MEMO
TO: Omaha, Ne City Council
FROM: Every bar and restaurant owner in Omaha, NE
DATE: October 1, 2006
RE: 5 alarm fire and murder while my customers smoke cigarettes
Dear Clueless Nanny State Do-Gooders:
Thank you for your bizarre, misguided, and misplaced interest in _____(name of establishment). As you know ______(name of establishment) strives to provide our guests with a relaxed atmosphere and great hospitality in which to enjoy our great food, wine, beer and spirits among their friends and family.
Let me update you on the progress of your social engineering experiment that you have omnipotently imposed at my expense.
A man was mugged and a woman was sexually assaulted outside my establishment in Omaha yesterday.
A few concerned citizens called 9-1-1, but the police, SWAT team, and EMT ambulance ignored the victims of crime on the street.
Instead they ran into my bar and started randomly shooting at patrons hoping to hit to lawless fiend that was smoking a cigarette in my bar.
The escaped felon and rapist got away, but you'll be happy to know that nobody was exposed to cigarette smoke.
You've done good work. I guess that's why we elect smart people like you to protect us, the un-educated toothless hicks, from harm.
God Bless the cooler heads of government and their wisdom.
Thank you,
The Management
A good example of how delusional thinking about the immediate risks of ETS leads to irrational behaviors.
There are two issues here that aren't really addressed in the post.
The first is the assumption that 911 calls for smoking are going to reduce fire/police/rescue efficiency. These are very well designed systems for the most part. The head of police would not be asking people to call 911 if he thought it would be a problem. Besides, in the past when cities have implemented bans, the transition is very smooth with very few violation reports. Dr. Siegel, I think you know this.
The second is that the way the post is written, you might not realize that it was the POLICE who first asked people to call 911. NOT GASP. All the anti-smoking group did was support the decision of the police - relying on the police to make the best determination for how they wanted the calls routed.
It will be interesting to watch to see if there are any problems with the 911 system in Ohmaha over the next few week. How many really believe that the Ohmaha system, who asked for 911 calls on this issue, can't handle their job?
On occasion I get the impression Dr. Siegel that you are out looking for anything you can blow up into a story. This is one of those occasions.
On occasion I get the impression Dr. Siegel that you are out looking for anything you can blow up into a story. This is one of those occasions.--Carl
The Doctor doesnt need to look that hard Carl. This crap is now all invasive, and the stupidity of the ATI increases daily. Dont even try to defend this inexcusable waste of valuable police time.
As Eric predicts, it wont be long before his imagined scenario above becomes a verbatim news story.
Will you still be lauding this inane decision then?
Our police chiefs in Soviet Scotland said from the outset of our national ban that they wanted nothing to do with it. Quite right too.
The situation in Omaha is beyond pathetic. This is no longer a slippery slope for the ATI. This is a cliff, and with no room for reason, they have all become lemmings. There is no way back now for these pitiful creatures.
For shame.
Thanks, Colin. But if the mugging victim was JRS9000 would you still feel the same way?
Or would you be laughing at his misfortune? Schadenfreude at it's best.
I have a problem with Carls denial. We are told that the system is to be used for emergencies. If you have already 30% of Omaha calls being false(1), why are they trying to clog the other 70% with calls that could be better managed by having a phone number of their own?
I also wonder why you would degrade the ultimate purpose of 911. The purpose is to get help for emergencies. They are reducing the importance of the sytem. Will they now be calling to phone in all health infractions?
IF we endorse calling this number for nonemergency calls we are actually creating a system where there will be less availibility for the fast response, because there won't be an operator available for the person with the heart attack; who only has 2 minutes to lose oxygen to his brain.
How callus can they be so that they may potentially put people who are assulted, injured, etc in real danger? It's not imcompetence, its actually making this a rarely used system to preserve the purpose of it. There are only so many people and phone lines.
Are they seriously saying that a smoking infraction is on the same level as a heart attack? Are they honestly saying that I don't care whether theres a person dying, that may have to wait. I want to have my issue taken care of; be dammed that theres real emergencies?
BTW there's 3 pages of people in the area who think that this isn't a good use of the system as well. Shows you how "condiditoned" Carl is to accept at all costs the extremist statements!
http://forums.ibsys.com/viewmess...4552&
startmsg=1
1 http://www.ketv.com/news/4194795...795/
detail.html
Carl, I've smoked many cigarettes in NJ at bars that were supposedly smoke free.
How? Same way that the anti's got their smoking bans to begin with.
Money.
Walk into any bar in the Northeast or CA or any other liberal Blue state. Put a $20 bill on the table and ask the bartender "Do you mind if I smoke?"
They'll reach under the bar and grab and ashtray.
Are you shocked? You bought the smoking bans. I can buy them right back.
Private property? Free country? You might as well be speaking Greek or Chinese to the fascist, anti smoking groups. Call 911.
They greased enough palms to get their socialist agenda passed while Big Tobacco who has more money than God stood by aimlessly. Their wrath will be felt eventually if my belief in capitalism has any merit.
Any other nonsense you want to post?
Prior to the implementation of the total smoking ban in Delaware, the Chief of Police of the City of Dover (state capitl) issued a statement that his department would NOT respond to any calls in relation to violations of the smoking ban, unless there was a legitimate police issue involved (such as an assault). His attitude was it was not only not a criminal issue, but also a state one and the state provided a snitch line for folks to report violations.
My understanding, from folks in the know, was that anyone calling DPD about a smoking violation would be subject to a citation for filing a frivolous report.
I truly hope the head of the Police department of Omaha quickly sees the light in what is an absolute ridiculous use of the emergency system. I just hope the price of that lesson is not the loss of life, limb or property.
Excellent point Eric Blair..........
Nearly 4 years after the smoking ban in Delaware, I still know exactly what bars I can go into and light up anytime I decide to re-enter the state.
A friend and I chuckle about it frequently. He's a former smoker, but fought with us tooth and nail to first defeat and then change the ban....but he has told me of late that, at last for him, the ban has one advantage........he can now go into a bar have a few and his wife (who hates bars) doesn't know it, because he doesn't smell like smoke (she's an anti, he isn't)
Now Mike Siegel proclaims that he knows how to enforce laws better than a police department authorized to enforce a smokefree workplace law.
People routinely call 911 to report violations of virtually every other law, and many people call 911 about non emergencies and activities that aren't illegal.
Here in Pittsburgh, the only way to call the police is to call 911 (as there are no other phone numbers for police listed in the phone book).
Mike Siegel owes Mark Welch and Nebraska GASP an apology.
Mr. Godshall........
Did you read what I posted about the official policy of the Police Department of the City of Dover, DE? A policy which is in place in nearly every jurisdiction in that state? As someone who has dealt with law enforcement for most of my life (I come from 3 generations of NYPD) in one shape or form, Dr. Siegel is correct in that the use of the 9-1-1 system for reporting violations of a smoking ban is inappropriate. I am surprised this particular police department did not oppose the use of their resources for such idiotic matters. I truly hope the first person endangered by a slow response to a 9-1-1 call because of this position not only sues the police department, the city council but GASP as well.
