Hi Doc,
Nice to see your insight growing by the day.
You wrote
"But in Belmont, in order to comply with the proposed law, they would actually have to smoke inside the house, which will potentially create a hazardous situation for their children"
The obvious solution for all caring parents is to put their children outside when they want to smoke!!
GreatScot
Congratulations, Doctor, you are really starting to get it. No one, least of all myself, would expect a total repudiation of over 20 years of work, but even so, some of the most absurd standard sound bites of the anti-smoking movement still remain in your lexicon.
When I went into the field of protecting the public from secondhand smoke, my understanding was that this wasn't about prohibiting smoking, it was simply about addressing the severe public health hazard posed by high levels of involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke.
"Severe," "high levels," "involuntary?" Come on, Doc. How many times does it have to be repeated there is nothing involuntary about entering or working in an establishment that permits smoking. If you were to come to my home for dinner, more than likely I would not be smoking as I would be in the kitchen and I do not smoke while cooking, however it is still my choice as it is my home. If you came into my bar to have a drink, OTOH, I would not ask my other customers to put out their cigarettes because you were there because they are permitted to do so. But you voluntarily exposed yourself to said smoke by voluntarily walking through the doors. But after 20 years, some of that is still to be expected, just after 20 years of hearing it I still don't buy it.
I am a bit concerned, however, since the charity cartel (ACS and ALA) are behind this pointing out the increased exposure of children in private homes is goign to be their next target.
And finally, this could now become an issue of class warfare. Those who can afford to own (certain) property can smoke, those who must rent can't.
Slippery slope indeed.
All my negative comments do not mean to downplay my kudos for your willingness to speak out against this, and I do thank you sincerely.
Can someone please explain to me, in words you might use with a five year old, just why tobacco consumption increases following a ban?
Just like Ireland, just like Scotland, the Maltese are learning that bans are not the Nirvana they are made out to be.
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/200.../11/12/
t16.html
Naturally, they blame something else for the increase in tobacco tax revenues.
I would have to agree with Philip Morris on this one. The proposed smoking ban does go too far.
I don’t understand why you didn’t think it wouldn’t go this far from the start. One only had to think outside of their personal agenda and look at what they were doing from all angles to see the road it would take. How is it that us smokers knew it was going down this road years ago? Considering how bad you claim smoking is, isn’t it amazing that smokers were able to see things clearly?
I don't think anti-smoking groups and advocates can sit idly by and watch something like this happen.
Wake up and smell the smoke Doc, that is exactly what they are doing. In fact they probably are the ones who put the bug in the ears of those pushing this. You’re a nice guy, Dr. Siegel, but for someone intelligent and well educated you are, whose dealt with the public, really are quite blind and naïve.
It needs to be understood that there is apparently more underlying the proposal than a simple desire to prevent disease among nonsmokers due to secondhand smoke exposure. It seems that the proposal is aiming to do one or more of the following: (1) to protect nonsmokers from having even the possibility of having to experience even the annoyance of breathing in a few wisps of secondhand smoke; (2) to protect nonsmokers from having to even see a smoker; and (3) to make a moral statement about smoking, condemning it as something that needs to be restricted to the confines of the private home.
Again, nothing new here at all. We smokers have known all along that it was never about “health” and was always about personal dislikes, and pushing prohibition (contrary to what Bill tries to convince us of). Basically, it’s about legalizing discrimination against a group of people making the prohibition easier, because the sheeple will believe it will stop with smoking. It won’t. And what will you all do then? Because I for one will be singing from the mountaintops WE TOLD YOU SO.
By the same logic, we should ban the use of strong perfumes in public because it creates a nuisance to people (like me) who can't stand the smell. Perfumes, like tobacco smoke, also may represent a health hazard to extremely sensitive individuals and may even trigger an asthma attack in rare situations.
Oh, but Doc, the non/anti smokers will tell you that there is NO comparison at all. That an allergic reaction is not a health threat, that no one ever died from smelling perfume and anyone allergic to perfumes can take a pill to feel better. Funny that same logic doesn’t apply to cigarette smoke eh? Perfumes are actually worse for my mother than cigarette smoke. She can handle the smoke unless in a poorly ventilated closed space with too many chain smokers, but one whiff of someone’s perfume has her ill. But according to non-smokers its ok for that to happen to her, it must be the smoke she is subjected to (hardly at all mind you) that makes the perfumes affect her so.
What concerns me the most, however, is not that the public may get the perception that our goal is simply to ban smoking everywhere. My greatest concern is that our goal is simply to ban smoking everywhere.
As stated above…………WE TOLD YOU SO. We’ve known this all along Doc, why do you think we are so up in arms? IF it really was about some restrictions in public places (and note I said SOME NOT ALL), we wouldn’t be so angry.
It's beginning to look like I was sold a bill of goods.
The only thing that could change my current perception is if anti-smoking groups and advocates speak out publicly against this proposal.
Get ready to be dropped on your butt really hard then. What you suggest here will never happen. You really might want to consider your stance here Doc, for even you can’t say that any of the real health issues occur in the majority of people. And even you cannot possibly condone forcing everyone to cater to a few. There have been reasonable solutions Doc and it’s time you admitted that had things been left alone, everything would have worked out to everyone’s satisfaction giving ALL people a choice.
THIS is what happens anytime anyone thinks they are doing good and know what is best for all.
Well said, Gabz.
Gabz bring up an interesting issue of class - and I'd like to hear people's thoughts on that. It does seem to me that there is indeed a class issue. For one thing, smokers who are wealthier and can afford a large private lot will be able to go outside to smoke and not worry about being seen. So their kids won't necessarily be exposed to secondhand smoke. But those who live in smaller houses on smaller lots will not be able to smoke outside without being seen, so they are more likely to smoke inside and expose their children. Thus, it seems to me that the Belmont proposal will not only increase exposure for children, but it will increase exposure differentially for kids in families that are less well off economically. This would increase class disparities. Is that what we really want to do?
One of the Belmont City Council members was on Fox News this morning and admitted California's recent declaration of secondhand smoke as a "public nuisance" is what prompted this proposed ordinance (plus one complaint, as I understand it). You have to admit, the antis are clever at coming up with ways to convince people totalitarianism is acceptable...so long as it doesn't affect THEM. What they fail to realize, of course, is the stage is being set for the little dictators to come after something the "them" like. By then, the population will be well-conditioned to accept government control over all aspects of their lives (started long ago with the creation of seat-belt laws, where they dictated what you must do in your own automobile...a dictate now expanding to smoking). Once they establish they can control your behavior in your own home, it will expand to other areas beyond smoking. Count on it.
Doctor,
please open you mind. That is exactly what they want. It justifies the next increment. Once smoking is restricted to private homes and then on to detached dwellings only, the big guns come out. SAVE THE CHILDREN BAN SMOKING IN ALL HOMES.
Poorer people will be used as the reason, the level playing field argument will be used again.
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel,
I agree with Linda that you should reconsider your stance. You have said that you think smoking bans would have passed without all the fruadulent and baseless claims put out by the anti-smoking groups. I honestly don't think they would have passed were it not for all the scare tactics used by these groups.
On the other hand, without the scare tactics, I think you may have been able to convince many restaurant and bar owners to provide a separately ventilated smoking area (or non-smoking area) to accomodate all of their customers and provide a better work environment for non-smoking employees. And wouldn't that have been good enough, Dr. Siegel? Do you think it takes near-tornadic winds to clear a smoky room (as your colleagues have implied)?
It's like this group of anti-smoking zealots just can't stop. It will never be good enough, and when smoking is erradicated, these people will start another campaign. They will have to, actually. When smokers have had enough, and more and more people quit smoking (or go black market), there will be so many budget shortfalls because of the loss of cigarette taxes that some new sin will have to be picked to take it's place.
Dr. Siegel,
I have always thought that there is a hidden agenda to bans like this. Could it be that some communities just want their "undesirables" to leave? The whole state of California is becoming like that. They make it so difficult to buy real estate there that only the well-off and the people who've inherited property there can afford to live there. Maybe by banning smoking they can get rid of even more undesirables (since the perception is that more poor people smoke)...and, as you pointed out, the well-off people who smoke will probably be able to continue to do so in their own back yard.
municipalities that ban smoking should not ever ever receive a dime from tobacco tax revenues
Have I got this right? Unless you live in a detached single-family house, smokers will not be able to smoke ANYWHERE in the city of Belmont?
"It's beginning to look like I was sold a bill of goods."
"Beginning to look like"? Pleeeeese, doctor!
"Smoking outdoors is only a public health threat when: (1) the level of exposure is substantial; and (2) nonsmokers cannot easily avoid the exposure."
Would you please tell us in what circumstances the level of exposure in the great outdoors is EVER "substantial"? And/or in what circumstances it cannot be easily avoided outdoors? Is this the real, everyday world, doctor?
"When I went into the field of protecting the public from secondhand smoke, my understanding was that this wasn't about prohibiting smoking, it was simply about addressing the severe public health hazard posed by high levels of involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke."
A "severe" public health hazard," doctor? I don't think you've ever been able to prove it's a real public health hazard, let alone a "severe" public health hazard. Are we into hyperbole now? Also (as in the above), was it your understanding way back then that "high levels of involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke" was to be FOUND outdoors?
What I also find interesting is on one level, this ordinance seems to fly in face of the surgeon general's report last summer, which said something like "eliminating smoking indoors fully protects nonsmokers."
I think it also added that homes remain an exposure problem, especially for children. This ordinance would only increase that problem.
Suppose you live in an attached home there? and you are a smoker?
According to this proposal, you will not be able to smoke anymore. You can't smoke outside, or inside. You just plain can't smoke...PERIOD>
They actually did it. Despite claiming for more than 20 years, that they had no intention to make smoking illegal, they have indeed done just that.
You betcha that's class warfare. ( well, actually that's not just class warfare anymore because they just won...the war's over in Belmont.)
Now we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that any antismoking group which supports this proposal just plain bald-face lied when over the last 20 years they claimed this was not all about prohibiting smoking among consenting adults. We have what they said then, we have what they are doing now.
a smoker who ownes his backyard and can't smoke in it but has to pay property taxes to the city which prohibits smoking in his backyard? That's just plain the city stealing a smoker's backyard.
Doc, if I take your car and drive it all over the place and use it for my purposes without your permission, is that not stealing?
If i take your backyard and decide to make it a smoking patio, without your permission, would that not be stealing?
The nazies started a class warefare against the Jews. The climax of that was when they STOLE the property of the Jews.
If we use what the nazies did to the Jews as a primary identifying definition of class warfare, that is the taking of the Jews' property for their own purposes,this is exactly what Belmont is also doing, so it fits the definition of class warfare perfectly. Dave K
Doc, if Boston U has a school of law, would you ask them if Belmont is stealing the backyards of smokers out there? dave K
I'm with Lynda. Ban Perume too. Fragrances today have gotten out of control. Chanel #5 should be OK for everyone, but no...the crap they're peddling today has got to be bad for health.
