"...Apparently, it is highly difficult to quit smoking when you are a plaintiff in a tobacco lawsuit, but easy to do so if you are not looking to win money from Big Tobacco, and instead, are a smoker in the path of ASH's hurricane of intolerance and hatred......."
what a great line!
What was it that Shakespeare said regarding lawyers?
Two men are looking down on a tombstone which carries the inscription: "Here lies a lawyer and an honest man." Comment from one of the men: "Things must be getting tough. They're burying them two to a grave now."
And this surprises anyone? Joe Cherner has been touting this for years in his activism to do away with barriers to adoption by homosexual couples.
Personally I have nothing against committed homosexual couples adopting, because there is such a shortage of families willing to adopt, however, based upon his hypocracy I can not see Mr. Cherner being more fit an adoptive than a married heterosexual couple that smokes. A few years back, during a CBS Sunday morning segment on gay adoption, at least on of the adopted daughters of Mr. Cherner and his partner was sporting a T-shirt with anti-smoker message on it. While promoting an end to barriers face one group of people, he is promoting the erection of further barriers against others. What does that mixed message teach those young women?
The hypocracy of anti-smokers knows no bounds.
Marcus, you beat me to it.
I was wondering if anyone ever compiled a list of these diametrically opposed views issued by the same group?
It would be interesting to see wouldnt it?
Bill is living proof: from a 3 pack a day killer of innocents one day, elevated to sainthood, and self confessed saviour of millions the next.
The other obvious one is "Quit that nicotine, you filthy wretch. Use ours instead".
I notice that ASH, and the others, use blackmail at the drop of a hat.
For pretty much everything.
Is this the only card they hold?
I attended a meeting of public health specialists and students at the Harvard School of Public Health where then State Health Commissioner Howard Koh said he considered asking that all cigarette packs sold in the state bear the phrase, "You are the scum of the earth." No one at the meeting appeared to find this objectionable.
Action on Smoking and Health's applause of the denial of adopting to a couple, one of who smokes,is a natural progression of the antismoking movement's stated aim of de-normalizing smokers. I am not in the least surprised.
I just got off the phone (1 888 270-3714) with Scotts Miracle-Gro. A polite operator took my contact information and said she will forward my objections to the companies antismoker policy.
Well, then, I guess it's a good thing there are not thousands of kids rotting in foster care waiting for PERFECT adoptive parents, huh? I am an adoptive parent AND an avid non-smoker, but the thought of preventing a child from having a permanent home because one of the parents steps outside to have a smoke is outrageous! What next? Preventing people who have ever had a speeding ticket from adopting? How about people who don't cross at the crosswalk? You know, someone who jaywalks could leave a kid parentless, which would be child abuse....don't get me going!
Definitely a better answer, make sure children that are not adopted stay children of the system. The system has been proven to work so well that kids should remain a part of the system. I mean, look at the success rate of children in the system! We should all applaud ASH for making sure that these children remain in government care without allowing a loving family to have them. I mean, hey, their narrow agenda has to have SOME sacrifices, even if it's the children that have to actually do the sacrificing!
BTW, how many ASH members have adopted children?
Every Wednesday on the local news station, they do a segment entitled "Wednesday's child". These are kids who are in foster care and who are begging for a permanent home with lovng parents who will take them to church, provide a warm safe environment and who will give them unconditional love. Many are healthy and happy little boys and girls, but more have some sort of disability, whether physical or mentally. How sad to think that ASH or more like John Banzahf can decide who is more likely to give them the home these children desire and deserve. It certainly won't be the anti's coming through with adoption papers in hand. They are all to self centered and self rightieous to even consider opening their hearts and homes to these children. To prove me wrong, how about all you holier than all others, trotting down to the adoption agency and adopting a few of these kids and then go on 20/20, Good Morning America or some other talk show and tell us all how wonderful you are! I want to see real smiles on their faces and not pasted on smiles just for the cameras either. Come on down John and pick a child. It must be clear that you are the only person alive who can take a child and give them love and turn them into a respectable adult.