As to Dr. Siegel owing anyone an apology, I believe that is a joke.....if anyone owes any apologies it is people like you and the rest of the anti-smoker cartel....considering the lies coming from your corner as well as the personal attacks you all appear to feel so free in making.
Bill, you might want to try these numbers. Some 400 more can be found in the yellow pages:
Pittsburgh City - Non-Emergency Police, Zone 2
2000 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 255-2827
Pittsburgh City - Family Crisis & Sex Assault, Public Safety Department, Police Bureau
Pittsburgh, PA 15122
(412) 665-4020
Pittsburgh City - Public Safety Department, Police Bureau, Night Felony
Pittsburgh, PA 15122
(412) 665-4011
Pittsburgh City - Public Safety Department, Police Bureau, Assistant Chief Of Investigation
Pittsburgh, PA 15122
(412) 665-4004
And Bill, how difficult would it be to get an additional phone number? Much less than passing a ban, and much cheaper.
A last word for Bill: I found those phone numbers in less than 1 minute. Mind you, I don't live in Pittsburgh, not even in the USA.
Could it be that the police department is trying to have it both ways? Get antis all excited that one can snitch with 9-1-1 and at the same time not bother with something for an hour?
I'm hoping there's a subtext to this. It would be in line with the nudge-nudge-wink-wink activities Eric Blair mentioned, and which aren't so easily stopped.
I do however think that if EVERYONE did their duty to report a smoker lighting up then it would definitely tie up police lines. In fact, those of us with cell phones would have a MORAL OBLIGATION...
Because we all want to be more than just law abiding right? Not just to the letter of the law?
I think there's some major BS going down here in the press release but I'm not sure who's responsible for it. I think the police are double speaking. But it's still sad that they made this concession to anti-smokers, and it's easy to predict that anti-smoking groups will say "Omaha put it on the 911 line, why don't you?" to the next smoking ban city. Not mentioning the low priority. They'll take the connotation and run with it for next time.
This may be a straw man argument but you've seen what they do with 30 man exposure claims. They might try to wiggle again, ignoring the priorty, and getting more out of the next city and pointing to them as "the next step."
Having once had my backpack taken in a video arcade and having called 311(non-emergency line) a minute later after catching up with the guy here in Chicago, I'm inclined to laugh bitterly at anyone who would actually call 911 for a smoking infraction.
Smokeless Bill seems to condone ANY activity by the Anti Smoker Zealots.
They continue to plumb new depths, in my opinion.
We ought to do two things:
1. Alert the Guinness Book of records
and
2. Alert the mining industry.
Predictably, Bill sticks to the playbook: defend, distract and demonise.
The end justify the means, right bill?
Bill: Now Mike Siegel proclaims that he knows how to enforce laws better than a police department authorized to enforce a smokefree workplace law.
No, Dr. Siegel is exhibiting common sense and reason. Unlike you, he doesn't believe someone smoking indoors rises to the same offense as robbery, burglary, assault, immediate health emergency, etc. And neither would any rational police officer or department. But there's no reasoning with you on this because in your twisted world you find no difference. Nor do you care to acknowledge there's any difference in enforcing a "law" and misuse of a system.
People routinely call 911 to report violations of virtually every other law, and many people call 911 about non emergencies and activities that aren't illegal.
Idiot see, idiot do? Is that your defense?
Here in Pittsburgh, the only way to call the police is to call 911 (as there are no other phone numbers for police listed in the phone book).
What utter nonsense. Every precinct has a direct number and 911 callers are instructed to call their local precinct directly when their call is not an emergency.
The Omaha Police Dept. is doing nothing more than saying, "Yes, Mr. Mayor boss sir. Whatever you say," when its chief tells the media, "We're ready to do the job."
Meanwhile, the police officer sitting in his car and eventually getting such a call (after all the real emergencies are assigned to available cars and handled) will shake his head and take his dear sweet time getting there, all the while hoping for a real call to come in and divert him from dealing with nonsense.
You're precious little smoking ban law falls within the same realm as suspected building code violations, reports of unclean restaurants, garbage dumping on the street, etc. Those complaints are made directly to the appropriate agency.
With the technicalities out of the way, let's call this what it really is... "Hello, this is 911, where is your emerg...? I mean, who would you like to snitch on?"
Doc,
I think distancing yourself from Mr. Godshall, Nebraska GASP, and the other activist nutjobs, Al Gore included.......is a very wise and prudent career move. Whether they realize it now or not we are seeing the beginning of the end of the pro-smoking ban era....
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....g-ban-
laws.html
Why am I not surprised at Godshall's endorsement of 911 cry wolfs?
I think I got it now.
It's the God-shall endorses the 9-11th commandment.
I think I might need to start smoking pot to be able to cope with these idiots. I will have lots of anti-tobacco stoners that will give me a thumbs up on that decision while they are hacking from their smelly joints, but brushing my tobacco smoke away from their face.
Keep up the good work, Dr. Siegel and keep distancing yourself from these folks that belong in the looney bins.
Well, wait and see. I'll look forward to posts next week of newspaper articles highlighting the "devastating" consequences of following the police department's lead.
big brother is really not that far away afterall.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology...e=1&
ad=homepage
Don't mess with Barney Fife.......smoker's will get what's comin' to 'em.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....says-
their.html
Carl wrote:
"The first is the assumption that 911 calls for smoking are going to reduce fire/police/rescue efficiency. These are very well designed systems for the most part."
Bill wrote:
"People routinely call 911 to report violations of virtually every other law, and many people call 911 about non emergencies and activities that aren't illegal. "
Let me explain to you both what seems to have escaped you. When I was a "night cops" reporter for a daily newspaper, my job was to cover fire, murder, major crimes,arrests, and everything else newsworthy from a police perspective.
**NOTE --- this was only a few years ago, so no, I'm not talking about a bygone era with antiquated technology.**
I carried a portable scanner with me to monitor the cops and public safety air traffic. I frequently called the "back line" at the 911 dispatch center when I was en route to a story to find out if what I heard was worth investigating or not. I always knew that if the dispatchers were on an important call, they wouldn't pick up the back line - that's why it was the back line.
There is, however, no "back line" for the 911 circuit. The calls MUST be answered, by law. And they MUST be answered in the order in which they are received, and only "triaged" after the dispatcher gathers enough information to make a determination about the severity of the call. All of this takes human judgment and time.
I spent many nights at the dispatch center with the dedicated folks who manned the 911 line. I saw an appalling string of abuses: the public calling in to report a mouthy child, to reschedule a court hearing, to report, "I'm sorry - I sat on my cell phone in the drive through."
