Dr. Siegel,
The most outrageous quote in the article you just cited was this one:
"A recent study published by the Pediatrics journal confirmed that more children die of secondhand smoke exposure than all other accidental causes of injury and death combined," said Brendan Twohig of the American Heart Association. "We see AB379 as an extension of California's commitment to protecting the health of our most vulnerable population, our children."
Dr. Siegel. . .where in the world did she get this from? Can this possibly be true?
The Centers for Disease Control says this:
"Motor vehicle injuries are the leading cause of death among children in the U.S. (CDC 2005)."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factshe...ts/
childpas.htm
Is there NO accountability for the American Heart Association who makes these claims in public? Where does it end?
Drowning (usually in the family swimming pool) is the second leading cause of death in children. Should parents with small children be allowed to have swimming pools?
Competitive sports are also a leading cause of injury and death among children and teens. Should parents be allowing, and even encouraging, their children to become involved in something that has such a high risk of injury?
I think the government needs to respect private spaces and let people make poor health decisions if they choose. If someone wants to smoke 3 packs a day, they should be allowed to.
However, whether one has the right to chain smoke with a child under 6 in a car who can't even open the window is another issue.
All 50 states already have social service agencies that protect children from physical harm, even from their parents.
If the dangers of second hand smoke could create a danger to a child's health and long lasting negative effects, the societal interest in protecting children may be great enough to take action.
Erik, there was no mention of whether the windows were rolled up or not or of chain smoking. I wouldn't know how to treat a combination of the latter. But the point is that, say, parents who smoke one cigarette during a 1 hour car ride with the windows down are seen as the same as those who would chain smoke with kids in the car and the windows up. At which point the effect can become more immediate, but I suspect there are already general laws covering such extreme and deliberate cases.
Now that I think about it, if a child has a respitory illness and a parent is exposing the child to a large amount of second hand smoke, causing immediate harm to a child, a state agency could today likely take an action in the matter without any new laws being passed.
However, that has been the situation for the last 30 years. The fact that harm to a child is occurring in a private home is not going to stop social services from taking action.
But the point is that, say, parents who smoke one cigarette during a 1 hour car ride with the windows down are seen as the same as those who would chain smoke with kids in the car and the windows up.
That's a good point.
I think that's the difference that would be important is most people's minds.
So...let me get this straight...
With your under-6-year-olds with you and the windows rolled down, you can drive a vehicle that spews toxic exhaust fumes on a 6-lane highway packed with vehicles as far as you can see in either direction, each vehicle spewing toxic exhaust fumes...but you can't smoke a cigarette?
I think my brain just broke.
Let me repeat the sentence I quoted above. I don't think many of you realize what it really said. The lobbyist for AHA said secondhand smoke KILLS more children than ALL other causes of accidental death and injury COMBINED:
"A recent study published by the Pediatrics journal confirmed that more children die of secondhand smoke exposure than all other accidental causes of injury and death combined," said Brendan Twohig of the American Heart Association.
If smoking aggravates an EXISTING condition that is one thing but to suggest a journey WILL CAUSE an immediate problem goes way too far.Air conditioning in the car,utilisation of windows,sunroof all play a part.Strangely the rabids do not try and suggest that smoking could remove concentration if the smoker happened to be the driver.Lighting a cigarette,extinguishing safely it etc.This must then include older people who suffer heart and chest ailments ,what about pregnant passengers,carry on and you will achieve the best thing possible-cars which don't go anywhere.That would really be beneficial to EVERYONE.But get the scientific evidence because all you have is high grade bullshit at present.Public Health is a euphamism for raving certifiable plonkers who can't be locked up since there's no room in the prisons.
Thanks, Erik. I don't want to think about the bad things adults can deliberately do with cigarettes, and I suspect you don't either. I am glad there is a line in the sand for that already. And I suspect caring parents should do their best to smoke so their kids don't have to put up with things(they probably already do.)
I think we all are on the same side of the issue in many of these cases, even if we may disagree on how legally enforcable the last statement should be. But dusting aside this brief moment of camaraderie I offer other problems I see with the law.
