It's great to see you put your wallet where your mouth is. The 30 minute argument explains the mechanism why secondhand smoke is harmful to the cardiovascular system. Heart disease as most people know takes years of abuse to develop. I'd be all for health groups just sticking to the message that regular exposure to secondhand smoke over a number of years can lead to heart disease and here's a possible reason why.
Don't quite get the piling on ALF? Their media work with youth is built on years of research from Flay, Brian Flynn, Pechman as well as the CDC Best Practice manual. The Florida media youth campaign was also effective. ALF have youth pairing media with community activism as recommended by CDC. Back in '92 I attended a lecture by Dr Blum from 'Doctors Ought to Care' who had a simple approach...you have to laugh the pushers out of town. ALF does that. It takes the Cool out of Kool.
geo wrote:
"Don't quite get the piling on ALF?"
Click on his link to Example 2.
100$ won't cut it Doc. Try a few millions to offset the Big Pharma grants the anti-tobacco dogmatists would be losing if they in fact started telling the truth.
It is the highest bidder that gets to establish what the ''truth'' is and I am afraid your 100 $ won't push you up too high in the ranking.
I'll offer $100 to any FORCES affiliate that corrects all the misinformation on their website and publicly apologizes for inaccurately and/or unethically claiming that:
- smoke does not harm nonsmokers,
- there is a legal right to smoke,
- smokefree laws hurt business,
- its OK for employers to harm workers with tobacco smoke pollution,
- its OK for businesses to harm patrons with tobacco smoke pollution,
- its OK for adults to harm children with tobacco smoke pollution.
Bill, I don't think Forces could be bothered if you offered 100 trillion $.
Even if what you just stated FORCES claim, are lies Mr. Godshall, since when does 2 wrongs make a right? At least they are not getting neither grants nor people's tax money to make their views known.
Can you say the same for TC which by your own admission are in fact ''exaggerating'' a few facts?
If my money will be used to educate me, I want honesty and integrity. If I found FORCES were lying, they wouldn't be getting my money either, the difference with TC is that I don't get to decide whether they get my money or not.
Well I don't think ASH UK will be taking up the offer since the people (smoking) ban in the UK was all a confidence trick.
Story --> Guardian - Smoke and mirrors
---
There is absolutely no reasoning with Erik, Jill or Bill. They are only adding their comments to antagonize...not to educate. And their primary purpose for visiting this blog daily is most likely to keep tabs on Dr. Siegel for whichever smoke-free group(s) they are representing.
The only hope we have is to enlighten the THINKING people. Smokers and non-smokers alike need to see that this is not a smoking issue. This is a majority of people who are either instituting, supporting or simply not standing up against social engineering.
The various smoke-free groups are making claims and assertions based on flawed (or fraudulent) research. No one is questioning their assertions, and our own government is supporting or funding much of it. It's unnerving to think that anytime someone wants to effect social change, they can use science to support their cause...as long as a majority of the population will go along with it.
I do not smoke, by the way, but I have many smokers in my life who I love dearly (let me mention here that I've been around second-hand smoke for many years and am extremely healthy). I don't like seeing my loved-ones being ostracized and hated, with their rights being trampled on, by a bunch of bullies backed by the force of the government and government-backed health organizations.
I agree that calling out potential inaccuracies in smokers rights groups' statements is not an appropriate response to dealing with the fallacious claims that anti-smoking groups are making. If my son ever lies and then I approach him about it and he says "well - some of my friends lie," he is going to have something coming to him.
Besides, as public health groups, I think we have a RESPONSIBILITY (and an ethical one) to communicate health information accurately. I don't see FORCES as having any particular ethical responsibilities to the public. They are entitled to state their views - the public is not looking to them for authoritative guidance on health issues. However, the public is looking to us - public health groups - for such guidance. Calling out what we see as the inaccuracies of private advocacy groups is not an appropriate response to a public whose trust we have betrayed.
Geo-
I agree with you that the scientific evidence demonstrates that the type of ads which Legacy (and the Florida campaign) has produced are the most effective types of ads and that there is solid evidence that state anti-smokign media campaigns (such as those in California, Massachusetts, and Florida) have been very effective. In fact, my own research showed that exposure to the Massachusetts anti-smoking campaign was associated with about half the risk of smoking intiation among 12-13 year-olds, followed up after a four-year period. Unfortunately, the exposure level for the national campaign may not be high enough to expect the same effects; regardless, one must look at the evidence - I don't think we can assume that the campaign will be effective. Most importantly, regardless of how one interprets the scientific evidence , revealing a significant financial conflict of interest is, in my view at least, an important ethical responsibility.
Julie wrote: "I do not smoke, by the way, but I have many smokers in my life who I love dearly (let me mention here that I've been around second-hand smoke for many years and am extremely healthy)."
Julie, do you mean to say that you don't smoke, have been frequently exposed to prolonged periods of SHS all your life, and have the nerve to be healthy? Whatever will the anti's think? Shame on you for proving that the Surgeon General is full of BS! How dare you make liars out of them......how rude of you to have not dropped dead already.....hehehehehe
Oh my, you better be careful or they'll be suing you for causing them heart failure with your survival of such a toxic deadly substance that SHS is, not to mention your support of us degenerate, low-life, child-abusing, murderous smokers..........hehehehehe
Thanks JA. Got it. I think that the lead investigator should disclose his relationship to the organization. The most current issue of JAMA has the same issues about disclosure. People get all hot and bothered when a tobacco researcher doesn't disclose relationship to tob companies. Should work both ways.
The study itself supports an effect. (8th graders mostly...which is the primary target group when we look at primary prevention) I see that someone else responded to the ALF research in the AJPH in opposition. That's the way it should work. Then the original researcher responded with some qualifiers which also made sense. The bottom line is still the same, ALF ads help kids not get hooked on smoke. Whether it's 5% or 22%. Now that the ad campaigns have been relatively unfunded for the past year or so, we should begin to see an uptick in youth smoking. Hopefully not, but probably likely.
West2 sorry i don'tknow if it's my browser but the link you supplied doesn't take me to the Guardian,looks mighty interesting though.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "regardless of how one interprets the scientific evidence,"
To me, THIS says it all. Laws are being passed based on "interpretation" NOT on facts. And THIS is what has ME totally PO'd, and why I can no longer trust any "health" official OR any official for that matter. Personal interpretation is NOT a valid foundation for ANY law. Not in MY book anyway.
Ditto re the dead link
Could you clip and paste the text?
Hey Bill,
Would you please cite where in the 1992 EPA report I can find the reference for the claim that PM2.5 exceeds 1000 ug/m3?
You've been asked by several people for this information. Please don't hold out on us!