I'm not kidding.
This is not funny. The 911 line is for EMERGENCIES. The public routinely abuses it - at least the public in my area, when I worked this beat - and it has very serious consequences. Every minute a 911 dispatcher takes to deal with a non-emergency call is one minute - and one staff person - that is taken away from a call that might need life-saving intervention.
When I worked this beat, there were three women who answered the 911 line. They were vastly overworked, but good-natured nonetheless. It pained me to say these astute professionals trying to get a complainer off the line so a citizen with a real, life-threatening emergency could get through.
Carl, if you think these "well-designed systems" can handle non-emergency calls with no untoward consequences, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. These "well-designed systems" are staffed by human beings who have to make on-the-fly judgment calls, when every minute counts. Wake up.
Bill - If you seek to justify "smoking emergency" calls by appealing to the fact that the ignorant public abuses the 911 system, thereby putting fellow citizens in REAL danger by clogging up an essential system, then you're more ignorant than I previously imagined. Two wrongs - or five, or six - don't make a right.
Good Lord. And you all are the ones who claim to care so much about the health and safety of the public.
Bill wrote:
"Here in Pittsburgh, the only way to call the police is to call 911 (as there are no other phone numbers for police listed in the phone book)."
You're lying again, Bill. Benpal already showed you up, but I thought I might jump in and reintroduce you to the Phone Book.
I have in my hand the White and Yellow Pages for the Barre/Montpelier area of Vermont where I live. The introductory pages start the same way I've seen every phone book start, wherever I've lived.
On the first page, in 60-point type (no exaggeration):
AMBULANCE - FIRE - POLICE
911
EMERGENCY NUMBERS ONLY
FOR NONEMERGENCY CALLS SEE THE WHITE PAGES LISTINGS
So, following that advice, I consulted the White Pages. Here is what I found:
POLICE DEPARTMENT -
Barre-City Hall
Emergency - 911
. . .
Montpelier - Emergencies - 911
etc., etc.
In every White Pages I've ever seen, city offices are listed "ACME, City Of. . ." So it is with Montpelier. I turned to, "Montpelier, City Of," and found:
"Emergency Services -
Police -911
Fire-911
Ambulance-911
Other business . . .
Police, 1 Pitken Ct, Montpelier - 223-3445"
I very much doubt the Pittsburgh phone book is that much different. And, I very much doubt you were too incompetent to find that in your own White Pages directory, Bill.
I think Godshall is finally imploding -- CRASH ... POP ... POW!!!. That's what happens to all brainless fanatics after a time. But keep it up, Bill! You're doing fine work.
That Enstrom Glantz exposure one was not well received by an anti on another forum, either.
http://www.scientificintegrityin...rg/
defense.html
The truth hurts. Near spontaneous combustion.
Good thing that forum is moderated..LOL.
Carl,do you really believe what you are saying ?Does it not concern you that real emergencies could be extended by valuable seconds,minutes whilst someone else blags a smoker ?Would you be so happy if that occured where you live ?I suppose you can't have kids,or elderly parents to concern yourself with,since you exhibit such selfish contempt for other people in need.Bill i suggest you do one of your BILL GODSHALL ANNOUNCES "I CAN'T FIND A TELEPHONE NUMBER".The one man army against smokers who purports to collate nigh on every bit of information on the perils of smoking,can't find a telephone number ?The sum total of your comments recently is to suggest to Dr Siegel that he apologises to two individuals who are hard pushed to combine together to achieve a grain of commonsense.Godshall is Gobshut when it comes to reviewing sickly science that is heavily promoted to endorse smoking bans,especially when it can be clearly shown that by using scientific reasoning this sickly science is terminal.
Josh's point (that we in tobacco control are the ones who claim to care so much about the health and safety of the public) is an important one. When one sees this kind of nonsense (suggesting that 911 be used to enforce smoking bans), one gets the sense that the overall health and safety of the public is not the critical concern, but that instead, the anti-smoking movement has become some sort of narrow-minded crusade. This is why I linked to my piece on extremism in the tobacco control movement. And I think LHG is right. Delusional thinking about the immediate effects of secondhand smoke has led to irrational behavior. The bottom line: this behavior is irrational. In public health, we should be striving for rational public policy. That, to me, is the difference between a public health-based movement and a pure crusade.
Like Josh, I am also a former reporter, although in radio not print, and can attest to the "back line" numbers he references. I had them all, police, 911, fire, even the switchboard of the local hospital. Calls to those lines were never answered in the same manner as the emergency lines were answered.
Dr. Siegel, it's a crying shame what has happened to you throughout the anti-smoker industry, because you are actually a breath of fresh air. The things you are making note of are things many of us have been saying for years, but to no avail. I will forever continue to disagree with you in regard to government mandated smoking bans, and sevral other issues, but I can't fault you for your honesty and willingness to speak out in the face of such blatant opposition as you are gettign from your own side of the issue.
Si, Of course it would concern me if real emergencies didn't get handled due to non-urgent calls. The point I've been trying to make is that I don't think they would have asked the 911 system to be used for any non-urgent calls, if they thought it would overload the system.
The ban started today. If the smoking ban somehow "devastates" the 911 system, I hope you'll post the articles.
Carl writes:
The point I've been trying to make is that I don't think they would have asked the 911 system to be used for any non-urgent calls, if they thought it would overload the system.
Sorry Carl. The 911 system is only supposed to be used for emergency calls. That's its sole reason for existence. Stop playing games. It wouldn't matter whether smoking-ban snitch calls would "overload" the 911 system or not. The fact of the matter is that they are not emergency calls and have no place being reported to the 911 system, period. The officer who suggested this should be fired (but he'll get a medal instead).
Dr. Siegel Writes:
Delusional thinking about the immediate effects of secondhand smoke has led to irrational behavior.
I postulate that it is the same delusional thinking that has led to the propaganda campaigns that you support, such as those that equate smoking in the home to exposing your family to deadly cyanide gas. And if, in fact, someone were releasing deadly cyanide gas in an enclosed building, this would be an emergency. Once one accepts the underlying premise that the two are of equal gravity, which is an idea that you seem to support because you refuse to speak out against the "Don't Pass Gas" campaign, there is nothing "irrational" about reporting the release of deadly, toxic gas to the authorities.
Carl, 911 centers already handle an inordinate number of non-emergency/non-urgent calls, using the 911 system as a snitch line for smoking violations is only going to add to that burden.
911 centers nationwide are forever being criticized for slowness in getting emergency personell dispatched quickly enough in an emergency, this can only possibly make that situation worse.
I never got the final numbers, but during the first month of the Statewide ban in Delaware there were something like 1,000 calls made to 911 to report ban violations........and that was AFTER it was repeatedly publicized those violations were to NOT be reported to 911. There was a major media campaign promoting the 800 number for the snitchline and people still insisted on calling 911.
