When is the Refuse Dept going to clean up all these damned cadavers ? Victims of SHS that have dropped like flies,most inconsiderate of them.No service available on patios,but at least the dead barstaff were placed in the corner.The non smokers preferred the smell of putrefaction to SHS,weird people.I rather think that humanity and general quality of life was so much better 20 years ago,before TC decided lying for the cause was perfectly acceptable and engineered hatred towards a group of non conformist citizens.The lies keep on getting bigger and more complex,the perpetrators just get richer.
"deliberate attempt to mislead people". Of course it is and it is expected. The numbers become astronomical with every smoking ban instituted. Everyone in "public health" trying to outdo the last exaggeration.
I'm sure some people in the PA DOH, think it's a public sevice to mislead the public, posting things like that on it's website. ...
BUT more importantly, we should all be concerned that some public health workers in PA and elsewhere are actually so stupid they believe this crap.
Are they actually that scientifically inept?
if so, how can taxpayers expect them to design effective public health programs?...taxpayers can't be getting much bang for the buck, paying the salaries of state DOH workers if that's true...and lastly...
Let's remember that 20% of those taxpayers are smokers, and forced to pay the salaries of people who are.... actually promoting hate-mongering against them.
It gets worse,... I would think the top officials at PA DOH, like Dr. Siegel does, know this is crap.... Where are they...why are they not concerned? Have they no concious? Have they no sense of duty to the taxpayers of the state to correct this? are they that irresponsible? if so, how can we trust them in other areas of public health?
Dave K., -"we should all be concerned that some public health workers in PA and elsewhere are actually so stupid they believe this crap.
Are they actually that scientifically inept? "
Item number 11, of the Public Health Code of Ethics 12 step program;
"11. Public health institutions should ensure the professional competence of their employees." CLEARLY THEY DON’T.
This goes hand in ahnd with Number 2 in the same 12 step program:
"2. Public health should achieve community health in a way that respects the rights of individuals in
the community." AS LONG AS THOSE INDIVIDUALS DON'T SMOKE.
Of course this makes Item nuber 12 completely laughable;
"12. Public health institutions and their employees should engage in collaborations and affiliations in
ways that build the public’s trust and the institution’s effectiveness." IN THE CAMPAIGN TO IGNORE, OR MARGINALIZE PEOPLE THAT SMOKE.
In the long run, the damage to the reputation of the tobacco control movement and public health
Sorry Doc, TC lost its reputation with their first LIE decades ago. As for Public Health.....they lost it also about the same time when they silently stood by and allowed the LIES to exist without refute, thereby giving their blessings for the LIES. There is no "in the long run" your reputations are already in the sewers.
will be far greater than any fleeting benefits of the public having an exaggerated perception of the death toll from secondhand smoke.
Call it whatever you want, but kindly explain to me the benefits of LYING!!!
Because technically, exaggerations are LIES. They are intended to mislead and deceive, to manipulate and control. When discovered all respect and trust for the LIARS is lost.
They are LIES and I fail to see ANY benefits, fleeting or otherwise from condoning, accepting, pushing any LIES. And herein is why your precious public health *gagging* has a reputation lower than the illegal drug cartels. At least in the minds of any person with two functioning brain cells.
Back to Boston:
Here's an editorial from the staff of the Daily Free Press, Boston Universities newspaper.
http://media.www.dailyfreepress....s-
3425986.shtml
No sign-up comment section
Gilster,
I liked the article next to the one you posted, listed under most recent comments. Seems that BU is supplying condoms in vending machines for their students, which is great, but by God, they will not buy cigarettes on campus!
Diane,
Isn't it rich?
BU's Behavioral Science department must be going Full Tilt.
Diane and Gilster,
They are just gearing up to start the war on "sex for pleasure".....which will be the next thing on the agenda where in the name of "public health" ONLY married couples (meaning 1 male/1 female) will be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse and ONLY for the procreation of more "children" for public health to "protect".
Oh I could take this to some extremes....but don't be surprised to find out I'm not far off the mark here. After all, sex for pleasure is NOT necessary to anyone for any reason other then selfishness and addiction (yes there is 'sex addiction'), and with STDs being a big problem these days (surprised they don't blame those on smoking too), it's bound to happen that "public health" will start pushing for restrictions on our sexual behavior.
Welcome to George Orwell's 1984!
Lynda,
I am imagining all sorts of ways that could play out. Might make a trip to Boston just to see the students demonstrations! What is that saying? A picture is worth a 1000 words?
Still though, I am also reminded of an old Jay Leno joke from his early days in comedy and as a guest on Johnny Carson. He would talk about college dorm rooms and the ban on hot plates in your room. He concluded with "It's okay to smoke pot, have unprotected sex, take LSD, but by God, they can not heat a can of soup in their dorm room". Now they can't even buy a legal product on campus, but for $2.50, for now you can get the condoms!
....and with STDs being a big problem these days (surprised they don't blame those on smoking too),....
But they do Lynda. Something like 98% of all cases of cervical cancer are caused by STDs, yet "public health" still insists that smoking and exposure to SHS causes cervical cancer when they obviously don't.
Since we are discussing the lies of TC and "public health" I am inclined to bring up the name of a notorious TC liar who hasn't been real visible of late: Joe Cherner. I have to wonder whatever happened to him? Following the events of 7 years ago today, he and his partner fled NYC with their adopted daughters to France because the air quality was so bad in lower Manhattan.
While still residing in France in 2002 he had a letter to the editor published in a Delawre newspaper in support of the smoker ban that was being battled in the legislature at that time. The problem with that letter was that Mr. Cherner claimed a Delaware residence, Wilmington, DE to be exact. Not a single letter refuting/questioning his Wilmington residency was printed in that newspaper because the paper was supportive of the ban.
The lies of TC knows no bounds.
Doctor - In the long run, the damage to the reputation of the tobacco control movement and public health.
For God's sake flip the bloody record!
There are many more important and devastating consequences of this persecution of people, whose only difference to you is they choose to smoke. Your precious "movement's reputation" pales into insignificance compared to the real deleterious affects it is having on people.
Open question to Doctor Siegel and Bill G, please, honest answers only. I will make it easy for you, multi-choice, just pick and post the letter that best represents your true position.
How do you feel about the negative affects of the Anti-Smoker campaign on smokers?
A)Pleased- negative affects, physical, mental, financial and societal will encourage more people to quit.
B)A little bad- but it's a price worth paying.
C)Miserable- I have sleepless nights, but I have to consider the greater good.
D)Delighted- smokers deserve all they get.
E)Outraged- but I don't know what I can do about it.
F)devastated - they just don't go far enough, unless we up the punishment levels smoking will never be eradicated.
If you need reminding of the negative affects suffered by smokers, just ask, I am sure any of the posters here can provide a quick list if I am not on-line.
GreatScot
Some times you just have to ask yourself 'Will I live to be 80?'
I recently chose a new primary care physician. After two visits and
exhaustive lab tests, he said I was doing 'fairly well' for my age.
A little concerned about that comment, I could not resist asking him,
'Do you think I'll live to be 80?'
He asked, 'Do you smoke tobacco or drink alcoholic beverages?'
'No,' I replied.' I don't do drugs, either.'
Then he asked, 'Do you eat rib-eye steaks and barbecued ribs?' I said, 'No, my other doctor said that all red meat is unhealthy!
'Do you spend a lot of time in the sun, like playing golf, boating,
fishing or relaxing on the beach?' 'No, I don't,' I said.
He asked, 'Do you gamble, drive fast cars, or have a lot of Sex?' 'No,' I said. 'I don't do any of those things.'
Then he looked at me and asked, 'Then why do you give a crap?'
I wonder how much this will cost the smoker http://www.tobaccojournal.com/
Se...nd.49204.0.html Anyone thought about taking the cigarettes OUT OF THE PACKET ??????
When in doubt come up with a CONCEPT and amend AT WILL http://www.tobaccojournal.com/
Co...ts.49203.0.html
GreatScot asked: "How do you feel about the negative effects of the Anti-Smoker campaign on smokers?
A)Pleased- negative affects, physical, mental, financial and societal will encourage more people to quit.
B)A little bad- but it's a price worth paying.
C)Miserable- I have sleepless nights, but I have to consider the greater good.
D)Delighted- smokers deserve all they get.
E)Outraged- but I don't know what I can do about it.
F)devastated - they just don't go far enough, unless we up the punishment levels smoking will never be eradicated."
GreatScot - In terms of what I consider to be violations of smokers' rights (such as denial of employment, denial of medical care, etc.), I would answer E, although I do feel that I am trying to do something about it.
In terms of situations where smokers have been physically injured due to rabid anti-smokers, I would also say E.
In terms of the inconvenience of having to smoke outside or in terms of some businesses seeing a decline in revenue, I'll be honest with you and say B (you can call me callous - I probably deserve it).
"In terms of the inconvenience of having to smoke outside or in terms of some businesses seeing a decline in revenue, I'll be honest with you and say B (you can call me callous - I probably deserve it).
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 09.11.08 - 2:30 pm | # " As you have had an active involvement in ensuring bans have occurred are you honestly suggesting B is the MOST APPLICABLE ? You are denying the rights of an owner of a PRIVATE PROPERTY.This is fascism,it is irrelevant as to what circumstances you use,or what excuse you offer.
Furthermore ,there still remains the issue of the "studies" you provided in support of denying smoking on an outdoor patio by using dubious and highly magical data gleaned from indoor SHS studies if i am not mistaken.The previous threads still await your responses.
Recently the doctor challenged me to show him when he was ever being dishonest. So let me repeat what is perhaps the most notorious example, from that eye-awakening July 5, 2007 string.
When, to Sam’s suggestion that, in order to allow smoking, the wait staff be educated about the risks of secondhand smoke, Dr. Siegel stated flatly that “You may have me here. If I like the language you provide, I may be willing to change my mind and go with it as an alternative to smoking bans.”
Remember that? And that Sam then suggested:
“Some public health officials believe that long-term exposure to SHS can cause cancer, heart disease, lung disease and other deadly disorders. It kills. Other public health experts believe that even SHORT TERM exposure can do irreversible harm. Even kill. The United States government believes that if you work in a smokey environment for your entire career, you significantly increase your risk of dying from the exposure.” And he added: “I would even be able to tolerate pictures of black lung. Scary skulls and cross bones.”
And in reply, Dr. Siegel argued about the ‘some’: "’SOME public health officials believe...’ That is pretty much implying that the risks aren't real. It sounds pretty sketchy. Not what I would call having a worker adequately informed about a risk. Would we tell a race car driver: ‘Some people have said that driving 200 mph around a narrow race track with 50 other cars could be dangerous.’”
And that Sam (after disposing of the race car driver sideshow) came back with: “... fine. Don't even attribute it. Just say, ‘Public health experts.’ Or, ‘The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded...’ Or just state it as a fact: ‘Long term exposure to SHS increases your risk of serious illness and death.’”
And that after a bit of to-and-fro, an exasperated Sam then said, “I turn it over to you: What warning label would accurately and honestly convey the risks?”
And that the doctor’s response to all of Sam’s suggestions was THIS, “OK then. Since it seems that you are not able to design a statement to be provided to workers that would adequately inform them of the risks of secondhand smoke exposure, then we're left where we started – with a need for a legislated smoking ban to protect these workers, since they are not assuming the risk as adequately informed.”
I’ve telescoped the discussion here to emphasize what is clear: complete dishonesty on the part of Dr. Siegel. He’d backed himself into a corner with his offer, couldn’t get out of it, so he took his football and went home.
Note also that he’s in effect calling bartenders stupid – that’s the plain upshot. But he doesn’t frame it in those terms. No – it’s not the inadequacy of bartenders that’s the problem; it’s all due to the inadequacy of language and images!
And later:
“Actually, I remain, and have been, dead serious about the contention that if people could be made adequately informed of the true nature of the risk from secondhand smoke on the job, that I would consider backing off of smoking bans. I am not lying - there is no deception here. I'm serious.
“The problem is that those who proposed the idea of adequately informing workers are unable to come up with any statement to adequately inform them. Why? Because those arguing this position don't even think secondhand smoke is harmful in the first place. So how can they adequately inform these workers if there is no significant risk to inform them about?”
Note the bare-faced chicanery (and illogic) here. Sam specifically said: “I turn it over to you: What warning label would accurately and honestly convey the risks?” Are we really to believe that the doctor himself (or in consultation with his good friend Glantz) couldn’t possibly come up with an adequate statement? How poor, then, is the English language when it comes to adequately informing people of health risks – especially health risks associated with ETS!
But look closely at this: SINCE THOSE ARGUING THIS POSITION DON’T EVEN THINK SECONDHAND SMOKE IS HARMFUL IN THE FIRST PLACE, HOW CAN THEY ADEQUATELY INFORM THESE WORKERS IF THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT RISK TO INFORM THEM ABOUT? Holy Christ – really? Read Sam’s final suggestion again. Where in hell is there any suggestion of inadequacy due to position in getting the message across? Is a college educator actually telling us that people can’t come up with vigorous language upholding a contrary view? Hell, doctor, it’s done all the time -- AS YOU WELL KNOW.
“And they [the arguments] fell apart, exposing that the real issue at hand is a basic disagreement about the health risks of secondhand smoke.”
More dishonest crap. The basic disagreement about the health risks of secondhand smoke had absolutely nothing to do with the argument, which was about framing a statement in as solidly convincing terms as he wished. The arguments didn’t fall apart, doctor; you had no damn reply to the arguments. On the other hand, if you’re delusional or living in a psychological state of denial, I’ll be only too happy to take back the accusation of dishonesty.
.
One other thing, doctor. Aren't you in the business of educating the public about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke? If an adequate statement to bartenders about the dangers of secondhand smoke can't be framed, then how in hell, addressing the public, can ANY adequate warning about the dangers of secondhand be framed? Aren't you just wasting the taxpayers money?
.
SHOCKER!
"BRAZENLY FLOUTED"!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvsho...shion-
Week.html
.
Thank you Doctor, you have addressed some of the obvious affects and I appreciate your honesty.
However being forced outside in all weathers, into unsafe situations (remember my own family have first hand experience)and often much less healthy environments is much more than a mere "inconvenience". Especially for the old, infirm, ill and vulnerable. How many pensioners have frozen to death in Canada so far? What has been the effect on smokers health? Sorry "inconvenience" is a convenient way of denying real consequences.
Now how about some of the less obvious,
Regressive taxes
MSA costs being passed to the consumer
Social Isolation
Poverty
Depression
Stress
Denormalisation (spoiled identity)
What is the health affects of RIP cigarettes?