Salt Lk city just banned outdoor smoking in public parks. Probably got sick of picking up the butts. Mr Philip Morris citing research that shows that smoking movies increases kids smoking has asked that movie producers stop smoking in films. What's the world coming to. If this keeps up, they'll have to reduce the projected numbers of smoking caused deaths.
This would increase class disparities. Is that what we really want to do?
To answer your queston in a word, Doc: YES
It is all part and parcel of the doctrine of the nanny-state mentality, divide and conquer. It started out with a divide between bar and restaurant owners, and this is just the natural progression. ONly the truly blind would not have seen it coming, and only lying thieves would deny it was and has always been the sole goal.
I have been outright lied to by anti-smokers over the years it is very, very difficult for me to believe a word any of them are saying. And I am not referring to the run of the mill internet poster - I am talking about the professionals, most of whom have never had any compunction to lie through their teeth to get what they want.
Dave K., Dr. Siegel, everyone else:
It just keeps getting worse.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/...501/
detail.html
HOA Rule Forbids Couple To Smoke In Their Own Home Judge Upholds Homeowners' Association Order
GOLDEN, Colo. -- A judge has upheld a homeowners association's order barring a couple from smoking in the town house they own.
Colleen and Rodger Sauve, both smokers, filed a lawsuit in March after their condominium association amended its bylaws last December to prohibit smoking.
"We argued that the HOA was not being reasonable in restricting smoking in our own unit, nowhere on the premises, not in the parking lot or on our patio," Colleen Sauve said. The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building.
In a Nov. 7 ruling, Jefferson County District Judge Lily Oeffler ruled the association can keep the couple from smoking in their own home.
(snip)
Other homeowners believe, as with loud music, that the rights of a community trump the rights of individual residents. .............
##################################
Also in the article are comments along the line of Dave K.'s premise about not being able to smoke in their backyard, also as much as they would like to appeal, they don't think they can afford the legal fees to do so.
This stuff is going to start to get ugly folks, and whether they like it or not, every last bit of blame belongs squarely at the feet of the anti-smokers and the lies they have shoved down the collective throats of society.
For a long time I've wondered why the RWJF has supported the gun-grabbers and pours buckets of money into so many groups pushing for gun control. I could never see the monetary connection as is so blatant with the attacks on smokers, drinkers, and eaters. But now I see it. RWJF wants us unarmed as they march us all in lock step to their socialistic utopia.
Dr Siegel,
The antismoking campaign has always been linked to class. At almost every public meeting I've attended, including a couple where you were present, those in favor of the ban were from the affluent and educated classes, which unfortunately for smokers, are more politically active, and better able to get the ear of the news media. One reason smoking is distained is precisely because it is more common among blue collars than, say, university faculty.
Smoking bans are cynically justified to protect workers, but in bars it is often the staff who are outside in the cold and handicapped at performing their job. At the university at which I work it is the kitchen workers who smoke. I often see a black grandmother standing on the loading dock smoking in 10 degree weather while the (mostly white) students and faculty enjoy their smoker-unfriendly (often overheated) buildings.
Architects of antismoking policy are open about their goal to bring the eventual world prohibition of tobacco--the Belmont ban should surprise no one. They will do whatever necessary with those who refuse or cannot give up the habit.
Please read as an example, "Toward a comprehensive long term nicotine policy," Tobacco Control; 14:161-165.
Colin: Can someone please explain to me, in words you might use with a five year old, just why tobacco consumption increases following a ban?
Because intelligent adults do NOT take kindly to being told what to do and when someone attempts to force them to change, the rebellion in them comes out full force.
What I don’t understand is how they made the leap from an increase in tobacco sales being caused by blackmarket sales. Blackmarket sales should actually LOWER the legal sales. Or is it me who is stupid and can’t add 2+2?
Dr. Siegel: For one thing, smokers who are wealthier and can afford a large private lot will be able to go outside to smoke and not worry about being seen. So their kids won't necessarily be exposed to secondhand smoke.
It’s amazing how you honestly believe that smokers will actually believe your hazard story and suddenly change their habits and smoke outside. The proof of your exaggeration is in front of them (their healthy children). Granted, some silly fool will not believe his own personal experience with his child, but most are not that blind.
Fiddler: municipalities that ban smoking should not ever receive a dime from tobacco tax revenues
I absolutely agree with that. IF my smoking is banned, you can’t have my money either. Sorry, not as long as I have ANY control of choice left. AND I’ve already started doing just that as I’m switching to making my own and am looking into possibly growing my own also. I simply refuse to pay to harassed, insulted and discriminated against.
Harry: Have I got this right? Unless you live in a detached single-family house, smokers will not be able to smoke ANYWHERE in the city of Belmont?
That is exactly what they are saying. Can you imagine having paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a condo, and then finding yourself unable to smoke at all? I’d be suing. And then pushing to ban my neighbors disgusting cooking odors.
I looked up the City of Belmont web page. Look under "About Belmont" and then "City Facts."
http://www.belmont.gov/index.asp
This is an exclusive place. There's no doubt in my mind that people want to get rid of the renters in their city. They need to pass laws to make it difficult for renters to stay. The smoking ban gives them a good start (a "slippery slope," perhaps?). This isn't about smoking...any health organization who would support a law of this kind has lost their sense of ethics completely.
Well Doc,
Do you sense a change in tone from what is generally an intelligent, well educated (me excepted)group of people on this site.
People have had enough and if parity and mutual respect is not restored soon I predict anarchy, direct action and yes, even violence in the near future.
Congratulations to all in TC.
GreatScot
Dr Siegel writes:
Smoking outdoors is only a public health threat when: (1) the level of exposure is substantial; and (2) nonsmokers cannot easily avoid the exposure.
No. smoking outdoors is NEVER a public health threat ... period.
I posted this on yesterday's thread, just in case anyone missed it:
http://
www.communitymediacenter....t_ondemand.html
Audio of their council meetings, I listened to Oct 24th last night - will start Nov 14th tonight.
In the Oct 24th meeting, the woman who runs the Bonnie Brae complex, where the one complaint came in, stated that the complaintant asked to move for 'noise' reasons and not being harmed by smelling smoke.
His daughter, who took up his case, said it was because of smoke. She is a very good speaker, and I wonder her connection in TC? - She's very suspect.
Zillow's Belmont Map:
http://www.zillow.com/search/Sea...+ca&
mode=browse
As close as these houses are on top of each other, how on earth can anyone smoke outside on their property and not be seen? Or BBQ or sit around those fire pits everyone's selling nowadays?
As close as these houses are on top of each other, how on earth can anyone smoke outside on their property and not be seen? Or BBQ or sit around those fire pits everyone's selling nowadays?
Gilster,
They can't UNLESS they build 20 foot walls around their property. That or just kill off their neighbors.....hehehehehe
It can no longer be argued that these measures are to protect non-smokers.
Being the eternal optimist I believe this situation will be resolved.
(thi is a ouija board - excellent)
west
----
I think Dave K makes an excellent point about this law essentially banning smoking among those who live in attached housing, or anything other than a detached single-family dwelling. And if you combine this with Julie's comment about the nature of the population in Belmont, it is clear that this is completely a class issue.
Essentially, this law would ensure that poor or lower middle-class smokers do not move into Belmont. They could not afford to live in detached single-family homes, and they couldn't smoke in anything else, so basically they have no choice. Belmont is not a place where they can live. The only ones who will eventually be left in Belmont are nonsmokers and upper middle-class and wealthy smokers.
Thanks Dave K and Julie for these insights. Putting them together I think exposes what's really going on in Belmont.
Homes for sale 'right now' in Belmont, CA that have fireplaces.
59 single detatched homes
3 townhouses/condos
2 rentals
Will the council, by law, force homebuyers to rip out their fireplaces?
This will be next. And if it's not - They are Hypocrites.
Dr Siegel, do you have a fireplace in your house? Do you enjoy sitting around a fire?
http://burningissues.org/
Mike wrote:
"I don't think anti-smoking groups and advocates can sit idly by and watch something like this happen. I think we should be actively opposing this legislation, and by no means should we be supporting it."
Mike is free to oppose the smokefree ordinance proposal in Belmont, and Mike also is free to encourage other smokefree advocates to oppose Belmont's ordinance.
But I suggest that Mike should respect the autonomy of other smokefree advocates to establish their own policy positions.
Municipalities have enacted many ordinances that limit activities in public (including many activities that do not constitute a public health threat).
Just try walking down a public sidewalk or driving a car with an opened can of beer. Or try pissing on a public street, alley way, sidewalk or park. Or try walking down a public sidwalk (or even sitting in your own backyard) naked.
Some municipalities prohibit women from wearing thongs in public and some municipalities require men to wear shirts in public.
Excessive noise ordinances even pertain to single family homes. And most states prohibit possessing marijuana, cocaine, and other substances, including in single family homes.
In sharp contrast to this posting by Mike denouncing Belmont's proposed smokefree ordinance, two days ago Mike posted the following comment on the thread regarding the Des Moines smokefree parking garage proposal.
How ironic.
"But if one is concerned about completely eliminating the population's exposure to secondhand smoke, then I think the way to do that is with a complete smoking ban everywhere, indoors and out, except in a single-family, private residence that is not used as a workplace or child care facility.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 11.15.06 - 2:25 pm | #"
Bill Godshall once again proves he is an elitist snob who wishes to see those he deems beneath him to be dsicriminated against and legislated against.
Hate to say it Mr. Godshall, but you wouldn't last more than 10 minutes spouting your crapola in my neck of the woods. As a professional I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt with 10 minutes, the average has been on the order of 3-4 minutes. 6 for women, because the men around here do still believe in chivalry.
Dr. Siegel would last substantially longer, primarily because he is not an elitist snob, nor insulting in his demeanor. But above all the reason he would last longer is he is intelligent enough to realize folks around here can smell excrement miles away and would refrain from attempting to fork any out.
You might want to take a few lessons from him.
In sharp contrast to this posting by Mike denouncing Belmont's proposed smokefree ordinance, two days ago Mike posted the following comment on the thread regarding the Des Moines smokefree parking garage proposal.
How ironic.
"But if one is concerned about completely eliminating the population's exposure to secondhand smoke, then I think the way to do that is with a complete smoking ban everywhere, indoors and out, except in a single-family, private residence that is not used as a workplace or child care facility."
"Bill in context, Michaels post was not contradictory as you propose. Perhaps you could take a second look.
BTW from the last thread perhaps a few questions for both Bill and Michael; Just so we all understand the personal concerns.
Bill wrote;
"Since levels of tobacco smoke pollution are far greater in cars than in nearly all workplaces, and since tobacco smoke pollution poses greater disease risks for children than for most adults, legislation to protect children in cars from tobacco smoke pollution is long overdue."
Bill;
Your statements are confusing in what you stated, we see a few important contradictions in your terminology.
Are you speaking in terms of windows open or closed?
Opening a window just a crack with positive presure created by the heater fan creates an airflow in respect to total volume of air in the vehicle quite impressive in comparison top notch building ventilation standards in biology labs.
Opening the window all the way provides enough air to suit even Repaces tornado factor in respect to approximately 3 Cubic meters of total air in the vehicle. Perhaps 20 times the flow in the most ventilated of workspaces. Have you some research handy to substantiate primarily the far greater pollution level?
