The message as it was apparently delivered seems to me to ostracize and isolate smokers and make them social pariahs, who nobody should even be near. What a lonely life it would be for smokers if we actually heeded this advice.
Welcome to our world Doc.
I went to a charity company golf outing yesterday. One of my fellow employees who is a Reverand refused to ride in the golf cart with me because I smoked. BTW, He also doesn't drink because he's a Christian, but when I asked him "Didn't Jesus drink wine?" he had nothing to say. He also wouldn't gamble, so we couldn't even have a good "Skins" game.
This is the best part: he ended up riding with somebody else who lit up a BIG Cuban cigar snuck through customs. Then he got hit in the head with a golf ball from the two-some behind us. I'm sorry, but that should have been proof to me that there is a God up there somewhere...and he has a tremendous sense of humor. Funnier than Eddie Murphy, Sam Kennison and Lenny Bruce put together!
Anyway Dr. Siegel, here are two warning labels from me:
ERIC BLAIR WARNING: LISTENING TO THE SURGEON GENERAL COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO PREGNANT WOMEN'S CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS, AND RESULT IN DISCRIMINATION, DEMONIZATION AND A SON WHO 25 YEARS FROM NOW WILL COME AND MAKE YOU PAY FOR ABUSING HIS MAMA.
ERIC BLAIR WARNING: STAY AWAY FROM SMOKERS. THE SURGEON GENERAL WARNS THAT TELLING ME TO PUT OUT MY CIGARETTE COULD RESULT IN A BLACK EYE, LOST TEETH, TORN LIGAMENTS AND BROKEN BONES.
First, I don't think that "stay away from smokers" is the appropriate message to be giving the American public. 'Stay away from secondhand smoke', perhaps, or 'stay away from smokers who are smoking', but not 'stay away from smokers'.
Dr. Siegel,
You are getting into semantic hair-splitting here. Of COURSE the SG means to stay away from people WHO ARE SMOKING or MAY SMOKE IN YOUR PRESENCE, anywhere, anytime, indoors or out. Stop focusing on the "letter" and start focusing of the "spirit" of what he is saying.
I do NOT think that 'stay away from smokers who are smoking' is at all appropriate either. What would that mean in a private home where you have smoking and non-smoking members? Don't you understand that the whole point of this is to cast the act of smoking in the presence of anyone, under any circumstance, to be something so greviously harmful that it must be avoided at any cost; even if that means throwing your elderly mother out the door of her own home when she wants to smoke, and even if that means removing children from parents if they refuse to step out of their own homes to smoke.
"stay away from smokers" = quasi-eugenics
washington state is using tax dollars to openly advocate social isolation of smokers:
www.ashtraymouth.com
of course some would think it means that (if you think about the statement "stay away from smokers".
Although we know that in marketing and media: you have a 30 second time spand to get your mesage out.
We also know that in order to write this report it took a lot of time, and people. If he really wanted to say that (being a person whos taught how to say what he really means)wouldn't he just say that?
Sorry having that much education (in public speaking), he knows that people don't think what is meant they hear what is said.
no thinking is wanted in todays society. Look at the way kids are taughtthese days. You must do math this way only, can't do it your way (even if it works). Asking why, isn't tolerated in school. Ask any kid why, and they look at you like you have 3 heads.
I'm a non-smoker and I hate second hand smoke. But I just want you to know that you have my full support.
Some of us non-sheep are well aware of the "groupthink" that passes as scientific evidence and confirmed "killer" theories of this "involuntary" problem. I sure would like to scrutinize the science behind his claims.
According to the SG, brief exposure to sunlight should reduce me to vampyric ashes. Good luck, friend.
I just read that a committee of the American Academy of Sciences has judged that the hockey stick theory for Global Warming does not have sufficient proof to be adapted as a reality.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to submit the current claims of the anti-organizations to this committee?????
adapted=accepted
Sorry..
Wiel and Bunny get it.
benpal attempted the reductio ad absurdum argument with lunatic left wing liberals by asking in effect:
"What's next, banning exhaust fumes from cars?"
Unfortunately, there is no do-good proposal stupid or retarded or draconian enough for the left wing lunatic liberals to reject.
The answer to your question benpal is...
"uh, yes. Seriously. Exhaust fumes have to go. They're killing trees."
Don't believe me? See the website for Greenpeace, Sierra Club or from Al Gore and his global warming doomsday prophesy.
If there is one mainstream political issue that compares to tobacco control, it would be the "global warming" debate.
They use the same tactics: scare mongering and junk science.
Wait! You think Carmona's "stay away from smokers" is going to start their isolation and ostricization? Start their losing friends and being shunned by relatives? Where the hell have you been?
Carmona may have provided some ultimate coup de grace that may enshrine the paranoia of Kimball Physics (the company that fears "toxins" outgassing from smokers' clothes) but 20 years of vile and provocative propaganda have thoroughly accomplished what you're fearing might just now possibly begin. Hint: It started with your "secondhand smoke kills."
I have a folder full of these, but here's just a few examples:
BILLBOARD, SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNMENT:
"Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray."
TV SPOT, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, 1998
"A gas chamber is a chamber filled with poisonous gas. If you're with someone who's smoking, you're in one right now."
LEXINGTON, KY HERALD-LEADER, 8/23/96:
Barbara Phillips of the Kentucky Alliance to Control Tobacco advocates "making people who smoke appear to not be part of our culture and our daily view."
FROM USA TODAY,Letters, 8/15/97
Complaining of people smoking outdoors at Miami International Airport, Rita Zemjocak, president of Group Against Smoker's Pollution (GASP) opines that:
"Smokers should not be allowed near the entrances. Little glass cubicles should be built where they can wait to be met....Children must .. not see [smoking] as an enjoyable activity."
[Presumably, instead, children should see citizens robbed of all dignity and confined to a public pen, and thus learn the lesson that displeasing Florida State (and the likes of Ms Zemjocak) is a dangerous thing to do. An excellent lesson in civics.]
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, 9/22/97
"Many people quit smoking because it's just plain socially unacceptable,"[said a spokesman for the American Cancer Society.] "Health risks didn't move them...But the fact that they were social pariahs and not welcome in their own buildings did move them."
[And therefore, goes the thinking, it was well worth turning such a "Them" into pariahs.]
COLUMN, WINNEPEG FREE PRESS, 8/20/02
"The ghettoization of smokers, reducingthem to pack animals huddled in parking garages, has been wonderful to watch, but it doesn't go far enough."
EDITORIAL (EXCERPT) FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, 1/25/93
THE NEW LEPERS
"They lurk in damp alleys and dark doorways outside shiny office buildings all over town, hunkered down together to share their dirty little
secret, huddled together with their common stigma. The homeless? Winos?...No, they're smokers-- the new lepers...
COLUMN, THE ORANGE CTY REGISTER 5/4/97
"There is a true public hate-campaign going on in this country against smokers , the likes of which we do not see against any other minority."
FROM THE VILLAGE VOICE, TOMASKY, 2/22/94
"...[smoking]near building entrances, a practice that reduces decent people to feeling like criminals."
