The response the anti smoker faction WILL GIVE could be encapsulated in the words of that great tennis pro John McEnroe "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS ".
Dr Siegel--
I appreciate your being able to show how to go about questioning people who say "We wouldn't say something so drastic if it weren't true." It's helped my overstatement(or other stuff)-detector to be more diligent in areas completely unrelated to smoking and helped me ask questions about more personally pressing issues than whether or not I have a right to smoke in bar X or tobacco shop Y or restaurant Z.
Unfortunately many of my leaps are inductive instead of deductive, so I can only state so much, but I know my immediate thoughts after reading stuff from a year ago was "Oh man, tobacco smoke is way worse than I thought for others, what else am I doing wrong?" and wondering if another group would be along to restrict that, too. Which is not how public health works at its best. I've had *people* give me a line like that before but seeing the difference between the antismoking groups' approach and yours leaves me confident that the right/wrong way to approach an issue spills out towards other aspects of life as well.
Maybe we'll be on different sides of the popular wisdom/consensus one day on this issue, but in the meantime, thanks for the good stuff on the side.
Now I'll stop before putting this blog on the road to the sort of echo chamber you're concerned the tobacco control movement has become 
Freud, Antismokers and the Removal of Children
Having been a perceptive psychologist there are times in this day and age of drier analysis when Freud still remains useful.
With regard to the antismoker movement Freud enables us to gain some invaluable insights into the condition of a group of people who for the most part are suffering from a profound neurosis if not a psychosis.
The reaction of the fervent antismoker to the smoker is one that Freud would have described as being typically neurotic, in that, confronted by the smoker, the antismoker will no longer consider or contemplate that person as a human being with many facets and a personality but simply as something vile to be avoided or eliminated without further regard.
Key to the personality of the antismoker is the reaction to the phallic symbolism imparted by a cigarette. Cigarette smoking, in addition to its erotic connotations, represents a supremely adult activity, namely, the ability and willingness to take a calculated personal risk for the sake of pleasure, life enhancement or reinforcement of the libido. Therefore, in vain will the antismokers manage to destroy the sexual connotations and allure connected with smoking, for these occur naturally and were not initially the product of the film industry although the latter probably highlighted these attributes and made them unambiguous in the mind of the public.
In terms of personality, many fervent antismokers come across as being repressed or essentially prissy and hence give the impression of lacking something. Freud would probably have considered them to suffer from a castration complex and thus, when confronted by the cigarette’s phallic and pleasurable significance, their angst is stimulated twice over: firstly by the strong phallic aspect of the cigarette and secondly, by their sense of personal inadequacy when confronted by immediate personal risk.
The fervent antismoker has more bad news in store for if we look at the evidence Freud would have unquestionably dubbed them as also being “anally retentive”.
Let us consider then the manner in which despite the frequent criticisms of and the real holes to be found in the arguments and evidence that purports to show that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a deadly toxic substance, the antismoker movement just cannot let this idea go and subsequently can never enjoy the pleasure of relief and creativity.
Instead, this movement simply repeats time and time again the same flawed arguments and studies rather like a constipated person who, unable to obtain the necessary toiletry relief, nevertheless insists in pushing and pushing in the erroneous belief that he or she will produce a “genuine” faecal pellet. This breeds an intense frustration and stymies the eventual development of new and free flowing ideas.
The resulting frustration generates an even greater hate of the substance that the antismoker is fixated with.
The attack on tobacco smoke - both primary and secondary - should be seen as an obvious one. The antismoker hates and fears the phallic and risk taking significance of the cigarette and smoking and, by inevitable natural extension, those who use them. Therefore, not satisfied with the fact that smokers may pay painfully for their pleasure and satisfaction, the antismoker is driven to declare that the projected “offspring” of the cigarette - the secondary smoke - is a vile and dangerous offspring. By so doing the antismoker is able to diminish the potency of the phallus.
If you think I am joking I am not and now the picture becomes truly interesting.