An additional 1,000 non-emergency calls added to an already overburdened system does not bode well for bonafide emergencies.
Josh wrote:
"In every White Pages I've ever seen, city offices are listed "ACME, City Of. . .""
These numbers may be available via the internet, but they aren't listed in the White Pages of Pittsburgh's two phone directories.
But if a law enforcement agency tells citizens to call 911 to report a violation of any law (or of any suspicious activity), Mike Siegel and other sanctamonious posters on this blog should respect that decision.
Different 911 systems are designed to handle different issues, and 911 operators also tend to connect calls that aren't meant for that 911 system to the entity that handles those issues.
I suggest that those who dislike Omaha's law enforcement procedures can contact the police chief, mayor or city council and voice their opinion.
As one who has dealt with many different government agencies, I suspect that the response by Omaha officials will be something like "thanks for your comment" just before they hang up the phone, delete the e-mail, or shut the door.
"But if a law enforcement agency tells citizens to call 911 to report a violation of any law (or of any suspicious activity), Mike Siegel and other sanctamonious posters on this blog should respect that decision."
Response from a sanctamonious poster:
We don't have to respect anything because we are not concerned. But we can still voice our opinion, can't we?
Columbus Musician: "I think I might need to start smoking pot to be able to cope with these idiots. I will have lots of anti-tobacco stoners that will give me a thumbs up on that decision while they are hacking from their smelly joints, but brushing my tobacco smoke away from their face."
Hehe. You should try visiting Vancouver sometime. People often walk down the street smoking pot here (well, okay...crack and crystal too), with no comment made by anybody (including the police), but guaranteed you'll get someone right in your face for smoking tobacco too close to a bus stop.
I even have the joy of working right next door to a place that not only allows pot smoking inside at tables, it even provides rental vaporizers. Interestingly enough, the only time they've had police problems was when someone made a complaint that someone was smoking cigarettes inside (an invalid complaint, however...we suspect someone couldn't tell a cigarette and joint apart).
I had one of the sad little tea-heads from the cafe commenting on my "cancer-ridden body" the other day and he then proceeded to tell me all about how pot cures brain cancer.
Bill and Carl, just a little refresher since ya'll seem to have glossed over that bit.
The Omaha police department has asked the public to help enforce the smoking ban by calling 9-1-1 to report violators. HOWEVER The county's emergency director has warned that the use of 9-1-1 to report smoking ban violations threatens the emergency system, endangering the public's safety. He has asked people not to call 9-1-1 to report seeing someone smoking in a place where smoking is prohibited by the city ordinance.
The reality of 911 services in most jurisdictions is that the police have nothing to do with running the service, they simply respond to calls.
That means they have no idea how or if the 911 centers are overburdened. And they are always over burdened. Everywhere.
As a result, they have no place making a suggestion that people call an emergency line for non-emegencies.
ben wrote:
"But we can still voice our opinion, can't we?"
That's all some of you do.
Vindictive opinions comprise the vast majority of postings on this blog, just like at speakeasy.com and the FORCES website.
That's why most folks who prefer rationale, civil and solution oriented discussions do so elsewhere.
Bill Godshall, calling others sanctimonious? That's rich.
Vindictive opinions? Oh, Bill.
Mr Godshall, this was written for you, methinks:
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
How's that for a 'vindictive opinion', Bill?
Bill wrote:
"These numbers may be available via the internet, but they aren't listed in the White Pages of Pittsburgh's two phone directories."
I wonder where whitepages.com gets the bazillion Pittsburgh Police phone numbers from, thin air?
Mike, You are repeating the same thing we've already read already. The ban started TODAY. I guarantee you have blown this way out of proportion. The sky isn't falling on the 911 system in Ohmaha.
If there are news articles to the contrary, post them and prove Bill and me wrong. Arguing with the same points serves no purpose.
I wonder if it's okay to call 911 to tell Bill and his fellow public health advocates who think lung cancer research is a waste of money that today:
"A blood test to identify lung cancer in its early stages could potentially save millions of lives if initial results can be confirmed, researchers say.
French scientists on Monday announced preliminary results from a new lung cancer test...
"If we catch lung cancer early enough, we've proven in practice that we can cure it," said Kosmidis.
While experts guessed that the blood test might still be at least five to 10 years away from being an everyday medical reality...is promising.
Similar blood tests to detect ovarian cancer are also under investigation, though this is the first test to target lung cancer. If the French approach to detecting lung cancer works, scientists might be able to adapt it to look for other types of cancer."
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/
2..._Blood_Test.php
Even other cancers. So much for the dream of not funding lung cancer research. They'll probably triple it.
911. Omaha should re-name it "The Non-Smokers Rat Line."
Godshall and Carl obviously have no problem with citizens ratting on their fellow citizens for something as petty and insignificant as unauthorized smoking. When citizens were encouraged to inform on their fellow citizens in countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany, it was a reprehensible thing. But when a bunch of Omaha fascist thugs urge the same behavior because of something as petty as a smoking infraction, then guys like Bill & Carl applaud.
Sieg Heil! Chips off the old blocks.
Thanks for the segue, James! How perfectly timed that you find a report discussing a possible cure for cancer and I find one discussing the possible "toxin" in cigarettes responsible for lung cancer which, if removed, can make a huge difference.
If I may repeat you... Hey Bill! So much for the dream of not funding lung cancer research.
Which reminds me, you never answered my question, Bill. Did you say that if everyone on the planet stopped smoking (and once the old smokers died) that there'd be no lung cancer?
Scientists Spot Potent Tobacco Carcinogen
October 2, 2006
U.S. researchers have pinpointed a key killer compound in cigarette smoke.
The chemical acrolein - found in tobacco and also some cooking oils - appears to be a prime cause of smoking-related lung cancer and some nonsmoking-related lung cancers as well, according to studies conducted with lung cancer cells.
"Cigarettes have a lot of carcinogens, some are more potent and more abundant than others," said lead researcher Moon-shong Tang, from the departments of environmental medicine, pathology and medicine at New York University. "Acrolein is probably the true variant that causes smoking-induced lung cancer."
In fact, Tang's team found acrolein to be 10,000 times more prevalent than another class of carcinogen, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which had previously been identified as a cause of lung cancer.
The findings were expected to be published Monday in this week's issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Now we know the cause of smoking and nonsmoking lung cancer," Tang said.
The New York City researcher believes the finding has implications for preventing lung cancer and assessing the lung cancer risk of various populations.
If acrolein were removed from cigarettes, he speculated, they would be less likely to cause lung malignancies.
But then of course we have the knees-knocking together researcher who offers the customary "Oh no! There's no way to make cigarettes safer!"
Whatever... I just love that the possibilities themselves cuts the legs out from under Bill.
By the way Bill, did you say that if everyone on the planet stopped smoking (and once the old smokers died) that there'd be no lung cancer?
