Is it not against any law to engage in false advertising when a public offical makes an outlandish claim such as this? Silly thing to ask, I guess.
Good question Sunz.........I've wondered the same thing myself. How is it so-called "public health" announcements are allowed to spew such outrageous lies? But let a manufacturer promote a product as "light" (which tastewise it usually is - hence no lie involved) and all hell breaks loose.....and I'm not just talking "light" cigarettes here, but all the various foods that using the term light and everyone assumed that meant less calaries, therefore healthier (but I don't see anyone busting guts to sue them).
And further to that Lynda, isn't that what the tobacco companies were accused of? The whole lot of them sicken me. Perhaps I should book myself a heavy-duty guilt trip as all of this is .....for the children!
Actually, I'm working on a heavy duty bubble to protect myself from these fools.
And side-tripping a bit here.....it's amazing how all my "healthy, non-smoking" co-workers are all one by one falling to the flu.............and the one and only smoker among them is healthy as a horse (and no, I never get flu shots)....hehehehehe
Yep, I'm definitely building myself that bubble it will protect me and they can all drop like flies from all their "good health".
This just in:
In Ottawa, bingo parlors have been devastated by the draconian Smoking Ban. (there were aboot 24 parlors, now there are 4).
The City of Ottawa, in its wisdom, has seen the light and will now allow the Bingo Parlors to... SERVE ALCOHOL to get the business back!!!11one
Public Health? Bueller? Bueller?
I am sickened. :-(
"We know that secondhand smoke is worse than firsthand smoke. The studies are all in, and we really want to protect the health of our children."
Oh good - produce the health damaged children from these studies please!
There once was a time when there was such a thing as "truth in advertising". I might be revealing my age here, but I remember it quite well. Anyone promoting a product had to actually use that product before they could be cast into a commercial. When they did away with the truth in advertisements, I had foolishly thought it was for corporate competition, now I see that it was just to open the door for anti-tobacco. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. Sad.
Just think of the teens who happen to have parents who smoke. "Well, if I'm gonna be exposed to SHS, and it's just as bad or worse than actual smoking, I might as well cave in to peer-pressure, take up smoking & look "cool" in front of my friends." Way to go, TC! Just keep up the good fight "for the children"!!! Bang up job so far...
Obviously another Big Tobacco Lackey.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7012901158.html
Thought I would save Bill and Carl the effort.
Perhaps some professionals have had enough.
Big Pharma strikes again. Nothing is more important than the children....except MONEY
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6308871.stm
GreatScot
At an equivalent dosage level (i.e. at the same ug/m3), secondhand smoke is more harmful than firsthand smoke.
Protecting the most vulnerable and most at risk population (children)
from the highest concentrations of tobacco smoke pollution (in a car) is of paramount public health importance.
BTW,
Seroxat also known as Peroxetine was the drug prescribed to me when I attempted suicide twice. The (ignored)problematic side affect has been known for years. Not just for children but adults too.
Be careful out there Doctor's are not always right nor do they always work in their patients best interest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
art...1741916,00.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/174.../1741-7015/3/
14
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...50821225354.htm
http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/60....uk/
6060515.htm
How about a little damage limitation or denial
http://www.biomedcentral.com/174...5/3/14/
comments
Blood on their hands. Sorry for going off topic. I hope you can appreciate this is a subject close to my heart.
GreatScot
Bill wrote
"At an equivalent dosage level (i.e. at the same ug/m3), secondhand smoke is more harmful than firsthand smoke."
Unlike Bill, secondhand smoke lives in the real world.
GreatScot
Bill you still haven't acknowledged that you were wrong about the health effects of vehicle exhaust emmisions,so why should your present missive be any more accurate.So come on give us the link,pretty boy.
Why is everyone, particularly Dr. Siegel, so afraid to call these control freaks what they are?
They are LIARS and no amount of the use of terms such as "fallacious" and "unethical" is going to change the fact that they are all LIARS...........and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
By refusing to call them what they are, i.e. liars, even Dr. Siegel remains an enabler.
Bill stated: "At an equivalent dosage level (i.e. at the same ug/m3), secondhand smoke is more harmful than firsthand smoke."
This seems like a pretty desperate attempt to defend all the anti-smoking groups' claims that I highlighted.
At an equivalent dosage, EVERYTHING is equally harmful. At an equivalent dosage of aflatoxin, peanut butter is as carcinogenic as ingesting pure aflatoxin - one of the most potent carcinogens known to man.
The ENTIRE point that the public needs to understand is that the dose of secondhand smoke constituents IS NOT THE SAME AS - IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO - IS IN FAACT MUCH LOWER THAN - the dose of constituents inhaled by the active smoker.
IF we cannot get THAT simple point across to the public accurately, how does Bill think we'll EVER get across the more subtle and less straightforward point that smokeless tobacco is 'less hazardous' than cigarette smoking?
I think if Bill and other anti-smoking groups want to have credibility in making their own health claims, they first need to demonstrate their scientific competence by being willing to denounce groups that are making fallacious claims.
Granted - I understand that Bill and others are "loyal" advocates and part of a movement and feel a great hesitation to criticize those who they may consider their colleagues. However, at some point I think you need to be willing to call a spade a spade and at least admit that these public statements are misleading, if not downright wrong.
Well, let's see now...
We know that the health hazards of secondhand smoke are particularly egregious for children and infants.
We know that children and infants have limited control over their environment, and none at all when they're inside a car.
And it we know that secondhand smoke is more toxic in a small enclosed space like a car.
Laws against smoking with children in a car would be relatively easy to enforce, since it is out in the open for all to see.
So given all of this, what would be the smart move here?
I'm sorry to say that to get to the real "rest of the story" we must ask ourselves: Why is Dr. Siegel doing everything in his power to distract attention from the real issues?
Prove that SHS is as deadly as you would have everyone believe Cathy,and i mean by scientific means not someone said,then you may be aware of what is being discussed,otherwise go back to the shallow end.
Well Cathy,
We DON'T know that SHS is particularly egregious for children & infants, (dosage is never specified, not very scientific)
We DON'T know that SHS is more toxic in a small enclosed space like a car, (are windows rolled down? Convertable? Not very scientific)
We KNOW Laws against smoking with children in a car would be a giant pain in the arse to enforce, (several Police Forces are balking at trying to enforce bans)
"So given all of this, what would be the smart move here?"
Hmm, maybe leave people alone to live their lives?
The Rest of the Story is that the good Dr. is being being marginalized for simply pointing out that the Emperor Has No Clothes. 
"By refusing to call them what they are, i.e. liars, even Dr. Siegel remains an enabler."
Beat me to it, Gabz.
Now here are some Dr. Siegel quotes from the link he provided (his posting of July 17, 2006):
"Active smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by about 17 times. Secondhand smoke increases lung cancer risk by about 30% (a factor of 1.3)."
"Active smoking increases the risk of heart disease by 2-3 times. Secondhand smoke increases heart disease risk by about 30% (a factor of 1.3)."
"Active smoking causes an estimated 430,000 deaths each year. Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause about 43,000."
"Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that secondhand smoke isn't harmful. I've spent the better part of the past 21 years trying to convince the public of the hazards of secondhand smoke."
Doctor, I believe that most of us here have yet to find any justification for the above figures, with the "estimated" 43,000 figure especially suspect. Have you really bought in to that figure, which seems to have been concocted out of thin air by the forces of darkness (commanded by you-know-who)? If so, on what basis have you bought into it?
Nor do I think you're going to advance your cause and convince your public -- at least your public on this blog -- about the supposed dangers of secondhand smoke by issuing such statements as (from above): "secondhand smoke increases lung cancer risk by about 30%" and "secondhand smoke increases heart disease risk by about 30%" -- percentages which, by your wording, are now SET IN STONE. Is that the new scientific method?
Debate over, apparently: OPINION having succumbed to CERTITUDE.
It won't wash in an honest world.
Yes Gabs-----'By refusing to call them what they are, i.e. liars, even Dr. Siegel remains an enabler"
I agree with you.
