Thanks Doctor, I did listen to it this morning and thought that it was well worth the time to listen to it. Very insightful and I did pick up on a few tidbits that I felt were interesting. Even though it was a 40 minute interview, I managed to do my excercises and hear the entire interview at the same time. Didn't even curse the excercise routine. That should make some people in the so called, self proclaimed group of "public health" happy.
Just for information: in the UK, overweight people have been denied surgery.
Smokefree workforce policies provide a enormous financial incentive for employees and job applicants to overcome the deadliest drug addiction, a win win win.
A win for the employers due to increased productivity andreduced absenteeism and healthcare costs.
A win for smokers due to reduced morbidity and mortality risks, and increased finances due to no more cigarette purchases and fewer healthcare costs.
And a win for the spouses and siblings of smokers due to a decline in tobacco smoke pollution exposure, and due to fewer healthcare costs.
And for some jobs (i.e. firefighters), a smokefree workforce policy benefits public safety.
Here's a news story about another fire deparment in Florida that has adopted a smokefree workforce policy (including a tobacco free workforce policy, which will provide far fewer benefits for employers, public safety, employees and their family).
http://www.abc-7.com/Articles/re...cleid=18650&
z=2
Diane, don't you know that as a smoker you are incapable of doing and excercise?????
BWAHAAHAAAAAAAAA
I would love to see some of these anti-smoker "experts" who claim smokers are physically incapable of strenuous activities do some of the things most of us routinely do.
For example, I wonder if either Dr. siegel or Mr. Godshall would be up to the challenge of laying the 450 square feet of fabric mulch I laid this morning, AFTER hoeing out all the weeds, by hand. After I grab some lunch I will then be putting in 1,359 row feet of beans. If the weather holds I will be repeating the process tomorrow or Sunday.
Mr. Godshall, just how much is UST paying you to shill for them?
How do you sleep at night knowing that you are a major proponent of job disrimination that is based on the same type of bogus propaganda that used to support discrimination based on race and gender?
I will support the right of a private employer to pick and choose their employees based upon their own criteria, I draw the line with government entities. Those positions are paid through taxpayer dollars, smokers are taxpayers and are thus funding those positions.
Since you support such discrimination will you support an effort to exempt smoker and other users of tobacco from paying taxes to the entity that is discriminating against them? I can easily avoid funding private entities that discriminate against smokers by not purchasing their products or patronizing their businesses, however in the case of government entities I am being doubly discriminated against because I am forced at gunpoint to pay for positions I'm unable to obtain.
increased finances due to no more cigarette purchases More than half of the cigarette price goes to the state(s). "Sin taxes" are so much easier for politicians to "justify" than general taxes.
due to increased productivity Where did you get that one, Bill? Any evidence to show us? Even if smokers did get ill and die a few years earlier in average, they would still be retired already. How does that reduce productivity?
From your link: "One of the things any chief wants to see is that their firefighters, their employees are safe and as healthy as they can be..."
I suggest that if you want to be safe and healthy, avoid becoming a firefighter, because SHS from fires is much more hazardous than from a few ounces if dried leaves.
If you can cherry-pick, so can I:
"Firefighters appear to have higher-than-average rates of cancer, the largest study of its kind shows."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/ne...006/
1793679.htm
"Study finds many suffer fatal heart attacks on duty"
http://www.venturacountystar.com...e-firefighters/
"Firefighters Risk Health Problems Years Later"
http://cbs5.com/health/
firefight...s.2.449363.html
YOur turn, Bill!
Gabz: "I would love to see some of these anti-smoker "experts" who claim smokers are physically incapable of strenuous activities do some of the things most of us routinely do."
Gabz, I have smoked from the age of 16, yet this hasn't prevented me from regularly practicing extreme skiing at altitudes up to 4000 meters or from playing squash twice a week at the age of 40 and above.
My comments to Bill, taking them from start to finish:
If lack of money was an incentive, chances are they never would have become a smoker.
Our employer nor insurance carrier hasn't paid a red cent above any other employee's healthcare cost as I have not stepped one foot in a Doctor's office in 4 years. My husband had a physical last year, got a clean bill of health and took vacation days to do it. No absenteeism there, just a day allowed in his benefit package. Lost productivity? Follow him around for just one day. You wouldn't beable to keep up nor understand what he does for a living. He is an Electrical Engineer with a Masters in Aviation Engineering and without him, your pilot wouldn't be communicating with the towers.
Increase finances? I have never heard anyone here complain about having a lack of money. They earn their own and it should be up to them as to how they spend it. I am sure they are not worried about what is in your checkbook.
I am sure you met children and not siblings, but either way, I as the spouse, my children and siblngs are all very healthy and none of us finds it necessary to visit a Doctor for anything more than to give birth. I did have a brother who was killed my a drunk driver though and the little time he spent in the emergency room did not rack up huge healthcare costs. I don't even hate the drunk driver, though I do pity him.
As for the firefighters in Florida. So what? For myself, if looking for employment, I would tend to think about all the smoke coming from a burning building and check out the amount coming from a cigarette and determine which is the bigger threat. Also chances are, if this Captain is forceing firefighters to quit or not be employeed he might want to first consider what these firefighters might decide to do should it be his house on fire. Chances also dictate that no smoking will eventually lead to other less favorable policies and should it be his house, these same fire fighters just might spray the ground instead of the fire. People will only be pushed around for just so long.
Lost productivity? Not counting a serious hospital acquired infection after an operation, I have had 4 days sick in 18 years.
Re the firefighters
I hope that all the firefighting tobacco users refuse to be "helped" or "incentivised".
Regardless of age, experience or ability I hope they are summarily dismissed simultaneously, Florida will then have to replace years of experience overnight, how much does it cost to train a firefighter? how many years does it take to become competent or better? How many people will die because of this bigoted persecution? I hope this policy is rolled out country wide.
It's long past time for resistance, enough is enough, it is time non-smokers felt the consequences of this campaign of hate.
GreatScot
Gabz "Mr. Godshall, just how much is UST paying you to shill for them?"
Never mind the pay----I want to know if they send him pom-poms for his
"a win win win" routine.
And do the poms poms match the tin-foil hat and his tin-ear?
.
Smoking bans and taxes, do they work?
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=37125
GreatScot
Great Scot wrote:
"Smoking bans and taxes, do they work?
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=37125\"
Cornaglia's findings sharply contrast with the steady decline in serum cotinine levels among US youth over the past fifteen years (as smokefree laws and cigarette tax hikes proliferated), as well as a study published last year for Scotland which showed major reductions in cotinine levels in both children and adults in Scotland:
"Changes in child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (CHETS) study after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey" Patricia C Akhtar, Dorothy B Currie, Candace E Currie, Sally J Haw
BMJ 2007;335:545, doi:10.1136/bmj.39311.550197.AE (published 9 September 2007)
"Changes in exposure of adult non-smokers to secondhand smoke after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey" Sally J Haw, Laurence Gruer
BMJ 2007;335:549, doi:10.1136/bmj.39315.670208.47 (published 9 September 2007)
and with self-reported reductions in home smoking in Ireland:
"Does smoke-free Ireland have more
smoking inside the home and less in pubs than the United Kingdom? Findings from the international tobacco control policy evaluation project"
Andrew Hyland, Cheryl Higbee, Louise Hassan, Geoffrey T. Fong, Ron Borland, K. Michael Cummings, and Gerard Hastings
Eur J Public Health, February 2008; 18: 63 - 65.
Godshall,....you're either unelievably naive, or incredibly stupid. I really can't tell which.
You quite simply don't "get it"
"helping people quit" and coercing, arm-twisting, brow-beating, insulting, or threatening someone with job loss if they don't, are two completely different things, ....to sane people.
