Looks like he forgot abortion...
Dr. Siegel wrote: "I hope that anti-smoking groups will distance themselves from this proposal as definitively and as quickly as possible."
Surely you jest. They will jump on this bandwagon like white on rice. Anything that will give them an edge, and the fact that they didn't say it first will just give them a smug attitude about it "having to be true," since they didn't say it first, so it must be true, also. They don't care if it's true or not, or even ethically and morally wrong, as long as it gets them what they want, which is the outright elimination of the smoker, not just smoking.
OK, so I just noticed another Lynda spelling her name MY way.....hehehehe so now I'll throw the initial to my last name in there also.....geeeez and here I thought I was so unique........LOL That other post by Lynda is not me..........took me by surprise when I saw it too.....LOL
iOPENER perhaps "pratforbrains"aka Huckabee doesn't think abortion is that bad for the baby ?
"Looks like he forgot abortion..."
iopener2000 :o)
Speaking of abortion, if the intent of making pregnant women quit smoking is to increase the chance they produce healthy children then maybe a law should be passed requiring all fetuses with known defects to be aborted.
What are the risks?
With the decline in smoking overall,
Has the number of low birth weight babies declined?
Have the number of SIDS cases declined?
Have the admissions in early life declined?
I have no idea, anyone with some info on this?
Also, I think this opens up a whole other debate on the status of the fetus and abortion. If it's wanted it's a child if not (acording to some feminist thinkers) a bunch of cells. (Aside, Walt made a comment about PBA (D&X) and forcefully so.)
Still some weird questions could be raised.
One such question could be if a fetus can be aborted and a women decides to do that, what difference does her smoking have? Could she be prosecuted for putting a 'baby' at risk when her decision was always to abort, so what 'baby' was at risk?
(the only west2 ..... so far)
It kind of reminds me of how people will comment that a woman shouldn't drink wine during her pregnancy, even if she has discussed it with her doctor.
I believe smoking is a strong enough addiction that this would just lead to a group of smoking, pregnant women breaking the law.
Gah, and of course anyone opposing this gets twisted into saying "oh, you favor pregnant women smoking as opposed to not smoking?" The answer is no, but they deserve the same rights, which is just less forceful and compelling.
While this law seems unenforcable without heinous measures I suspect that, if/when people accept this, the focus will shift to something more enforceable. The worst-case absurdist scenario side of me sees
2nd hand smoke restrictions("5 minutes is bad for you") + pregnant women smoking restrictions = legal penalty for expectant fathers and maybe others. This is nonsense.
I remember my mother's scorn for a pregnant woman smoking 20 years ago and how it was implied I should go along with it...and now I see the "But smokers are STUPID," polished up a bit with a slick PR campaign, still going on, maybe with "Destructive to everyone else too" tacked on.
And yes, it's better not to smoke during pregnancy, but given that it is an addictive habit, what would a fine/prison DO? It would long-term hurt the baby even more(less $ to spend on necessities.) Especially considering a disproportionate number of poor people smoke and don't have the money anyway.
The only thing I can see coming out of such moronic legislation is more danger to unborn children in that even fewer women, particularly those most at risk who need it most, will be seeking necessary pre-natal care.
No smoker of my acquaintance, including myself, will claim that smoking a healthy habit. However, we are all adults and quite capable of making our own decisions. My OB was a realist on the subject, she was not happy that I was a smoker, however her attitude was there is enough stress in just being pregnant and forcing moms to be to quit smoking was actually counterproductive. She did urge me and others to cut back, but did not harp on the issue. (and no, I would not have changed Dr's if she had harped on the issue, she was the best in the area). And im not talking about an OB back in the 60s, my very healthy daughter was born in 1998.
There are millions of us alive today born to smoking mothers, the vast majority of us are perfectly healthy. Our mothers didn't need the government to tell them how to behave, why should the government tell us or our daughters how to behave? Legislators are elected as OUR representatives, not our parents.
For me it's a mystery how people can put all their faith in laws to control their peers, knowing that laws are made by humans who have their own motivations (and not always the purest), who are far from being gods.
Last time I checked, laws have never been able to eradicate crimes, drugs, violence, wars.
You know, women have been having babies and giving birth to healthy babies for hundreds of thousands of years..........withOUT pre-natal care, and without some man telling them how to go about their pregnancy. Seems to be we have more problem babies since doctors starting getting involved in the process of childbirth than ever before. Or maybe it's just my imagination?