Cathy / Doc / Bill
Can some one please explain how SHS has went from a debatable RR of 1.minuscule for chronic exposure to worse than primary smoking so quickly?
Can all those ETS studies be so far from accurate?
Cathy how do you know so definitively that "We know that the health hazards of secondhand smoke are particularly egregious for children and infants.
We know that children and infants have limited control over their environment, and none at all when they're inside a car.
And it we know that secondhand smoke is more toxic in a small enclosed space like a car.
How about the WHO study that showed a protective effect for children exposed to ETS?
Please show me the studies, in real life situations, that back up your statements. I don't mean the hypothetical ones with 100 smokers in hermetically sealed tiny cars and infants with lungs the size of blue whales.
The "real" issue is why do you and your ilk have the need to De-humanise, de-normalise, humiliate, persecute, victimise and outright bully people that smoke?
GreatScot
GreatScot the answer to your question is simple,SHS must become incredibly dangerous,so that the public can be brought into the equation by the antis,whether the public like it or not.They NEED IT,TO FURTHER THEIR AIMS.
A little off-topic, but I just found out that we were close to having a budget shortfall in our city this fiscal year, EXCEPT that the increase in our share of tobacco taxes made up the shortfall and resulted in a surplus.
If second-hand smoke is so dangerous that it's considered "child abuse," why don't the antis focus their efforts on getting cigarettes banned completely? Do ya think non-smokers don't want their own taxes raised to cover the decreased tax revenues if tobacco is outlawed? And, isn't it just as bad to let your budget shortfalls be funded by a bunch of "child abusers?"
A bunch of elitist hypocracy, if you ask me. Just my observation.
Julie you are right. The city councilor that introduced the smoking ban here stated that a loss of business was no excuse for not passing the ban. "We c
an't be always about the 'almight dollar'.
I have challenged him on what this city/state collects in tobacco $$$ and have still received no response.
Lying hypocrites everyone of them.
'almight dollar'= almighty dollar
Bill, do you have children? Neices, nephews? Any contact with children? If so, when you were a 3 pack a day guy, did you ever smoke in front of them, in the home, in the car, restaurant, wherever? How are they doing today? My kids are doing just great, even with all the smoking I did around them. Lungs, heart are still going strong and my daughter just told us that she is giving us another grandchild in September. Isn't it a miracle that she is able to do that, what with all that secondhand smoke? Smoked in front of my son too. He just turned 32 and still plays soccer twice a week (indoor during the winter). Soccer uses alot of lung power, what with running back and forth for over an hour. Ever play a sport Bill? Can you even throw a ball now, seeing that you use to be a smoker? Please pull out a dictonary and look up the word "life" and then get one.
Great Scot, I became very concerned when you mentioned 2 attempts at suicide. Please know that you are loved and if you ever need a friend, I am here for you. We can smoke a pack of cigs together and talk all you want. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
We know that the health hazards of secondhand smoke are particularly egregious for children and infants.
We know that children and infants have limited control over their environment, and none at all when they're inside a car.
And it we know that secondhand smoke is more toxic in a small enclosed space like a car.
And you have the irrefutable proof? You can prove those words beyond any reasonable doubt? I can give you my son's phone number if you like, he lived with 2 smoking parents, and you can ask him why he isn't dead yet. Better yet, explain all us baby boomers still being alive and healthy, considering we were exposed to far more SHS than any person today can even imagine. Why not ask why we are alive and healthy instead of sickly or dead?
Proof, Cathy, where's the irrefutable proof?
I really like Dr. Siegel and appreciate the fact that he is trying to hold the control freaks accountable for their lies, and I really and truly wanted to put him in a different category than the rest of them, but his enabling of them does not permit me to do so.
I'm sorry, Dr. Siegel, I really do like you and have a great deal of respect for you, but your absolute refusal to call the Stanton Glantz's, Bill Godshall's, Ed Sweda's, James Repace's, John Banzhaf's, et al, the liars that they are make you no better than they are.
I've called them all liars before and will continue to do so, they all know who I am. I'm not hiding behind an anonymous screen name, my name is and has been Gabz for more than 40 years and anyone who has ever encountered me on the internet or in real life knows my full name.
It had just gotten to a point where they can say ANYTHING about SHS and the public will eat it up. Because, that is what they WANT to believe. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. It doesn't matter that for years, "the children" were exposed to SHS much more than they are now (being that smoking is outlawed almost anywhere). So, again, the problem becomes bigger, more grave, more immediate, more worthy of immediate law enforcement efforts RIGHT NOW to save the kids, even though they are rarely exposed to it any more. The amount of exposure goes down, while the hysteria over it gwows in inverse proportion. What the hell is going on??
Show enough "Don't Pass Gas" ads that accuse smokers of murder, show enough of the NY Quitline ads that portray smokers as hapless basket cases, show enough degrading, insulting, dehumanizing propaganda, and that is what people will believe. It doesn't matter that most people passing these laws, or agitating against tobacco inder any and all circumstances, are of an age where they themselves were "exposed" or most likely even smoked themselves. They are still alive and kicking...maybe they just hate their parents and want to get back at them in some way?? Beats me. I always thought I was fairly bright but I simply cannot comprehend why there is such growing hysteria over SHS exposure that, according to all accounts, is much, much less frequent now.
I have to conclude based on the information put out by the mentioned groups. That kids should start smoking as soon as they can light up. "The debate is over kids smoking is safer than second hand smoke".
Doc, when are you going to fess up that the second hand smoke scare is based on all BS----------Bad Science!
Dr. Siegel, just a note.....there are actually groups that are currently claiming that SHS is worse than primary smoking:
From ActNowBC claims that "Second-hand smoke can be more dangerous than smoking. Smokers inhale their chemical cocktail through a filter; second-hand smokers aren’t so lucky."
Of course, Bill would have us believe that this is what I keep referring to as "letter of" lying...that is something that is "strictly true", but presenting in a manner that leads the reader to an incorrect conclusion.
Here's some more:
The Canadian Health Network tells us "Why is second-hand smoke more harmful than what smokers inhale?
Second-hand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar as the smoke that smokers inhale directly from their cigarettes. It also has five times as much carbon monoxide. Sidestream smoke is particularly dangerous. It contains the same carcinogens as mainstream smoke, but in even higher concentrations. A lit cigarette left sitting in an ashtray burns more slowly than when a person actively puffs on it, so it releases more smoke into the air. About two-thirds of the smoke from a burning cigarette is never inhaled by the smoker and goes directly into the environment."
Again, a "letter of" statement in that it ignores dilution and dosage in favor of a phrasing that implies soemthing other than the reality.
Both of these are government run groups, which tend to be fairly cautious in what they say....I'd hazard a guess that the "private" groups are considerably more blunt and misleading.
The Doctor writes: 'It may not be the case that this legislator created this fictitious statement on his own. It may well be that he garnered the false information from communications put out by any of a number of anti-smoking groups, which have told the public that secondhand smoke exposure is as bad as active smoking'.
So the legislator is not grown up enough to look further into these claims? What may I ask has this person been smoking? Are there dead bodies surrounding him, all victims of SHS, that he doesn't question this lunacy?
3 brothers and myself grew up with 2 smoking parents. my mom smoked through 4 pregnacies. parents (and their friends) smoked in our home, smoked in the family car. my brothers and i have no chronic health conditions and we are all still alive. my dad is 76 and has been smoking for 60 years. can somebody please explain!
Cathy suggests that I'm diverting attention from the real issue - but in fact, I think the REAL issue with regard to car smoking bans is whether or not it is appropriate for the government to intrude into the private car and home and interfere with parental autonomy merely in order to address a health risk. That's not a diversion - it's actually the critical question that anti-smoking groups must answer convincingly. So far, I've not only failed to hear a convincing or compelling answer, I've failed to hear it addressed at all. In fact, the only response I've heard is similar to Cathy's - this is just a diversion.