Not you though, ..you're all about force.
You know, I have been thinking about the firefighters in Florida. What do you think the chances are that any of them, smokers or just people who appreciates free choice is right now, submitting their resumes to other city fire departments across this once great nation? Fire fighters requires many months of training,and is a huge cost to taxpayers, but well worth the cost. Still nothing stands in their way to up and move to another department or State. The new fire chief and city would welcome them with open arms.
GreatScot, Bill loves bans and taxes, as his paycheck doesn't come from that pay pool. That is why he pretends to be so concerned as to how much more money we would have if we didn't smoke. He gets his thrills from them, which is why he loves to tout the newest tax increase in NY State. Even Sen. Bruno was against it, saying there was no way to say if or how much revenue it would create. No doubt because he knows how much they lost the last time they taxed smokers, while he watched them go to the internet, Indian Reservations, roll your owns, black and gray markets. While Bill works and promotes mafia style theft, I still purchase mine from the store as it is for the "economy". My checkbook allows me to splurge.
LightenBoy, Should the day ever come when my checkbook no longer allows me that splurge, could I get a job working for you? As a smoker, I promise an increase in productivity and I am never sick, so no need for absentism.
I am never sick
Funny how that keeps cropping up, do you think that the drugs companies know something that we don't?
Doctor, I very much enjoyed the interview and it helped me to understand your position,especially the list serve, no dissent? I thought that was how a theory is tested.
One can only assume that they are on shaky ground if their conclusions are not to robust enough to be contested.
On the gardening front, I have constructed a cold frame and put the seedlings outside, I have now stopped sneezing.I seriously think the nicotine addiction theory should be looked at and I am by no means alone.
Doctor,
I enjoyed listening to your roundtable discussion. It is astonishing that a career criminal who has never paid a penny of tax in their lives can get a heart op but a smoker who needs a foot operation can be denied treatment. But, sadly, I think this whole "social responsibility" and "social contract" mind set will lead us down the path of not treating certain types of criminals soon. I also think that the more success TC has, the easier it will be to deny treatment for BMI misfits because people will cite the non-treatment of smokers as a justification for the non-treatment of people who like their food.
Lazy Fredrik.
Just thinking about it
Alcohol testing at work is understandable if you are using heavy machinery, driving public transport etc.
Testing for residual amounts of cotinine from smoking, nightshade foods or niacin is pointless and invasive.
But if we are already going down that road, surely to really level that playing field, everyone should be genetically tested to make sure that no employer will hire anyone who is going to cost too much to insure.
Impossible?Immoral?
Look around.
Bill,
I am not sure why you think more tax on smokers is a win win win for NY.
http://www.journalnow.com/
servle...s=1037645507703
Clearly the good people of NY who do not choose to smoke are not much affected because they don't buy cigarettes.
The good people of NY who do choose to smoke will have to pay more for the pleasure of smoking.
So for the people of NY we can say that most are mostly unaffected by the increase in duty and a large minority are mostly affected in a bad way for them.
It's more like a no real difference for most of NY and loose a lot for others in NY than win win win for NY.
And lets face it, all NY people are going to die sooner or later - it's just that some will suffer even more taxation before they die for no sensible reason.
Lazy Fredrik.
Firefighters? Don't they inevitably breathe some noxious smoke from fires anyway? Ones I have met say this is an occasional occupational hazard as breathing apparatus is not always ready to hand.
"You can't smoke cigarettes, my good man, but breathing in burning fabric and other building fumes is an inevitable part of the job!"
No doubt, they counter this by humming to themselves the tune "Everything is beautiful in its own way"...
Bill,
I've said this before and I'll say it again.........the people who are always out sick are the "health" nuts....always running to the doctor for something or other and always ON company time.
For this year alone (14 weeks so far) in my office: 2 people called in sick once; 1 person has been to her doctor 4 times; 2 have been to their doctor 3 times and called in sick twice; and another who started here on January 25th has called in sick 4 times. All these people are very healthy eaters, don't smoke, don't drink, and 1 is full out vegan. They are all active people, exercise, etc.
I, on the other hand, have not called in sick once nor seen my doctor. I see the doctor just once a year to renew my estrogen prescription as I had a hysterectomy 20 years ago. Other than that, I have to be dying or bleeding to death before I'll see a doctor. I'll also add that I am older than all of them, by 18 years to next oldest here. I'm also the only one who is overweight and eats fat, smokes, and hate exercise.
So take your BS and stuff it. If they are indicative of being "healthy" I'll stick to doing it my way....smoking.
OT,
ASDA supermarket in the UK has just
started a policy that anyone who looks under the age of 25 or is under the age of 25 must produce ID to purchase alcohol - in spite of the fact that (in the UK) 18 is the legal age for an adult to purchase alcohol. ASDA is a sub of WallMart and I was wondering if there was any indication ,state side, that WallMart has a similar policy? I have also heard talk of this policy being increased to age 30 so as to be safer!
That would be 12 years of adulthood of having to carry ID just to make a legal purchase!
Lazy Fredrik.
Lynda F
I have to be dying or bleeding to death before I'll see a doctor.
Even then I'd still give it a few minutes to see if goes off all by itself 
Perhaps its a matter of attitude,people who worry over the health warnings are naturally going to be on the look out for things going wrong with themselves and rush to the nearest expert.You can worry yourself sick especially if you pay attention to those adverts for hidden ailments that you may not know you have.
Imagination is a wonderful thing.
Personally I am doomed, I have eaten bacon all my life and yesterday I discovered that oatmeal kills, I eat raw porridge with cream and brown sugar almost daily.If you add in the smoking, perhaps it will all mix together in a hideous chemical reaction and neutralize itself, but who knows.
Even then I'd still give it a few minutes to see if goes off all by itself
I hear that Rose.......I'm actually the same way. Basically, I'll 75% through deaths door before I'll consider seeing a doctor again. The last time I put my trust in a doctor, I ended up with a kidney stone thanks to taking an extra calcium supplement he said I needed because I was now (then) 50 and women needed more calcium. Two months later I'm in the emergency room with my sister thinking I'm dying. The stone was huge and calcium. That doctor had me take a supplement just because I was a female at the age of 50; no test, not even a question about my diet (which obviously included ample calcium)....just start taking calcium supplement. THAT was my last lesson in not listening to a doctor unless they PROVE I need something.
Since I can't trust them anymore to be honest with me, I'll put my faith in my body and God/dess letting me know what to do and when. My instincts haven't failed me to date, I doubt they'll start now.
LightningBoy wrote:
""helping people quit" and coercing, arm-twisting, brow-beating, insulting, or threatening someone with job loss if they don't, are two completely different things, ....to sane people."
Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere.
Bill Godshall said it, "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
Well, the same holds true for non-smokers who don't want work in a restaurant or bar that allows smoking.
"They are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere", also.
Freedom is a beautiful thing.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Lynda F
Osteoporosis,rather than taking calcium tablets, I heard that to keep up bone density after 50 you had to strike your heels on the floor 50 times a day.
10 minutes dancing to heavy metal ought to do it.
Yes,EinsteinSmoked, it's wonderful how Anti Godshall logic just trips itself up but the answer is that Godshall is like Mr Cox and Mr Box: he lives in two different coexistential spaces governed by different logics at the same time. This way he is able to contradict himself as and when he sees fit simply by moving from one space to the other.
Has anyone noticed how Godshall can be read as "God shall"? Therefore, as we are naturally inclined to abbreviate, should we not just call him "God" for short? It's not often people get the chance to address comments to God...
OT
The campaign to ban the Chancellor from every pub in the UK seems to be going quite well.
