agree with the notion that smokers should be banished from the street so that children's morals aren't corrupted by the sight of a smoker, the only other conclusion is that you mean the young adults that work in these places may be less likely to take up smoking when they're not subjected to the sight of customers smoking or that it's perceived that it's more "normal" not to smoke (a restaurant being a venue where many congregate which makes it a snapshot of "society"). Well then, the "youth" (to be called "children" in future testimony) you're looking at are basically in the range of 18 and 19 year olds! These are not "youth." They are young ADULTS. So once again, the emotional word "youths" is used in place of what's really "adults." That's if I'm right about the "who." And the "how" would be no different than one of the ban reasons you objected to regarding Calabasas -- that removing smokers from public view (in this case restaurants) reduces "youth" smoking.
James has pointed out that reducing youth smoking initiation in general has long been used as one reason to ban smoking. Your study's association and perspective with restaurants might be new but the use of "youth" for smoking bans in restaurants and elsewhere is not unique. (And no James, I have NOT forgotten that Dr. Siegel is -- at the end of day -- one of "them." It's that I respect the line he's drawn which drew a form of support that is now threatened by such a study).
So whether or not, Dr. Siegel, you intend such a study to be used for passing more smoking bans your colleagues will be all too happy to do it for you with your piece of paper:
World's best practice in tobacco control
(Smoke free public spaces: California)
Tobacco Control (BMJ) - Summer 2000
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...nt/full/9/2/
228
Clean indoor air is the most cost effective strategy for achieving former US surgeon general C Everett Koop's vision of a smoke free society.
STANTON A GLANTZ
Star Tribune (MN)
(dead link) http://www.startribune.com/stori...563/
846574.html
Restricting opportunities to smoke in public is one of the three most powerful interventions to reduce cigarette smoking and the number of people who smoke.
Thomas E. Kottke, Rochester, Minn., cardiologist
Buffalo News Opinion
April 11, 2003
(dead link) http://www.buffalonews.com/edito...411/
1027724.asp
...each venue in which we restrict smoking shows children that smoking is not the norm, thus discouraging them from ever picking up that first cigarette.
GRETCHEN LEFFLER
Regional Vice President
American Cancer Society
The Observer (UK)
April 13, 2003
http://www.observer.co.uk/
politi...,935847,00.html
The Government has banned tobacco advertising, but the best advertising is an adult smoking. The less kids see that and see smokers having to go outside because it's socially unacceptable to smoke inside - that sends a clear message.
Judith Watt
SmokeFree London
"..the research I am presently doing, which is the first of its kind to document that restaurant smoking bans lead to a dramatic decline in youth smoking initiation.."
Well, first, there's no "if" in there. You seem to know the outcome even though you're still "presently" doing the research. But I'll presume that you know, or believe you know, on the unbiased basis of preliminary results. Which gets me to the next point, or question:
What's the hypothesized causal link between these two (ostensibly) correlated phenomena? Is it what James and JTF suggest? the fruits of making smokers pariahs? Or-- using your imagination-- since from correlation on it's all hyptothesis-- what else could you suggest as a causal link? Or is it possible, in your mind, that there's no causal link? The an alleged decline in ":youths" starting to smoke has a) nothing whatsover to do with any bans or is b) a result of these self-same "youths" lying on questionnairres?
Unlike JTF I'm assuming that by "youth" you mean under 18, since most of the blah-blah-blah is that 98% of smokers "initiate smoking" before that age. But then, it seems to me, that the average mid-teen would be more attracted to that cool group outside, with their smoke and their disdain.
Without compromising your chances of publication, how much can you reveal about your sample and your methods?
Walt-
Actually, the research results have already been published. The abstract is here:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
co...pe=HWCIT,HWELTR
The reason I said the research I am "currently" doing is simply that we are doing an additional follow-up survey, 4 years after the baseline survey, so the research is ongoing. But I certainly didn't know the answer to the question before we did the data analysis!
Mike Siegel's research published in 2005 concluded "Local restaurant smoking bans may be an effective intervention to prevent youth smoking."
But in 2006 Mike Siegel wrotes
"You're quite correct that reducing smoking is NOT an appropriate justification for enacting smoking bans."
Nothing like publicly advocating a smokefree policy strategy to public health advocates one year, and then claiming opposition to that very same policy strategy (to advocates of smoking) a year later.
Bill you may be static but not everything in the world is.Low nitrosamine dip ? BUT if you look ast the wording you see one refers to the rabid agenda of EVERYWHERE having smoking bans (so you don't see the smoker but they continue to smoke) and the other refers to possibly using a ban-restaurants in this case which according to Dr Siegel may REDUCE youth smoking.You are perfectly AWARE OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED STOP BEING DISINGENIOUS AND PLAYING DUMB (WELL MORE DUMB THAN USUAL )
Bill writes:
"Mike Siegel's research published in 2005 concluded "Local restaurant smoking bans may be an effective intervention to prevent youth smoking."
But in 2006 Mike Siegel wrotes
"You're quite correct that reducing smoking is NOT an appropriate justification for enacting smoking bans."
Nothing like publicly advocating a smokefree policy strategy to public health advocates one year, and then claiming opposition to that very same policy strategy (to advocates of smoking) a year later.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 05.19.06 - 2:39 pm | # "
Nice try at yet another twisting of statements mr GodshallDoAsISay,
but, as you like to point out, the statement made did NOT say that he was "publicly advocating a smokefree policy strategy", in your own words, (which I assume were a factual retelling of the good doctors), what he said was "Local restaurant smoking bans may be an effective intervention to prevent youth smoking.", Notice that nowhere in that statement is the word advocating used, also it does not include any mention of whether or not he agreed that smoking bans should be used for this purpose, he simply reported that such a ban may be an effective intervention, based on his research. It is your kind that has taken that statement and ran with it to hoist it as a banner to rally 'round.