What if a parent smokes in the car and then they drive their kid home from school later? Now, I agree the smell would be unappealing and the worst would be over, but given the rationale for the law and anti-smoking groups' claims that carcinogens hang in the air a long time without typhoon-level winds, isn't the case I presented equivalent to smoking with a kid in the car? Doesn't the legislation have to go further? And wouldn't people have to go 15' outside their homes to comply with a similar clause in smoking outside public buildings?
Then if someone is pulled over for another offense while smoking, do they need to show family history on demand? With generally ticket happy officers, this is an uncool thought.
This would also prevent smokers with kids from buying cars with tinted windows. (Which could be construed as hiding from the law, like a radar detector.) What about unmarried childless couples? And either way, wouldn't that encourage them to roll up the windows more?
Now, I don't care one way or another about tinted windows, but it opens up a bag of worms about other oddball "extras" I dislike on civil rights grounds(i.e. a police camera that can see through tinted windows to enforce the law effectively, or people not able to afford tinted windows will suffer disproportionately--the poor, again, get the brunt of the enforcement. As they would under a ban in homes--rich people being more likely to be able to have safe outdoor places to go smoke.)
I am so glad that I don't have any children, and for many reasons in additon to current government intrusions and smoking bans. Children are being turned into the best bargaining chips/tools/excuses for social engineering.
Just after reading this post, I left to drive my daughter to rehearsals.
I smoked a cigarette on the way, I don't even think my daughter was aware of the fact. I was in the front seat of a van with the window open, she was in the back reading a book. I was paying particular attention to how much smoke might reach my daughter. The air circulation was taking the smoke from the lit end of the cigarette directly out the window. I was having a hard time seeing any smoke at all, as it seemed to be diluted to the point of invisibilty as it was being produce. I observed the same phenomenon from the exhaled smoke. I would be willing to bet that had a sensitive smoke detector been mounted near my daughter's nose it would detect nothing or damned close to it. I smoked 1 cigarette in a 35 min drive.
I NEVER smoke in my car without opening my window. I don't know any smokers that smoke with their windows closed. I'm willing to bet that the VAST MAJORITY of parents who smoke in cars with children do so with the window open.
Now because folks like Erik like to envision parents chain smoking with the windows shut, and maybe their are a miniscule # of people who do (though I tend to doubt it) they want to pass a law making the activity I described above illegal and consider it child abuse?
I would posit that it would be people like me that would actually heed to such a law and the chain smoking idiot (if there is such a person) would ignore it.
SO I ASK. EXACTLY WHAT DOES THIS LAW DO TO PROTECT ANY CHILDREN FROM EXACTLY WHAT? WHAT HARM DID I INFLICT ON MY CHILD TODAY AND WOULD YOU KINDLY PLEASE COME TO MY HOME, EXAMINE MY CHILD AND POINT OUT THE DAMAGE?
If you can't, then STAY OF OUF MY BUSINESS.
The hyperbole on this issue is quite simply BEYOND BELIEF.
Theoretical threats of potential harm in the hands of lunatics are a real and serious threat to my liberty
which I value as much as my life.
Of course Garnet it's for the children,all the offspring of Public Health people who can rake in the funding by presenting ficticious reports and stupid inept findings to endorse even more smoking bans,while the offspring of smokers look for scraps and handouts since daddy was sacked for being a SMOKER.The US is certainly home to some seriously xenophobic,homophobic and god knows how many more phobics.First they screwed the native americans,then the black community,then the communist fraternity,then the anti draft etc finally ending up at the moment trying to screw smokers.Tolerance is not one of the best traits on display here.
Let's settle this.
I volunteer to conduct an experiment.
I will personally pay $50.00 towards the one week rental of a TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor from Raeco, the same model used by Repace in his "Seven Cities" and other studies.
This rental will cost approximately $200.00. The details for the product can be found here, look under "particulate monitoring."
http://www.raeco.com/
raecorents_...s_products.html
I will drive for a short trip or series of short trips with the window down when smoking, and when not smoking. We will see the difference, and I will publish the full results.
I will also use it to sample the air quality in one or more local bars over an entire shift, not just for the 30 to 60 minute periods during peak business hours that Repace measured in the "seven cities" study.