Dr. Siegel wrote:
Yes - smoking during pregnancy is a serious problem.
Dr. Siegel, I respectfully disagree. Let's be realistic. The number of preganant smokers has declined dramatically. Even among adults who still smoke, many will abstain or cut down during preganancy. I have known several people who gave it up while pregnant and started again afterwards (so much for the "addiction" aspect). Smoking during pregnancy would be a "serious problem" if the following two statements were true:
1. There was clear and convincing evidence that smoking during pregnancy had a severe and long-lasting negative effect on the developing child, which would plague him/her throughout life (i.e. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Thalidomide use, etc.), and that smoking was THE SINGLE CAUSE of the problem, based on known bio-chemical causes.
2. There was an overwhelmingly large number of people that engaged in the behavior, and there was a risk that the said behavior was growing in popularity despite the grave dangers posed to the developing child.
I dare to say that neither of these statements is true. We cannot forget history either. It was not that long ago that many women smoked while pregnant. Then, when the trend started to change, did we all of a sudden see an elimination of low birthweight babies? Were all infants born to smokers frail, sickly, and damaged for life? I'm sorry, but I would say that you need to make a much more convincing case for smoking during pregnancy to rise to the level of a "serious problem."
You want to deal with a serious public health problem? There are many to choose from. How about the increasing incidence of childhood asthma? Smoking still gets blamed (instead of exhaust fumes and/or cockroach droppings), even though there are less and less people smoking now. How about the rise in drug-resistant tuberculosis? These are serious problems that have severe and sometimes fatal outcomes.
Thank God the "public health community" didn't think the same way years ago or else we never would have had a cure for polio or have developed antibiotics.
A few questions that may be worthy of discussion:
Who would enforse such a law?
How could such a law be enforced?
What would the punishments be?
Whose body is it, the mother's or the states?
Whose child is it, the mothers or the states?
All property rights begin with your own body.
There are just too many studies to post here on maternal smoking that counter the hysteria, so instead here's a couple reasons why pregnant women should smoke (if they want to):
Significantly, studies report that the aborted fetuses from smoking mothers have 40% less chromosomal abnormalities than fetuses from nonsmoking mothers (Kline et al., 1993), while other studies report that maternal smoking is associated with a much decreased risk of mongoloid retardation or Down syndrome (Kline et al., 1993; Cuckle et al., 1990).
Conclusion: These findings, obtained by using laboratory assay, confirm the reduced risk of developing preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6.)
Conclusion: Smoking is associated with a reduced risk of hypertension during pregnancy. The protective effect appears to continue even after cessation of smoking. Further basic research on this issue is warranted. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1407-13.)
And if people are worried about smoking mothers-to-be they can always tell them to breast feed:
Breast Feeding May Counter Maternal Smoking Harm
Wed May 28, 2003 07:09 PM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Breast feeding may counter the harmful affects that smoking during pregnancy can cause to a baby's development, Dutch researchers said Thursday.
They found that only children who had been bottle-fed performed poorly on the school tests.
"Our results indicate that negative effects of maternal smoking on children's cognitive performance were limited to those who had not been breast fed," Dr Laura Batstra said in a report in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Yet again we seem to turn to epidemiological number crunching to provide statistics that nobody seems to want,"breast feeding MAY........CAN..."As to finding only bottle fed children performed poorly at what age are we refering to 5-16 ?Perhaps they were refering to 5 yo who hadn't had their first cigarette of the day ?Perhaps we ought to approach Stan the (wo)man glans and ask him if he was bottle fed.The Gov'ment keep preaching "breast is best" you only have to look at tony blair to see he is a mammary gland.
Considering how everything we ingest, including our so called "pure" water, is poisoned, I fail to see how breast milk can be so healthy, smoking or not. Even organic isn't free of toxins due to the soil and water alone. But that's just me.
Now, here's a funny for you. My mother is a non-smoker, always has been. She had 3 children and not one of us was over 7 lbs. Her friends back then were all small petite women who were heavy smokers and all had babies over 8 lbs.
I for one am so sick and tired of all the scare tactics being used these days to justify everything. Not just smoking but everything. It's like this country has suddenly become a nation of fragile, mamby-pamby babies afraid of their own shadows.