Diane
Dr. Siegel: Besides, what I would ask ASH is why should just adoptive and foster kids be protected from the moral depravity and abuse of smokers? If smoking is so abusive when one has children, then shouldn't we simply prohibit all parents from being smokers? In other words, shouldn't we just ban smoking by parents, period?
[sarcasm] Much easier solution...ban children altogether.
Then we don't have to worry about smoking, traffic, food, or playground bullies.
As a side benefit, think of all the education/medical/etc money we'll save.
Children - just say no.
This has been a message from the zero pop for a brighter future society[/sarcasm]
*ducks before something gets thrown*
When are reasonable people going to file a peace bond against this wild eyed and nuisance oriented open sore on the common good of society?
Make the court jesters show some evidence or move along, they are bothering and upsetting citizens with their shriek and unwarranted crowing about things thhey know nothing about.
Get em otta here sheriff
YES, it's "for the children" but i'll bet any child would totally disregard the smell of tobacco just to have a loving family.I wonder if kids of rabid antis customarily wear brown shirts and goose step ?
This has been a message from the zero pop for a brighter future society[/sarcasm] *ducks before something gets thrown*
*Ducking down besides Mike Walsh* I hear that, I've said all along kids should be banned...........they're noisy, messy, costly..........hehehehe
Hell, even my son thinks I'm nuts for having had him........LOL
Dr. Siegel wrote, "Frankly, the anti-smoking movement is becoming dangerous in its narrow-mindedness, intolerance, and complete obliviousness to the decency and respect with which public health should be practiced"
::sigh:: Dr. Siegel, at some point you need to publicly acknowledge that the Antismoking Lobby is not "becoming" anything. It has been, is, and will continue to be dangerous, intolerant, and semi-psychotic in its rabid push to eliminate smoking no matter what social and personal costs and damage are involved.
I usually avoid playing the "Hitler card" because it gives the Antis such an easy out in avoiding having to face the real underlying arguments, but at some point I saw a writer make a point concerning your blog post and Hitler's antismoking campaign. He/She said, "At least Hitler never tried to take the children from smoking parents."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
This decision is abusive, as is Banzhaf's "explanation". He turns into a mess something that should have remained simple. In this case there is no serious ground to refuse the adoption. Argue the opposite, as Bazhaf does, is really offensive. At least it is to me.
Letters to the Editor, The Honolulu Advertiser, November 20, 2006
THE TRUTH ABOUT SECONDHAND SMOKE
The smoking law ban perpetuates the myth that second-hand smoke is a health risk to nonsmokers.
On May 17, the respected British Medical Journal published the results of a 39-year study of nearly 120,000 adults in California begun in 1959 by the American Cancer Society. In 1972 the ACS turned its study over to UCLA, which completed it in 1998.
The study's objective was "to measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses and long-term mortality from tobacco-related disease." Risks and deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases were measured.
The study focused on people who never smoked who had a spouse who smoked and concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." In fact, the conclusion also stated that "the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Hawai'i's new smoking ban is punitive to smokers and businesses and will surely affect visitors and tourists negatively. The public deserves the truth about secondhand smoke and not the deceptions and distortions that currently pass for science.
Janice Pechauer
Honolulu
Letters to the Editor, The Honolulu Advertiser, December 4, 2006
LETTER ON SMOKE CITED DISCREDITED STUDIES
Janice Pechauer stated (Letter, Nov. 20) that "The public deserves the truth about secondhand smoke and not the deceptions and distortions that currently pass for science" in reference to Senate Bill 3262 restricting smoking in public places.
It is interesting that she cited one of the few studies that did not show an association between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related disease. The 2003 British Medical Journal paper by James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat to which she refers, was discredited, not only because of serious methodological flaws, but also because both Enstrom and Kabat received funding from the tobacco industry.
The American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study, from which Enstrom and Kabat drew their sub-sample, released their findings in 1998, and showed that secondhand smoke was associated with a 20 percent increase in coronary heart disease deaths in nonsmoking spouses of smokers. Furthermore, more than 100 other epidemiological studies have linked secondhand smoking with various illnesses, including lung cancer and chronic pulmonary disease. Yes, the public does need to know the truth, not the deceptions and distortions of the pseudoscience bought and paid for by the tobacco industry.