Anyone who would like to contribute should email me privately:
ed_psycho@yahoo.com
Would someone care to check my math and my logic on the following? That’s a serious request. I want to make sure I understand this, and that I’ve not made any errors in arithmetic, or in logical deduction.
As I noted above, a lobbyist for the American Heart Association made an extraordinary claim as reported by the Contra Costa Times on June 29:
"A recent study published by the Pediatrics journal confirmed that more children die of secondhand smoke exposure than all other accidental causes of injury and death combined," said Brendan Twohig of the American Heart Association.
I take this to mean that secondhand smoke exposure kills more children than all other accidental death causes, combined. I found this hard to believe on its face, but also for other reasons:
1. I don’t know what journal article Twohig is referring to, and several Google searches couldn’t come up with an article in Pediatrics that stated such a thing, though I found several Pediatrics articles on secondhand smoke and children. If anyone knows of this study, please let me know.
2. The Centers for Disease Control does not list “secondhand smoke exposure” as a cause of death in its mortality statistics table, at all, let alone as an “accidental” cause of death. Therefore, I can’t know what data Twohig is using.
3. The Centers for Disease Control states in its own fact sheet that “Motor vehicle injuries are the leading cause of death among children in the U.S.”
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factshe...ts/
childpas.htm
If this is true, I can’t reconcile the claim that secondhand smoke exposure kills more children than motor vehicle accidents AND all other accidental death causes combined. If motor vehicle accidents are THE leading cause of childrens’ accidental deaths, and the CDC does not list “secondhand smoke exposure” as an “accidental cause of death” (which it does not), then how can secondhand smoke exposure kill more children than the leading accidental cause of death plus all the other accidental causes of death?
I decided to crunch some numbers. My attempt is somewhat confounded by the facts that:
1. I don’t know what age range Twohig defines as “children.”
2. I don’t know how to reconcile the fact that Twohig implies that “secondhand smoke exposure” is a recognized “accidental cause of death” with the fact that the CDC does not list it as a cause of death at all, accidental or intentional, in its mortality data.
3. I suspect Twohig is making a broad leap from the hypothesis that secondhand smoke exposure may contribute to some illnesses that result in death, all the way to a conclusion that any cause of death in a child that may be aggravated by SHS is, therefore, a death caused by secondhand smoke. This is not logical.
So, here are my assumptions for the following numbers:
1. I decided to count all deaths among children from birth to age 14, as reported by the CDC, as children’s deaths. The CDC tabulates deaths from 1-4, 5-14, and 15-24, so there’s no way to get the causes of death from 0-18 years old from their data.
2. I added up the total causes of death for all children age 0-14, as reported by the CDC. For 2003, that number was 39,944
Source: National Vital Statistics Report, v. 54, no. 13, Table 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvs...4/
nvsr54_13.pdf
3. Of that total of 39, 944 deaths, I totaled the number that were attributable to all *accidental* causes of death. That total was 5,280.
Therefore, if my arithmetic and my understanding are correct, the total number of people age 0-14 who died from accidental causes of death in 2003 was 5,280. Twohig is claiming that secondhand smoke exposure caused more than 5,280 childrens’ deaths, by my reckoning, if he used the same age range as I did. Again, if his claim that secondhand smoke exposure kills more kids than all other accidental death causes combined is true, then the CDC must be wrong in its statement that car accidents are the leading cause of accidental deaths.
Am I missing something? I’m not asking that rhetorically; I’d really like to know if someone can find an error with my method. I don’t mind being corrected, or learning something new.
But iff Twohig’s dire claim turns out to be true, he should alert Tobacco Free Kids, which claims that only 280 children die from “respiratory illnesses caused by secondhand smoke.”
Source: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/r...ts/pdf/
0077.pdf
my guess is Twohig intentionally made this extreme statment without knowing the real facts, with full knowledge the media would pick up on it and run. nothing new, the lies and deceit continue.