SYNDICATED MIKE BARNICLE COLUMN 4/7/98
"You can't miss the signs. They're all over the place, nearly everywhere you go, indoors as well as out. You also can't miss the attitude. Dismissive. Contemptous. Judgmental. A whole cross-section of human beings automatically labeled or ostracized because of a single bad habit. The signs say "No Smoking." And the mindset towards those who do can assume a zealotry that is absurd....Smoking has replaced communism, nuclear war, illiteracy and teen violence as America's No. 1 threat"
SYNDICATED MARK SHIELDS COLUMN, 1/4/97
"The most..persecuted group in this nation is made up those Americans who smoke...Smokers alone are subjected to apartheid American style.
..It is winter, when plummeting temperatures and cold wind chills mean that our fellow citizens who smoke are forced outdoors...there to risk frostbite or pneumonia...Let's resolve now to call off the inquisition and to treat our fellow human beings who smoke as fellow human beings."
Note the dates of these items. This is, and always has been, the goals and the methods of your Movement, Dr. Siegel. Carmona simply pushed it to the logical next step.
Walt, what I wonder and maybe McFadden can answer this is: When (not if) the tobacco companies mass market a nicotine delivery system that is smokeless but has the same effect, will anti's stop whining?
Or do they hate tobacco companies so much (for lying all those years) that they can't stand the idea of them making a profit off of anything?
mondawanda wrote: (and I resurrect his post for a reason)
O.K., I'm at the point that I'm thinking "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
I live in WA state and they soooo love initiatives here...you know Government by the majority. I am hoping someone could maybe tell me how I could get an initiative started to ban tobacco products outright.
I've not lost my mind, and there is a method here...I will simply use EVERYTHING that the antis are using to get my law passed.
I so dearly want to see ALL involved in this sham to go on the record and defend with a straight face how tobacco should still be legal when it is KILLING untold thousands. I will hold up this particular piece of evidence (SG report) as the cherry on top of the "mountain of evidence" that is widely available.
I'm not sure I have the real and lasting guts it would take to pull this off.. but I'm sure there has got to be some nut job out there scared out of their wits, and if they have the time, and inclination to try and outlaw tobacco... even though I love smoking, I will be the first in line to sign ANY initiative.
Make no mistake, the majority of our fellow citizens BELIEVE ALL OF THIS. No amount of reasoning, or scientific evidence to the contrary will be enough.
_____________________________
monowanda (whatever that means and whoever that is, he's a genius)
LET'S GET IT OVERWITH ALREADY!
How do you guys/gals feel about this:
Let's convene a special Senate subcommittee hearing on SHS.
If anti's can prove their case, we'll all quit smoking and join the good fight.
We'll demand that tobaccco sales in the US be stopped immediately since it's killing people left and right.
If not, anti's will cease and desist, all smoking bans will be rescinded, tobacco excise taxes will be repealed and we can stop discriminating against smokers.
I CALL! What do you have ASH and ANR?
A royal flush or more likely a toilet flush.
Enough already. Let's get it out in the open and show our cards.
cj, rest assured that Carmona was banking on the people that took his words literally. He can SAY, "oh, you know what I mean," but the intent of putting it the way he -- an educated and smart man who is in the political word business -- did was to plant the literal seed.
This is not hair-splitting. This is anti-smoker psychology at work.
JustTheFacts,
I agree with you that Carmona was really telling people to stay away from smokers, period.
I was just pointing out to Dr. Siegel that telling people to "stay from smokers", or telling people to "stay away from smokers while they are smoking" (as Dr. Siegel suggested as a possible alternative) was really saying the same thing ... namely, that "smokers must be avoided because they pose an immediate threat yo your well being."
I think Dr. Siegel was looking for a way to rationalize the SGs comments and give him a pass, as if the SG really didn't mean exactly what he said, as per his commentary:
I think that we can give the Surgeon General the benefit of the doubt and assume that he misspoke and this is not what he really meant. We can assume that what he actually meant was that nonsmokers should stay away from people who are smoking - from secondhand smoke.
I was trying to say that even if Carmona phrased the statement in the manner that Dr. Siegel suggested he should have, it would have meant exactly the same thing and carried the same message. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry if it got muddled up; I've been working the late shift these past few days and I'm not all together ...
I agree with cj here. Dr. Siegel's re-phrasing what the SG said, is saying the same thing, just adding more words.
I have to admit, Dr. Siegel, I am rather disappointed in you for not seeing that you are also saying the same thing. By leaving the word "smokers" in there, you also tell people to avoid us. Even telling them to avoid a person smoking to avoid the secondhand smoke, says the same thing.
The SG knew exactly what he was saying, and I find it disgusting that ANY public official would even dare to suggest the outright scorn and discrimination of an entire group (20 - 25% of the population no less) of people. Can you imagine the outcry, the calling for his apology AND expulsion from his position, had that report been about AIDS (or any other group of people) and he said avoid all people with AIDS?
CJ do you happen to recollect seing a comment i made shortly around 7.30 last night on this thread.It appears to have gone missing.
The nail is in the coffin.........it is not only politically correct to vilify, scorn, ostracize and discriminate against people who use tobacco products, but it is now sanctioned by the government.
Say good-bye to sex, race, age, disability or any other discrimination lawsuits if you are a smoker.......all an employer has to say is "the person uses tobacco" and bingo that person can be fired or refused employment for anything.
Thank you Dr. Siegel, regardless of how much you speak out against the ways and means of the anti-smoker cartel, you and yours have done this. You do not get a pass because you have recently come out against the rantings of the likes of Banzhaf.......you are equally as guilty as he, Glantz, Cherner, Godshall, Erik, Jill, and the rest in the, now, government sanctioned discrimination of at least 20 percent of the US population.
I hope you all are proud of yourselves.
I hope you all are proud of yourselves. Gabz
The most disgusting and loathsome and reprehensible thing about it is, with the possible exception of Dr. Siegel, they are proud of themselves.
The good news is that all ideologies come and go. The tide will turn and the little antis will be scorned and villified. More and more people are seeing them for the low-life bullies and thugs that they are. The day will come sooner than they think.
I understand what you are saying, tnsmoker, but I can not in good conscience give even Dr. Siegel a pass on this.
The tide is going to turn on them a heck of a lot quicker than they think. It is also not going to be pretty. None of them are going to get away unscathed, including Dr. Siegel. Anyone who promotes the use of government guns to promote social engineering and destruction of rights deserves nothing less than scorn, and I would prefer the return of either public stockades or the whipping post - and I am not a violent person.
I understand what you are saying, tnsmoker, but I can not in good conscience give even Dr. Siegel a pass on this. Gabz
I'm not giving him a pass. That's why I said possible. Possible but not probable. But I'm still grateful he has chosen to speak out about the draconian measure the little antis are pushing.
I'm all for the return of the stockades and whipping post, too. I'm not a violent person either, so public stockades works for me!