And THIS is called progress? THIS is the 21st Century? I truly hope and pray I don't live to be 100, that's all I can say.
I know man. I smoked before but never was a regular smoker and I'm glad. I just read this article about smoking causing lung cancer here
http://www.denverandmore.com/con...ntent/view/59/
2
si wrote:
"Yet again we seem to turn to epidemiological number crunching to provide statistics that nobody seems to want,'breast feeding MAY........CAN...'"
Well, that was half my point. LOL
The other half is that instead of arguing against that smoking may be bad during pregnancy, one may argue that it's good to smoke.
Somebody asked about low birth weight and smoking. If this chart reproduces here (I've done the P but the C awaits) this should show the entirely inverse correlation. All figures here are from the CDC:
UNITED STATES
Year----- total %--- % pregnant-----% LBW of
---------smokers--- smokers-----total births
1985-----30.2 ------NA-----------6.8---
1989----- [26.8*]----19.5---------7.0---
1995------24.7----- 13.9---------7.3---
1997------24.7------13.2---------7.5
2000------23.3-------12.2--------7.6
2001------22.8-------12.0--------7.7
2002------[22.5]** ----11.4--------7.8
* 1989 estimate based on available figures for 1988 (28.1) and 1990 (25.6) ** Average of available figures for 2002.
-----------------------------------------
In other words, while smoking declined 25% and exposure to others' smoke declined 75%, and the number of pregnant smokers declined 40%+ between 1985 and 2002, low birth rates
actually rose-- in fact, per the New York Times, to the highest observed levels in the last 30 years. (NY TImes, June 26, 2003)
Joe if you read FORCES you will see another side to the equation,one that the antis don't want you to see.It isn't such a cut and dried case as they would have you believe.Life contains many risks and you have to make your choice at the end of the day.You decided to stop smoking which proves it can be done.Hopefully you are not one of those people who say i stopped smoking now I want you to stop !If you accept other people still wish to smoke and the dangers of SHS are extorted by factors of 1,000+ then hopefully co-existence can occur.
Joe Camel, you may want to re-read that article again, only this time, read every word. The article states, repeatedly I might add, that smoking CAN increase one's risk for lung cancer. It also clearly states that exposure to any carcinogen and even smoking itself does NOT guarantee one will get lung cancer.
Can, may, increases risk......do NOT equate to "causes".
Geeeeze people really do have selective reading and comprehension when it suits them.
iOPENER perhaps "pratforbrains"aka Huckabee doesn't think abortion is that bad for the baby ?
si
Me: Perhaps. ;o)
"Looks like he forgot abortion..."
iopener2000 :o)
"Speaking of abortion, if the intent of making pregnant women quit smoking is to increase the chance they produce healthy children then maybe a law should be passed requiring all fetuses with known defects to be aborted."
James Austin
Me: It would not surprise me if this is not suggested in the near future. (There is a lot of money in abortion…)
revlee: “A few questions that may be worthy of discussion:
Who would enforse such a law?"
Me: The state with “OUR” tax dollars. (Of course any revenue collected will go to the state and the health industry.)
revlee: "How could such a law be enforced?"
Me: Doctors would report women if cotinine tests were positive.
revlee: "What would the punishments be?"
Me: Fines, and/or threats, maybe even custody of the child when it is born for repeat offenders...
revlee: "Whose body is it, the mother's or the states?"
Me: The mother’s body is the property of the Anti tobacco movement's; if she uses tobacco, the Anti obesity movement's; (soon; if Anti tobacco succeeds) if she chooses to eat fast food, The Anti cola movement's; (soon; if Anti tobacco succeeds) if she chooses to drink cola, or the Anti alcohol movement's; (soon; if Anti tobacco succeeds) if she chooses to use wine or any other alcoholic beverage...
revlee: "Whose child is it, the mothers or the states?"
Me: According to the Anti-Tobacco Movement, currently; the child belongs to them; unborn or born, if the mother chooses to use tobacco...
revlee: "All property rights begin with your own body."
Me: The Anti-Tobacco Movement believes those rights are void if you use tobacco. You lose ALL rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; when you choose to use ANY legal product ANY anti-movement deems unworthy based solely on their opinions and of course twisted scientific studies and outrageously fabricated public death estimates...
revlee
Thanks for the LBW stats Walt..
Thank you iopener2000. I'm afraid you may be right and that's what scares me. But we do have some hope:
Murphy's law states " things are nver so bad but that they can't get worse".