Managed to track it down west2.The one paper in the whole of the UK which i abhor is the Guardian.Surprise ,surprise they love to carry an article of this nature from these pair of rabids,who could even give Bill a run for his money.It is so condescending to listen to their explanation as to how they manoevered MP'S and the general public into totally changing their opinion.The USA is strongly to blame for the release of such questionable science which then serves the anti fraternity world wide.Everyone jumps on the bandwagon and perverts the truth to their own agenda.Ash (UK) are accomplished liars and are a drain on Government funding.Tony Blair was suckered and he broke an election manifesto promise,contempt for smokers is at an all time high.
Is this a new prize or the same one you offered before?
Looks like a last ditch effort to take the focus off the devastating health effects of first and second hand smoke.
I'll offer $100 to any FORCES affiliate that corrects all the misinformation on their website and publicly apologizes for inaccurately and/or unethically claiming that:
There ya go. Don't hold your (carcinogenic free) breath too long.
Erik wrote: "Looks like a last ditch effort to take the focus off the devastating health effects of first and second hand smoke."
Can't be THAT deadly...........YOU'RE still here
Sorry about that! Definitely smoke and mirrors....
Anyways here is the guardian link
Smoke and mirrors
This is the last section I was refering too about confidence trick...
Confidence trick
It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side. But it was only five minutes before the vote that the political adviser to the health secretary phoned us to let us know Patricia Hewitt was supporting our position, and we only found out after the vote that the prime minister and Gordon Brown had followed her through the lobby.
The struggle for smoke-free legislation went from nowhere to victory in a short time. It routed powerful opponents and exposed many of them as incompetent or insubstantial. It shifted public opinion from indifference to overwhelming support. Some ideas reach a point at which their time has come. But some will also often need a vigorous campaign before politicians notice the obvious.
· Deborah Arnott is the director of Action on Smoking and Health. Ian Willmore is public affairs manager of Ash.
---
Erik wrote:
"There ya go. Don't hold your (carcinogenic free) breath too long."
Bill doesn't have carcinogenic-free breath, Erik. Neither do you or Jill.
Nonsmokers exhale, among other things, benzene.
Even if tobacco had never been discovered you'd still exhale, among other things, benzene.
si gald you found the article.
The whole piece came across as gloating.
I know they seem to have got what they want, however people in the UK do not on the whole like those who gloat in victory - bad sport, not cricket etc - and have a strange knack of switching sides as a result.
btw Jill, was it you that went to the outdoor concert?
west
opps finger trouble, again.
si, gald = glad and I'm not really a newspaper reader at all (Times sometimes and the current bun etc if they are left on a table) more a Guido Fawkes reader 
west
Bill posts the challenge:
"I'll offer $100 to any FORCES affiliate...
- there is a legal right to smoke,
In my state it is a right.
Several years ago during a debate on hunting and fishing laws the state AG said residents have an implied right to hunt and fish. (Implied because it is not specifically written down)
The reason being that hunting and fishing was legal before we became a state.
Well, guess what, so was smoking. Hopscotch and jumping rope too.
BTW, How much do we get for correcting your inaccuracies? Oh wait, we already do that...for free. LOL
"BTW, How much do we get for correcting your inaccuracies? Oh wait, we already do that...for free. LOL"
Here are a few Points Bill could take for suggestions back to edict central
to earn his hundred...
http://healthcarefraud.blogspot....n-
although.html
the guardian piece descibes exactly what happened with the smoking ban in massachusetts a few years ago. it's called divide and conquer, no ifs, ands or buts! actually, the issue is decided long before any public hearing. these tactics are used in every state in the US, resulting in ban after ban. at least it's all written down in black and white for everyone to read. it would be nice to be able to used these words against the prohibitionists one day.
Can't be THAT deadly...........YOU'RE still here
Good one.
it's called divide and conquer, no ifs, ands or buts!
Its more simple than that, its just "give us clean air," no ifs ands or butts.
Erik wrote: "Its more simple than that, its just "give us clean air," no ifs ands or butts."
OK then we have to ban cars next, along with all industrial plants, campfires, bbqs, and whatever else is polluting the air.
There is NO clean air anymore, don't you get that yet? geeeeze
What you really mean is just stop smoking because I don't like the smell of it. Pretty lame excuse for total bans if you ask me, and THAT is the crux of these bans; for your supposed dangers have not been proven beyond a reaonable doubt.
Lynda, Have you noticed that smoking is the only issue that Erik, Jill & Bill care about? They will never respond when you bring up industrial plants, campfires, bbqs, and whatever else is polluting the air because they are only interested in exterminating the smokers in this society.
For some reason that I can't fathom, they hate smokers much worse than they hate smoke. They feel they are superior to anyone who does not conform to their lifestyle. It's a disturbing trend among their kind.
Julie wrote: "Have you noticed that smoking is the only issue that Erik, Jill & Bill care about? They will never respond when you bring up industrial plants, campfires, bbqs, and whatever else is polluting the air"
That's because they hate the smell of cigarette smoke. They can't actually talk about the other stuff because...well most people find those things pleasant and/or necessary. So instead, they only have the spine to attack the least of the problems...........you know, like schoolyard bullies only picking on the smallest and weakest because they know they can't take on those their own size.
"For some reason that I can't fathom, they hate smokers much worse than they hate smoke. They feel they are superior to anyone who does not conform to their lifestyle. It's a disturbing trend among their kind."
Sad to say, but I think Julie's description is an apt one with respect to the current trend in the anti-smoking movement.
I found this out when I saw the vehement anger against me when I opposed policies to fire or not hire smokers. I had thought that the idea was to clear workplaces of smoke, but apparently, the idea is now to clear workplaces of smokers as well.
The "superiority" aspect is most pronounced in the "child abuse" debate. This is truly a class issue. Smokers tend (in general) to be in a lower social class (mainly because of the strong association between educational level and smoking). It is therefore easy for the public health establishment to pick on them when it comes to regulating lifestyle in the private home. We have a whole lot easier time controlling the lifestyles and parental autonomy of lower social classes than the upper classes.
Unfortunately, many anti-smoking groups seem to have forgotten that the backbone of public health is social justice.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "Unfortunately, many anti-smoking groups seem to have forgotten that the backbone of public health is social justice."
They also seem to have forgotten how this country was founded.........you know: taxation, Boston, tea, revolution............guess they want to see if they can push us that far? hehehehe
Just following up, has everybody got their 20 done today?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....moking-
ban.html
I just wanted to share with you that one lawmaker even emailed a positive response thanking us for providing the facts which contradict the pro-smoking ban activists.
Make no mistake people, the activists are not welcomed with open arms by all lawmakers. And many are just looking for the reason to send these charlatans packing.
Sorry Bill, this particular lawmaker hails from the great state of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Siegel,
I think it goes a bit further than just classism, as it seems there is an overriding need/addiction to control the lives of others. It's not so much about tobacco, but the need to CONTROL, and denormalization and now demonization has made smokers an easy target.