U.K. treasury chief banned from pubs over beer tax hike
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Weir...5124376-
ap.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...ast/
7313771.stm
Theres even a song to go with it
http://www.myspace.com/barredfromthepub
Bill, try to quote some stats that are credible and maybe, one day, someone might hear you out.
But no, you chose Scotland???
The same country that said: "Hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 17 per cent in the year after the legislation was introduced in Scotland" and was debunked on this blog???
Who is going to believe stats from THEM? (And where is the declaration of funding sources??)
True democracy defends the rights of the minority; it doesn’t deny or trash them “in the public good”.
Today, it’s a ban on smoking in bars and Legion halls, tomorrow it’s a ban on smoking in cars and the day after that, the erosion of personal liberty will reach into the sanctity of the home. Today, it’s smokers; tomorrow it’ll be drinkers and the obese.
And, the non-smokers in the house shouldn’t get too complacent or convince themselves that it’s not their fight. It’s no longer about smoking or secondhand smoke.
Those who condone, and in a growing number of cases, support the initiatives of tobacco prohibitionists; who condone or support discrimination in housing, employment and medical treatment should be very cautious.
Anti-smoker, anti-fat, anti-abortion, anti-alcohol; all these obsessions challenge personal liberty and individual rights. Those who support the repression of free choice may wish to re-evaluate their position when it’s their turn to be pilloried for making a particular lifestyle choice.
If anti-smoker fanatics are allowed to continue, and even intensify, their attacks on smokers and the privilege of free choice, there is no telling who the next target will be.
I agree employers should have a choice
I fired my whining secretary because I was sick of her telling me, I smell like smoke. I hired her busy hands, not her busy body nose. I will never hire another whining non smoker.
The public don't get past the security door and are greeted in the waiting area. So no public are likely to go into my fully smoking allowed office and plant, which are not public spaces.
I work for a few Universities and I tell them I could likely provide more timely service, [emergency service delivered this month] if they only had a place for the guys to smoke.
They complied all three have provided spaces on non smoking campuses, their employees also benefit from the relaxed rules and are grateful to join us for the occasional smoke. I have had to apply the same strategy a number of times as we have no lack of demand, I can set the delivery rates with preferred clients benefiting from co-operation. I pull no punches telling clients I am not a politically corrected child or will I be.
If they want the work done right they have to put aside the paternalist rules and accommodate the fully matured adults, who can get the work done right with no childish whining or excuses.
I would almost swear we get a lot of service calls at times when they are even not necessary. Everyone gets what they want and no one is offended.
In my experience smokers are the more productive workers by far, but only when you allow them to do what they do best, while having a smoke as they work, instead of stopping all work to walk outside.
If productivity is important to anyone, smoking bans are a foolish way to get there.
Rose,
Dammit, woman you just spoiled my day.
After having lived past my life expectancy at birth and being told by the experts that I could now, statistically, expect another 12 to 14 years, I find out that oatmeal kills. I eat a full serving of bacon and eggs about three times a week. The remainder of the week, I thought I was eating healthy with my porridge, brown sugar and milk (with just a sprinkle of cinnamon).
Now, after 60 odd years of surviving smoking, jumping out of aircraft, skiing down mountainsides and other such silliness, it may be the bloody oatmeal that does me in!
Is there no justice?
"...Smokefree workforce policies provide a. enormous incentive a win win win.....A win for smokers due to reduced morbidity and mortality risks...." Bill God
So smokers who quit have reduced morbidity and mortality? In others words they have immortality.....live forever? Is that a fact Bill?
Or in reality are such statements and the pro-smoking ban agenda promoted to secure lucrative RWJF / (Johnson & Johnson) financial grants?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-policy-
or.html
You smoking ban activists have less integrity and credibility than the sleaziest politicians.
Just for kicks and giggles, I haven't listened to the interview yet but I will right now, I will say two things:
1. Dr. Siegel you are a brave man for taking on Gian. It would be the equivalent of Barack Obama or Hillary voluntarily debating Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh. You have guts.
2. You will say that if you discrimate against smokers for health reasons, then you have to go after the fat asses, drunks.
Doc, listening to this, you definitely have the voice of a guy who has never smoked.
Gabz, you are right. Gian does have an Italian accent. I wasn't expecting that. He writes perfect English as if he was born in Boston.
Your argument comes down Doc to the argument of limited Gubmint vs. central planning Big Gubmint. You're a MA progressive lib for now...
You admitted for a brief moment that your cohorts are dependent on the gravy train of Government taxpayer grant money to make a nice living.
Gian was kind to you. I would have pressed the case and ripped you a new a-hole to the point that you would have hung up on me.
Silly questions like: Why don't your comrades in TC advocate a ban on tobacco and give up their livelihood?
Eric,
Gian hasn't challenged Dr. Siegel too vigorously yet, and the doc hasn't said anything in these interviews that he hasn't already said here.
The interview I'd be very interested in hearing is the one where Gian asks the doc to defend his "science."
No new material was covered in this interview, so I will ask a question from the last interview which went unanswered.
Dr. Siegel,
Despite your claims about "worker safety," in the previous interview you stated your goal was to reduce exposure to ETS, further clarifying that elimination of workplace exposure reduces whole-life exposure.
My question, which you did not answer, is:
Does not reducing workplace exposure also achieve your goal of reducing whole-life exposure?
Diane - I still purchase mine from the store as it is for the "economy"
Me too Diane, it just happens that for the last 2 years, since the Scottish ban, that the store has been Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and French with the associated boost to their economy.
GreatScot
OT-
Europe-wide food colour ban call
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=c...lient=firefox-
a
Excerpt
So the Foods Standard Agency wants UK ministers to enforce voluntary removal of the colours by next year.
Well colour me stupid! Can a voluntary ban be voluntary if it is enforced?
Either there is something lacking in education or these people have a loose wire in their brain circuit.
GreatScot
Matt Todd
Dammit, woman you just spoiled my day.
Really? I feel a weight has been lifted.
I heard Professor Marmot say on camera that there was no safe level of bacon.
From this story
"The experts say there is no safe level of drinking"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1774
"Quaker Oat was specifically targeted by the new book as being the worst oatmeal a person can eat because of its 'unique' production method, which effectively acts as a conservative but increases levels of acrylamide"
http://jp.dk/uknews/article1310095.ece
The only brand of oatmeal I eat.
The perils of chocolate
"The processing of cacao beans into powder and chocolate is an unsanitary, risky procedure to say the least. To be blunt-chocolate and cacao are laced with animal feces and hair, insects, and molds. The carcinogenic mold called aflatoxin has been found in large quantities on cacao beans"
http://www.rawlife.com/store/pag...s.php?
pageid=32
I have eaten all of these things repeatedly and throughout my life,so now I can ignore all advice as, if there is no safe level, its clearly too late.
Eat, drink and be merry
BTW Diane,I saw Buster Martin on the tv today, that man is surprisingly sprightly when he jogs.You can see how he could take on those muggers.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
Doctors attack 'supersize' drinks
"RCP president Ian Gilmore accused the pub industry of acting irresponsibly and urged it to put its house in order".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
7343737.stm
Apparently drinkers are too stupid to tell the difference between a large glass and a small glass and may inadvertantly binge drink.
Anti-Alcohol 101
http://www2.potsdam.edu/
hansondj...1122492295.html
Rose,
If I went into a bar and wanted a small wine but all they offered was a 250ml glass, I would either:-
A buy the large glass and drink half
B buy a different beverage
C go somewhere else
I have never bought nor drank more that I chose do. I do not need legislation or do-gooders to protect me from myself. I'm a big boy now.
Greatscot
I must be the only smoker who goes to doctors! All the women in my family are prone to bronchitis. My non-smoking mother gets it every year, as did my non-smoking grandmother (rest her kind soul).