Secondly the statement substantiating a greater disease risk of children, This would of course support safe or safer levels actually exist.
Do you agree ETS is hazardous in a linear dose response relationship supporting the CDC? Alternately are you of the non linear mindset promoted in the World Health Organization supporting the no safe level exists?
"My greatest concern is that our goal is simply to ban smoking everywhere."
That seems like a good goal to me. I think the anti-smoking movement has to watch for unintended consequences and back off if there true problems develop. But none of the concerns describe on this blog strike me as good reasons to not to go forward.
I hope they pass it, I hope it is successful and I hope it spreads.
The cancer unleashed on society by TC and all of its advocates is starting to spread it's incidious path and will reach out to start it's infection across the US.I was lulled into a state of acquiescence believing that the majority of mental patients were safely locked away from the rest of society.However the rabids have managed to create a drug even more pleasant and addictive than the nicotine they so abhor,it's called power and leads to a psychosis whereby all those infected suddenly believe that they have the answer to help the population rid itself of all ills.These unfortunates fail to realise that they are strongly under the influence of a mind bending energy that replaces logic with a damaging mental state that allows for further deranged mental proccessing.You helped the beast to live and breathe Dr Siegel,it no longer needs genuine good intentions to survive,it is now the master and threatens to subsume those who helped create it.Is this truly the evolution of a society that you wished to create those 20 years ago ?
Tin pot republics like Belmont should take a lesson from Boca Ratan Florida. The children of this exclusive community felt it below their station to work at Mac D's although they all enjoyed eating there, funny no Fau gra in Mac D's.
The problem was it was far enough away from Miami it was impossible to get good help. They had to bus the employees in and pay them comesurate pay increases.
If I were in the couple's position seeking to get even, with an obviously difficult neighbor, I would promote the sale of the property to a federal penetentary halfway house, or a drug rehab centre. Strictly as a charitable gesture; selling it directly and avoiding the real estate fees could lower the price to a point it was a good investment to the purchaser.
Prior to leaving without warning of what was happening I would give the old neighbor a big hug good bye, and remark you will be very pleased to hear the new owners are non smokers.
Carl is it because you do not care for the smell of tobacco ? or is it the visual angle,you do not like to see people smoking ? I just cannot get to grips with a mentality that preaches a smoking ban but will happily inhale the combustion products of motor vehicles,or the myrriad of other smells that eminate from a city or urban connurbation.To deliberately incite a proprtion of the population by stating i wish that smoking be banned here,there and everywhere,but without quantifying or qualifying why ,shows nothing more than contempt for a group of people you don't even know,and shows a prejudice that society should be seeking to stamp out.Should i suggest that all Carls should have their names spelt Karl,with the obvious connotation,since i think one,any one,is a loon ? America is ready to deny a portion of it's inhabitants an equal right in society but believes it has the right to interfere in other countries politics ? Consider the fuller picture before you jump in with both feet.
Actually I second Karl's motion.
Lets quit with the pandering to hypocracies. Politicians need to grow the Kahunas to impose a total prohibition. Lets throw in alcohol and candy bars into the same Bill to reduce the fat pandemic.
TC's greatest nightmare, no more cashflow overnight. Most of them would have no choice but to seek employment among the rest of us.
Lets see where that leads. LOL
si, smoking kills people. When a company makes a product that kills someone in your family, or someone you know there is a certain anger that you don't seem to be able to come to grips with.
I'm not out here because I dislike the smell of smoke, or because I don't like smokers, or because I want to "punish smokers" - please. I am here because I want to reduce the overall use of tobacco. If it is necessary to inconvenience some addicted or non-addicted adults in the mean time it is more than worth it if it can keep a new generation of smokers from starting smoking.
I hope they pass it, I hope it is successful and I hope it spreads.
Be careful what you ask for, for you will get more than you bargained for.
If you really believe it will stop with smoking you are truly delusional.
Carl;
If you are sincere don't you agree your efforts would be much more effective in rallying against the manufacturers, than punishing your neighbors?
Look at a cigarette package where are the ingredients? If the manufacturers actually listed them, consumers would be able to understand what they were using. The more dangerous toxins could be avoided and Manufactutrers would eventually fade from sight as product demand deteriorated.
The abuse thy neighbor angle as it was designed to do, created opposition and paralleled with that contempt; the product popularity will grow once again.
Only those paid to keep nicotene markets alive, would support protecting the market while taxing the consumers.
Lynda, It's taken 2 decades to even begin to see this happen with tobacco. I just don't buy that this is truly the kind of slippery slope that you fear.
"If it is necessary to inconvenience some addicted or non-addicted adults in the mean time it is more than worth it....." -Carl
Is that so Carl?!!!
Read on you facist:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....easons-
for.html
I guess Bill didn't see the sarcasm with which I made the post on the earlier thread suggesting that advocates who wanted to reduce secondhand smoke exposure to zero in the population should propose banning all smoking except in single family homes. I was not supporting such an idea; I was merely pointing out that if you want to eliminate any possibility of anyone ever being exposed to a whiff of secondhand smoke, then you might as well simply ban smoking everywhere except in single family homes. Well sure enough, the very next day I read about Belmont. Didn't take long for that idea to catch on.
By the way Carl I've had a number of family members who were lifetime smokers and died of lung cancer.....that was their choice. And I'm not sure how to break it to you, I hope you're sitting down.....we're all going to die at some point.
Your sanctimonious & selfish rationalization does not give you the right to destroy peoples lives. The ends do not justify the means.
Marcus, If your product was valable, my guess is that people would be buying it.
There are thousands of profitable HVAC companies as well as air filtration companies all out there (think ionic breeze, honeywell, etc.)
I might suggest that instead of spending your time writing all day on this blog, that you find a way to innovate with the times and re-invigorate your business model instead of complaing about the fact that people don't seem to find much value in what you sell.
Even if one accepts the idea that it would be a sound policy to eliminate all potential exposure to secondhand smoke, this proposal is ridiculous, because it would actually make the problem worse for children of smokers. Rather than the parents smoking outside to prevent their kids from being exposed, the parents would now be forced to smoke inside, therefore greatly increasing their kids' exposure to secondhand smoke. For kids, this proposal would increase exposure, not decrease it. How can any tobacco control advocate possibly support such a concept?
"For kids, this proposal would increase exposure, not decrease it. How can any tobacco control advocate possibly support such a concept?"
If there is evidence to support this opinion I'd be interested in seeing it. I think most parents would quit before smoking in the house around their kids. Those that won't are probablt the ones already smoking around their kids.
I find it ironic that you don't think smoking should be banned in cars with children, but when a city-wide ban is cosidered, you worry about the effect it will have on kids. I am not sure how that adds up.
Nobody seems to want tobacco smoke around anywhere anymore.
"By the way Carl I've had a number of family members who were lifetime smokers and died of lung cancer.....that was their choice. And I'm not sure how to break it to you, I hope you're sitting down.....we're all going to die at some point."
I think Dr. Siegel would say it was a pediatric addiction that killed them, not an adult choice.
"How can any tobacco control advocate possibly support such a concept?"
Not that hard to imagine just examine the group's conquests to date.
It's called natural progression. In the same way risk was increased through the no safe level exists, increasing risk to smokers through deregulation. In the same action increasing the risk to non smokers as well. Giving rise to promoted concerns.
Risk to children will be deliberately increased raising the need to cure the problem, by impossing bans inside those children's homes.
With the increased risk how dificult will it be to create the epideiological studies which demonstrate the increase created?
Endangering children to empower the next round of intrusions. In a campaign to protect them.
All hail RWJF the visionaries in child protection and tasty nicotene chewing gum sales.
I have to say that I am thrilled with this intiative. Not only is the anti-smoking movement not getting weaker, through grass roots citizens of this nation are moving into new territy all over the country.
Ohio and Nevada were stunning accomplishments for a movement that at one time had almost no clout. Michigan and Maryland are right around the corner.
Dr. Siegel, pretty soon you are going to run out of adjectives to describe how shocked you are with the latest anti-smoking advancements.
Carl
Your cheering for the potential deaths of children in acomplishing your goals leaves you in a league of your own.
Have another drink and pass out, you are embarasing yourself.
Popeye the sailor and the Flintstones [who once did commercials for Winston's] are now x rated in the promotion of lunacy.
Carl blathered: I might suggest that instead of spending your time writing all day on this blog, that you find a way to blah blah blah
Boy, you really DO think it's your perogative to tell people what to do and how to live their lives. You really are a snot-nosed busybody.
(Apologies, but this from Carl just takes the cake!)
Cheering for the potential death of Children?
TNS - you really DO think it's your God given right to do as you please and pollute everyone around you.
You really are a snot-nosed ugly american.
(Apologies, but this one from TNS just takes the cake.)
"Marcus, If your product was valable, my guess is that people would be buying it"- Carl
And they were thank you very much before a bunch of santimonious pharmaceutical sellouts began to throw their money around and ignoring science......secondhand smoke a hazard? Apparently some are not willing to let the facts interfere with pharma profits.
Perhaps you believe that a substance 15-25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations is a health hazard also?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....lth-
hazard.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....profits-
to.html
"You really are a snot-nosed ugly american"
Come on Carl there is no need to express your Racist remarks. Keep it civil.
In Canada making such remarks could get you arrested.
hahahahahaha Carl is so lacking in imagination, he can't even come up with original comebacks. hahahahahaha
The joke's on you and you're too dumb to know it. Can't wait till your snot-nosed busybody buddies start in on YOUR personal pleasure.
No apologies at all this time.
Anti-smoking is a misnomer. It is a label invented for propoganda. Big Tobacco refers to pro-clean air activists as "antis" in their internal documents for a reason. But there is no need to accept the slur.
Our group is pro clean air, and anti-air pollution. As such, everyone knows that to eliminate air pollution you must find the souce and eliminate it - offering other options for the desired result. For smoking, the desired result is the nicotine high - not the smoke.
Smoke from burning leaves? - compost instead.
Smoke from charcoal barbeques? - use gas grills instead
Smoke from power plants? - save energy instead, and use the cleanest fuel - wind, solar etc.
Tobacco smoke - don't light tobacco. Period. You want nicotine, go get nicotine. But just don't strike the match or use the lighter.
The propoganda seeks to direct you to other labels "too far", "not far enough". It is all misdirection to avoid the main issue - clean air.
I am pro-clean air. No other label sticks.
Kevin wrote
"In Canada making such remarks could get you arrested."
In Scotland he would get a good old fashioned smack in the gub.
GreatScot
Why is everyone still talking about ETS and the mythical dangers to non-smokers?
This campaign of hate has nothing to do with non-smokers health, never has and never will.
At the top of TC it is power, control and money. The lower end, the footsoldier, is made up of hatefull people, ex-smokers filled with self loathing, bereaved people filled with anger and plain old sociopaths who get a kick out of spreading misery.
ETS and all the other latest claims are used by th TC leaders to maintain their poitions of power and generate more cash and used by the bottom to satisfy their needs ie punish people who smoke.
There can be no reasoning with them. There will never be compromise. This can only end in 1 of 2 ways. TC implodes or Total prohibition.