It's very hard to hate another human being, but once dehumanized, it becomes a much easier task. By portraying smokers as child abusers is nessasary to assert and satisfy their need/desires to control. By drawing others into this by their promotion of smokers as child abusers, rationalizes their beliefs.
I believe this is most aptly demonstrated by the example of smoking in cars. Nobody has yet been able to provide a documented case where a child has died from tobacco smoke exposure in an automobile, yet nearly two thousands kids are killed by automobiles annually. Yet smoking in a car is child abuse, while totally ignoring the far far greater risks of mearly riding in a car.
Instead of promoting education for smoking parents, they seek absolute control through legislation and criminalization. This is pure coercion and control.
Bill Godshall wrote, " I'll offer $100 to any FORCES affiliate that corrects all the misinformation on their website and publicly apologizes for inaccurately and/or unethically claiming that
etc)"
So Bill, if I offered you $100 do you think you'd either apologise for calling me a liar or provide the "dozens of posts" that you claimed to have made about your possible conflicts of interest with funding donations/payments?
(P.S. I'm also still waiting for you to post the examples of "misleading and inaccurate" statements I've made. Of course I've been asking for THAT information from you for six months or so...)
:?
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Dr. Siegel wrote: "regardless of how one interprets the scientific evidence,"
As far as I am aware, as noted in my earlier posting on the Otsuka study, the ONLY scientific evidence dealing with the 30 minute heart attack fantasy involves putting nonsmokers into rooms choked with anywhere from 300% to 2,000% more smoke than in the middle of old fashioned smoking sections on pressurized aircraft, making them sign statements acknowledging the potentially "dangerous" exposures to toxins they'd be getting, and then detecting some tiny changes in blood chemistry and cell walls similar to those produced after a good meal.
Am I wrong?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com
Whew... one more posting...
Dr. Siegel wrote, "he "superiority" aspect is most pronounced in the "child abuse" debate. This is truly a class issue. Smokers tend (in general) to be in a lower social class ... It is therefore easy for the public health establishment to pick on them when it comes to regulating lifestyle in the private home. We have a whole lot easier time controlling the lifestyles and parental autonomy of lower social classes than the upper classes."
This is an aspect I've often wondered about when attending horse shows. The number of kids whose lives are spent in wheelchairs or life support because their parents allow or even encourage them to ride around rings on horses to compete for prizes must be fairly long, but do you think those parents would ever be cited for child abuse?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.Antibrains.com
Here's something we can all feel good about as it protects children:
One of the biggest retailers in the country is raising the age at which it will allow customers to buy cigarettes to 18 in all of its stores.
Staff in Asda's 302 shops across Britain will be told to ask customers who look under 21 to prove they are 18, and those unable to do so will be refused.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/...news/
66273.html
Oh I feel soooooooo good about this Erik. In Quebec you have to look 25 in order to buy cigarettes. Do you think this has stopped minors from smoking ? Think again. Their older friends or family members buy them for them or what most of them do is simply buy them from the natives for a 1/4 of the price and probably 1/2 of the tobacco quality. That sure saves their health doesn't it ? Can you Erik as an anti-tobacco activist tell me why nobody pushes to set a legal age for smoking? Why is it that it is illegal to sell them to minors and yet we cannot do a thing if we see them smoking them ?
Is it that perhaps the anti-tobacco dogmatists don't really want that?
Can you guess why it wouldn't be very convenient for them?
Can you Erik as an anti-tobacco activist tell me why nobody pushes to set a legal age for smoking?
I think that's the issue the article addresses.
By the way, what happened to the smoker rights guy "did you read the news today" that used to blog for Canadian smokers?
By the way, what is the smoking ban status in Canada? Is most of the country covered?
Dr. Siegel wrote: "Smokers tend (in general) to be in a lower social class (mainly because of the strong association between educational level and smoking."
I agree that smokers tend to be (in general) in a lower economic class. But, I have my own theory on why this is. I don't think it is because they lack the education or intellect to realize that smoking is probably not a healthy past-time...EVERYONE knows that smoking has risks. However, smokers are willing to take that risk (knowing that it is not a definite and immediate death sentence) for the enjoyment of an activity that is pleasurable. There are many studies out there that support the theory that smoking alleviates depression and boredom. I think that smoking a cigarette is relaxing and social...and a relatively inexpensive (for now...in most states, anyway) form of pleasure. On the other hand, people in a higher economic class, can afford to engage in more "socially acceptable" activities that are often more costly. People gravitate towards things that give them pleasure...and people have different ideas of pleasure.
Of course, you also can't discount the fact that MANY professional people at a higher economic level are smokers, however, MANY of those people will hide the fact that they smoke because it's not an acceptable activity any more among their peers. I attended a seminar a few years ago where the speaker (some business man/"motivational" speaker) actually stated that he would never hire a person who smoked because he thought smokers were "weak and lazy." A large percentage of people in the audience were nodding their heads in enthusiastic agreement with him, while I noticed some smokers looking fearful and guilty. Why would someone admit to smoking if they were going to be looked down upon, looked over for promotion, or even fired?
Who cares about smoking in cars? Taking your kid to the beach really is child abuse. LOL
LOS ANGELES - As many as 1.5 million people are sickened by bacterial pollution on Southern California beaches each year...
The study...covers 100 miles of shoreline in Los Angeles and Orange counties, which is visited by an estimated 80 million people annually.
The study found that between 627,800 and 1,479,200 "excess" cases of gastrointestinal illness occur at the beaches each year.
The study did not examine the prevalence of other illnesses associated with polluted water, including eye, ear and nose infections.
Healthcare costs...range from an estimated $21 million to $414 million annually...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060.../
beach_bacteria
Erik wrote
Here's something we can all feel good about as it protects children:
and quoted..
One of the biggest retailers in the country is raising the age at which it will allow customers to buy cigarettes to 18 in all of its stores.
Erik, when you say 'Children' do you include 16-17 year adolescents in that definition? The same 16-17 year olds that some political parties want to give the vote?
Should we all feel good that ASDA is now, apparently, making the law in the UK?
west
----
Should we all feel good that ASDA is now, apparently, making the law in the UK? ---west
It may be prudent to mention that ASDA is 100% owned by Wal-Mart.
Erik, when you say 'Children' do you include 16-17 year adolescents in that definition? The same 16-17 year olds that some political parties want to give the vote?--west
I would also ask Erik if he means those same 16 year olds we allow to marry and pay income tax.
I would ask Erik if he means those same 17 year olds that we happily send off to war.
They are old enough to have sex but not old enough to have a smoke afterwards?
Do explain the logic for us Erik.
Well Colin it looks like Erik is suggesting a reasonably quick death is acceptable ie being shot or blown up,contracting and eventually dying of AIDS,BUT SMOKING WHICH USUALLY TAKES 20-30 YEARS TO PROVIDE THE DANGER LEVELS(if of course it does) is a nono.Quite logical ,but not to you or i.