Let us then consider that emphasis that has been placed by the antismokers on the diminution of potency and fertility caused by smoking. We know that after a period of very heavy smoking during the Second World War there was a baby boom. In addition, subsequent heavy smoking generations produced millions of children. Under the circumstances, if there is the risk of infertility caused by smoking it cannot be a very great one any more than can be the risk to the children of parents who smoke for we search in vain for all the damaged and dead babies and toddlers. Moreover, if we used irresponsible causal reasoning, as does the antismoker movement, then tobacco is a blessing for it has assisted us to be fertile. Consider the huge increases in population that took place in Europe since Sir Walter Raleigh first brought tobacco back from America.
Things become sinister however, when we further examine the current trend of the antismoker movement to advocate the removal of children from parents who smoke on the grounds that those parents are child abusers.
Such removal, to the anti mind, indicates the perfect proof of their position.: “see, we have taken your children away so you have no children for everyone knows that smokers are impotent and infertile.”
By the same token, they can point to the couple who don’t smoke and who, subsequently, are permitted to keep their children and say: “see these are fertile because they do not smoke”.
This is probably the pinnacle of satisfaction for the anally retentive antismokers for it enables them to reorder the world in line with their dreams: it is like the constipated person who manufactures turds out of papier maché and who then asserts: “you see, I am not unnatural for I too am a creator!”
Such thinking would seem to go hand in glove with the idea that the antismoking movement can also play God for the inadequate always have great dreams. Furthermore, it has already been well noted that as time has gone by and the criticism of the antismoker penchant for exaggerating small levels of risk has become louder, they should make the ultimate claim that there are no safe levels of ETS.
This now elevates their claim to the status of a law of nature and formally presented the proposition has the nature of: For all A then B.
Whereas one may see how such a propositional format may be suited to the fact that all metals are good thermal conductors, where ETS is concerned it is difficult to see how such a tenet could hold as the elements contained in tobacco smoke are not unique to it but shared by many other substances. Hence, I contend confidently that if this claim were subjected to rigorous and honest hard-nosed scrutiny by physicists and chemists it would not pass muster as a newly discovered law of nature. Rather it is the case that what we have here is the supreme conceit of a strangely twisted movement that thinks it can play God - a role for which is creatively unsuited and at which it is failing miserably.
Blad,which way is the mushroom cloud heading ?
Good points Dr. Siegel. I agree that discussion on these points is needed. A more consistent message is important. Less in-fighting is important, because all it does is play to the interests of the tobacco companies.
If I dare advise; There are two parts to this. I think YOU start by toning down your rhetoric a bit. No offense, but criticizing and attacking anti-smoking groups publicly on this blog, in the newspapers and on TV isn't exactly a model for how to encourage folks within the movement to discuss some of these issues with you.
On their side, they need to be open to looking at the possibility they made mistakes in interpreting and reporting the research. I don't think you are going to wrench public retractions from anyone.
What you might get, if you try (and I hope you do), is a greater effort to refine the message to ensure that it does not over state the science. I'd be willing to bet that many of these groups would be more than happy to more carefully analyze their communications with the public to ensure it is clear and precise.
Maybe *I* am wrong. I don't know. I do know that when a company makes a product and lies about its deadliness, its addictiveness and its your brother/dad/sister/mother that loses their life, I understand how people might get a little fanatical. But it seems to me that your colleages would prefer not to have this public battle going on because they know as well as you do that it undermines public health.
The other issue is one of trust. I don't think there is much of it between you and your colleages. That's something that has to be built up over time.
So people can laugh at my post, make fun of it, call it naive, whatever. If both sides care about the health of people in the middle (those left working in smoky bars and restaurants in 35 states) then I hope you'll all take some time to find ways to support each other in spite of disagreements. And I'd say the same thing to the anti-smoking groups.
Jill,
Here's a question for all these health care "fanatics" like you, who claim to care about the health of people "in the middle," that is, who work in smoky bars and restaurants:
Did you ask them if they wanted your help? Did they ask you?
I see no organized movement on the part of bar and restaurant workers to institute smoking bans.
Ed, New York was an early example. In PA the hospitality assocations are supporting bans now as well for the very reason you are talking about:
http://www.thepittsburghchannel....522/
detail.html
"It all comes back to employees, bartenders and waitstaff, who are sometimes exposed to constant secondhand smoke, said restaurant association president Kevin Joyce."