What is the consequence of denying research into safer cigarettes or tobacco?
What is the consequence of "no safe level" instead of encouraging moderation if you can't/wont quit?
What is the consequence of "binge" smoking due to not being able to spread cigarettes over the entire day?
If you take a minute to think about it you will easily add many more to the list.
GreatScot
"GreatScot - In terms of what I consider to be violations of smokers' rights (such as denial of employment, denial of medical care, etc.), I would answer E [Outraged - but I don't know what I can do about it], although I do feel that I am trying to do something about it.
"In terms of situations where smokers have been physically injured due to rabid anti-smokers, I would also say E."
How about a little mea culpa, doctor? You've not EARNED the right to feel outrage; you're one of the ones responsible for this the-end-justifies-the-means crap.
Take some damn responsibility for once.
.
Harry,
Smoking sure does make you look old, ugly, Grey and wrinkled!!
GreatScot
A CORKER OF A QUESTION HARRY. " One other thing, doctor. Aren't you in the business of educating the public about the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke? If an adequate statement to bartenders about the dangers of secondhand smoke can't be framed, then how in hell, addressing the public, can ANY adequate warning about the dangers of secondhand be framed? Aren't you just wasting the taxpayers money?
.
Harry | 09.11.08 - 2:53 pm "
Let's lay another TC MYTH to rest http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...cot-
deaths.html
Well, since the webpage of the PA DOH, is obviously overkill, ( by any stretch of the imagination),,,,,
then your work is done, and workers are adequately informed, (if not WAY over-informed, or even MISinformed)
so, (therefore) Are you ready to say you now oppose the PA ban?
it's really quite simple....just make every worker in PA read the excerpt from the PA DOH, and then let em smoke if they want to.
how can I quit smoking? any tips?
Doctor Siegel, - a year ago, - “The problem is that those who proposed the idea of adequately informing workers are unable to come up with any statement to adequately inform them. Why? Because those arguing this position don't even think secondhand smoke is harmful in the first place. So how can they adequately inform these workers if there is no significant risk to inform them about?”
You were ducking and dodging pretty good back then, but the issue is that "YOU", **ARE** in a position to formulate such a statement. "YOU", as the "EXPERT" in such matters, simply have chosen not to do so.
How much simpler could it get than "SMOKING KILLS",...or better still; "SMOKING PERMITTED INSIDE DON'T COME IN"
Clearly, based on the history of TC to date, it doesn't matter at all what "WE" think of the language, because "WE" are defined as that "hardcore" group that TC has already acknowledged will never be salvageable.
Your warning is for all those clearly less informed, unconcerned, and obviously apathetic non-smokers,....you know, ..the MAJORITY you're trying to "protect", not the minority that simply doesn't believe it.
You have to face the fact that "YOU", can't save everybody, and get on with saving as many as you can.
I'm ok with that,... I refuse to be "saved", .....but please go right ahead and try to "save" my customers and any non-smoking employee that I may hire in the future, because I have none now.
They NEED your protection, or may need it in the near future.
Be a professional,...Help 'em out.
"Why? Because those arguing this position don't even think secondhand smoke is harmful in the first place."
Back to you Doc, ...unless of course you were talking about yourself.
If don't believe it, then what's your point?
So it's all a bit of a mess really.
Made even worse by the fact that it is all based on statistics. One day, maybe, we will find out the truth about smoking. It's all very sad.
The reason why bartenders, and others, can not be adequately informed about the hazards of tobacco is because the hazards are a mystery and only the Rabbis, Priests, Ayatollahs and Shaman of the antismoker cartel are able to "feel" the hazards by using the force. Words alone fail to capture the essence of this mystery.
If you haven't been trained in the ways of the cartel you just have to trust those who have been trained.
It has even been suggested that before they are hired, pictures of new bartenders, who accept a job where smoking is permitted, be photoshopped so that they can see what they will look like when they are laid out in a coffin but not even this goes nearly far enough.
As a side benefit of their training the antismoker cartel can also levitate heavy objects, defeat entire armies of robots with nothing more than light sabres, and they, more than anyone else, can feel the disruption in the force everytime another 300,000 Pennsylvania teenagers die from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
From Si’s first link: "Illegal possession of tobacco products without this stamp will be a criminal offence punishable by law."
What are they going to do, stop everyone they see smoking and demand to see their cigarette pack? I’d be in jail for telling them to go ***k themselves. I’d also be in jail probably because I would deliberately transfer the cigs from the pack to a nice cigarette case. But that’s the rebellious brat in me…..hehehehehe
From Si’s second link: The court said that the concept 'organic' implies that the cigarette is not harmful
That’s funny, I always thought that ‘organic’ meant natural with no pesticides or other chemicals added. But then, I’m too friggin logical that way. *rolling my eyes*
eye-awakening July 5, 2007 string
Harry, I well remember that string AND the fact that when Sam turned it over to him to come up with an adequate sign, he came up with some numbers about 40% of the population don’t believe SHS is dangerous and since they don’t it is obvious that there is no way to adequately warn people. Then he threw in all those "can't be self-responsible" asthmatics. THAT what his answer and THAT was MY awakening to how the doc plays us and tries to manipulate us.
I notice he never really discusses these studies the brainiacs (Kevin, sam, brian bond, dave k, mjm, walt…..just to name a few) on this group present to him. He never tries to debunk THEIR conclusions……………..could it be because they are right and he can’t admit that?
Yes, my level of respect for the doc dropped drastically during that thread when I realized how cemented in his own dogma he really was. To me the first sign of civility and intelligence in a willingness to admit you might just have been wrong all this time.
how can I quit smoking? any tips? Sexy Pinay | 09.11.08 - 4:21 pm |
Yes…………just quit. IF you really want to quit you can. It’s only when you really don’t want to that you can’t. Or stop being too lazy to google "quitting smoking" and finding your own way. Either quit or smoke, don’t whine about “you can’t”.
You were ducking and dodging pretty good back then, but the issue is that "YOU", **ARE** in a position to formulate such a statement. "YOU", as the "EXPERT" in such matters, simply have chosen not to do so.
Right on LightningBoy!!! Well said. I couldn’t agree more. I found it amazing that rather than come up with adequate wording the doc went on about those who aren’t convinced and then came up with millions of asthmatics and called us callous. Like I said, my respect for him dropped drastically during that thread and hasn’t picked up since.
Until Google reports that the status is OK, do not visit www.smokefreeohio.org
Here's what Google says:
"What is the current listing status for www.smokefreeohio.org/ ?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 6 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 211 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 25 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 09/10/2008, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 09/10/2008.
Malicious software includes 4 scripting exploit(s). Successful infection resulted in an average of 3 new processes on the target machine.
Malicious software is hosted on 33 domain(s), including aspx46.com , 22net.ru, 64asp.ru.
5 domain(s) appear to be functioning as intermediaries for distributing malware to visitors of this site, including aspx46.com , aspssl63.com , ujnc.ru."
This is serious, and, for all of our sakes, temporary, I hope.
I was trying to visit the site to get some background info, and was stopped by a Google Alert page.
Ok, now the antis have launched a cyber attack on smokers' rights people.
doc, can you get some geeks from Boston U to verify this? If so, then you have somethign that the antis have done which is even worse, than what you have criticized them for in the past.
BTW, I know lots of people opposed to bans,who think shs does impart some risk to nonsmokers.
It wouldn't be connected in any way to the problems experienced by F2C when they were maliciously hacked or when Forces went down in ill defined circumstances ? These rantis are full of tricks.
To date, what SMOKERS believe or don't believe has always been irrelevant to TC, so I don't see what the issue, or difficulty is in formulating whatever language they like and calling it adequate / sufficient warning to NON-SMOKERS because afterall, that's who TC is trying to protect ,...right?
It's all about the NON-SMOKERS, whether they are employees or patrons.
Use a giant flashing neon biohazard symbol if that's what it takes to make TC feel all warm and fuzzy about their effort to save non-smokers. If it causes even one non-smoker to turn away from the restaurant front door, then TC's job is done and the hundreds of millions wasted,...er..spent to date will have been worth every penny,....
right Doc?
Your Cost bennefit analysis dictates this to be true.
It's all worth it if just one life is spared the horrors of making a decision on their own without being warned of the consequences of making that choice without "public health" input.
Here's your chance to stand up and be counted for displaying a little integrity in the "movement".
sorry,.....what am I saying. 
Lynda F;
"From Si’s second link: The court said that the concept 'organic' implies that the cigarette is not harmful"
I believe they may have a point organic might imply safety.
I was at a place that sells bags at 10% of the price you pay in stores, when a police cruiser pulled up I thought we were all going to be arrested, when the woman selling the smokes said, don't worry they come in once a week to pick up 20 bags for their friends on the force. She said the cops were her best customers.
IMHO They set a fine example, more smokers should be looking for safer cigarettes as well.
LOL
Google has shown that message re: smokefreeohio for at least a month. Whether the warning is legit or not, I don't know, but it's not new.
I am suddenly curious if Mike ever smoked pot.
If yes did he inhale?
Bill used to smoke cigarettes but it would be interesting to hear his response as well.
Testing
On to secondhand smoke:
The EPA applied to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in 1992 a statistical technique called meta-analysis is in which the data from multiple small studies are combined to make one large study. Most respectable scientists would agree that meta-analysis might just be appropriate for combining carefully controlled animal experiments or well-regulated clinical studies, but not for epidemiology! However, our heroes did not stop there, because it still did not produce the right result.
Let us be quite clear about it, by all the conventions of science and applied statistics the EPA study established that there is no significant risk of lung cancer due to passive smoking. What did they do about it? They moved the goalposts. They actually reduced the confidence limit from the normally accepted lower limit of 95% to 90%, equivalent to doubling the chances of being wrong to one in ten. It was even worse than this, but I don’t want to get too deep into details of statistical methods. There are many other serious defects in the EPA report; such as ignoring about twenty confounding factors and choosing to ignore a study that produced a statistically significant decrease in risk. So after all this knavery, what result did they come up with? They calculated a risk ratio of 1.19. In case you have forgotten our guidelines from Chapter 2, risk ratios of greater than 3 are normally considered significant. One might even stretch a point and go down to 2, but never lower. If it were not so unprincipled and shameful it would be laughable and pathetic. As a basis of comparison a report in The Times (Aug 6, 1997) quotes a study in Uruguay that produces a risk ratio of 4 for the development of lung cancer in heavy consumers of dairy products. That is an increase of 300%, compared with the EPA’s 19%, which presumably means that some 50,000 Americans will die each year of eating rice pudding. As a correspondent in the next day’s Times asks “What are my chances if I am regularly in the same room as rice pudding eaters?”
The most extraordinary thing about the EPA-ETS fiasco is that, after four major statistical fiddles, they could only come up with a pathetic risk ratio of 1.19. Even four out of ten of our imaginary scientists in Chapter 2 did better than that on a non-existent effect and the margarine farceur did twice as well in percentage terms. - From the Book "Sorry Wrong Number"
My long winded posts in the last thread, brings forward a question of being properly informed.
The levels of CO, Tar and Nicotine on the side of a cigarette package do not serve as any information with which one could assess the danger of the product.
If we simply replaced those measures with levels of Histamines and preformed TSNA [NNN and NNK] smokers could assess the dangers and smoke according to informed choices.
The result in the competitive marketplace would be, that manufacturers would sell reduced toxic constituents and stick with the safer tobacco, grown within regulated conditions, as opposed to the free trade promoted cheaper products or reconstituted tobacco with questionable content. They used lob lolly pine trees in cigarettes which really screws the credibility of anyone assesing health risks of tobacco smoke.
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=12037262
The reduced carcinogen products would likely take the level of fear in connection with ETS to a level so low it could never be considered credible again. Adenocarcinoma of the lung which was rare before 1960 and constitutes the bulk of smoking related cancers today, could be reduced by as much as 60% just by reversing the process which caused it.
The question for TC advocates would be; why have you resisted listing real and proven indicators of risk on a cigarette package?
If not to maintain the artificial death rate of what you call "preventable" mortalities.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/
c...a3701e320469b26
"Background: Adenocarcinoma of the lung, once considered
minimally related to cigarette smoking, has become the most
common type of lung cancer in the United States."
Twist the numbers ant way you like with the same number of smokers throughout the changes we saw, can only be explained in one of two ways;
1] Cigarettes have changed
2] Smoking has little to do with those cancers.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c...ract/89/21/
1580
"Associations between cigarette smoking and death from specific types of lung cancer during the first 2 years of follow-up in Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I), initiated in 1959) and Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II, initiated in 1982) were also examined.
RESULTS: Adenocarcinoma incidence in Connecticut increased nearly 17- fold in women and nearly 10-fold in men from 1959 through 1991. The increases followed a clear birth cohort pattern, paralleling gender and generational changes in smoking more than diagnostic advances. Cigarette smoking became more strongly associated with death from lung adenocarcinoma in CPS-II compared with CPS-I, with relative risks of 19.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.3-47.7) for men and 8.1 (95% CI = 4.5-14.6) for women in CPS-II and 4.6 (95% CI = 1.7-12.6) for men and 1.5 (0.3-7.7) for women in CPS-I. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in lung adenocarcinoma since the 1950s is more consistent with changes in smoking behavior and cigarette design than with "
David K, asked How stupid the PA DOH think people are? I an tell you how stupid they are. back in my days as an environmental risk assesor I was in a meeting with PA DOH and my local county DOH. They had this go get them attitude about a certain situation. I informed them in direct terms that what they wanted to act on was a 4th and 14th amendment violation and thought they had a Gestopo attitude. They were like deer in the headlights. Of course they did complain about me.
i was informed at my workplace today about the new PA rules. We are to follow them to the letter, my direct superior informed me as he was smoking a smuggled cigarette from the Seneca Nation inside the building. I am not sure how the big boss feels but as he said good night this evening. He was walking out with five cartons of those smuggled cigarettes under his arm. Nemo had at least seven violations on the first day of the PA ban with many more to come.
Some welcome news today as Bill would describe her a "Tobacco Control contractor" has been unmasked and she is a he.
Cathy Bell won't be playing here any more.
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2...-
hypocrisy.html
http://communities.canada.com/MO...ead/
239358.aspx
"With the help of the Montreal Police, C.A.G.E. has succeeded in uncovering Cathy Bell’s true identity and exact address. It turns out that “she” lives on Sherbrooke Street in the West part of Montreal. It turns out that “she” is actually an average-looking young man whom, for the time being, we will identify only as “Mr. Jones”. Obviously, “she” is a man with far too much time on his hands. C.A.G.E. looks forward to chatting with Mr. Jones in court, and we have already served him with the preliminary documents for initiating a civil law suit. It will be very interesting to find out whether he was also lying when he insisted that he was acting out of his own initiative and was not getting his cues from any organization with a stake in this issue. "
LMAO
From the Q and A
Q. Why is the state doing this?
A. A 2006 report from the U.S. Surgeon General documented the serious and deadly health effects of secondhand smoke on healthy non-smokers, which include developmental effects in children, heart disease in adults and cancer in sites beyond the lungs.