It makes me think that perhaps the anti-smoking proponents of car smoking bans don't have a compelling answer. Otherwise, I'd think they'd be anxious to share it.
Great Scot-
I can't tell you why the risks of secondhand smoke keep getting worse and worse (from chronic exposure causing a 30% increase in heart disease and lung cancer to 30 seconds killing you from a heart attack and now to secondhand smoke being worse than active smoking). But I think it has something to do with the anti-smoking groups' attempts to sensationalize the acute health effects of secondhand smoke in order to pass smoking bans. I think they're trying to increase the emotional appeal of the message. In fact, if you read the document that the American Cancer Society and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids put out, they actually INSTRUCTED anti-smoking groups to do this, even though the claims are fallacious:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....cc-and-
tfk.html
Bill and Cathy wish to extend a reality which clearly does not, or could not exist. ETS by its mere existence does not constitute a health risk to anyone.
It takes as with primary smoking years of exposure to demonstrate any risk, in every research paper to date which is unbiased, no evidence is shown in the level of smoke in a cubic meter normally seen, any health risk is found at all. Even those who have adverse reactions who demand our compassion can not be seen to exhibit any elevated risk above the levels of constituents of air found regardless of tobacco smoke.
Air indoors has been found to be 300% more toxic than outdoor air regardless of smoke, if smoke elevates that risk over a lifetime of exposure only 30% how can any increased risk exist at all for the vast majority of those who are doing all the complaining. The same group being the most likely to simply avoid that same smoke as their phobias demand.
Diane,
Thank you for your concern and kind offer. Generally speaking I am much better now. No thanks to the medical professionals though.
I went through a miserable time in my life. I was prescribed anti-depressants, tranquilisers and sleeping tablets. During the time I was on this pharmaceutical cocktail I attempted suicide twice. I started smoking again, weaned myself off the drugs and have coped very well since thank you very much. There is vast amounts of documented evidence of many suicides associated with anti-depressants (and people prescribed Zyban while quitting smoking by the way).
I sincerely hope no-one experiences the depths of despair that I and many others have had to or continue to endure.
If I am ever in your neck of the woods I would be honoured to have a smoke and chat with you.
All the best
GreatScot
Kevin,
Just try to convince Dr. Siegel of all that! He keeps insisting on a 30% increase in risk for cancer and heart disease, but without giving us any real evidence. 3,000 yearly cancer deaths from ETS according to the EPA in 1993, you'll remember, turned into absolute crap by Judge Osteen's scrutiny, but still a 30% increase in risk! Go figure.
Air quality tests in bars have come up with figures such as staff inhaling the equivalent in secondhand smoke of a couple of packs of cigarettes a YEAR, but still the 30% figure endures. And still the insistance that smoking be prohibited in bars and restaurants. If that isn't clinical madness, what is it?
From Nov. 2004: Dr Ken Denson, who runs the Thames Thrombosis and Haemostasis Foundation, argued that there is little evidence to prove passive smoking is harmful: "In America, in a study of 10,000 non-smokers, the average cotinine was similarly low (to on-site tests conducted in Wales), and that was done on serum samples which is more accurate (than in this case, saliva tests, which were processed and supervised by the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London)." "It makes a nonsense of all the claims about passive smoking. There would be no point in having a complete ban on smoking. THE MEDICAL PROFESSION HAS BECOME SO ANTI-SMOKING, IT HAS BECOME IRRATIONAL." (My emphasis.)
Further (still 2004), Welsh secretary for the British Medical Association, Dr Richard Lewis, said any amount of tobacco smoke is dangerous, no matter how small. There's plenty of evidence to show tobacco smoke contains chemicals (sic)." (Well, that last sentence might have been a typo.)
Someone wrote: "There is a systematic campaign deliberately designed to bully politicians into banning smoking in the UK." Substitute New Hampshire for UK in that sentence and you have the situation in NH in 2006. And bullying is the correct description. And I have no reason to doubt that it happens in every state and city in which a ban is proposed, since the scum are not only powerful, but they have long reaches.
God bless America. The land of the free and the home of the brave. It makes you want to hoist the black flag.
Well, every medical doctor and every epidemiologist who doesn't work for a tobacco company agrees that secondhand smoke causes various lethal diseases. So I don't think it's really necessary for me to go to university and get a medical degree to make a valid point on this issue.
As for "interfering with parental autonomy merely in order to address a health risk", why on earth would we not do so? Should parental autonomy include the right to hurt kids just so consumers can have unfettered access to tobacco? Frankly, that seems pretty nuts. It seems to me that the absence of such laws is a holdover from the early days of tobacco when little was known about the health risks of secondhand smoke, and they will soon become the norm rather than the exception.
Cathy...
Today's kids get 2-3 times as many ear infections that require medical attention as in the 1970s. Kids' asthma rates are twice as high today as in the 1970's Childhood cancer rates are up.
As I'm sure you'll readily admit, today's kids are exposed to lot's less smoke than decades ago. And I hope you realize competent epidemiologists take into account population time-trends when intrepreting epidemiological data. Sensationilized epidemiology , however does not.
I think , our public health officials are just taking the easy way out...blame everything on secondhand smoke, and then they do not have to explain why our nation's health continues to deteriorate in comparison to other developed nations without such draconian smoking rules. And this, despite our spending about twice as much on health care as other developed nations.
Dave K
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...AR2007012901158
The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke
Gio Batta Gori
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; 12:00 AM
Smoking cigarettes is a clear health risk, as most everyone knows. But lately, people have begun to worry about the health risks of secondhand smoke. Some policymakers and activists are even claiming that the government should crack down on secondhand smoke exposure, given what "the science" indicates about such exposure.
Last July, introducing his office's latest report on secondhand smoke, then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona asserted that "there is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure," that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion," and that children exposed to secondhand smoke will "eventually . . . develop cardiovascular disease and cancers over time."
Such claims are certainly alarming. But do the studies Carmona references support his claims, and are their findings as sound as he suggests?
Lung cancer and cardiovascular diseases develop at advancing ages. Estimating the risk of those diseases posed by secondhand smoke requires knowing the sum of momentary secondhand smoke doses that nonsmokers have internalized over their lifetimes. Such lifetime summations of instant doses are obviously impossible, because concentrations of secondhand smoke in the air, individual rates of inhalation, and metabolic transformations vary from moment to moment, year after year, location to location.
In an effort to circumvent this capital obstacle, all secondhand smoke studies have estimated risk using a misleading marker of "lifetime exposure." Yet, instant exposures also vary uncontrollably over time, so lifetime summations of exposure could not be, and were not, measured.
Typically, the studies asked 60--70 year-old self-declared nonsmokers to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes might have been smoked in their presence during their lifetimes, how thick the smoke might have been in the rooms, whether the windows were open, and similar vagaries. Obtained mostly during brief phone interviews, answers were then recorded as precise measures of lifetime individual exposures.
In reality, it is impossible to summarize accurately from momentary and vague recalls, and with an absurd expectation of precision, the total exposure to secondhand smoke over more than a half-century of a person's lifetime. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory.
Adding confusion, people with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease are prone to amplify their recall of secondhand smoke exposure. Others will fib about being nonsmokers and will contaminate the results. More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. Thus, the claimed risks are doubly deceptive because of interferences that could not be calculated and corrected.
In addition, results are not consistently reproducible. The majority of studies do not report a statistically significant change in risk from secondhand smoke exposure, some studies show an increase in risk, and ¿ astoundingly ¿ some show a reduction of risk.
Some prominent anti-smokers have been quietly forthcoming on what "the science" does and does not show. Asked to quantify secondhand smoke risks at a 2006 hearing at the UK House of Lords, Oxford epidemiologist Sir Richard Peto ¿ a leader of the secondhand smoke crusade ¿ replied, "I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers..., but what does one make of them? ...These hazards cannot be directly measured."
It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.
By any sensible account, the anachronism of tobacco use should eventually vanish in an advancing civilization. Why must we promote this process under the tyranny of deception?