Magaret, Shame on you for smoking around your child. And shame on you for experimenting with your child like that. Its precisely because of parents like you, who think they can take medial knowledge into their own hands that these kinds of laws are necessary. I am not telling you how to raise your kids at all. Doctors say don't smoke around your kids. You could heed that, but instead you want to experiment on your child to see how much smoke they get because apparently you think you know better than the entire medical community. You find me one doctor who says smoking in a car with kids is OK and I will retract all of this. But given the information that is out there, your attitudes and what you are doing is downright irresponsible.
"Your attitudes and what you are doing is downright irresponsible."
So is taking your kid to Burger King for nearly every meal, but should we ban that?
So is using abortion as a method of birth control, but should we ban that?
So is failing to put sunscreen on your kid and having them suffer a sunburn. Is that irrseponsible? Sure. Should it be a crime? Hopefully not, because if it were, I would be a criminal.
I think we should take care of our own business and not cast judgment on the behavioral decisions of others, except in cases where there is immediate physical harm, such as physical or sexual abuse, which I think we can all agree to condemn.
Josh-
Thanks for pointing out this seemingly inaccurate statistic. I'll see if I can find out where it is coming from.
But given the information that is out there, your attitudes and what you are doing is downright irresponsible.
Anonymous
And the reason anyone should care what someone too afraid to identify themselves thinks............is? Pretty brave when safe behind a computer screen eh? I dare you to say that to her face.
Then again, on the other hand, it could have been sheer sarcasm too from one of our own, in which case, ignore the previous paragraph.......LOL
Josh,
I believe that the age range Twohig defines as "children" is any person under the age of 95. Up to that age, children are simply not mature enough to make decisions for themselves, and need public health officials to tell them what to do. Did you know that up to 20% of children above the age of 20 years smoke cigarettes, and tobacco use is one of the main causes of lung cancer for children in their 70's?
FWIW, I think this society has become "anti-parent" in many many many ways. But that's a whole other discussion...
Forcing a parent to pay an extra 2000-3000$ per year in taxes hurts their kids.
Firing a parent from their job or denying them employment to begin with hurts their kids.
Denying a parent health insurance hurts their kids.
Making it difficult for parents to obtain housing hurts their kids.
Criminalizing parents and dragging them through the justice system for minor infractions hurts their kids.
Creating an atmosphere of hatred and intolerance against parents hurts their kids.
Doctors say don't smoke around your kids.
Doctors also give 24 hour old infants Hepatitis B vaccines for a disease they are not at risk for. There were 24,406 adverse events (795 deaths)reported to VAERS in children related to Hepatitis B.
Don't you think it's downright irresponsible to expose tiny infants to such potential risk?
"Doctors say don't smoke around your kids. You could heed that ... -- anon"
And no you add: Law says you are not allowed to smoke around kids.
Why would you think parents will believe (obey) law but not doctors?
There are several reasons:
- "smoking around children" is not a precise term, so it is up to the parents to add their own judgment, the same way they judge whether the milk they feed is lukewarm or too hot.
- law enforcement is detached from the original purpose of the law. You smoke within a measurable distance from a child and it will be declared a crime. No question whether it actually does harm a child. A lit cigarette is proof enough.
This whole concept of reasoning creates an insane culture and false value system for it basically conveys the message: If it is forbidden don't even try to evaluate a situation or to apply your personal judgment, don't try to be a responsible parent with common sense. If it's not forbidden, do it.
The problem really is that the SG's report has shown again that we are not fed honest information, that we cannot trust our government. That their laws are not based on reality and facts.
Go back in history some 65 years and try to understand what happened in Germany at that time.
Andrew wrote: " Erik, there was no mention of whether the windows were rolled up or not or of chain smoking"
While there is no mention about whether or not the windows are rolled up or down, I do believe it was stated that the law would also include convertible cars with the roof down. So windows don't even matter, it's just the cigarette that matters.
tnsmoker wrote: "With your under-6-year-olds with you and the windows rolled down, you can drive a vehicle that spews toxic exhaust fumes on a 6-lane highway packed with vehicles as far as you can see in either direction, each vehicle spewing toxic exhaust fumes...but you can't smoke a cigarette? I think my brain just broke."