And then
Q. Why is this a big deal – not that many people smoke in Pennsylvania
………
It is estimated that between 1 and 3 million adults non smokers die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke
………
……….
It’s a bit misleading to first say the state is doing this because of the SG report, and then later on provided statistical information not supported by or appearing anywhere (that I, m aware of) within the SG report. Which is why I have always maintained that smoking bans are not based solely on the SG report, but are a product of fraud or a continuation of false claims and spin made by the SG.
The SG is also the clown prince apparent, in charge of the Bush "war on drugs".
Draw from that what ever you wish.
You know they will...
BTW is that the
DOH or the DUH
Homer;
Oh look, they have the internet on computers now...
Lynda: "I notice he never really discusses these studies the brainiacs (Kevin, sam, brian bond, dave k, mjm, walt…..just to name a few) on this group present to him."
You forgot Rose, who, aside from her rich scholarship, is as sharp as a tack. We're indebted to all of them. AND others.
Sexy Pinay: "How can I quit smoking? any tips?
Simple as pie, Sexy: follow my example. I quit cold turkey 10 minutes ago.
OR, if you've got the requisite pride and vanity, you might try the General DeGaulle method. One day he simply announced to a member of staff that he'd quit smoking, when, up to that point, he in fact hadn't. The idea being that he, the great DeGaulle, could never lose face by going back on his word.
.
Kevin:
Re "Cathy Bell,"
LMAO2
.
A few items GreatScot left off his list.
Are you outraged or do you continue to think it's "worth it" that the frail elderly in nursing homes are forced to "just step outside" (and often off-premises, and even across 6 lanes of icy highway) to "enjoy" a cigarette?
Is it "worth it" when they slip, fall, get sick or sicker from exposure to the cold, or get locked out and die?
Are you outraged or is it "worth it" when mental patients are forced to "just step outside" (if-- and then only when-- they're allowed) in order to relieve their overwhelming stress, tolerate medication, and maintain a final shred of their lost autonomy, the loss of which, itself, impedes their recovery as their doctors have attested?
Is it "worth it" when their inability to do so, or do so on their own biological schedule, requires the use of more or stronger medication with the side effects entailed?
Are you outraged or is it "worth it" when hospital patients are forced to "just step (or wheel themselves) outside" attached to IVs in all sorts of weather?
Ia it "worth it" when the stress of enforced cold turkey impairs their recovery? or exposure to the elements with impaired immune systems has the same effect, or makes them sicker?
Were you outraged when the nurse (was her name Utopia?) told the story of the dying old lady in the hospital whose last wishes-- for the ease of a cigarette-- had to be denied?
Have you ever been outraged by the stories that several of us here have told about friends with disabilities who've been forced to become hermits and get clinically depressed?
Have you ever felt a twinge about the businesses that have closed because customers are refusing to "just step outside" when they're paying to relax and enjoy themselves with friends?
If you aren't outraged, you're not who you think you are.
And among your penances you ought to write a check for 500 bucks towards the CAGE prosecution of "Cathy Bell." (See Kevin's link above) and then seriously consider sack cloth and ashes.
:
In terms of the inconvenience of having to smoke outside or in terms of some businesses seeing a decline in revenue, I'll be honest with you and say B (you can call me callous - I probably deserve it).
Doc, just to be clear here, we are not talking about a little lost revenue. Over 2000 pubs in England have closed permanently, 75% of all pubs have laid off staff, resulting in over 100,000 people out of work, thousands have lost their homes and everything they own and invested.
And that is not counting the suppliers and service providers, contractors and sub-contractors that have now lost a substantial portion of their customer base.
Then add in 500 pubs in Scotland, 200 in Northern Ireland and Wales, 2300 in the Republic of Ireland etc etc
Walt,
thank you for once again putting my thoughts into words.
I look forward to the Doc's (and Bill G's) response.
GreatScot
Walt
Just in
Smoke ban causes trouble at hospital
"MENTALLY ill patients “detained” at a Chester hospital claim a smoking ban is causing aggravation between staff and service-users."
"The letter, on behalf of patients, reads: “One patient threatened to wreck the ward if she could not have a fag. Management chose to bring in a load of male nurses and threatened to sedate her, to enforce their no-smoking policy, rather than let her smoke.”
The letter claimed one consultant psychiatrist had complained to management stating that 10% of his professional time was now taken up with smoking-related incidents.
It added: “Anyone knows that it is impossible to make habitual smokers give up especially when their anxieties are at such a level they need hospital treatment.”
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.u...59067-21799846/
Considering the vast amount of literature on the benefits of niacin/nicotine on brain function this seems unbelievably cruel.
The calculated use of statistics manifesting in real world results.
Back to the Boston Ban, this article has multiple quotes from the Doctor.
http://media.www.bgnews.com/medi...s-
3428193.shtml
I'm curious Doctor, will you be going to the October 8th meeting in Boston?
My Friday night Guiness will taste all that much better! CAGE will get some $ from me too!!!!!!!!
Hai, Cathy! LMAO! *leers at Bill Godshall*
Rose,
one for your records?
Schizophrenia and lung cancer
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/da...abase/
a109d.htm
Excepts
Several studies have shown that schizophrenics tend to smoke far more than other people and yet lung cancer rates are much lower than in the general population whether smokers or not.
Dr. Hoffer has had excellent results by treating schizophrenics with high doses of niacin (vitamin B3) and ubiquinone (coenzyme Q10) which both lower elevated adrenochrome levels.
To explain the abnormally low cancer rates among schizophrenia patients Drs. Hoffer and Foster suggest that elevated adrenochrome levels may protect against tumor development.
Adding to GreatScots post on business closings due to bans.
My brother is a truck driver for a food company that delivers products to restaurants, bars and schools. He has told me several times about the decline in sales/deliveries since New York State instituted their Statewide ban. Each story is worse than the last, especially for the businesses that I use to visit while "at home" on vacation. I say use to visit as I do not go out to eat while in NY anymore. My mother has a kitchen that I use instead. Anyway, yesterday (Thursday) at 11:10 AM Central time, my brother called me. I asked him what he was doing at home during the day or a work week. He told me, "It is my mandatory day off. All of us has a day off now each week. All of us who has survived the lay offs, that is. We only work 4 days a week and on those 4 days, our hours have been cut from 8 to 6 hours a day. I really don't know how my company stays in business and if it wasn't for the schools, we probably would be out of a job. No one is going out to eat anymore. The places who are still struggling along have changed their orders and ordering less. They are filling the dinner plates with what we call "fillers" as they can no longer afford to offer the quality of food that they once did. I am sure that there will be more lay offs during the holiday periods, for a couple of weeks at least when the schools shuts down. Thank God I have seniority and hopefully I will get my mortgage paid off before we do go out of business too." His wife works in the Accounts Payable Office of the same company. Very soon, neither may have an income.
By utilizing the tactic of creating irresponsible fear mongering applied deliberately to large populations, TC and the cult of Public health, have empowered many decidedly anti social and psychopathic personalities.
Cathy Bell is mild, compared to many I have encountered in blogs and discussion forums. Encouraged to believe, as we see quoted all too often, smokers are killing those around them. A few years back a moderate, almost ban friendly, former president of Mychoice.ca, Nancy Daignion was threatened with death on her doorstep, and the chants have only gotten louder since that time.
If only one in 10 thousand people are encouraged to seek revenge, you have a potential of 30,000 murderers being given the green light in the United States alone.
There are always costs to pay, this hateful madness is still growing and the flames are still being fanned, Tobacco Control has lost control of most of those they inspired.
Will smokers be blamed again for those deaths in any number, which will most certainly occur? The anti-smoker related deaths.
Good article from spiked, it's about the AIDS scam and 2 whistleblowers have came forward. Substitute ETS for AIDS.
Longish but please have a read.
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...s_article/5661/
Excerpt
This sort of opportunism is not confined to AIDS: in other areas where experts are broadly in sympathy with government policy – such as passive smoking, obesity and climate change – they have been similarly complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda.
It is a pity that Chin and Pisani did not blow their whistles earlier and louder, but better late than never.
GreatScot
Dr Siegel ,how about calling for the campaign of denormalisation to STOP RIGHT NOW. Unless of course you are content with the collateral damage it is causing.All i see are a bunch of anti loonies turning into the archetypal blood lusting zombies.To think i'm supposed to be the abnormal and ostracized one.Personally i feel a member of the elite,in being able to decipher the bollocks TC constantly spouts.
my understand,from Garth Mahood director of SHAF and NSRA in Canada, was "denormalization" was to be about the tobacco company and product, not the individual.
In a discussion with the editors of the Ottawa Citizen, Mahood stated that once smokers find out the deceit and harm that the tobacco companies are doing, they will stop smoking in protest and disgust.
Unfortunately, that is not what is or has happened. TC couldn't "get" the companies so they have gone after the individual. How very sad.
Ann;
Letters I received from The CCS and Health Canada, have consistently claimed denormalization was about the Industry, however to date neither has focused on the industry and virtually all of their advertising efforts and public statements have targeted individuals. With progressively harsher and more mean spirited campaigns, slandering by the broad brush, to sell their hatred and divisions in communities.
One look at the stock market values since their "focus on denormalizing of the industry" began, demonstrates either they are complete failures with massive expenditures of wasted money, or the more likely reality; they are fear mongering liars and are promoting nothing less than bigotry.
GreatScot
Thanks for the link, I have read about Hoffer, here's a piece by him.
http://www.doctoryourself.com/
ho...fer_niacin.html
What it doesn't mention is the mutated nicotinic receptors in schizophrenia, so the chainsmoking rather points towards a deficiency, the element replaced by something in the smoke, which after reading more about the oxidization of nicotine than is good for me,I now firmly believe is nicotinic acid/niacin/B3
From the link.
"Niacin was known as a chemical for about 100 years before it was recognized to be vitamin B-3. It is made from nicotine, a poison produced in the tobacco plant to protect itself against its predators, but in the wonderful economy of nature which does not waste any structures, when the nicotine is simplified by cracking open one of the rings, it becomes the immensely valuable vitamin B-3."
So the chainsmoking niacin delivery works fine to me and I am not surprised at the improvements with large doses.
So lets look at the effects of smoking a cigarette that only a smoker can tell.
Does this happen to you, when you smoke a cigarette?
"Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping"
No?
Those are the affects of fresh nicotine.
Common side effects of a severe adrenaline rush
"So it tells various glands throughout your body to produce large amounts of adrenaline. The adrenaline will give you strength you never thought you had. The purpose being, you can run away faster, or you can fight harder".
"So what are the side effects?
A: Apart from the intense strength, there a three side effects:
-memory blackout
-complete loss of reasoning
-indifference to pain"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A509212
So I have a problem with the nicotine adrenaline theory.
I find smoking relaxing.
But not being a doctor or a scientist, what would I know?
But very often, the simplest and most obvious conclusion is the correct one.
The warning message for the "smokeFreeOhio" website has been there for about 6 months now.
Maybe it's deliberate to keep Anti-ban proponents out, or maybe it's to keep ban supporters from escaping their grasp by placing the suspected mal-ware on their individual pc's to "stay in contact". (completely benign of course,....for their own good)
But, ..
With the publicized introduction of Ohio SB346, it appears that the American Cancer Society (SmokeFree Ohio) and their profiteering pharmaceutical partners HAVE geared up the extremely well funded propaganda machine yet again in an effort to convince anyone within earshot that Smoking Bans equal better health, and that two years after Private Property Rights in Ohio were abolished, the duplicitous Smoke Free Work Place Act has been yet another triumphant socialist success. Of course they have no empirical evidence of this from any truly unbiased source, (you’re supposed to take their word for it based on their own in-house polling, or worse, from one of their many, Astroturf front groups) nor do they have any statistical evidence linking SHS to any disease that exceeds the probability of random chance, and they still don’t have even a single death certificate as proof of the now 30 year old claim that SHS is the 21st century equivalent of the Black Plague, but nonetheless, you are encouraged to believe the ludicrous claims because after-all, they’re the ACS. They are masters of emotional based advertising designed to generate profit through the promotion of fear.
And so far, they're clearly really good at it.
GS
Bearing in mind of course that CoenzymeQ10 comes from solanesol in tobacco leaves and oxidizes to ubiquinone, I would say that the schizophrenics were already treating themselves by the rough and ready traditional method.
But the decrease in lung cancer is reminiscent of the "tar" stains that protected the first three fingers on the tarworkers right hands noted by Fritz Lickint and Dr Hueper.
Incidentally, solanesol can also be extracted from potato leaves.
Never smoker's lung cancer rates have not changed much since the 1930s
http://
medicine.plosjournals.org...al.pmed.0050185
These data go through 2004, yet never smoker's exposure to SHS has been declining since first-hand smoking began to decline after 1953. ( The rate of decline in SHS exposure has been accelerating since the mid 1980s, )
SO....... unless incubation time of supposedly SHS-induced LC in never smokers is more than 40, years,,,,,
And IF SHS exposure is a major cause of LC in never smokers,,,,,,,
THEN we should be observing a downward trend in age-adjusted and population adjusted LC rates in never smokers....
According to this link , we are not.
Sooooooo...... Doc, is it safe to say that never smokers' SHS exposure is NOT an important contributary cause of LC in never smokers?
Alternately..... we can say that the value of public policy interventions in preventing never smokers from developing LC has not been demonstrated for some unknown reason (s).
( We can definitely conclude that SHS does not kill between 1 and 3 million people in PA each year) LOL
Further to your link GreatScot
You got me thinking,one missing piece of the medical treatment that would more closely replicate the plant chemicals in tobacco, is tyrosine, which I discovered was in the plant, when the gale force wind smashed the leaves against the wall.
"Tyrosine is involved with the synthesis of neurotransmitters in the brain. Tyrosine is a precursor to L-dopa, dopamine, norepinephrine and epinephrine. Brain concentrations of these neurotransmitters are dependent upon intake of tyrosine"
"Tyrosine has been reported to be of value in the treatment of many other conditions including addictions, Alzheimer’s disease ... Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia and stress disorders." http://home.caregroup.org/clinic...ts/
Tyrosine.htm
Schizophrenics=1 TC=0
From Dave Ks link;
"Conclusions
These comprehensive analyses support claims that the death rate from lung cancer among never-smokers is higher in men than in women, and in African Americans and Asians residing in Asia than in individuals of European descent, but contradict assertions that risk is increasing or that women have a higher incidence rate than men. Further research is needed on the high and variable lung cancer rates among women in Pacific Rim countries."