Presumably, we are grown-up people, with a civilized sense of fair play, and dedicated to disciplined and rational discourse. We are fortunate enough to live in a free country that is respectful of individual choices and rights, including the right to honest public policies. Still, while much is voiced about the merits of forceful advocacy, not enough is said about the fundamental requisite of advancing public health with sustainable evidence, rather than by dangerous, wanton conjectures.
A frank discussion is needed to restore straight thinking in the legitimate uses of "the science" of epidemiology ¿ uses that go well beyond secondhand smoke issues. Today, health rights command high priority on many agendas, as they should. It is not admissible to presume that people expect those rights to be served less than truthfully.
Gio Batta Gori, an epidemiologist and toxicologists, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes. Gori's article "The Surgeon General's Doctored Opinion" will appear in the spring issue of the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine.
The fact that other things are also causing harm to people's health (ie, higher asthma rates due to smog) doesn't work as a reason to back away from protecting kids and non-smoking adults from secondhand smoke, at least not for me.
One final point regarding Dr. Siegel's mention of "the anti-smoking proponents of car smoking bans". Maybe this is just semantics, but why are proponents of clean-air laws for the protection of public health constantly labelled as "anti-smoking"? I can be in favor of clean(er) air without being against smokers or smoking in general. Advocates of drunk-driving laws aren't called "anti-drinking".
Deliberately or not, the use of the term "anti-smoking" feeds into the strategy of many smoke-free air opponents, who seek to convince smokers that such laws are really intended to force them to quit smoking.
To be perfectly frank, much of what I see at this Web site makes me wonder if Dr. Siegel is in reality acting against smoke-free laws in general without coming out and saying he opposes them.
Cathy, are you equally concerned about the effect of automobiles & aircraft on the air that we breathe? If so, what exactly are you doing about it? Would you propose a ban to prevent a child from standing in line in front of a greyhound bus with the engine running? Is it safe for a child to be in a parking lot? For how long? What about the studies that have shown pet dander to cause asthma in children? With felines more likely to be the culprit, perhaps you would support a ban that prevents children from coming into contact with cats? We use the term anti-smoking because TC seems to care nothing for other pollutants that poison our air daily. They're not trying to prevent illness or disease in children across the board, they only seem to mind if they BELIEVE a child got asthma, ear infection, etc., from SHS. And since they cannot definitively say whether a child's illness was contracted by a pet, mold, SHS, or even a genetic pre-disposition, then they (and you, frankly) need to shut the **** up. All just my humble opinion, of course.
Cathy said: "Well, every medical doctor and every epidemiologist who doesn't work for a tobacco company agrees that secondhand smoke causes various lethal diseases. So I don't think it's really necessary for me to go to university and get a medical degree to make a valid point on this issue."
Just wanted to make sure Cathy read Dave K's post by Gio Batta Gori, "an epidemiologist and toxicologist, is a fellow of the Health Policy Center in Bethesda. He is a former deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Cause and Prevention, and he received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts to define less hazardous cigarettes."
So, not EVERY doctor and epidemiologist (as you claim) holds the same view of second-hand smoke. Although, I would agree that almost every doctor who is quoted in mainstream news/newspapers spews the second-hand smoke rhetoric. Unfortunately, the majority of the population gets their information from the mainstream media and would probably make the same statement you did.
Sorry, Cathy, my previous post was rather hostile, but I'm sick to death of the disingenuous concern for our kids, as spouted by the likes of TC & people such as yourself. If you really care about the children, perhaps you could focus on, say, autism. Autism is on the RISE, unlike SHS exposure which has declined substantially with each passing year. You see, I am a smoker & I have 7 children. All of them are healthy; no asthma & or respiratory problems, but my identical twin boys are autistic. However, since their condition was not caused by SHS, (at least TC hasn't been able yet to fabricate a link that I'm aware of) the "anti-smokers" don't seem to care about it. The latest stats say that 1 in every 166 children is diagnosed with some form of autism. If these numbers continue to increase, what kind of a society will we have 20-30 years from now? Seems to me, if you're gonna get all fired up "for the children" there are causes out there you could take up that are decidedly more important than whether or not an adult smokes a cigarette in the car with his kid.
Well, every medical doctor and every epidemiologist who doesn't work for a tobacco company agrees that secondhand smoke causes various lethal diseases. So I don't think it's really necessary for me to go to university and get a medical degree to make a valid point on this issue.
THIS is your proof? Irrefutable, beyond a reasonable doubt proof? Puhleeeeeze. Cathy, you really need to read these reports for yourself. The World Health Organizations own study doesn't even state this, nor does the Surgeon's Generals, contrary to his latest and greatest work of fiction. The studies do NOT back up the press releases these people issue.
AND as has been stated here hundreds of times before........increased risk does NOT equate to, nor guarantee, CAUSE.
Now, would you care to discuss your view with my very healthy 26 year old son who was raised in a smoking environment ALL of this growning life? And that same child had fewer colds, viruses, (only had the flu once) and ear infections than his little friend in their healthy, organic, smoke-free environments. My son also had/has no allergies.
So, again, where is your irrefutable proof? I have living, breathing, healthy bodies I can produce...........where's yours?
Good point, backtalk. There are serious issues affecting children that are getting less attention because of all the distractions caused by the anti-tobacco groups (yes, they are "ANTI-TOBACCO"...and, "ANTI-SMOKERS").
The only thing this movement is doing is wasting time and energy that could be better utilized to bring attention to a REAL health issue. I doubt that the majority of them really believe they are doing this for "the kids." I firmly believe that the majority of the people behind the anti-smoker movement do not like smokers, consider them a lower class of people, do not like to smell smoke on their clothes, etc., etc. But, the "for the kids" argument works better for their demagoguery tactics.
Sorry, Cathy, my previous post was rather hostile, but I'm sick to death of the disingenuous concern for our kids, as spouted by the likes of TC & people such as yourself.
Backtalk, I didn't think your first post to Cathy was hostile. It made perfect sense AND was right on the mark. IF these people are so bloody concerned about "clean air" and "health" why do they not also get so up in arms over all the other pollution? I'll tell you why.........because smokers/smoking is an easy target. We are NOT backed by billions of dollars and huge corporations. We represent the minority of the population who enjoy a product that the majority doesn't care for anyway (unlike their cars, and plane rides, etc).
No, you weren't harsh at all, you just spoke the truth.
Maybe this is just semantics, but why are proponents of clean-air laws for the protection of public health constantly labelled as "anti-smoking"?
Maybe because the only thing you all seem concerned with IS "smoke from cigarettes". I never hear "anti-smoking" people talk about general air pollution, and when you do bring it up, they all say the same thing.....cars are necessary, planes are necessary, trucks are necessary, etc.
In other words, they don't mind being poisoned by the things they enjoy and condone.
At least that's how I see based on the responses we keep getting from you all.
Cathy it's so easy to quote someone else told me,but where is the evidence to suggest SHS is oh so dangerous.
You can't provide it can you,you just WANT TO BELIEVE IT.Are you going to hold the hand of your kids for the rest of their life to protect them from every conceivable miniscule RISK ?How on earth do you cross the road,there's a risk involved you know.RISK MEANS POSSIBILITY,IE SOMETHING MAY HAPPEN.You may be able to find some evidence to support your belief in the perils of SHS.I am taking a risk that you may be able to defeat my arguement,but it won't happen,of that i'm sure.Read the next thread to find out WHY the people you look to are to be trusted less than your illustrious politicians.It's called money.
Cathy's response demonstrates a point that I made a while back - that anti-smoking groups and advocates seem unable to respond substantively to a criticism. Instead, they have to respond with a personal attack.
In this case, my honesty is questioned and it is suggested that I am really against smoking bans, working against them, and that, as Cathy put it, I am "in reality acting against smoke-free laws in general without coming out and saying he [I] opposes them."
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that anti-smoking groups cannot respond substantively because they know they are on losing ground. Otherwise, they would be anxious to discuss the substantive issues, rather than to attack someone who is expressing a differing opinion.
