Hmmmmmm Ninja? When I think of Ninja, I think "well-trained, highly skilled, warrior". Sure sounds a lot more positive than Nazi (which is quite a negative term), which is what many smokers think of anti-smokers.
I'd rather be called Ninja than murderer, rapist, child abuser, 2nd class citizen, moron, delusional, just to name a few of the things that the anti's on this blog have called us, or tried to imply.
I'm not surprised they are name calling on those boards at all, it is part of their M.O. anyway. I'm just surprised it took this long.
So, if they are trying to be insulting, I think they will fail, for I don't think I'm alone in my thoughts of what "ninja" means to most folks.
Very odd. When I think of ninja's, I imagine guys in black pajamas sneaking around, mostly at night.
We anti-ban/freedom to choose folks appear to do what we do in broad daylight on blogs that can be read by all and sundry.
At least when we stoop to name-calling we do so out in the open.
Not on sneaky "members-only" List-serves.
""""""""I'd rather be called Ninja than murderer, rapist, child abuser, 2nd class citizen, moron, delusional, just to name a few of the things that the anti's on this blog have called us, or tried to imply.""""""""
Excellent point, LyndaF, and I'm completely with you.
It is a good thing that Dr. Siegel has realized just what those of us opposing the anti-smokers have known for years.......Anti-smokers believe they can make any type of false accusation against their opposition with impunity....and the news media is just as culpable because when indisputable proof is provided against the slurs retractions/apologies/explanations are NEVER forthcoming.
Now an Ohio hospital thinks it has the right to tell its employees they may not smoke during their breaks, as in "off company time." This is outrageous. Dr. Siegel - what is the evidence that smoke "smell" on clothes is dangerous to other people?:
"As Shannon Miller waded through the smoky haze outside Akron Children's Hospital, she thought to herself, ``OK, they're standing there in their scrubs. They're medical professionals. What kind of message are we sending?''
``If a kid looks over and sees their nurse or their surgical tech standing there in their scrubs smoking,'' said Miller, the hospital's community health coordinator, ``that sends a message that it's OK to smoke.''
Beyond that, smoking slows healing of wounds and bones. Smokers who have surgery have twice the risk of developing wound infections. And even if doctors, nurses and other employees smoke outside or on their breaks, they carry the smoke back into the hospital with them on their clothes and in their hair.
That's why Akron Children's policy will not allow employees to smoke at all during their breaks. They can't go to their cars to smoke. They can't walk off campus to smoke. They can't go to a restaurant at lunch to smoke. They can't even smoke on their way to work, because they are not allowed to smell like smoke.
Not surprisingly, employees who smoke are not happy
I'm a bit out of step here as when I think of Ninja, pizza eating turtles come to mind, way to go Donatello.
oh dear...
(If people have to resort to name calling, well...)
(as of now, FORCES has received a grand total of about $1,500 of tobacco company funds for a website banner ad).
What is your basis for this number?
Are you just guessing?
Better back up your claims if you are going to make such accusations.
And I received a $1,000 check from an R.J. Reynolds law firm
Why did you receive $1000 from them?
Josh wrote: "Beyond that, smoking slows healing of wounds and bones. Smokers who have surgery have twice the risk of developing wound infections."
Oh brother.......someone better tell all this to my body. I heal really fast, have never gotten an infection after any surgery, or wound, I've had. And I'm a smoker. Where do these people get this stuff from? Geeeeeze. I even recover from anesthesia better than most do, and have never required any blood during any of my surgeries (which really amazed my doctor).
Erik wrote: "Better back up your claims if you are going to make such accusations."
Why? You never back up your claims. When you start to do that, then you can start to demand that we do the same.
Erik wrote: "Why did you receive $1000 from them?"
Why does that matter? Why do you need to know? What difference would it make?
The Massachusetts House has just sent a bill to the governor for signing which would mandate that all cigarettes sold in the state be "fire-safe."
As I posted here before there are serious questions regarding the possibility of increased toxicity of these cigarettes. Dr. Gregory Connolly, formerly the director of the state's tobacco control program, and who led a Harvard study of these cigarettes, has likened the fear of increased toxicity to the fear of falling out of a twelve story building as opposed to a ten story edifice. His attitude is that cigarettes are toxic and if they become more so, who cares?.
This regulation amounts to experimenting on smokers without their consent and marks a new, and profoundly more unethical, step in Tobacco Control.
Dr. Siegel, would you comment?
Michael--
Most in the anti-smoking movement do not consider themselves as serving the smoker, but ruling him. Oh sure, many claim to be caring and solicitous of our well-being, if not our rights, but most smokers aren't fooled by such self-serving sunshine.
You, on the other hand, strike me as more sincere than most in your acknowledgement of the other point of view. If only you would accept that the declared (not discovered) risks of ETS do not rise to the level of dictating smoking bans on private properties.
I'd rather live a short and free life than a long tyrannized one, and those Americans who disagree with that proposition should choose to live in one of the 178 other countries governed under the authoritarian premises they like so much and quit violating the rights of the citizens in the only nation founded on the principles of individual liberty. Certainly, I accept the proposition that liberty has been more theoretical than actual for the last hundred years, but that is the immoral doing of all activists who call themselves progressive. They are no such thing--merely intolerant bullies.
erik, when you guys stop taking rwjf money i'm sure the pro-smokers groups will fall in line and not take their teensy funding from tobacco cos. face it you guys are jump starting a grassroots opposition movement with your insane rhetoric and laws.
ninjas? i'm more down for kung fu myself.
ninjas were spies and assasins - that's why it's an insult.
pro-smokers groups will fall in line and not take their teensy funding from tobacco cos.
Today is the first time I have heard about Siegel's statement on funding.
If true, I think many people do believe it would make a difference.
Erik, if this is how you treat your own team mates, God help the other side.
I've shown this site to my kids as an example of how not to treat other human beings.
You, in particular, got some special attention. Both my boys said they wouldnt ever believe you as you "never back anything up".
Stay away from kids Erik.
For their sakes.
Erik wrote: "Today is the first time I have heard about Siegel's statement on funding. If true, I think many people do believe it would make a difference."
Excuse me, Erik, but are you obtuse on purpose? The issue of the banner on FORCES was brought up on another thread just a month or so ago, and you tried this same tactic then. What difference does it make WHO makes the statement. YOUR sides funding comes from drug pushers whose so called cures cause more side effects than they have pills for. So please spare us your sanctimonious attitude.
anonymous wrote: "ninjas were spies and assasins - that's why it's an insult"
Hmmm I hadn't looked at it that way. However, it is still better than being a follower of Hitler's practices. Still better in my book than being labeled a murderer, rapist, child abuser. But that's just me, because as I said, Ninja brings up a vision of a well trained, highly skilled warrior. But then, I can be weird sometimes too......hehehe
I'm not sure what they're trying to do here, but it might be the sort of thing where they can grab some obscure knowledge to show off. It's catch. A sample dialogue I could imagine follows:
(warning: biased/heinously projective melodrama ahead)
"Gosh! Ninjas! What's that mean? I thought ninjas were cool and sneaky."
"No, son. They're not those cool smiling flexible guys in some anime movie. Let me tell you about what ninjas really are, or were--silent assassins, just like second-hand smoke. You won't know it until it's too late. So you see, they seem cool, but they're really sneaky deadly. Just like CIGARETTES."
"Wow! You sure do know a lot of stuff! I bet there's a lot of other cool weird information you can teach me!"
"That's right, junior. And I know 650 reasons why smokers are losers, too. Well, some haven't been scientifically proven yet, but then it took us a while to find a link between smoking and lung cancer. It'll happen. You just need faith. So listen up and you can outsmart those sneaks."
Of course there's always wikipedia, for the big picture at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninja
I've figured it out...it's an acronym.
Non-conforming
Ignorant
Nicotine
Junkies
Association
I wonder what else they call us?
"Today is the first time I have heard about Siegel's statement on funding.
If true, I think many people do believe it would make a difference. -- Erik"
What is the difference? Stop insinuating, speak up - if you have the guts.
I don't find the term ninjas to be a problem, it's the constant attempts to "attack the messenger" rather than the message that is the real trick here, and as usual Erik is quite skilled at those tricks.
Of course we have no idea who Erik is in real life, but it's easy to judge from the consistent caliber, tone, and techniques employed in his messages that he is a professional, probably in the pay of ANR or ALF or RWJF or somesuch and is simply here as an undercover mouthpiece for them.
If I'm correct in that assessment, and I strongly believe I am, then Erik probably gets an amount similar to what FORCES may get for a banner ad... except that Erik pockets that amount every week instead of once a year.
The Eriks out there are very dedicated to hamstringing the opposition by effectively cutting off their obvious potential sources of funding. Since they have the power of the public microphone and "we" don't, they're able to play that game quite well. Heh... Erik doesn't play it as well as he thinks though: he's heavy handed enough that he exposes what he is to anyone who even gives him a thought.
Bill Godshall likes to play with both attacking the messenger and with language games. Here's a nice little note from Smokefreeair.org that I reproduce on p. 58 of Brains:
======
If somebody asks you if you are a smoker, answer them the same way you would if they asked you if were a Nazi or a child abuser.
Q: Are you a Nazi?
A: I’m not a Nazi!
Q: Are you a smoker?
A: I’m not a smoker!
…I’m healthy, smokefree, pro-health, a health advocate, in favor of clean indoor air, and normal.
A smoker, on the other hand, is un-healthy, smoky, anti-health, anti-clean indoor air, and abnormal…
In a battle of pro-smoking vs. anti-smoking, we will always lose. In a battle of pro-health vs. anti-health, we will always win…
-- Positive Language @ smokefreeair.org
=====
And Bill has learned his lesson well, which is why he always squawks so loudly when he is labled as an Antismoker.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Hey Erik,
$1500.00. It seems as though that figure is a little smaller than the $99,000,000.00 from RWJF (Nicoderm) to ALA, ACS, ACS.
http://www.rwjf.org/research/res...?id=2002&
ia=143
It also seems to me to be a smaller financial contribution than Stanton Glantz's $678,000.00 from Nicoderm interests at RWJF.
Sorry here is that RWJF (Nicoderm) grant to Glantz:
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
What difference does it make WHO makes the statement.
Yes, I do think it is important who is receiving money when considering the position they espouse.
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=272
Yes, I do think it is important who is receiving money when considering the position they espouse.
In that case Erik you should post under your real identity and disclose any payments you have received. Otherwise how are we to judge the validity of your comments. Are you prepared to hold yourself to the same standards by which you judge others?
"What difference does it make WHO makes the statement.
Yes, I do think it is important who is receiving money when considering the position they espouse."
Why is it important? Because all, except anti-tobacco advocates, are corrupt?
Corruption involves money. And where is the money?
The most dangerous corruption comes from those who simultanesously:
- produce scientific studies,
- have a social/political agenda
- occupy a leading position in a partisan organization such as ANR
- are being payed for their "scientific studies" by an organization with a undisguised political goal.
Now, Erik, tell me, who else besides SA Glantz fits this profile?
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
So tell me Erik, WHY should we believe anything posted on an Anti site anymore than you would believe anything posted on a pro-choice site? What makes YOUR references so golden? It's already been proven you all lie.
IF you are so interested in that paltry amount that FORCES received from a tobacco company, go and ask THEM. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to supply you with all the documentation you would require.
And I received a $1,000 check from an R.J. Reynolds law firm.
Nice. Congratulations.
Was it for services rendered?
Was it a gift?
Did you do provide some medical care to one of their attorneys?
Are the facts surrounding the payment too embarassing to discuss?
Erik,
I fully expect Dr Siegal will give us the details of what the payment was for, if he had reason to keep it secret he wouldn't have mentioned it. Now are you, his accusser, prepared to answer the same questions you put?
Who are you?
What services do you provide?
Who have you taken gifts from?
Do you receive payment for work other than your main occupation?
Is your true identity too embarassing to reveal?
I fully expect Dr Siegal will give us the details of what the payment was for
Good. I hope so. We will see.
Who have you taken gifts from?
I am not making assertions concerning the safety or dangerousness of smoking.
If I do, I will let you know who pays me so that you can take my statements in context.
Erik,
You are making assertions about the honesty and integrity of others. Now hold yourself to the same standards. Who are you, and who pays you? Have you the courage to debate openly and honestly, can you display the candour you demand of others, and if not why should you be considered with other than cantempt.
A man has a right to know who his accuser is. We can tell from your posts what you are, now tell us who you are, or would you prefer that the two could not be married? What are you ashamed of?