Isolation and denegration is nothing new:
Here is a quote from a Public publication "The 1984 Plan for Minnesota non smoking and Health",Smokers need to be de -socialized and seperated , Smoking needs to be associated with drugs ,sex and violence when ever possible. Our lawyers have looked at the law and because smokers are not of the "protected Class" it would not be unlawful to not hire a smoker.(shortly after Minnesota became the 29th state to pass a smokers protection statute.) This anti smoking manifesto chaired by a professional anti tobacco shill Kathleeh Harty (A MN state employee at the time) Introduced the SAMMEC CDC fallacious death's due to an anti smoking machine that will churn out any numbers desired GIGO- (garbage in Garbage out) that is still the major provider of junk anti smoking stench even used in the commodore Camora report that the ignorant are falling all over today as i write.
Lies Damn lies and the professional anti smoking cartel still does not get a question from the "established Media" and continues to feed America huge helpings of malignant garbage without opposition. Could it be the billions in anti smoking and Nicotrol ads that make the media salaviate and forget that the media is the only voice that many Americans have that has now sold their integrity to the highest bidder? I truly believe they have. Unless 50 million unrepresented citizen smokers start pooling money and hiring decent counsel and search out candidates that respect the constitution and free people I see very hard times ahead, This seems like a very good place to put our money where our mouth is , Money talks and BS walks, anyone want to rumble? We already have FORCES, let start today just before independance day to rip our tormentors. I have a few bucks anyone else?
You are right Gabz, and that's not just wishful thinking either, for there is such a thing as "hubris" the overweaning pride that precedes a fall.
Now, you take that Banzhaf. How long do you think he can go on just suing and persecuting people as he is doing? No doubt he imagines he's unstoppable. He's not, no-one is and his concept of how much power he wields is self-deceptive. He makes more and enemies by the day and eventually someone will get him or he will become too ambitious and mess himself up. Just watch!
You know, there are natural laws at work in the universe and nothing human beings can do will ever change them. One of these is that those things which become too powerful get moderated: inevitable! Another is that all things must pass and in 50 years time, contrary to the notions of the antismokers, their movement will be long dead and buried. Why? Because people get bored for a start and they can only take so much of the same old thing. Yes, I know people can point to the fact that the war against smokers has gone on for forty years and shows no sign of letting up. But, it is in fact, only over the last ten that it has REALLY swung into people's focus and in the UK only in the last three.
Certainly, one can sense the glistening smugness of the anti lobby which thinks it is so clever. But you know, despite all the money of the interested pharmaceuticals and medical con merchants who blood suck on the public purse plus their running dogs in the press, in the UK the word is starting to hit the streets. More and more people I've never heard of before on blogs and strings and sending letters to the papers just raising points and complaining. I've been pleased to see antis chased off a number of strings recently and that's hardly ever happened before. Since the last month (May and June ) I 've had 20 -40 new people contact me every week to ten days. That's never happened before either although I suppose that could be becuase of all the hard copy material I distribute throughout the north-west.
Yes, I wonder, what happens when in the face of all the crap lots of people just turn round and shout "bullshit"....Hmmm, should give the politicians a headache and they'll be just the first.
Gotcha cj 
Dr Siegel ,we communmicated earlier and you explained your position.Having deliberated for most of the day,whilst i believe you are doing this with the best intent, my contention is that free speech means precisely that.A communication of your intended actions may have proved advantageous.An earlier thread you wrote addressed the issue of censorship as you saw it.Perhaps our views do differ but i refuse to pull punches,even in a political arena.It is with regret that i have decided that my principles on this issue must take priority and as such i will refrain from making further comment on your blog.I will sorely miss those fellow bloggers who have proved an inspiration and who have become friends,i'm sorry i wont wish each of you goodbye ,it is somewhat upsetting to me but if i don't feel i can say what i really want to ,its pointless hanging on.Good luck,and take care.
Dr. Siegel,
Am I understanding Si's last comment about censorship? With all the garbage that's been spewed against smokers on this blog, and I mean the outright insults from the likes of bill and jill towards us, what could Si have written that was sooooo bad to warrant such an action?
Please, don't tell me you are now practicing that which you yourself have rallied against.
It was just some inappropriate language that I will not (and cannot) allow on this blog. I regret that si has decided that he can no longer participate. I certainly hope that he will change his mind.
There are plenty of ways to get a point accross without resorting to profanity, which is what I am assuming this issue is about.
However, if it deals with calling a kettle black, or the shoe fits, then so be it, it then does become a censorship issue.
I have notice more profanity in Si's posts of late, and while I understand the anger behind that profanity, the points can be made without the vulgar language.
I sincerley hope that this is the issue, and that Si will reconsider and continue to add to the discussions on this blog, and that the languae can be toned down, just a little bit. However, IF this is about some of the words used to describe the Tobacco Control zealots, remember that even vulgar language isnt nearly as bad as allowing them to publicly accuse us of being Murderers, Rapists, Child Abusers, etc, etc, and IF this is allowed to continue, I see no reason for Si's posts to be censored either.
Just my 2 cents here, and Si, even if you never post here again, I sincerley hope that you continue to read and use the knowledge that is disseminated on this blog.
Jerry
Archie,
I'm with you on this, and I believe we should take lessons from John "Sue the Bast*rd" Banzhaf, and Sue the Bast*rds.(1)
In 1970, Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968. At the time, Congress' goal was to eliminate the ill-affects of organized crime on the nation's economy. To put it bluntly, RICO was intended to destroy the Mafia.
Throughout the 1970's, RICO's intended purpose and its actual use ran parallel to each other. Seldom was RICO used outside of the context of the Mafia, and it is not an overstatement to say that civil claims under RICO were simply not brought.
In the 1980's, however, civil lawyers noticed section 1964(c) of the RICO Act, which allows civil claims to be brought by any person injured in their business or property by reason of a RICO violation. Any person who succeeded in establishing a civil RICO claim would automatically receive judgment in the amount of three times their actual damages and would be awarded their costs and attorneys' fees. The financial windfall available under RICO inspired the creativity of lawyers across the nation, and by the late 1980's, RICO was a (if not the most) commonly asserted claim in federal court. Everyone was trying to depict civil claims, such as common law fraud, product defect, and breach of contract as criminal wrongdoing, which would in turn enable the filing of a civil RICO action.
RICO's broad application was the result of Congress' inclusion of mail and wire fraud as two crimes upon which a RICO claim could be brought. Given the breadth of activities that had historically been criminally prosecuted under the mail and wire fraud statutes, it was not difficult for creative civil attorneys to depict practically any wrongdoing as mail or wire fraud.
During the 1990's, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.
Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations. In short, a RICO claim can arise in almost any context.
The purpose of this website is to simplify this very complicated area of the law and to articulate and make more predictable the legal standards that govern such claims.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to take aim at Banzhaf and ASH.