JustTheFacts,
Bill's dream of "The only good smoker is a dead smoker" might well be vaporizing before his eyes.
He may have to take time off from pushing smoking bans to lobby against lung cancer research. I wonder if politicians will still see him as a public health advocate if he does that?
Carl: Mike, You are repeating the same thing we've already read already.
Errrr, yes.
Except it would seem that you're not reading it.
That was the point, you see...both you and Bill have ignored the fact that the "The county's emergency director has warned that the use of 9-1-1 to report smoking ban violations threatens the emergency system".
So I repeated it.
See, the emergency director is the one that is in charge of the system, yes?
I would suspect that he would know better what endangers the system than you, Bill, me, and the cheif of police put together.
Apparently you failed to comprehend it again when I repeated it.
Congratulations, I think that's the best example of selective reading I've seen in a long time.
I'm sure there's other people besides Bill who'd agree that 911 should be used to report smoking infractions. For example, this woman:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/
bk_...bk_911_tape.mp3
There's also precedent for non-emergency 911 calls dispatching police:
" After being prompted by Katie Couric, Gregory...then played the first audio clip of a senior citizen who dialed 911 for help with a beer bottle.
Couric noted that the dispatcher sounded "a little frustrated" with the caller...Gregory explained that the dispatcher sent the officers, "to help the elderly resident." He said the officers asked on the radio, "Help her do what?" The dispatcher then replied, "Well, we'd rather not give the code out over the air." Gregory joked, "So, apparently they have a code for sending out a cop to open a beer bottle!" "
Godshall would apparently have no problem in squealing on, ratting on, stooling on, informing on, snitching on, grassing on, blabbing on, finking on, and shopping his own sister, who he once told us smokes, as well as those two smoking friends he also once told us about, if he ever spied them out smoking illegally. Because, of course, not only would they be shamelessly breaking the law, but (as he once told us in loco parentis): “tough love.”
Well, presumably no one who would snitch on a stranger or neighbor would refuse to snitch on his own mom if he ever caught her puffing on a weed illegally. Because fair’s fair and the law’s the law.
As for littering, spitting on the sidewalk and jaywalking, surely they’re equally worthy of 911 attention? So why are they the poor cousins in the 911 ratting ratings?
Anyway, why not a special number for simple misdemeanors such as all of the above? How about 911-FINK?
Harry wrote:
"As for littering, spitting on the sidewalk and jaywalking, surely they’re equally worthy of 911 attention?"
Far more important than those is speeding. 911 should take calls from concerned citizens who spot speeders.
Speeding is known to be the cause of immediate harm and death. Unless we curtail speeding some people won't live long enough to get lung cancer and heart disease from SHS.
Therefore I vote speeding > smoking. It just makes sense.
Mike, I fully comprehend. I just disagree. People know the law and for the most part, they follow it. Smoking bans produce minimal, if any complaints. If Ohmaha is anything like the other cities and states that have passed smoking bans, there is zero chance that the smoking ban will overwhelm the system.
If you find something that shows a problem with the Ohama 911 system now that the ban is in effect, then post it. With all due respect, you are beginning to sound like a broken record.
Carl wrote:
"Mike, I fully comprehend. I just disagree. People know the law and for the most part, they follow it. Smoking bans produce minimal, if any complaints."
Even if they expect zero calls to come from this and get zero calls this is still a misuse of 911. I read that 1/3 or 2/3 of calls to 911 are non-emergencies. This can make 911 look even more trivial to the average dumbass American.
I agree with James. The key problem here is not that the calls may clog up the 9-1-1 hotline. The key problem is that the idea is stupid. It is irrational. This is not sound public health or tobacco control policy. Tobacco control groups should not be supporting such policies. This is another example of fanaticism in the tobacco control movement.
Carl, you're missing (either intentionally or unintentionally) the broader picture here. Let me simplify it for you:
9-1-1 is synonymous with EMERGENCY
Smoking Ban Violators = NON-emergency
It's not about WHAT the procedure is. It's about what's WRONG with it. 9-1-1 shouldn't have to accept even ONE call about this. To do so is to misuse the system (regardless of what a Police Chief, who has no choice but to say otherwise, says. And a reminder that the 9-1-1 head says otherwise).
"For example, this woman:
bk_911_tape.mp3"
Excellent, James.
"People know the law and for the most part, they follow it. Smoking bans produce minimal, if any complaints."
Have I ever heard a word of recognition or thanks in the media for the discipline and good citizenship of the delusional and addicted smokers?
Yes, ideally 911 is not how smoking ban violations should be reported. Ideally the police would never make such a suggestion, ideally an anti-smoking group would never echo the police department's request.
They did. My point isn't that this is smart or stupid. My point is that this post is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The practical reality is that this sort of mistake isn't going to result in any real tangible negative consequences for the 911 system in Ohmaha.
Its one thing to go around and make fun of the mistakes people make with a cut and run attitude. Quite another to stick around and examine the situation to understand that in reality the police department's mistake is largely meaningless. Complaints following smoking bans are minimal. You're going to have more people calling about beer bottles than someone smoking.
If there's evidence out there that the ban has caused a problem with the Ohmaha 911 system, post it.
Otherwise it doesn't seem like there is much be accomplished by repeating the same arguments.
"Its one thing to go around and make fun of the mistakes people make with a cut and run attitude."
Of course, you are right. Except that it's not about a "mistake", it's about an attitude. Suggesting to snitch on anybody is plain wrong.
But then, did they issue a recommendation to call 911 to report drinkers, dog poops or noisy people? No, smokers are being singled out.
Carl the real practical reality is that the potential for an emergency to conceivably be delayed has been increased.The end result would be someone suffers or worse.Argue as much as you like about the semantics ,but consider yourself being in the position of someone desperately trying to contact emergency services.Anything which reduces the ability to respond should be very carefully considered,this is garbage,yet the antis are cock a hoop,strange intelligence level here,zilch humanity.
Begs the question though, doesnt it?
If smoker bans are so popular, so desired, so harmless to business, why do we need to call 911 to enforce them?
My point isn't that this is smart or stupid. My point is that this post is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Try telling that to the first person who's father dies because the ambulance took an extra "few minutes" to get their father who died.
This isn't about saving lives from a single whisp of smoke. This is about utilizing nessasary resources, so that the response (when needed) is there. I know I would hate to get a busy signal or be put on hold if I cut an artery while falling from the ladder while cleaning my gutters.
"sorry about your wait. I had to take the information, find the right person to call for that undenormalized smoker call first. It doesn't matter that you have a father having a heart attack. I have to take every call."
Carl I was hoping that in some way we could make you realize that this is the peoples lives were talking about! Yet here you are minimizing the effect that this may have on that one person. You extremists tell city council that if it helps one person it is worth it. How in Gods green earth does this help one person???? Shouldn't you be against it, you shouldn't be trying to minimize the potential of losing a single life by tying up essential servivces! (shaking head at realizing that the hate of smokers puts blinders on some people; so bad they don't see that nonsmokers are also affected) 
"Try telling that to the first person who's father dies because the ambulance took an extra "few minutes" to get their father who died."