How we get to the end and what damage is caused getting ther are the only questions.
GreatScot
Carl,
I mean this from the bottom of my heart, f--k you. Everything I have seen from you makes me think you are a petty, whiny, wannabe dictator.
You are not even able to come up with decent comebacks to anything anyone has said. You implied one poster is a failed businessman and that he does nothing but post on this blog, what does that have to do with anything? First of all, he could be sitting in his office while posting during moments of boredom. Second of all, what does that have to do with any of the points he raised? Nothing.
You also called one poster an "ugly American". I don't remember that person saying anything about your nationality and you exposed yourself as the worthless thing (IMO you don't even count as a human) you are.
There were also those comments about others choosing what to do with their own bodies. How foolish of us. The idea that grown adults can decide what to do with their own bodies and minds is the basis of many freedoms and rights. Ah, but some Americans agree with that, so it must be wrong or whatever post-modern bulls--t you use to back up your beliefs.
I want you to know that I say none of this with anger. Quite frankly, you are below me. I am not afraid to say that I am better than you. I do not hold petty grudges against a plant, its users, and those who sell it. I do wish to tell others what to do with their own bodies. I am not so completely paranoid that I think a small, inconclusive increases in risk for a disease that is rare in non-smokers is something to get worked up over. There are too many real threats to waste time chasing shadows. So I will leave you to gloat over this law and slap hands with Bill Godshall (who is an evil American BTW), while we attempt to have a civil conversation.
I think most parents would quit...:Carl
I think most parents would quit Belmont.
Hey, ignore Carl. He's just in a tantrum of impotent fury; didn't even have the power to make his father quit smoking, so now he dreams of pushing the whole planet around.
In fact, come to think of it, his father smoked... and little Carl is --wonder of wonders-- still here! Makes you wonder where those ETS deaths are when you need them. Carl, please tell us the secret of your survival. Did you spend your entire childhood hiding under the bed? Are you hiding there now? Wanna come out and fight?
Ya know, kid, no matter what happens, you lose. Because the problem, you'll pretty soon discover, isn't smoke, it's somewhere in your head and you can try to ban every bit of smoking in the world, and your head will be your head will be your head will be your head. Physician, heal thyself.
Bill/Carl
I can understand supporting total smoking bans.
I can understand supporting public smoking bans.
I can not understand supporting a measure that allows only the rich to smoke.
Is the 'American Dream' to aspire to a Detached House so you can smoke?
west
----
Carl - Tylenol kills people. Even in therapeutic doses. 3 people I knew and loved are dead. Now this is a little too close to home and you won't find acetaminophen in my home. You also won't find me jumping up and down demanding that the drug be banned and taken away from the millions who benefit from using it. It's a risk/benefit assessment people need to choose for themselves.
What people like you fail to acknowledge is that people enjoy smoking and derive benefits from it's use. You can't accept the fact that fully informed adults make a choice that you personally do not approve of or understand, so you wish to force your choice onto others.
That's what I find so scary. The "medicrats" are finding more and more tactics to impose their will on free people because they can't win them over on the strength of their arguments.
So now we await the moment when a city prohibits smoking everywhere, even inside detached homes. That can't be far away.
I also wait with great interest when the next fallen angel will dump down from the anti smoking sky. That can't be far away either.
Marcus, a good business man will shift strategy, make an effective case that, in fact the smoke eaters do work, guarentee the equipment makes the air safe, etc, etc. If you can't make the case your good are worth what you charge, maybe your stuff isn't as good as you think it is. Again, it would seem to me that you'd want to spend your time working on your business model rather than blogging every day.
Carl
Could you address the issue of supporting a ban based on ones ability to purchase a detached house?
thank you
west
----
I would think Marcus would be the supreme of all morons to listen to some loser on a blog tell him how to run his business. Which makes you appear as nosy busybody who thinks he knows it all....but then again we kind of saw that already...however you're not helping change our minds. I don't know why you guys respond to Bill and Carl, they are lemmings. And last I checked, none of us tried to actually reason with an animal, that's just silly. At least the Doc thought through his decisions and made them based on his own information.
Zeddicus Zu'l Zorander: "People are stupid - they will believe anything, on the basis that they want to believe that it is true, or afraid that it might be true, or because they believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove it true.
"The greatest harm can result from the best intentions." Sometimes, doing what one thinks is right can cause more harm than good. Violation of this rule can cause anything from discomfort, to disaster, to death.
"Passion rules reason, for better or for worse." Letting your emotions control your reason may cause trouble for yourself and those around you
"Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie." People will lie to deceive you from what they truly mean to do. Watching the actions they take will prove their true intentions
"Misery, Iniquity, and utter destruction lurk in the shadows ouside [reason's'] full light, where half-truths snare the faithful disciples, the deeply feeling believers, the selfless followers. Faith and feelings are the warm marrow of evil. Unlike reason, faith and feelings provide no boundary to limit any delusions, any whim. They are a virulent poison, giving the numbing illusion of moral sanction to every depravity ever hatched...", "Reason is the very substance of truth itself.", "Faith and feelings are the darkness to reason's light" "The rule is the hub upon which all rules turn. It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest. Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised."
And here's one for Doc here personally:
"Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self." People who for whatever reason don't want to see the truth can be acutely hostile to it and shrill in their denunciation of it. They frequently turn their venomous antagonism on whoever dares to point out that truth ... To those seeking the truth, its a matter of simple, rational, self interest to always keep reality in view. Truth is rooted in reality, after all, not the imagaination."
I think west's question is one which deserves serious consideration. Are there not troubling implications of a policy that determines one's right to smoke or not to smoke based upon one's wealth? This policy essentially gives the wealthy the right to smoke, but takes that right completely away from those who are less well off. These class issues are very disturbing to me. Apparently, they pose no trouble to the City Councilmembers in Belmont and the anti-smoking groups which are supporting this proposal. It's not clear to me whether these groups have simply failed to consider these class issues, or whether the class issues are indeed driving some of the support for the proposal.
"Marcus, a good business man will shift strategy, make an effective case that, in fact the smoke eaters do work" -Carl
Gee Carl.....I had not thought about that.....thanks.
Of course I changed my business strategy, now I sell industrial air filtration equipment to eliminate welding smoke in the factories. Problem is changing business strategies and direction takes time....and during that time I lost my new home, cars, life savings etc. but don't worry about me, as long as your selfish interests are met, that's all that matters.
You may or may not know, but welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke......and yet I can't help but notice that sanctimonious blowhards such as yourself aren't calling for a ban on welding smoke .........hypocrites.
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....estaurants.html
By the way Smokeeter systems do solve the air quality issues regarding secondhand smoke an environmental health department proved it:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....egislation.html
The fact is that solving air quality and protecting the health of employees is not the agenda of the pro-smoking ban movement. OSHA regulations already protect employees from hazards of secondhand smoke, and 3 separate AQ test results show levels are 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA permissible exposure levels (PEL).
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....lth-
hazard.html
Rather the agenda of the pro-smoking ban movement is to fulfill their promise to the pharmaceutical nicotine interests whose funding trough they feed at:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....profits-
to.html
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...iaid=143&
page=2
But thanks for your business advice Carl.......I think the best business startegy.....would be for me to pander to pharmaceutical nicotine interests such as RWJF like some "ventilation experts" do......James repace comes to mind $300,000.00 from RWJF to be exact:
http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/new...?id=10211&
gsa=1
"Carl - Tylenol kills people. Even in therapeutic doses"
So does TC!!!
The heart risk of Nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] is much higher than the risk of ETS even in the most extreme of exaggerations. The heart risk the risk to those with breathing disorders as well as Cancer risk of ETS is predicated primarily on those with substantial pre-existing risk already known. NRT causes heart and Internal organ damage in many with no pre-existing condition.
We have to wonder where advocates get the confidence in suggesting NRT is a viable alternative to smoking. Knowing the sales of these products are only justified in the companies own research which is known to be controlled and manipulated. Consistent studies show the products are largely ineffective in the purpose they claim to be designed for. As many as 40% of nicorette current users, are addicted to the cure. What would common sense tell you the most effective use of NRT actually is.
We hear about the primary fear of smoking based in statistical timeline effect, 30 years down the road, yet no one knows what the effects of NRT will be 30 years from today.
Where is the proof we are not replacing smoking with something much more deadly having genetic repercussions producing much larger issues? In the mean time popularity of “legal nicotine” use is on the upswing.
As it stands children have not been able to purchase cigarettes over the counter legally since the 60s yet any 10 year old child can buy Nicorette gum in exciting new flavors over the counter. Without complaint, in many cases with praise from adults who have no idea if that child is making that purchase to satisfying an addiction apparently or do they care.
What NRT represents is a moral choice, in deciding what addictive products are within social norms. Many with similar Carl like mentalities support such folly to the point they realize their own children started smoking to satisfy a need for nicotine created by their own advocacy. The Carl mentality is what smokers view as a typical TC campaign member, despite the fact there are much more dangerous characters leeching off the TC crusade as well.
Cigarettes are only as dangerous as we allow them to be. There is no shortage of physical proof we can reduce Mortality and morbidity by regulating the product as a primary initiative. Moral judgments in the behavior of others in this case should be a secondary issue.
That is of course unless your goals are derived of more self serving principles.
Most members of TC fail the credibility test, in a crusade to reduce the effects of smoking, when they advocate against regulation of the product which could very quickly reduce the preventable death statements by 90% seeking personal regulations first, is telling of what true ambitions are actually derivative of majority TC support.
Knowing the risk and/or effects of smoking can be so easily reduced in such significant numbers it is impossible to ignore.
Does TC openly and brazenly support a cause which in a legal sense should be identified as reckless indifference causing death. What is known by physical testing in addition to countless testaments as to the effects of ETS and smoking demanding global concern. This describes a group who claim a huge danger exists while ignoring the obvious solution to the majority of that risk.
How would we characterize such individuals? In the media they are painted as saviors and given rewards for their actions. Yet the same moral authorities condemn the actions responsible for Rwanda and the death camps in Germany.
Resulting, if we can believe the numbers of TC, in similar mortality figures more than 90% being moralized and approved for the sake of the movement alone.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
Well Michael, you can promote an immoral political philosophy, as you have done all your life, or you can change your career. You can't do both and remain a righteous person.
Interesting post Kevin, particularly your comments upon morals and morality.
First off, I don't see where defining and preaching morals are the purvey of the anti-smoker movement to begin with . Secondly it is rather farcical that a group consisting of so very many who lack any morals whatsoever in the pursuit of their goals have the ego to actually believe they are morally superior to others.
If my entire career was based upon fear mongering, promoting discrimination and the use of blatant lies, I would consider myself to be morally bereft to say the least. That the anti-smokers are blind to this reality just further adds to the lack of morals the majority of them have.
Using the anti-smoker movement for the basis of a sermon on the dangers of amorality sounds like a splendid idea. I don't seek information on smoking from my pastor, I don't expect sermons on morality from the amoral members of the anti-smoker movement.
Dr Siegel wrote
west's question is one which deserves serious consideration. Are there not troubling implications of a policy that determines one's right to smoke or not to smoke based upon one's wealth?