Under civil RICO there is at least one common exception to the need to prove reasonable reliance. A target of a scheme to defraud may be able to establish injury "by reason of" a RICO violation even if the target of the scheme did not rely on any fraudulent statements. For example, in Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2001), Procter & Gamble ("P&G") alleged that Amway was attempting to lure away customers by falsely representing that P&G was affiliated with satanic worship. P&G, of course, never relied on any alleged misrepresentations of its satanic affiliations. Nonetheless, the court stated that, under the circumstances, P&G was not required to prove reliance:
. . . in [a previous case,] we ruled that a target of a fraud that did not itself rely on the fraud may pursue a RICO claim if the other elements of proximate cause are present.
* * * *
Consequently, P&G's claims based on Amway's alleged spreading of the Satanism rumor to lure customers from P&G are claims on which relief can be granted. P&G has alleged that using the wire and the mail, Amway attempted to lure P&G's customers away by fraud. Although P&G did not rely on the fraud, this falls into the narrow exception [which states:]. . . . [a] defendant's competitors might recover for injuries to competitive position. [Citation and quotation marks omitted.] Thus, if P&G's customers relied on the fraudulent rumor in making decisions to boycott P&G products, this reliance suffices to show proximate causation.
Id. at 565. Thus, even without reliance, if a plaintiff's business is targeted by and injured by the fraudulent statements of a competitor, the exception set forth in Procter & Gamble may enable the plaintiff to establish proximate cause.
Banzhaf uses the threat of lawsuits in order to influence regulatory response. Take for example his threats of lawsuits over school boards on coke machines. Defending such action cost school boards and subsequently taxpayers vast legal fees. This is a form of extortion, as even though the school board may be in the right, the legal defense of such actions can be quite costly. These actions are brought by a business venture of trial lawyers.
Or his threats to sue the GWU offical in order to make the campus smokefree.
Moving on to other areas...
Also consider this, J&J engages in the sale and distribution of nicotine delivery devices. Their largest shareholder, the RWJF finances studies with dubious conclusions about their competitions nicotine delivery device (cigarettes), making false and fraudulent claims on these products in order to gain market share over the competition.
See: http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/
n....asp#government
Maybe some bright and aspiring lawyer, might like to take a shot at the judiciary lotto.
(1) Banzhaf's vanity plate reads "Sue Bast"
Hey, c'mon back, Si. Personally I'm never offended by "profanity" but (if that's the issue) I can understand how, as a doctor/ teacher, Siegel has to guard his own proprietary blog. For long centuries before the "Obscenity Laws" were repealed (single-handedly by "Hair" ) writers had to make do with ---- or ****ing or #!@%, Then too there's always "freaking." FWIW, I too was once censored for referring to the extra-curricular activities of the ban-happy "for the children" mayor of Friendship Heights. Tho, ftr, I;'d even cleverly managed to use pristine language, and had merely told the truth.
New subj:
Tho I don;t at all discourage them, (in fact, applaud them) lawsuits can be very, very tricky. Consult a constitutional lawyer at a friendly think tank. You've got to get the judge to give you "intermediate scrutiny," and learn, the rock-hard way, what "rational basis" means. (Ironically it means that laws needn't be rational as the word is understood.) RICO against ASH/ANR is a nice idea, but they'd likely use-- Exhibits A to Z in their defense-- every gov't report that's ever been issued, and it's that you'd have to buck. But.. again.. you can possibly talk it over, free (intellectual exercise) with a think tank lawyer, though it's odds-against that any of them would actually stick their necks out and take on the case,. Which would likely have to travel all the way up to SCOTUS. Still, worth a try.
Mike,it was NOT nor never my intention to publicise our difference of opinion.I agreed and confirmed you were doing this with the best intent.Put into context the single word you felt inappropriate is regularly used by my ten year old daughter,as i said perhaps this is a culture difference,it is no big deal here and simply signifies "an idiot".The rest of my comment passed muster,much to my surprise since i vented my sheer disgust at the SG.It was a bad day yesterday,we are out of the world cup now and perhaps feeling a little hard done by......I think what was at the root of my concern has i think been addressed in your mail of today.Censorship is one thing vetting is another,the removal of a word is fine,the removal of a comment struck a chord,sorry,it did get to me.I used this forum as a way of saying goodbye,quickly and hopefully reaching as many of those i wanted to.The war is against the tyranny of the antis.
Thank you for the explanation Dr. Siegel. But if it was just a matter of some profanity, there really are only a couple of words I can think of that are truly inappropriate. Most of us here use profanity to a small degree, some of us even spell it out plainly rather than being PC about it with symbols.
This is a hot button for many of us here, and sometimes those expletives are actually an excellent vent as they allow us to release the anger and rage in a safe manner.
I wish si's comment could be posted, removing the expletives you felt were truly offensive, just the same. I think most of us could understand that more than just not allowing it at all. What we do on the email discussion boards that are moderated, when a moderator "softens" or removes something, we actually state that in brackets, so that all know, and no one feels it has been changed other than that. Most folks accept that, as we know some folks find some things offensive that others don't.
I mean the anti's here have gone so far as to outright label us as delusional, stupid, moronic, idiotic, murderers, compared us to rapists, and call us child abusers (just an example of some of the words the bills and jills have openly applied to us here). I can't think of anything more offensive than that.
Just my opinion. Something to think about. Though I do respect that this is your blog, and you have every right to set your rules.
si
Put it down to the weather...(and the football). Is it possible to see the edited highlights? (not the football, the comment)
Dr Siegal..
In factsheet 11 on the uk ASH site there is a table of benefits of giving up smoking which includes...
-After 20 minutes, Blood pressure and pulse rate return to normal.-
The table goes on basically to show how reversible all the effects are after a smoker gives up.
Since this is direct effects to a smoker (who I presume also is affected by ETS) how is the ASH table compatible with the SGs report on ETS? Will they have to revise it?
Archie, et al,
On an Off topic, I have a local newspaper editorial I would like to share with you, and ask for help in how to respond to this. How to help spread these lies for what they are.
I guess I would welcome any input on this subject, as it is increasingly difficult to even find a public outlet in which to show these lies for what they are.
Here's the link:
http://in-forum.com/articles/
ind...745§ion=Opinion
I also guess, in retrospect, that this is NOT off topic for this thread, as it deals directly with the public perception of the SG's "report"
And let’s not get bamboozled by the ridiculous defense that lots of things are health hazards, so why pick on smoking and secondhand smoke.
to me, i find this statement from the article to be myopic. why selectively single out smoking or second hand smoke when reasonably there are a thousand hazards we encounter every day, simply by living life?
west2-
That's a very insightful comment. If the effects of ACTIVE smoking for YEARS on cardiovascular disease risk are reversible rather quickly, how could it be that the cardiovascular disease risk of a BRIEF exposure to PASSIVE smoke are somehow not reversible? You'll hear more about this in an ensuing post.
One argument is that eliminating smoking will NOT put an end to illness or death. What will they blame when lung cancer rates DON'T go down drastically? When heart disease doesn't drop off drastically? They'll then be forced to look at the real causes.
I've seen the numbers that lung cancer rates are down, yet the decrease does not seem to reflect the dramatic decrease in smoking rates and decreased exposure to ETS due to so many places restricting smoking over the last 15 years or so.