Yes, a terrible tragedy. The good thing is that will never happen due to the smoking ban. People rarely call in to "report" smoking when bans are passed.
The Ohmaha ban started two days ago.
So how's it going? Is 911 flooded with hundreds of calls? Have people not been able to get through to 911? Has someone died waiting for an ambulance?
"The Douglas County dispatch center said on Monday that it had not received any phone calls about smoking yet."
http://www.ketv.com/news/9985025...025/
detail.html
That's right. Not one call.
So I stand by my orignal post: "I [sometimes] get the impression Dr. Siegel, that you are out looking for anything you can blow up into a story. This is one of those occasions."
We have an entire thread filled with fear mongering and drama. The 911 system is in no danger. Omaha 911 hasn't received even a single call.
Carl wrote:
"We have an entire thread filled with fear mongering and drama. The 911 system is in no danger. Omaha 911 hasn't received even a single call."
It's only half filled with fear mongering and drama. The other half is filled with playing down a truly idiotic decision.
As benpal rightly put it... This is also about the anti-smoker attitude. It pervades every corner of the room like smoke. This 9-1-1 "molehill" may be singular as a molehill but it's a molehill among a thousand molehills and a good number of mountains. It's a molehill with the stink of anti-smoker attitude -- YOUR entire campaign of fear-mongering and drama, Carl -- all over it. And we've had enough.
(P.S. The last anonymous post was mine)
Oh shoot... a clarification. I meant to say "It pervades every corner of the room like they say our smoke does."
JTF I think Carl has you. Fear mongering over baseless speculation (i.e. 911 disasters) is far different than fear mongering over something real.
"Fear mongering over baseless speculation (i.e. 911 disasters) is far different than fear mongering over something real."
Fear mongering about something real? There is no mongering if the danger is real.
You miss the point, Pablo, the fact that snitching is encouraged IS fear mongering. Fear of dying from a wisp of SHS. By simply telling people that they should call 911 when they see a cigarette, officials indicate that the sight if cigarette is a severe health hazard, severe enough to warrant intervention of the police.
"JTF I think Carl has you. Fear mongering over baseless speculation (i.e. 911 disasters) is far different than fear mongering over something real."
And Pablo, you have your head in the sand, mate. The whole smoking ban lunancy is predicated on the myriad myths about the 'dangers of passive smoking'.
Now that's real "Fear mongering over baseless speculation"
This isn't some kind of schoolyard game, you know.
.
Dialing 911 to report a smoking violation is absolutely insane! I don't care who recommended it.
911 is for help in medical emergencies. If your loved one can't get a paramedic in time they can die.
Someone will sue the idiot who thought of this idea. It is only a matter of time.
For those of you who support it when the next school has a gunman, as we recently saw in Pennsylvania and the Calvary can't be reached by phone, YOU will be responsible.
This is a very sad day for America when we encourage neighbors to spy on neighbors. It is this kind of mentality that allowed Hitler and Stalin to rule. 12 million people where systematically killed in the concentration camps, is this the next step for anyone who dares to smoke?
Pablo wrote:
"JTF I think Carl has you. Fear mongering over baseless speculation (i.e. 911 disasters) is far different than fear mongering over something real."
You have reached 911. All lines are busy. Please do not hang up.
Baseless? As I wrote earlier, either 1/3 or 2/3 of calls to 911 are non-emergency calls (story I read recently). This police dept. is endorsing it.
We can go the slippery slope route if you like. What if the police chief's other pet projects include calling 911 to report:
Kids not in child seats
Kids not wearing bike helmets (if applicable)
Ice on sidewalks
That's what can happen when people ignore the line between emergency and non-emergency.
The following is from 1997. Hopefully it's gotten better since then:
In every big city in the United States, the emergency 911 number saves lives, but it has also lost some too. The biggest problem with the system is really the hardest to believe -- it's that millions of people don't understand what 911 is for.
In Los Angeles, a recent audit of the 911 system revealed that about 85 percent of the 3.6 million calls a year that flood that system were not actual emergencies. Nationwide between 50 to 90 percent of the calls to 911 are deemed non- emergencies...Last year, an estimated 180,000 calls went unanswered in Los Angeles. The city of New York in 1996 installed a new $156 million state-of-the-art 911 system -- only to find out that some callers were being put on hold for as long as eight minutes.
http://www.emergency.com/911probs.htm
Carl , a little disingenious to quote a nil response,when the article stated several times they expect potential problems at a slightly later date.If the police can cope with any additional 911 calls and still deliver a 100 % fully effective service,i would seriously suggest the real motive to this is that they are clearly over staffed.Pablo ,if playing one-upmanship games keeps you happy then i am very happy for you,since your contribution was as valuable as posting an ice cube to the arctic,to help combat the perceived threat of global warming.
This entire thread should be ereased and replaced with the following simple statement.
Don't ask people to use 911 for smoking violations, its not good policy. But if you do, don't worry about it, very few people will call anyway.
Carl that would be fine, although we have a tobacco control charity who asked for the people to call 911.
We haven't heard from any one who is suppose to care about the health of just one person that really needs those 911 operators. They don't say anything when they realize that saying anything against the organization isn't allowed. Yes Carl that silence includes you!
You keep saying that tobacco extremists care about every person in the first breath. Yet when you get to prove that you care for everyone, and not just have hate smokers, you keep defending the people who want to backlog the system.
Oh yes Ohio must keep all people fearing smokers, to denormalize smokers. "Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack." Why say anything bad about the people who are accuse smokers of having a weapon so dangerous that they need 911? Right?
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....tly-
admits.html
All morons self-destruct. Eventually.
Just to keep the facts straight. I. Duguay: "Carl that would be fine, although we have a tobacco control charity who asked for the people to call 911."
"The Omaha police department has asked the public to help enforce the smoking ban by calling 9-1-1 to report violators."
Let's be clear. It was the police who asked people to call 911.
There is a quote that shows Neb GASP going along with the OPD's request. There is no independent statement by Neb GASP "asking people to call 911."
I guess it presents a problem when the facts don't fit the fear mongering.
Carl wrote:
"There is no independent statement by Neb GASP 'asking people to call 911.'"
Maybe not in the newspaper, but check out their website:
Q. Who should I call if I see someone breaking the law by smoking, or by having an ashtray in a nonsmoking business?
A. Call the Omaha City Police at 911. Non-emergency calls may be referred to the Telephone Response Squad at 444-5977.
Ashtray. LOL
What next, James?
Are they going to rebrand the S.W.A.T people?
I suggest Strategic Withdrawal of Ashtrays and Tobacco.
It's tragically funny, isnt it? Surely these morons can occupy their time more productively?