Erik wrote: "I am not making assertions concerning the safety or dangerousness of smoking. "
Heh... slippery lawyer as always: note how he does NOT mention secondary smoke. Although, given his slipperyness it's quite possible that he's always been careful to frame his words to avoid making ANY assertions about anything.
However it's also a slippery technique to reframe the question so as to require disclosure only about someone "making assertions" rather than about promoting a position with clever innuendos and fallacious reasoning.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Looks guys, it isn't that big of deal.
Siegel states:
And I received a $1,000 check from an R.J. Reynolds law firm
From my review of his posts, this is the first time he has made such a statement and it was news to me.
Is asking why he received it really so bad?
If so, why?
I think slippery is too kind a term to describe a person who questions anothers integrity from behind the veil of anonymity. To demand candour whilst being unprepared to act with candour is not the act of one who has integrity. It is the mark of a coward.
No, but we would like to know some more about your paymasters.
Is asking who really so bad?
If so, why?
Is asking why he received it really so bad?
You didn't just ask, you made innuendos about his honesty. Now apologise or reveal your identity. If you demand standards of others be prepared to show some integrity yourself.
And I received a $1,000 check from an R.J. Reynolds law firm.
Dr. Siegel,
While you are drafting your response, could you please tell us whether this is a one time fee, a weekly or monthly payment you will be receiving?
I think it is important for readers of your blog to know this.
Michael McFadden wrote:
The Eriks out there are very dedicated to hamstringing the opposition by effectively cutting off their obvious potential sources of funding. Since they have the power of the public microphone and "we" don't, they're able to play that game quite well. Heh... Erik doesn't play it as well as he thinks though: he's heavy handed enough that he exposes what he is to anyone who even gives him a thought.
Bill Godshall likes to play with both attacking the messenger and with language games. Here's a nice little note from Smokefreeair.org that I reproduce on p. 58 of Brains:
======
If somebody asks you if you are a smoker, answer them the same way you would if they asked you if were a Nazi or a child abuser.
Q: Are you a Nazi?
A: I’m not a Nazi!
Q: Are you a smoker?
A: I’m not a smoker!
…I’m healthy, smokefree, pro-health, a health advocate, in favor of clean indoor air, and normal.
_________________________________
Michael, you are 100% dead on accurate about Erik and his ilk. You should write a book. Ha, ha! Seriously, I'm going to your website and buying it right now, I've been meaning to read it.
_________________________________
Erik, let me ask you a serious question, please answer me honestly man to man. Bill Godshall "send a plague of locusts to your house" wimped out:
Why do you care if:
a guy you've never met...
in a state you've never been to...
in a town you've never heard of...
in a bar you wouldn't go into...
on property you don't own...
smokes a cigarette?
=======================
As far as the "Ninja" comment, the anti-tobacco people are giving us far more credit than we deserve. Let's take an inventory:
Ninja's are:
1. Well trained
2. Experts
3. Organized and work together as a team
4. Effective and deadly
We are:
1. Clueless
2. Amateurs
3. Disorganized. I see nothing but a bunch of people complaining on various chat rooms.
4. About as deadly as a papercut.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN CHANGE THAT. Hopefully, Maryetta Ables from FORCES will provide us with some meaningful direction to give the health fascists a run for the their money.
It's not just for smokers, the message for Erik, Jill and Bill G is:
YOU ARE NEXT! Join us now, or join us later.
Erik,
Who are you, who is your paymaster? Why are you frightened to answer these questions?
I think it is important that readers of this blog know the answers. If you are not prepared to be candid what gives you the right to demand it of others?
We are: 1. Clueless....
No, that's too harsh.
Some approaches have been pretty effective in holding off smoking bans and higher cigarette taxes.
Most states still do not have comprehensive smoking bans.
Erik, let me ask you a serious question, please answer me honestly man to man. Bill Godshall "send a plague of locusts to your house" wimped out:
I will answer it.
Why do you care if:
a guy you've never met...
in a state you've never been to...
in a town you've never heard of...
in a bar you wouldn't go into...
on property you don't own...
smokes a cigarette?
Nice questions. I like it.
Nice framing. It is pretty effective as it is written in a reasoned tone.
The series of questions seeks to parse the recipient's self interest for a smoking ban in the town, bar and property.
Though, the word "bar" may make the questions concede that smoking bans in restaurants and other areas are acceptable. I don't know if you tried to do that.
At any rate, the series of questions appeals to the libertarian in all of us and is overall pretty good.
If you authored it, nice job.
I promise I will answer it the best that I can. I do. But let's just savor the questions for a time.
Craig asked:
Who are you, who is your paymaster?
___________________________________
At what point did politicians or political activists like us have to start apologizing for accepting money from Tobacco Companies? They are LEGAL corporations, that produce a LEGAL product, that is consumed by adults who are of LEGAL age.
I refuse to apologize when we take Tobacco money in the future. They owe it to their paying customers. Why should they leave their customers bent over the bathroom sink with our pants down?
I'll accept their money. I've even tried out a a few new business cards that proudly proclaim the fact that I am a future tobacco company stooge.
How do these sound:
Eric A. Blair
Asst. Treasurer
Tobacco Company Lackey
Craig Hardie
Asst. Vice President
Tobacco Company Operative
Colin Grainger
Vice President
Philip Morris Lobbyist
Marcus Aurelius
Administrative Assistant (sorry dude)
RAI Political Activist
Somebody out there, answer the question. Why should we apologize? States need tobacco money to pay for essential services. Tobacco helped build America.
Either ban it and give up the MSA and state excise tax money...or give smokers their dignity back.
At what point did politicians or political activists like us have to start apologizing for accepting money from Tobacco Companies?
The theory is, or was, that some groups were trying to act independent of the tobacco companies or at least give the perception of being so.
Groups like Forest proudly announce that:
Who funds you?
Most of our money is donated by tobacco companies.
http://www.forestonline.org/outp...tput/
Page73.asp
However, up until recently, there have been some US groups who have claimed that they were financially independent of tobacco companies.
The belief as at the time was the assertion of idependence could gain them more credibility with the general public than if they openly accepted money.
Were they right?
Are you right?
Difficult to tell.
Savor the question?
It's a simple question not a 1997 Abreu Madrona Ranch Cabernet Sauvignon that gets better with age.
Just answer it.
"And I received a $1,000 check from an R.J. Reynolds law firm.
Dr. Siegel,
While you are drafting your response, could you please tell us whether this is a one time fee, a weekly or monthly payment you will be receiving?"
Erik, stop playing silly or we are led to believe you are. "a $1000 check" is that daily, weekly, or monthly? Do you know the difference between "received" and "will be receiving"?
"I think it is important for readers of your blog to know this."
No, it's not important as long as Dr. Siegel's value is integrity, not money. He certainly receives a paycheck from the University of Boston (and/or his patients), but maybe you want to insinuate that the university is payed by Big T?
Why do you care if:
a guy you've never met...
in a state you've never been to...
in a town you've never heard of...
in a bar you wouldn't go into...
on property you don't own...
smokes a cigarette?
Ok. Here's my best response:
1) I care because I care about low wage workers that are forced to inhale cancer causing carcinogenic smoke just to put food on the table. Serviceworkers shouldn't have to choose between their health and making a living.
(how was that? Too heavy on the touchy feely side?)
2) I care because taxpayers are forced to pick up billions of dollars of health costs for smokers on state of federal health care plans.
"The theory is, or was, that some groups were trying to act independent of the tobacco companies or at least give the perception of being so."
Are ANR, ASH, SA Glatz acting independently of RWJ and MSA money?
Do you think that it is ok that they get this money? If yes, how can you justify this?
"The belief as at the time was the assertion of idependence could gain them more credibility with the general public than if they openly accepted money."
... and there goes the credibility of TFK, ANR, ASH, and politicians which don't even disclose their fundings.
RWJ and MSA money?
Yes, I have read about the "Big Pharma" assertion approach to opposing smoking bans.
My observation has been that it has not been particularly effective.
There may have been instances. However, I have not read of any.
Erik wrote: "1) I care because I care about low wage workers that are forced to inhale cancer causing carcinogenic smoke just to put food on the table. Serviceworkers shouldn't have to choose between their health and making a living."
1: IF you really cared, you'd give up your car and stop poisoning everyone. 2: I don't believe you give a ratz azz about any low wage worker you don't know.
Erik then wrote: "2) I care because taxpayers are forced to pick up billions of dollars of health costs for smokers on state of federal health care plans."
Smokers are NOT the only ones on those plans, more non-smokers are I'd like to bet. So unless you have believable stats from really reliable (meaning NON anti sites and studies) sources, don't go spouting off things as fact.
OK, Erik that was a candid answer. I appreciate it. I'll tell you frankly that I have no problem with smoking bans at restaurants. (sorry everyone if you think I'm a sellout).
I remember a few years ago when my daughter was born, we went to a local restaurant in NJ to celebrate after the christening. We sat in the non-smoking section but it was divided by nothing more than a ledge. The smoke kept wafting towards my daughter who was sleeping in her baby carriage. I was pissed.
At that point, even as a smoker, I was thinking of having a few words (or worse) with the guy blowing smoke in her direction. Than I thought of something...
This is not my property. I don't own it. We packed up and left and went to a SMOKE FREE RESTAURANT.
Between my in-laws, our family of four, my parents and the other 9 family members that were there, we dropped $1,700 at this smoke free restaurant on food, drink and desert.
They made a lot of money because they were smoke-free.
That is our point. It's about choice. You don't need government intervention to decide whether their should be smoking or non-smoking environments.
LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE.
Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't.
Eric Blair,
Would I take tobacco company money, I possibly would. However I would be reluctant to do so, not because of reasons of credibility, (as the anonymous and undisclosed Erik implies), but because I have no desire to serve a corporate agenda. The health fascists are perfidious in that they pretend to protect people who smoke from Big Tobacco while pursuing an agenda that is designed to dehumanise and hurt people who smoke. At the same time they dehumanise non-smokers by advocating hatred and intolerance.
Like Stalin on the road to Warsaw the tobacco companies have halted to let their enemy destroy ordinary people struggling for freedom take the brunt of Nazi brutality. However unlike Stalin they do so not in the hope the Nazis destroy us but because the wish to have ordinary take apart their enemy without having to put in the resources to do it themselves. They are content as long as their profits are unaffected.
When the current wave of health fascism is turned back, (and when that happens Erik your name will come out, so you might as well reveal it now), I for one intend to fo after the corporate interests that have waged the tobacco wars at the expense of ordinary people. Both tobacco and pharma will be vulnerable at that moment as it will be a time when there is enormous pressure to find the truth about what has happened.
That's two assertions about smoking Erik. Now are you going to live up to your word?
OK, Erik that was a candid answer. I appreciate it. I'll tell you frankly that I have no problem with smoking bans at restaurants.
That's why most people got interested.
Smoking interests should have long ago retreated and re-trenched at that position but were too slow and lost the whole gambit now in 14 some states.
So we agree than. No smoking in restaurants where children are present. But if a bunch of adults at a bar (where the barmaid smokes 2 packs of unfiltered Camels per day), want to drink pitchers and smoke Marlboro Reds, you're OK with that.
Are we agreed? Let's sign the agreement and submit it to the legislature of the other 38 states right now.
But that means the bars in NJ, NY, CA, MA and other blue states (as if they were obeying your assinine "law" to begin with) are now exempt from nanny state legislation.
Do we have a deal?
EricBlair says: I'll tell you frankly that I have no problem with smoking bans at restaurants.
But then EricBlair says: That is our point. It's about choice. You don't need government intervention to decide whether their should be smoking or non-smoking environments. LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE. Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't.
Do you really mean you have no problem with smoking bans in restaurants? How does that equate with choice, no government intervention, and "Let the free market decide"?
I have no problem with restaurants that go smokefree by choice. I simply don't patronize them. I DO have a serious problem with bans that prohibit smoking in ANY restaurant.
If every restaurant in America went smokefree tomorrow, I'd never set foot in another restaurant again. If every American, smoker or non (which I bet is a heftier percentage than the little antis), who wants to preserve our freedoms and personal liberties did likewise, THAT would get the message across.
Hi tnsmoker.
I'm still on our/your side sweetheart (hope you don't mind if I call you that since we've been corresponding for months now).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that in a pluralistic society where we all have to live together amicably, we have to reach some type of compromise.
Can't we all just get along?
But like our friend Torquemeda said: "These people are like rabid skunks. They won't leave you alone until they find somebody else to piss on."
Erik should think about that.
So we agree than. No smoking in restaurants where children are present. But if a bunch of adults at a bar (where the barmaid smokes 2 packs of unfiltered Camels per day), want to drink pitchers and smoke Marlboro Reds, you're OK with that.