Andrew Grandinetti
Associate Professor, University of Hawai'i-Manoa Department of Public Health Sciences and Epidemiology
ASH wrote:
"If the father continues to smoke, the child is also substantially more likely to become a smoker himself even if the father never smokes in his presence, and the child is also substantially more likely to lose his father prematurely."
First off, has anybody seen any studies that looked at kids' increased risk of smoking "even if the father never smokes in his presence"?
Secondly, we've been told repeatedly that smoking in movies is responsible for a huge percentage of kids smoking (50%?). Any potential foster or adoptive parent should be grilled on their movie watching. A six month waiting period showing no movie rentals from Blockbuster et al. should be a requirement. No tv should be allowed in the home either. I saw a cigar on the tv show CSI not an hour ago.
Mike wrote:
"This is a clear case of moralizing and paternalism, devoid of any meaningful public health protection consideration."
Unfortunatly, the same is true about most of the postings on this blog.
Adoption agencies have historically discriminated against applicants for
many reasons that far more moralistic and paternalistic than an applicants addiction to the cigarettes.
For example, adoption agencies have
denied adoptions to applicants because they are single, gay, a different race, a different ethnicity, under the age of 25, over the age of 50, athiests or other non church goers, marijuana smokers, those with any criminal record, etc.
But it appears that Mike is so focussed on elevating cigarette smoking to a protected civil right that he isn't concerned about those far more prevalent (and usually less justifiable) forms of discrimination by adoption agencies.
Now, Bill, the question is: What do you think about ASH's triumphant: "A heartbroken couple has been told they cannot adopt a child ...."?
And about refusing adoption to applicants who are non church-goers, of different race, or under the age of 25?
"It is interesting that she cited one of the few studies that did not show an association between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related disease. The 2003 British Medical Journal paper by James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat to which she refers, was discredited, not only because of serious methodological flaws, but also because both Enstrom and Kabat received funding from the tobacco industry."
We've covered that ground 100 times, at least. I bet if you looked under Grandinetti's suit coat you'd find one of those wind-up keys. Direct from the lab -- another TC/Big Pharma automaton. His lips are moving but I bet he doesn't have a pulse.
I know, that's silly because robotics have come such a long way. No self-respecting android would be caught dead with a wind-up mechanism.
"Furthermore, more than 100 other epidemiological studies have linked secondhand smoking with various illnesses, including lung cancer and chronic pulmonary disease."
Ah, the infamous, mysterious, unnamed, vaguely numbered studies. With all those studies, you'd think he'd be able to cite at least one or two specifically. How many more than 100? 101? 150? Why not 200? He did everything but add "honest injun" to the end of it.
You have to give him some small measure of credit; he showed more than the usual amount of restraint in specifying that nebulous figure. Usually TC advocates inflate that number exponentially. It stretches credibility but it sounds really, really authoritative when you claim that there are more than 10,000 studies to prove your point. Why, by the end of the decade we'll be talking quadrillions.
"And about refusing adoption to applicants who are non church-goers, of different race, or under the age of 25?"
Since no one can transcend the ideal of shiny, happy, perfectly engineered humans, why not do away with all adoptions?
Bill says: But it appears that Mike is so focussed on elevating cigarette smoking to a protected civil right that he isn't concerned about those far more prevalent (and usually less justifiable) forms of discrimination by adoption agencies.
BILL, Oh my God! I can't believe you accuse Dr. Siegel (by the way, he's a doctor...it may not bother him but it bothers me when you address him as "Mike" in an obviously condescending manner) of doing EXACTLY what YOU and your kind are doing in the anti-smoking movement. You are all blind to every other issue than smoking. Consequences do not matter to any of you...only your cause.
Your anti-smoking crusade has caused much more harm than it has good. How many advances could have been made in cancer research if they would just stop trying to prove that tobacco is the cause of every disease known to mankind and focus on the REAL cause of cancer? A lot of time and money has been wasted and a lot of people have died because people like you are taking the focus away from doing real research.