I get it about every three years. I go to the doc to prevent it turning into pneumonia, as has happened to my mother and non-smoking sister twice when they waited too long to seek attention.
I'm also having my gallbladder out next week. I've been waiting for some smoke nazi to tell me my gallstone is smoking related, but nothing so far.
Godshall -Cornaglia's findings sharply contrast with the steady decline in serum cotinine levels among US youth over the past fifteen years (as smokefree laws and cigarette tax hikes proliferated), as well as a study published last year for Scotland which showed major reductions in cotinine levels in both children and adults in Scotland:
Bill,
A couple of questions;
1 which study is correct? Do you know?
2 If exposure to ETS is reducing at home why are ASH now campaigning that the smoking ban has increased exposure at home?
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_...-
name_page.html
Excerpt
"And last night anti-smoking pressure group ASH told The People that the Government's public smoking ban had made the problem WORSE for children - because it encouraged parents to light up at home instead of in pubs.
http://www.journalnow.com/
servle...d=1173355262272
Looks like Bill is a consultant for RJR Reynolds. Two quotes from Bill endorsing Camel Snus.
Has anyone noticed how Godshall can be read as "God shall"? Therefore, as we are naturally inclined to abbreviate, should we not just call him "God" for short?
Blad,
That's enough make anyone an athiest.
At least being pagan, I can call upon and talk to the Goddess...........hehehehehe
From Gilster's link; "Godshall said that persuading smokers to try a new smokeless-tobacco product isn’t easy."
Bill, I can give you an advice (no cost and royality-free): You have to convince young people to try snus before they start taking up smoking.
I'm just waiting for the moment when snus (and spitting) becomes so popular that TC goes after snus as well.
Sorry Cowbell, that was too much like a challenge.
Gallstones
Several studies suggest that smoking may increase the risk of developing gallstones and that the risk may be higher for women. However, research results on this topic are not consistent, and more study is needed
http://www.fbhc.org/Patients/Mod...les/
smoking.cfm
Good luck with the operation, hope you are better soon.
GreatScot
Try to remember that unless you are medically qualified, you can't possibly decide these things for yourself.
And if you didn't aspire to a career as a politician then that also proves your reasoning must be inferior.
I was clearly mistaken in thinking that getting a larger glass meant that the drink would last much longer, saving a trip to the bar, or that if I only wanted a little it was not mandatory to finish to the last drop.
This is why we need experts.
Incidentally, could the Doctor explain why politicians think that a wisp of smoke in a ventilated bar or on a patio is deadly but is suddenly harmless in a casino.
I am reading the American papers and would be very interested to know by what leap of logic this is achieved.
Perhaps gamblers and staff are in some way immune from the "severe risk."
Its all going horribly wrong isn't it?
No jobs for smokers?
Dr. Siegel is likely right about one thing. Eliminating smokers from the labour pool may not be the most appropriate means of finding the best man for the job.
Imagine what might have happened to the world of entertainment if Hollywood had refused to give work to smokers. No John Wayne to wave old glory and fight for truth, justice and the American way. No Lucille Ball or George Burns to bring a smile to our face.
And, what if we banned smokers from holding public office? Were Churchill and Roosevelt any less effective because they smoked?
"“Every new city RJR picked has a clean-air law,” said Matthew Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “This is about RJR doing everything they can to keep people from quitting.”
Godshall said that persuading smokers to try a new smokeless-tobacco product isn’t easy.
“Although smokeless tobacco is just as addictive as cigarettes, and should not be used by those who are not addicted to nicotine, cigarettes are about 100 times deadlier than smokeless-tobacco products,” he said.
Stephen Pope, the chief global-market strategist for Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, said that Reynolds’ cautious approach to Camel Snus has created a greater opportunity for the product.
“It will be noted by Reynolds that when the Norwegian government placed a strict indoor smoking ban in public places in June 2004, the sale of snus really accelerated,” Pope said.
■ Richard Craver can be reached at
727-7376
or at
rcraver@wsjournal.com.
I think the reporter here was a little less than fully informed, perhaps if a few here invited him to join our little discussion group, he may fully appreciate the whole situation.
Bill you really are to much.
I laughed and I laughed...
Bill believes "Persuading smokers Isn't easy".
Smokers; the mindless drones of the tobacco industry. The innocent victims of deceptive marketing ploys when they were children, by the same industry Bill now shills for, Smokers who now need to be helped to quit?
How is it, such easily controlled people, would be so hard to convince?
DOAH!!!
Have a donut Bill, A couple of rounds at Moe's Tavern [If its smoke free of course] will get you back on a more positive track in no time.
After the numerous statements made in this blog alone, talking about people broad brush like they are something offensive stuck to the bottom of your shoe, Difficult???
Not to mention the hypocrisies of astro-turfing legislators for years attempting to create smoker free employment, Housing and medical treatments.
Making peoples lives more difficult, so you can get rich, when you sell them on a solution?
Joining with the TC crowd just to set the stage for marketing another tobacco industry product? I am sure few of them will be impressed either.
A product I might mention which was already shunned, years ago, because of the sight of children spitting brown slime at baseball games all over the country.
The Tobacco companies you hope to work for, could have chosen a more qualified representative or at least someone for whom, potential clients could find some measure of credibility or even the slightest glimmer of respect.
Where on earth did you get the 100 times as dangerous spin?
If there is no safe level, 100 times 0 is still 0.
Reynolds should rethink that approach as well, it spreads their legs wide and demands we give them, a good swift, going for the 100 yard field goal, kick where it hurts.
So it seems Bill is OK with people being controlled and addiction is fine too.
As long as it meets his specific standards.
If a reporter picked up on this, it could be said quite safely in the press;
The Tobacco industry apparently encouraged the astroturfing of Law makers, through their representatives and spokespersons, Bill Godshall and most of the others connected to the anti smoker campaign.
Apparently only so they could reinvigorate the marketing and public image of products, which once created an epidemic of chaw spiting children at baseball games. Marketing in major centers will likely see youth oriented feel good ads, targeting children again, as the largest group of all potential lifetime clients, for all the products they sell. Can we all say "Gateway drugs".
The complete relationship between Godshall and the tobacco Industry remains unclear, although Godshall claims he does not receive any money, and he is simply doing his civic duty; to save the lives of people he, in viewing his other statements, clearly detests.
Sold now as a more convenient method of smoking, by the same people who made smoking inconvenient.
Godshall, - "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
But, according to you, Siegel, and the rest of the TC mafia, this is somehow unacceptable when it's the other way around, and non-smokers "shouldn't have to choose between health and job"
More of the same TC double standard.
Do you people make any attempt at all to remember any of the tripe you spew in public?
According to the TC Gestapo;
Non-smokers don't have to consider anyone but themselves in choosing their employment, and smokers already employed in those places (notably known smoking venues) are somehow expected to accomodate these people that aren't smart enough "to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
Your sentiment here is that smokers are clearly smart enough to make the appropriate choice for themselves while non-smokers are, well,...something less.
Smokers are now being completely excluded even from consideration, and barred from employment in "non-smoking venues", whether smoking is relevant to the position or not. Smoking being completely prohibited OFF THE CLOCK, ...is somehow not discriminatory?,..or at the very least not prejudiced?
The same applies to patronizing any Restaurant or Bar?
Why is it that smokers are capable of reading the internationally understood "No Smoking" signage, and making the choice to abstain during their time spent there, or more frequently avoiding this choice altogether and visiting a venue that specifically welcomes their patronage, but,....non-smokers are apparently completely incapable of making the same simple choice?
The smoking employees made the choice to work in smoking environments; non-smoking employees employed in such venues also made the same choice, but clearly, the weakest links in society, the rabid antismokers, the militant "do as I say, and ignore the illogical reason why" smoker-haters just can't seem to come to grips with other people making choices for themselves that the bigotted, fearful TC proponents simply don't agree with.