I will have to say that would have been a very strong position for pro-smoking groups 5 years ago to have entrenched themselves if they could have done it.
I bet that would have stalled any sort of ban in bars for 10 to 15 years at least if they had followed your advice.
Permitting smoking in bowling alleys was a disaster too as young children were present and made for a great fodder for the smoking ban proponents.
I actually thought of a system that might have worked which was almost considered by DC.
It would have given a limited number of licenses out by lottery every few years for smoking venues.
In this way, the smokers would be concentrated in limited number of bars and the harm to non-smokers reduced to about zero. In my view, a very defensible posture for smoking ban opponents. Not perfect, but the best I have heard of.
One of the worst situations was the typical old family cafe with familes and children when few chain smokers, sitting at the bar of the restaurant, ordering coffee fill up the place with smoke. Perhaps three people smoking with 30 people inhaling it.
Scenes like these fueled the smoking ban push.
In the end, however, no one liked my suggestion. Oh well. Now DC has a complete smoking ban with some narrow exemptions being handed out.
Are we agreed? Let's sign the agreement and submit it to the legislature of the other 38 states right now.
Hmmmm. Tempting. You drive a hard bargain
However, the restaurant industry would be opposed to it, they like to sell booze too much and many of them are pushing for state wide bans.
Eric Blair said: I'm still on our/your side sweetheart (hope you don't mind if I call you that since we've been corresponding for months now).
I didn't think you had switched sides, but I just don't understand the logic. (And nope, don't mind at all. 
)
Eric Blair said: I guess what I'm trying to say is that in a pluralistic society where we all have to live together amicably, we have to reach some type of compromise.
I understand that. I fully agree that compromise is the answer to everyone's concern. I don't see the problem with smoking restaurants and non-smoking restaurants, smoking bars and non-smoking bars, or even restaurants and bars with separate, well-ventilated smoking and non-smoking sections. Now, THAT'S choice!
Erik wrote:they like to sell booze too much.
And many non-smokers like to drink booze and eat fried cheese curds and chocolate eclairs.
Read the two links below Erik, and get back to me tomorrow if you still think you're not next.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
d...030410_rwjf.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa501.pdf
There were plenty of political dissidents, physically and mentally retarded people (see ASH, ANR), homosexuals, and gypsies in Germany in the 1930's who said:
"Why do I care if they round up the Jews, I'm not Jewish."
They didn't find out they were next until it was too late.
Think about that tonight Erik, Bill and Jill.
Eric Blair writes:
"I'll tell you frankly that I have no problem with smoking bans at restaurants."
"This is not my property. I don't own it. We packed up and left and went to a SMOKE FREE RESTAURANT."
"That is our point. It's about choice. You don't need government intervention to decide whether their should be smoking or non-smoking environments."
"LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE."
"Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't."
What a bunch of idiotic, contradicting statements.
Smoking bans are government interventions. That's not the free market deciding. And so much for your "This is not my property" statement.
BTW, in my state kids are allowed in bars if accompanied by a parent or guardian. You want to compromise their property rights too? You'll have to, but at least your little precious will be safe.
Ninja vs Nazi?
I'll take being called a Ninja over a Nazi any day. In fact, if I weren't already established as tnsmoker, I'd call myself smokingninja. :D
Technically, ninjas may be "spies and assassins", but the majority of the public see them as cool "well-trained, highly skilled warriors" as LyndaF said.
Nazis are the lowest of the low, fascists, tyrants, and genocidal murderers. No one has the concept of any kind of nazi being cool.
According to the tobacco documents:
Phillip morris had a ninja program.
Ninja Program
(Philip Morris grassroots smoker organizing program)
PM recruited smokers ("ninjas") who would do more than simply write legislators or LTEs. Ninjas would circulate petitions, organize smokers rights groups, operate phone banks, etc.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/
prof...ja_program.html
According to the tobacco documents: Phillip morris had a ninja program. PM recruited smokers ("ninjas") who would do more than simply write legislators or LTEs. Ninjas would circulate petitions, organize smokers rights groups, operate phone banks, etc.
Interesting. But it's no different or worse than what the national anti-orgs do when they recruit people at the local level to push for their bans.
Wow. Thanks. Looks like "Ninja" is a term of art.
Here's some more I found on it.
Hate to disappoint. However, it appears the "ninja" term as it relates to tobacco was not invented by the health organizations.
Daragan calls PM's Ninja Program "a proactive media relations tool for us," and describes how PM's method of recruiting smokers as spokespeople differs from those of other cigarette companies:
There's more:
"We don't manage smokers rights clubs and organize meetings like our
competitors do. What we do is go out and find the most articulate and devoted activists. We call them our ninjas. We feed them with our most powerful information and arguments, media train them and then have our public relations agency go out and pitch stories and set up interviews for them..."
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-ale...ges/
247135.html
This is too good:
We have trained these smokers
to be very reasonable and positive so they can appeal to smokers and non-smokers. So,they talk about mutual respect among both groups, common
courtesy, tolerance and accommodation. They offer solutions instead of complaining and defending their choice to smoke...
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-ale...ges/
247135.html
And the final word for aspiring "Ninja's":
XIII. This program -the Ninja Program -works best with our consumer issues of
course. -- smoking bans/restrictions--privacy/employment discrimination --
taxation
XIV. I have just a sample of some of the interviews we have generated in the
recent past on all three of these issues.(show tape .)
PM's mission:
To cultivate an independent third party group of smokers who will serve as the principle mouthpiece for smokers across the country to spread the messages of accommodation, civil liberties,fairness and self-determination.
OOpss. Forgot the last link:
http://www.smokefree.net/doc-ale...ges/
247135.html
Now then.
You have been "recruited"
You have been "trained"
You have been "fed" "powerful information"
(see citation for quotes)
Now go forth Ninjas!
(Makes me want to rent a Jackie Chan Movie)
In response to Erik's ramblings...
So?
Still better than being a nazi.
Ninjas, child abusers, rapists, killers/murderers, slime, lepers, nicotine fanatics, junkies, selfish filthy addicts.....
Does anyone recall them ever calling us human beings?
Oh where is si when we need him??? He would have been the first to point out how Erik is toying with everyone. That anyone engages in a discussion with him about what he says is beyond me. His tone drips with condescension and sanctimony. He lets loose what he knows is absolute nonsense that trips all over itself and then sits back to entertain himself with the answers. What's the most sick about that is that he finds people who WANT to be reasonable and rational his idea of entertaining by way of poking at them with a stick. It's mentally perverted.
Taking the cake was his game of blaming the smokers' rights and hospitality groups for the extent that smoking bans have gone. It's impossible to imagine he typed that with a straight face. That has vicious sneer written all over it.
It's one thing to explain to those who might be lurking (reading) this blog that this person is not to be taken seriously and why. It's another to treat his comments with any kind of personally returned conversation.
And if you asked me, what reason could Dr. Siegel have for tossing out that he received a payment from one of the tobacco company's law firms? For the heck of it? Knowing what that would stir up? Nah. BECAUSE he knows what that would stir up I think it was intentional bait. To drive Erik et al crazy. Tell me I'm right, Dr. Siegel.
Lastly, Dr. Siegel wrote: "Calling our constituents "ninjas" is no way to practice public health."
To which Brett answered: "Most in the anti-smoking movement do not consider themselves as serving the smoker, but ruling him."
Exactly Brett. And I just want to emphasize that. The anti-smoking movement does not "practice public health." They practice dictating private life. Anti-smoking is NOT about "fixing" something (what medicine and science strives for) it's about hating something (and someone). No reason to be surprised then at how they speak about it.
Yes, Erik seems like a lawyer alright - slippery as a serpent, twichy as an eel. Plays the legal circus like an acrobat on wire, and for the right remuneration will even play with fire. Loves his double standards he's certainly no dope, knows he'll make his money - of that he has great hope...And then he'll reappear for more in a cloud of second hand smoke.
These words were written by the Chief Ninja, Nazi Shafter and Hypocrite Exposer for the UK.
Ah tho. The weathel get foot caught in wire....Tho you thee gwaththopper not all thingth are what they theem...
Excuse me guys... but can't you figure out that this Erik persona is trolling you all? Aren't you realizing that the Doc is completely ignoring it, as it's best to do with trolls? Every time you reply to it, you feed it.
OK, let's have a show of hands. How many here have actually been approached by, let alone recruited by, any of the tobacco industry folks to be trained, given certain facts to recite, and to go forth and speak on behalf of smokers? Come on, be honest.
I know I wasn't, no one ever approached me, even for any of all these so called polls on both sides of the fence.
I for one, speak for myself, about myself and about MY life, first hand experiences. Things I have witnessed first hand.
I'm in no one's pocket.
I've no doubt that Erik is here to be destructive and that his behaviour is akin to that of a common troll. However, I find his posts on this thread to be quite illuminating. It is clear from his posts that he has an extensive knowledge of the history and strategy of the anti tobacco movement, and has probably been at the game a long time. I would bet that his involvement predates the construction of the post modernist narrative about exposure of low paid workers, which was purely a gambit designed to sell smoking bans to the post democratic left.
Michael McFadden suggested that Erik was employed as troll, and that idea has some merit. However my reading of him is that he is actually a bit higher in the movement than that. The sort of person that would have access to the list serves that Dr Siegal has now been denied access to. I suspect that Erik is here not because it is his job, but because he has a personal grudge against Dr Siegal and wishes to at least disrupt this blog if he can't discredit Dr Siegal.
I think Michael is spot on about Erik being a lawer, or at least a professional opinion manipulator. There is an arrogance in his tone that suggests he thinks himself to be above others and that he believes he can control others at his whim. I suspect the reason that he refuses to divulge his identity, and he got very defensive on that point before he decided to ignore it, is that he would find it very embarrassing to his public persona if it ever got out that he trolled blogs. He likes to think of himself as a power player, and power players don't stoop to trolling on the internet.
The most successful troll in this episode was our host. He cast out some bait and Erik swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Erik - thank you for those informative and hilarious links to PMs bragging! What a phony bunch of blowhards! lol!
Here's some truth for you. My friends and I (there are three of us) set up a bunch of websites that we built and maintained from 2002 until 2005. We've been letting them atrophy since then, because we all have other life issues to deal with at the moment.
All the websites were free ones. We never spent a penny on them, so we've never needed or asked for funding from anyone (including Big Tobacco).
None of us have ever met a tobacco company rep in our lives. We've never attended any "smoker's rights" meetings or "training" sessions (rofl!), and we've never even visited any Big Tobacco websites. ALL the material on these websites was original to us, in other words the research was done by us independently and the commentaries and rants were written by us - with the exception of quotes taken from anti-smoking organisations and researchers.
We enjoyed watching and tracking the visitors to these sites, which included some scary-looking US military and security agency IDs - and one of the frequent visitors to our sites just happened to be someone at Imperial Tobacco...
Hilariously, we subsequently were informed by other independents that various ideas and concepts FROM OUR SITES began showing up on Imperial's company webpages! In fact, in the transcripts of a court case Imperial was involved in here in Canada during that time, one of their lawyers makes a statement that is a direct quote of something I personally wrote for one of our sites! lol! Except, of course, he didn't say it was a quotation or credit us as its authors.
One of our websites did get listed by NSR Canada as a tobacco company front group, which was TOO funny. Perhaps their little zealots had correlated info from our site with something on Imperial's site - but if they did, they got the relationship backward. That wasn't Imperial's words on our site, that was OUR words on Imperial's site!
They really are pathetic, Big Tobacco. And a joke to boot.
Happy 4th of July to American sisters & brothers!
I've decided to give an example of what I've talked about in my last posting. Bear in mind - it's hard for us to 'keep a straight face' a lot of the time. There are serious issues involved and we do take them seriously, but the fanaticism of the antis just screams out to be parodied and satired wherever possible
http://www.geocities.com/whyteenssmoke
Our "Why Teens Smoke" site came about, because we noted large numbers of hits on other sites that used "why teens smoke" searches on google to reach our sites. We did some searches using those terms, ourselves, and discovered that school kids across North America were being assigned writing essays on this topic, and that websites containing outrageous anti-smoker propapoo-poo had been set up for them to do their research from.
Well, we couldn't resist...
So, we created our own version and manipulated google so that our website would always come up #1 on google searches for that phrase. Teehee. (No, I won't teach anyone how that is done) We kept our site in that rank for over 18 months, during which time thousands of schoolkids got to see the other side of the story.