Cathy says Well, every medical doctor and every epidemiologist who doesn't work for a tobacco company agrees that secondhand smoke causes various lethal diseases. So I don't think it's really necessary for me to go to university and get a medical degree to make a valid point on this issue.
Cathy, 20 years ago they all said trans-fats were the good fats.
They all said alar, red #2, cyclamates, red meat, saccharin, homone replacement therapy, vit E,etc. were good/ bad/good again/ bad again///.............
Times beach residents, it turns out never developed more cancer. But they lost their homes because a bunch of "experts" said they had a health risk from dioxins sprayed on the streets.
So here, we see a bunch of idiots interfering in the lives of the people, yet again.
Dave K
It seems to me that the people who are really on losing ground are very quick to cry about personal attacks when someone confronts them with a little reality check. Figuring out what Dr. Siegel stands for would seem to be an exercise in futility. He's on record as saying he supports indoor smoking bans based on the effects of daily exposure to secondhand smoke. Simultaneously he administers a Web site on which he (seemingly) criticizes every effort towards smoke-free air laws at every opportunity. So go figure.
All I can say is, these posts by people saying they don't believe the health hazards of second-hand smoke seem pretty ironic given the stated position of this site's host.
"Well, every medical doctor and every epidemiologist who doesn't work for a tobacco company agrees that secondhand smoke causes various lethal diseases. So I don't think it's really necessary for me to go to university and get a medical degree to make a valid point on this issue."
That's right: you don't need a medical degree. You only need to keep quiet until you know what you're talking about.
Cathy calls her insulting comment to me (accusing me of lying on this site about supporting smoking bans) a "a little reality check."
In other words, it cannot be REAL that I support workplace smoking bans, yet oppose car smoking bans and other widespread outdoor smoking bans.
This is really a fascinating episode to me, because it demonstrates a point I made earlier - that there is no room for dissent in tobacco control. Either you support everything the movement says and is doing or else you are not living in reality. The choice is either to support everything, or you might as well support nothing (since that's how you'll be cast).
What Cathy doesn't seem to realize, of course, is that there are more positions than just 2 - black and white. You don't have to either support every smoking ban, or reject every smoking ban. There is a position in the middle, which I have clearly articulated, where I support smoking bans when there is scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure and where the government has a reasonable interest in interfering with privacy and autonomy in order to regulate the hazard.
Apparently, that is a far too rich and nuanced position to be appreciated or understood by many anti-smoking advocates.
I guess that many were right when they said this is becoming a religion. You either have to accept everything that the religion touts, or it is essentially heresy. You are not a true believer.
Cathy, may I suggest that before you come to a site to drop your fed opinion where the posters actually READ the studies the anti-smokers bruit about and are perfectly willing to analyze those studies AND their own opinions in public (something you and the whole organization seem very unwilling to do with the excuse of "if you don't believe us you're a tobacco stooge"), that perhaps you re-think doing it. Until you can provide proof, we really don't care about your opinion.
I'd like to point out that not every medical professional agrees, as my own doctor does not. In fact, I can attest to the fact that the only doctors I'VE ever met that actually agree with the anti-smokers are what I call pill pushers, those who find it easier to hand you a bottle of pills rather than fix the problem, aka glorified dope dealers. Not something that really inspires me to listen to them.
Also, if it's for the children, may I assume that you have rid yourself of anything in your life that presents any kind of risk to children? Of course you haven't, it's only "for the children" until it becomes inconvenient for you.
Watch your back, Dr. Siegel...
The "Cathy Bell" website:
http://www.geocities.com/davidro...idromano_4sale/
From CAGE in Canada:
http://www.cagecanada.ca/index.p....php?
pr=Tobacco
http://www.cagecanada.ca/
index.p...r._David_Romano
Well, after reading Cathy's site and CAGE's description of her activities (the word stalker comes to mind) it sure looks like we're seeing "the obsessed" in terms of interest. So obsessed that it's hysterical in nature. Pure emotion and little else.
I can't resist answering one of Cathy's repeated screeching demands on her site asking "can you provide the name of one verifiable MD or epidemiologist who says second-hand smoke must show a risk ratio of 3.0 to be dangerous? If you cannot, then your statement to the press that 3.0 is "the accepted danger threshold" must be viewed as an act of deliberate deception – which I believe would fall within the description of unethical behaviour for most people."
You see, you don't even know what it means that you're asking. You have no concept of the meaning of RRs. You use the word "dangerous." No, RRs BELOW 3.0 are considered weak and suspect as to their reliance of any finding. Those above are considered stronger proof that a relationship MIGHT exist. They're not levels of "danger" they're levels of strengths of a possible link. Geeez.
So if I name ONE will you agree to remove that demand, Cathy? Well, how about four right now:
Marcia Angell of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has said, “As a general rule of thumb we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more” before accepting a paper for publication.
In fact, esteemed epidemiologist Ernst Wynder (former head of IARC) even said that relative risks less than 3.0 are suspect ["Workshop on Guidelines to the Epidemiology of Weak Associations," Preventative Medicine, 1987, pp.139-141].
Robert Temple of the Food and Drug Administration said, “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.”
Even further, The National Cancer Institute explains, “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other possibilities] that are sometimes not evident.”
In describing Cathy's behavior, Dr. Siegel observes:
This is really a fascinating episode to me, because it demonstrates a point I made earlier - that there is no room for dissent in tobacco control. Either you support everything the movement says and is doing or else you are not living in reality. The choice is either to support everything, or you might as well support nothing (since that's how you'll be cast).
Well, okay that can be part of it in this instance. But Dr. Siegel, what I think it demonstrates much more is what we've been trying to explain to you so many times over regarding the difference between "misleading" and "lies."
Cathy appears to be a willing victim of HEADLINES and sentences written this way: "Secondhand smoke CAN cause..."
No matter how many times you think the public can tell the difference by such subtle differences in wording that are supposed to make all the difference in the world they can't. To them "can cause" MEANS "CAUSES."
The Bills and Banzhafs and Glantzs RELY on this. They KNOW what they're doing. The uninitiated to our world have NOOOOOO clue that "increased risk" and "harm" have two very different meanings. "Increased risk for X" means "harm." And the unsuspecting public comes charging over the hill with the ammunition handed out to them from those manning the tents.
That also means that when you agonize over their speech -- a word here, a sentence there -- and fix the language, even your own language -- though correct -- is so subtly different to the ignorant eye that they can't see any difference. That's especially problematic when you're printed outside this blog because your use of your profession's language still flies over too many heads. That language needs humbling (injection of common language) so that the regular guy gets it.
To close here, part of what Cathy doesn't get when she accuses of you of not sticking with a position is DOSE, DURATION, CONCENTRATION (and yes, limits on govt. intrusion). To her she sees no comparison -- it's all equally dangerous -- and so how can you support one and not the other?
If she's so interested in biased research due to funding from biased parties, one wonders why she hasn't pointed out the research funded by the ANTI-tobacco and from Pharma companies trying to push a product. What's good for the goose...
If she's so interested in biased research due to funding from biased parties, one wonders why she hasn't pointed out the research funded by the ANTI-tobacco and from Pharma companies trying to push a product. What's good for the goose...
Jalestra, you silly girl, don't you know that only works one way? Of course the anti money coming from pharmas isn't a bad thing, the pharma companies are the angels in corporate dealings..........didn't ya know? hehehehehe
Ah, sorry, Big Tobacco was in my grandma's medical bills again inflating the costs of her medication..silly me!
For the people who are so deep in denial that they think SHS in a car is good for kids, I can't help you. For the rest, let's accept as a given that it's not.
Does government have an interest in improving health and safety for kids where it is practical to do so? I would say yes, and we certainly have other laws for this purpose.
Dr. Siegel has said "I think the REAL issue with regard to car smoking bans is whether or not it is appropriate for the government to intrude into the private car and home and interfere with parental autonomy merely in order to address a health risk." First of all, car smoking bans don't prohibit smoking in the home. That aside, why would we not ban smoking in cars just for the sake of maintaining consumers' unfettered access to tobacco?