If the rate has not changed it underscores the fact that populations have increased dramatically and incidence as a product has also risen as we would expect.
However if you consider medical developments and interventions aimed at reducing those incidence numbers. If those interventions had any level of success, we would have to conclude the rates have increased in an inverse proportion to any progress made.
If smokers remained a constant number for over a half a century and risks have increased, it would be a petty good indication interventions to date have shown detrimental effects, or in their ignorance of controlled focus, they failed to intervene as the product became more dangerous.
To the delight of the Tobacco industry only the consumer is burdened with the costs of failure.
From the Spiked link:
“Pisani reminds readers that ‘public health is inherently a somewhat fascist discipline’”
This sort of opportunism is not confined to AIDS: in other areas where experts are broadly in sympathy with government policy – such as passive smoking, obesity and climate change – they have been similarly complicit in the prostitution of science to propaganda.
These points in the article just about sum it up perfectly. I say just about only because they do express strongly enough those sentiments.
Michael seems to believe rights of all are being respected through smoking ban regulations.
Here is a sample of the "balanced approach" so consistent with promoting smoker hatred.
From one of the boilerplate smoking bans being promoted, incredibly by charities and doctors?
http://www.emporiagazette.com/ne...an_air_emporia/
""Section 13. NON-RETALIATION
No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner retaliate against employee, applicant for employment or customer because such employee, applicant or customer exercises any right to a smoke free environment afforded by this Article. (Lawrence, Winfield, Derby, Newton)"
So as ASH has consistently promoted firing or refusing to hire smokers, non smokers will be protected from a similar fate.
Liberty and Justice for all, non smokers, non obese, non drinkers, non meat eaters,......
While all the wide brushed anti smoker rhetoric fans the belief controlling "smokers" needs regulation and punishments, which non smokers being left alone with their own variety of habits and peculiarities, will not face this time around, A community divided and embracing restriction because of the invented and imagined "tremendous harm" smokers "might" do to others.
You can hear the Jack boots getting louder.
Where are the restrictions to assure smokers will not be the victims of vigilante justice, which is being encouraged by the state, to focus the predictable mean spirited convictions and punishments without the option of a trial, whitewashing of otherwise innocent people?
And how would this effect punishing or denormalizing the tobacco industry again?
Dr Siegel it might help clear up matters if you could summarize the criteria you use when weighing the costs and benefits of SBEs. Could you maybe simply list out what these are?
I do get a little confused as you do seem to oscillate.
west
----
Here is an excellent article, finally realizing and exposing the systemic corrupt nature of TC and its parent industrial socialist [Nazi] Public health Organizations, gorged with financial conflicts and declaring none.
As a financially viable, or even barely ethical enterprise; It supports in actual practice, neither description. Not even a vague interest exists in its own published mandate.
Industry seeks profit medicine seeks a costly goal of providing comfort and cures, how could both be moving on the same track without a predictable disaster.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/hea...erests_between/
" Given the profit motive that underlies industry's activities, a general question that emerges is: How solvable is the conflict of interests between private enterprise and public health? Adam Smith, who presciently viewed the modern free-market, claimed: "by pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society..." (5). More recently, however, a landmark paper on Game Theory described "the Tragedy of the Commons" and showed that individual maximization of profit necessarily endangers the public good, and since the problem has no technical solution, "it requires a fundamental extension in morality" (1). Health care is a public good that induces market failure as it differs from other merchandise such as cars or food: in health care, there is a large information gap between consumers and vendors, there are many uncertainties related to diagnosis or outcomes, the system is complicated by insurance and indirect payments that allow gaming, and, finally, when life itself is at stake, framing of issues is often more emotional than rational. For these reasons, the health market is greatly susceptible to corruption, as recently reviewed by the organization Transparency International (6). We propose here that public health now emerges as a grave example of conflict of interests with private enterprise.
Safety Concerns Dwarfed by Industry "
Doc,
just to conclude the not so convenient loss of revenue, lets not forget the patrons. Conservatively allocating 100 regulars to each pub means that 500,000 people in the UK and Ireland, no longer have their favorite haunt. The heart and soul of their communities has been destroyed. the very place where many people went to relax and socialise, relieve the daily stress, sing, dance, discuss and debate, play pool or darts or simply sit with friends and shoot the breeze.
Victims all.
GreatScot
Here is a main partner for PA DOH the PA Alliance to Control Tobacco. This is made up of a partnership of ACS, ALA and AHA. They claim on their web site that SHS causes SIDS and also claim that a waitress has 4 times the risk of getting lung cancer. Has anyone seen a study showing an RR of 4.0 for the waitress group? They caim 50% greater risk for bartenders....Doc is that one yours?
http://www.pactonline.org/defaul...spx?
topix=facts
go to resources-then fact sheets
=facts hah!
Nemo,
More statistical sleight of hand, without defining the baseline risk, 4 times the risk is meaningless, 4 times nothing is nothing and 4 times a minuscule risk is still a minuscule risk.
It is rather dramatic and emotive though.
GreatScot
So the doctor says he feels "a little bad" about "lost revenue." Which is a nice bait and switch, as he himself has stated before that he believes the impact of smoking bans to be real--and devastating--on at least some small businesses.
More importantly, even if he does see the risks to these businesses to be small, isn't that what this is all about? Eliminating the very possibility of injury?
Remember, the RR for SHS weighs in at very meager 1.2. By my calculations, this means that a full 50,000 bartenders would have to work in a smokey environment for a full 40 years before we see a death.
49,999 are fine. One dead. Am I OK with that? I think it's worth the risk.
But note how the doctor won't allow me--or my employees--to take that risk. He wants to pass laws. And if I disagree with them, he wants me punished.
Ah, tolerance. Selective application of outrage sure makes a doctor's life easier. particularly when he readily admits that his own work has destroyed families. But, you know, doesn't lose any sleep over it.
What's a word to describe that?
Oh...
Callous.
Anonymous
49,999 are fine. One dead. Am I OK with that? I think it's worth the risk
indulge me a slight correction bearing in mind we are talking about epidemiology.
49,999 are probably fine. One might be dead. Am I OK with that? I think it's worth the risk
GreatScot
Anonymous, - "And if I disagree with them, he wants me punished."
Please allow me one minor correction as well;
"And if I disagree with them, then I obviously haven't been adequately informed
Doc,
Would you object to the existence of a 100% smoking bar? IE owned, staffed and used 100% by smokers. If yes please state your argument as well.
GreatScot
Does anyone think that the PA and NJ DOHs might have better things to do than enforce smoking bans?
"Hospitals' mistakes are going unreported
Despite laws in Pa. and N.J. aimed at reducing errors, compliance is spotty, experts say."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/h...html?page=1&
c=y
When Doctors and Hospital Administrators "game the system" the integrity of the system itself is compromised.
PS The real reason for bans is not because bartenders and wait staff can not be adequately informed. About 43% don't believe SHS is a threat. Most of the rest think it might be a risk but they are willing to accept the risk.
The ban "pushers" may be seeking fame, fortune, legitimacy for their highly nuanced research or they may just be projecting their religious beliefs on the public at large. The problem begins with the assumption that if even just one life can be extended a few years, or that an illness can be prevented, anything can be justified in trying to achieve this naive or just plain bogus goal.
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Everyone involved in the daily operations of the restaurant; the Cook, the waitstaff, and the dishwasher/buspersons all smoke.
The Smoking Ban (in Ohio) is meticulously worded, and specifically designed to "protect" employees. Not the patrons. (the majority of whom also smoke)
The Ohio Dept. of health could care less about the patrons and their smoking preferences so long as they don't put the staff at risk. BUT,..as I said, the staff smokes!
So,...Whats the point?
Protection?,....from what? it's certainly not protection, it's clearly an inconvenience for both staff and patron.
"Help" to quit?,..nah,...coercion would be a better description anyway, but that's not the stated altrustic goal here. Besides, that would be oh so wrong, ...wouldn't it!?
For the children?,...I have no underage staff, and have no desire to deal with child labor laws that regulate the hiring of them. They're mostly unreliable in this business.
For "their own good",..ummm excuse me but individual health concerns belong to the individual, not the state and certainly not to TC.
For the "greater good",...puhleeeeze, that's just a little too non-descript even for you, but if that's your choice of answer, then I have to ask; "greater good" of what?, of who?, how so? and why?
To "level the playing field",.....in Russia perhaps,...but not in a Free market economy. That cliche is even more nonsensical than the "protection" reason given for the ban to begin with. There is no such thing as a "level playing field" in a competitive society.
Essentially, I could allow my patrons to smoke, .....if it weren't for my employees that also smoke being present because that would be against the law.
It makes perfect sense,....doesn't it?
So,...what's the point here?
What is the objection to a sign that simply, clearly states: "SMOKING PERMITTED"?
(biohazard symbol and skull w/crossbones included of course)
Do you think that people are really so stupid as to not understand this?
Or is it just the TC advocates that wouldn't "get it"?
GreatScot: "Would you object to the existence of a 100% smoking bar? IE owned, staffed and used 100% by smokers. If yes please state your argument as well."
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember his dismissing that line of argument on the grounds that it would be an attempt to get around the law!
Whether or not he used the level-playing field argument as well, I also can't remember. Poor memory, obvious. Anybody here remember?
.
Harry,
If such 100% venues existed, there would be no need for the law, unless the goal then became one of regluating stupidity in making poor choices for oneself,......or fighting illiteracy.
LightningBoy,
We can't have workers making poor choices for themselves -- where do you get such unsocial ideas? Besides which, do you know any bartender intelligent enough to understand the message behind a skull and crossbones?
Please! Get with the program!
.
Would you object to the existence of a 100% smoking bar? IE owned, staffed and used 100% by smokers.
We've done this already and the doc admitted he would object on the grounds of............
get ready for it now........
it's a beauty.........................
..................................................
.....
..................................................
.....
..................................................
.....
..................................................
.....
DISCRIMINATION!
Because non-smokers would be excluded from employment/patronizing!!!!
It was THAT answer that led to our asking about what signage to use (and his saying anyone willing to take the risk obviously could not be adequately informed) which led to our being callous to less than 1% of the population who suffer from asthma and the less than 1/4 of 1% of the population who are so sensitive that a whiff of smoke on the street would keel them over dead.
IF I remember the sequence properly anyway.
I do remember he was dead set against 100% smoking claiming discrimination against non-smokers for employment/entertainment (tough noogies for any smoker wanting a comfortable work/dining/entertainment situation).
Go figure.
No surprise, Lynda.
Practicing a "Double Standard" is part of the TC training, and clearly trumps any references to property rights that appear in the US Constitutiion, or any individual State constitution that makes reference to property, ownership, or the rights attending either.
Clearly the framers of these documents were not adequately informed of the possibility that some day, "public health" would be running the country, not the elected representatives that have clearly abdicated their responsibilities.
Disgusting,...isn't it?
From the link posted above; Considering Michael's research which came along coincidental to an anti smoking campaign, originating from the WHO at the UN. They also proudly proclaim their partnership with some of the largest industries and media organizations on the planet.
How do we guess whether Michaels research, serves the public or his partnered big business interests?
There isn't a warning sign on any of the research or news releases and no unbiased groups left to advise us.
We certainly, in his assesment, could never be intelligent enough to know for sure, and the information available suggests the later.
So I guess his very credibility and that of his colleagues, is now just a matter of speculation and rumors. Just like the rest of us.
Smoker season will eventually give rise to Doctor season.
Or should I call it denormalization of the Drug industry. [The war on drugs???] We have to be careful how we frame these things, so as not to look like bigots and hypocrites.
Problem
Bread additive 'raises asthma risk'
"New research suggests that a substance added to flour to improve the quality of bread poses a "considerable health risk" to people working in bakeries and mills"
"The findings, published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, could explain why the bakery industry has one of the highest reported rates of occupational asthma in the UK".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...alth/
284451.stm
Ban bread?
Or should people who selfishly wish to eat bread go and make it in their own homes.
I think I remember doc saying he would not object to my having a dinner party in my home, and allow smoking, even if I was very wealthy, and had employed staff such as butlers.
Then i asked him what was the difference between that, and having a restaurant doing the same thing? i don't remember his reply.
I put this in the previous thread, but in case it's not read here it is again:
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael J. McFadden | Homepage
Michael, I just downloaded and read Stilleto. I already knew the facts that you presented, but the format is easy to read and great for passing out to bars, etc.
However, I firmly believe that smokers need to do either, or both, of the following to make the bans go away forever:
1. Smokers have to declare absolute war on smoking bans. They have to flout the laws, and become criminals. I know that I can't afford fines, but am willing to spend time in jail to make a point. Getting out the information that SHS is a lie, is easy. Having the antis buy into that information, is nigh upon impossible. They are willing to give up anyone's rights to get rid of a smell. Just visit Topix, and you can see for yourself. Any information that disproves the TC scam is labeled as Big Tobacco propaganda.
2. Call for the COMPLETE prohibition of the use, sale and production of any tobacco products. I know this sounds like a real bummer, but maybe it's time to tell the antis to put their money where their mouths are. It's time for the ANTIS to walk their talk. If SHS is so harmful, than it's time to just end it now. I know that I would love to see the upswing of bootlegging and smuggling that this would bring. Plus the fact that the antis would have to start paying more state and federal taxes to make up for the loss of tobacco taxes. It would be hard to give up the enjoyment that I derive from smoking, but it would be so much fun to see the withdrawal that the governments, both state and federal, would garner from the loss of the Smokers monies. It would also be halarious to watch the ANTI orgs that promote the SHS lies and scams, realize that they will be unemployed, and money for their lifestyles going down the drain.
It would also mean that this blog would no longer be necessary. Siegel would no longer have to keep trying to get back in the good graces of TC by exploliting smokers.
I would be very interested in finding out which Public health agencies and "contractors" were paid with Tax dollars, to sponsor Cathy Bell and other individuals who promote what can not be described as less than bigotry and hatred.
The real power driving smoking bans is explained in detail in this document.
Bigotry is the mean spirited elevation of the stature of one group, in comparison to others.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images...82/
128291eo.pdf
And this one
With partnerships already formed, Scientists can never be more credible than their industry partners and their motivations can no longer be distinguished from the promotion of profits as primary or secondary, to the well being of others.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/hea...erests_between/
The reality of lung adenocarcinoma and smoking can be seen in this document;
"Adenocarcinoma of the lung, once considered
minimally related to cigarette smoking, has become the most
common type of lung cancer in the United States."