Thank you Dr Siegel. It is all very well giving business advice and in other ways deflecting the issue, but a straight answer to a straight question on an issue directly related to the topic of Tobacco control would be appreciated.
west
----
Well Carl (and Michael)
NO ONE has the right to try to reduce smoking by force. Anyone who even considers it remotely acceptable in a free society is a totalitarian, and he should look inside himself to understand the horrors of the twentieth century.
An afterthought...
In light of new rules governing naturopathic products as medicines, and regulation resulting in reclassifications requiring adherence to the same regulatory process. Cigarette manufacturers could quickly deflect all criticism on slanderous grounds by simply reclassifying as NRT manufacturers did their products as medicines. The courts would have their hands full and would eventually have to yield there is no substantial difference. If such an event were successful they would be free to manipulate as drug manufacturers do the inadequacies of clinical trials to ensure their products remain on the shelf indefinitely.
The same arguments which are used to deflate research as Tobacco financed would no longer be credible as in clinical trials this is the norm, allowing many dangerous drugs to remain killing their users sometimes for decades before anyone takes steps to remove them from use.
TC is setting the stage currently in ignoring the regulations of consumer products they claim to be dangerous. Leaving the manufacturers open to make any moves they wish, without the arguments later, describing a move to medicine as a dodge to avoid product regulation which currently does not exist.
Mike wrote:
"For kids, this proposal would increase exposure, not decrease it. How can any tobacco control advocate possibly support such a concept?"
That's the same thing the PA Tavern Association representative claimed (at a PA House hearing in September) would occur if all bars in PA were required to be smokefree.
Interestingly, that same PA Tavern Association spokesman also invoked Mike Siegel's name and research (and said that he had talked to Mike the day before the hearing) when testifying that tobacco smoke pollution isn't a health hazard.
Interestingly, that same PA Tavern Association spokesman also invoked Mike Siegel's name and research (and said that he had talked to Mike the day before the hearing) when testifying that tobacco smoke pollution isn't a health hazard.
And your point Bill? Because I'm obviously missing it here.
Lets clarify your statement here Bill;
are you suggesting the spokesperson was quoting Mike or are you more realistically simply taking what was said out of context to suit your own needs.
I can state unequivocally although Mike's personal ethics are on track I have never seen him suggest ETS was not a health hazard.
I would more closely associate that ETS is not dangerous, to your own submissions, which do not hold in consistency or credibility.
You have still failed to define your position. Is ETS effect a linear or non linear association? You consistently make statements supporting both.
Sorry Bill, that's just the way you present. I believe many others here would tend to agree.
Lynda F, maybe the point is to raise another issue to deflect attention from the the 'We support only rich people smoking' issue.
Maybe
west
----
Just doing what you customarily do when it suits,change approach.No answer though Bill,why ever not ?
The discussion of moral crusade as oppossed to "in the public's best interest" can be proven at the core of Public Health The World Health Organization and it's dictated realities found here;
http://www.who.int/civilsociety/en/
"Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity."
An NGO is the definition given to Industry financed Lobby groups and industry strategists involved in mutually beneficial projects
"The objectives of WHO's relations with NGOs are to promote the policies, strategies and activities of WHO and, where appropriate, to collaborate with NGOs in jointly agreed activities to implement them. WHO may also seek to harmonize intersectoral interests among various sectoral bodies concerned in a country, regional or global setting."
Now take a look at the coercive activities in calls for the creation of facts and complimentary condoned interpretation to promote action,
knowing specific research does not yet exist, yet announcing it will be used when it does, to promote HIA initiatives
http://www.who.int/topics/research/en/
"MeSH scope note: Critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation, ""having for its aim the discovery of new facts"" ""and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories, or laws in the light of newly discovered facts"", or the practical application of such new or revised conclusions, theories, or laws. (Webster, 3d ed)"
Public Health is given prominence in the distortion of who they really are in fact when you take away the name and think of them as a political movement, they would be known to be indicative of the very worst in respecting ethical or moral concerns.
The chances a political party which supports the values demonstrated would have little chance of ever being elected in a stable democracy.
They never required public support just the support of small UN agencies which are much easier to dominate given the right connections and adequate resources.
Dear Carl,
About 15 years ago, I was "born again". I began going to church, studying the bible, immersing myself in the "Christian Community" and adhering to the doctrine of the church leaders and members. Lemme tell ya, I was insufferable. Everyone was going to hell for eternity, except me, of course, and my good buddies at the church who had "seen the light of the gospels".. But as the years flew by & I grew up a little, the words of Christ really started to penetrate me. He had great love and tolerance for sinners, but none reserved for those he deemed the "hypocrites" of this world. Well, I did not want to be on Jesus' bad side, you know, so I started taking inventory. And guess what? I learned that simply by judging my brothers and sisters, I was guilty of hypocrisy. Every time I've screwed up in my life, there's been a reason.. If my sins/mistakes can be put into context, why not the rest of the world? Carl, if you drive a car thus polluting MY environment, MY air, then you are a hypocrite when you condemn me for doing the same because I smoke. I'm not suggesting we all throw up our hands and allow the atrocities of this world to continue unchallenged, but we had better be compassionate, reasonable, and respectful of the opposing side when doing so. A good example is my stance on abortion. I am fervently pro-life, and I wholeheartedly disagree with the comparisons made here on this blog between the right to choose to smoke, and the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. One carries implied/possible risks to the health of the smoker and those exposed to SHS, while the other act guarantees the death of a human fetus. However, just because I feel this way does not mean that I condemn those who have had abortions or support a woman's right to choose to do so. I understand that most "pro-choice" individuals are coming from a place of love and concern for women. Even you, Carl, who appear to be driven by a personal tragedy, how could I despise you for taking up a cause that might prevent someone from suffering the same grief you've endured? What I take issue with, is your complete lack of compassion and tolerance for those who disagree with you. You seem to despise the very people you purport to want to save. Reminds me of the hypocrites back in the church. Newsflash, Carl: No one here has hurt anyone that you loved and cared about. Neither do we take pleasure in the adverse health effects anyone has suffered while smoking, or riding in a car, or eating rare beef for that matter. The difference between you and I, is that I will not hate and/or condemn someone because I believe they have made a mistake. Even if that mistake resulted in someone's misfortune or demise. I know the second I point my finger at one person, a dozen fingers will be pointed at me. That is why you cannot sufficiently argue your points of view in this forum. Your hypocrisy is staggering, Carl. I say it's time for you (and Bill) to take your own inventory, acknowledge that you are a FALLIBLE human being and in no position to pass judgement on anyone-not here, not anywhere. Then, try to form your arguments from a humbled position and I promise you will a see change in our reception (yup, even from hard-core smokers like me) to your points of view. Take care, Carl. And I really am sorry for your loss. I mean that. Chin up, brother.
Love,
Dawn
The entirety of TC logic encompasses it's own ignorance, in understanding the one point which drasticaly divides and exposses them.
Promotions of their ad agenies to date are diametrically oppossed. Expossing them as supporters of not legitamate science, but of what ever works
The very question Bill and all TC leadership will always refuse to answer, in fear of dividing the loyalty of the troops.
The hotbed of discussion at the WHO is to decide what policy will be adapted in suport of their new world cult activities.
Is ETS effect a linear or non linear association?
A simple question, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"then the public is going to come to perceive anti-smoking advocates as fanatics whose goal is simply to ban smoking everywhere. This could well undermine our ability to promote smoking bans that really would protect the public's health, such as those which eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in workplace where people spend 40 or more hours per week, as opposed to the few seconds that they may spend breathing in smoke while walking down a street or through a parking lot."
____________________________________
I love it! This is absolutely beautiful. Thank God they are not listening to you Doc!!!
I always wondered why conservative networks (or I should say Network, singular) like FOX News never exposed these TC folks as charlatans. Now I get it. They were just waiting for them to overstep their bounds like they knew fascists inevitably do, before they pounce.
Brit Hume had a segment on this on "Special Report with Brit Hume" yesterday. He interviewed Audrey Silk. The closing comment was "Belmont is close to San Francisco. Is this the San Francisco values that Nancy Pelosi is all about?"
Dr. Siegel, please stop talking. They might eventually listen to you and eventually succeed. I beg you, just let them blow it.
PS.....................
Bill Godshall "Send you a plague of dead cattle" wrote:
"Some municipalities prohibit women from wearing thongs in public and some municipalities require men to wear shirts in public."
You're right for a change Bill. That municipality is called Kandahar, Afghanistan circa 2001 while it was under Taliban control.
I hear the Taliban are looking for a few good Americans like "Jihad Johnny" Walker Lindh. They would love you.
Annelise Connell professes to be a clean air advocate, then proclaims "Smoke from charcoal barbeques? - use gas grills instead".
A real clean air advocate would know that cooking on a gas grills emit many of the same toxic compounds as burning tobacco. Further, she accepts reduced risks in the case of grills, however where does she stand on ventilation? Zero tolerance.
I'd say she is more concerned with controlling others tobacco habit, then she cares about clean air. Hence a more appropriate label is deserved.
"I guess Bill didn't see the sarcasm with which I made the post on the earlier thread suggesting that advocates who wanted to reduce secondhand smoke exposure to zero in the population should propose banning all smoking except in single family homes. I was not supporting such an idea ..."
Dr. Siegel, we've known for a long time now that Godshall doesn't know how to read. For one thing, the guy is entirely lacking in nuance. And that goes to the soul of his beliefs as well. How can you have any judgement when your brain lacks breath and subtlety? Sincerity (we can give him that, I suppose) is simply a dunce when judgement is lacking.
Sincerity (we can give him that, I suppose) is simply a dunce when judgement is lacking.
Yes indeed we can give him that: He's sincerely clueless.
Walt wrote:
I'd say she is more concerned with controlling others tobacco habit, then she cares about clean air.
_________________________________
Walt, you are not a "rank amateur", you know what is going on. Of course reducing tobacco usage is what this is all about. You've read the 1993 ASSIST study.
If SHS cured leukemia, frostbite, male pattern baldness and yeast infections, in addition to smelling like roses...these social engineers would find some other means to promote their propaganda. TC may be full of control freaks, but they're not stupid, they don't believe this ETS nonsense themselves. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.
I guarantee that if there were absolute public smoke free laws in every state...but the smoking rate went up to 50%, these busybodies would be furious. With a capital F.
MEMO TO TC: We're onto you.
"The concern is for public drunkenness, which is a potential threat to the public's safety.
Salt Lk city just banned outdoor smoking in public parks. Probably got sick of picking up the butts."
Why not ban littering? Would get rid of all the other litter as well, wouldn't it.
"The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building."
Interesting! Buildings of such bad quality should be banned. They surely let other nuisance pass from apartment to apartment, odors from toilets, kitchens, ...
"Just try walking down a public sidewalk or driving a car with an opened can of beer. Or try pissing on a public street, alley way, sidewalk or park. Or try walking down a public sidwalk (or even sitting in your own backyard) naked. - Bill"
Bil obviously seems to have a problem with nakedness. Is it health hazard? 50% of the total world population can see what 50% of the total world population looks like naked, by just stepping out of the shower and getting in front of the mirror. Does it come as a shock to you, Bill?