Which is - that the anti-smoking industry is an INDUSTRY, that people involved in it are getting stinking rich off it, just like Big Tobacco, and that they really don't give a d*mn about the teens themselves. The proof of that is that tens of millions are spent every year to 'prevent' teens from smoking, but teens don't die from smoking. On the other hand, the actual causes of teen death continue to receive a pathetically tiny fraction of that funding for THEIR prevention.
That whole concept is an example of an idea that Big Tobacco subsequently STOLE FROM US and incorporated into their own propaganda. That's a fact.
By the way, we eventually gave that site to the Moorish Orthodox Social Justice Committee, so that some of the anti's conspiracy paranoia could come true for them. You see, the MOSJC really are The Illuminati. ROFL!
The "World Weekly News" parody headlines on that why teens smoke site still crack me up, too.
Erik was asked why he cared if someone smokes. His answer “I care because I care about low wage workers that are forced to inhale cancer causing carcinogenic smoke just to put food on the table. Serviceworkers shouldn't have to choose between their health and making a living.”
While I agree, that a service worker shouldn’t have to choose, I am a bit perplexed why the myopic focus on second hand smoke. There have been quite a few studies done out of China, which show a huge statistical correlation with Cooking oil vapors and lung cancer. Wang et al in “Lung cancer in nonsmoking Chinese women: a case-control study.” found no association with second hand smoke, but did find an OR of 3.79. Yao and Shi in a meta-analysis found an OR of 2.72 to cooking oil fumes while exposure to SHS was a mere 1.42. Zhao et al in Air pollution and lung cancer risks in China-a meta-analysis. found the OR in non-smoking woman to 2.12 for exposure to cooking oil vapors. Hung et al found "Cooking oil fumes improve lung adenocarcinoma cell survival through c-IAP2 induction."
Unfortunately much of this research has been ignored in the U.S. as there are no large grants being provided to investigate the hazards of second hand frying, but does represent a significant threat to service workers especially when compared to second hand smoke exposure. While ventilation can improve the risks, as noted in much of this research, the Repace’s of the world would have to agree that even hurricane forced winds can’t provide for worker safety, as there is no safe level of second hand oil exposure and all frying must cease, since the benchmark has been set with ETS.
Clearly the Erik’s and Jill’s of the world are not truly driven by workers concerns, but rather by their own prejudices of smokers and smoking.
"So not only is this comment despicable because of its derogatory slur against a huge number of private American citizens who are standing up for what they see as their freedom and rights, but it is based on a false and completely unsupported allegation."
I am trying to grapple with this odd idea that "Ninja" is a derogatory slur. My personal recollection of Ninja's is that they are martial artists who have recieved the highest level of accomplishment. A level that few in the field ever achieve. There were movies about Ninjas, a motorcycle called the Ninja, cartoons about Ninjas. Derogatory?
Could it be that someone is looking too hard to find something negative, where nothing negative exists?
I don't know. It may be a misstatement of fact, or an error in judgement, but I don't see how calling someone a Ninja is a derogatory slur.
Ummm...Jill...Ninjas were assassins.
You know, as in murderers.
Not as bad as calling us all baby-killers, which TC does with increasing regularity and fervor, but...
To accuse nameless members of an identifiable group within your community of causing the deaths of unnamed other citizens is called Blood Libel, Jill.
From Dr. Siegel's writings:
"XXX circulated the following document this week...FORCES has basically replaced the American [?National] Smokers Alliance as the base group for these Ninjas."
Erik pointed out a direct quote from PM using the word "ninja" so I'd say it's safe to say PM thought this up and not anti-tobacco.
However, whoever wrote what Siegel quoted must think, certainly implies, that people associated with FORCES have been recruited and trained by PM.
In other words, using the word "ninja" is incorrect and to some may be considered derogatory.
Lynda F wrote:
"OK, let's have a show of hands. How many here have actually been approached by, let alone recruited by, any of the tobacco industry folks to be trained, given certain facts to recite, and to go forth and speak on behalf of smokers? Come on, be honest."
I've never been approached or recruited.
I did write RJR once asking if it would be possible to get the Camel logo they had on the race cars they sponsored, but they never wrote back.
I thought it would look good on one of my cars. LOL
Robin, here is an equation for you.
Tobacco smoke = SIDS = SIDS = Infant Death = someone who causes death = killer = someone who causes death to an infant = baby killer.
That's not Blood Libel, that's fact. You may recall that libel is libel only when the statements are false, Robin.
That last post was mine. And I have been approached by PMUSA several years ago to become a member of what I then thought was an independent grass roots organization. I've learned a little about NSA since then. I am absolutely certain that no groups have been created in their place and I would never dare speculate that some of the pro-smoking groups out there are not in fact "grass roots."
Anonymous wrote:
"Tobacco smoke = SIDS = SIDS = Infant Death = someone who causes death = killer = someone who causes death to an infant = baby killer.
That's not Blood Libel, that's fact. You may recall that libel is libel only when the statements are false, Robin."
But tobacco smoke doesn't equal SIDS, does it, Anonymous?
I would be dead, my 4 siblings would be dead, so on and so forth.
Cars = crashes = deaths. But hey, we're all still alive.
See the problem yet with your statement?
However, I find his posts on this thread to be quite illuminating.
My last series of post were to point out that the term "ninja" in the tobacco debate has a history a very specific useage not some deragatory term thought up recently by someone.
That may make someone like the term better now or dislike it further.
I have to disappoint, but I am not some long term operative and have never gotten paid by any party in the debate. Zilch.
I found the "Ninja" reference by a search on google using PM and Ninja. It was the first result. Up until yesterday, I never knew what the term was either.
http://www.google.com/search?sou...S176&
q=pm+ninja
As you can see it is the first result in google.
Isn't the document referenced just a bit humerous?
Evening all,
New from good old Britain, obesity is the number one cause of preventable death. New legislation to have Doctor's examining and reporting 5 year olds for being overweight. A new national database that will record every detail about every child in England and Wales, including if they are or are not receiving 5 portions of fruit and veg each day. Doctor's to councell and advise overweight people regardless of the reason they have atended their Doctor.
Obesity to be tackled.. weight for it (sorry). By new drugs that suppresses appetite and even one that will "shrink bodies".
Drug companies maniulate an international situation that forces people to stop smoking (using expensive drugs), said quitters gain lots of weight, new victims forced to lose weight (using expensive drugs). The mind boggles.
GreatScot
Dear Anonymous
Smoking does not equal SIDS. I will refer you now to the site of Physicians for Smoke free Canada.
http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-
...health_kids.htm
This page particularly states:
"A British study found that SIDS deaths could be reduced by two-thirds if parents did not smoke.***"
A U.S. analysis** of over 100 reports on pædiatric diseases concluded that children’s exposure to tobacco smoke is responsible for up to:
1868-2708 SIDS deaths‡
(approx. 180-270 in Canada)
* the number of Canadian cases is extrapolated from U.S. estimates
† [Samet, JM. Synthesis: The Health Effects of Tobacco Smoke Exposure on Children. January 7, 1999]
‡[California EPA. Final Report: Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Sept. 1997]
** Joseph diFranza and Robert Lew, Morbidity and Mortality in Children Associated with the Use of Tobacco Products by Other People, Paediatrics, 1996, 97:560-568].
*** Peter Blair et al. Smoking and the sudden infant death syndrome: results from 1993-5 case-control study for confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. British Medical Journal, 1996: 313.
I checked Stats Canada - the quoted number of SIDS cases is fairly accurate.
Please note also that approximately 2000 (rounding off) deaths by SIDS occur in Canada per year. PSFC speculates that approximatly 180 - 270 of these deaths are attributable to tobacco. This is only roughly 10 % of the SIDS cases -
THEREFOR FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES OF EPIMIDOLOGY, it would appear that 90 % of SIDS occur in non-smoking homes and that NOT SMOKING IS STRONGLY LINKED (ALMOST CAUSALLY) TO THE INCIDENC OF SIDS.
but they have NO SHAME IN POSTING ON THE VERY SAME PAGE THAT SIDS COULD BE REDUCED BY 2/3 IF EVERYONE QUIT SMOKING.
Please explain Anonymous, if smoking = SIDS and smokers are baby-killers - why do the vast majority of SIDS incidences turn up in non-smoking households to non-smoking mothers?
Michelle
Jill wrote:
"Tobacco smoke = SIDS = SIDS = Infant Death = someone who causes death = killer = someone who causes death to an infant = baby killer."
At least we know your true colors. You're a vicious, nasty person. I hope to God other people who might disapprove of things you do treat you with more respect and human dignity than you treat us.
Disgusting.
Jill -
Please name a smoker or smokers who caused the death of an infant, and name the infant.
It is Blood Libel, when you accuse NAMELESS members of an identifiable social group of causing the deaths of UNNAMED others in their society.
Have I caused the death of any infants, Jill? Has MY smoking caused anyone to die? NAME my victim(s), Jill.
You're all (TC) nothing more than a bunch of witch-hunters.
I suspect that Erik is here not because it is his job, but because he has a personal grudge against Dr Siegal and wishes to at least disrupt this blog if he can't discredit Dr Siegal.
Actually, the reason I am allowed to post here is because successful blogs need a certain ratio of dissentors.
Without dissentors, a blog would basically be a love in for one position which doesn't work very well. Not for blogs. (the term "troll" is in the eye of the beholder. See wikipedia).
Most pro smoking ban types avoid this blog because they believe that contributing here would make the blog more successful and waste their time.
If I was a really a dedicated and disciplined smoking ban proponent I would avoid this blog altogther.
And if you asked me, what reason could Dr. Siegel have for tossing out that he received a payment from one of the tobacco company's law firms? For the heck of it? Knowing what that would stir up?
That is the question for the day. I have no idea.
Craig wrote:
... and power players don't stoop to trolling on the internet.
That is very true. The significant people on both sides of the issue are not spending their time blogging.
Even in political campaigns, that task is usually left to 19 year old volunteer staffers.
Jill - let me put this in some other contexts that might be more understandable to you.
The classic Blood Libel involved accusations that "Jews are sacrificing Christian children". Since the alleged victims were never identified, nor the alleged perpetrators named, it would never be possible to either prove or disprove the accusation. Therefore, such accusations had no purpose other than to cause irrational hatred of Jews.
If Bin Laden claims: "Americans kill thousands of Muslim babies every year", that would be a Blood Libel. If no victims are named, nor alleged perpetrators identified, there is no way to prove or disprove the allegation. Therefore, it would have no purpose other than to incite irrational hatred of Americans.
The way Health Promotion abuses epidemiology is a precise parallel. There is no purpose to it other than to incite irrational hatred of social groups and/or industries. And you are a participant in this, Jill. You are a witch-hunter.
By the way, for those interested further in the creation of the Ninja. See the PDF file below, it shows the entire letter referenced:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/c...pdf&
ref=results
Great Scot wrote: "New from good old Britain, obesity is the number one cause of preventable death. New legislation to have Doctor's examining and reporting 5 year olds for being overweight."
Where can I find this article?
Hi lynda,
This topic has been on the news media for a couple of weeks now with varying degrees of sensationalism.
Go to the BBC site below and follow the links contained. There is quite a lot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionn...etwork/
A2979499
Lynda,
here is another. This is from one of our quality broadsheet newspapers.
GreatScot
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman...fm?
id=544542006
Thanks, Great Scot.
This is truly getting out of control. Today is "Independence Day" here in the States, and I find myself in a somewhat somber mood rather than the usual patriotic, celebratory mood this day tends to make me feel.
Gee I wonder why.
anonymous (aka Jill this time) wrote: "Tobacco smoke = SIDS = SIDS = Infant Death = someone who causes death = killer = someone who causes death to an infant = baby killer."
Implying anyone who is pregnant and smokes, or anyone who smokes near a child is a baby killer. But Jill doesn't resort to calling anyone names or pointing fingers. Did you really think that by starting that off with "tobacco smoke" instead of smoker that we couldn't figure out what you were saying?
And Dr. Siegel is worried about some foul language? For some reason we are not supposed to take offense to this?
Jill wrote, "That last post was mine. And I have been approached by PMUSA several years ago to become a member of what I then thought was an independent grass roots organization."
Right Jill. That was just before you became a "Young Mother of Four" coming to ask us if you could blow smoke in your baby's faces. Sheeesh.
Jill, you're not nearly as skillful as Erik (who managed to avoid at least a half dozen simple demands that he reveal who pays him to be a mouthpiece here)
Not even as swift as Bill Godshall, who has consistently refused to discuss what financial connections he may have had over the years with the smokeless tobacco industry.