Regretably, because we have no ties to Forces, my cohorts and I won't qualify to take Bill's money.
Nevertheless, after some discussion we have decided to post some clarifications on our blog and we will do our best to "give the devil his due"...
Because we really aren't "pro-smoking advocates" although, as fans of Thomas Morton we do delight in waving our libertine-ness in the faces of social puritans
We are anti Health Promotion. Not that we are somehow against health or the encouragement of it - we ARE opposed to the conspiracy to undermine and corrupt science and our democratic institutions that hides behind that motherhood & apple-pie sounding term: "Health Promotion".
We are opposed to the state usurping people's autonomy to protect everyone from mere "increased risk". We are opposed to diverting financial and personnel resources AWAY from active treatment of illness and squandering those resources chasing pie-in-the-sky fantasies that tragic illness such as cancer, heart disease and stroke can be eradicated in the same sense that smallpox has been.
And above all, we are opposed to deliberate incitement of social panic and the scapegoating of ANY social minority.
Now, in hope of getting Bill salivating over what we may soon post up on our blog, here are some things we believe to be factually accurate:
- the tobacco companies are corporate scumbags. (Unfortunately, so are some of the pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline - the company that fought like heck to avoid having to allow cheaper generic versions of their AIDS drugs be used to fight a genuine epidemic in Africa.)
- active smoking really can ruin people's health.
- SHS really can be a serious health threat to people who have pre-existing health problems that could be aggravated by repeated or inescapable exposure to smoke.
Correction: should have read "...pie-in-the-sky fantasies that tragic illness such as cancer, heart disease and stroke can be eradicated in the same sense that smallpox has been, through attempts to control people's behaviour".
"Of course, you also can't discount the fact that MANY professional people at a higher economic level are smokers, however, MANY of those people will hide the fact that they smoke because it's not an acceptable activity any more among their peers."
Julie-you hit the mark here.
I work with "closet" smokers-those that only smoke at work or at a bar and hide it from everyone else-including "the bosses".
ya know those "higher eddicated" ones.
I am only educated to the associate degree level...did that at the age of 40.
This all keeps smacking of the "frat boy fraternity" syndrome...like an insurance commercial lizard likes to point out-"how does it feel to be better than everyone else?" That is what this feels like-to be on the receiving end of the ANTIEVERYTHING brigade.
So my opinion is, if anyone is a closet anything-SORRY YOU LOSE MY RESPECT!
If you are not open about who and what you are-YOU ARE A FRAUD.
We were not put on this earth to be anything less than who we are.
We were not put on this earth to be "taken care of".
We were not put on this earth to worship "THE BODY" - we are provided the body to accomplish and produce and LIVE FREE, and die having done that.
thanks for "listening"
I have a serious question regarding the "truth" being spread by anti-tobacco groups. The number of victims of ETS has remained steady since the EPA report at approximately 52,000-65,00 per year. California has been smoke free for 7 years and Maryland, where I live, you can only smoke in bars and in places with liquor licences for the past 10 years(about 3 to 5 percent of all businesses). How long before a noticeable decrease in deaths from ETS could be expected? Are these numbers non-smokers or never-smokers included in the studies? This is an important distinction. 7 years would be a substantial amount of time in the etiology of heart attacks and cancer to see a decrease not accounted for by the improvement in treatments. It must be disheartening that making 95% of all work places smoke-free did nothing to imrpove "public health". It just doesn't make sense. Can anybody explain?
Capri,
Regarding Julie's comment:
A large percentage of people in the audience were nodding their heads in enthusiastic agreement with him, while I noticed some smokers looking fearful and guilty. Why would someone admit to smoking if they were going to be looked down upon, looked over for promotion, or even fired?
You expressed indignation over "closet smokers." But, people do what they need to do to SURVIVE. If someone's job is at risk, what are they supposed to do to keep food on the table for themselves and their families? It would be great if all the closet smokers just kept smoking at work but unless you have a MASS uprising against the abuses of corporate power, I'm afraid that would be self-defeating. The fact that it has gotten so far that adults feel that smoking is something they need to hide only speaks of the effectiveness of the insane propaganda that has brainwashed a large segment of the population to believe that people who smoke are KILLING them and their children.
Maybe there should be a "Great American Smoke IN" where all the smokers openly partake in public (OUTSIDE OF COURSE!!! - wouldn't want to kill anyone with DEADLY CYANIDE GAS!!!).
But, maybe you should instead direct your anger at the corporations, insurance companies, governments, etc. who think that they own the bodies of their "subjects." It is amazing to me how much people are willing to allow others to control them. In the US, we live in a society where we let employers hold our means of survival in their hands, and also let them take it away at their whim. We keep giving more power to governments/laws/police/etc. to oppress us even more. Think about how almost every aspect of our lives is becoming controlled, regulated, and constantly "corrected" by someone else.
To all you anti-smokers:
Get it through your heads - nobody's body belongs to the state, or employers, or corporations, or to ANYONE ELSE. Thanks to your ridiculous laws you are allowing others to control your own body as well. I guess that doesn't bother you. You create this FICTION where smoking around others is the same, or worse, that being in an execution chamber, or rape/murder. You have the gullible public in a panic over what??? Doesn't anyone remember even 20-30 years ago? Did any child DIE in a car because a parent was smoking? You are creating an environment of fear and hatred toward parents, relatives, friends, co-workers, etc. based on NOTHING. Less and less people are smoking, but somehow the risk to non-smokers becomes greater and greater. You dare call smokers murders, child abusers, rapists, sadistic, etc, while your smoking ban laws have been the cause of REAL rapes, murders, assaults, injuries, freezing to death, etc. You accept that as collateral damage in your war. You are a disgrace.
Sorry for the bad italics in previous post. 2nd paragraph and on are my words.
cj:
I do direct my opinions at govt, corporations, INSURANCE of all kinds-who in my mind created this entire mess. Insurance companies have ruled the roost for ever...money changers, money launderers, carpetbaggers all.
My point in the "closet" statement is just exactly that-IF you can not stand up for yourself out in the open, take the consequences- well, until then, the FEAR of loosing your "safety" will always keep you in line.
Behavioral Engineering at it's finest.
If/When is irrevelant-It Will Happen-those who "come out" will loose their "safety". Those of us who already are "out" know it and face it daily and will continue. In whatever way we need to survive-put food on the table.
Ryan,
In the face of dropping smoking rates, and law enforced reductions in exposure to ETS, lung cancer deaths in the US are on the rise.
Of course, rather than admit defeat, incompetent bureaucrats will claim that smoking is just 'more dangerous than previously assumed', and press for even more useless regulatory powers. That is how simple the explanation is.
Ryan wrote: "It must be disheartening that making 95% of all work places smoke-free did nothing to imrpove "public health". It just doesn't make sense. Can anybody explain?"