Everyone knows that cigarette smoking is not exactly a healthy activity. People make the choice to smoke because it's enjoyable and makes them feel good, and it may be worth the risk. Most smokers have been aware for years that smoke may annoy non-smokers, and most smokers that I know are considerate of others when they smoke. Many businesses have implemented non-smoking policies on their own (before being forced by government)to accomodate their non-smoking clientelle. Your job should be done or at least winding down, but somehow your group has strayed away from health education to become a bunch of bullying lobbyists. Why do you insist on intruding on people's lives because of your disdain towards smokers? You obviously do not like or care about smokers...why is it any of your business, and why do you even care, if people choose to smoke and possibly increase their risk of dying a couple of years prematurely? Don't give us the crap that you are doing it because you care about the health of the people (come to think of it, I don't remember you EVER saying that on this blog). It's obvious from the stances you've taken on issues like this that you do not care a bit about people. Your only concern is yourself and your own power (how much does anti-tobacco pay you, by the way, to be their spokesperson?). If you and your group truly cared about people's welfare, why wouldn't you be focusing your energy on getting tobacco companies to make a safer cigarette...? Or making smoking illegal? I personally think it's too profitable for you. And, I personally think you enjoy harrassing smokers because of your deep hatred for THEM...not the product.
I don't know you...it could be that you are just incredibly naive. But based on your blog comments, I've concluded that you are nothing but an evil little man.
For example, adoption agencies have
denied adoptions to applicants because they are single, gay, a different race, a different ethnicity, under the age of 25, over the age of 50, athiests or other non church goers, marijuana smokers, those with any criminal record, etc.
The operative word here Mr. Godshall is HAVE as in done in the past. Other than people with criminal records, I know of people in all of the other categories you mention who have become adoptive parents and some of them even - oh horrors - smoke tobacco.
That you support further limitations, even by inference, on eligibility to become adoptive parents says much about your lack of concern for children, many of whom are in need of loving and caring parents.
Bill squawks: Mike wrote: "This is a clear case of moralizing and paternalism, devoid of any meaningful public health protection consideration."
Unfortunatly, the same is true about most of the postings on this blog.
Bill, please define "moralizing" and "paternalism" and once you've done that please cite the examples of such that are posted on this blog.
As for the rest of the stuff you spout, it's so convoluted from start to end that justice is served best by leaving it alone and letting rational people judge it as is.
I've (and others) said this before... Please keep posting. It's our best evidence.
It must be truly horrific for a child to be raised by a health scare fanatic.
We all remember the kid who was ashamed of what their parent did for a living, so they felt it necessary to invent a spy or super hero dad, to try to impress other kids. Others who's parents jobs in construction, office work or driving a cab seemed so superior. I remember a kid who's father was an undertaker when I found out he made me promise to never tell anyone else. At the time I did not understand why he was so upser. I can only imagine what a child raised by a health nut is going through.
Just envision being raised by a moralist dictator of others behaviors such as Vanzaf or Cherney? It is obvious they have little concern for displaying their own ignorance in public. How a child would cringe at the thought other children might hear some of the pathetic nonsense being spewed.
It would be enough to make a child demand a name change, to hide from the family shame, in being raised by an overbearing fanatic.
ASH suporters need to take a close look at the people they are deomonizing or visit an adoption agency to see how many helpless children through no fault of their own suffer and dream of finding a normal life.
To place restrictions so rediculous and petty on the slim possibility families might find each other, is as Bill pointed out in presenting his additional list, just criminal and should not be condoned.
Bill has seen the light twice this week, nice to see him finally looking within and understanding some improvements are possible in all of us.
Mike stated:
"[sarcasm] Much easier solution...ban children altogether."
Mike - I wopldn't even suggest anything like this. Some anti-smoking group might take you up on it and suggest the idea of forced sterilization of smokers. That would certainly solve the problem of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke.
Philippe - Welcome! Thanks for adding your views, and I enjoyed reading your own post on this issue. For others, that link to Philippe's post (which you can translate from the French) is here: http://www.nuigrav.com/
Well, you're right about the "hurricane of hatred and intolerance," probably those same hurricane winds that Repace says it takes to blow smoke out of a room.