You sir are quite simply, and in my humble opinion, a moron, stating any trash you can think of to deflect from the real science and true to the nature of a jackbooted thug.
Again Bill, thank you for writing your opinion for me to use publicly, it is doing wonderful in regards to showing what type of, for lack of a better analogy, religious zealots, are actually crusading to deprive others of their rights, based upon assumptions, lies, and distortions.
You sir are quite simply, and in my humble opinion, a moron, stating any trash you can think of to deflect from the real science and true to the nature of a jackbooted thug.
Again Bill, thank you for writing your opinion for me to use publicly, it is doing wonderful in regards to showing what type of, for lack of a better analogy, religious zealots, are actually crusading to deprive others of their rights, based upon assumptions, lies, and distortions.
Jerry Thomas |
I second what Jerry said!! Thank you Jerry, I couldn't have said it better........really, I probably would have reduced myself to gutter talk...a most UNladylike thing to do...hehehehe
After reading the study abstract I stand corrected on which "youth" (and the ages) you were studying, Dr. Siegel. I was wrong.
Not to excuse my previous assumption but to explain it, I couldn't fathom you studying how a smoking ban would impact youth smoking initiation in general since you have come out against the use of smoking bans to achieve such results. Though the study was conducted just prior to your personal revelations that caused the start of this blog and when you might not have thought about the implications of such a study.
But I don't back down from my contention that such a study is used for no good. Or that just the thought of studying such a relationship means that one had a vested interest in finding that it could be true. In other words, if one doesn't think smoking bans should be used to socially engineer others then why try to find out if it does? (even if the final outcome were to be that it doesn't.) As I said, no anti-smoking study embarked upon by any one of the reknowned members within the movement has ever resulted in a negative finding (as least none that they care to admit to and publish instead of hiding it in the draw). The antis have programmed us to expect nothing less by their repeated behavior. But as I also said, you did begin this study prior to your shift in your beliefs so perhaps that's a factor I should consider? I don't know. You tell me.
And I'd rather pull my hair out one strand at a time instead of have any agreement with (gag) Bill but in this instance he's (gag) right about the contradiction (but only because it selfishly suits him! Otherwise logic of this sort be damned by him). But he's not right in how he rephrases it. Anyway, to wit, Bill notes:
Mike Siegel's research published in 2005 concluded "Local restaurant smoking bans may be an effective intervention to prevent youth smoking."
But in 2006 Mike Siegel wrote
"You're quite correct that reducing smoking is NOT an appropriate justification for enacting smoking bans."
First, no Bill, he's not deliberately playing to two audiences to attain some sort of personal approval as you imply. And now that I know him better I wouldn't be so fast to accuse him of any conscious public manipulation ("publicly advocating") of the sort you are also implying.
But the wording of the Conclusion has the rank odor of being supportive of smoking bans in order to prevent youth smoking. A Conclusion that says "effective intervention" is not the same as saying you found "smoking bans cause a decline in youth smoking initiation." And to be honest, based on the history of such studies, even if it was reworded that way, I'd still contend that it was advocative in nature.
So I'm sorry (truly) to have to disagree with Jerry and Lynda's defense of Dr. Siegel this time. There is a contradiction here -- in at the very least the study's Conclusion feeds the monster (even if we were to agree that Dr. Siegel was not THE "monster"). No one is saying that Dr. Siegel himself added a personal agreement or disagreement with how TO USE the conclusion or that he was running around pushing ("advocating") his findings for further action. But if we are to remain consistent in our criticisms of these kind of studies then we can't ignore that the Conclusion's WORDS can be taken as "GO" for others to advocate using smoking bans to achieve the obnoxiously desired protection of "the children."
Just the Facts-
I accept your criticism. You do have to realize that I wrote that manuscript many months ago (probably more like a year ago) and that was BEFORE I became aware of how anti-smoking groups were using reducing smoking as a justification for smoking bans. If I were to re-write the study now, I would probably use the language you suggest to make it less likely that groups would try to use this as a justification for the bans.
Dr. Siegel, I appreciate the candor.
~~~~~~~There's an old saying about those who look like a duck, walk like a duck, and talk like a duck. Quack, Quack.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 05.17.06 - 6:11 pm | #~~~~~~~~
And you sir should be looking in the mirror when you make such comments. As a former member of the Board of Directors of FORCES your categorization of the members of FORCES is far beyond the ad hominem attack you accuse us of.
In other words, sir, you appear to be the one with the problem, not Dr. Siegel, nor the members of FORCES or any other organization that opposes the fanatics, such as yourself, attacking us.
Bill is alive and well,he has just gone for a short break to see peter pan in never-never land in order to charge his batteries .Hopefully on his return he will be able to advise us all of what he meant when he didn't say it or is it the other way round.In the interim his understudy Jill ,may be available for comment ,as long as it involves a personnal attack on Dr Siegel and she doesn't have to hang around to take questions.Erik has gone to bed with a headache,he spent most of the day looking for SHS but it alluded him.
Very quiet without you Bill are you avoiding the issue by any chance ? You keep accusing everyone of mis-quoting you ,don't you want the opportunity to correct the numerous ill-tempered comments you made ?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