Ryan, MY personal theory is that this proves it is NOT ETS or SHS or even smoking that is the main cause of these problems. But God/Goddess forbid the "professionals" actually admit this. For then, all of our life's conveniences would have to be banned and limited.
And I don't say this from any bias on my part, I actually "feel" this from my gut.
The biggest shame AND disgust, is that no one is willing to actually admit this and look at it seriously. It is so much easier to pick on something that most dislike than to actually tackle the real problems.
Capri wrote: "Those of us who already are "out" know it and face it daily and will continue. In whatever way we need to survive-put food on the table."
I don't hide the fact that I smoke. I also don't abuse any smoke breaks I take. I still put in my full 8 hours a day. I now work in an office where I AM the ONLY smoker, and as much as they may not like that I smoke, none here are willing to let me go either. Why? Because I am good at my job, because I DO my job and because I don't "waste" any company time by taking smoke breaks. I come in 30 minutes before necessary and eat lunch at my desk while I work, they pay me for 40 hours a week, yet I probably give them a good 45 hours per week of work; for my smoke breaks take less than 45 minutes each day in total.
Most people I know who smoke are "in the closet" at least some of the time; i.e. there is SOMEBODY (a family member, an employer, a doctor, etc.) that they don't smoke in front of and to whom they do not admit to being a smoker. It seems from what I've seen that the amount of this "closeting" increases with socio-economic status.
Smoking tobacco is becoming more like smoking pot in many circles; something you are open about only with people you think are either also smokers themselves or who you know to be open-minded.
In case there's any doubt the Health Police are planning to expand their horizons way beyond mere smokers...
take a look at this:
http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com...hsurvey20m.html
If you are not open about who and what you are-YOU ARE A FRAUD.
Capri, I don't think that's quite the right way to put it. Sometimes it's not best to spell out every aspect of yourself at once. And I think this is misusing a word with an alternate legal definition to overstate a point although it's far less damaging than the "child abuse" antismoking views.
I think it is more accurate to say that if you are not truthful about something you have no reason to be ashamed about, you are only ripping yourself off in the long run. And while you need to shake off people who have put you in the spot, that doesn't excuse them for doing something worse.
And I think anything in society that perpetuates this deserves scrutiny.
People who force/intimidate/coerce others into not being able to admit what they are, perpetrate mass deceit. They force people to be deceitful to them. And they wind up seeming to make brave statements, yet they've got enough guns behind them to shoot down anyone who wishes to challenge them. In some cases people may wind up under suspicion for not agreeing vehemently enough. (The extreme example here would be a Communist dictatorship.)
I think also those that pursue policies that will inevitably out "closet smokers" (i.e. a ban in the home) will look for other things later. Back in high school I made the mistake of admitting to a current antismoker(I googled him, and he'd signed the smokefree DC ban) that I liked the Dukes of Hazzard.
Like smoking, there's not a law against it but...mmm...not the sort of thing that smart people go in for, eh? And the time you could've spent smoking/watching "bad TV," well, couldn't you take some of that time to...feel guilty?
Lynda F, good point about the smoke breaks. I know that there are a lot of nonsmokers in the office who admit they surf websites they don't enjoy but have gotten into the habit of doing so.
Yet smoke breaks are counted against productivity in "The Expense of Smoking" reports as if nonsmokers are squeaky clean in that area, or as if smokers take those breaks in addition to what they already have.
Andrew:
I acknowledge your statement. I also make no apologies for what I post here, as it is all from my personal prospective.
I also watched "The Dukes" only because Tom Wopat was in my high school and I was in musicals with him.
I freely acknowledge that also.
I take 3 seven minute breaks in an 8 hr day at my job. Smoke and bathroom. I acknowledge that is My Choice-until they ban smoking on the sidewalk, I might have to walk further and add a minute or two. I do not have time to surf-so I surf/blog/post/read before I go to work-which I will be going to very shortly as I walk about a mile and a half.
thank you for your time, Andrew.
Nice catch anonymous. Health police trolling for business. Around here we call them "health fairs". As if we don't have enough real sick people already - we have to search out those that are "at risk" (there's that word again!)to get sick too. Why people don't see these things for what they really are about is beyond me.
Anyone else find it interesting that they feel the need to offer gift cards as incentive for participation? So - they got a grant to study the health habits of the needy and the greedy so they can extrapolate that info to include the rest of us? I'm sure they'll identify all sorts of "problems" that need "services" that they are all too ready and willing to lobby for so they can provide them too.
Don't you just love the way they operate? Slick heh?
Computer operators are supposed to take 10 mins break from their workstation every 2 hours(UK regs)How long do people take to go and make cups of tea/coffee during the day? One other point on the majority of job descriptions you usually find something which states "maintain staff relations" How best to do this than go and have a chat to your fellow employees,be it whilst making a drink or smoking a cigarette.So loss of productivity is a misnomer.Only robots can work at a set pace constantly,and not be bothered by the weather,their health,a miriad of other things which make us unique as HUMANS.
Regarding Asda's decision to refrain from selling tobacco products to under 18's,it will be most intersting since i strongly suspect they are breaking the law.The present age for purchasing tobacco products in the UK is 16 and until Parliament enacts a law to make it 18,16 it is.Hopefully someone will sue Asda for being the prats they are.Perhaps it would be better for all if Asda looked at the quality of it's foodstuffs,with all that fat and hidden calorific value,rather than join the bandwagon of social engineering.Still with looney Blair (Tony as in PM not Eric-just joking)the legal age for the consumption of alcohol will probably fall to about 12.
How to get the revenue you will lose from Banning People who smoke...
1 Allow pubs 24 hour opening
2 Promote gambling - esp super casinos.
Phase 1 & 2 implement by Blair. Simple and sorted.
(er Side effects? Nah!
Cirrohsis of the liver doubled in the UK from 1960 and 2002.
Alcohol related deaths
1991 - 4,144
2004 - 8,380
+ noise, low level crime, litter
+ binge drinking, Domestic Violence
and from gambling, rise in people in debt esp low income, leading to possible family breakups)
(On the casino thing, we don't have tribal casinos so this might be impacted by the people smoking ban - of course, silly me, all the non-smokers will flock to lose thier money.)
As I say sorted.
west
----
Somehow this post got relegated to nowhere land...let's try again.
No problem Capri. I think we all have different levels of energy with how we choose to confront things and I could use a little less apology-by-default myself--your posts and others' here have certainly helped me with balancing courtesy and assertiveness, or have helped my theories at least. Sounds like I could take a lesson from you in focusing at work, also!
Cool that you got to be in musicals with Tom Wopat.
Si, thanks for the good point on working breaks. I've had times where I avoided a lunch break to buckle down after having a bad morning, which didn't work.
Capri,
Thank you for your response and your insightful comments. I do understand your point and I respect your convictions.