"The recent studies that study hospitality employees that are non-smokers and the incidents of lung cancer, the incidents of heart disease related to secondhand smoke -- it's hard to not look at that evidence," said Joyce.
Jill S. wrote: "New York was an early example."
Did you live there, Jill? Because I did, and trust me.....there was NO discussion, no vote. This is what the mayor wanted and what he got.
I kid you not about this. I watched a huge bar/restaurant (part of a chain actually) right across the street from Grand Central Station, close within 6 months of the ban, because they lost all their customers. That place used to be packed for lunch and after work, the entire downstairs (the largest part with separate bar) was the non-smoking section and was always empty anyway. The upstairs was always packed. After the ban, the non-smokers did NOT flock to these places as promised.
New York is not an example of a democratic process, it WAS an example of a bully in the schoolyard.
Dr Siegel--
You're wrong. The movement is right to lie. And to generate hate. It's expedient. It works (and how). And nobody calls them on it. So why should they change their ways or moderate their message? The message--as Jill ponts out-- is basically yours: "secondhand smoke kills," and the rest is just fussing over whether it kills in an hour or in forty-seven minutes.
To paraphrase the old joke: we've established what it is; now it's just a question of haggling about the time.
Jill's whack at psychology as a weapon oozes all over the place. Please, someone get a rag and clean it up. It's a disgusting mess.
As for quoting heads of restaurant associations as if they suddenly have expertise on the scientific matter because it agrees with you is a joke.
Any hospitality association that has decided to support a ban does so for one reason only -- fear of what they been brainwashed to believe as "inevitable" and that if they don't act preemptively and get the entire state banned their businesses will suffer. In other words, their interest is in having their COMPETITION legislated, NOT smoking. But they can't say that out loud so they say the other crap.
But Jill, keep on bringing your nerf bat to a gun fight. It's very entertaining.
JustTheFacts........you do not know how correct you are about the Restaurant Associations. But I will take it one step further....In many instances they were not only seeking to have their competition legislated but were seeking legislative means to SHUT DOWN the competition. I watched it happen first hand in Delaware.
At the time of the debate in Delaware the Restaurant Association consisted primarily of several upscale dining establishments (nearly all smoke-free on their own) and chain restaurants (Lone Star, AppleBee's, etc). Those type places can handle an initial downslide in customers, while the local mom and pop diner could not. When local bars, which are not memebers of the DRA where included in the ban, the DRA jumped on the ban bandwagon. What happens when Joe's tavern closes it's doors for lack of customers? The only place to stop for a cold one after work is AppleBee's or TGIFriday. in many areas of Delaware the chains are now the only game in town because the corner places are gone.
I guarantee the people who lost their jobs did NOT ask the busybodies to protect their health.....they would much prefer their old jobs back instead of now working in WalMart.
Dr. Siegel:
If you'll check the GLink listserve today (I am informed that you can access them) there are folks who would welcome your return (I am among them). And, as I understand it from Glink management, you were not kicked off or banned. Rather, you were asked to agree not to post repetitive material -- collegial behavior to which we all should aspire.
I will be honest with you and tell you that I found your posts leading up to the break between you and Glink to be repetitive and non-collegial.
However, I also thought you presented logical arguements that might have engendered valuable discussion. For this reason, I've made stopping by this blog a part of my daily routine. I still find the posts repetitive -- perhaps this style is your natural method of discourse -- but when distilled to their essence, your arguments should be heard and addressed within our community.
I hope you'll return to Glink.
Tom E.
A stunning display of arrogance dressed up as graciousness, Tom. I suppose repetitive misrepresentation by your side is perfectly fine. Who doesn't like to hear his own point of view echoed over, and over, and over?
Tom, one way to stop repetitive posts is to actually address the issues from the start. Apparently no one on the list-serve chose to do so. That would be MY guess. The same lies and distortions were being issued (talk about repetitive) so constantly addressing them is the only thing to do.
Guess you hadn't considered that though because it's alright for your side to constantly repeat your drivel.
"I still find the posts repetitive -- perhaps this style is your natural method of discourse -- but when distilled to their essence, your arguments should be heard and addressed within our community."