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/
c...a3701e320469b26
"In summary, the increase in adenocarcinoma in the United
States since 1950 corresponds temporally with changes in smoking
behaviour and in cigarette design rather than with diagnostic advances. Adenocarcinoma is now strongly related to cigarette smoking.
Q; Why the change? And why do 80% of those dying of lung adenocarcinoma happen to be smokers?
A; They call it depraved indifference,
To sell the profits of charities and improve the stature of Public Health, as a theological order, rose to dominance over elected officials and the courts.
Never smoker's lung cancer rates have not changed much since the 1930s
http:// medicine.plosjournals.org...al.pmed.0050185
After you examine the next series of links, you too can discover the cause of cancers among smokers. Just as public health and the charities have known for half a century, as they watched the death toll climb and remained silent, smiling all the way to the bank,
Quote from the Ontario health ministry;
"There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest tobacco produced in Canada is safer than tobacco produced anywhere on the planet."
I guess that claim comes down to a personal definition of science and evidence;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ site...bmed_RVAbstract
As you see here, there is very real proof safer or reduced risk cigarettes are a reality, which would be consistent with the reality of more dangerous cigarettes emerging since the 1960s, confirmed in a multitude of studies, based in actual observations over many years. Safer, and only not available, only because public health authorities refuse to ban the use of roots and stems in the product as they have done in other countries with proven success. Sounds simple enough, however their process of avoidance similar to the avoidance which kept diesel fuel exhaust off the carcinogens list for fifty years the game goes on. Protecting profits is primary; people’s health is only an afterthought to be used in the sale of new and improved products.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/ c...a3701e320469b26
Roots and stems again?
"Second, blended reconstituted tobacco, introduced in the 1950s, releases higher concentrations of nitrosamines from tobacco stems than did products made predominantly from tobacco leaves (21). Nitrosamines from tobacco are known to induce lung adenocarcinoma in rodents when injected systemically (22)."
Considering the "no safe level of tobacco smoke" promotion, a phrase with no useful information to offer, but a large price to pay, as existing product regulations are nullified, and fear is inspired which is only legitimate, by adapting the "no safe" mantra as a rule as opposed to a figure of speech.
Now take a look at the side of a cigarette package. What information is available with which a smoker can make an informed choice? Autonomy demands that information as a basic human right. CO, Tar and Nicotine levels do not tell us anything of value in assessment of risk. Neither does the shock value sought in placing ridiculous pictures on the packages. If however we saw the levels of histamines and nitrosamines on the side of a cigarette package, smokers would be allowed to make informed health relevant decisions by evaluating what is thought to be the most dangerous ingredients in the package. Competition in the marketplace would serve their needs, in keeping toxics to a minimum. As a further consequence for non smokers, the levels of risk would be so low you couldn't find any level of significant risk with three decimal places added to your calculator.
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=12037262
“The significant manufacturer-specific effects suggest that proprietary blending and processing of tobacco matter as well. Public, brand-by-brand disclosure of the yields of TSNA and possibly other smoke constituents appears to be warranted”
The charities in self promotion have shifted from a search for cancers, to ‘disease management” and “health interventions” shifting the focus and the framing of the situation, to protecting those least at risk, to the detriment of those most at risk. Happy hunting the shift of focus just moved the cures and cause understanding back another fifty years and the level of damage is maintained to promote fear and their profits indefinitely.
Lynda,
One doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry. Maybe both at the same time.
I dunno, maybe the good doctor is just rehearsing for a job in light comedy.
.
Harry;
I would guess he is just trying to keep his weight down.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...tudy-
shows.html
Anyone want to watch a short film made for helpless children?
How about visiting the world's first smoker free mountain? Climbing the mountain is safer than being expossed to ETS obviously, the owners are rumored to be anorexic in keeping with the last link, although the spokesperson is so obviously a deep thinker by the looks of him.
http://www.mychoice.ca/en/default.aspx
Yes the question was asked before and yes the answer was discrimination, however, much proverbial water has passed under the bridge since then and sometimes a repeated question allows an opportunity to express a change in ones position or even simply qualify the previous answer.
We all know that prohibiting 100% smoking venues can not be justified with the ETS fraud, just like the UK legal standard minimum 50% open to the elements (not counting door or windows)smoker pens can not be justified by the ETS fraud.
Yes the next answer may still be DISCRIMINATION, I would not be surprised, discrimination is clearly something the Tobacco Control Industry knows all about.
GreatScot
By promoting smoker bans you protect the population group thought to be the least at risk, while failing to protect those most at risk by in fact increasing their health risks.
If you can describe the actions of TC as humane and compassionate your sadly misguided and likely very skinny. If not they will be expanding the process to increase your health risks by the same process as their next campaign strategy.
Smokers were never allowed to choose their own poison. Public Health overlords have known for many years the dangers list on the side of the package is useless in determining relative risks, by gauging the toxins a package might contain. Tar, Carbon dioxide or nicotine are not markers of carcinogenic content. If they listed the real suspect carcinogens believed to cause cancers on the package the tobacco industry would never have been allowed to use roots and stems in what they sell as reconstituted tobacco. If we let the market decide the toxic content along with the majority of lung cancers and risk would sharply decline. Public health was aware of this reality for years yet dismissed the idea in protecting their true aim as shills to big tobacco profits.
A win-win for public health, who get their scary stories to cash out as the bodies pile up while the tobacco industry gets to distribute the cheaper tobacco products, The new plan makes their tobacco even cheaper, now it is being subsidized by the UN in the third world to fight the Bush war on drugs, by moving farmers away from cocaine and poppies and into Tobacco. The plan will only be successful as long as people keep smoking so how dedicated are they really, to protecting “Public Health” [Them] “The Public's Health” [us] or to reducing the number of smokers much less eliminating them.
I am of course using the term loosely, as elimination by seeing them quit, as opposed to the current process of killing them off.
BTW
Smoker walls hidden behind curtains eliminates completely anyone's ability to assess the product risk, even in terms of the content list provided. If you can not see them you can not compare them.
This would seem to be an attempt to refuse the right to autonomy afforded everyone else except smokers.
A right to health relevant information on which we would base health relevant choices, in respect to the right to manage ones own body.
Unless of course we have already ceded those choices to the cult of public health who seem to believe they control everything else.
Rose,
according to this report air pollution in London is still killing as many as the famous smog. Nice picture too!
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/ne...ists/
article.do
Calculations revealed that pneumonia, peptic ulcer, coronary and rheumatic heart diseases, lung and stomach cancers and other diseases were all associated with a range of combustion emissions
GreatScot
GreatScott;
The authors are speaking blasphemy everyone knows those are smoking related diseases.
Just wait till the ministries of Public health get wind of them[tempted to say get the skinny on this story]. Their reputations are in for a major bruising.
My news channel touched on this, though it was a short segment of about 5 seconds. Nothing else said about it and wasn't even posted on their website. Could it be that they don't want anyone to know that there are several causes of lung cancers, asthma or any kind of respiratory conditions? They certainly would not want the average Joe to think for themselves with this information while they were still in the process of denormalizing the person holding a cigarette which exhales a wisp of smoke. If my suspicions are correct, then tobacco control is killing the 400,000 or 1 million or whatever number someone comes up with every day, just because they pay off the media to keep silent on these issues.
Off topic, but there is a hurricane hitting Texas during the night and throughout today. If any of you remembers our friend Jalestra who use to post here, her town is taking a direct hit. Please keep her and her family in your prayers today.
Oh no, I hope Jalestra got out, I heard @ 40% of Galveston's population stayed behind.
I would like to echo the sentiments regarding Jalestra,whose comments are sorely missed here.
I would like to know whether Dr Siegel,if you plan to write an article condemning the TC practice of denormalising smokers and calling for an immediate halt to its practice ? Or is it that since this practice seems to be acceptable to the WHO, then it becomes more of a Public Health position rather than merely TC,just in case semantics clouds the issue on a technicality.We wouldn't want that to happen.You see,rather than be made to feel the perpetrator of a crime against humanity by having the temerity to smoke,i feel more of a victim,and a victim who is not prepared to put up with the lies and deceit used to back me into a corner,in the vain hope that i will cower and comply.
GreatScot, That story just helps them reinforce their "smoking pollution" theory as well as leading up to the "global warming" finale.
It's just designed to scare the masses into compliance with the new Orwellian World Order.
Echoing the others here, I too hope Jalestra is ok. I also miss her comments here.
Lynda;
You asked why Michael refused to discuss the more technical issues which seem to refute his prognosis.
He doesn't feel anyone challenging the dogma of Public health worthy or significant enough to deserve an opinion.
You see what they prefer to promote is a caste system of entitlement and authority. He is not entirely to blame this has been a reality within the controlled sciences and his education for over a hundred years, Rockefeller's revenge was named philanthropy and he is still torturing us today.
The caste system frames it quite nicely industrial socialism [fascism]is just another variant of essentially the same system. One which empowers and entitles the rich and well borne and enslaves the lower castes. Smokers are the lepers of society and as this progresses they will find others to join those they perceive to be useless eaters who are deserving of no respect no recreation and certainly no rest from their harassment.
The lower castes are only kept around at all, to provide increased income to the elite.
Read the following and tell me does any of this, reflect the world in which you live?
"Castes are hereditary systems of social occupation, endogamy, social culture, economic class, and political power, although initially it was not hereditary based when it started but based on the current profession of an individual.
Discrimination based on a person's caste is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia (India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Japan) and Africa. Although lndia is often now associated with the word caste,"
"In a caste society, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is decided by social group and cultural heritage. At the same time, the social groups, while promoting their own exclusiveness and endogamy, are traditionally mindful of the general and peculiar roles of the other groups."
Michael will never get to the top of the heap, but his advocacy allows him to enter the same room and sometimes if they permit it, he might even be allowed to break bread with the elite, as long as he continues to accept his place and sustain the caste endogamy.
GreatScot
Here's another, I think the Great London Smog is central to everything that happened later.
The official death rate was 4,000 in 5 days but they then put a cut off date and the continuing deaths were put down to an influenza epidemic that never happened.
50 years after the great smog, a new killer arises
"The great smog of 1952 was so thick people could not see their feet. Some of the 4,000 who died in the five days it lasted did not suffer lung problems - they fell into the Thames and drowned because they could not see the river."
"To cover up the true extent of the smog disaster the government invented an influenza epidemic. In fact research has shown there was no epidemic and that the thousands more people who continued to die for the next four months did so because of the air pollution."
"There is emerging evidence that heart disease and cancers are caused by long term exposure to air pollution. The calculations of how many people die prematurely, by a few days or weeks, may not be the half of it. What about those that live for a long time with debilitating lung conditions and heart disease?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
uk_new...,850909,00.html
Air acidity with the PH of lemon juice, visibility down to less than a metre.
In the autopsy reports, most of the victims died of what are now described as "smoking related" diseases, caused by the pollution.
And heres where they transfered them.
Secret plot to play down risks of air pollution
"Official documents unearthed by a scientific historian reveal that the Medical Research Council (MRC), which had just begun to establish the link between lung cancer and smoking, was asked to modify public statements about air pollution after intervention from the Government"
"Professor Berridge said that the readiness of supposedly independent scientists to emphasise smoking over air pollution represented a wider shift away from the concept of health related to an individual's environment and workplace towards one focused on that individual's responsibility for his or her health as epitomised by smoking."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ion-
610356.html
All those people fearing the smoke but unafraid of the traffic fumes.
HOUSTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Ike made landfall at Galveston, Texas early on Saturday as a Category 2 hurricane, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said.
Hope everyone is OK, and Jalestra and her family are safe.
Rose;
When most think of Germany they think of the great works of art depicting the Rhine and the Black Forest of Hansel and Gretel narrations. Forests so thick and tall they seemed almost an invincible signature of German touristy.
Taking one look at those areas today, you can see the drastic effects of acid rain. If it can kill thousands of trees which normally thrive on pollution and CO, what can it do to a human body? By extension by burning the wood or distributing it as furniture or building materials what toxins do we release in the process?
On this side of the pond, few are even aware of the disaster zone, although if you look to the research the numbers of comparative studies which look at Germany assume similar environments to what we see in North America, they make their judgments more by belief than properly confounding the conditions which actually exist.
How many people are being told tobacco specific carcinogens have no carcinogenic effects at normal low doses? Another pandemic of sorts, one of controlled information to suit what ever public health cause is being ripened for harvest.
More Evidence;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubm...Pubmed_RVDocSum
"Tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are suspected to cause smoking-related neoplastic diseases. The change from direct-fired to indirect-fired barns (aka kilns) for curing bright (aka Virginia, flue-cured) tobaccos was made to reduce the TSNA concentrations. The effectiveness of such processes in reducing the deliveries of TSNAs to the users of the products should be monitored. However, it is difficult to assess the effects of this reduction on the TSNA levels in mainstream smoke when cigarette blends contain burley tobaccos and other blend components that can increase smoke TSNA concentrations. Canadian cigarettes made prior to and in the few years just after the conversion to indirect-fired curing should not be subject to such interferences. Thus, the TSNA content of tobaccos and mainstream smoke from six brands of Canadian cigarettes produced in 2003, 2004, and 2005 were determined. Reductions in NNK [4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone], the most important TSNA in flue-cured tobaccos, levels in the tobacco blends ranged from 60% to 85%. The corresponding reductions in mainstream smoke TSNA levels ranged from 59% to 72% (ISO smoking conditions) and 58-76% (Health Canada Intensive smoking conditions). These results show that other factors (microorganisms, nitrite levels) may be negating the TSNA reductions achieved by indirect-fired curing."
"Nitrosamines, chemicals which are often found in processed meats and in particularly high levels in bacon, are known to be carcinogenic in high quantities.
Heterocyclic amines, also known carcinogens, form when meat is cooked at high temperatures.
Compared with skinless chicken, cooked chicken with skin is known to contain a smaller amount of heterocyclic amines."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6194502.stm
How high is high?
Bingo;
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...bmedid=11230082
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...22&
blobtype=pdf
Rose;
If you look at the early studies; probably because the manufacturers who wished to sell reconstituted products, didn't offer, full disclosure. The studies evaluating only pure tobacco leaf, were mislead to the belief TSNA was a result of tar and nicotine content and originally because they didn't see the difference many largely overestimated the toxicity of pure tobacco, unaware of what was actually being sold.
Later studies showed TSNA in mainstream tobacco smoke correlated more directly to preexisting levels in the tobacco and did not correlate to either tar or nicotine levels.