Another point is that asthma rates appear to be up, even though smoking and exposure is down. Fewer homes have smoking in them, yet more and more kids seem to have asthma. Does THAT make sense to anyone?
I'd also point out how baby boomers managed to survive a much smokier environment growing up with fewer health problems than todays kids. Yet no one seems to wonder why?
Unfortunately, given the brainwashing that's been done, successfully too I might add (what did they put into the water again?), they won't listen anyway even IF you could prove beyond any doubt that the lies were lies. We are talking about people who simply dislike the smell, nothing will change their mind, and they will never agree to any compromise or show of tolerance.
Jerry here's my quick take on a point.
It always helps when you know the reasons why they came to the conclusions and the limits; for science. Why do they think that debate is over? science isn't static, it is always changing with knowledge, and other views. If there was no more need for debate once a single report comes out, I guess there wassn't a need to have this report released. This is a report of reports, that are cherry picked, and don't look at all the science. Does it mention all the studies? no. In other words all the reports aren't mentioned, and in order to get good science you must have debate, to show the limits. Why are people trying to stop debate on science? Are they afraid to have the limits of science come to light?
l.duguay wrote: "Why are people trying to stop debate on science? Are they afraid to have the limits of science come to light?"
Because the science, the real science that is, would show their lies for what they are. The real science would show their "facts" to be rather insignificant when compared to all the other things that are far more damaging, but are things that they like for pleasure or convenience.
Because, this isn't about science or health, it IS about people's personal dislike of the smell of cigarette smoke and turning it into a witch hunt in order to program the masses to their way of thinking and living.
you may also want to read this article on consensus in making of policies.
Evidence and advocacy: Are all things considered?
Jeffrey A. Johnson and Alun L. Edwards
From the Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Alberta and the Institute of Health Economics (Johnson), Edmonton, and the Department of Medicine (Edwards), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.
It talks about 50% of Canadian Diabetics Assoc. guidelines are based on consensus, yet get a grade of D for the evidence.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...ull/174/13/
1856
I seems that smoking isn't the only issue that doesn't totally need debating.
Also consider this, J&J engages in the sale and distribution of nicotine delivery devices. Their largest shareholder, the RWJF finances studies with dubious conclusions about their competitions nicotine delivery device (cigarettes), making false and fraudulent claims on these products in order to gain market share over the competition.
See: http://www.ricoact.com/ricoact/ n....asp#government
Maybe some bright and aspiring lawyer, might like to take a shot at the judiciary lotto" -Walt
All I can say is that I've compiled some very incriminating evidence against RWJF and J & J's involvement in funding smoking ban legislation..
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
..as well as the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke is not the hazard activists claim:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Furthermore, I have suffered the financial losses due to the smoking bans. So if there is an aggressive, aspiring lawyer out there....this case could be larger than the Tobacco Master Settlements.
I have always said smoking bans and the lobbying efforts behind them are collusive, coercive, and bordering on racketeering. Now that we know the individual organizations which fund them and the reason why we have a case.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....at-
started.html
Ok, here is the reply I have drafted to the editorial staff at the local newspaper which printed the editorial I linked to earlier.
I would love for some of the poster's on this blog to read the editorial and then read my response to it, offer any advice on improving my response and any additions they feel would be benficial.
Dr. Siegel, I apologize for using your blog for this purpose, and in the future, if you feel I shouldn't try to discuss these types of options here, I will attempt to find an alternative forum or way to disseminate and further this type of discussion.
Thank you,
Jerry
The debate is over claims the Forums Editorial:
When, EXACTLY, did the debate take place? When has this particular Mass media news outlet actually allowed for an honest debate?
I would like to point out the fallacies in several of your points for why this debate is over.
First off, the “new” report you are hailing from the Surgeon General has nothing new included in it. It is simply an interpretation of existing, cherry picked reports from all those funded in recent decades by such interested parties as the Robert Woods Foundation (a major stockholder in J & J pharmaceuticals, which manufactures and markets Nicotine Replacement therapies such as the Patch, etc), ASH, ANR, and several other Anti smoker groups.
Your editorial said “It’s morally wrong to consciously permit an activity that harms others, particularly when one knows the activity is hazardous.”, yet suggest that its morally acceptable to continue to allow the discrimination of user’s of a legal product. One which is not only allowed by the government, but taxed at an exceedingly higher rate to continue to balance the budgets of special interests and state shortfalls, on the backs of the statistically least able to afford those taxes.
If it’s Morally wrong for business’s to allow users of a legal product to use that legal product on their premises, isn’t it at least as morally wrong for the government to continue to allow the manufacture, sales, possession and use of that same product? Isn’t it morally outrageous for our local, state and federal government to not only allow this product to be continued, but to PROFIT from it as well?
I remember when Lawn darts were removed from the market due to their dangers, why, if this product(tobacco) is so dangerous, has it not also been recalled, and all further production immediately stopped?
You state (or at least allude) that the Surgeon General has said that even brief, one time exposure WILL cause death, disease, I don’t know about you, but everyone I know has been exposed, at least once, to tobacco smoke, where are all the fatalities and dread diseases among the generations that have been exposed in the hundreds of years this has been available?
You also stated “Businesses that permit a health hazard on their premises should be sanctioned.”, does this include business’s that use fossil fuels for delivery of their product? It’s been proven that the emissions from vehicles are far deadlier than brief exposure to tobacco smoke, don’t believe me? Care to test the theory in a closed garage?
How about airlines, spewing forth millions of times the same carcinogenic chemicals every time they take off?
How about campfires? Or wood grills like at Doolittles? Wood certainly contains all the same basic components as tobacco, why no call to sanction them for the exposure they give their customers? It is equally, if not more so, hazardous, producing the same chemicals, in much greater quantities.
Why stop at “It’s one habit that can be regulated into isolation.”?
Why is this newspaper promoting discrimination?
If the danger truly exists, why aren’t you promoting the absolute recall and end of this product? Why are you railing the people to ostracize users of a legal product, instead of tackling the government which still permits this product to be made, while profiting greatly off the use of it?
Dr. Siegel,
In fairness to si, you have never anywhere here published a set of guidelines or rules describing what specific things you will allow people to post or not to post.
You have deleted quite a few things that I have wrote as well.
I'm not complaining mind you. This is your "house", your site and you make the rules. We'll abide by them. I just recommend that you make yourself clear as to what is permissible and what is not before someone spends time trying to make a point only to have it censored.
Thanks.
To Jerry Thomas:
The op-ed in the Fargo Forum is a faxsimile of many opinions written by faceless and nameless activists that have invaded the free press...........
Also absent is a single fact to back up the alleged and pre concieved danger of tobacco smoke that has been inudated with twisticks every since the 1964 SG Terry's report was re- written in 1978 by CE.Koop and his science Editor Harry Landro. Compare the two reports and recognise the Koop "tripwires of inuendo".
As citizen in Good standing and registered voter I make a proposal that a steering committee be elected by proxy to set up a defenseive public corporation to write the name identification, a public policy,and be the surrogate for an election of an executive board for the new organization.