I've actually contacted NOW with this article, both the Arkansas chapter AND the national level, to see where they stand on this issue.
I received a reply back from Arkansas that since they are not in session right now, they are not overly concerned at this time. I pointed out to her how ASH has jumped on it and she can bet her booty that they are already hard at work hounding the legislators so that come January when they resume their session this will be up front and center. Hopefully they'll heed my advice and pay closer attention to it.
Bravo, Lynda. But you'll have to keep after them, and after them and after them since I'll bet you a whiskey sour (any bar of your choosing in a non-"smoke-free" state) that they'd love to duck the issue. If you've got their email addresses and feel like posting them here, I'm sure you can get some backup.
Actually, Walt, here is the link to their website, you can find each states chapter there and email them as appropriate.
http://www.now.org/
now the reds states are falling, one by one. the simple solution is the red smokers and the blue smokers must unite and defeat the anti-smoking, control-crazed, health nazi zealots.
Brandz great, but too many smokers have become so indoctrinated they believe what they are told.It is soul destroying to read some of their pitiful comments on some of the smoking sites.You would think what you are saying is so simple,i wish it were,it what makes the rabids so dangerous in being able to convince your own side.
Thank you iopener2000. I'm afraid you may be right and that's what scares me. But we do have some hope:
Murphy's law states " things are nver so bad but that they can't get worse".
revlee
You're welcome revlee... And you're right; Murphy's law can be applied to BOTH sides of this issue.
So; I am sure the ones on the Anti- side, that apply merit to Murphy's law; are just as worried as you are.
Regardless, if they apply merit or not... Things are NOT going as planned on the Anti- side of the fence; and, things WILL get a lot "worse" in the near future...
It doesn't take a captain/engineer working for the Air Force to see there is a NEED for a parachute on the Anti Tobacco's borrowed Ju 88 or any other Anti-WARcraft, for that matter.
I imagine the intelligent ones demanded their parachute upon boarding. I suggest those that didn't; GET ONE as quickly as possible.
Side note to ALL: I couldn't help it. I am sorry; bad joke. You have to admit there is SOME truth to it though.
For the most part I try to avoid the "WWII comparisons" as much as possible. Even though, honestly; there are many comparisons to Anti mind/Propaganda control tactics and Hitler's mind/Propaganda control tactics...
http://www.bookideas.com/reviews...ayReview&
id=616
http://www.forces.org/evidence/e...e/evid/
nazi.htm
http://www.forces.org/articles/a...-fcan/
nazi2.htm
In the words of ACSH (American Council on Science and Health):
Begin Quote:
But some such comparisons are valid. Cultures are analogous to rivers that have many tributaries. Among the "tributaries" to which large segments of the white Gentile population of Nazi Germany were receptive was a romantic, occultic, anti-technology stream that was separately affecting other Western cultures. In Germany, when such sentiments joined science, public health policies that were progressive—at least for certain segments of the population at certain times—occasionally resulted;
but when they combined with animosity, the consequences were butchery, mayhem, and other atrocities." END QUOTE...
http://www.acsh.org/
healthissues...ssue_detail.asp
We are witnessing the animosity as well as the consequences, here on this BLOG in some form or another...
BTW,
"Where Did ACSH Come From?
On April 3, 1973, I accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer:
...ACSH has entered public debates on issues ranging from food safety to cigarette smoking, environmental chemicals to bioterrorism. Enter terms like "cancer epidemic," "cranberry scare," "lead and health," "junk food tax," "cigarette warning label," and many more into the Internet search engine Google and you will find that ACSH comes up #l each time..."
http://www.acsh.org/news/
newsid....news_detail.asp
"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
- Adolf Hitler
And;
"The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one."
- Adolf Hitler
How is this for a parachute for ACSH?
Public Health's Credibility Crisis (from Skeptical Inquirer)
May 1, 2006
"In recent years, however, a worrisome trend has emerged: many in the public health community appear to be promoting politics and ideology over sound science. The slippage of public health science into pseudoscience and agenda-driven initiatives has been going on for SOME time."
I like this part;
"But such a definition of causality violates the basic scientific (and epidemiological) requirement that before one can identify cause and effect, one must identify a cause.
Eschewing scientific rationale, Bloom apparently believes that mere allegation suffices to assign causation and condemnation -- bringing us back to burning "witches."