So the med community following the 1960s Surgeon Generals report went on a crusade to lower tar and nicotine levels leading to the mild and light descriptors as demands from the med communities, and not originating as the latest news reports, and court cases reported as a scheme of big tobacco to mislead the consumers by connecting mild to safe.
If reconstituted tobacco is compared, as it was in the Canadian study to pure tobacco leaf and identical flue curing processes are applied you see an amazing level of TSNA reductions.
Shouldn't the consumers who are most at risk, have a say in what they are smoking? In place of the current burial in med texts with few smokers being told the whole story?
The warnings on cigarette packages today are not informative and will not lead to reduced mortality. Full disclosure will afford, both in an ability to demonstrate harm and encourage moderation and abstinence, in an honest manner and by pressures in the marketplace, force manufacturers to reduce the toxic content of their products to the maximum degree of their abilities.
Smoking bans and other oppressive hate mongering coercions, only serve to protect those; least or not at risk at all.
Smokers are being allowed to die in larger numbers completely oblivious to what they are using. Traditionally smoking had risks which were much lower than you see today and the moralists overstated their case, leading to sceptazim in listening to the health warnings, that tradition continues.
Even Doctors smoked in large numbers right in the Hospital maternity wards a mere 15 years ago, because the level of credibility in health warnings was lowered.
Today as with the boy who cried wolf people are seeing a repeat of the moralist crusades of the past despite the fact the product has changed and now the risks are much more real although the increased risks are not necessary.
In the background the med community ponders ways to force people to quit, when all along an honest distribution of information, would have served us all in a more efficient manner and many [if not the majority] smoking "caused" mortalities could have actually have been avoided, just by providing accurate information and allowing people to choose.
They continue to play their ideological games twisting communities opinions to and fro, while people are dying as an effect of their highbrow arrogance, nothing more, and not smoking related at all.
Rose, have you ever visited my model, whcih can explain most of the 1.2-1.3 excess risk for heart disease and lung cancer attributed to shs in spousal studies?
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/u....com/
urban.html
I think what this boils down to is public health officials wanting to appear to be doing something about LC and heart disease in nonsmokers, without telling it like it is, and informing the public about the health hazzards of urban living, which could cause a mass exodus out of urban areas, which could be bad economically. ,,, so the "safer" route is to blame shs for everything.
Thanks for the link Dave K.
I have to be honest I had seen it before although never took the time to read it through, as I have now done. I have read a lot in respect to the six cities and many related studies which in addition to fine particulate [which describes ETS and primary smoke,] assesed the effects of ultra fine particulate. Their conclusions were very close to your observations with the ultra fine particulate having an even more severe health effect as the levels rose and fell.
I believe if you compare [as one of the links I provided did] the differences between CPS1 And CPS11 study groups and the rise of Lung cancers at the time reconstituted tobacco was introduced into the marketplace, as a further unrecognized factor, you may be able to fill in a lot of gaps in medical numbers and lobby group claims not corresponding to biological observations as well as they should.
The 400,000 number in particular as a ratio of current population, compared to the 1960 population with a consistent number of smokers, leaves a lot to be desired, and destroys a lot of TC credibility.
Of course they won't ever venture onto the forbidden ground of discussing the major flaw in their analogies.
I think you hit the nail on the head Dave. It is easier and more acceptable to blame everything on secondhand smoke. Unfortunately, when smoking is finally prohibited everywhere and people are still dying, the living might be asking "why". Which is why it is not wise to single one item out and focus only on that. For now, I hope that all of TC and public health is rehearsing their tap dance routine as the day is soon coming when there will be demands for those answers.
Diane; the current crop of self described geniuses are cashing out on med. credibility. [because they can]
Leaving the explanations to the next generation of story tellers.
Regarding that smoker free mountain (4,000 feet) and Kevin's deep thinker, I'm wondering if people at that height are under any kind of long-term attack from cosmic radiation, the stuff that's supposed to affect pilots' health. Maybe it affects the little brain cells?
It's not to persecute smokers, this fascist jackass says, it's to get them to quit! Hey, I'm making your business MY business because no man is an island and you're desecrating the holy temple of your body. The true missionary spirit. Sweet.
.
The PA DOH hasn't yet changed its website http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.u...?a=174&
q=250988
But the good news is that the Pennsylvania State Higher Education System has implemented a smokefree policy for the campuses of the fourteen state-owned universities, with 110,000 students and 12,000 employees. Most teachers in PA graduate from these universities.
The news article announcing the new smokefree policy at PA's 14 state-owned universities is:
Smoking banned entirely at colleges
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...7/911949-
85.stm
"Rose, have you ever visited my model, whcih can explain most of the 1.2-1.3 excess risk for heart disease and lung cancer attributed to shs in spousal studies?"
Additionally, I think it should be noted (and heavily underlined) that according to the Jenkins study, exposures of non-smoking subjects whose spouse smoked unrestrictedly within the home were from 2 to 4 times higher than those of subjects who worked in locations where smoking occured and was not restricted. Like bars.
So, when considering bar locations, what do you think that does to the 1.2 to 1.3 figure?
It should be noted as well that Dr. Siegel seems always to use the 1.3 figure for both lung cancer and heart disease, and never the lower 1.2 figure.
.
"But the good news is that the Pennsylvania State Higher Education System has implemented a smokefree policy for the campuses ..."
That's SMOKERFREE policy, Godshall.
The question is, does social insanity have a sell-by date?
.
Thanks for the link Bill;
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...7/911949-
85.stm
I would like to proposes all of those here, who wish to do the right thing please contact the university and demand a level playing field, by banning that disgusting chew and spit product which as the label suggests is not a safer choice.
Students must be properly advised tobacco products all carry an equal risk to smokers and non smokers alike.
There is no safe level of human mucus.
LOL
Great thought Kevin and my email is on it's way. I am so glad my kids have gotten their education and I am no longer paying things like tuition and dorm rentals. If they were still College age, they would be living in an off campus apartment, which if shared by a couple more students are cheaper than a dorm room. Those rooms are their "homes away from home" and if I pay for them, it should be who has a say as to what my child does in them. That is, finding out what they are doing there using a small amount of discretion and a lot of "I had better not hear of this, that or whatever". I am the parent and I do not send my child off to school for a President of a college or an alumi board to decide how my young adult child can act. I haven't even read Bill's link so I am not sure who exactly came up with this brainstorm, but I do know college age kids and if they can find a way to do illegal drugs on campus, you can bet they will be smoking legal cigarettes too, no matter who says they can't.
From the article Bill Godshall pasted a link to:
"At Clarion University of Pennsylvania, organizers of a "smoke-in" set for noon Monday hope to assemble 100 or more protesters outside Gemmell Complex, the university's student center.
"We're going to sit in a big circle. We're all going to light up at the same time," said Steven Dugan, 20, a freshman from Sheraden. "The non-smokers who support us are going to sit with us."
And so the baton of the anti-antismokers is passed on to a new generation.
Can Boston U be far behind?
Unintended consequences Bill G. Unintended consequences.
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Bill G , Here http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....ent-
quoted.html Brain Bond asked:
“Bill Godshall
Are you really serious when you suggest that the $5 Billion annual healthcare cost estimate for PA is based on 'sound evidence'?
Do you have a link for this? Seriously, I would like to see how they can arrive at a figure that is about 15 times the cost per smoker as claimed for the UK.”
………..
Do you intend on answering this question?
Does anyonr know what the most confounding factor is in most of these studies?
..........................
What for it...............
It's coming..............
Old Freaking Age
If you die and the doctor thinks it's smoking related, regardless of how old you are, you are a statisitc. If the average life expectancy of the general population is 77 and you die well past that age how is that a preventable death?
If it is preventable, what is the upper age limit where it;s not? Are we all supposed to live forever?
If you take a look at the death statistics, 60% of all major cardiovascular diseases, amlignant neoplasms (cancer) or chronic respiratory, occur in ages 75 and over. If you add 65 years old, it moves it up to 80%.
I say again, how long are we supposed to live?
I haven't read the last comments here, so sorry if I'm OT.
I just thought some of you would like this, it's obviously a computer-generated translation, but that makes it even more fun. I've been following the Swiss thread in F2C - this was originally brought in Italian and it took the poster a couple of days to get this ready - he posted it about an hour ago. I love it!
Quote:
Here is the reanslation:
Swiss politicians kick the antis' up their asses
3 September 2008
The reactions against the tyrants of the health and the enemies of the freedom are multiplied all over the world.
All the representatives of the Regional Swiss Parties have critisized the demands of the antis.
The presidents of Parties SVP, SP, CVP, Greens and FDP have moreover criticized and accused the antismokers of moralizing and reducing to conformity the choices of life of every single person. The Lungenliga (the Swiss gang that, like all the anticancer leagues today, are officially against lung cancer and unofficially for the social cancer of the cultural control and state) and other antismoking cheats using figures plucked out of the air, indicating incoherence and the usual invented and counterfeited figures. This however provokes fear, hysteria and perplexity between the population. The last scope is, like all over the world, to tomorrow discriminate the smokers today, the obese ones and after even also the lean ones! In other words, “the public health” cancer wants to arrive, one step at a time and with laws and propaganda, to the total micromanagement of the behavior.
Through the smoke prohibition totals, the smokers come forced to go to smoke outside from the premises with consequences that carry to disturb the people that live in environs. Clearly the guilt of this is not of the smokers, but of the prohibition - and it does not have nothing to that to make with the health. The pretensions that can be only smoked in the premises if there are the separate stationed are not even acceptable in consideration of the epidemiological swindle on the passive smoke. The only acceptable thing is that or the owner of the premises to establish the “smoking policy” on its property, and the free market to establish the percentage of smoking and nonsmoking venues.
The old Councilman of the Cantons (CVP) Lucius Dùrr asserts that if must be arrived to a regulation, it must give to all the possibility to manage own style of life. Coming out even clearer has been the Cantonal Councillor (SP) Emy Lalli, that it has asserted that to she disturbs the tone with which the antismokers want “to moralise” the population. Also the Cantonal Councillor (SVP) Theresia Weber faces this topic with much energy and critices the Lungenliga's actions asserting that now they must stop it, because they have exceeded the limit of the disinformation and the pretensions; in short, the citizens get treated like idiots and have no freedom to decide on how to live their lives. Moreover, he concludes the Weber, he is risaputo that with the prohibition they obtain themselves turned out opposite to those which the antismoker's wish.
Please compared the Swiss politicians with the lecca-culo Italian. Qual'è in Italy the politician who has said to the gang of the LILT to make ended it? …
Meantime, the campaigns of intimidation from the “sanitary ones” against politicians, scientists and associations of trade they more and more become understandings and the production of epidemiological science scrap iron to support of their continuous criminal activities to increase.
For example of the week pack-saddles this study trash, that it asserts that the smokers (not the smoke) they are healthy bearers of meningitis and that therefore the smokers, with to their presence and even if do not smoke at the moment, they constitute a threat in order not smokers and children! More nazis than thus die themselves (remembered the Jews the bearers of diseases). And instead of being puttinges in jail, these terrorist delinquents are published from the International Journal of Epidemiology, in order to supply more “fuel” to the propagation of hatred and fear against the smokers.
As we have brought back, fortunately all over the world one is consolidating rapes reaction against these assassins of the free one and the true one.
We hope that, in a future that we will be able to live, a new Nuremberg punishes these slave drivers in a court full of cigarette smoke. And this time South America will not be far away enough in order to make it frank: it will be better if, with the money that they are stealing from the public, these scoundrels begin to construct a great intergalactic spaceship in order to go to pollute an other galaxy with their ideology.
Jerry's got it right.
1/2 of all smokers die prematurely and 1/2 die right on time.
They way they determine the average age of all deaths is to count up the age of all who died and divide that by the number of deaths. Half of all deaths will have occurred before the mean (the 50% mark) and half will have died later.
If you are a smoker and die before the mean, of a disease that a consensus of opinion has determined might be related to smoking, you are counted as another one killed by smoke. If you smoke and last longer than the average your death is not usually counted as smoking related. One exception might be lung cancer because the more 80+ year old lung cancers they can add to overall smoking related cancers the better.
A lot of lifelong smokers quit smoking in their later years for a variety of reasons. Before Doll and Peto decided to issue extra life credit to smokers who quit, any smoker who died of a "smoking related" disease were counted as "killed by smoke" regardless of how long ago they may have quit or how old they were when they died.
So why don't all smokers die from smoking related diseases no matter how old they are today? Because a smoking related death at the age of 80 or 90 would screw up the numbers. It might look, statistically, like smokers live just as long as non-smokers.
Figures don't lie but liars figure.
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
the “sanitary ones” was a nice touch they must be referring to Bill G. And his hand washing thing.
EinsteinSmoked wrote: They way they determine the average age of all deaths is to count up the age of all who died and divide that by the number of deaths. Half of all deaths will have occurred before the mean (the 50% mark) and half will have died later.
I hadn't heard of that one. My understanding is that they take the smoking prevalence rates for a year and multiply with the CPS-II relative risks.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publi...c/20-3/
b_e.html
in the small print under Table 1A it is explained how they calculated smoking related deaths in non smokers
" Deaths due to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) were calculated using rr_ets = 1.3 and prevalence of current smokers, aged 35+, married to non-smokers, taken from SOSIC 1994/95, cycle 3 (Reference 11).
b The estimates presented here include only lung cancer mortality from exposure to second-hand smoke. It is recognized that exposure to second-hand smoke is associated with other diseases, including heart disease and breast cancer. Until authoritative, consensus-based relative risks are made available, estimates of mortality remain unavailable."
Ann W. - I'm talking about how the average life span is determined in a given population. (Life Expectancy)
From Ann W.'s Link:
"we applied the Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Cost method to estimate national and regional smoking-attributable mortality for 1994 and 1996"
Here in the States the cause of death is determined and reported by an attending physician at the time of death. It is usually on a standard form like this one.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs...03final-
acc.pdf
Item 35) The Doctor is asked if tobacco use contributed to the death.
Page 2 Instructions for Item 35) "ITEM 35 - DID TOBACCO USE CONTRIBUTE TO DEATH?
Check “yes” if, in your opinion, the use of tobacco contributed to death. Tobacco use may contribute to deaths due to a wide variety of diseases; for example, tobacco use contributes to many deaths due to emphysema or lung cancer and some heart disease and cancers of the head and neck. Check “no” if, in your clinical judgment, tobacco use did not contribute to this particular death."