And that's setting the line pretty low: Bill was just quoted in a PA paper using the idiotic pissing in a swimming pool argument despite the fact that he knows perfectly well how completely invalid it is (Hint for newbies: pools change their water about once a year... decent restaurants change their air more than 25,000 times a year... and Bill knows that!)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
::sigh:: Woulda been nice if Big T fed ME some information so I wouldn't have had to spend three years researching it for Brains! Heh... actually I think one them played the reverse game: I saw my comparison to the weight of a grain of salt in picograms appear on one of their websites a year or two ago! Think I could squeeze the MSA for a royalty check?
You might as well, Michael. Seems to me they give that money away on a whim. Its dirty if it comes to an anti ban group.
But in the hands of ATI it suddenly becomes clean.
Why is that, do you think?
Admirable stand point indeed Dr Siegel. How right you are! They is absolutely no place for the language of the gutter in scientific discussion. Equally bad, I feel, is the sensationalist, emotionally blackmailing use of imagined child deaths. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying smoking couldn't have harmed unborn babies, and indeed smoking whilst pregnant is not considerate behaviour. However there may well be an explanation as to why a pregnant woman continues to smoke whilst pregnant and it is brutal to accuse her of any black evil or label her with some extreme tag.
It is simply without humanity to do so and without thought and consideration. A crime in my mind itself.
Furthermore it is unsupportive as an argument for tobacco control.
Once again your insite and faithfullness to your discipline deserves the admiration of us all from which ever side we stand. It is quite astonishing that such a gem of an individual should be treated as he has by his colleagues.
Michelle - another great posting of yours, thanks!
My buddy Roy confronted Health Canada about a very specific claim they'd made regarding infants allegedly "killed by" exposure to SHS. He asked them how they got such precise numbers (something like exactly 53 boys and 49 girls) He asked them if they knew who the deceased were or had autopsy reports for these alleged deaths.
It took a loooong time for them to reply, and when a flunky assistant of some kind eventually did reply, he admitted that they did NOT know the identities of the alleged victims, that they had NO autopsy results - that the numbers were simply generated by the SAMMEC 2 "ouija board" computer program. They were/are statistical phantoms and nothing more.
I could ask him to forward that emailed reply to me if you want to see it.
To Erik:
The S Glantz site at Berzerkely is leaving out the most important part of the PM document,
PM has absoutley No influence over smokers (true grass roots) and when they decided to become "astro Turf activists" they soon found out that smokers do not take kindly to anyone attempting to edit their voices and keep loose cannons from making statements detremental to the top floor of PM that was paying their "secured leader" 450,000.0 per year to attempt and lead the Ninjas. down the PC pro smoking path.
PM has spent nearly a decade licking the boots of the public funded tormentors, Call PM anti smoking 800 number and it is answered by the NIH.
PM's tormentors allow the pavlov tobacco corporation to push their fire retardant rolling paper Reg us patient Off as "SELECT"
The mushy and mallioable government of New York and Mass Call the rolling paper "fire Safe" PM says in their own documents "There is No such thing as a fire safe cigarette, but the drive continues.
In Minnesota three years ago PM had the Professional Fire fighters Association present their Products Marlboro and Merit as the Only fire Safe cigarettes in the country and wanted Minnesota to follow suit,They even had a commission hearing on the matter with a room full of the anti smoking cartel,Our country Boy conservative commission members sent them on their way, Looking further the Minnesota Professional Firefighters Association has ZERO credibility with the Charities Review Council....... I noticed that tobacco info at U C berkley left this important info out. I must be suffering Ninjaitis
SIDS deaths:
MPAAT the Minnesota Government grown anti smoking syndicate has 200 million to spend attacking smokers,
Even on the ELITE super bowl da customers, A wafing smoke commercial aired on KSTP TV ST Paul was shown of the "father" smoking in the kitchen, the wafing smoke went through three rooms and into the nusery where the smoke was morphed into a pair of hands that "killed the Child", I sent a copy of a letter to the TV station from the National SIDS FRoundation asking anti smoking groups to stop the act, because No one knows the cause of SIDS.......... A very responsible station manager called my home and told me."That ad will never run again. and KSTP has kept their word.
To the lurkers of this blog, Anti-Smoker Lesson #22: "Context Is Not Our Friend."
Example:
Anti-smoker reposts a comment: And if you asked me, what reason could Dr. Siegel have for tossing out that he received a payment from one of the tobacco company's law firms? For the heck of it? Knowing what that would stir up?
Then answers it: "That is the question for the day. I have no idea."
Comment (NOT a question) as it originally appeared: And if you asked me, what reason could Dr. Siegel have for tossing out that he received a payment from one of the tobacco company's law firms? For the heck of it? Knowing what that would stir up? Nah. BECAUSE he knows what that would stir up I think it was intentional bait. To drive Erik et al crazy.
Lesson #22 Review: Anti-smokers can't win without tricking you.
The S Glantz site at Berzerkely is leaving out the most important part of the PM document,
From my understanding, each document is posted as it was found in PDF form. Some have been transcribed but you can usually get the original scanned version to look at.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
PM has absoutley No influence over smokers (true grass roots) and when they decided to become "astro Turf activists"
I agree. That was given up long ago. It was too blatent of a tactic.
In fact, they make clear that they find established pro-smoking activists:
What we do is go out and find the most articulate and devoted activists. We call them our ninjas. We feed them with our most powerful information and arguments,
With that said, remember that this is a 1991 document.
BRAVO, Archie!
Good for you, sir.
Heh... actually I think one them played the reverse game: I saw my comparison to the weight of a grain of salt in picograms appear on one of their websites a year or two ago!
Hmmm. Interesting. Was that mean as a compliment or a slam?
Robin - yes please do send me the posting regarding the dead babies and their sex and health canada's reply
I've heard of it and I am eager to see it.
Michelle
Erik says: "In fact, they make clear that they find established pro-smoking activists:"
Like Jill, since she is the only one that seems to have ever been approached by PM.
Perhaps this is their idea of recruiting anti's to endorse their deals with the CTFK.
Archie - what did you mean when you said you sent them a letter from "the Sids Foundation" - are you connected with the Sids foundation?
Michelle
Michelle:
If you look on FORCES archives under SIDS You will find a copy of a letter to John Banzhaf from the SIDS foundation asking him to STOP making the statement that second hand smoke is responsible for SIDS deaths because the cause is un known I havnt looked at it in a long while but I am sure it mentioned about causing more bad feelings for parents that have actually lost a child to SIDS.
To Erik:
As a pro smokers rights advocate for nearly 18 years any information that I have studied is from very good researchers, MP SM SH WH OM LS And many more, Folks aquianted with these great Americans know exactly who they are, The research was done with 100% private money from the pocket of these researchers, State Data practice Laws and the FOIA provided most of the information until CDC NIH NCI and others found out how to avoid sending information by playing ping pong with the citizen request, requests started taking two years instead of the 45 days suggested in the law. It took me three years and the help of a United States senator to pry information out of Mayo Clinic Nicotine Dependency center,
PM has fed no one information except the NIH and playmates that PM rolls with today..
Yes Archie - I saw the letter but it is an unsigned copy, I don't think it is a good idea to use it. I actually have better quotes from SIDS websites:
PAY ATTENTION HERE JILL - I LOST MY NEPHEW TO SIDS. I WAS BABYSITTING AND HE DIED WHILE HE SLEPT IN A BASSINETTE, ON HIS BACK, NO MORE THAN 2 FEET FROM MY FACE. I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING SIDS FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS.
I would be very careful slinging that baby killer talk around me, if I was you.
Now for some quotes:
http://www.criblife2000.com/smoking.htm
Recent reports propose a correlation between parents, especially mothers who smoke, and unexplained infant deaths. This correlation fails, however, when groups who do not smoke experience a death rate equal to the population as a whole. Also, cultures known to smoke heavily, like Japan, have practically no incidence of unexplained infant deaths. In particular, Japan did not experience a problem, until recently, in spite of smoking. A case might be made that Western traditions, such as the introduction of PVC and fire retardants into crib mattress, in place of the customary futon, may be the culprit rather than the widespread incidence of smoking. Neither smoking or any other risk factor can account for the fact that a second or third child has a greater risk of becoming a victim than a first child. When the growing number of incidents of taking place in daycare centers and in the homes of Afro-Americans is considered the only risk factor that makes any sense at all is the re-use of older baby mattresses. Ironically, old mattresses have not yet made the medically accepted list of risk factors, in spite of the fact the Scotland Cot Death Foundation has reported as recently as February 2000 that the risk of unexplained infant death is three times greater on used mattresses. This report can be found in the proceedings of the Sixth International SIDS Conference.
______________________________
Now from SIDS Foundation of Washington
http://www.kidsource.com/sids/ca...ds/
cause.2.html
NONE OF THESE SUSPECTED RISK FACTORS IS THE CAUSE OF SIDS. The vast majority of babies who sleep on their tummies, are exposed to tobacco smoke, or have relatively warm sleeping conditions do not die in infancy, and numerous infants with none of these risk factors have died of SIDS. These recommendations are intended to reduce the risk for your baby, but they cannot guarantee freedom from this tragedy.
_______________________________
Smoke-Free Environment
Risk factors by themselves do not cause Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, but can have a negative effect on infant well-being...While doctors are hopeful that following the recommendations may reduce the risk of SIDS, we must understand that following the recommendations faithfully will still not prevent SIDS. Research must continue if we are to discover how and why SIDS occurs, and expand upon these and other risk factors (SIDS Network, 1999a).
SIDS has long been associated with women who smoke during pregnancy. A recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics showed that women who quit smoking during pregnancy, but resumed after the child's birth put their babies at risk, too. Findings from this study indicated that babies exposed to smoke only after birth were twice as likely to die from SIDS as those whose mothers did not smoke at all; constant smoke exposure during and after pregnancy tripled an infant's risk for SIDS (SIDS Network, 1999a).
In another study of cigarette smoke exposure, SIDS was related to both exposure to prenatal cigarette smoke and an impaired ability to arouse from sleep (Franco, 1999).
It is important to note, however, that the majority of infants who have been victims of SIDS do not have mothers who have smoked (Ariagno, 1994). Thus, as with all risk factors, the absence of smoke is not guaranteed protection or prevention.
__________________________________________________
___________________
The following comments are mine:
So lets examine the cumulative evidence:
In populations where smoking is prevelant (ensuring that the pregnant woman are exposed to SHS and that SHS is present in the home) - we have HIGH SMOKING RATE coupled with LOW SIDS RATE
In our population where the rate of smoking dropped by half over the 1970s and 1980s - there was NO DRAMATIC DROP IN THE SIDS RATE until the 1990s with it "BACK TO SLEEP program.
Although ASH is able to SPECULATE that maternal smoking and exposure CAUSES 1/3 to 1/2 of all SIDS
SIDS groups all say the same thing "MATERNAL SMOKING AND SHS DOES NOT CAUSE SIDS" The majority of SIDS cases occurs when there is no Tobacco involved.
The supposed link between smoking and SIDS has now been under study for at least 20 or 30 years. Still no CAUSATIVE AGENT has been found.
While there is no harm in the recommendationt that pregnant woman not smoke and that infants not be exposed to tobacco smoke - and it certainly keeps anti-tobacco money flowing to the SIDS foundation - THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF HARM IN TELLING PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR CHILD'S DEATH BECAUSE THEY SMOKED EITHER MATERNALLY OR POST-NATALLY
Note the Franco study that says that woman who smoke, discover they are pregnant and quite - still have twice the risk of SIDS baby (hint hint - woman don't smoke while you are fertile or you may find your baby dead in a crib someday).
__________________________________________________
_________________
Michelle
Erik do you think its ok to say false things with your colleagues? You have yet to say you don’t agree with that people who say FORCES are a “ninja”. Nobody has/can prove FORCES are a ninja, because it’s not true. Yet you still attack DR. Siegel. Should it matter that it’s in a closed group or even out in public when you lie? Isn’t a half truth still a lie?
Let’s take this one more baby step, shall we?
I guess it would be ok to say that (as a fact) a biopsy can prove cause of lung cancer? After all Georgia Lovell wrote in (Tobacco Control Journal)
"With radiation and chemotherapy she could buy some time. Three subsequent biopsies confirmed doctors’ suspicions: secondhand smoke was the causative factor of her lung tumour." Which was then copied onto you are the target site as proof that she was the canary in the "coal mine" for hospitality.
In other words shouldn't you, every place where you are talking etc, be able to back up what you say; with the facts? What does that say, when you can just say anything with no critical thinking from peers, on the details?