Whatever it takes to win, right Bill?
Bill has noted: "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
Likewise, Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If non-smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere.
Likewise nobody is forcing anyone to patronize a restaurant, bar, or pub which permits smoking
Clearly this demonstrates there is no need for a smoking ban, no need for legislation prohibiting smoking, and no need to expend law enforcement resources policing such needless legislation, as there is no such thing as involuntary exposure to second hand smoke,
Clearly this issue could be resolved by market pressures where people wishing to avoid cigarette smoke would simply patronize non-smoking establishments, and those wishing to enjoy a cigarette with their meals, the smoking establishments. If the demand for more non-smoking establishment increase, market pressure provide incentive for some smoking establishments to "convert".
What isn't being addresses in Godshall's argument is the level to which employers are permitted to intrude into the privacy of their employees. In most cases employers are not permitted to test employees with polygraph machines. With very limited exceptions, federal employers are not permitted to institute urine drug tests without a court approved search warrant. While it is one thing that it may be a policy for an employer to not hire a smoker, it is truly another, when they attempt to enforce such policy by exercising what would be considered by law enforcement, an illegal search, not to mention the rights of privacy.
Clearly we don't allow employers to dictate such private matters of choice unrelated to the workplace, as what "God" someone believes in, or what gender someone is attracted to, if such discriminatory practice becomes more widespread, smokers too should be added to the list of protected minorities, especially considering public moneys have been spent to create and engineer a denormalized public perception of those that smoke.
Bill reveals the truths of anti smoker inconsistencies, in his presentation as a shill for Big Tobacco, exactly the accusation he has implied both Michael and Forces might represent.
Anti smoker is nothing more than a marketing war between the titans of industry.
The Tobacco Industry who wish to expand the popularity of a weak market product.
The prohibitionists at RWJF who shill for their form of nicotine dependency products, along with pharma products targeting alcoholics and the obese.
And of course the sector who want to reinvigorate the fascist movement of centrist politicians. Those who wish to set their own agendas in the public sector, inventing drama which needs to be dealt with, while avoiding issues the people really want to be dealt with.
Political corruption, unfair taxation or Industry interference with the research and development process, just to name a few.
We can't forget the medical charities who work as front groups for hire for any of the mentioned groups as long as the cash continues to flow.
Hey Bill, what kind of side dishes do you eat with crow? That is what you are having for dinner tonight, right? You really did put your foot in deep with this one and it does show your true colors.
Once again the anti-smoker cartel, as exemplified by those that participate on this blog, has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt just how WRONG they all are.
How have they done this, is a question many of you are probably asking yourselves as you read this post.
It is very simple, by their continued refusal to answer any of the direct questions posed to them. Any number of times direct questions have been posed to both Dr. Siegel and Mr. Godshall; the refusal of both to answer those questions speaks volumes to the fact neither is capable of backing up the anti-smoker playbook rhetoric they repeatedly parrot.
I have been battling these cretins (I was going to call them jackasses, but as beasts of burden jackasses are at least useful) for nearly as long as Dr. Siegel has been working to demonize and denormalize smokers and nothing has changed excpt the level of shrillness. These people are totally incapable of defending their bogus posturing and so instead they duck and cover, resort to obfuscation, outright lies, and ad hominem attacks.
Their continued silence in response to direct and legitimate questions is all the answers we need.
.
.
Today's front page St. Louis Post-Dispatch smoking ban story makes me feel so proud of St. Louis!
http://www.stltoday.com/
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"Today's front page St. Louis Post-Dispatch smoking ban story makes me feel so proud of St. Louis!"
Perhaps Bill Hannegan can explain why he derives so much pleasure advocating the poisoning of tens of thousands of workers in St. Louis.
Hannegan's explanation might give us some insight into Hitler's motives for involuntarily exposing millions to poisonous air.
Perhaps he is reveling in the fact a risk factor exaggerated to a deadly health risk, is starting to be seen for the advertising fraud it really is.
How much are you paid as a spokesperson for RJR Bill?
That is the question which begs an answer.
Another could be; why is Michael barred from TC, while you are still in good standing, even as a spokesperson for the Tobacco Industry?
Conflicts abound.
Bill defended his support for smoker-free hiring policies by arguing that: "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
Unfortunately, by doing so, Bill has destroyed his argument for smoke-free workplaces, including bars, restaurants, and casinos. Because opponents of these laws could make the same exact argument that Bill makes: "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for or to keep those jobs; if they don't like the smoking, they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
As EinsteinSmoked astutely pointed out, Bill's argument here does in fact negate his argument in support of workplace smoking policies.
Recent AP article: "Places like New York's Poospatuck Indian Reservation have become major sources of contraband cigarettes. Hidden away in a nondescript suburb on eastern Long Island, it is a 60-mile haul from New York City. But to bootleggers, the trip is worth it. The reservation sold an eye-popping 10.4 million cartons of cigarettes last year -- enough to supply every smoker in New York City with a pack a day for 3-1/2 months. One store grossed an average of $35 million per month, federal agents said."
"New York's reservations sold nearly 304 million packs last year -- nearly a third of the state's recorded total."
The question is: Do those percentage figures which keep popping up telling us how much smoking has declined take into account all of the contraband cigarettes smoked from various sources, including China? Or how the smoking of contraband cigarettes can affect the surveys? In other words, just how accurate can the figures possibly be? Does anyone know the methodology behind the figures? Dave K., have you got a line on that?
P.S. With the hike in taxes, a typical pack of cigarettes in New York City will now come to almost $9 a pack. Of course, that's not extortion; it's tough love. And not greed, but health and virtue. And those guys aren't freedom fighters, they're bootleggers.
.
If you look closely at the headlines in Canada you will notice the numbers always closely mirror the tax amounts they receive. Shortly after the enactment of the Ontario legislation they said that there were less smokers. I phoned the ministers office, and asked them since we all know that theres contraband in Canada, how exactly is this figure calculated in the figures for smoking rates?" He said there was no way to get exact figures from an illegal activity, so its just not included, or even estimated. This is due to there being no way to verify or even know if they are close.
In other words every person who now buys cigarettes from the reserves, stores etc that are not taxed the gov't statisticians considers them "quitters". That I'm sure is the "inability to calculate" problem is universal, and a convenient way to say the legislation is working. This makes anti's, and politicians look good, so I don't think others would avoid this ability to ignore work (estimate the amount of contraband- by using a survey of butt brands in ashtrays, etc). Hey its making the public and media think they are actually "doing good", so why not!
Perhaps Bill Hannegan can explain why he derives so much pleasure advocating the poisoning of tens of thousands of workers in St. Louis.
Bill Godshall | 04.12.08 - 2:02 pm | #
*****************
Is that an RJR Reynolds official question?
Godshall asks "Perhaps Bill Hannegan can explain why he derives so much pleasure advocating the poisoning of tens of thousands of workers in St. Louis.".
Why Godshall, the I think it should be rather obvious. By your own observation, that since nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job in a smoking environment, that means those that do so of their on volition. In other words, Hannegan's pleasure is derived from allowing people the freedom to choose. A better question is why do you derive so much pleasure from denying people the freedom to choose? And do you derive additional jollies, when the bar closes as has been demonstrated repeatedly, and most recently by the huge down turn observed in England, when a national ban was imposed.
I believe that Bill Hannegan, being an upstanding business owner, would be more than happy to answer that question when the day arrives when smoke or secondhand smoke actually does poison the air. Like you and the good Doctor avoiding our questions, when you do not have an answer or a ready made response, neither does Bill. The dangers needs to be there first. I do say that you sound a tad upset that Bill is doing such a good job in the name of freedom and truth. So Bill, there is a side dish to eat with your crow tonight.