Tom E - I find all of the arguments put forward by you and all the other antismoker 'nodding dogs' to be repetitive ad nauseam -- perhaps this style is your natural method of discourse -- but when distilled to their essence, your arguments are completely vacuous and dishonest, and should be banned from within our communities.
Really, Tom, did you keep a straight face when you wrote your post?
Perhaps I'm not sufficiently collegiate - whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
Oops sorry, the word was collegial.
Still got bugger-all to do with the topic of debate, though.
TOM E TANKER why have you waited until now to offer this olive branch with added CAUSTIC soda?Nothing to do with the moronic SG's report which is extremely repetative ,contains nothing new other than a carte blanche decision by a rabid looney to state all shs is deadly,provided it is tobacco in origin.Why would anyone wish to believe you now following your timely explanation to Dr Siegel as to his removal last time,do you really think you deserve any credability for your behaviour and those of your short sighted control freaks you belong with.You are destroying the fabric of America with your insane fear of tobacco smoke and your intense desire to control an aspect of health that you have constantly failed to do previously.Your suggestion of discussing Dr Siegel's numerous concerns is so heart renduring i have an inescapable desire to puke.Obviously this blog coupled with Dr Siegel's penetrative insight is damaging the credability of a movement which has specialised in spreading lies,questionable statistics and a mindset which dictates the result can be achieved by whatever method,even if you destroy dissenters credability by numerous slurs and misinformation.You have no honour ,respectability or conscience .Your war on smokers is an abomination,the fact that the public have allowed this to occur proves you are no better that the tobacco companies you always accuse of secrecy and manipulation.
Dr Siegel
Your posts are far from repetitive. They show integrity and honesty and show no "anti-smoker" hatred. Although the pro-choice smoker like myself can still see your genuine desire to limit the harm done by tobacco I suspect the "antis" cannot. Once again, although I am an infrequent visitor, I applaud your continued endeavours. I wish you were on my side! No one could possibly fault your intentions to "clear the pitch" of exaggeration and falsehood.
My own view is that it is impossible to keep a lie going indefinitely and it will eventually be the downfall of the "anti-smoking" lobby. This could have enormous ramifications for the medical community in particular, esp the BMA, but also many worthy charities such as the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research. This would be potentially catastrophic for the credibility of science.
Please keep up the good work and I sincerely hope that discussion can be restarted between you and the tobacco control movement.
By the way I was quite fascinated by Blad's interpretation of Freud's work as it may relate to the anti-smoker. You do know I hope that he is being deadly serious?
Regards
Phil
Phil-
Thanks for your most kind words.
Maybe the SG had read this study for breakfast, before presenting his repost. Lesson well learned, Admiral!
Co-author of the study: SA Glantz.
Taxes on cigarettes have long been used to help reduce cigarette consumption. Social factors also affect cigarette consumption, but this impact has not been quantified. We computed a social unacceptability index based on individuals' responses to questions regarding locations where smoking should be allowed.
[...] If, through an active tobacco control campaign, the average individual's views on the social unacceptability of smoking changed to more closely resemble the views of California residents, there would be a 15% drop in cigarette consumption, equivalent to a $1.17 increase in the excise tax on cigarettes.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/
...H.2005.069617v1
"If, through an active tobacco control campaign, the average individual's views on the social unacceptability of smoking changed to more closely resemble the views of California residents, there would be a 15% drop in cigarette consumption, equivalent to a $1.17 increase in the excise tax on cigarettes.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/ ...H.2005.069617v1"
These people really are arrogant and egomaniacal, aren't they? Do they really believe people quit smoking when the price goes up? Don't they realize we just go out and find cheaper places to buy? Do they really think we can be manipulated THAT easily? hehehehehe
They know the "quitters" are not quitting-they count on those $$$ from bigP and bigT and bigRFP RWJF-to keep the cushy jobs/careers they have created. The state's AGs (NAAGS) have on their state sites/tobacco MSA listings of the legal cigs (companies and all their name/offname brands) you may purchase in your state legally.
I would just like to remind all who have a stake in those "counterfeit coin of the realm $$$" -
Please QUIT YOUR ADDICTION TO MY ADDICTION.
And if you can't quit your addiction to my addiction --- YOU ARE WELCOME!
thanks for "listening"
capri
Commenting by HaloScan