It is left to the discretion of the Doctor to determine if the death was "tobacco related." I know for a fact of at least one instance where an older man with lung cancer, who hadn't smoked in over 20 years, was told by the Doctor that his cancer was caused by smoking. I think the Doctor filled the death certificate out that way too.
It would be interesting to compare the Canadian projections with the US certifications.
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
The PA Smoke Free Act; To Prohibit Smoking In Enclosed And Substantialy Enclosed Public Places.
The official name of the act.
The last parts of the act states. Political subdivisions cannot adopt regulation that conflict with the act.
I think the PA higher education antis are in violation of the act if they try and extend smoking bans to the outside. Fines seems in order.
Great post, Kendra.
Has there ever, in the entire history of the world, been such a trivial time driven by such trivial people and engineered by a few clear-minded, dog-shit bastards? I don't think so.
.
As an alternative to calling it fascism, I just read a nice formulation: "coercive utopianism".
Dave K--
In line with your urban theory, among the initial published criticisms of the first big Hirayama study that put ETS on the map (and into the 1986 SG Report), was the fact that all 29 of the clinics from which he got his subjects were in the most heavily polluted area of Japan, loaded with industrial pollution. Among the industries in the area were the ship building industry, with its heavy use of asbestos. If you need the citation on this, I can probably find it for you.
:
ES and Ann you are both right.
The average age of mortality if the risk were real it would affect the average so the impact would already be factored in.
What is telling was the last line of Ann's explanation.
"Until authoritative, consensus-based relative risks are made available, estimates of mortality remain unavailable."
Meaning someone rushed to judgment and can't say legitimately, any deaths were caused by ETS but that happens to be the official party line at the moment.
The problem with empowering these studies is the unknowns outweigh what is known. We don't even know how many unknowns their are. Most use what is called regression to bring three dimensional numbers into a two dimensional perspective primarily by personal,judgment calls which are more often than not the wrong call.
Bring in the obvious biases such as we see associated to Tobacco studies and never admitted to occur with bias reflecting the other way, and you start to grasp how even with peer review how exaggerated and worthless numbers slip into the journals without detection.
I have read virtually hundreds of these studies and many of them would never have been published as even remotely credible, unless the editor was of a similar opinion, because the opening comentary declaring what smoke is known to do, sets the stage for the rest of the report which always confirms the opinion while providing support for the next opinion formed with a similar mindset.
Hardly unbiased and hardly scientific at all just a witch burning crusade on paper.
Something as seemingly insignificant as asking how many of the group had stairs in their house?, or how many walked to work? or a big one, how close do you live to a highway? would have a huge effect on the outcome. You can likely crate a list very quickly of well over a thousand factors which would separate the groups and change their prognosis and they are questions never asked or answered.
When your playing with such a low relative risk, to promote such a drastic effect could be credible by unethically applying the results seen in a small group to a large population, your lying by omission.
We are being conned by worst case scenario numbers, being inflated to represent the average, when in fact most of these numbers actually represent the most remote of possibilities with the least chance of being accurate even 25% of the time.
Okay, I finally read Bill's link to no smoking on college campuses, anywhere. My first question is: aren't the people running the colleges suppose to be educated individuals? Second, doesn't commonsense play into the role of an educator? I believe that PA's clean air act states workplaces, meaning inside a building. Banning it throughout the campus in the great outdoors is not mentioned in the new law.
Since this is how they interpreted it, then the first recommendation I would make is sending these jerks back to a reading comprehension 101 class. Obviously they can not comprehend what they read.
Nemo31 is correct when he says they are in violation of the act and fines should be brought against them.
Lastly, Bill says that many teachers attended these schools. To which I ask, So what? What is your point?
If smokers are part of the entire population and they don't count them twice, it is not difficult to understand the number of "preventable" moralities is grossly exaggerated.
If 450,000 are believed to die due to smoking alone every year. and there are 60 million smokers who would represent only 19% of the 320 million population. Only 9.5% of the total population will die of what is believed to be smoking caused diseases or 30.4 million distributed equally because the number of smokers has remained consistent. At an average age of mortality over the past 50 years [1960=65 2008=72 so 65+72/2 = 68.5 as the average]68.5 years is the norm in total population.
Lets look at the distribution;
30 million smokers over 68.5 years and the other 30 million will die unaffected.
This would distribute at a rate of
30 million over 68.5 years or 437,956.2 would be expected to die annually just like everyone else, with no increased risk.
which is only 12 thousand per year below the number believed to die from smoking, assuming like everyone else they would have died regardless of smoking. 12,000 of the 320 million population are actually "preventable mortalities" beyond the norm.
Go figure, all this fuss over a problem which represents less than .4% of total mortalities?
DaveK
Environmental Causes of Cancer of the Lung Other Than Tobacco Smoke 1956
"In fact the first observations on an appreciable rise in the frequency of lung cancer were reported from the highly industrialized cities of densely populated Saxony during the first two decades of this century. Some years later it was found that high lung cancer rates existed for the population of the industrialized territory of the Ruhr valley, while they were below average for the agricultural region of the Main valley."
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/...eprint/30/2/
141
Lots of charts and graphs. UK and America.
Bessy Braddock, Labour MP
for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and
therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the
smoking–lung cancer connection.
‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk...19-926030-
3.pdf
The numbers above demonstrate the same flaw in reasoning the ban fans have been pulling on the rest of us for years.
The flaw is found in the fact in order to maintain the 60 million smokers figure you have to add in as many new smokers as you deduct when they die.
If we applied the same numbers to the total population at 320 million and 2.5 million moralities occurring every year in order to assume the [population - mortality] ratio is consistent, you have to maintain the same number of births and deaths.
The two groups are not the same because one total is constant [smokers] and the other [population]is constantly increasing.
The trick they are pulling is seen in the illusion that the two can ever be compared directly. In a real sense
Using the same formula of distribution of lives over lifespan, we would find twice as many mortalities in normal population, as the number which actually occurred, however the doubling of the 12 thousand figure still only amounts for 24,000 "preventable" mortalities which would be much closer to the actuals in a distribution of "preventable" as they frame it, than the misleading figures being promoted by public health. The claim at 450,000 is closer to the total number of smokers said to be at risk, than the true value of "preventable" effects.
So "preventable" would only exist in the numbers they claim by counting smokers at risk twice, or if they made half of smokers lives who are said to be at risk doubled, after they are forced to quit, or if they increased all of smokers lifespans by 50% after they quit.
Can we expect a 50% increase in lifespan by smoking for 30 years and quitting?
By extension how valid is the ETS logic?
The German studies were published in America, so the "cigarette theory" could hardly come as a surprise to anyone interested in lung cancer.
From JAMA Volume 113 September 1939
"Abuse of Tobacco and Carcinoma of Lungs"
F H Muller
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness.../ness/
4164.html
"Muller states that considerable increase of primary carcinoma of the lungs has been observed in the recent decades. To explain this increase various causes have been pointed out, such as increased • street dust, exhaust gases of motor cars, tarring of the streets, war gases, x-rays, trauma, influenza, tuberculosis and increasing industrialization. There appears to be agreement only as to the exogenic character of the causes. Increased attention has been called of late to the significance of smoking as a cause of carcinoma, and the simultaneous increase of carcinoma of the lungs and consumption of tobacco supports this view.
The tar content of tobacco is due mainly to the lignified parts of the leaves such as the veins, and these have been used lately in increased quantities in the manufacture of tobacco."
But he believed in Roffo's theory,who thought tobacco tar must be carcinogenic because coal tar was.
For a man who claims to be against "prohibition" I notice the exuberance and joy that Bill expressed about this "campus wide prohibition".
And Bill, you can call it whatever you want.........smoking will be outlawed on every inch of the college campus.....THAT makes it prohibition.
I'm not sure if that makes you a liar or a hypocrite. Perhaps both.
Walt and Rose,
Of course, almost all of the universities which conduct case-controlled shs studies, (and usually within thier affiliated teaching hospitals ) are located in large urban areas.
possibly another reason, why case controlled studies seem to find shs risky more often than cohort studies.
good point about Hirayama Walt, which also applies to the Hammond study at the university of Berkeley, also located in a highly polluted area, and without Hammond which was given a 5-tier rating by the 1992 EPA report, that report could not have consluded shs causes lung cancer.
The EPA report listed the counfounders it used to correct it's meta-analysis, urban residency was not one of them.
"The goal of public health is to improve lives through the prevention and treatment of disease. The United Nations' World Health Organization defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity"
Are the lives of smokers "improved" by the current efforts of Public health?
Are the lives of smokers improved in a sense of social well being, as a result of the efforts of public health, or are those of their neighbors, in being taught it is normal to hate smokers and drive them from community?
It seems to me Public Health is failing to meet the standards of its core values and mandate by promoting the divisions of communities and social caste structures. Punishing the innocent for the crime of using a legal product.
The courts of Nuremberg need to reconvene and sort out the real criminals in all this.
Bill-
Since the proclaimed purpose of these complete smoking bans on college campuses is to promote a healthy lifestyle on the campus, would you therefore also support policies that ban smokeless tobacco use anywhere on college campuses?
All this, while nationally, more and more college deans are supporting lowering the drinking age, supposedly so that students don't go off campus to drink, which causes more problems.
"Coercive Utopianism"
This is a wonderfully descript and more fitting title to the tyranny advocated and promoted by those in tobacco control.
"The most dangerous enemies of civilisation are not necessarily evil people. They are idealists (subject to qualifications stated below) who wish to use the police power of big government to impose their views and perspectives on others. They often do not enjoy majority support among the public. They reject the evolved experience of the ages. This is what distinguishes the coercive utopian from those who advocate restrictions on freedom in the liberal tradition.
The phrase "coercive utopian" is a more apt description than "reformist". It does not however apply to all reformists.
...
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot are the twentieth century examples which illustrate the difference between idealism and reality, the theory and the practice of coercive utopianism. The internal threat that faces the democratic capitalist tradition is not of a Hitler or a Lenin but of numerous little Lenins and Hitlers, not committing mass murder, but springing up all over the place, becoming increasingly influential and trampling on the rights of individuals, imposing their biases and limited ideas upon the mass of the population, with invariably counter productive effects. The real enemies of society today are not necessarily evil men - not the murderers, not the rapists, not the unscrupulous businessmen and not the aggressive trade unionists. The most dangerous enemies of society are men and women with impractical ideals who have the arrogance to believe that they have the solution to complicated human problems and who wish to use the police power of the state to impose their ideas on the public." -- http://www.ourcivilisation.com/c...btof/
chap30.htm
"The University of Pennsylvania permits the lawful keeping and consumption, in moderation, of alcoholic beverages on its property or property under its control by persons of legal drinking age (21 years or older)."
http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/alcoho...ol/
policy2.html
Thank you Walt H. for the link - I intend to read other chapters as well.
Meanwhile, I followed up links for statements about the PA ban now in effect, with Philly as a "rogue" town. Youtube has statements from several, I'll just give you one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=p...feature=related
I made a comment some hours ago - supposedly these are not censored. But it's not posted.
This guy mentions "bringing (Philly) into compliance."
This is appalling and disturbing. I looked up my "home state" - the only video has to do with a smoking ban at Okla.State.Univ - comments are "disabled."
Given that most of the Anti-Americanism I've found in Europe could be directly attributed to our own export thereof, at least for the last 30 years I had respect, it was seen that regardless of agreement on political philosophy, there was not only respect, but also appreciation and love tinged with envy for something that had to do with "freedom" - with "liberty." Now I am ashamed.
The land of the free and the home of the brave laid to waste by the weakest link in the chain.
Excellent link Walt H.
Thanks
From Walt H's link, a very powerful message, perhaps one Michael and Bill fail entirely to understand, because if they did understand, they would recognize the huge error in their opinions and their claims. Knowing as most us know by instinct alone, TC is a message of inspired hatred and lowered confidence in ourselves. That message will benefit no one in society, as the feeling grows and society is weakened by it proportionately.
"A right cannot exist without a corresponding duty. Human needs do not create human rights. But the Human Rights Commission is encouraging and inciting some sections of the community to demand rights without any regard for the philosophical and historical perspectives which should be paramount. It is also unconcerned about the notions of duty and responsibility. It selects or manufactures rights and exalts these "rights" over and above the important and basic rights of the liberal tradition which include freedom of property, freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial, due process and equality of opportunity. These basic rights, that have collectively been responsible for a great deal of development and progress, are being undermined by a series of new social engineering "rights" created out of the air, as it were, and contrary to evolutionary development and western philosophy."
Most teachers in PA graduate from these universities.
Bill Godshall |
Which explains the poor record of public education in PA.........and thus the stupidity of the sheeple.
"The real enemies of society today ARE NOT NECESSARILY EVIL MEN (my emphasis) - not the murderers, not the rapists, not the unscrupulous businessmen and not the aggressive trade unionists. The most dangerous enemies of society are men and women with impractical ideals who have the arrogance to believe that they have the solution to complicated human problems and who wish to use the police power of the state to impose their ideas on the public." -- Mark Cooray.
It's both interesting and revealing that Cooray can label unscrupulous businessmen and aggressive trade unionists as evil men, but not Coercive Utopians whose arrogance feels no compunction about using the "police power of the state to impose their ideas on the public." There's unscrupulousness there as well.
The Ninth Circle:
"Dante appropriately defines the concept of contrapasso in his presentation of divisive shades, the most clear-cut manifestation of a logical relationship between the offense and the punishment: AS THEY DIVIDED INSTITUTIONS, COMMUNITIES, AND FAMILIES IN LIFE, so these figures are physically--and repeatedly--sliced apart for eternity in hell." (My emphasis.)
.
You are absolutely correct Kevin that both Dr. Siegel and Mr. Godshall, let alone the rest of the TC cult fail to understand the message.
The entire concept behind the TC movement is manufactured rights, but rights only afforded to some people. I realize the concept of ennumerated rights varies from country to country but here in the US, although we've had a few hiccups along the way, the same rights are guaranteed all citizens. The cult of TC, and what evils it has spawned wish to revert this grat nation back more than 200 years to a time when only an elite few had the ability to determine what rights would be given or denied to others.
The country has fought more than a few bloody battles to change that situation and now these so-called "progressives" seek to revert to the old ways. Sorry, I ain't buying it, not when their "change" is based on their own personal opinions which are based upon lies and have no factual basis.
Michael wrote;
"I'll tell you why. Because scientific accuracy, honesty in public communications, and scientific integrity are treasured core ethical values of public health practice. By violating these basic standards, these groups are giving the tobacco control movement, and perhaps public health at large, a bad name.