A non-smoker's dream?
http://www.smokersfriends.com/ht...m/htm/
video.htm
Dr Siegel,
I believe the much of the motivations involves class discrimination, and you are not too far off the money on that one. Marijuana laws came about to be as a means of telling Mexicans and other minorities they weren't welcome. By effectively eliminating any place the lower class can smoke, an activity which is disproportionately done by that minority, they are effectively telling the lower classes they are not welcome, and they have the power to control them.
It's quite interesting that Godshall cites his list of "public nesciences" which he acknowledges don't constitute a public health threat, however ignores the fact that the NGO's under the name of public health are endorsing these as if it were a threat to public health, when he chastises you for failing to remain silent about such issues.
He equates outdoor public smoking as "pissing" on a public street. However dogs and cats do this quite frequently, without being seen as a great public health threat, or an imposition on our keen sense of morality.
Having frequented the beaches of Nice and the Cote d'Azur, I have to wonder if the french equivalent of the ALA would be duly criticized, if they endorsed legislation banning topless sunbathing as a public health threat, or more appropriately crimes against their vision of morality. The ALA, the moral police?
Marijuana use was promoted as a menace to public health and safety, and eventually earned a Class "A" Narcotic rating, while it was a minority drug. Now that middle class kids are frequently using it, do the calls come out to decriminalize it. Prohibition is all about class "control".
I have to agree, Godshall should feel right at home with the Taliban.
In more simplistic terms even Bill can understand.
Linear effect is an effect as a result of exposure at a certain level as outlined in NOISH guidelines.
Environmental testing is dependant on known safe levels. It is known virtually any substance can be demonstrated to cause harm including many we consider inert or harmless. Poison is in the dose rings entirely true in this respect. We protect the safety of the public in assesing at what level substances are known to cause harm, and demand certain levels of exposure are avoided. This appears to be consistent with all known toxic elements.
Non Linear effect expressed in no safe level exists, this produces a new scientific reality in which a substance can be fatal in all levels of exposure including levels beyond measurement.
As with smoking and ETS alone seen to be the phantom risk.
Risk assesment can be inflated in respect to what levels are acceptable Non Linear risk demands no exposure can be considered safe which is a really hard sell to anyone of moderate inteligence. Certainly by the assesment rules in court systems we could never accept the "proof" in these terms.
The CDC promotes for the most part Linear association. Predicated in physical observation.
The World Health Association promotes Non Linear association.Predicated in statistical calculation.
If either the CDC or the WHO are deemed more credible the other will be embarassed in the public view.
A situation which is precarious in light of the fact they depend on each other to promote credibility in current media promotions.
TC has in the past in many instances promoted both opinions which are mutually exclusive in a credible sense.
Someone who can hold with such incoherent babble are not associated with a benifit to science, or the interests of community Health and well being, rather; ill informed politicians and propogandists who's integrity is only as stable as the next poll result.
When we weigh the credibility of public health locally we need to ask the simple questions and take them for what they are.
Press for an answer in every venue and discussion.
Is ETS effect a linear or non linear association?
What or even if they answer will speak volumes. It certainly will allow your case to be demonstrated in much more precise and definitive tones.
A power they currently do not enjoy.
They grow power through fear inspired in others, yet can be defeated in expossing their own fear. That of expressing what it is they believe.
Which amounts to having very little to say in consistency terms.
That's the same thing the PA Tavern Association representative claimed (at a PA House hearing in September) would occur if all bars in PA were required to be smokefree.
Interestingly, that same PA Tavern Association spokesman also invoked Mike Siegel's name and research (and said that he had talked to Mike the day before the hearing) when testifying that tobacco smoke pollution isn't a health hazard.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 11.18.06 - 12:02 pm | #
No wonder smoking bans pass - legislators are as stupid as the proponents of them. Don't you realize Mr. Godshall, the stupidity and hypocracy of the smoker-control movement when it is shown to you in black and white? The point the Tavern representative was making is one I make on a regular basis...you can't have it both ways, try as you might it is the smoker-control freaks who are the ones being totally inconsistent. You claim it is a health hazard in private businesses, yet do not claim the same in a private residence. If it is not a health hazard in one, it can not be a health hazard in the other, most particularly when it comes to children vis-a-vis bars as opposed to private residences.
Charlatans, hypocrites, liars and worse make up the vast majority of the smoker control movement and you are right up their amongst the worst of the worst.
Bill Godshall "Send you a plague of flies and gnats" wrote:
That's the same thing the PA Tavern Association representative claimed (at a PA House hearing in September) would occur if all bars in PA were required to be smokefree.
Interestingly, that same PA Tavern Association spokesman also invoked Mike Siegel's name and research (and said that he had talked to Mike the day before the hearing) when testifying that tobacco smoke pollution isn't a health hazard.
Bill Godshall
_________________________________
There is a weapons depot warehouse of ammunition and evidence for them to use to debunk the junk science of the passive smoke fraud Bill. They don't need Dr. Siegel. You're right, as of now that is all they have on their website.
http://www.pataverns.com/toppage10.htm
marcus, JTF, benpal, if you haven't already send them everything you have:
http://www.pataverns.com/feedback.htm
If you are suggesting, Bill, that Dr. Siegel is opposed to the ban, or this is some type of sinister plot with conspiracy theories to rival the grassy knoll, then please provide the evidence.
We'd all love to see it. Innuendos and accusations without evidence don't work here among educated and informed readers. Although they might work on the general public.
In a surprise move the EU has made a pronouncement that will make it easier to purchase mail order tobacco products online and to bring the same products in and out of EU states. This will reduce the price too although the UK's nanny government will hate it along with the anti-smoking cliques who are having fits and heart attacks (up theirs).
Add this move to all the black market tobacco, which the govenment can't control, and we shall be very well served indeed. Although I am a very vey light smoker a great deal of the time I took this in GLEEFULLY as like many of the people on this blog, I can't stand totalitarians who try and force others to their point of view and I can't stand liars which I consider most of tobacco control to be based not just on reseach but also on personal experience.
The world would be a so much better place without other people who know what's good for me and who try and dress up smoking restrictions as some sort of moral crusade when in fact they are wasting massive sums of money (and,in some cases lining their own pockets) which would be better off spent on real diseases and real problems.
Carl states:
si, smoking kills people. When a company makes a product that kills someone in your family, or someone you know there is a certain anger that you don't seem to be able to come to grips with.
I'm not out here because I dislike the smell of smoke, or because I don't like smokers, or because I want to "punish smokers" - please. I am here because I want to reduce the overall use of tobacco. If it is necessary to inconvenience some addicted or non-addicted adults in the mean time it is more than worth it if it can keep a new generation of smokers from starting smoking.
Carl, Carl, Carl. My significant other dies from AIDS. Absolutely awful. It took many, many years of tears for me to come to grips with my anger. You don't see me parading around trying to ban sex. My childhood babysitter was killed in a motor vehicle accident. Every bone in her body was shattered. Quite tragic. You don't see me parading around trying to ban cars or driving. What the hell is wrong with you? May I suggest therapy so you may come to grips with your anger.
Thank you for the suggestion Eric; PA Tavern is now armed with the AQ data and Nicoderm's role in promoting smoking bans.
Let me know how that works out for you Bill.
Thank you Tobacco Control and Jack McConnell.
Last night while attending a charity fancy dress in aid of Capability Scotland, my wife was assaulted. The preceding argument with this boy was not directly smoking related although if there was not a ban it would never have happened as she would never have been outside.
This "boy" turns out is 14, yes 14 years old, what on earth is he doing at a pub at midnight you may ask. Anyway this boy headbutts my wife outside, knocking her over a patio wall with a drop of about 4 feet on to the path.
Results,
concussion, 2 black eyes, broken nose, multiple stiches in the bridge of her nose, stiches in her elbow, multiple scrapes, cuts and bruises to the rest of her body. 3 hours in casualty, 2 hours giving Police statements. 1 ruined fancy dress, 1 night to remember.
She is still in shock and cries constanly. I eventually got her to bed an hour ago. I have had to cancel a business trip to Holland.
There are no witness' (I was inside) and the Police have indicated that both will be charged with breach of the piece, eh???.
Once again thank you TC and Jack McConnell. I know, it's a price worth paying!!!
Three nurses were recently assaulted at gun point in Montreal while they were smoking off hospital property on the sidewalk. Luckily noone was hurt, they only wanted their money.
I am sure they're thankful to TC also.
Sorry to hear about your wife GreatScot :-(
Great Scot, I'm sorry to hear about your wife. Are you saying the police plan on hitting your wife with a "peace disturbance" charge too? Are they serious? I'd be looking to sue someone, not even for money just for the principle and to make a point.
Iro, Those nurses should sue hospital for NOT protecting their safety. I mean, after all, TC is saying that it is the employers responsibility to provide a safe working environment is it not? Forcing your workers off company grounds for a smoke, is NOT my idea of providing a safe working environment. They should sue to make THAT point.
Sorry to hear this, GreatScot. I wish your wife well.
Lynda,
that is exactly what I mean. My wife will also be charged. How dare she hit that boy's head with her nose.
The Police constables were very appologetic and more than a little embarrased.
The Scene of crime officers are coming tomorrow to photograph her injuries.
GreatScot
benpal and iro,
thanks for your concern and kind words. It helps restore my faith in humanity to hear that some people still care for others.
GreatScot
that is exactly what I mean. My wife will also be charged. How dare she hit that boy's head with her nose.
They can't be serious.......have they no idea how ridiculous that will look? OR is their argument going to be that if she didn't smoke she wouldn't have been out there in the first place and therefore was probably LOOKING for trouble?
Oh please keep us updated how this progresses. I am curious to see how far they push charging her, or better yet if your courts actually consider it legal even.
This is UNBELIEVABLE. And this is the crap that Bill and his ilk are proud of?
I've just found my cause I believe, until the day I die, I plan on fighting to see that all these clowns are charged and in jail for the fraud and lies they are imposing upon everyone, that they pay for the damage to the innocent. They think tobacco companies should pay for their sins? Well.........that works both ways.
I'm sat here biting my tongue to avoid saying something that could come back at me threefold..............but lordy would I love to spit out a few nasty wishes for these people.....AND all the idiots that believe and follow them.
GreatScott - I hope your wife has a speedy recovery and the police come to their senses and not pursue charging her.
For Lynda's benefit, in the UK people have been charged for defending themselves against teenagers.
What a bl**dy nightmare.
west
----
Scot, I'm really sorry to hear about your wife. And I'm very sorry the police have decided to add insult to injury. They should be more than embarassed. You're wife has already suffered a traumatic event and this is just disgusting.
Lynda, I wouldn't worry about it coming back to you threefold, if we can't be angry at the injustices of the world, what good are we? It's the anger from those injustices that precipitates change.
Hi Greatscot;
First I hope your wife will be OK and she recovers quickly.
This is a horrific example of how the values of our culture are declining at an unbelievable rate, TC although I agree are partially responsible are only endemic of a much larger problem which allowed TC and ETS to be a significant issue from the outset.