I have the names of at least 25 fellow citizens that i trust without question because of their total integrity and honesty in the battle against big anti tobacco.
Therefore I want to put my money where my mouth is and offer $1,000.00
To the chairperson and treaures of a duly elected steering committee, We have the duty and ability to defend our self based totally on the freedoms left to us by the countrys fathers. Think, 50 million smokers @ 1.00 each and we could compete against the public funded tyrants and the elected officials that support the tyrants.
We can laugh at this proposal or have someone second the proposal, My money that was earned one hour at a time is ready to buy legal representation noww being denied to the minority of smoker citizens.
This proposal will end on august 3rd
@ 1:30 pm CST. I Archie Anderson of Coon Rapids Minnesota declare this statement a legal notice and promise depending on a seconded motion from any proxy voter of the same or similar thought and the assemply of at least twelve steering committee members of our choice.
Amendded................
The end of promisary money of $1,000 will end on August 3rd 2006
I hope you include url's to back up your statements. Remember editors are being bombarded by their "statements of truth". We need to lead them to the evidence that there needs to be a debate.
Health effects of wood smoke.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92046.pdf
Archie, How, where, and what do I do to help support this initiative?
I have recently (and finally) Joined FORCES through a snail mail entry, but would like my hard earned money to go where the fight will be best fought.
I am lost as to where to start really pushing this legally speaking, and most of the smoker's rights websites don't really offer any help for organizing a true base from which to combat this.
Also, your homepage link tagged on at the end of your sentences does not lead me anywhere, I keep getting the message that the page cannot be displayed.
Contact me at TSarek_@excite.com and I will be more than happy to discuss what I can do to best help this issue be resolved.
Thanks,
Jerry
Jerry Thomas:
I am going to post the same offer on www.forces.org
I don't know if I am offending Doctor Siegel by posting the proposal on this site,The Doctor is A reliable and unbiased person that needs to be heard. The Forces Folks are also of the higest integrity.
This seems like a de-facto public forum but I can think of no one that would be offended at Americans making an attempt to assemble and form a citizen group. I think Independence day is a wonderful place to start.
My E mail addy is aarchie446@aol.com
Archie,
I second such a motion. And offer to publish said motion on "Clearing the Air"
Further, I propose an investigation under RICO and all other applicable statutes before any further consideration of smoking bans, be they municipal, county, state, or federal.
Let me know how you would like to proceed.
cleanairquality@gmail.com
Marcus:
We need to assemble a steering committee by proxy vote, now that we have a second we need at least a dozen members for the committee, My $1,000 bucks is ready to go. we need to find a way to vote and elect people to our committee, You are one of the 25 people off the top of my head that I have full faith and trust in, want to help get a voting place set up and put your name in ? We CAN DO THIS!
Speaking of "stay away from smokers," I found some lovely SHS propaganda films. I had never saw these on TV (but I don't watch much so maybe I missed them).
http://video.google.com/
videopla...266702887679250
http://video.google.com/
videopla...545925055184392
http://video.google.com/
videopla...466235093011094
"We have the duty and ability to defend our self based totally on the freedoms left to us by the countrys fathers."
I applaud all efforts to stand up to the health promotion cabal(s), and I wish you well.
I would like to suggest, however, that the extent of the corruption of your democratic institutions by this cabal is already much greater than you perceive it to be and you should be prepared for greater obstacles than you are anticipating.
The 'coup' took place years ago, the cabal plans 3-5 years ahead, and we are all reacting here to foregone conclusions. Our reactions have already been predicted and accounted for in their "risk management plans" and campaigns to neutralize our efforts today were initiated years ago. I'm sorry, but this is my sincere belief.
Nevertheless, I'll support you in any way that I can. Money ain't one of them.
Robin While I see you point:
"The 'coup' took place years ago, the cabal plans 3-5 years ahead, and we are all reacting here to foregone conclusions..."
What has only become a new development......are the air quality studies...conducted by pro-smoking ban activists......which have only recently been analyzed against OSHA indoor AQ regulations. And at 25,000 time safer than OSHA regulations, we finally have proof that the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke; which is the basis for the pro-smoking ban movement; is finally exposed as the fallacious scam that it is. And the proof of funding from a competing market industry.....only seals the deal.
Archie I appreciate the compliment, and am more than happy to provide whatever support I can.
"...conducted by pro-smoking ban activists..." and therefore, by definition a falsehood - according to the anti propaganda machine
"And at 25,000 time safer than OSHA regulations..." hence the emphasis on the "no safe level of exposure" concept, developed as I said years ago, to neutralize any rational argument of this nature.
Forgive my pessimism. Every effort is worth making.
For Colin and Great Scot - the Blair government is about to make (another) huge mistake, with the raising the age of tobacco purchase. Both the US & Canada experienced big INCREASES in teen smoking rates immediately after raising the national age to 18 - 1992 in the US and 1993-94 in Canada. If you check the teen smoking rate stats for both countries, from those dates up to 1997-98, you'll see that teen smoking increased significantly for the first time since the declines began in the 1970s. Adult smoking rates remained stable during the same period, strongly suggesting the agitating factor was something of interest/concern only to teens...like an increase in the age of purchase.
Of course, the North American prohibitionists have blamed everything from smuggling to movies to sunspots for those increases - but will never admit their own measures played a part.
I predict an increase of 5-8% in the teen smoking rate of the UK, two years after the age increase goes through.
Jerry-
A few editorial suggestions. First, letters to editors usually have a strict and measly limit on words, and you've gone way long, and been somewhat redundant. Check their op ed page where they often let you know their word limitations (thru an faq link?) or phone them and ask.
I don't think you're on solid ground with your digs about funding. Tho, yes, RWJ et al fund some studies, most of the funding comes from federal grants as they filter down to various agencies and NGO's. Then too, (aside from the fact that it's not really correct) trying to make the case that the studies are all "bought" by commericial interests isn't any better than when They try to make the case that all studies to the contrary are "bought" by Big T.
Secondly, though it's accurate , naming a long list of things alleged to be harmful (an argument they've tried to defang in advance) isn't used to its best advantage (and does go on long.) I'd suggest you either skip it or put it all into one sentence and simply ask them WHY,,, car fumes, etc aren't also worthy of bans, or even-- in their editorial minds-- of discussion. What's so "special" about smoke?
The answer most likely has to do with morality -- a term they inject frequently, thus giving away their game-- or the source of their bias. Clearly (like Lucy Gaston Page before them) they simply believe that smoking, in itself, is immoral whereas barbequing (releasing the same substances) isn't. What they're actually calling for is MORAL sanctions and their invocation smacks of moral sanctity. And doesn't belong in a scientific discussion.
Your implicit challenge at the top is very good-- why not develop it. Challenge the paper to an actual and purely scientific debate. Challenge them to interview any of the many respected opposing scientists and the critics of the re-hashed studies in this report. Offer to give them names or steer them to sources. In fact, that alone would make a very good letter.