But I have to question this. You say that in setting standards for adoption the agencies should ignore the: very slight risk that an individual will blatantly lie to an adoption agency about his willingness to smoke outside the home.
This tacitly implies that you agree that a standard for adoptive parents should, in fact, be their agreement to only "smoke outside the home." and similarly imply that's a reasonable criterion.
My grandmother used to say, "with friends like this, who needs enemies?"
Here's a question for Mr. Bill that I intend to keep asking in every post from now till it's answered or the year 2050, whichever comes sooner:
Do you have any children?
:
Here are some people that would be classified as child abusers according to Banzhaf. Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhauer, John F. Kennedy and Albert Einstein. Here a couple that would not be child abusers Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. What the f.........
Smoking is now child abuse even if it does not take place in the presence of a child?
Beam me up Scotty - I wan't off this planet.
Mr Godshall, If you believe that there are too many spurious grounds for refusing adoption, why are you advocating the addition of another one?
(That man must be missing his tobacco. Why doesn't he practice what he preaches and go smokeless?)
(That man must be missing his tobacco. Why doesn't he practice what he preaches and go smokeless?)
Soren,
The problem is that he HAS gone smokeless and knows it is no substitute for actually smoking. Misery loves company and since he's so miserable he wants company, and since we won't go there voluntarily, he plans of forcing us to join him.
It'll be a cold day in Hell (and the NOT the Hell in Michigan or whatever state that town is in) before I join him.
As I told my doctor, I'll quit when I die. And if that means I die at 80 instead of 90.........no big deal.
ok, not about adoption :
ny stock for accomplia up - and they are looking for a 5 Billion $ market share for it.
accomplia is the magic bullet that's been in the pipeline for some time now, as I've asked Dr Mike about before.
it affects the thc receptors in the brain: no eating, blood sugar down, weight loss and MAYBE they will ask for the approval as the magic bullet to add to Stop Smoking to it's wonder drug claims.
this was announced in south africa, not here, at a diabetic conference.
was this study? done by some of the same folks now getting caught with their fingers in the cookie jar? the same folks that produced the "wonderdrug" that lowered bad cholestoral and raised the good cholestoral-that has now been removed from the "public" and trials. because it actually can work the opposite on some of the "public".
This I know about-hubby was on it for a VERY short time. He immediately knew something was wrong and sure enough, he had his blood count and it worked the opposite for him. His local druggist told him it's more common than not for it to affect the "public" in the opposite way. He has been fighting to get the good cholestoral back up towards "normal"-whatever that is.
I am so disgusted: There is NO magic bullet out there for ANYTHING!
and NY "publichealth" going after transfat-with no intentions of letting consumers/customers/business owners having a say whatsoever.
"publichealthists" have spoken in NY.
and now to the adoption story:
I had a daughter in 1976 who I gave up for adoption...I had no qualms about who she would go to. I only knew I was not old enough, smart enough, mature enough to raise her as she needed to be.
I would not presume to dictate to ANYONE how to raise a child, only knowing that those who adopt a child are actively wanting to parent. They will do the best they can.
I am disgusted with this country as it is right now.
I am disgusted with my fellow citizens.
I am disgusted with the stock market as it is now banking on SOCIALISM to create their profit.
I am disgusted with those who "quit" their "habit-whatever that is/was" and because they have no backbone, need to exterminate it from their very world.
Please allow an off-topic comment:
Ivan Dunham, the manager of Scotts Lawn Care in Sagamore Beach, Mass., which fired Scott Rodriuez because he smokes, says on the branch's website, "[I]f you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me."
His number is: 508-888-3258.
One of the arguments ASH uses to support this policy is that a smoker might say he is not going to smoke in the home, but later change his mind.
Well the same argument could be made for a smoker who quits smoking in order to adopt. We know that relapse is very common. An ex-smoker could easily change his mind and resume smoking. It happens all the time.
In fact, the risks of a smoker relapsing are probably far greater than the risk of a smoker lying about not smoking in the home in the presence of his child.