Yep, that's about right. It's alright to kill your kids with car exhaust, because........well, cars are a necessity and they like their cars. Besides, the exhaust from cars is at a safe level, which of course explains why you can't run a car in an enclosed space due to the absolute fact that it not only can but will kill you in as little as 30 minutes.
But cigarette smoke is soooooo much more deadlier didn't ya know? hehehe
You're right, the logic just boggles the brain. Which basically just proves that science isn't the absolute best proof of anything to me. Sometimes good old fashioned common sense and logic are much more accurate. Which is why they don't want us applying either, for then we might actually put some poor slob raking in the millions out of his luxury.
Yes, Dr. Siegel, but you aren't on this blog explaining to us that you conducted an experiment with your children - putting them in the sun for two hours just to see how they get burned.
As a doctor and a parent, you must have a reaction to someone who not only ignores the harm she causes her kids with SHS, but has the gall to come on this blog and explain that she knows SHS is safe because she conducted an experiment by smoking with her kids in the car.
I think most people out there assume that most parents try hard not to expose their kids to SHS. It's this kind of mentality that scares people into supporting laws banning smoking around children.
Dr. Siegel, if you want the government not to get involved, why don't you write a blog entry about this topic for people like Margaret and try to educate parents not to smoke around their kids.
You have no problem criticizing anti-smoking groups. Criticize PARENTS who do this kind of thing. THEY are the ones who give support to liberals who want to pass intrusive laws.
Jill, you arrogant, self-righteous, ..... I can't finish that it's just tooo far beneath me.
How dare you. I smoked in front of my child, and survived, and not only that, he had the balls to do so without most of the "ailments" your overly protected, bubble raised children did. Spare me your preaching.
WHO the hell do you think you are anyway?
All this talk about eliminating the most preventable cause of illness and death has just set off a light bulb in my head.
HERE is the most preventable cause of illness and death..........BIRTH
We need to sterilize everyone, and stop having babies. For it is an absolute, guaranteed, 100% irrefutable fact that the second you are born your risk of illness and death increases. No science is even needed for this one. It IS a FACT. Everyday you live increases that risk further.
Death IS a part of life and cannot be avoided at any cost. Therefore, birth is the MOST preventable cause of death. And for those of you who claim that we are supposed to live to a certain age, please tell me how you arrived at THAT decision and by what right they had to make that decision.
Think that too far-fetched? Well, it's not. After all, that is what is being preached about smoking........it is preventable therefore eliminate it.
Want to eliminate illness and dying? Don't be born. It is just THAT simple.
You find this laughable? You cannot avoid death. We start to die the minute we are born.
Jill
You really are a nasty-minded individual aren't you?
Margaret does not deserve to be subject to this particularly vicious tirade of sanctimony and merits an apology from you for your deliberately twisted and spiteful interpretation of what she actually said.
There are a lot worse things a parent can do than smoke a cigarette with the window open and the child in the back seat. My concern is that people are going to keep the windows closed and try to hide their cigarettes so the Smoking Police don't report them to the authorities. That doesn't seem like progress to me. George Orwell, where are you now?
Jill knows from reading her little books that shs is deadly .EVERYTHING SHE KNOWS COMES FROM HER LITTLE BOOKS AND INDOCTRINATION SHE ATTENDS.Wisdom will never be acquired by Jill because she doesn't have an enquiring mind.She cannot stop to re-evaluate events or see them from another perspective,hence the myopic tunnel vision all public health dipshits have or develop.So go ahead and berrate Margaret and hit her over the head with a lead pipe in your vain hope of changing her misguided attempts at seeing what the picture really looks like,perhaps next time she might even smoke a cigar with the windows down or even a pipe,but the car exhaust pipe you want to stick your lips around to prove the catalytic converter really works is down to you.You fail hands down Jill,the public is your customer so acting like a bombastic nurd will win you many friends and influence many others.Margaret could have discovered that the smoke did return into the car and that would have undoubtably led to her refraing whilst driving.Stop judging people by your own meticulous standards,people have experience of life and don't need your style of public health by nazi style diktat.Haven't you enough worldly experience yet to realise public health do not have all of the answers and you only see the world through your rose tinted glasses,who do you blame for your life being what it is?