I just wanted to clarify my comments. Regarding "closet smokers," I think what is going on is a conscious calcuation of risk versus benefit, not internalized "shame" over smoking. For instance, if a person needs to keep his/her job to pay the mortgage, etc., and it is a known fact that smokers are discriminated against at the company, then there are 2 choices: 1. continue to openly smoke at work and risk losing your job/income, or 2. Smoke on your own time and not let the employer know (as it is really none of their business in any case). Now, one can smoke openly at work (outside I guess) anyway out of principle, but some people are not in a position to risk their jobs, so they may decide that option 2 is the only choice, since those that have the power call the shots.
Likewise, if a person feels threatened with physical violence for smoking (as is bound to happen if the general feeling is that smokers are posing a clear and imminent dangeer to non-smokers), he/she may choose to forgo the smoking in that situation. Incidents like this have happened and I believe will continue to happen.
There is also the simple fact that many would rather just smoke in their own homes instead of stepping outside into the elements while out at a bar/restaurant/etc. where smoking is banned.
I think the bigger risk, however, is letting any health care professionals, etc. know about smoking behavior. Medical records are kept in a large, nationwide database (the "MIB" I think it is called) and a "smoker" status may have life-threatning consequences. There is a growing move to deny medical treatment to smokers (since it is "their own fault" for getting sick). This trend toward outright barbarism is, I believe, very real. Maybe I am overly paramoid about this but based on what is happening, I don't think this is unrealistic. If this is the case, "closeting" oneself is an exercise in self-preservation.
Of course, there are those who would say "if you are so worried about self-preservation, then quit smoking." In other words, smokers can't possibly care about their own well being in any meaningful way. Any other "risky" behavior is OK, except smoking. This is how insane things have become. I don't know how this can possibly be stopped. Society at large has reached the "Tipping Point" on this issue years ago (it's a good book to read if you can get a hold of it) and I see nothing but further discrimination and institutionalized hatred directed toward smokers to come.
In any case, that's why I don't think you should come down so hard on the "closet smokers." That's just my opinion so take it as that. I do respect your opinion and I agree that you are in fact right in principle. Your comments have given all of us a lot to think about.
Thanks for listening.
For me, I am already outed in the "medical community"-I and hubby have tried all "their miracle cures".(It is all in our medical records)....none work right to make us "feel" human. We have nothing to lose. Those who are still walking the balance beam....well, it will hurt when they fall off-whichever side they choose.
I am sorry if I offended anyone here recently-I have been called a f***choad, whore, douchebag and on ... today for being The Smoker and standing up for myself.
Didn't mean to take that out on anyone else, because I feel if you can't take "the heat" get the heck out of the kitchen.
And I can take the heat-just not so quietly anymore.
Meanwhile-Mother Moment here!
My oldest just yesterday summited Mt Ritter in KA-the mountain used in Paramount Pix as their logo. He wrote how and what the entire climb was like to me --- what a thrill for a mom to read/hear about!
and as I tried to be "nice" in the previous post: this ends up in my email box/newest post on madison.com (because Ira is not allowed to post where I was called all those lovely names):
He gloats, and he is a BUDDY of Mr Godshall.
nuff said.
I am one angry SMOKER allright!!! and isn't he "SPECIAL"???like mr godshall?
I do believe I will drag out the BIG GREEN T (FOR TOBACCO) SHIRT AND SHOW MY DISPLEASURE AT THOSE WHO WOULD DICTATE MY BEHAVIOR.
Luckily, I never stay at Marriot anyway! just those lovely trailers, RV's and double wides...the real people left in this country. (and they are disappearing like snowflakes in July..........)
"sharenow
Forumite
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Total posts: 28
Gender: Unknown Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
It does look like the demand for smokefree continues to grow. Smokefree Monona Terrace exceeded expectations, and now we see a major hotel chain acceded to customer demand and is going 100% smokefree.
Press Release Source: Marriott International, Inc.
Marriott Goes 'Smoke-Free' at All Hotels in North America - More Than 2,300 Properties and 10 Lodging Brands
Wednesday July 19, 6:00 am ET
Lodging Industry's Largest Move Ever to a Smoke-Free Environment
WASHINGTON, July 19 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Marriott International, Inc. (NYSE: MAR - News) announced today that all of the Company's lodging brands in the United States and Canada will become 100 percent smoke-free, beginning in September. This represents the industry's largest move to a non-smoking environment, with more than 2,300 hotels and corporate apartments and nearly 400,000 guest rooms under the Marriott, JW Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Courtyard, Residence Inn, SpringHill Suites, Fairfield Inn, TownePlace Suites and Marriott ExecuStay brands.
(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/p...20060719/
NYW070 )
Source: Marriott International, Inc.
· Marriott will become 100 percent smoke-free in September.
"Creating a smoke-free environment demonstrates a new level of service and care for our guests and associates," said J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International. "Our family of brands is united on this important health issue and we anticipate very positive customer feedback."
The new policy includes all guest rooms, restaurants, lounges, meeting rooms, public space and employee work areas. Currently more than 90 percent of Marriott guest rooms are already non-smoking and smoking is prohibited in many public spaces due to local laws. Demand for non-smoking rooms continues to rise with new information from the Surgeon General on the hazards of secondary smoke.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. (NYSE: MAR - News) is a leading lodging company with nearly 2,800 lodging properties in the United States and 67 other countries and territories. Marriott International operates and franchises hotels under the Marriott, JW Marriott, The Ritz-Carlton, Renaissance, Residence Inn, Courtyard, TownePlace Suites, Fairfield Inn, SpringHill Suites and Bulgari brand names; develops and operates vacation ownership resorts under the Marriott Vacation Club International, Horizons, The Ritz-Carlton Club and Grand Residences by Marriott brands; operates Marriott Executive Apartments; provides furnished corporate housing through its Marriott ExecuStay division; and operates conference centers. The company is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and had approximately 143,000 employees at 2005 year-end. It is ranked by Fortune® magazine as the lodging industry's most admired company and one of the best places to work for. In fiscal year 2005, Marriott International reported sales from continuing operations of $11.6 billion. For more information or reservations, please visit our web site at http://www.marriott.com.\"
OK, this is right by where I work and this is what we The Smoker put up with everyday now- the signs by the buildings/doors-25 foot rule- are in effect here in Madison too...THANKS! NOT!!!!
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/...d=91123&
ntpid=2
"Police ticket assistant DA
Disorderly conduct charged
By Mike Miller
Meryl Manhardt, a longtime assistant district attorney, is on indefinite medical leave after receiving a disorderly conduct citation connected to a confrontation with a television cameraman in front of the new Dane County Courthouse.
"Meryl is out of the office for medical reasons," Dane County District Attorney Brian Blanchard said today, but would not connect the leave to Wednesday's incident. "In terms of this office, it's a personnel matter, so I can't comment on it," he added.
According to a police report, Manhardt was sitting on the steps of the courthouse Wednesday on Hamilton Street in an area generally used by courthouse staff and others who smoke, when she spotted a cameraman from NBC 15 across the street setting up his camera.