This hardly seems like the type of educational message one would expect to be communicated at an institution of higher learning in the field of public health."
http://www.acsh.org/
healthissues...ssue_detail.asp
Is this not ""the pot calling the kettle black" or WHAT?
I kind of hope Erin Brockovich is reading this BLOG... LOL Anyone have her e-mail address? I think I will look it up... ;o)
Again; does everyone on the Anti Tobacco plane have their parachute???
Again, I will wear the BIG RED A , THE BIG YELLOW T, THE BIG GREEN L TOBACCO SMOKING INDEPENDENT LIBERTARIAN CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORTING FREEEDOM LOVING FIGHTING AMERICAN WOMAN.
Mr. Godshall, Ms Stevens, The Erik, etal....
THE GAUNTLET IS NOW THROWN DOWN-AGAIN!!
I TRIPLE DOG DARE YOU ALL TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT YOUR ALLEGATIONS HAVE A SMATTERING OF TRUTH ABOUT THEM, REGARDING SHS/ETS, TOBACCO IN GENERAL, OUR RIGHTS AS PERSONAL PROPERTY, LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM FOR ALL.
THOSE OF YOU WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT EVEN DESERVE MY THANKS FOR LISTENING-
capri
"Since court after court has held that smoking is not a fundamental right like voting, and that smokers are not a protected class like African Americans or women, the government has wide leeway in fashioning a remedy for whatever it concludes is a problem requiring corrective legislation," says Banzhaf.."
Perhaps the credentials of this individual should be the matter for discussion. The fact someone smokes in his interpretation; would negate their right to protections under civil laws as a non existing class, although he can describe them with a single word everyone understands? Perhaps what is missing in ASH discussions are words like Autonomy and Coercion both of which have slipped from the comprehension of TC of late. In better understanding the risks consider the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine declaring a woman should be encouraged, much as smokers are encouraged to quit. Encouraged to treat her body as though she is always pregnant. The idea of constitutionality in banning women from smoking when pregnant could also allow banning her from smoking, drinking or eating a big Mac throughout her child bearing years. And yes as explained in the same article entirely constitutional, under police powers and special powers of individual States. The transition to a police state for our own good.
We don't yet see public executions in football stadiums, but these efforts support that same mentality. The Taliban directed many personal choices, likely including which hand one would use to hold the tissue in the washroom, they also likely monitored the situation to assure full compliance with the law. It is my fondest wish those charged with enforcing smoking bans with the evolution of this insanity, envision their own future responsibilities. Denormalizing an industry is the proud battle cry however the line was crossed long ago in who will be punished to achieve those goals not industry executives but the users of their products. In this light TC is seen to be a fraud. Simply a group of arrogant tyrants creating propaganda to suit their ends. Once the public starts to understand the significance of a 30% increased risk in relation to possible maximum results, only then will they be seen for what they really are.
An increase from 1 to 1.3 needs more discussion in what it truly represents politically as opposed to morally.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3330
this is in reference to huckabee's anti-smoking laws among other things.
first of all, it is pure communism. when did he earn the right to decide whether a human being can smoke, drink, etc....
my daughter brought home a sheet from school yesterday and the parents had to put an "X" by the paragraphs.
huckabee sent this to all the schools and it wants to know if your child is getting enough exercise after school hours. how often do they walk, dance, and how long do they exercise, and on and on.
I told my dagughter that he has his priorities really screwed up. the jails are overcrowded, the poor old senior citizens are deciding if they want to eat or try to pay for their prescriptions, there are people starving all over out country, and we are sending billions of dollars to other countries. AND THAT JACKASS WANTS TO KNOW WHAT MY CHILD DOES AFTER SCHOOL? just because he decided to get his fat butt off his couch and lose weight doesnt give him the right to tell me my child might be overweight or needs a "BMI" test at school. People know if their overweight or if they have a zit on their face, etc.... and no one deserves to be humiliated at school or anywhere else.. he needs to get his priorities straigh and worry about the real issues and what's important. not pregnant smokers, which i was, and have a perfectly healthy child, correction: 2 healthy children. so get your crap together huckabee, and shut up about the small things. sincerely, juli hunt
Maybe you are interested in this site.
safe sex during pregnancy
I wish you´ll like it and it´ll be useful for you. Regards.
Commenting by HaloScan