It was not that long ago and I am sure many here remember when we used to respect societal principles, as in respect for your elders and for women. A boy would never dare strike a woman let alone in such a violent attack. This boy need psychiatric examination and to be taken out of the public, for an extende period in order to re-educate his moral clock so other women he encounters in the future will not have to walk in fear.
The officers who investigated this need to be brought up on the mat and explain their actions. If nothing else you do please make this the focus of your anger. If attitudes like this do not change they will only get worse. I would suggest asking to speak with superiors, and continue to ask, who is your boss? until some one shows you some heartfelt enthusiasm toward taking these officers to task.
We have standards in what constitutes acceptable behavior and people should damn well respect them. Politicians need to get the message; convenient campaigns which make their lives easier and earn them praise, have enourmous impact in the living of ours. We elect them to lead not to follow.
LindaF says "I hope they pass it, I hope it is successful and I hope it spreads.
Be careful what you ask for, for you will get more than you bargained for.
If you really believe it will stop with smoking you are truly delusional.
Lynda F | 11.17.06 - 10:12 pm | #
So what's next? The Governator going out to his smoking tent, and lighting up, and signing a calfiornia statute into law banning smoking in all outdoor places, and indoors in attached housing? Yep, as Dr. Siegel said, it's only the poor who will suffer. Dave K
Lynda, I wouldn't worry about it coming back to you threefold, if we can't be angry at the injustices of the world, what good are we? It's the anger from those injustices that precipitates change.
Jalestra, it's not my anger I'm worried about, anger is good sometimes. It is what I want to do with that anger, like wishing some horror on all those folks, wishing them ill will is what will come back at me. So I have to really focus hard to keep the reactions on a positive side rather than a negative one. Must explain the migraine I wokd with today....hehehehehe
GreatScott - so sorry to here about what your wife went through - wishes for a speedy recovery - on all fronts.
On the Belmont case; If they do not ban the use of fireplaces [that emit smoke-derr] within the city limits - they are in fact discriminating against the smoker and not smoke. They have classified the smoker as an unwanted entity - and not the second hand smoke.
As much as the ACLU stays away from cases concerning smoking - they MUST take this city to court.
It is Smokist to ban one and not the other.
Wood smoke has the same- and more- carcinogens as cigarette smoke.
Wood smoke particulates also invade the inside of neighboring houses.
And once they will be forced to ban fireplaces, we'll start on cars and BBQ's - lots of scientific research on those too.
Question:
If their police were called to a house on a complaint and in one fireplace of the house was a roaring wood fire and in the other part of the house there was a fireplace with crumpled up cigarettes [without filters] burning in a bowl - no one smoking....
What would the citation be?
Would there be a citation?
Would it be one - or two?
Lynda F;
Cudos to you.
You have attained a level of inteligence few would not envy.
Your chanelling of that anger against the disgusting nature of TC is appropriately placed. Others here should learn to live by that example and this ETS nonsense would quickly go away.
Proving without doubt a level of inteligent thought well above world leaders and our entire scientific community as well. Leaders who take lightly our ability to understand and reject their promotions.
Many of them live in denial of what they truly support. The disgusting promotion of societal divisions embellished with hatred.
Keep up the good fight, the odds are changing. Only because our anger despite our limited number; takes it back at them threefold.
Bill and company are only effective so far in political circles because he cheats within the system, creating false impressions of public support. All feeding frenzies are short lived resulting in a reversal of fortune. Going the way of the DODO or Disco.
Many politicians are now well aware of his astro turfing their contact points. Sending numerous letters to individuals in bulk has been sucessful in the past only because they didn't realize he is not representative of their constituencies but pulls this scam across the nation and internationally when possible.
Once realized the tactic becomes a source of annoyance. After the impact of driven actions, are fully realized in community, TC and it's ilk will loose favor in those they dupped.
I have been working tirelessly with others sending the proof of Bill's deceit to every contact mentioned on his website. [Too late Bill, I already saved them all LOL]
http://smokefree.net/bg-announce...nounce/
messages
I would urge others to do the same the responses from those we send to, make it all worth the effort.
BTW here is an excellent product.If anyone wants to join in the fun. Lobby against the lobbies.
http://www.httrack.com/
All perfectly legal, a way to view a site offline by downloading the entire site to your local drive.
In case you are blocked, the program allows you to spoof around any protections which may limit your ability to view the entire site offline.
I would also like to add my sympathy to this ridiculous state of affairs GreatScot.Such a pity your wife wasn't smoking and accidently set this trainee hoodlum on fire when he headbutted her.So all smokers go outside for a communal smoke,also providing safety in numbers,and then fall foul of the law by blocking an entranceway and/or providing SHS.Bus stops and railway platforms will be the next sources of ignition points.Still with Tony Blairs strong policies on disorder ASBO's can be handed out and framed to show as certificates for those morons who are working towards a polis record.Merchant bankers,the lot of 'em !
Kevin,
It's not so much intelligence as it was a matter of my taking stock of my life and searching my soul for my answers. In realizing the force and powers of the universe and how we basically attrack all that happens to us, I've had to learn to be very conscious about my thoughts, and find more positive ways to use and direct my anger. In doing so, I've found myself with an unlimited amount of patience (though it is still tried and pushed at times) as well as understanding. I've always been able to see all sides to an argument, only now I can see it clearer and at least not dismiss the other side if I don't agree with it. It is why I can actually understand and live with reasonable restrictions, coming back to the basic "do unto others as you would have done unto you" theory. In my understanding I'm finding a strength to actually be vocal about my passions, such as this. 2 years ago, I wouldn't have been this vocal on a board such as this with so many well informed, intelligent people. While I feel somewhat ignorant many times here, I'm not afraid to say I don't know, explain it to me in simple terms. It's why I sometimes harp on certain things.
I'd like to ask you some questions in private if you wouldn't mind. I can be reached at: MsLynNYC@gmail.com.
Thanks for the Kudos, but it's nothing special, just a question of finally discovering my real self and liking me for that.
Bigotry at its best:
Philip Morris USA Asks "Please Dont Give Our Cigarette Brands a Part in Your Movie"
Why don't they simply close their manufacturing plants?
http://philipmorrisusa.com/en/
ab..._Our_Cigare.asp
I've always been able to see all sides to an argument, only now I can see it clearer and at least not dismiss the other side if I don't agree with it.-Lynda F
It is a rare thing indeed, Lynda, to be able to see both sides of the coin.
I can, (and do) frequently argue for something I dont care about, if the mood takes me. I also see and understand the other argument, but, in order to play Devil's Advocate, have argued and won many times. Sometimes I do it because someone I like is losing the argument. Sometimes I just like to champion the underdog, and, you know, turn them into Champion the Wonderdog.
This may be a blessing or a curse, but it convinces me that those at the top of the TC tree also have the ability. After all, they lie like a cheap watch, for a cause they really cant believe in, and they make more and more ludicrous statements. My guess is that they justify it all (in their heads) with the paycheck, or the publicity, or the power and control.
I've said this badly but I hope you get my point.
Philip Morris USA Asks "Please Dont Give Our Cigarette Brands a Part in Your Movie"
Why don't they simply close their manufacturing plants?
http://philipmorrisusa.com/en/ ab..._Our_Cigare.asp
Benpal;
It has always been frustrating to make others understand we are all being had here
TC and the rest of the prominent names following this sham are all partners including the Cigarette manufacturers.
Consider the source and follow the money.
All are increasing profits tremendously and the conmsumers smoking or not pick up the tab.
The manufacturers win in reduced ad budgets, lower cost of operations and now by moving their labor force to the third world. The advocates get billions in public funds and charity cash. In addition many charities get big dividends on investments such as RWJF and others as obvious examples med charities in grown need for action and the politicians with largely expanded budgets.
What does the little guy get for his buck? No new research or cures. The term to find the cures has been extended for as long as they can milk it. Substantially defrauded of every hard earned buck they floated into this sham. In a world demanding a lot more of those bucks, to substantiate more lies developed for the same purpose. Not to contribute to society but to leach off of it, using your weakness for charity toward others as a profit center.
Heahter crowe was selected for this specific reason, not because they could claim; a process exists which could determine the cause of a specific cancer, rather because they knew they could make others believe they had one.
while i can't be sure, i think i can safely assume that all of the belmont city councilors are non-smokers. it appears to me this situation is exactly like an all-white jury sitting in judgement of a black man accused of a crime. what about the rights of the minority? where is reason and fairness? where is minority representation on the city council? i am in NO way racist but as i have been saying for several years now, smokers are the new blacks.
GreatScott,
So sorry to hear about your wife.....if the roles were reversed and tobacco control activists were harmed and could somehow blame smokers this would be a multi-million dollar lawsuit......think about it.
Off topic, Kevin thank you for your earlier comment......not sure who you are or what you do for a living but I've immortalized one of your comments in a web post:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....za-
company.html
Hope that's ok. If you'd like to email me check out "View my complete profile" from my website:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/
Thanks marcus; I'm Glad you liked it.
I will email you the letter I am sending to Bill's targets but dont make it public just yet. I gurantee you will be impressed I am, and I wrote it.
LMAO
"Auto Exhaust Emissions May Be Killing Children"
http://health.dailynewscentral.c...nt/view/1488/
63
All you antis who drive cars, ride buses and trains, etc. are killing the children!!!
Lynda,
I thought I had reached a point in my life where I too searched my soul and lived life respecting myself and others. When one lives like this, one necessarily attracts positive energies....or so I thought until I got involved in this tobacco issue a couple of year ago and my principles and beliefs were shattered to pieces. I am now trying to pick up the pieces. I am desillusioned and bitter and I too have but one goal in mind and it is to totally destroy TC. Not that I completely disagree with TC. But it's only by destroying it altogether that it will be able to relive again under balanced and logical parameters.
Tomorrow our Quebec bar owners are getting the verdict on the injunction they filed against the government while waiting for the hearing on its merits. I don't even go to bars, but I have been assisting them and stood behind them every step of the way. For one and only reason: To debunk the zealots!
Tomorrow is a big day for me and all of Quebec. Let the positive energy flow our way !
Great Scot--
Tho the incident as you described it seems to have more to do with the prevailing PC code (there ARE no villians, there are only victims) than it does with TC, I do wonder if you could sue on the grounds that indeed she would'nt have been exposed to the danger of being mugged if they'd provided a safe room.
And I hope you contact the press. The only way to stop this crap is if the media makes the law look like an ass.
My deeply felt sympathies-- and raging anger.
Kevin / Walt,
You re both right, it does say more about society now.
I chased the little darling all the way to his house. I know I should have stayed by my wife to await the ambulance but, well the red mist is hard to resist.
Anyway, standing 15 yards behind his Father and sister he continued to hurl abuse and threats, including "I will stab you" and "your a dead man". He was brandishing some kind of kitchen utensil. I was explaining the extents of Alison's injuries to his father and the boy shouted "f..K your wife" no remorse no regret no fear.
A fine example of parenting, a 14 year old that will undoubtably end up in prison or worse.
It truly is a brave new world, just not one that I want to be part off.