Thus, if ASH really wants to protect children, it needs to bar all ever-smokers (current and former smokers) from adopting. Of course, that would wipe out the majority of the population as prospective adoptive parents.
"that a smoker might say he is not going to smoke in the home, but later change his mind"
Di they also ask for similar "promises", like:
"I swear I will never beat the kid"
"I promise that I will never divorce from my wife"
"I swear I will never lose my job and I'll always have enough money for my kid"
"I promise we will go to church every Sunday"
Benpal,
what about non-smokers that decide to start?
What about "non-smokers" that have the occasional cigar?
Capri,
my wife is adopted, she had 2 very loving parents, dad-in-law smoked but stopped in later years, both deseased now. They were in their 50's when they adopted my wife, she was less than 1. Her parents died a few years ago aged 89 and 87.
My wife never smoked until after we were married, she was never ill, she was always loved. If Banzaff got his way she would have been brought up by the state in an institution, I would never have met her and we would not have 2 wonderfull children.
GreatScot
Stephen Helfer
The number you posted for Scotts appears to be a fax number.
Michelle
Michelle,
Thank you. Scotts Lawn Care, Sagmore Beach is: 508-888-2052!
I would also add: What about nonsmokers who take their kids out to restaurants that allow smoking? Should these people also be denied the right to adopt children? What about letting the kids go to a house of someone who smokes? Maybe prospective adoptive parents should have to wear a nicotine monitor for a week and only be allowed to adopt if their nicotine level is low enough. It truly starts getting ridiculous.
Dr Siegel: Mike - I wopldn't even suggest anything like this. Some anti-smoking group might take you up on it and suggest the idea of forced sterilization of smokers. That would certainly solve the problem of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke.
Hmmm. While I would normally be inclined to agree with you, that particular sentiment is already out there to a degree.
I have noticed it peeking out around the shoulders of many a spokesperson for various groups (not just TC groups, all across the spectrum...and not just against smokers) in the last year or so...but, in the current social climate, one can not afford to be quite so blatant, so peeking is all it is doing right now.
And, admittedly, the individual members of many of these groups have less qualms about such public statements...especially on-line where they feel safe in anonymity.
My guess is that such forum posts give a pretty reliable feel for the not-so-far future (say another decade or two) climate/attitude within these communities.
Fortunately, the ugly face of eugenics policy (and its rather extreme extension in 1940's Germany) in North America and Europe is still far too recent for the comfort of many for it to be even suggested without severe vilification (even from within the communities), so it's still pretty low-key for the moment.
Unfortunately, the pursuit of security at the expense of liberties and privacy is adding impetus.
As is the fact that consorting with nothing but like-minded people (as often happens within these groups, just like any cult) tends to breed intolerance to outside beliefs and a world-view that they are the norm (in turn breeding a more extremist attitude, that then becomes the new "norm").
I would suspect that this is really what has happened within TC more than anything else, by the way.
Welcome to the coming world of the New Puritan.
Apologies for running off-topic.....feeling a "touch" cynical today.
I can't support the ASH position on this issue.
I think when you are looking at the posibility of a smoking parent vs. no parent at all, its foolish not to allow a smoker to adopt.
There is no question in my mind that its abusive to the health of children to expose them to passive smoke. What they need to do is ban smoking in cars and require adoptive parents to pledge that they will not smoke around their children, and then let them adopt.
Carl wrote:
"There is no question in my mind that its abusive to the health of children to expose them to passive smoke...require adoptive parents to pledge that they will not smoke around their children, and then let them adopt."
You forgot to include that they must pledge they won't let these kids join the Campfire Girls or Boy Scouts either.
Some of you people are selectively paranoid.
Great lawsuit here...Sue ASH for conspiracy in child abuse and denial of a childs right to be adopted by a loving family. Start by dropping off the kids at ASH's front door (cameras rolling) and let everyone watch the response.
It's "for the children" right.
Has anyone seen any record of a charity donation by ASH to "assist" the children in need of adoption? I came up short. Has anyone found ANY record of a charity donation by banzof??? I came up short.
Commenting by HaloScan