If you have space and want to get specific, you might ring in (with citations or links) the fact that the same "instant" biological effects that the SG warns of from SHS also occur instantly after eating a plate of fries or while getting stuck in traffic, arguing with your boss, or just having a bad hair day. And all these reactions-- including from ETS--are very quickly reversible
Forgive me for going on. or making too many suggestions. I t;s what I do for a living and I sometimes get carried away.
Archie et al--
If you get a good lawyer, which is really the first step, then I'll kick something into the pot.
Walt,
Thank you for the suggestions. I do indeed have some serious editing to do, the limit on words is 250.
I will be paring it down considerably.
I too think the best tack to take would be along the lines of the following points.
1. Challenge them to an actual debate on the issue itself.
2. Ones morals are not how government is supposed to be decided, and IF morallity is the question, doesn't the Morallity demand that the government remove this product completely, and wuit profiting from it?
3. What is the difference between tobacco smoke, and any other smoke people are exposed to?
I'll keep working on a non emotional response, as well as letting them know that they have a morally indefensible position in my view.
Jerry
Archie,
Whatever I can do to help, financially I'm severely limited, but I have the time and desire to do legwork, research, information collection and distribution, and many other skills I could bring to the movement.
Let me know what would be most helpful, and I will do whatever I can.
Jerry
Jerry,
"What is the difference between tobacco smoke, and any other smoke people are exposed to?"
I would suggest a comparison to welding smoke. The pro-smoking ban activists....have made the crux of their arguments "...protecting the health of workers...." but workers in a factory where welding smoke can be 100+ times heavier than secondhand smoke are afforded no protection by the pro-smoking ban minions......demonstrates that uniform health of employees is not their concern.....rather a specific agenda is their real motive....then a brief mention of RWJF which was founded by Johnson & Johnson Co. who manufactures Nicoderm may explain their selective agenda.
I am not concerned that the pro-smoking ban activists read this.....it will preoccupy their time trying to provide testimony of why the discrepency.
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....estaurants.html
Walt;
Thank You, We all know every river started with one drop of rain, and sometimes even a tear.
When I retired I carried 10,000.00 around with me to find counsel to assist us. I finally learned that $10,000.00 of clean and honest money earned one hour at a time is only
"chump change" to try and take on the public funded non profits and their cartel.
We already are armed with some of the best researchers, doctors,and very good citizens, 50 million smokers at $1.00 each all centered in the right spot for one year could possibly have higher courts listening to us. Wishful thinking? maybe not.
Marcus,
This is probably a dumb (but genuine) question, but is there evidence to suggest welders have a higher cancer rate?
I'd love to add it to my personal Kilamanjaro of evidence.
Eric asked, "Walt, what I wonder and maybe McFadden can answer this is: When (not if) the tobacco companies mass market a nicotine delivery system that is smokeless but has the same effect, will anti's stop whining?"
A certain segment of them will. That's why I spent the first part of Brains examining the motivations of the different sorts of Antis. Some of them aren't "against smokers" or "against tobacco companies" at all: they're simply brainwashed and frightened by the media given to the supposed dangers of secondary smoke exposure, or they simply don't like the smell, or they experience either real or psychosomatic physical reactions to smoke. Many of those in those particular categories would be quite happy with "smokeless" products that made smokers happy enough to switch.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
I don't post here often, but am amazed that you came up with precisely the same idea I had - ask smokers for a dollar each to fund a legal revolt, to go after the antis full blast. I will contribute once you set up this committee.
Let the revolution begin.
Colin Grainger wrote:
"[Is] there evidence to suggest welders have a higher cancer rate?"
Here's one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...8&
dopt=Abstract
but the argument used is that welding is necessary while smoking is not.
Very interesting James.
Thanks.
Dr Siegel
You haven't yet responded to Eric Blair's request for your guidelines on what is, and isn't, acceptable commentary in this blog.
I, too, would like to see these guidelines, since you have seen fit to edit another posting of mine on another thread (in response to 'TOM E') - and I cannot, for the life of me, understand what the reason was for this as I don't believe that I was using bad or offensive language - something I always try to avoid.
I have no wish to cause you any embarrassment or offence, but it would help if I were to know what your particular sensitivities and threshholds are.
James Austin wrote: "but the argument used is that welding is necessary while smoking is not."
Yes, I love how the necessity justifies deliberately harming others. Therefore I would like to know exactly WHAT they do to make that kind of work environment as safe as possible for those workers? Are they given masks to wear? Full head gear with oxygen? Or are they working in this necessary area deliberately being poisoned? Like the coal miners for instance?
Better yet, why should necessity justify such a high risk?
Why are drug companies allowed to sell ANY medication where there is ANY increased risk of other problems occuring?
Gotta love the hypocrisy that abounds when something is seen as "necessary", rather than correcting the problem we'll just go after things considered not necessary.
Good point Lynda.
Here's a short list of things I find unnecessary, but I dont have an all-consuming urge to ban them:
Skydiving, mountain climbing, scuba-diving, formula 1 racing, skiing, moto-cross, sword-swallowing, fire-eating, horse-riding, lion-taming and so on , and so forth.
I am reasonably certain that all of the pursuits on my list have caused death and brought misery to many many people. They do however, add a zest to life, an element of risk, a gamble, and help to make us feel more alive than those robots who would have us cowering in a bubble, afraid of our own shadows.
What kind of life is that?
I dont recall who said it originally, but I also would like to stagger up to the Pearly Gates (insert your own version of Valhalla here) with my parts worn out, a gin & tonic in one hand and a cigar in the other, a grin on my face, and with a happy heart I will declare to St Peter "Yes! I enjoyed as much of that life as I could. Now lemme in!"
I have weighed up the risks I take, and I accept full responsibility for each and every decision, good or bad, that I have taken. If I felt that I was hurting others in the process of my living life to my own rules, I would cease and desist.
I am comforted to know that I cannot hurt anyone else with my smoking.
The science tells me so.
Brian-
There's really just 2 things that I don't want in the comments. One is abusive personal attacks against other individuals. The other is foul language. It's difficult to define exactly what constitutes foul and I'm not going to put out a "list" of unacceptable language - I just have to use my judgment. I think that if people just avoid making abusive personal attacks and avoid foul language, there won't be any problems. When it does occur (and I understand that people sometimes have a lot of anger so it may come out even if they are not necessarily trying to use such language or be abusive), I will try to simply delete the offending word or phrase, rather than the comment as a whole. I apologized to si personally for doing that - I should have just deleted the offending word.
M. Siegel
"There's really just 2 things that I don't want in the comments. One is abusive personal attacks against other individuals."
Dunno, I've seen some rather nasty ones that you allowed from Bill. I was quite suprised to read those. (quite awhile ago, since Bill G. doesn't post much anymore, which is a blessing)
You may also notice that Jill just called us all baby killers.
I find that extremely offensive.
Please delete her remarks forthwith.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "There's really just 2 things that I don't want in the comments. One is abusive personal attacks against other individuals. The other is foul language."