Joel makes a great point. If people are afraid they are going to be ticketed for smoking, at least some of them may actually be more likely to smoke with the windows closed to make it less likely that they are noticed.
The whole idea of the smoking police is scary to me, because I think it could have some negative impacts on health. For example, I seriously think that kids whose parents smoke will be less likely to have access to needed health care if we penalize smoking around children. Just as children of illegal immigrants are less likely to get needed health care because the parents are afraid of being found out and deported.
Dear anonymous,
So sorry to disappoint you but I am not ashamed of myself. In fact, I'm quite proud of the fact that I can think and observe and make decisions for myself. I "saved" a life last night (or to put it more accurately prevented someone from dying on my shift). How? Well - I questioned a doctor's orders!!! Oh my, you say? You didn't just blindly follow his written prescription for disaster? How dare you!!!
Nope. Just couldn't do it, instead I called him up and convinced him to rethink his decision.
I think it's about time more people started to rethink a hell of a lot of the advice they are getting from their doctors and start taking back responsibility for their own health.
Conversation this morning with my boss.
"How was last night?"
"Busy."
"Good. Every meeting I go to lately, everyone is complaining that the census is down."
Welcome to the business of "healthcare". We need sick people to survive. Healthy people are bad for business.
Have a safe holiday and for goodness sake - stay awake from fireworks displays - you will expose yourself to all that SHS from those nasty chemicals they use in pyrotechnics. Oh, never mind. I forgot. They must be "safe" as they don't contain any tobacco.
but has the gall to come on this blog and explain that she knows SHS is safe because she conducted an experiment by smoking with her kids in the car.
Yes, that's one of the problems. If someone believes second hand tobacco smoke is harmless, they are going to have no incentive to protect their children from it.
Why should they?
But Erik you have failed to provide evidence that shs is harmfull !The Sad Git( SG )has dictated, politically, all shs is dangerous because they are sick of not being able to prove it.You may not like the smell or it may irritate your eyes or throat but that is not your ticket to the boneyard.We don't all lap up what is printed in the papers or blasted out on TV,logic dictates what is feasible or what is pure hyperbole.Go and play with some DU (depleted uranium) it's half life is massive so it emits only a small proportion of radioactivity,this is agreed by all concerned,they will say it doesn't emit gamma radiation so its pretty safe,it emits beta radiation but that will only penetrate a layer or two of skin if you are holding it,it emits alpha radiation ,the weakest kind so there's nothing at all to worry about,but if you find out for yourself,you will discover inhaling a single particle of alpha radiation will lodge in your lung and give you lung cancer in a relatively short space of time.They will not find it because they do not look for it.A smokers chance of lung cancer is 1 in 8.Who cares about DU? Well it is made into shells to fire at people,it is used on proving grounds,it gets blown in the wind but you are happy because they told you it was perfectly safe.
Erik wrote: "Yes, that's one of the problems. If someone believes second hand tobacco smoke is harmless, they are going to have no incentive to protect their children from it."
Considering most of us lived through being raised around SHS even more than kids today are exposed, we already know it's not the deadly poison you want us to believe it is. We have first hand experience. We don't say it's harmless, but we are intelligent enough to know that it is not going to kill someone who is healthy. Not in the minute amounts they are exposed to these days anyway. And as long as our kids don't have asthma or heart problems, I fail to see the problem.
I also fail to see what business it is of yours how someone raises their child.
And I'm still waiting for one of you anti geniuses to explain the rise in asthma, lung cancer, etc, given that smoking rates have decreased by almost half in the last 30 years or so, and that more and more places have been smoke free for at least 20 years.
but has the gall to come on this blog and explain that she knows SHS is safe because she conducted an experiment by smoking with her kids in the car.
Yes, that's one of the problems. If someone believes second hand tobacco smoke is harmless, they are going to have no incentive to protect their children from it.
Why should they?
Exactly EriK,
Why should I?
Because my doctor told me she'd get asthma? She doesn't.
Because my doctor told me she'd be at increased "risk" for ear infections? Is increased "risk" more dangerous than the real thing? I ask because she has never had an ear infection and she's about to turn 12.