Dr. Siegel has said "I support smoking bans when there is scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure". Is it his position that SHS exposure doesn't cause serious health problems in children and infants? Dr. Siegel has supported smoke-free laws to protect bar and restaurant workers. Are kids any less deserving of protection under the law?
This isn't asking so much of parents; they can certainly wait until they get to their destination to light up. Smoking in an enclosed space like a car with kids a couple of feet away is an astonishingly ignorant thing to do, yet it happens all the time. As well as providing some protection to children and infants, perhaps this law will also help parents to realize that if they smoke inside the home with kids there (which they shouldn't be doing in the first place), they should at least not be in the same room.
Dr. Siegel, why don't you just come out and say whether you agree or disagree with car smoking bans, such as the one recently enacted in Bangor Maine, and why?
I believe Dr. Siegel understands full well that overtly opposing smoke-free laws would be indefensible. Instead, he provides ammunition for others to do so, which would appear to be the purpose of his writings on this site.
Dr. Siegel is more spin doctor than medical doctor at this point. His insistence on calling me an anti-smoking advocate just because I support smoke-free air laws for the protection of public health only confirms this. If Dr. Siegel wants a discussion based on substance, perhaps he could begin by pointing out where I ever said I was against smoking. (anti means against, right?)
For me, his insistence on this kind of labeling or name-calling says a lot. As I have mentioned, this a standard tactic of smoke-free air opponents, who would like to create a climate of "us" versus "them" to generate rancor in smokers (very much in evidence at this site, btw) and thereby create dissent and opposition to smoke-free initiatives.
Another common tactic of smoke-free opponents is to attack where they are vulnerable, and Dr. Siegel's characterization of smoke-free advocacy as a religion strikes me as a good example. Smoke-free air laws are driven by science, while opposition to them seems based largely on an illogical denial of the health hazards posed by SHS. I would suggest that a neutral observer who comes here and reads these blog comments can see who the real zealots are.
But at least those contributors are for the most part clear about what they stand for, unlike this site's host.
Children and infants are the most vulnerable members of society, with the least power to protect themselves. I would call on Dr. Siegel to do the decent thing and give kids a break from his cynical and petty smoking politics.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/
2...cles041014.html
1. PROVIDE PROOF. That whole proof thing just alludes you guys? Nothing worse than a fanatic.
2. Rancor from smokers is NOT from Doc, but quite frankly from people like you. We want PROOF, we want dead bodies, we want UNDENIABLE, ACCURATE, REAL proof. Not computer generated numbers, not unrealistic settings used in experiments, not opinions.
It IS us against them, because you made it so. You lie continuously about the effects of tobacco, shunt us to the side while stealing from us in the guise of "taxes", excessive taxes, will not listen to a word we say when this concerns US more than anyone, spend our hard earned money on your pet projects (the tobacco tax isn't for headstart thank you very much), and trot out this for the children crap that no smoking parent can believe, because most of us have living proof (our children). We have smokers being physically attacked, private property owners intruded upon, we are glared at, spit on, berated, called murderers and child abusers. You're right, all of this resentment is COMPLETELY undeserved by the instigators of the behavior, the anti-tobacco community.
I mean, look at all the wonderful things they've done for us...
Again, Cathy, I'd like to see you analyze data on these subjects like Dave, Doc and Mike. I haven't seen you pull out hard facts yet. Just looong posts about how you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Why can't science prove the dangers of SHS ? Why is SHS more dangerous than active smoking ? Cathy go back and read up on this subject,then maybe you can offer some facts for discussion,and not the left off rhetoric from Bill and co.You are helping the concept of global warming with your vacuous contempt for someone who is at least examining the science behind the agenda.
But car bans aren't being proposed and passed because SHS is or isn't more dangerous than active smoking. Car bans are being proposed and passed because SHS is harmful to kids, who don't have control over their environment. So what's the point in bring up all these irrelevant points?
Since tnsmoker so badly wants people to see my Web site,
http://www.geocities.com/
davidro...vidromano_4sale
I will point out that I have revised it to include new info about legal challenges to the indoor smoking ban in Quebec. Anyone who reads the material there with an open mind (maybe not too many to be found here) will see that it is a valid critique of corporate opposition to this law. However, it's not really relevant to a discussion of car smoking bans, as Quebec's indoor smoking ban is for indoor public places such as bars and restaurants and does not include cars at all.
Prove SHS is harmful to kids..you haven't yet, just repeated it over and over.
You owe Doc an apology, as it's the mistreatment of smokers that causes our rancor, not anything he says.
Do you address Pharma Companies and the way they back the anti-smoking agenda to further the sale of their (unregulated) product that is available for sale to minors?
Cathy, it's not irrelevant if the way to get a car smoking ban is through lies. The end does NOT justify the means. It's called winning by cheating...wonderful thing to teach our children. And everone has yet to prove that children are harmed by SHS. We have countless parents on here, people who's parents smoked, people who lived around smoke for their whole childhood and WE'VE never SEEN ill effects. All we have is people lieing to show us it "harms children". Do you really believe that we're going to fall all over ourselves to quit smoking around children if all we have is the lies we're told? Really, we are MUCH smarter than that.
When talking to Cathy does anyone else get a picture of someone with a blindfold on and hands over their ears saying:
AS I WAS SAYING...
Oh, Cathy Bell, this name rings a bell ...
From her web site:
I invite David Romano to provide the names of those medical doctors or epidemiologists who say second-hand smoke must show a risk ratio of 3.0 to be considered dangerous. If he cannot do so, then his statement that 3.0 is "the accepted danger threshold" must be seen as an act of deliberate deception, at which point I would invite David Romano to apologize for deliberately deceiving the public.
You asked for it, here get it:
Sir Richard Doll
" ... when the relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
(The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219).
WHO/IARC
Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so. - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA
"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999
IAQC
"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist
US National Cancer Institute
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident"
Cathy it is most propitious that when debating an issue you can at least answer or defend the main thrust of your arguement.By refraining from answering the simplistic question "Prove that SHS is hazzardous" you become totally reliant on spurious rhetoric and dubious comment,in the vain hope that this will progress your cause.Now if you wish to proffer an arguement,may i suggest that you obtain some FACTS to get the ball started.Reading this blog will certainly help you in this matter,nothing could be simpler.
Car bans are being proposed and passed because SHS is harmful to kids, who don't have control over their environment.
Again, WHERE is your proof? Most of us here lived very healthy childhoods, constantly exposed to SHS, and many of us smokers also have very healthy children who grew up with our SHS and suffered fewer health problems than their smoke-free friends.
So AGAIN, Cathy, WHERE is your proof? Absolute, irrefutable proof? You have yet to offer anything but the typical anti rantings we see all the time.
Yes the Ontario Medical Association, and Ontario Campaign againt tobacco (OCAT) are now saying that cigarette smoke in a car is 23 times worse in a car then a house
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releas...7/31/
c3154.html
They are trying to pressure the gov't into the legislation to stp smoking in vehicles with kids. Afterall (according to them) when you get into the smokers car you are bringing all those old chemicals to "life" once again by justing sitting down!
We have a piece of propoganda, with no proof. Notice they didn't provide on study on the "evidence" or links. Maybe they thought that the papers should just believe them? (which they do, cause Ocat got a 5 minute in studio interview on this in the morning on CBC) Good thing my tv is worth more then his gob speak and the reporter was iconic follower.
Cathy, first I, then benpal, provided the proof you wanted about RRs. You ignore it. Proof One that the rest of your rhetoric is fiction driven by nothing more than emotion, not facts.
I get a howl out of this:
But car bans aren't being proposed and passed because SHS is or isn't more dangerous than active smoking. Car bans are being proposed and passed because SHS is harmful to kids, who don't have control over their environment. So what's the point in bring up all these irrelevant points?