OT to Rose,
Someone posted this today over at the Smokers' Club. Looks like you weren't going crazy after all:
Hackers attack pro-choice websites
Thursday, 10 April 2008
The websites of two prominent pro-choice organisations campaigning against smoking bans have been targeted by hackers who redirected traffic to the NHS Smokefree website. The high level and sophisticated hacking technique affected all UK based internet service providers.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.p...d=578&
Itemid=57
Thanks Lynda
Someone must be feeling nervous,but the apparent quality of their enemies rather confirms the success of the sites.
It turns out Clean Air Kansas City pushed the smoking ban thru using the infamous 16 cigarette claim.
http://www.cleanairkc.com/facts.asp
And another great point from Walt H. If Bill truly believes that workers who don't like their employers' policies can and should simply find another job, then the same thing holds for workplace smoking policies as for worker smoking policies. I hate to say it, but I agree: his argument for workplace smoking policies is destroyed.
L. Duguay,
Thanks for the information. Have to wonder, further, how New York comes by their bragging stats.
.
Rose touched on this for a while and I really Hope Dave K. Looks at the validity of the chemistry involved and lets us know what he thinks.
Following the money is never an entirely bad way of finding a little understanding in the ways of greedy people. I noticed for instance a definite increase in the number of “call your Doctor” type commercials, airing of late. The strange thing is 3 of 4 commercials are advertising Statin drugs. The other most seen commercials of late are the ever present anti smoking propaganda and along health lines; the anti fat diatribe runs a close second. Who knew there could be a connection? When looking at the ways and means of Statins being advertised we immediately notice a long list of potentially devastating side effects associated with the Statins of late one manufacturer is adjusting their labels in the UK but not in the States warning of a possible effect of Myopathy or muscle death, in addition to a host of already known symptoms and side effects.
A quick check at WIKI reveals Statins are used to reduce the LDL bad cholesterol in the blood in order to avoid atherosclerosis [heart disease].
So far the facts are not out of the ordinary and nothing to be concerned about, right?
Another interesting fact is also revealed at WIKI in regards to Stains they are not nearly as efficient in reducing LDL as Niacin which for some unknown reason is not used despite its known superiority. The reason? Because in order to market Niacin or B3 as a replacement for Statins and avoid all the life threatening side effects of those Statins we would have to let it be known Niacin is essentially Nicotine derived, and the fact when we tell people to quit smoking we reduce their daily intake, which leads to atherosclerosis and obesity and eventually to heart disease.
The reports of reduced heart attacks where smoking bans are installed seems to have a big problem with biological plausibility, what we should be witnessing as a result of reduced smoking is a noticeable increase in heart disease cases, although not quite as fast as the reported miracles of smoking bans report.
If Doctors know they are asking their patients to curtail their intake of niacin when quitting smoking, does it make any kind of sense for them to be prescribing smoking patches? Which directly introduce nicotine although not oxidized nicotine [Nicotinic Acid] but pure nicotine, a poison, directly into the blood? Does it not make a lot more sense they should be prescribing high doses of B complex vitamins? Unless of course you are shilling for Stains, which will be necessary in time, as a predictable effect of increased LDL after you quit smoking.
Even the alternative tobacco products being promoted by the anti smoking fanatics do not provide LDL lowering nicotinic acid in amounts any where close to the beneficial levels found in good old fashioned tobacco smoke. The kind you find in a smoky workplace or at your local smoke filled bar.
Science is funny like that, just when you thought you had all the answers….
References;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statin
http://www.fda.gov/CDER/Drug/adv...ory/
crestor.htm
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepl...er/
a603033.html
Dont you think instead of creating such policies they should help people in quitting smoking?
james
Anonymous
The most common side effect of niacin is a warm flush to the skin, which is why smoking a cigarette on a frosty morning while waiting for the bus seems to make you feel warmer.
As the dose is low it doesn't seem to be so marked as when taking a niacin tablet.
Here are the side effects of Nicotine patches.
More common
o Injury or irritation to mouth, teeth, or dental workwith chewing gum only
* Less common
o High blood pressure
* Rare
o Fast or irregular heartbeat; hives, itching, rash, redness, or swelling of skin
http://www.nicotinereplacementth...t-
medicine.html
Theres a whole lot more too, suspiciously similar to the symptoms of Green Tobacco Sickness
"Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate"
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/...ml/
00020119.htm
It would seem that the drugs companies have believed Fritz Lickints original theory and made a synthetic copy of nicotine, rather than niacin.
Apart from which, a denormalization strategy based on the abuse of people taking a vitamin supplement in the traditional manner, probably wouldn't get any takers.
My respect for the toxicity of nicotine grows daily, which seems to explain these deaths.
Nicotine patches may boost intensive care risk
http://www.newscientist.com/chan...s-
alcohol_rss20
Niacin Flush
"Another niacin feature is its ability to greatly reduce anxiety and depression. Yet another feature of niacin is that it dilates blood vessels and creates a sensation of warmth, called a "niacin flush."
"An important point here is that niacin is a vitamin, not a drug. It is not habit forming. Niacin does not require a prescription because it is that safe. It is a nutrient that everyone needs each day. Different people in different circumstances require different amounts of niacin"
http://www.doctoryourself.com/ni...com/
niacin.html
Its amazing the good sense you get if you leave "tobacco science" severely alone.
So in effect it seems that we are being bullied to give up an essential vitamin, without being let into the secret of what it really is, and if we succumb to the propaganda we get poisoned with insecticide.
"Don't ask, don't tell..."
Alternate sources, just incase.
From my obsessive months of research, cross referencing studies, as niacin tablets are predicted to go down in strength under the Codex-
Brewers yeast
"As one of the most concentrated natural sources of the B group vitamins, principally riboflavin, (Vitamin B1) and thiamin (Vitamin B2) and Nicotinic Acid, brewers yeast is ideal for nutritional supplements and special tableting grades are available"
http://www.overseal.com/site/brewers.htm
In extremis you can make it yourself.
Carbon monoxide
"Carbon monoxide is an anti-inflammatory, and they want to explore its potential in treating high blood pressure, heart disease and possibly cancer"
http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/
pres...ideresearch.htm
However, a team from the University of Vienna has found that the "vegetable-based" cigarettes produce a level of carbon monoxide similar to that produced by tobacco cigarettes.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/
background_briefings/smoking/272145.stm
Herbs suitable for ordinary smoking, internet.
Other chemicals, I just don't know, but those seem to be the principles.
I await your criticism of the theory as I am not a chemist.
Bill G.: Perhaps Bill Hannegan can explain why he derives so much pleasure advocating the poisoning of tens of thousands of workers in St. Louis.
Hannegan's explanation might give us some insight into Hitler's motives for involuntarily exposing millions to poisonous air.
No one yet has slammed Bill G. for this line of reasoning that is devoid of any coherence?!?
Right Bill, it's completely the same. The Jews marched into the gas chambers "involuntarily" the same way employees and customers march into bars and restaurants "involuntarily."
(No need to even defend the difference between immediate death from exposure to the cyanide-based Zyklon B and the weak epidemiological link -- that itself remains unproven -- between ETS and increased risk over decades. It's ludicrous on its face)
Bill, you are in fact a poster child for all arguments made that anti-smokers are unstable.
"And another great point from Walt H. If Bill truly believes that workers who don't like their employers' policies can and should simply find another job, then the same thing holds for workplace smoking policies as for worker smoking policies. I hate to say it, but I agree: his argument for workplace smoking policies is destroyed."
So is yours, Doctor. Are you going to respond to my previous question?