And what jill posted earlier on the most recent thread isn't "an abusive personal attack against others"? Why? Because she began her attack with the words "Tobacco smoke" rather than "you" or "smokers"? I also consider what she said to be "foul", not to mention downright vicious. Her implication was quite clear and even a 6 year old could figure it out. Just as offensive and nasty as bill's comment about how smoking is on the same level as rape. Just because she didn't aim it at any one particular person by name, doesn't make it any less offensive OR any less a personal attack. She basically attacked every woman on this blog who smokes and has a child.
OK Michael, I understand your position and I agree with your stance.
However, I don't recall that my riposte to 'TOM E' met either of your two criteria. Unfortunately I didn't keep a copy of what I wrote (I never do), but I do recall that when I wrote this I was not feeling angry towards TOM E, and my posting was more couched with sarcasm than any other emotion.
Sorry to keep pushing this, but I really don't think that what I wrote was 'abusive'. And I never use 'foul' language. Can you help me out here?
As just about everyone (if not everyone) agrees, this is Dr. Siegel's "house" and as such it's his rules that we respect. Just like a private bar, right gang?
True, sometimes there could be an act of editing we feel is inexplicably unfair or slanted toward his personal subjectivity. But again, his house, our risk -- no matter how unwarranted you feel an edit is. Recognizing that is all that we have the right to assert. Still don't like it? Then we are free to walk.
Trying to determine FOR him what should stay or go could be enough of a frustration for him that it isn't worth keeping his house open (or maybe just not allow ANY comments anymore).
Personally, I wouldn't want Jill's or Bill's offensive remarks censored. Their remarks are some of our best evidence. Why have the proof of the hatred and outright lying removed??
And let's clearly understand what Dr. Siegel said:
There's really just 2 things that I don't want in the comments. One is abusive personal attacks against other individuals.
Not against "others" (i.e. as a group) but against a single individual.
I think it's our responsibility to test limits and discover what flies and what won't and apply the lesson to our posts.
We outright call anti-smokers (a group) liars all the time. We've even called Bill and Jill and Erik liars (individuals). That has flown. I've called Bill a socialist. That has flown -- in Dr. Siegel's opinion. I suspect there are just some things that he subjectively finds goes too far. We might not agree but that's where it's our job to figure it out through trial and error.
My bottom line is that I think giving Dr. Siegel this headache is more detrimental to us than to the Jills and Bills and Eriks. You can even consider my post to be more selfish than defensive of Dr. Siegel (though I'm serious about "his house, his rules.")
"I think that if people just avoid making abusive personal attacks and avoid foul language, there won't be any problems."
I feel that this are acceptable and desirable criteria. So far I have been impressed by the overwhelming number of factual, well informed, and balanced postings in this blog. I think this distinguishes this specific blog from so many other - anti-smoker - blogs that spew hatred and unfunded claims at the service of an agenda.
Of course, we find the occasional accusation of being dilusional, murderers, child abusers, tobacco stooges. But we should not consider these attacks personal and worthy of censorship. We all know, there is no safe level ... when they need to fish for arguments.
I can agree with JTF and benpal, I'm not for censorship at all either. And I don't have a problem with Dr. Siegel's rules either. Just hard to know what is acceptable when it's ok to label us murders and baby killers, when we've all used some profanity. And I've not really seen anyone go overboard in that area...............so makes one wonder how bad something has to be to be considered "unprintable".
Lynda-
What I really am trying to avoid are abusive personal attacks against an IDENTIFIED individual. I have a lot more tolerance for comments made about GROUPS of people, because they are not directed necessarily at an individual (I don't mean tolerance in terms of condoning them, but tolerance in terms of not wishing to intervene and censor them).
So for example, if someone says that anti-smokers are fascists or Nazis, I'll let that go because it's really not directed at a particular individual. If someone accuses a particular anti-smoking advocate of being a Nazi, I will intervene because that's an abusive personal attack against an identified individual.
Similarly, when Jill called smokers who have an infant who dies from SIDS "baby killers," I find that term offensive, despicable, and untrue; however, since it is not directed at a specific individual, I'll let it go - if anything, I think it contributes to the blog because it demonstrates the mentality behind many in the anti-smoking movement. On the other hand, were she to ever accuse any particular individual on this blog of being a baby killer, such a comment would be deleted without hesitation.
Even with statements about individuals, I'm trying to give a little bit of leeway. So if someone calls someone silly or misguided or uninformed, I'm letting that go. But there's a line which goes into what I consider to be truly offensive, and that's the line I'm trying to guard. I wish I could be more specific about that, but it's kind of like I know it when I see it, but can't necessarily provide a list of words or phrases on either side. I have no doubt that people can avoid anything offensive with some due care.
Brian - My memory completely fails me on what I might have altered in a previous comment of yours or why. Sorry about that. But in the future, if this happens and it's not clear to you why, feel free to email me immediately and I'll provide an explanation.
Finally, despite a few rare (considering the volume of comments on this blog) situations where I have had to delete a few words or phrases here or there, I think everyone is making a valuable contribution to the blog and I very much appreciate everyone's input. I hope the rare examples of where I've made some changes won't drive anyone away. But hopefully these rules will make it more transparent to everyone what's going on so it's not some sort of black box.
I final word that will hopefully help people understand the reason why I am trying to keep the blog comments relatively "clean." This blog gets a fair amount of visibility by public officials. For example, my post on the Surgeon General's misrepresentation of the science of secondhand smoke was read by at least one member of Congress' office. So it's important to me to keep things respectable, both because it would be a personal embarrassment to me to have a Congressmember or other high-ranking official see foul language and abusvie personal attacks on it, and also because I think there is an important message which such officials need to see, and I think it would detract from the message if the blog wasn't "presentable."
If this were just a site where people commented on the issues and it wasn't seen by "outside parties," I wouldn't be as concerned, but please recognize that everyone from policy makers, to elected officials read these posts. When a member of Congress reads this blog, I want them to take away the important message that I and my readers are trying to get across, not to be distracted or turned off by any abusive language.
I looked up the word integrity in the dictionary and lo and behold, there was a picture of Dr. Michael Siegel.
Dr. Siegel, Thank you for your explanation. I can and do understand your position, and even understand the "knowing it when you see it" portion.
This is such a hot button topic for many of us, that we tend to be too emotional about it. And as a woman who smoked during her pregnancy and after around her baby and child, I just really find any remark that I am considered a baby killer or child abuser really personal, even though my child lived. So Jill's remarks really do hit a chord with me, for it says to me that she doesn't consider any other possibility for a child's death IF the mother smoked, and that mother deserves no sympathy for her loss and pain. Any woman whose lost a child, even with proof there was nothing she could have done differently to change the outcome, doesn't stop her from feeling somewhat guilty, and unnecessary and completely false accusations, assumptions or implications of wrongdoing on the mothers' part, made by someone with a personal agenda is like opening an old wound.
So perhaps we could ask Jill to couch her wording into more appropriate, less deliberatly hurtful ways?
I agree.
Commenting by HaloScan