My how you mix separate issues into one while ignoring what makes it relevant so that in your stupidity can call it irrelevant. Where on earth did the debate over the statements about which (first or secondary smoke) is worse have anything to do with the car ban issue?? The issue, if we have to debate it on your terms, with car bans is DOSE, DURATION, EXPOSURE needed to determine what the increase in RISK MIGHT be. But noooooooo, there you go spouting your simple-minded conclusion: SHS = harm -- in any amount, anywhere.
But this is what exposes YOU for what you are to the "neutral observer who comes here and reads these blog comments can see who the real zealots are":
That aside, why would we not ban smoking in cars just for the sake of maintaining consumers' unfettered access to tobacco?
Tell me Cathy, when can I come into your house, open your refrigerator and freely throw out the foods **I** don't think you should have unfettered access to?
Cathy is providing a veritable textbook of documentation of the fact that no dissent is allowable in the anti-smoking movement. I oppose smoking bans in private homes and cars; therefore, I am no longer working for the smoke-free cause but I am now one of the opponents of smoke-free policies.
It is basically like a religion. Either you buy into every aspect of the dogma, or you cannot be a part of the movement. If my rabbi ever asks me to leave the congregation because I don't believe in sacrificing lambs as it specifies in the Bible, I'll ask if he'd like a job for an anti-smoking group.
Doc,
Cathy talks about "smoke-free policies."
Smoke free by definition, means all smoking in all locations including cars and homes at all times. It is only misleading by omitting the word tobacco.
Their personal hatred of smoke and smokers precludes any chance of meaningful debate or compromise.
Therefore because you do think there is a line that smoker persecution and victimisation should not cross, that people should have some autonomy you are indeed "now one of the opponents of smoke-free policies."
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel says he opposes smoking bans in cars. Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
In that case Dr. Siegel, would you mind explaining why? Do you deny that SHS poses serious health hazards to children and infants? Do you deny that those hazards are greater in a small enclosed space such as a car?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the widely held view of medical science, to the point of near unanimity?
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet2.html
What then, Dr. Siegel, is your rationale for opposing car smoking bans? Parental autonomy? The right of parents to put their kids in harm's way for nothing more than unfettered access to tobacco? Seriously, I'd like to know how you can defend this.
Lastly, given that you have referred to me as "anti-smoking" in at least three different posts now, would you mind pointing out where I ever said I was against smoking? (anti means against, right?) Is it your position that everyone who defends the right of non-smokers and children to breathe smoke-free air must therefore hate smoking? This to me seems very dogmatic, to pick up on your references to religion. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose that people can be in favor of the freedom to smoke, just not in ways that harm other people?
would you mind pointing out where I ever said I was against smoking?
I see this argument as: "Point out my sins of omission! Well, even if you describe them, they aren't REALLY there. It's all subjective, based on your interpretation." Another popular response generally is that there are bigger things at stake. (i.e. For The Children.)
When you refuse to admit that ANY form of smoking has negligible risk, or risk people are willing to take, then yes, it is anti-smoking. When proponents of the Ontario smoking ban send in a letter the next day after the bar ban saying "Well, bars good, homes better," then that doesn't leave much room. Because anyone who knows about Progress knows "Homes better, outside best" is next. Bans that seemed unworkable in the UK a few years ago got passed--and if pro-ban forces don't speak out and say, we won't EVER touch X or Y, smokers have a right to show concern based on past histories and current trends.
When nobody speaks out against ridiculous laws to restrict tobacco shop advertising in Ottawa(i.e. can't even have a sign up stating you are selling tobacco) that is anti-smoking.
I refuse to accept these paltry handouts of "Well, we're not saying you can't smoke EVERYWHERE, yet" from one side of the pro-ban argument when I keep saying "Well, we need to keep up the PROGRESS by banning smoking in more and more places" on the other. I haven't heard many ban advocates say "Smoking should ALWAYS be allowed in place X because smokers have a minimal right to enjoyment." And I'm sick of feeling as though I'm being pushy in some way because I suspect pro-ban people are waffling by not saying place X should always be OK.
Instead we are told that we don't really enjoy the smoking and that we are addicts, because, well, so-and-so said so, and if we do enjoy it we are buying into tobacco company dogma. That would be as nasty as me walking up to someone watching American Idol and telling him he didn't really enjoy watching that garbage because it rots his brain. It may be true, it may not. He may even want to watch less, or there may be something he'd rather do with the time spent watching AI, but he just doesn't feel he can. Overstating just how bad it may be is unhelpful overall.
I'm sick of seeing people who lobby for smoking restrictions claim to be frank when they're being blunt. I'm sick of pro-ban folks understanding mass psychology very well and completely ignoring individual psychology(i.e. that someone who feels/is ostracized is at at least as much early-morbidity risk as if they were long term smokers--I read this in Daniel Goleman's book _Emotional Intelligence_. I was shocked.)
I'm sick of them overstating the risk and equating it to harm. I don't smoke much, but I know how guilt tripped I've felt by it. If I smoked every day, it's tough to imagine how I would feel. And I can't be the only one.
And we don't put our children in harms way for nothing more than a grocery store trip? Or a soccer practice? Or even letting them get up in the morning?
My daughter busted her head open because she tripped on her own two feet and fell onto an entertainment center that was 4 feet away. Do I get rid of the entertainment center or keep her in bed constantly? Maybe I should pad the house?
Those are PROVEN harms. Things that can definitely harm a child, apparently in some cases just by existing. You have yet to prove SHS is a harm, let alone account for the fact that our children are in harms way constantly. Ah, but this emotional blackmail only applies to things *YOU* disapprove of.
I'm sure you're not going to acknowledge our posts, as you haven't thus far. We demand something you cannot provide and you are afraid to get into a conversation that you know very well you can't really defend. That's ok Cathy, we'll just relegate you to the status of "troll" and move on. You try to argue a point, but refuse to argue it with proof. And the really funny thing is, we all love our children very much. If you could PROVE smoking harms children, we'd all quit smoking in a heartbeat. However, you're telling us things we SEE as not true and can back it with nothing more but emotional blackmail. Small wonder we don't listen to you, eh?
Andrew, I don't feel guilt tripped. I feel no more guilty than I would if someone bumped into the street and knocked me down and then accused ME of being in the way. Because that's what it is...we weren't bothering anyone. Many's the time when I was somewhere and lit up and was happy to move if a nonsmoker was sitting there and had no idea that eventually I'd light up. I was told I could smoke in my mother in law's house and don't because she doesn't smoke. MOST smokers are like that. We only got rude if we were smoking and some idiot saw it and walked up making demands. And quite frankly, who wouldn't?
Why should we feel guilty? Have we killed our non-smoking family members? I can assure you *I* haven't. My children are healthy and happy. When you know you've actually harmed someone then you should feel guilty. My non-smoking husband has been living with my SHS for 8 years. He has never lived with a smoker, in fact,wouldn't date smokers. So I was his first real exposure. He's fine. Still NEVER gets sick lol Don't feel guilty just because someone says you should...
Andrew,
I think it is very brave of Cathy to come out so strong against all the unreasonable bans.
I assume from her impassioned post above that she is against outdoor bans where it harms no-one, she is against home bans like those in Belmont where people can't smoke in their own homes or yards. She is obviously against bar bans as there is no children there only consenting adults able to choose for themselves.
I look forward to her next press release.
Cathy,
If I have misinterpreted your meaning could you please clarify and clearly state where you believe people should be able to smoke without persecution.
GreatScot
Jalestra--
Andrew, I don't feel guilt tripped.
Good point. I have trouble clarifying a lot of what I say on this blog, and it in fact gets in the way of posting some things. I think it's more accurate to say that, if pro-ban people say "oh, there were so many people who wanted a ban but couldn't speak up," the reverse is definitely true.
And I was mistaken in not saying I don't feel NEARLY as guilty any more(partially due to people on this blog who have reviewed these issues longer and in depth than I have,) that I've finally emotionally dissociated smoking as Against Health In General's Best Interests vs smoking as something I do and enjoy around people I know won't mind it, and I know that is all I can do, regardless of what anti-tobacco wants.