Colin wrote:
"Are they going to rebrand the S.W.A.T people?
I suggest Strategic Withdrawal of Ashtrays and Tobacco."
Swift Withdrawal. Remember, this is an emergency. No time for strategy.
911, what is your emergency?
There's an ashtray at Joe's Diner.
Oh my God. I'll send the SWAT team out immediately.
Please hurry.
Yes, I've already dispatched them. Are you sure it's an ashtray?
Yes I'm positive. We have one just like it in our living room.
"Surely these morons can occupy their time more productively?"
You are too charitable.
Speaking of SWAT:
After a month-long vehicle emissions testing campaign...the city administration now plans to raid office buildings and shopping centers along main thoroughfares to enforce a smoking ban.
The door-to-door raids will be carried out simultaneously in Jakarta's five municipalities during October.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/
ye...id=20061005.@03
James,
Your first post (Swift Withdrawal) was bloody funny. I actually did LOL.
This last post of yours was bloody worrying.
Is that our future? Snot nosed youths telling us to stub it out?
The plot sickens.
On 10/4 Carl wrote: If there's evidence out there that the ban has caused a problem with the Ohmaha 911 system, post it.
And a little while later, after citing a news article that said, "The Douglas County dispatch center said on Monday that it had not received any phone calls about smoking yet," Carl again wrote:
We have an entire thread filled with fear mongering and drama. The 911 system is in no danger. Omaha 911 hasn't received even a single call.
Well, well, which reporter has their facts straight, Carl?:
Enforcing The Ban
911 urges common sense
Police have issued the order: Report smokers to 911 when Omaha's ban takes effect October 2. The officials who run the emergency communications center are urging people to first call upon their common sense.
The new law doesn't go into effect until 12:01 Monday morning but the Douglas County 911 Center has already received some phone calls from people reporting smokers. Authorities there say people need to think before tying up emergency resources with a smoking complaint.
Those who would be fielding the calls want to make sure their emergency services are used wisely.
Douglas County 911's Mark Conrey says, "There's enough going in the City of Omaha that we really don't want the Omaha Police Department to become the smoking police."
A smoking call would receive low priority. That said, police would still have to check it out when the more serious complaints are checked off the list. Some officers tell Channel 6 that would all but remove them from doing proactive police work.
Conrey says, "Only when it seems that the establishment doesn't care about enforcing the ordinance, that's when we want to know. That's when we send someone out to investigate. It has to be that way. We don't need 10 phone calls every time someone lights a cigarette."
And then back on the 28th -- in an article I think someone culled a quote from the 911 head from! -- was this:
Conrey said he has already taken call (sic) to report smokers, even though the law doesn't take effect until Monday.
The busybodies couldn't even wait for the law to take effect to start calling! Checkmate, Carl.
And last but not least, the officers bring up an important missed point. Even when the call is answered last on the list it takes them away from conducting routine patrol. You know? Riding around and SPOTTING real crime WHILE it's taking place instead of responding to it after the fact?
("Sorry ma'am. Normally we'd be driving up and down this avenue and would have seen the guy assault you and steal your bag but we were busy checking for a lit cigarette. Is there a grandchild we can call to come for you?")
Just the Facts, You seem to have misssed the fact that even if people do call 911 the call will only be attended after high priority items are handled.
"A smoking call would receive low priority. That said, police would still have to check it out when the more serious complaints are checked off the list. Some officers tell Channel 6 that would all but remove them from doing proactive police work."
Even under a worse case situation, there is no time when the fearful scenario you described above would happen.
I think the most important part of the quote above is that police would be all but removed from doing proactive police work. In fact, they would be FORCED to respond to every complaint about somebody smoking. True, they wouldn't be asked to put aside emergencies, but the point is that when things are quiet, they would have to attend to all the smoking complaints, rather than doing proactive work, which in my opinion is the most important type of work which the police need to do. It is this effect of this insane policy that I think would have the most unfortunate and detrimental effect.
Carl wrote:
"Even under a worse case situation, there is no time when the fearful scenario you described above would happen."
I don't know how you can say that. The fact they're out of their cars and in a restaurant sniffing the air puts them 1 minute behind in response time.
You had a pretty optimistic view from the first day or two of the ban. No calls equaled no calls ever. But it looks like there will be calls if there isn't 100% compliance because someone wasn't too shy to call before the ban even started.
The smoking ban doesn't apply to bars yet in Omaha. The CA ALA said two years after their bar ban kicked in 40% of bars still had smoking.
A few days ago, I received the following e-mail from Mark Welsch at Nebraska GASP.
"The police issued a news release urging people to call 911 with violations of our new ordinance. Last night's news said that they have gotten no calls about violations so far - after 22 hours. In Lincoln they have issued around 26 tickets in 21 months for violations of their ordinance. This is not going to be a problem for 911."
Once again, I urge Mike Siegel to post an apology to Mark Welsch for making false and hysterical allegations about the situation in Omaha.
While Mike constantly criticizes others for making misleading claims and for not correcting those misleading claims, it appears that Mike rarely acknowledges or corrects his own misleading claims.
Q. Who should I call if I see someone breaking the law by smoking, or by having an ashtray in a nonsmoking business?
A. Call the Omaha City Police at 911. Non-emergency calls may be referred to the Telephone Response Squad at 444-5977.
Ashtray. LOL "
I have hunted extensively and found no conclusive or indirect proof, ashtrays are detramental to human health [in the exception of having one thrown at an anti smoking advocate occasionally].
Where is the justification for removing one piece of Americana trivia or collectables from restos and bars as opposed to removing licence plates and old advertisements from the same establishments? Is it not smoke and the protection of others the issue here? What has that to do with glassware and table settings?
Calling 911 for failure to comply with ashtray removal is unreasonable at best when concerning an as yet unresolved civil dispute.
As for someone having an occasional smoke? by the time swat arrives the individual will have voluntarily distinguished the offensive smoke, it only takes 10 minutes to finish one. 911 is fast but no match for the infrequent use and distance between locations where such an offence would occur.
Catching a smoker in the act via 911 assistance would be a futile effort at best. If such a system were the only means of enforcement think of the fun mischevous smokers could have living on the edge.
In many jurisdictions is is against the law with monetary and incarceration penalties impossed for abusing a 911 system.
"You say tomato"
Opinion would be the only difference between a legitimate call and an illegal nusance call resulting in an arrest. Alternatively; for counciling an indictable offence many well meaning advocates could also find themselves facing a judge.
Any lobby which brings financial penalties as a way to force compliance as reasonable, demonstrate a clear lack of public support and credibility in their ways and means. Politicians cave in to lobby demands at their own peril opinions do change, in many unpredictable ways.
The indesputable fact remains whether an environmentalist seeking fines for not sorting garbage into colored containers or and anti smoking advocate pounding the drum for higher taxation and fines; both fail to understand the repercussions of their ill conceived actions.