In the long run, the damage to the reputation of the tobacco control movement and public health will be far greater than any fleeting benefits of the public having an exaggerated perception of the death toll from secondhand smoke"
The basic flaw in your core beliefs is the lack of consistent motivations within public health as a whole. The joining of Industrial interests with the WHO is the problem you don't seem to grasph.
Your motivations are divided as widely as the diversity of partners. What did you expect when some members are motivated solely by an obligation to their shareholders. Some by personal opportunism to grasp either prominence or just cold hard cash. Partners as you have taken into the fold if they wish to remain partners must bend to the needs of their bedfellows. You have obligations now to the whole or you face expulsion as you found out the hard way.
Remember the balance of rights and responsibilities?
Can you ever hope to emulate integrity or even moral leadership when standing on a stage along side your industrial partners?
I find it exceptionally difficult to believe, in this day and age you have not been rejected already and many of you jailed years ago.
The world will eventually sober up, even encouraged hatred, has its limits as a curiosity. The strength of communities to resist artificial realities, is the fly in your ointment and will over time grow to be your nightmare.
You let the genie out of the bottle and the rights you invented, in time are going to find for you, exactly what you asked for, although I am sure it will not be what you expected.
Moralist dictates coming from a nihilist, has always expossed a butcher in sheep's clothing.
In the long run, the damage to the reputation of the tobacco control movement and public health will be far greater than any fleeting benefits of the public having an exaggerated perception of the death toll from secondhand smoke
Then why, Dr. Siegel, do you continue to promote the exaggerations? There is NO death toll from SHS and you know it as well as do the rest of he charlatans of your cult.
And the only reputation TC enjoys is that a bunch of highly paid lying shills of the body parts cartel and the pharmaceutical industry. TC's reputation is at the same sewer level as that of the blind media that continually promotes your bogus BS because it means advertising dollars to them.
At one time maybe, just maybe there was actual science or altruistic motivation behind TC, but that has all been thrown out th window in favor of the almighty dollar --- but ONLY the almighty dollar that goes into the pockets of the TC cultists. They, and you, don't give a rat's rearend about the money you are literally STEALING from those you wish to control.
I wonder how any of you can sleep at night or face yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing how many people you have INTENTIONALLY put in ACTUAL harms way, have INTENTIONALLY put out of work, and have INTENTIONALLY endangered their children because of parents losing jobs and businesses. You have INTENTIONALLY inflicted all of the ACTUAL harm on people in the name of "protecting" them from a non-existant boogie man.
You people really disgust me.
Printed in today's NY Post is a piece written by a psychologist that looks at the power and effect of rumors (applied, in this piece, to the presidential candidates).
A point applicable to our issue/fight was this:
"[I]t's important to debunk rumors. Studies show that if you ignore them and expect the truth to come out naturally, you're going to be disappointed. The absence of denial leads to belief. [emphasis mine]
[Lessons having been learned, the right response is to be] quick to jump on falsehoods. You might not convince everyone -- but you will get the truth out there for those that want to know."
-- by Nicholas DiFonzo, Professor of Psychology at Rochester Institute of Technology, and author of the new book "The Watercooler Effect: A Psychologist Explores the Extraordinary Power of Rumors."
--------
In other words, there apparently is SOME benefit in keeping up our debunking -- in whatever form we can get it out there -- and debate in public forums. To go silent in the belief that our cries are futile because they're limited in public scope would be our undoing for sure.
"In the long run, the damage to the reputation of the tobacco control movement and public health will be far greater than any fleeting benefits of the public having an exaggerated perception of the death toll from secondhand smoke."
And this from a guy who endorses the 1992 EPA report! And this from a guy who gives lip service to sacrosanct 'science.' And this from a guy who claims that "Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 people every year"!
Why be concerned, doctor, with the public having an exaggerated perception of the death toll from secondhand smoke when you've been one of the leading forces behind it?
What was that that Gabz called you, doctor?
.
More support for smoking bans from those ever so grateful Hospitality workers being "protected"...
http://theenglishparliament.com/...moking-ban-
shit
"In other words, there apparently is SOME benefit in keeping up our debunking -- in whatever form we can get it out there -- and debate in public forums. To go silent in the belief that our cries are futile because they're limited in public scope would be our undoing for sure."
Tip of the day;
There are close to 60 Million smokers in The United States and 6 Million in Canada as there have been for more than 50 years. The term preventable diseases are in fact entirely ad agency spin produced by a less than credible CDC. You see if you take the average age of death over the past 50 years which would be 68.5 years of age and distribute the one half of smokers [30 million] said to die of smoking related diseases over the 68.5 years they would normally be expected to die amazingly as it seems they will all die exactly as predicted and at the same ages as the rest of the population. Not prematurely and none preventable. It seems the number slated to die prematurely don't, The 450,000 stated are simply the half of smokers who all die in the same proportions at the same age as the rest of the population.
Consider the source and follow the money as always. When Public Health partnered with industry at the World Health Organization, they adapted the reputation of big business and their love for deceptive advertising. We will never again be able to separate if the care of patients or the creation of wealth is the primary concern. Sorry, it’s the company you keep...
AS THEY DIVIDED INSTITUTIONS, COMMUNITIES, AND FAMILIES IN LIFE, so these figures are physically--and repeatedly--sliced apart for eternity in hell."
Let us pray there's a hell.
Meanwhile, Dave K., pedant that I am, I looked for that citation on Hirayama. What I also turned up was a contemporaneous Japanese study (Minowa, 1981) that also studied lung cancer and environmental factors and put the blame on pollution, showing a direct link to urban industrial environments. Sorry, I don't have a title but Minowa was published in Soc Sci Med, 1981, 15 D (1) 225-231.
Several other contemporaneous studies (among them Rylander, "Europ Jnl of Resp Dis, 133, 1984) cited cooking methods and oils as a major cause of lung cancer in rural Asian women. And though Hirayama's sample included some of these, this confounder wasn't considered.
Back to Hirayama, here, in summary, were some of the other flaws. as noted by other critics. The flaws should be carefully examined and admired since the Hirayama study was THE whole basis for the Surgeon General's conclusion, in 1986, that "ETS kills":
¶ Nathan Mantel, the statistician whose method Hirayma had used to reach his conclusions, said the method had been misused, even basically misunderstood, and the numbers didn't tally. They were off, he said, by fully 1000%. Hirayama though refusing to release his raw data, eventually admitted, (in print in the BMJ) that they were off by 100%.
¶ Tho he claimed to have asked his subjects "detailed lifestyle" questions, 41% of the nonsmoking women weren't asked if they held or had ever held a job, let alone what kind of job. The base was in areas of low income with heavy industrialization where many women worked.
Citations on the heavy pollution of the environment would be one among these:
"Passive Smoking, FOREST, GASP and Facts." Lancet, 1982, V !; "Hirayama's Study questioned.." BMJ, Oct 3, 1981; also BMJ, Feb. 28, Mar 2, Ap 4 and Nove 28, 1981
¶ Japanese women asked pointblank in 1966 (when Hirayama began his study) whether or not they smoked were more than inclined to lie since it was socially unacceptable. A study by Peter Lee in 2001, whose subject was simply "misclassification" showed that Asian women seemed to have the highest percent of liars on the question about their smoking. Lee pegged it at 12%,
Hirayama s' study had used an overall sample of 91,000+ nonsmoking women of whom, within 13-15 years, 174 had been diagnosed with lung cancer and had died. A reanalysis which postulated 10 (count em) liars out of his full sample-- 10 women, not 10%-- immediately dropped the Relative Risk to... nothing-- to, in fact, less than nothing (to 0.74 - 1,0)
-Uberla K, "Lung cancer from passive smoking: Hypothesis or convincing evidence?" Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 59; 421-431, 1987
Nor was this the only attempted reanalysis. Another got a statistically insignificant 1.15 (with a base of 0.74)
¶ And here's another potential for misclassification, or call it misdiagnosis. Though "lung cancer" was listed as the putative cause of death, for 88.5% of these deaths, there were no available medical records, no autopsy, no histological analysis-- in short, no clue as to whether the diagnosis at death was correct, or
whether the cancer was primary or metastatic.
Again, this was the study that began the entire industry of secondhand smoke.
:
A little background information on when the British study was done.
The appalling air pollution was not just in London but in the major industrial cities.
When I was little even the stone walls out in the country were black with soot fallout from the cities.
I have watched as the walls of the buildings have slowly been washed clean by decades of rain.
I have been quite surprised to find that the local town hall is really a soft sandstone colour, and I saw the last industrial smog reach us in 1976.
"Forty years ago today the Clean Air Act came into operation. What did it mean for northern industrial cities like Bradford? Jim Greenhalf reports.
Northerners are thought of as dour and gritty perhaps because from the Industrial Revolution to the mid-Twentieth Century the very air they breathed was sour and full of heavy industrial by-products.
"There was always a certain amount of grime and grit in the air. It was only on bank holidays that you could see from one side of the Aire Valley to the other," recalls long-serving Bradford Councillor Stanley King.
On normal working days, however, things were different.
"If you went up St Enoch's Road in Wibsey you couldn't see across to Wrose because of the haze. It had always been like that so you didn't think too much about it," Councillor King added.
An editorial in the Keighley News on July 6, 1957, estimated the annual amount of soot falling on every square mile of Keighley and Bradford as follows: between 146 and 204 tons for Keighley, and between 130 to 600 tons per square mile for Bradford."
http://archive.thetelegraphandar...6/1/
174660.html
How's that for a confounder?
No wonder the air pollution scientists of the time were so dismissive of a wisp of tobacco smoke.
I heard the sound of those "smoking related" diseases in the chests of the people walking up the hill, just off the bus out of town.
Bronchitis was as normal as a cold, and non smokers got it too.
Bronchipax (ephedrine resinate 30mg; theophylline 40mg; salicylamide 250 mg) I remember the name.
Incidentally,I am informed that the current retail price for Solanesol/CoenzymeQ10/ubiquinone is £20 for 30 capsules, by a nonsmoker who wanted to buy some, but got put off by the price.
http://www.nwpharm.com/product/
_...me_Q10_API.html
In fairness to the True Believers of the original cigarette theory, the essential benefits of nicotinic acid itself were only discovered in 1937 and the nicotinic acid content of tobacco smoke confirmed in 1941.
Solanesol and its properties were only discovered in 1956 and I doubt that the Truly Convinced could be expected to look outside their own science to see if advances in nutritional science had cast doubt on the theory.
Now, of course we know that carbon monoxide is an anti inflammatory and the whole phenomenon of, the worse the air quality, the more they smoke, begins to make sense.
I always think it best to take a wide view.
As ever, correct me if I'm wrong.
Since the proclaimed purpose of these complete smoking bans on college campuses is to promote a healthy lifestyle on the campus, would you therefore also support policies that ban smokeless tobacco use anywhere on college campuses?
Doc, are you on drugs? Of course Bill does not support a ban on smokeless tobacco. It doesn’t affect others (unless you miss when you spit and hit someone) therefore it is perfectly safe to use. According to Bill (and he’s said it dozens of times) all those reports about mouth cancers, etc are incorrect.
Didn’t you get his memo?
Let us pray there's a hell.
Walt, there is a hell and we are presently living in it. Hell is not some place that some people go to when they die, it is here and now on earth. Hell is a man-made place and that is proven every single day in at least one place on earth or another. Right now it’s spread to almost all of the planet. Unfortunately, we'll be meeting all these lying charlatans in the after life......wonder how they'll feel viewing their lives and seeing what they did........I am so glad I won't have their Karma to deal with.
"We used to incinerate the fake cigarettes, which is wasteful and causes air pollution," vice director of the municipal tobacco monopoly bureau in Shaanxi province, Zhang Yaqing said.
Zhou's bureau crushed 16.5 million yuan (2.06 million USD) worth of confiscated cigarettes on Wednesday to extract solanesol from the tobacco, Xinhua news agency reported.
Solanesol, which contains vitamin K2 and coenzyme Q10, is used to treat cardiovascular disease. The price for one kilogram of solanesol is about 200 dollars, and 30 tonnes of tobacco leaf can produce 100kg to 120 kg of solanesol"
http://www.zeenews.com/articles....ssid=51&
sid=BUS
Hmmm
Mike inquired:
"Since the proclaimed purpose of these complete smoking bans on college campuses is to promote a healthy lifestyle on the campus, would you therefore also support policies that ban smokeless tobacco use anywhere on college campuses?"
Since daily cigarette smoking poses 100 times greater premature mortality risks than does daily use of smokeless tobacco products, and since enforcing a smokeless tobacco ban would be far more difficult than enforcing a smokefree policy (as tobacco smoke is easy to see and smell, while smokeless tobacco remains hidden inside a person's mouth), the answer is no.
Since the premature mortality risk of using smokeless tobacco daily is very similar to the premature mortality risk of dying in an automobile injury, would those who advocate a smokeless tobacco ban on college campuses similarly advocate banning automobiles on college campuses?
"Since daily cigarette smoking poses 100 times greater premature mortality risks"
100 times greater than zero is still zero, no matter how you shake it and what you try to refer it too.
Since daily cigarette smoking poses 100 times greater premature mortality risks
Bill, I'm still waiting for your answer boy. Define "premature".
Okay Lynda, I am going to give this a stab. Premature means before maturity. Considering that the Government has already said that a person is mature by the age of 18 and they can legally marry, enlist in the military, drive a car after dark, etc at this age, then anyone over 18 should be allowed to make their own choices and any age after should be free days to do with until God decides to call you home. So pre would be up until the age of 18, and those days are suppose to be the parents responsibilities, not the Governments or Bill's.
*coughing & sputtering water all over the place*
Thanks for that Diane..........LOL
And now that you've beat him to the punch, he can now know that I'm talking about "premature deaths" that he's always claiming. (of course I know you knew that already and were having fun with me......it is your birthday after all and I can tell you are having a fantastic day)!!!
That was good, thanks for the laugh!
You're still not off the hook billy. Kindly define "premature" for me as in all those "premature mortality" rates you talk about.
Bill's answer confirm his hypocritical stance on this issue. A healthy campus is a healthy campus and if the campus is going to be a healthy campus, it cannot do so while allowing smokeless tobacco use.
It is completely inconsistent to me to ban smoking everywhere on a campus but to allow smokeless tobacco use.
Bill's stance is just another example of the hypocrisy that pervades the tobacco control movement.
Not for nothing Doc, but I don't see you pushing to ban smokeless tobacco in bars or restaurants either. You just want the smoke gone.
And your reason for the bans is "health" also. And yet you don't push to ban alcohol either.
So you might was to be careful throwing out that "hypocrisy" word, as I for one can see hypocrisy in many of your own statements.......using your "health" argument that is.
Commenting by HaloScan