Do they actually know the details; do they even care that you can say anything you want (with no proof)? That’s the real question isn’t it? Is it ok to lie, even when with peers only? NO. A half truth is still is a lie. Why do you not say its wrong?
I have studied is from very good researchers, MP SM SH WH OM LS And many more
Interesting. What do these acronyms stand for?
Erik do you think its ok to say false things with your colleagues?
I have posted a portion of a tobacco document. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
If you do not like or agree with the document, I would take it up with the author. However, I would point out it was written in 1999.
As an aside, only factual assertions have the potential to be true or false.
For instance, if I stated "smoking causes cancer," and you disagreed, you could appropriately respond that you believed the statement was untrue.
"SIDS has long been associated with women who smoke during pregnancy. A recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics showed that women who quit smoking during pregnancy, but resumed after the child's birth put their babies at risk, too. Findings from this study indicated that babies exposed to smoke only after birth were twice as likely to die from SIDS as those whose mothers did not smoke at all; constant smoke exposure during and after pregnancy tripled an infant's risk for SIDS (SIDS Network, 1999a).
In another study of cigarette smoke exposure, SIDS was related to both exposure to prenatal cigarette smoke and an impaired ability to arouse from sleep (Franco, 1999)."
Good quote Michelle. I guess it takes more than evidence to convince you that SHS increases the likelihood an infant will die of SIDS.
Eric:
Any anti smoker or pro smoker with knoledge of the 20 year old "war on tobacco" know exactly who the acronyms are, especially the anti smoker groups that these researchers had to educate.
Eric:
Any anti smoker or pro smoker with knoledge of the 20 year old "war on tobacco" know exactly who the acronyms are
What are you trying to say?
Erik--whom I've never thought was more than an armchair "activist", whom I suspect is an undergraduate, and who certainly has been "fed" on every manner of propaganda and seemingly swallowed it whole--
I think you have indeed fallen right into Siegel's trap, snapping avidly at some far too obviously dangled bait.
Here's my own surmise: He said he received money from a law firm that represents RJR. Law firms represent hundreds of clients-- and, conversely, RJR may have dozens of law firms. He might have he received the money for anything from slipping on the ice in front of a Starbucks (one of the firm's clients) or for having one of their lawyers agent something he wrote, and passing on the royalties....or... or.. or.
But Erik, I think, has been had.
As for "ninjas" being trained (like seals?) to be "reasonable" -- delicious. LOL. It means in Erik's totally flawed tautological thinking that:
Ninjas are reasonable.
This man is reasonable.
Therefore: He's a ninja.
So the only way to actually "prove" you're not a ninja is to be... unreasonable.
Jill--
The last time I heard "baby-killer" was in Vietnam. You surpass yourself in indecency and give away the fact (if it wasn't apparent before) that you have little by way of a soul. You're a very dangerous little girl, and ought never to be allowed to play around anything breakable.
I think you have indeed fallen right into Siegel's trap, snapping avidly at some far too obviously dangled bait.
Hmmm. That's an interesting question.
I don't know what kind of trap he has set for someone to fall into.
However, it is apparent that my postings have benefitted his blog quite considerably. This might allow him to gain the following and name familiarity to write a book sooner than later.
So perhaps I have helped a rising critic of the tobacco control folks somewhat. I suppose I could feel badly about this.
On the other hand, despite his posts, Siegel (still) supports comprehensive indoor smoking bans:
“It shows that the city realizes that secondhand smoke is an occupational health hazard,” says Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences. “Everyone deserves to work in a workplace that is safe.”
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive...22/
smokeban.htm
Yet, he questions further restrictions on smoking such as outdoor smoking bans.
If he is increasingly looked to as a leader for "smoker rights" and people who had questions about the science behind the dangers of secondhand smoke, perhaps his rising stature is more of a good thing than not.
Who knows. Time will tell.
I see links and excerpts of his work on nearly every "smoker rights" web site. I would not be surprised if he is read more than the other smoker rights web sites combined.
(I do note that smoking bans have been implemented at a faster rate since he has had his blog going. On can speculate whether the relationship is causal or merely correlative.)
Ok. Here's the most concise position on the relative harm from second hand smoke I have read concerning Siegel:
According to Dr. Michael Siegel, whose study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, during an eight-hour shift in a smoking establishment employees inhale as much smoke as if they were sitting at the bar smoking a pack of cigarettes themselves.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/p...&
category=34029
With that position, the debate now appears to be whether there is a sufficient health concern for governments to enact outdoor smoking bans such as on beaches or in cars.
Erik wrote: "Ok. Here's the most concise position on the relative harm from second hand smoke I have read concerning Siegel:"
OK, Erik, so where is the real article that the good doc wrote so we can see what IT really says. Because your link is a newspaper article only mentioning his name and trying to make it look like they are quoting his report, yet I notice NO quotation marks (which any decent journalist would utilize IF they were actually quoting something another really wrote) which reads: "According to Dr. Michael Siegel, whose study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, during an eight-hour shift in a smoking establishment employees inhale as much smoke as if they were sitting at the bar smoking a pack of cigarettes themselves." (these quotation marks are mine). They don't even link to the report either. Therefore this is just the reporters twist on it.
If you're going to provide what you think is proof, make it real proof, and not someone elses interpretation. Or don't want us to know what Dr. Siegel actually wrote in that report, because it would show the gross exaggeration printed in the paper?
Not everyone blindly accepts what they see in some newspaper.
If you're going to provide what you think is proof, make it real proof, and not someone elses interpretation.
Linda F,
If I linked or sent to you one of Siegel's study and it concluded that secondhand smoke was a threat to your health, would you believe it?
Jill S.
For what reason did you fail to include the complete quote?
This is the part that you missed
"It is important to note, however, that the majority of infants who have been victims of SIDS do not have mothers who have smoked (Ariagno, 1994). Thus, as with all risk factors, the absence of smoke is not guaranteed protection or prevention."
Where you trying to mislead someone?
If the majority of SIDS victims are the infants of mothers WHO DO NOT SMOKE - what makes you think it is tobacco that CAUSES SIDS?
The "studies" purporting to "link" and "associate" smoking with smoking and exposure to SHS fail to be supported by real world experience. Countries with high smoking rates are the same countries with low SIDS rates. When half the Canadian population quite smoking in the 70s, the SIDS rate did not dramatically drop. Infants die of SIDS who have never been exposed to SHS and whose mothers didn't smoke. Infants DON'T die of SIDS in households with heavy smoking.
Why isn't SIDS "linked" to the use of wood burning stoves to heat a home, gas cooking appliances, candles etc.
Jill S. I have told you that I personally experienced SIDS.
Unless you have PROOF that smoking or exposure to second hand smoke causes SIDS, then you ought to apologise for you statement immediately. Instead you misquote me to indicate - what exactly?
90 % of all SIDS cases in Canada occur in non-smoking homes to non-smoking persons Jill.
You truly are a dispicable person and this goes to show how low you will go.
Michelle
Erik wrote: "If I linked or sent to you one of Siegel's study and it concluded that secondhand smoke was a threat to your health, would you believe it?"
First, Erik, please note how I spell my name. It IS Lynda not Linda. Picky I know, but it is MY name. I'm courteous enough to spell yours correctly, I would appreciate at least the same level of courtesy in return.
Second, I'd be more likely to be open to believing an actual report rather than some reporters interpretation to push their personal agenda. And that reporter had an obvious agenda. On the other hand, being a baby boomer of 53 years of age, I grew up exposed to more second hand smoke than anyone in the past 20 years has been exposed to, and I'm an active smoker so I get it hit both ways (my active smoking and my own second hand smoke). I'm alive, kicking, and quite healthy thank you very much.
In other words, even if I were to believe, I have first hand experience to know it is still not as deadly as you all want me to believe it is.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I seriously doubt I'll be swayed into quitting my habit. More people today, and I mean young people with little exposure to SHS, have more problems with their health than us baby boomers ever did or do now. Explain THAT.
Hey Erik,
$1500.00. It seems as though that figure is a little smaller than the $99,000,000.00 from RWJF (Nicoderm) to ALA, ACS, ACS.
http://www.rwjf.org/research/res...?id=2002&
ia=143
It also seems to me to be a smaller financial contribution than Stanton Glantz's $678,000.00 from Nicoderm interests at RWJF.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
$1000 It's even less than the $50,000+ paid to the CDC by the Johnson & Johnson Company (Nicoderm manufacturer)
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/
r...1#int_grantinfo
Erik continually points fingers at the ant hill hoping we won't notice Mt. Kilimanjaro behind him.
One additional grenade Erik tries to lob:
"I care because taxpayers are forced to pick up billions of dollars of health costs for smokers....."
Wrong again Nicoderm stooge:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal...cj15n2-3-
7.html
Michelle - full text of the letter to Roy follows, excepting the link to the study cited:
"Thank you for your correspondence of February 6, 2005, addressed to the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, Minister of Health, concerning the statement in Health Canada's press release of February 2, 2005 entitled Health Canada launches campaign to encourage parents to make their homes smoke-free. The office of the Prime Minister has also written on your behalf. I regret the delay in responding.
I would like to address your concerns around the statement: "In 1998,
55 boys and 41 girls under the age of one died as a result of second-hand smoke." Unfortunately, the above statement is factual. These and many other families have lost loved ones as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke. The statistic comes from a published, peer-reviewed article entitled Mortality attributable to tobacco use in Canada and its regions, 1998 in the January/February 2004 issue of Canadian Journal of Public Health (for your reference, the abstract of this article may found at the following link:
Death certificate data were not used in this study. Death certificate data are reported to the provinces and territories and an extract of these data is submitted to Vital Statistics, Statistics Canada. Health Canada does not receive any identifying information on individual data collected in these files.
The 1998 Vital Statistics data were used in this study for estimating the smoking-attributable number of deaths for 22 adult smoking-related diseases and four paediatric diseases linked with maternal smoking. The death counts were drawn from the Canadian Mortality Database maintained at Statistics Canada.
The method used to calculate the number of deaths attributable to both active and passive smoking in Canada in 1998 – including the quoted death estimate of 96 children (55 boys and 41 girls) under the age of one in 1998 – was the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Cost (SAMMEC) method, an internationally recognized and reliable statistical method. For further information on SAMMEC, please refer to Schultz JM, Novotny TE, Rice DP. SAMMEC II Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs [computer software and documentation]. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control; 1990.
As we move forward, second-hand smoke continues to be a concern for Health Canada. We are addressing this serious issue through targeted national social marketing campaigns aimed at eliminating exposure to second-hand smoke. Preserving the safety of children is also of utmost importance and in keeping with this, Health Canada is currently running national campaigns aimed at eliminating children's exposure to second-hand smoke in the home and car.
Canada has invested heavily in terms of leadership, funding and domestic and international tobacco control efforts over many years. Second-hand smoke will continue to be a priority for Health Canada and the Government of Canada and we appreciate receiving feedback from concerned citizens such as yourself.
Again, thank your for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Moser
Policy Advisor - B.C. and West"
They don't know the identities of the alleged victims, the numbers are not based on autopsy results, the numbers are generated by SAMMEC 2.
""""More people today, and I mean young people with little exposure to SHS, have more problems with their health than us baby boomers ever did or do now. Explain THAT.
Lynda F | 07.05.06 - 8:31 am | # """"
Lynda, as I am sure you are fully aware, there will be no explanation forthcoming from any of the fearmongering, hate-speech spewing, anti-smoker cartel. They can not explain it and will dance around the issue until the cows come home.
Gabz wrote: "as I am sure you are fully aware, there will be no explanation forthcoming from any of the fearmongering, hate-speech spewing, anti-smoker cartel. They can not explain it and will dance around the issue until the cows come home."
I know. And it will be fun to watch them try to dance around it too...hehehe
Erik:
Yet, he questions further restrictions on smoking such as outdoor smoking bans.
Err, yes. Because he believes there is no rational or scientific basis for restrictions outdoors. He believes there IS a basis for restrictions on occupational exposure. This would be an example of personal consistency and scientific ethics.
Are we supposed to believe you missed seeing this elsewhere on the blog?
Perhaps it's time to review those reading comprehension skills of yours if that's the case.
If he is increasingly looked to as a leader for "smoker rights" and people who had questions about the science behind the dangers of secondhand smoke, perhaps his rising stature is more of a good thing than not.
Huh. I wasn't aware of his ascendency to a "leader" of the smokers rights movement.
All hail King Siegel!
Funny enough, your other posts in reference to this also seem to point to a serious reading comprehension problem. To be specific, you seem to have missed all the posts made by smokers to the effect that while many of us don't agree with him on certain things, we respect him for having the guts to stand up to his own colleagues on ethical, moral, scientific and truth issues.