Smoking is not allowed in the new courthouse or on courthouse property but is allowed on a sidewalk in front of the building.
Manhardt, the police report says, got up and crossed the street and demanded to know what the cameraman was taking pictures of.
She also grabbed the man's tripod away from him and took it with her as she began to walk back to the courthouse, according to police. The cameraman followed, and in a tussle for the tripod, she broke the holster for his cell phone, Madison police said.
Police were called to the courthouse about 11:50 a.m. on a report that a "female had just assaulted a male," Madison Police Department spokesman Mike Hanson said.
Manhardt was issued a ticket for disorderly conduct, which can carry a maximum total of fines and costs of $424 if she is found guilty. Because police issued a citation for violating a city ordinance, the case goes through the Madison City Attorney's Office and not through the District Attorney's Office, where Manhardt works.
She has been employed in the DA's office for 31 years as a prosecutor in the juvenile unit.
Various offices in the legal profession in Dane County, particularly those who do a lot of work in the juvenile justice system, as well as judges in the juvenile division, were informed by e-mail Thursday that Manhardt was on leave.
Manhardt could not be reached for comment.
E-mail: mmiller@madison.com
Published: July 14, 2006"
sorry, above was me
capri
NYC tried the same kind of hands-on "health survey" that Seattle's proposing. Participation rates were lousy. And, as might be imagined, most participants were poor (thus swapping their privacy for "free" medical probing.) Most people with insurance and access to private doctors just tell them to take a hike. And the Health Snoops, aware of this, sweeten the pot for the poor, who might still be reluctant, by offering 50 bucks. (Wonder if participants have to sign a release that they won't spent the booty on booze, smokes or Cokes.)
But the actual point is that this kind of survey skews the statistics the snoops are trying to get. They show nothing about the city or state as a whole but merely about the health of the poorest and the least self-respecting-- of the poor.
Same with the closet smokers: they skew the statistics. Since they;re most likely to lie, they hand surveyors the false "facts" of those phenomenal quit rates. and help to create the "fact" that smokers are mostly dumb, poorly educated and poor.
Which itself is a vicious circle, a curled rattle snake that curls around and bites them (again) in the rear. The more it's "established" that smokers are dumb and poor, the more contempt that smokers attract, the more Names they can all be called (child abuser, addict) the more The Law feels the right to "get" them (the more taxes, the more bans) and therefore (in a circle) the fewer smokers admit they smoke.
Mike wrote:
"I agree that calling out potential inaccuracies in smokers rights groups' statements is not an appropriate response to dealing with the fallacious claims that anti-smoking groups are making. If my son ever lies and then I approach him about it and he says "well - some of my friends lie," he is going to have something coming to him."
So Mike thinks that exposing his hypocrisy and requesting consistency is not an appropriate response to his ad nauseum criticisms of health organizations while remaining silent as his friends (who advocate smoking and exposing others to tobacco smoke pollution) consistently lie.
Seeking and embracing friendships with people who are compulsive liars
(by never pointing out any of their lies) doesn't set a good example for teaching one's child to be truthful.
Bill may one ask who you are describing as a compulsive liar ? You are the primary example of why Health Organisations are in the position they are.If you refrain from telling the truth,it is in many ways much the same as telling porkies.Ad nauseum criticism of you and your ilk ,but bread and butter to me.Your manipulation of facts and statistics is no longer going un-noticed.Have you swung the dirty money you want from the AG ?YOU know by screwing smokers for more tax so you can continue your good work .Keep losing your rag Bill,it's nice to see we are getting to you.Here's to the facts and not what you want the world to hear.
"So Mike thinks that exposing his hypocrisy and requesting consistency is not an appropriate response to his ad nauseum criticisms of health organizations while remaining silent as his friends (who advocate smoking and exposing others to tobacco smoke pollution) consistently lie."
Bill, let's talk about your FRIENDS and their hypocrisy first. I have never seen you admit in this blog that, yes, TC sometimes goes over board and should stick to the truth. So before accusing others, make sure you clean your own boots.
"Seeking and embracing friendships with people who are compulsive liars
(by never pointing out any of their lies) doesn't set a good example for teaching one's child to be truthful."
But maybe it teaches children that adults can have different opinions and be passionate about them but can still behave like adults.
Hmmmmmmmm. Doesn't this sound eerily familiar?
New Research Shows How Pollution and Ozone Causes Heart Disease—It Clogs Arteries
A new study, published in Ciculation, a publication of the American Heart Association, a shows how air pollution and ozone cause the blood vessels of healthy people to close up. The findings may explain why high levels of pollution are linked to heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems.
Researchers at the University of Michigan tested 25 healthy volunteers with an average age of 35. The participants were exposed to air containing ozone and fine particulate matter, all of which are commonly found in cars, power plants, and other power-generating industrial practices. The pollutant level was about twice the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's suggested exposure level for 24 hours. Lead scientist, Robert D. Brook, describes this a level similar to that found in urban areas during peak pollution periods, such as rush-hour traffic.
The researchers used ultrasound technology to measure the diameter of each volunteer's brachial artery, which runs from shoulder to elbow, finding that exposure to polluted air caused the artery to narrow from 3.92 millimeters to 3.82 millimeters in diameter, on average. Brook said, "Such constriction could conceivably trigger cardiac events in those individuals who are at risk for heart disease."
That's the spin on this abstract:
Inhalation of Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Ozone Causes Acute Arterial Vasoconstriction in Healthy Adults
Robert D. Brook, MD*; Jeffrey R. Brook, PhD*; Bruce Urch, MSc; Renaud Vincent, PhD; Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD*; Frances Silverman, PhD
From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (R.D.B., S.R.); the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (J.R.B., B.U., F.S.); Environment Canada, Toronto (J.R.B.); and Health Canada (R.V.), Ottawa, Canada.
Correspondence to Robert Brook, 3918 Taubman Center, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. E-mail Robdbrok@umich.edu
Background— Fine particulate air pollution and ozone are associated with increased cardiovascular events. To help explain the mechanism behind these observations, we investigated the effect of air pollution exposure on vascular function.
Methods and Results— Twenty-five healthy adults underwent a randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the vascular response to the 2-hour inhalation of 150 µg/m3 of concentrated ambient fine particles (CAP) plus ozone (120 ppb) versus the response to the inhalation of filtered air. High-resolution vascular ultrasonography was used to measure alterations in brachial artery diameter, endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) and endothelial-independent nitroglycerin-mediated dilatation (NMD). Exposure to CAP plus ozone caused a significant brachial artery vasoconstriction compared with filtered air inhalation (-0.09±0.15 mm versus +0.01±0.18 mm, P=0.03). There were no significant differences in FMD (+0.29±4.11% versus -0.03±6.63%, P=0.8
, NMD (+3.87±5.43% versus +3.46±7.92%, P=0.83), or blood pressure responses between exposures.