Health is joined at the hip with personal finances.
More expense, more poverty, more violence, more disease and much higher death rates are the result of these experiments in ignorance by consensus.
Public Health Lobbys are therefore detramental to public safety and causative of preventable high rates of premature mortality and morbidity.
The poor who are the largest part of population are; the most affected. the least able to defend themselves and the most likely to die prematurely due to poor economic standing.
Punishing the poor and disadvantaged is reprehensible. Expressing hatred as a valid lobby tool is not any more acceptable. Those who distribute their ignorance in this thread should be seen as pathetic and lacking in personal ethics. This would be entirely consistent with a lack of solid parenting skills affecting childhood development in many cases resulting in a sociopathic personality. Arguing with such indiuviduals only brings one down to the same level of intolerance. Leave Bill and his fellow clansmen the room to vent their personal tirades and always consider the source.
Smoking bans would never have been possible if not for the intolerant minority among us.
lead by example works for me.
Cheers
Selective reading, Bill??? Do you not see the other article posted above that says different from your source???? A fellow anti at that!!
And Carl, who is it that missed what?! I acknowledged that it's handled as low priority (the fact you say I missed). We've moved on to what situation THAT would cause. HellLLOOOoo....
Ahhh, but then you DO acknowledge that we moved on (shaking my head over how a person can say two different things at once). So let me add this to your "Even under a worse case situation, there is no time when the fearful scenario you described above would happen":
Aside from you apparently having some crystal ball that allows you to make such ridiculous definitive predictions ("no time"), consider that if the police weren't busy handling a lit cigarette and were conducting routine patrol that their presence on the street DETERS crime too!!
Calling 9-1-1 eats up valuable seconds there, officers tied up at the scene of smoking eats up valuable seconds there... it all adds up to one very bad plan no matter whose idea it was. And you can rate it on a scale of 1-10 at 2 but that doesn't make it any less singularly unimportant because the anti scale is filled with offenses. Criminals receive longer sentences when the judge takes their past criminal history into accout. You can't pass this off as "one little thing."
It's amazing to me the extent to which some are going to defend the support of this insane policy by an anti-smoking group. Are we really this narrow-minded and unable to see the stupidity of this enforcement mechanism?
Gasp wrote Bill:
"The police issued a news release urging people to call 911...This is not going to be a problem for 911."
Don't ANY of you anti-smoke people see a problem with using an emergency service for non-emergencies? Do you use ambulances for taxis?
Bill wrote:
"Once again, I urge Mike Siegel to post an apology to Mark Welsch for making false and hysterical allegations about the situation in Omaha."
LOL
"While Mike constantly criticizes others for making misleading claims and for not correcting those misleading claims, it appears that Mike rarely acknowledges or corrects his own misleading claims.
Geez, is the ban over already? No. The bar ban hasn't taken effect yet. I can see him apologizing for or correcting this:
"I always thought that smokers' rights groups were exaggerating when they complained about smoking bans representing the establishment of the smoking police. But that is precisely what Nebraska GASP is trying to establish in Omaha."
The police are trying to establish the smoke police, not GASP. GASP just publicly supported it.
But then again the police never said anything about calling 911 to report ashtray citings. GASP seems to have added that all by themselves.
"It's amazing to me the extent to which some are going to defend the support of this insane policy by an anti-smoking group. Are we really this narrow-minded and unable to see the stupidity of this enforcement mechanism?"
Dr. Siegel, It's not that I disagree that 911 should not be called for smoking. Its dumb, its stupid, and most people wouldn't do it even if asked by the police department. My point all along is that this thread makes a mountain out of a mole hill. Not stopping for a stop sign is bad, illegal and can result in death or worse. But there's no need for a newspaper article everytime someone runs a stop sign.
Sure, it was a mistake for the Omaha Police Dept to ask people to call 911 for smoking. It was a mistake for GASP to echo the request.
But when it comes to the 911 system and smoking bans, you, Dr. Siegel know as well as I do that smoking bans generate VERY FEW complaints. Most people are smart enough not to call 911 for smoking anyway. So between these two factors, the request that people use 911 is a non-issue. As dumb or as insane as it is, it isn't going to matter.
You wrote the article and said "if too many people call in, it could tie up the system, delaying response times" posters on this thread talk like people are going to die left and right in Omaha waiting for ambulances. In your last post you seem to back off from the slowed response time claim, but then you make it out like the days of proactive police work in Omaha are over.
It is my opinion that these concerns are exaggerated.
The tunnel vision is astounding.
I say we leave Carl's last comment unanswered as a testament and a monument to the anti-smoker movement.
"Most people are smart enough not to call 911 for smoking anyway."
But they are told to!
I doubt that fanatics are smart when it comes to an immediate life threatening situation (through SHS).
You yourself don't seem to be smart enough to recognize that if an ordinance is not needed, it shouldn't be issued in the first place. It's just part of the general fear mongering.
Benpal, I keep forgetting you are paet of the 'HeadinSand' society that still believea that SHS is harmless.
Carl prove SHS is as dangerous as it has been made out to be ! What prats some people are ,they don't give a damn about people who may be in desperate need,they just want an apology for using RISK as a factor.So Bill and Carl use risk as a factor for harm caused by SHS and shut up and go forth.
Hey Bill are you asking all of your bosom buddies to retract their false and hysterical claims they've made over the last 30YEARS ? Of course not ,you just want to make some political gain don't you ? If you are so very concerned about correctness get your own house in order and stop lying to the public and tell them this is just your own personal agenda.
Although it's a little close to the truth.....most anti's are great at verbal gymnastics so it wouldnt be surprising to find most of them capable of this act as well. Its where they live.
Steel yourself for Smokeless Bill's scathing reaction.
Thanks Colin. I think it helps us to understand the anti-smokers' viewpoint, no?
I don't expect to hear from Bill though - he'll be too busy dialling 911 to tell them he has found proof that people will go to any lengths to have a surreptitious cigarette!
Anyway, he doesn't do humour!
Hmmm...
Apologies to anyone who won't understand the short dialogue between Colin and myself above. It all related to a whimsical picture that I posted - and has subsequently been removed.
It seems like our host doesn't do humour either!
.
smoking is going on in a smoke free facility. They are violating the laws. Augies Bar on McBride Ave. in Paterson,
Quick! Someone call the Green Berets!!
Everyone seems to have missed the original fact that the Omaha Police Chief issued a news release telling the media and thus the public that HE wants people to call 9-1-1 when we see a violation of the Omaha Smoke-Free Ordinance. He said these calls will be handled with the same priority as a non-injury car accident. What GASP and I did was to help spread the word about what the Omaha Police Chief asked people to do.
Mark Welsch,
Don't you think 9 months is a little long for a response?
[note post previous to Mark is 10/06]
Better late than never!
Commenting by HaloScan