If I may suggest, a grade 8 summer school course in English may help you there.
I see links and excerpts of his work on nearly every "smoker rights" web site. I would not be surprised if he is read more than the other smoker rights web sites combined.
Yep. It is, after all, quite a novelty to find a truthful, honest, logical, respectful, and ethical anti. What would you expect the result to be?
(I do note that smoking bans have been implemented at a faster rate since he has had his blog going. On can speculate whether the relationship is causal or merely correlative.)
Please tell me this is a tongue-in-cheek statement. If it isn't then another summer school course might be in order...one in critical thinking or logic.
Unfortunately, based on your other posts, I'm gonna have to assume you're serious.
Do you think it might causal in the other direction? ie the acceleration of ban adoption is causing a widespread arrogance in the TC movement....one that leads some of the more rabid antis to call for harsher and harsher punitive measures (without evidence or regard for consequences)....and that might have "caused" the blog? You know, exactly the reasons he stated......
And since we're already here:
You still haven't answered the questions into your background and your repeated avoidance of the questions have aroused curiousity.
What is your real name?
What do you do for a living?
Have you ever taken money (directly or indirectly) from any anti group or pharmaceutical company?
What is the airspeed velocity.....er....no, scrap that one.
I quite agree with Walt and others, the "$1000" comment was deliberately made as bait for you and your brethren. Silly me, when I read it, I immediately saw a possibility that was completely in line with what I know of Dr. Siegel from this blog. In other words, one that was in keeping with his history (as stated here) and ethics (as observed by the simple existence of the blog and what he says here):
We know that he testified in the oft maligned lawsuit against the tobacco companies.
We know that "experts" are generally given an honourarium for testifying in court.
We know that the losers in lawsuits often end up paying court and legal costs....even in cases where suits are "settled".
Do you think that might be the reason he received a cheque from their lawyers?
My apologies, Dr. Siegel, if this is, indeed, the reason and I spoiled your fun.
Erik wrote: "What is your basis for this number? Are you just guessing? Better back up your claims if you are going to make such accusations."
No, Michael is not guessing. He may have different opinions and interpretation of facts sometimes, but – differently than antismokers - he seldom guesses, fantasizes, or distorts reality in his favour. That is, I believe, one thing that he and I have in common. And that is – I am sure - the main reason why he was kicked out of the antis’ forums!
Michael's basis for his statement is that we, at FORCES, publicly stated we got money for the banner; see our archives (http://www.forces.org/fparch/newpage/05-30-
06.htm). About the $1,500 figure, I made a point of letting him know that for the first time ever some tobacco money came our way – the whopping amount of $1,500! That was quite by accident, unfortunately: we put up an ad stating that we now accept advertisement (http://www.forces.org/ads/advertisement.htm). An advertisement agency contacted us right away, saying that there was a customer willing to advertise and asked our price, which was the 1,500 bucks in question. Only at the time of signing the contract for the banner we found out that the customer was RJR. That was too bad; if we had previous knowledge, we would have charged more. We certainly can use the money.
FORCES
About the $1,500 figure, I made a point of letting him know that for the first time ever some tobacco money came our way – the whopping amount of $1,500!
Thanks for responding.
Do you think that might be the reason he received a cheque from their lawyers?
I am not going to speculate. There are a number of possibe answers.
I will let him answer as Gian Turci has.
Erik's complaints about the cost of smoking to socialized health systems is an argument against the establishment of the systems, not one for the violation of property rights inherent in smoking bans. If we cannot provide the services without accepting the risks freely taken on by the beneficiaries before the systems were established, in other words, without tolerance for individual liberty, we should not be putting such involuntary systems in place. As for the employees, if one cares so much about working in a smokeless environment, he can look elsewhere for a job more to his liking. No, his rights are not being violated in such a situation.
Furthermore, Erik's argument is fallacious, as his assumption that the medical costs of smokers are a greater burden on the socialized medicine in unwarranted, considering that the vast majority of socialized medical costs occur during final illnesses, in which scads of money are blown in a futile effort to prolong an unrecoverable life. Non-smokers' deaths waste as much money per incident as a smokers, and as they are in the majority, much more in total.
So this argument of Erik's, hardly original with him, is just as bogus as the fallacy that claims a person's financial interests disqualify his arguments from respectability.
Those who make Erik's arguments seem oblivious to the fact that those who recognize their fallaciousness know immediately upon hearing them that one may safely ignore anything their interlocutor has to say. That's one thing I love about the smoking issue: the tyrants expose themselves upon early acquaintance, and one knows better than to waste any social capital upon them. No wonder they are unpleasant and anti-social barbarians.
As for the employees, if one cares so much about working in a smokeless environment, he can look elsewhere for a job more to his liking.
Dr. Seigel has thoroughly addressed that issue. If you are going to be a fan of his and post on his blog, you may want to take the time to read his work:
“A bar is a workplace, and from the perspective of the worker, he has a right to work in a safe environment,” he says. “Nobody would say that we should not have regulations to protect workers on the Big Dig. Who would say that a construction worker shouldn’t have to wear a harness when he’s up 15 stories in the air -- that such a regulation is an infringement on the rights of business owners?
It’s a safety issue, and it’s certainly the government’s right to enact standards that you have to follow. I’ve never heard anyone argue that restaurants should not be subject to health regulations, or say that restaurant employees should not have to wash their hands before they serve food, or if restaurants want to serve meat that has salmonella in it, that’s their right. There’s no difference between those things and providing an atmosphere that’s full of carcinogens.”
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive...22/
smokeban.htm
Jill S. writes:
"Good quote Michelle. I guess it takes more than evidence to convince you that SHS increases the likelihood an infant will die of SIDS."
It's been answered already, but what the hell.
As far as epi studies, what some epi studies have found is that if there's smoking in the home there's a more likely chance that SIDS may occur. That's what they show. That's all they show. They don't find smoking to be the cause of more SIDS risk because of the nature of these studies.
For all we know, more US smokers have TVs in their rooms than nonsmokers and more smokers have the baby crib in their bedroom than nonsmokers. And MAYBE, TVs cause SIDS. Or vice versa, TVs offer a protective effect and the rich are more likely to have TVs in their rooms.
5% of SIDS cases are thought to be murder (I read that somewhere). I'm going to take a guess that the poor are more likely to kill their babies (for financial reasons) and we all know that smoking is overrepresented in the poorer classes.
I disagree that carcinogens in the atmosphere vs not washing one's hands is a good comparison.
If employees don't wash their hands, or restaurants serve meat with salmonella, customers don't know about it. So we have something harmful people don't know about. If people are smoking in the area, potential customers know, and quickly. This makes it a bit easier for customers to move on from something they deem potentially hazardous/offensive if they so choose, especially since possible risks of SHS are well (over?) documented.
In the case of a construction worker, the harness prevents serious immediate injury, but the effects of secondhand smoke are passing and quickly reducible according to the next topic here.
Now I realize that the first step is always the biggest(as it should be.) But eventually too much fiddling makes for more trouble than it is worth.
If the main issue with ETS is the dosage or, in this case, the probability of injury combined with the potential severity, then is the danger of secondhand close enough by enough magnitude to be able to feasibly compare eliminating it to food health regulations or safety devices?
I know Dr. Siegel has changed his views on the ethics of tobacco control-at-large and wonder if that branches out to changes in language when discussing ETS. I'd be curious to read what was meant by "full of carcinogens," or what is. He has repudiated some methods of tobacco control and I am wondering if that applies to the language of the movement as well.
I know Dr. Siegel has changed his views on the ethics of tobacco control-at-large and wonder if that branches out to changes in language when discussing ETS.
Yes, but he still supports indoor smokign bans.
Erik writes: "I care because taxpayers are forced to pick up billions of dollars of health costs for smokers on state of federal health care plans."
Smokers also pay billions of dollars in VAT, excise tax and MSA. Basic rule of accounting: look at both sides.
But then he may be wrong altogether, at least he shows no supporting evidence.
The impact of smoking on medical care expenditure is analyzed, challenging the widespread belief that smoking imposes a large cost burden on health services systems. The results imply that lifetime expenditure is higher for nonsmokers than for smokers because smokers' higher annual utilization rates are overcompensated for by nonsmokers' higher life expectancy. Population simulation, taking into account the effects of past smoking on present population size and composition, suggests that 1976 expenditure would have been the same if no male born since 1876 had ever smoked. The male population would have been larger, particularly at older ages, increasing medical care expenditure, but this increase would have been offset by lower annual medical care utilization rates. Thus the results imply that smoking does not increase medical care expenditure and, therefore, reducing smoking is unlikely to decrease it. -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...0&
dopt=Abstract
The same is true for the non-smokers who instantly die from heart attacks caused by SHS. No medicare cost at all.
Yes, but he still supports indoor smokign bans.
Oops, I didn't quite express my thought correctly. "Full of carcinogens" doesn't really use metrics. And I think many people can be swayed by 1) emotional language or 2) some understanding of what "full of" means. I think many anti-smoking advocates have used (reports with) similarly-(or even more-) charged language to pass smoking bans, and Dr. Siegel has backed off on some methods of tobacco control & while it's only a couple of words, the language of that report doesn't fit in with that of his posts now. Or I could be over-reading into things.
I know I was ready to throw in the towel on having a nice place to go smoke because of hearing about the air in bars being "full of carcinogens." (and I still would be, if there are studies to show it.) But at lower concentrations, I wouldn't think it's necessary to regulate smoking so drastically. And that's what I see in the studies I've looked through recently, and I suspect some legislators/everyday people feel the same way(I know many of them would feel as Dr Siegel does too. One side believes there is enough evidence to ban smoking in businesses, the other doesn't.)
Dr Siegel has been kind enough to allow this forum here and even allow smokers etc. to latch on to his second thoughts and use them as an argument against the ultimate goals he would like to see. But my question about the use of the phrase "full of" goes back to something he's mentioned about the methods used and how he feels about the trends and about some of them in retrospect.
James Austin responded to my previous post with:
Eric Blair writes:
"I'll tell you frankly that I have no problem with smoking bans at restaurants."
"This is not my property. I don't own it. We packed up and left and went to a SMOKE FREE RESTAURANT."
"That is our point. It's about choice. You don't need government intervention to decide whether their should be smoking or non-smoking environments."
"LET THE FREE MARKET DECIDE."
"Capitalism works. Socialism doesn't."
What a bunch of idiotic, contradicting statements.
Smoking bans are government interventions. That's not the free market deciding. And so much for your "This is not my property" statement.
_________________________________
I apologize if you took my comments out of context. I was corresponding with Erik, so you'll have to cut me some slack and give me some artistic license here. I simply wanted to see if Michael McFadden was right and these anti's can be reasoned with.
I don't believe the Gubmint should dictate private property laws.
I apologize if you took my comments out of context. I was corresponding with Erik, so you'll have to cut me some slack and give me some artistic license here
Better tow the line Eric if you don't want to be attacked.
I don't believe the Gubmint should dictate private property laws.
That's better.
Besides there are already three designated dissentors on this blog.
I hope you don't have me down as a "designated dissenter", Erik. I would rather be accused of being an al Quaeda terrorist or a Taliban party member than be associated with you.
Frankly, sir, people like you make me sick to my stomach.
If you're not an anti shill (you won't answer that question), than you are just a very selfish individual who thinks it's your right to walk onto anybody else's private property and demand that things be EXACTLY the way you want them.
It's really not that complicated Erik.
If you don't like mariachi bands, burritos and beans don't go to a Mexican restaurant.
If you don't like falafel, cous-cous and belly dancers don't go to a middle eastern restaurant.
If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't go to a restaurant that permits smoking.
_____________________________
Now answer my previous question:
As a non-smoker but perhaps someone who enjoys beer or cheeseburgers, do you really believe that you are not next?
Do you honestly believe that the grant junkies in acadamia and professional paid health lobbyists are just going to go back to their day jobs if and when smokers are eradicated?
No, sir, you are next. There is no "get out of Health Totalitarianism free card for you".
YOU ARE NEXT.
As a non-smoker but perhaps someone who enjoys beer or cheeseburgers, do you really believe that you are not next?
You have a valid point that overeating could pose a great health threat to a person.
However, second hand smoke injures the health of workers in an establishment as well as non-smokers.
If someone overeating next to me could cause me to gain 100 pounds of fat, there might be a closer analogy.
However, overeating appears only to be detrimental to the eator.
As Siegel and SG have pointed out, smoking injures bystanders, expecially in an enclosed room.
Erik wrote: "As Siegel and SG have pointed out, smoking injures bystanders, expecially in an enclosed room."