Because my doctor told me she's at increased "risk" (there's that word again) for frequent respiratory infections? Is that worse than an occasional mild cold? Because that's what she gets now.
Because my doctor told me it would stunt her growth? She's wearing my clothes already! We share shoes!
Because my doctor told me she'd be at increased "risk" for learning disabilties? Is that worse than straight A's?
Because my doctor told me she would be at "risk" for decreased lung function? Is that worse than being able to distinguish her voice quite clearly over the other 20 kids in the choir because she belts it out so loudly?
Because my doctor told me she'd be at increased "risk" for lung cancer?
Well there's a nifty little WHO study that says I might actually be offering her protection.
Because my doctor says it might increase her "risk" for heart disease? I'll take my chances there since I have a negative family history and was lucky enough to ignore the advice of the morons who switched everyone from wholesome foods to lo-fat garbage.
You're so right Erik. I have a damned hard time not believing in what I see before my very eyes every morning. I just can't beleive that I don't have a happy, healthy child. I have a real hard time beleiving that what I really see before me every day is an abused and damaged child that is nothing but a time bomb waiting to go off any second because I smoke. How long do think think I'll have to wait before reality hits me over the head and I see the havoc I have wrought?
Oh and Jill
As a doctor and a parent, you must have a reaction to someone who not only ignores the harm she causes her kids with SHS, but has the gall to come on this blog and explain that she knows SHS is safe because she conducted an experiment by smoking with her kids in the car.
Piss off. What harm am I ignoring? Why do you have the gall to assume my child has been harmed without any evidence of damage?
When did "potential risk" become the equivalent of actual damages in the minds of you imbeciles?
Take 1000 kids and paint their toenails green.
Take another thousand kids and paint their toenails blue.
At the end of a week. Two children with green toenails got a cold and only 1 kid with blue toenails did.
Green toenails increase your risk of getting a cold by 50%
We need to ban green nail polish don't you think? Look at the "potential risk" it is causing our children!!!!
Why should they?
Doctor Siegel,
Although my skepticism about medicine in general began in college, I was pretty much on board and part of the machine (even at one time wanted to work at CDC) until I had my first child. I was very much a victim of the anti-smoker zealots during my first pregnancy and delivery. They caused me harm because of the way I was treated because I smoke. Their unneccessary interventions caused me permanent damage. You fear that smokers will avoid healthcare? I would consider it a benefit after what I went through.
I think most people out there assume that most parents try hard not to expose their kids to SHS. Jill S.
Well, you assume wrong. I don't try not to expose them to cigarette smoke any more than I try to not expose them to car exhaust, candles, incense, grills, cooking in my home or in a restaurant, bonfires, fireworks, etc. (except concentrated in an enclosed area for extended periods--duh). Smoke is smoke.
See, I don't parrot the anti party line. I've actually analyzed the information, read the conclusions of studies (I'm working my way through reading the actual studies), and listened to both sides. I don't consider cigarette smoke any more hazardous than the other things I just mentioned. All are hazardous and involve risk at some level, but cigarette smoke is probably somewhere in the middle, definitely less hazardous than automobile exhaust especially diesel, but probably more than the candles I burn when the electricity goes off at night during a storm.
I've not been impressed with the way the antis present their case on these forums. They give the same tired speeches about how bad cigarette smoke is, but they don't bother to respond to most questions asked of them especially when asked for proof. (That's a clue right there that they're full of BS.) When they get backed into a corner, they ignore the question, wait for a new topic, and start screaming their crap again. They're belligerent, agressive, and self-righteous. And they gloat. Even IF they were in the right, I wouldn't listen to them because of how rude they are and how self-important they think themselves to be.
In the end, it's simply none of your business how I raise my children. Or how anyone else raises theirs. Keep your busybody nose out of my life and I'll keep mine out of yours. I'm sure you have habits, hobbies, and lifestyle choices that offend me, that I dislike and think are dangerous and destructive and put you and your family at a questionably higher risk of harm than I'm willing to put me and mine. I probably don't approve of how you raise your children, but I wouldn't be so downright crude as to tell you how to raise them. So get a life and get out of mine!