Conclusions— Short-term inhalation of fine particulate air pollution and ozone at concentrations that occur in the urban environment causes acute conduit artery vasoconstriction.
Margaret wrote: " Hmmmmmmmm. Doesn't this sound eerily familiar?"
Am I the only one hearing the theme from the Twilight Zone playing in the background? hehehehehe
Bill-
I really don't think the "compulsive liars" you are accusing of lying are actually lying. If you're going to accuse them of lying on my blog, I ask you to provide some evidence to support your contention. Many thanks!
And I'll add to that by going after the first part of that:
Bill: Seeking and embracing friendships...
Dr. Siegel started a blog to record his own opinions. He did not "seek" any "friendships" with anyone. He speaks. We speak back.
Sometimes we like what he says and repeat it elsewhere. Sometimes he likes what we say and does an entire blog entry on it. Please explain how that defines "friendship" as you mean it.
The "embracing" you speak of has only to do with mutual respect for fellow decent human beings. Something you can have without colluding somehow.
But of course people like you Bill who can't relate to people on these levels can't believe that others do. It's either that or you're just behaving like the personal attacker anti-smokers are notorious for. All flash, no substance.
I have to ask - which of my recent lies offended you most, Bill?
Was it: "- the tobacco companies are corporate scumbags."
Or "- active smoking really can ruin people's health."
Or perhaps "- SHS really can be a serious health threat to people who have pre-existing health problems that could be aggravated by repeated or inescapable exposure to smoke."
Just curious...
Robin wrote: " I have to ask - which of my recent lies offended you most, Bill?"
Probably all of them, Robin, for you also don't state that SHS IS absolutely deadly. Therefore everything else you say is a lie, dontchano? hehehehehe
I think it is time that we stop paying attention to Bill. He does nothing, but insult our host and speak down to us, so let's forget about him.
I used to dislike Bill, but now I just pity him. Imagine hating what someone else does so much that you would devote your career and much free time to stamping it out. No matter how many smoking bans spring up, there will always be people smoking. It may be out on the streets or it just might be on their clothes and he might have to smell it for a split second and it will drive him nuts. That is what makes Bill such a tragic figure, he is such a zealot, that even his biggest victories will mean nothing in the long run.
If anyone needs me, I'll be outside having a cigarette.
What worries me Harley is that these sort of people force their attention on the press and media and eventually on those that matter,namely the stupid politicians who will do anything for public approval.Without Bill and his ilk,the status quo would have prevailed,perhaps wrongly since we all have to co-exist,but there is a strong driving force which is pushing this forward and we are all getting caught up in it and all i see is the situation going from bad to worse since they operate an all or nothing policy.
Si wrote: "but there is a strong driving force which is pushing this forward and we are all getting caught up in it and all i see is the situation going from bad to worse since they operate an all or nothing policy."
Exactly, Si. Had they just stuck with reasonable restrictions and compromise, AND the real facts, then I don't think any of us would even be here, nor would this blog even exist. Because if you notice, smokers weren't up in arms or defensive when it was reasonable restrictions being set in place....because they were reasonable and we were aware of the fairness in those restrictions and willing to deal with the inconvenience of not smoking in every single place anymore.
But since they are such INtolerantant, UNcompromising, control freaks, there is no room for reason or reasonable compromise. No, we'll just declare open war on an entire group of people, and while we're at it, tax the hell out them to support our goal, and since many can't stand the smell of their habit anyway no one will even notice that it's outright discrimination. THAT is what makes what they do so bloody disgusting.
More pathetic are those who actually believe them.
Make no mistake, these people are dangerous. It is that the fact that they can never win in their own mind is what makes them so dangerous, no matter what they do, they will always feel the need to do more.
Just because you pity a person, doesn't mean they are a treat. Macbeth was a tragic character, yet was as bloodthirsty as they come.
I take comfort in knowing that the anti-smoking movement is being more insane at a faster rate than the general public. Eventually they will alienate large portions of the public. I have personally noticed many non-smokers become more distrustful and disgusted with the anti-smoking movement. They are disgusted by the denormalization of smokers and see things like doctors refusing to provide treatment to smokers as something more sinister than trying to protect public health.
____________________________________
And a personal message to Bill Godshall:
What is wrong with you, seriously? Do you realize how stupid you sound when you compare a parent smoking in the same car in a child to child abuse? Oh wait, you're not comparing it to child abuse it is "one of the worst forms of child abuse". I guess being raped and beaten with a belt are somewhere down the list.
I would really like a response from you and don't you dare resort to ad hominem attacks or become dismissive.
Harley wrote: "I would really like a response from you and don't you dare resort to ad hominem attacks or become dismissive."
Harley, I do hope you are seriously not holding your breath here waiting for any kind of honest response from him. Trust me, you stand a better chance of surviving smoking 4 packs a day, while spending all that time in an enclosed, poorly ventilated room with a hundred other smokers, breathing in all their shs, than you do holding your breath waiting for an answer. And unfortunately, I'm being dead serious here.
I am now convinced that this effort by the anti smoking zealots has become "Apartheid in the 21st Century". Having lived with apartheid in South Africa as a child, I know that it is ugly and unnecessary. It is divisive and breeds contempt, intolerance and hatred for what are, after all, other human beings. I have read Nelson Mandela's Long walk to Freedom, and in the book he forgives me. So I have forgiven myself for unwittingly perpetuating the racism and corresponding fear and hatred of my brother and sister co-habitants of planet earth. (Make no mistake, just like the anti movement of today, we were taught at school to hate and fear "the blacks"). Although my ignorance and lack of understanding (on the impact this ridiculous and completely unfair law was having on 16 million people) is no excuse, I desperately hope this anti smoker fatwah does not put down roots. I really do fear for the future and hope that common sense will prevail. Take it from me, you dont want to live in a segregated society. Again.
On a (slightly related side issue), I also lived through five years of civil war in the then Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) so some payback was meted out as we were driven from our home and eventually the country.
Life is far too short for this anti smoker crap.
All I ask is absolute proof that SHS is as deadly as they say and I will accede immediately, and toe the line.
Until then, I will defend my freedoms to the death.
Colin wrote: "All I ask is absolute proof that SHS is as deadly as they say and I will accede immediately, and toe the line. Until then, I will defend my freedoms to the death."
Colin, until every last baby boomer is dead, they can't; for we survived far more exposure, constantly, than anyone born in that last 20 years. We are a constant reminder (or thorn in their side) that their so-called "facts" are fallacies. As long as we continue to live and breathe and remain relatively healthy, we punch huge holes in their theories.
Colin--
In its way, this Ashism is even more extreme than Apartheid and Jim Crow. The latter at least allowed you to be black in your own home, your own car, your own segregated rail car, and even in "public" within your own ghetto.
We don't even ghet a ghetto.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