GreatScot
End up in prison after what? Was the crime he committed against your wife not enough to suggest that there's a small problem with anti-social behavior? Do you guys not have assault and battery charges over there? That boy didn't just get into a shouting match with your wife, he hurt her quite badly. And judging from your posts, she's not like me, used to daily violence and able to dish it out in equal measure. Not to mention the attack was completely unwarranted. So far it seems you are saying the police is holding him responsible for disturbing the peace and your wife as well, but nothing else. No juvie hall for the delinquents?
This warrants criminal charges and screw why she was out there, I'd take that to the media. An unwarranted attack which severely injured and traumatized your wife, and not only are they charging her as if she asked for this, but also seem to be slow on the criminal charges. Possibly you may not have included the criminal charges, possibly you all may accept without saying it that this idiot is going to be charged, however in today's world I have to ask, because it's just as likely he's not, especially if they are calling it disturbing the peace.
And no, if there was an arguement, then it does NOT warrant this type of extreme anti-social behavior. If you could beat up everyone you disagreed with the anti's would have a field day with smokers.
The ultimate hypocrisy of our fine socialist authority comes full circle. With the decision recently of two Canadian college professors given the right to smoke pot in a separately ventilated area on campus to alleviate pain.
This was discussed on a political forum yesterday and I have no links to the story which was not well publicized apparently.
One would have to wonder why an item with such controversial interest seems to have slipped through the watchful eye of media watchdogs entirely.
TC arguments all boil down now to what one prefers to smoke, as opposed to what one has been smoking.
The TC moral crusade continues into the idiocy of Fascist glorification.
Undue Influence deflated the most bold of TC arguments. Arguments relying solely on the appearance of precision in calculation and interpretation yet so imprecise in advocacy public dissertations. Not a lot of confidence protection is sought above the value of use for an other agenda.
A definition we should be intimately familiar with, in addition to the definition of coercion also linked in this definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...due%
20influence
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: undue influence
Function: noun
: improper influence that deprives a person of freedom of choice or substitutes another's choice or desire for the person's own —compare COERCION, DURESS, NECESSITY
NOTE: It is a doctrine of equity that a contract, deed, donation, or testamentary disposition can be set aside if the court finds that someone has exercised undue influence over the maker at the time that the contract, conveyance, or will was made. To establish a prima facie case it is usually necessary to show a susceptibility to undue influence (as from mental impairment), the opportunity and disposition on someone's part to exercise such influence, and that the transaction would not have been made except for the undue influence.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Found it
http://www.shinesforall.com/
arch...essors_win.html
Bill and company need to stuff this in their pipes and smoke it.
The University of Toronto no less the hotbed of Health Canada moral direction in anti smoker advocacy
It should be noted in future defense of smoking ban criminal charges.
TC has never defined Tobacco smoke and how Tobacco smoke differs from pot smoke or can we reasonably assume both are not the same?
Due to the general term used in virtually all epidemiology experimentation. Research with no product ingredients described other than generally in confounding effect. Encompassing all cigarettes which do not necessarily include tobacco as an ingredient as is the case of reconstituted sheet or fake tobacco derived of tree bark of Loblolly pine trees.
LMAO
Found it
http://www.shinesforall.com/
arch...essors_win.html
Bill and company need to stuff this in their pipes and smoke it.
The University of Toronto no less the hotbed of Health Canada moral direction in anti smoker advocacy
It should be noted in future defense of smoking ban criminal charges.
TC has never defined Tobacco smoke and how Tobacco smoke differs from pot smoke or can we reasonably assume both are not the same?
Due to the general term used in virtually all epidemiology experimentation. Research with no product ingredients described other than generally in confounding effect. Encompassing all cigarettes which do not necessarily include tobacco as an ingredient as is the case of reconstituted sheet or fake tobacco derived of tree bark of Loblolly pine trees.
LMAO
When one lives like this, one necessarily attracts positive energies....or so I thought until I got involved in this tobacco issue a couple of year ago and my principles and beliefs were shattered to pieces. I am now trying to pick up the pieces.
I fully understand Iro. The only gratification I have is in my belief that even if I don't live to see it, these liars and theives WILL receive retribution for if nothing else, they will be paying for this in their next life.
If you want to talk privately, feel free to email me.
Jalestra ,
The boy's parents have pressed counter assault charges against my wife (they know the game). They claim Alison hit him then fell. Because the police have no independant witness the assault charges will probably be dropped to be replace with mutual "Breach of the peace" charges.
My wife and I have been together for 28 years, 26 married. In that time I have never known her to raise her voice never mind her hands. In fact she has never been hit or in a fight in her life.
She is a social housing officer, providing homes and services to the poorer and more needy in our society. Part of the services she provides is mediation to resolve neighbour complaints. She thought she could reason with the boy and never even seen the assault coming untill much too late.
GreatScot
Scott;
Seek the advice of the prosecuter prior to agreeing to a deal reducing the charges.
Her credentials and a test of the kid's self control will be all which is needed to solve the issue.
"The ordinance, which would be enforced by the police as a secondary motor vehicle infraction, would impose a $50 fine for smoking in a car when any child under age 18 is present."
Is this aimed at the deadly effects of parents giving in to demands of children in taking their children for a ride in the car?
Singles no doubt will enjoy the value added in reduced traffic congestion endured currently because of dangerous and inconsiderate Sunday drivers.
Single drivers finally get some respect as having more rights than those who never learned to keep it in their pants.
I'm so sorry Scot, this is a travesty and well, quite frankly, sickening. The parents should be imprisoned for hearing their child behave in that fashion when you chased him down and having the gall to press counter charges.
Anon, don't make this a whole breeder issue. You act like we are all out getting irresponsibly pregnant. Apparently you think that children should spring full grown from an adults head. If you feel so strongly that children have no place in the world except where YOU think they do, I'd suggest moving very far away. They are little human beings, not animals.
A child under 18? Kidding? At 18, adolescents can have a job, live in couples and go to the army. I had my first sexual relationship long before that age.
Anon, "don't make this a whole breeder issue. You act like we are all out getting irresponsibly pregnant. Apparently you think that children should spring full grown from an adults head. If you feel so strongly that children have no place in the world except where YOU think they do, I'd suggest moving very far away. They are little human beings, not animals."
Just beng sarcastic "wink"
Oh, I'm sorry *hangs head shamefully* That's one of my soapboxes there and I do apologize for misunderstanding your intent. I'm gonna go pry my foot out of my mouth now.
Jalestra,
No need to hang your head in shame, we all make mistakes. In THIS medium without some visual sign it is very difficult to pick up sarcasm and jokes.
For instance, if I said "I just love Bill Godshall" you would think I had lost my mind, so when I say things like that, I try to let everyone know I'm not nuts, just being sarcastic.....
Excuse me while I go puke over what I just wrote for an example......hehehehehe
Great Scot--
I don't know your legal system or what it would cost to buck it, but I think you've got to, if you want to continue living there and protect your sanity.
It shouldn't be that hard or even that expensive to investigate the kid. Wherever he goes to school, he's likely got a pretty thick "incident file," and there are other things a good PI can find out. And tho the parents will contradict you, you can still testify and offer to take a lie detector test about what he said to you.
I realize this comes down to the "it's easy for YOU to say" department, since I don't have to do it, but if somebody doesn't stop it it only gets worse for all. (And wouldn't some of those Fleet Street rags like the story? Maybe they'd even do the legwork for you and investigate the kid.)
benpal--
doesn't matter when you started scr-----; what's important is, did you have a cigarette after? and if so, is the girl alive?
GreatScot
I'm a bit late for this, and while I do not know you personally, I was horrified to hear what happened to your wife. I was even more sickened to hear how the authorities handled things (and you know the "she shouldn't have been smoking" sentiments are beneath it all). These things leave deep scars long after the assault and after the physical wounds heal, for both of you I am sure. I'll keep both of you in my thoughts and prayers.
Hey all you TC barbarians - you like your pristine smoke-free world? Expect more of the same. Disgusting!
"what's important is, did you have a cigarette after? and if so, is the girl alive?"
Walt, no, we didn't have a cigarette after, although we very occasionally smoked already at that time. And we were embedded in SHS from both our parents. Now, some 40+ years later, we both still smoke (.... no, not what you think!).
oh, I forgot to add that we are married.
In a state where consenting adults can engage in mind-bogglingly deviant sexual acts in the privacy of their homes, they won’t be allowed to smoke a cigarette afterwards.
good commentray about it here: http://constitutionalmatters.com...smoking-at-
home
The only thing I can really say is that I am disappointed none of these clowns were up for a vote this past election. I, unfortunately apparently, live here in Belmont and would have lived the opportunity to vote against them.
I can completely confirm everyone's point that this is very much a class issue. Anyone not wearing the uniform is immediately looked down upon, and anyone smoking a cigarette will be sneered at and indirectly lectured by the housewives on how stupid a person is for smoking. (many of whom conclude the lecture by loading the two kids into a Lincoln Navigator.)
This is an area where you can see the browning air in the late afternoons. Clearly, this is about banning something the undesirables do, not about any concerns over public health.
tailofdogma, I post this in the hopes that your very important point of view as a resident of Belmont isn't lost (by keeping the thread alive). I also hope that YOU don't go missing and will continue to post (and keep us informed).
tailofdogma--
What JustTheFacts said.
Also I hope you'll read Jackson's link above and consider the constitutinnal grounds it offers for starting a law suit if the ordinance gets passed. I'd suggest you get in touch with some of the local think tanks-- Claremont Institute, Hoover Institution, Pacific Legal Foundation, US Justice Foundation (all in CA) and if they can't take the case on a pro bono basis, ask them who would.
It might fall to you to set an important legal precedent that could help the whole country.
Thank you for the advice.
In the meantime, the latest update is that the mayor and three council members are now receiving death threats.
I've gone ahead and contacted the Pacific Legal Foundation, seems they do quite a bit of pro bono work. We'll see what happens from there.
Tobacco smoke has no redeeming qualities for the non-smoker and no one should have to put put with it. imho
Seems to me it's just a matter of time before smoking will only be allowed in the privacy of your home, provided you don't share a ventilation system with someone else's.
online poker tracking online poker tracking online poker tracking // grand casino hinkley grand casino hinkley grand casino hinkley
If I were a resident of Belmont or any of these other Nazi communities, I would immediately let my home go into foreclosure and watch the property values plummet. What good is owning a beautiful home if one is not free to live life as he wishes? If only 10% of homeowners in places like Belmont are smokers and all of them went into foreclosure, it would prove a point to a community that values materialism far more than freedom.
Well said gabz.Thanks for sharing.keep up your good work.
-----------
siva
quebec drug rehab
Suffering from an addiction,this site might be help you.
-------------
siva
quebec drug rehab
I am new in this site. its very nice.its a great informative, thanks.........
----------------
Muthu
michigan drug rehab
Various people think in various ways and make plans to keep the body slim. And some wish to be athletic. :Thmbsup: Some people could succeed but some cannot. People who had failed to do so don't worry as we provide you with working out plans which could really bring change to your life. We are there to provide you every information on How to maintain your body Slim and beautifully. As your are expecting for. For details you can visit our page at Working out Plans.
-----------
simon
nevada drug rehab
Commenting by HaloScan