Godshall, - "Perhaps Bill Hannegan can explain why he derives so much pleasure advocating the poisoning of tens of thousands of workers in St. Louis."
Oh how very typical of you Bill.
You don't even bother to defend your previous idiotic and self incriminating / self-destructing statement when called on it; "Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for a job, or to keep a job. If smokers don't like the policy (or any other personnel policy), they are free to seek employment opportunities elsewhere."
You, as is a matter of routine among single issue fanatics like yourself, immediately launch into mis-direction and character attack against someone else.
Just as with the "science by press release" you simply make the poorly planned, poorly thought out, poorly executed statement, ...and then move on to the next bit of rediculous, demonstrable bigotted behavior, while hoping no one actually calls you on the double standard you promote.
You and your comrades are running out of new plays to try. Your game plan has become all too predictable.
Time to retreat, but you'll have to agree to help expose the fraud before we accept your surrender. That means Glantz, Repace, and few other "brand name" Anti-Mafia leaders will have to face some serious prison time for you to have a chance for immunity from prosecution. Save yourself.
If Bill truly believes that workers who don't like their employers' policies can and should simply find another job, then the same thing holds for workplace smoking policies as for worker smoking policies. I hate to say it, but I agree: his argument for workplace smoking policies is destroyed.
Michael Siegel
We've been telling you that for years now Doc. There is no reason you need every single bar and restaurant to be smoke free. Plenty of employees also smoke, and I'll bet not one of them begged you to help them work in a smokefree environment for any reason.
Bill is a full supporter of employer rights to hire/fire and set policy......obviosly ONLY when it involves smoking. I'll bet the farm that he'd be up in arms if those same employers set policies that forbid people from having a glass of wine with their mean at night, OR better yet, from using smokeless tobacco as well...on their own time.
Bill is so two-faced, as are all of the TC crowd that it's not even funny. Their transparency shows constantly.
So, if smokers can simply up and find another job, it begs the question.....why can't non-smokers? Are they too stupid? Too lazy? Both?
Mr. Godshall, I am proud that St. Louis is a free and tolerant city.
I don't want to see anyone poisoned by smoke. I am working to get St. Louis venues that allow smoking to install proper filtration and ventilation measures.
Why can't bars and restaurants bring some sort of class action law suit against groups such a Clean Air Kansas City and Smoke-Free Illinois, groups that knowingly use false claims that ultimately injure these businesses?
Bill Hannegan
I think they should before its too late. Its too late for 4 pubs a day in England, the village pubs are particularly badly hit it seems.
Villages lose their hearts as pubs toll grows
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/n...s-
as.3929339.jp
Smuggled cigarettes cost billions in lost tax revenue. Crooks, thieves and hypocrites, including big T.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
ne...id=aj_diBAyv3vs
Excerpt
"Governments and anti-smoking lobby groups are joining forces to draft a global accord to combat the illicit trade in tobacco products that costs billions of dollars in lost tax revenue every year and increases smoking deaths."
Greatscot
GreatScot
Black Market in Germany
"Nevertheless, if prohibition is the ultimate goal of today's anti-smoking campaigns, a cautious warning might be in order. Research has demonstrated that prohibition is generally a poor and sometimes a disastrous policy.(3) A little-known but quite illuminating historical incident, the tobacco shortage in Germany after the Second World War, when economic forces played the role of legal restraints, could give us a glimpse of what prohibition would probably look like in the case of cigarettes"
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/dru...gtext/
hess1.htm
Usual view on addiction but notice how often the people are described as malnourished.
Chewing tobacco used as an appetite suppressant
"They are popular with street children and teenagers can go through up to 15 packets a day. According to health officials, some children like Gutkha because it's an appetite suppressant"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservic...trial/
india.htm
How does illicit tobacco trade increase smoking deaths?
JustTheFacts wrote:
"No one yet has slammed Bill G. for this line of reasoning that is devoid of any coherence?!?"
I thought about it, but it would've been like shooting ducks in a barrel.
James Austin
After the latest revelation, I regard him as a decoration to the main text, like a repeating logo, or a pop up selling a product I have no interest in.
GreatScot,
I liked that your link came off Bloomberg news. Seeing that the owner of this newscast is responsible for the blackmarket in New York City and upstate.
Bill Hannegen,
There should be no reason why you can't bring a class action lawsuit against these groups. I have always said that bars/restaurants are suing the wrong people when they try after a smoking ban is implemented. Instead of suing a city or State, they should be going after all the right to breathe folks and make them prove their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. You have lots of proof on your side. Just show pictures of anyone over the age of 40 and especially those in nursing homes who has managed to survive all that secondhand smoke. Wonder if Buster Martin, the 101 year old marathon runner would be willing to testify!
Hannegan's explanation might give us some insight into Hitler's motives for involuntarily exposing millions to poisonous air.
Bill Godshall | 04.12.08 - 2:02 pm | #
I thought Godshall had already stooped as low as could be accomplished, but I was wrong.
You are one disgusting creature Godshall.
Why are you so afraid of answering the questions posed to you? Is it because you KNOW that everything you say is a LIE?????
Matt Todd wrote: Anti-smoker, anti-fat, anti-abortion, anti-alcohol; all these obsessions challenge personal liberty and individual rights.
I try my best to keep the issue of abortion out of my discussions of smoker bans and anti-smokers in general, but there are time when it can't be avoided.
As a conservative who was raised Catholic I am suppoed to be anti-abortion, but I'm not. I'm pro-choice. I don't like abortion and don't believe it should be used as a form of birth contol, but I don't believe it is my place to tell another woman what to do.
What I find fascinating, in a horrid way, is that the vast majority of anti-smokers are all pro-abortion. Anti-smokers have no problem with a woman killing her baby outright, but have a huge problem with allowing folks to make their own decision about smoking or being around those that do.
One choice will guarantee death, the other choice only minimally increases a possible risk of death.
As EinsteinSmoked astutely pointed out, Bill's argument here does in fact negate his argument in support of workplace smoking policies.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 04.12.08 - 2:47 pm | #
UMMMMMMMM.......Doc, I've been saying that for 20 years.
There is NO justification for ANY smoker ban anywhere. NO ONE has to enter or work in any establishment that permits smoking.
Get over it --- you people are WRONG. That is all there is to it.
Gabz,
Not wanting to prolong a discussion on abortion, I still wanted to take a second to tell you that is exactly how my husband and I feel about it. Neither of us would do it, but we don't feel we have a right to tell someone else not to. I also cringe when I hear it in a Politcal battle. How a wannabe President feels about it is no business of mine or of the reporter asking.
PS. I also don't care if a Politician smokes either. Whether he/she does it while hiding in the bathroom of the Oval Office or on Air Force One. Run the country, do the job you were elected to do is all I care about! I bet if one of those famous polls were taken, the outcome would say that 70% of the population doesn't care either.
Diane
Marathon's no sweat if you stop for a pint and a fag halfway, says Buster (aged 101)
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/...-
you.3977250.jp
I bet if one of those famous polls were taken, the outcome would say that 70% of the population doesn't care either.
Diane you are so RIGHT!
Have you noticed that every one of these "surveys" that conclude 70% of the "population" are all conducted by those with vested interests in smoker bans? Where is Dr. Siegel's outrage about that BLATANT conflict of interest? I don't expect any outrage from Mr. Godshall because he uses those type surveys/studies on a regular basis as he parrots the propaganda of his anti-smoker cult handlers. But I really would appreciate a comment from the good Dr. about it...............I'll die of old age and not a smoking related illness waiting for THAT to occur.
Yup, I'm mean and I do not appologize for it. Anti-smokers have done such horrendous damage they deserve nothing less than the same meanness they regularly show smokers.........and in fact deserve a whole heck of a lot worse.