Margaret--I've observed the same thing. With the window down, even just a bit, the smoke is carried out of the vehicle. I'm more concerned about what's being brought in!! The exhaust from my vehicle and the other vehicles...and that diesel tractor I'm trailing behind here in farming country.
Yes, Dr. Siegel, but you aren't on this blog explaining to us that you conducted an experiment with your children - putting them in the sun for two hours just to see how they get burned.
Geez, you are a study ,Jill. I grew up in (sunny) Cal before sunscreen-- or sun fear-- was invented and my parents (my father, a doctor, yet) conducted these Mengele-like "experiments" , allowing me to play in the sun for two--hell, 3, 4-- and on weekends even 6 or 7-- hours. Think it;s too late to try them at Nuremburg?
And listen, if you do, by some miracle, manage to get married before your biological clock runs out, I pause to pity your swaddled, and preternaturally fearful kids--no beaches, barbeques, Cokes, hotdogs and ultimately no spunk, no character, no fun. That, or they rebel bigtime and bad,,,
tnsmoker can either be said to have beaten me to it or has given me the perfect segue to what it was I wanted to add 
(first need to shake idiot Repace out of my mind)
Okay... I've had to explain and then show to many people that opening both car windows -- driver and passenger side -- causes the smoke to swirl around the inside of the car before it heads out.
But cracking your one window (whoever is smoking, driver or passenger) just an inch and holding your cigarette in the hand on that side causes the smoke to be sucked right out.
So strictly for this argument's sake (because personally, I could care less about the smoke being sucked out or not or who it is I have in the car with me), smokers would do better for their passengers to only crack their own window a little.
But oh the howls the antis would have over seeing a slightly opened window as opposed to two fully open windows. Idiots.
JustTheFacts wrote: "But oh the howls the antis would have over seeing a slightly opened window as opposed to two fully open windows. Idiots."
I couldn't agree with you more, JTF. I too noticed the cracked window to be super efficient at sucking out the smoke, in fact, even when alone in the car, that is how I used to smoke when driving.
The fact that the antis think smokers never ever open windows and ventilate, is idiotic. My non-smoking sister was one who never opened any windows in her apartment, or rarely did anyway, and I can't tell you how disgusting her place used to smell with all that stale air in there from any sweating she did, morning breath, expelled gas, etc.
She used to come to my apartment, and even with my smoking, would ask how come my place didn't smell as bad as, actually worse than hers since I smoked. I pointed out to her because I always have 2 windows at least cracked open a bit to allow for air exchange. Such an obvious AND simple little thing and they don't get it. It's a good thing my sister never had kids of her own, that's all I can say, for surely they'd have been poisoned to death with all her "smoke-free" air.
This seems to be the most recent and still "active" entry that best fits the following evidence for the slippery slope (lots of it via "the children") that Dr. Siegel describes. It also contains the hate language that is directed at smokers:
Do to the obese what we've done to smokers
By Wayne Brown
Sunday Star Times - June 11, 2006
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/
0,2...94a1861,00.html
[Excerpts]
New Zealand is not the only place facing an obesity epidemic. To get an understanding of how we are becoming so overweight it's worth a visit to the land of the free and home of the brave where all this overeating started.
The United States these days is neither free nor brave but it is certainly fat. The overwhelming culture of food-forced advertising and oversized portions of what are really platefuls of poison is a shock to any visitor.
We've made smoking such an unacceptable social condition that smoking areas outside bars are now called "leper colonies" by other drinkers.
This sort of social pressure is needed to rescue the next generation from their fat uncaring parents.
Hmmmm, have we ever asked Bill, Jill or Erik to step on a scale for us? Step right up folks and let's see if we can slap a yellow FAT star on your arm and also start the proceedings for your child abuse charges.
You write beautifully. Keep it up!
Best Dietary Supplements
This is turning our country into a dictatorship. Stop hiding behind the BS of public health safty. You are telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of there car and home. That is exactly what a dictatorship is.
Religion has been outlawed in public, smoking, what else is it going to be. OH yea, taking peoples rights from ther private areas. This is outrageous.
7 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