Then explain all us baby boomers still alive and kicking and going strong and healthy.
Then explain all us baby boomers still alive and kicking and going strong and healthy.
Lynda F | 07.05.06 - 7:52 pm
A valid point Erik. I am looking forward to your reply.
All the science in the world that says SHS kills remains redundant in my mind. I have 20/20 vision and I am prepared to swear on a stack of bibles/korans/torahs that I have not spent 44 years stepping over corpses.
Using your data the planet would be devoid of all human life after 400 years of people smoking.
Please explain.
Erik, what worries me about the "innocent bystanders" argument is that it has taken just 6 months after the smoking ban for Chicago aldermen to propose a ban on foie gras(which already passed) and Trans Fats.
What really disturbs me about this is that the health overseers are banning something rare first, with the rationale that it is just something rare. Then they follow up with something much bigger(trans fats.) They call it "starting a debate" but when that's happened with smoking bans, it's pretty much over due to who's funded how and who's honed their message.
When viewed this way, "We just want to protect the workers" makes a quick jump to something a lot more potentially intrusive.
Remember how anti-smoking folks compared tobacco to asbestos(cancerous stuff in the air?) Now it's foods. And while the first has its points, the second is ludicrous. But they are trying it anyway, using the same script, and I think it waters down their argument.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/
n...transfat29.html
Eric Blair wrote:
"I simply wanted to see if Michael McFadden was right and these anti's can be reasoned with."
Understood.
Sorry I haven't followed this thread and it has gotten so long. Did we ever find out which Nicoderm funded non-profit organization Erik works for?
How about Bill Godshall, was it ASH?
Erik wrote,
However, second hand smoke injures the health of workers in an establishment as well as non-smokers.
If someone overeating next to me could cause me to gain 100 pounds of fat, there might be a closer analogy.
____________________________________
Erik, you have just proven to me, in my mind anyway, that you are not a professional anti. I guess you're a regular citizen who just doesn't like being around smoke. You're not alone, that's why if you're an entrepeneur you should open up a smoke free restaurant and tavern in the middle of say Texas, North Carolina or in Vegas. If your market research is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) and there are thousands of people just begging for a smoke free dining and eating establishment, than you will become rich and you'll be on your yacht in the carribean making these posts from your laptop.
AS TO WHY YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE "SECOND HAND FAT" ANALOGY:
You are definitely not on the same wavelength as the anti's and professional health busybodies. You grossly underestimate their diabolical genius and brilliant creativity. 20 years ago, nobody was talking about ETS or second hand smoke. Smoke in a bar was just part of life. SHS risk was fabricated to give them a pretense, as discussed in 1993 in the federal ASSIST program study(google it) to make smoking a fringe non-social activity by kicking smokers out of bars, businesses etc.
Their real goal is not to protect your health Erik, it's to make us second class citizens and pariahs.
You're right, the 400 guy with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure doesn't put me in "immediate" health danger. (untill he sits next to me on a 6 hour cross country non-smoking flight). Their argument already is; he puts your health in indirect danger because obesity costs $80 (or fill in the blank) billion dollars a year in increased health care costs. He drives up mine and your health care premium, making it unaffordable. He is costing us taxpayers money by burdening the Medicare and Medicaid system in this country to pay for his triple bypass.
SECOND HAND FAT.
If I've piqued your interest at all, I'll be happy to provide you with some interesting links.
Just noticed, Anonymous is me above. Not sure why my name didn't take.
While such a silly "second hand fat" argument might help smokers' rights, it's not fair to overweight people and I think this is really getting scary--there's sure to be a push forward before there's a backlash, and I've noticed on another thread there--well--is.
Overweight people and smokers pay enough through taxes, etc. They don't need to be put in double- and triple-jeopardy.
Everyone should still note that Erik has religiously avoided answering the question of who signs his own paycheck while attempting to continue his campaign to sow discord amongst the smokers' rights folks.
Not how he says such things as:
"I do note that smoking bans have been implemented at a faster rate since he (i.e. Siegel) has had his blog going. On can speculate whether the relationship is causal or merely correlative."
and
"As Siegel and SG have pointed out, smoking injures bystanders, expecially in an enclosed room."
Erik's job here is to try to minimize the damage being done to ANR, ALF, RWJF and the rest of the antimsmoking industry with several different methods.
1) He'll occasionally try some secondhand smoke arguments although he likes to avoid them because he knows their quashing will simply support our own positions.
2) He'll try to drive a wedge between Siegel and the smokers' rights folks by constantly bringing up the fact that Dr. Siegel is still in disagreement with a number of our positions.
3) He'll selectively quote from people's posts to make it appear that they are saying different things than they actually are so as, again, to drive wedges of discord between people who are largely in agreement.
and
4) He'll religiously avoid identifying himself or his funders while constantly bandying about innuendos about the funding of others. It's this last item that points to him being a paid mouthpiece rather than a troll. A troll would simply proclaim "I'm not funded." A professional paid mouthpiece, particularly if he or she is a lawyer, would be much more reluctant to make blatantly false public statements that might come back to bite them.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Eric Blair wrote:
"I simply wanted to see if Michael McFadden was right and these anti's can be reasoned with."
Eric, I believe a few can. "The Innocents", the group that I list first in Brains and that I consider to be the largest group, can sometimes be persuaded by rational argument and by showing them precise information that clearly shows the other side to be lying. Very few of the members of the other 8 groups can be reached though: they either don't care, are too deeply entrenched in their beliefs/fantasies, or are too heavily emotionally involved in those beliefs to change their thinking no matter *what* they are shown.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Some very astute observations Michael.
My guess is that Erik is with the American Lung Assoc....though I doubt Erik is his/ her real name.
Michael, I disagree with you slightly. I know you wrote a book on the subject, but I've been dealing with tens of thousands of people on a personal basis (in my occupation as a pimp and drug dealer as well as being the mayor of a large urban city) over the last 20 years. I thought I was a pretty good judge of human nature by now.
In my professional opinion, I don't think Erik is a professional or even a partially trained shill for anyone. Here's why (and I'd love your feedback and everyone else's)
1. Unless he is a brilliant actor deserving of an Academy Award, he has succeeded in proving he is far too clueless about the health lobby's agenda.
2. Glaxo, Pfizer and Merck have enough money to hire qualified people with social skills and prowess in debating. If they hired him, we should all be thankful they didn't hire someone who knows how to "win friends and influence people" because there would probably be smoking bans in all 50 states by now.
Memo to Glaxo from a shareholder: If these are the type of people you are hiring to support your other products, just wait till next proxy season! The board needs its head examined.
3. ALA, AHA and ACS wouldn't send a guy into battle armed with nothing but his witless personality and useless links. With all of their money, this is the best that they can do?
They can't be that hard up for talent.
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
"It's this last item that points to him being a paid mouthpiece rather than a troll."
marcus aurelius wrote:
"My guess is that Erik is with the American Lung Assoc....though I doubt Erik is his/ her real name."
I think you guys are giving Erik too much credit.
Almost every anti I've ever corresponded with or talked to, has been largely ignorant of anything other than sound bites, so Erik could indeed be one of them.
However, some time back I got the feeling that he was in high school involved with an anti-tobacco group.
The only thing I'd change/add is that in the past week or so I think someone (his dad?) has been helping him with his posts. There's a difference in them in my opinion. They sound smarter if you know what I mean.
That last post of mine is going to the instant replay booth for a review. (OK, I miss Monday Night Football, it's July already) Let's look at the replay of Michael McFadden's post:
4) He'll religiously avoid identifying himself or his funders while constantly bandying about innuendos about the funding of others. It's this last item that points to him being a paid mouthpiece rather than a troll. A troll would simply proclaim "I'm not funded." A professional paid mouthpiece, particularly if he or she is a lawyer, would be much more reluctant to make blatantly false public statements that might come back to bite them.
*********
I just re-read that evidence and Erik's posts for the last 3 days.
Here's the referees opinion:
UPON FURTHER REVIEW, THERE HAS BEEN A REVERSAL. Erik, in reponse to countless questions has refused to either acknowledge his funding sources or deny the existence thereof. This will in a loss of down. The ball belongs to Michael, marcus, Lynda, Andrew and all freedom loving people and will be placed on the Nazi 8 yard line.
First and Goal for the Anti-Fascists!
If you want to throw a "red flag" Erik, either say you are not funded and represent nobody, or the call stands.
Erik Blair writes:
"UPON FURTHER REVIEW, THERE HAS BEEN A REVERSAL. Erik, in reponse to countless questions has refused to either acknowledge his funding sources or deny the existence thereof. This will in a loss of down."
I think you're overlooking something. Would Erik want to admit he's a nobody (for lack of a better word) after some people, on their own, start thinking he's a somebody?
Maybe Erik can tell us his age. That can shoot my theory down easy enough.
Well James, looks like me and you have a friendly bet brewing with marcus and Michael.
We agree that he is just some punk kid looking for attention. They seem to think he has some skins on his wall and is a pro.
Let's make it interesting between the 4 of us. I'll bet you a steak dinner, including drinks and cigars at ASH's in Red Bank, NJ (great cigar bar, try the King Crab legs) next time you guys are in the area versus whatever marcus and Michael put up.
See Erik's last post on Dr. Siegels most recent post. I called him out.
Let's see if he's old school like marcus and Michael say or if he is a misguided kid like me and James contend.
I think dinner and drinks are going to be on you guys.
There's a difference in them in my opinion. They sound smarter if you know what I mean.
Thanks.
Erik, you have just proven to me, in my mind anyway, that you are not a professional anti.
That's true I am not.
I am just a hack like the rest of you.
If I was interested in being effective in either promoting tobacco or seeking to reduce it's effect on others, I wouldn't spend my time blogging about it.
There are people on both sides of the issue who are paid to work on the issues and they certainly don't spend their time writing extensive comments in response to some flame in all caps which I have done.
If they did, they would be fired or should be.
Furthermore, some people in tobacco control do not particularly like the actions Dr. Siegel has been taking even though Siegel continues to support indoor smoking bans.
They would view my posting on this blog in any form as simply encouraging him which they don't want to do.
Posting "smarter"? That would imply that what he's posting has increased in intelligence.
I think what you mean is that his change in tactics (a psychological one) could be described as a smarter move. But only for anyone who is lulled by it because that's exactly the tone of it. However, it's just as unintelligent in this chord as it was in the other.
It could also be described as a sudden change in personality. You know what the mental health experts would call that.
It could also be described as a sudden change in personality.
Interesting.
Let me flush out the possible conspiracy theories for you and add that it might be multiple people.
McFadden wrote:
"Not even as swift as Bill Godshall, who has consistently refused to discuss what financial connections he may have had over the years with the smokeless tobacco industry."
That is a blatant lie. Neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever recieved any funding from any tobacco or drug company, and I've posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact (nearly always in response to a slanderous allegation by someone who has never even met me).
Bill Godshall quoted me as saying he, "has consistently refused to discuss what financial connections he may have had over the years with the smokeless tobacco industry."
and then he said, "That is a blatant lie. Neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever recieved any funding from any tobacco or drug company, and I've posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact..."
I respond: Bill, I will admit it is quite possible that I have missed your notes to that effect. I freely admit that I have probably missed some of your postings over the months. I was not "lying" although I may have been speaking from ignorance.
I do know that I asked you on at least several occasions about what fees or benefits you have received in return for expert testimony and advice from court cases, and I believe as well that I asked you several times about possible connections to smokeless tobacco. I returned to those postings on a number of occasions without seeing a response from you, and I further believe there were several instances where you HAD responded to postings by others following my requests while pointedly ignoring those requests.
Please post a few of the instances where you "posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact.." and I will return the civility by posting a few instances where I believed you did not so respond.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
AFAIK, Godshall has never posted what the source of his funding IS (as opposed to what it isn't) and I always thought that was the question. Ie: What is it? which seems to remain unanswered.
I think I'll go along with EriK's suggestion that he's two people posting under the same name since his prose style has (pretty much abruptly) changed. Tho of course JTF could be right and his earlier incarnation was simply an uncannily good imitation of an adolescent idiot. Both of him, however, appear to be equally and ineffectively snide.
Someone here is obsessed with conspiracy theories when no one else is even talking about a conspiracy. Add that to the list of the subject's symptoms. Tell me, have you seen any black helicopters too lately? And was the pilot smoking and laughing at you?
I think I'll go along with EriK's suggestion that he's two people posting under the same name since his prose style has (pretty much abruptly) changed.
Interesting. Ok.
Commenting by HaloScan