Cowbell writes:
Gian hasn't challenged Dr. Siegel too vigorously yet, and the doc hasn't said anything in these interviews that he hasn't already said here.
True. That is because both men are gentleman. They wouldn't do that.
Unlike Bill Godshall "send you a plauge of locusts."
He'll get his smoker ban in PA eventually. Socialism is the temporary natural order after all, until people wake up.
Bill still won't be happy knowing that somewhere in PA, his fellow citizens are having a good time drinking, eating copious amounts of food or looking at naked women or men, or all of the above, someplace that is smoke free.
He's an activist. He'll put a stop to that real fast. There will be no fun.
Eric,
I think perhaps it's more than gentlemanly. Gian is obviously not an idiot. Dr. Siegel is a useful tool, rich with sound bites.
Dr. Siegel thinks he is a doctor working toward a healthier world. Unfortunately, he crossed a line, and has not yet realized the magnitude of his error. He does know he's done something wrong, though, no matter how he rationalizes it.
Godshall, on the other hand, is just a plain zealot. An untreated addict who shifted his focus from one object to another.
Responding to him within the context of his universe only feeds his addiction. Statements like the one he made above are how he gets his high. He's now going to greater and greater extremes to get a reaction, like a junkie building a tolerance.
http://www.fairnessproject.org/
R..._Addiction.html
It's hard to work up anything but pity for Billy. His PA ban is not inevitable. If it passes, I imagine it will end up like the Philly ban.
The law passed, but it didn't stop the smoking. No ban ever does, for long. Even Dr. Siegel knows that.
I only recently learned that my boxing hero of the 70s, Carlos Monzon, was a five pack a day smoker. He would cut back to 2-3 packs while training for a fight. He would even light up during roadwork! Yet he beat everyone and quit boxing in his late 30's. How is that possible? I really am curious. Wouldn't that much smoke cripple any fighter?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D...0BvcdCBKCk&
NR=1
Bill, many a famous sportsman smoked. One of the great Brazilian footballers of the 1980's Socratese. A Doctor, A politician, captain of his country, world cup winner and a chain smoker.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/...all/
7255311.stm
Excerpt
Socrates, Brazil's bearded 1980s midfielder, has a doctorate in medicine and began working on a masters thesis that proposed football be reduced to nine-a-side in a bid to increase skill levels.
The inimitable Socrates is no stranger to the debating chamber, either.
The chain-smoking former Brazil captain, a member of the Workers' Party and founder member of the movement Corinthians Democracy, became a leading figure in the push for political reforms in his home nation and is widely regarded as one of the most influential civilians to challenge, and ultimately end, the country's dictatorship.
More here
http://chopstop5.blogspot.com/20...who-
smoked.html
Greatscot
I would like to see TC try to prohibit growing a weed! The only thing that is stopping me right now from growing tobacco is the fact I have sand for soil, and have to get some soil shipped in; just so that I don't have to water it so often.
They may try to prohibit this product, but I have to agree with the ability for growing tobacco on your balcony,etc and the inability to stop tobacco consumption.
PS: If you can change one word (black for smoker) & have it be discriminatory; why do people not realize how much brainwashing they have been subjected to? Do/should rights have arbitrary limits, its called "human" rights, not just colour, religious, or heritage rights; of course not. Yet some people think that stomping on a certain right now doesn't reduce the ability to protect others rights later; how sad. rights are rights, not arbitrary or "politically" acceptable single approved words.
l. duguay
Its certainly a fascinating plant to grow and I do suggest that everyone grows at least one just to see what shocking fibs they have been telling.
You care for it just like a tomato plant, its close cousin, multi purpose compost will do fine, but gives you the artificial fertilizer, so well rotted manure mixed with your sand would be better.The organic material will build up in your sand and it should turn into real soil eventually, composted grass clippings are good too, I used that to fill pumpkin pits before capping with soil.
And watch out for the evaporating nicotine!!
Only safe thing to do with that stuff is to burn it.
They can't ban it or they have to ban all plants containing nicotine and if they ban fries and pizzas the people will rise up as one.
"I would like to see TC try to prohibit growing a weed!"
I mean, it's not like a bunch of self-righteous do-gooders have ever enacted stupid laws forbidding the growing and smoking of a plant on health and moral grounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
Damn...
Harley
If they do ban growing tobacco, I shall campaign against all of these-
http://www.craigsams.com/pages/t...ages/
tobac.html
"TOMATOES
The English regarded them as poisonous until the 1700s. They were introduced in America as an ornamental garden plant in 1808, but were not eaten as they were believed to cause stomach cancer and appendicitis. The botanical name for tomatoes ‘Lycopersicon’ means ‘wolf peach’ and refers to the association between werewolves, witchcraft and nightshades"
Except the potatoes, obviously, I like them, but since TC has given us all a crash course in scientific evasion, I should have no problem in keeping them out of the general purge.
Bill still won't be happy knowing that somewhere in PA, his fellow citizens are having a good time drinking, eating copious amounts of food or looking at naked women or men, or all of the above, someplace that is smoke free.
On that line, sticking with smoking, if people are enjoying smoking despite the "sensible restrictions," then obviously they haven't been enough. And if people still smoke and are seriously inconvenienced, then it's sensible to ratchet up the, err, encouragement.
That is Bill's logic as I see it.
There isn't much point in looking for logic from Bill. There isn't any. My dad told me when I was a tot, "You can't reason with unreasonable people."
Such is Bill. There is no reasonable argument, no logic, no evidence that will turn Bill from his beliefs.
It's human nature to seek patterns to make sense of things. You're a reasonable man seeking reason from an unreasonable man. It's not there.
Harley
I mean, it's not like a bunch of self-righteous do-gooders have ever enacted stupid laws forbidding the growing and smoking of a plant on health and moral grounds.
The last time I smoked pot was under the first Bush administration. Circa 1991. The crap never agreed with me and just made me paranoid. Imagine that...me, paranoid.
There is no reason why marijuana, or some women selling oral sex for money or some guys running a gambling ring taking bets on football should be "illegal". (the STATE can advertise their lottery all they want of course, gambling is OK then)
Almost everything the Gubmint does is unconstitutional. Anti tobacco doesn't even need the idea of "harm to others" to advance their agenda. Many things harm nobody but are still illegal for the greater good of some elitist who decides.
I stuck my head in the sand never thinking that they would ban smoking in a bar. Boy was I stupid.
_________________________________
When they came for the drinkers during Prohibition, I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
When they came for the employees of the oldest profession in the world, I did not speak out, as I had no interest in purchasing sex.
When they came for the purveyors of what was deemed to be "obscene" or "offensive", I did not speak out, as I was not a fan of entertainers like Lenny Bruce or Howard Stern.
When they came to ban the female mammary gland from TV, I did not speak out, because Brian Boitano told me not to.
When they came for the marijuana smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a marijuana smoker.
When they came for the steroid users, I did not speak out, as I was not a steroid user.
When they came for the _______ (insert nominally objectionable behavior here), I did not speak out as I was not a _________ (fill in the blank).
When they came for the pornographers, I did not speak out, as I was not a pornographer.
When they came for the people who don't wear seatbelts, I did not speak out, as I always wore my seatbelt.
When they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out, as I was not a gun owner.
When they came for the gamblers, I did not speak out, as I was not a gambler.
When they came for the "polluters", I did not speak out as I was not a polluter.
When they came for the SUV drivers, I did not speak out, as I did not drive an SUV.
When they came for the cigarette smokers, I did not speak out, as I was not a smoker.
When they came for the overweight and the obese, I did not speak out, as I was not overweight or obese.
When they came for the drinkers (again), I did not speak out, as I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me...and there was nobody left to speak out.
Commenting by HaloScan