But I think that if it is plausible that if you have dangers from SHS, then there is definitely a risk of people being guilt tripped by constant impassioned messages about the dangers of smoking, SHS, etc. And I think it is important to mention that I believe smokers are BEING guilt tripped, whether or not we are strong enough to resist FEELING the trip itself.
Our buddy Stanton Glantz has referred to smoking on the big/small screen as "smoking incidents." Well, I have decided to catalog "anti-smoking incidents," where I see what I deem to be redundant No-Smoking signs, PSA's etc. in the course of the day. I get much more of the second in the media than the first, and it is the sort of thing that can build up in people's minds without realizing it. That's where the guilt factor comes in--and it is something that pro-ban people have not addressed, that their tactics in overstating risks leads to that, and any reasonable studies of behavior know that guilt can lead to even more of the sort of behavior they deem unhealthy, putting them at odds with their purported goals.
The people most prone to guilt are probably the ones most likely to say, ok, we deserve it, the ones least likely to search out information on a ban like this, much less find it or post on it and stick up for themselves, right or wrong.
If anti-smokers can play the "for the children" game they have to open themselves up to the counter-reasoning, to that there are a bunch of other people who have been TAUGHT it's best not to stick up for themselves in this case.
By the way, whether or not Cathy is a troll, she's been useful in my trying to articulate what I feel better. I guess I read a lot about risks, etc., and stuff that can set you off for the worse. But there are incidents that can set one off for the better.
Cathy,have you got any children ?I sincerely hope if you have, you think seriously about them being in earshot of you when you begin one of your usual rants.I deem you to be anti because of the usual characteristics the antis always exhibit:-their opinion is the only one that matters,science is only relevant when it suits their purpose,they are unable to provide any response to genuine questions, are happily ignorant and bombastic to the point of being a bore.You fail to have even the faintest concept of SHS .DO YOU TAKE PLEASURE IN PROVING YOURSELF TO BE INEPT ?Most children who are accompanied by a smoking adult in a car DON'T SPEND 15-20 YEARS IN THERE.However perhaps there is a remote possibility that (a)the smoker can manage to smoke 5,000 cigarettes x 15-20 during the journey time (supposing 5,000 cigs typifies the ave smoker) (b) a suitable number of smokers can cram themselvs into the car to help the main smoker out.Are you really a dimwit or just vindictive towards someone who happens to oppose your ideals ?
PS Cathy remember a child is anyone up to 18.
Oh darn, I missed all the fun.
And I think it is important to mention that I believe smokers are BEING guilt tripped, whether or not we are strong enough to resist FEELING the trip itself.
I agree 100%, though I've resisted the guilt thing pretty easy. I figure if they feel justified treating smokers like second hand citizens and making us look over our shoulder constantly for an unwarranted attack, the LEAST they can do is look over their shoulder for me smoking.
I don't know if Cathy has been helpful really, but I suppose she has been amusing. I think you articulate just fine Andrew, much better than myself, especially when I get off in a rant. LOL
After re-reading my posts I just want to make sure it's clear that anything I said concerning "risk" vs "harm" and all that about dose, duration, exposure, was written in a way (speak her language) to address the hypotheticals as Cathy sees it. Not how I see it. For the record I do not believe ETS has been proven to be harmful, period.
Next issue...
Andrew wrote: I refuse to accept these paltry handouts of "Well, we're not saying you can't smoke EVERYWHERE, yet" from one side of the pro-ban argument when [they] keep saying "Well, we need to keep up the PROGRESS by banning smoking in more and more places" on the other.
To put an exclamation mark on his point, how's this for a statement out of ASH-UK in 1998:
ASH (UK) Press release
8th September 1998
Headline: Cigarette taxes and smoking bans are fair and sensible - smokers don't have equal rights
Few people are seriously suggesting a wholesale ban on smoking in all pubs and restaurants it is just that the 72% that don't smoke should be able to participate in British social life without having to breathe other people's smoke. The idea is to give non-smokers adequate choice - not to ban all smoking. Much could be done by segregating smoking areas.
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/press...ess/
980908.html
And isn't that interesting how back then it was all about pleading how FAIR it would be to just give THEM their own area.
(And I don't want to hear any drivel from Bill about how the "harm" from ETS wasn't fully known back in 1998 when Glantz is this week writing letters about how it was "proved" that ETS "caused" lung cancer by the SG in 1986 and the EPA condemnation was issued in 1993).
So, lying then about their intentions or a case of seeing how easily they could bully others into submitting and deciding to keep going? You decide.
It all comes out the same in the end: They can never be trusted.
Just the fact that they say smokers don't have equal rights is enough to show they can't be trusted. When they've decided their group of humans is better than your group of humans, they've already shown they are just as bad as Hitler.I know the Hitler card is way overplayed, but Hitlers blond hair, blue eye people were (to him) better than any other people and look where he took it to.
If nothing else makes us afraid, this should...
Just to reinforce JTF's post above.
http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/as...e=Content.show&
Excerpt
"At ASH Scotland’s annual meeting today in Edinburgh a distinguished panel of experts (1) will discuss new ways Scotland could reduce the prevalence of smoking, what the way forward might be now the smoking ban is in place and just how far we can go to create a truly smoke-free Scotland.
GreatScot
For Cathy's reading pleasure:
Study done on behalf of (and then buried) the World Health Organization:
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 90, No. 19, October 7, 1998 (bolded emphasis' are mine)
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c...rint/90/19/
1440
In conclusion, our study provides the most precise available
estimate of the effect of ETS on lung cancer risk in western
European populations. We found no increased risk for childhood
exposure, a result consistent with most of the available data. The
risk from ever exposure to spousal ETS was consistent with the
combined available evidence from European studies, but it was
lower than some previous estimates—a result that could be explained
by the large number of subjects whose exposure to ETS
ended several years earlier. The lack of reported results on the
effect of cessation of ETS exposure in previous European studies
does not enable us to explore this explanation. There was also
a nonsignificant dose–response relationship with duration of exposure.
We also found an association of similar strength with
workplace exposure. Dose–response relationships were more
consistent and risks were higher, although in most cases they
were not statistically significant, with combined indicators of
spousal and workplace ETS exposure.
Cathy, you really need to do more than read press releases. Here is the link for the FULL report. Browse the 727 pages, and you’ll find these conclusions in there (of course I am only showing a few due to lack of space here and the fact that I'm not about to do YOUR homework for you), and notice how the majority of the conclusions don’t jive with what the SG announced to the media. Here's a small sampling taken from various chapters in the report.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/li.../
fullreport.pdf
Conclusions
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient
to infer a causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and chronic respiratory
symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between short-term
secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline
in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer
a causal relationship between chronic secondhand
smoke exposure and a small decrement in lung
function in the general population.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or
absence of a causal relationship between chronic
secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated
decline in lung function.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical
vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall
thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between exposure to
secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence
or absence of a causal relationship between
secondhand smoke exposure and the risk of
cervical cancer among lifetime nonsmokers.
Given the established causal associations
between active cigarette smoking and stroke and
between involuntary smoking and CHD, an association
between secondhand smoke and stroke is biologically
plausible. There is a need for further research,
especially more cohort studies, before a causal
association can be inferred.
Given the established causal associations between active cigarette smoking and stroke and between involuntary smoking and CHD, an association between secondhand smoke and stroke is biologically plausible. There is a need for further research, especially more cohort studies, before a causal association can be inferred.
In re-reading this part, I have to ask you Dr. Siegel..........where do you keep getting this "health hazard" from? In browsing back over the SG report, the only places I see where you could have gotten it, are from HIS personal summary remarks.
For the rest of you, read that report, especially the last chapter, the SG made it clear that invading our homes and dictating our actions behind closed doors IS the goal.
Dr. Siegel has said "I support smoking bans when there is scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure".
(As do I, incidentally)
Later, he said "I oppose smoking bans in private homes and cars".
Dr. Siegel, do you really mean to say there is not significant scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by exposure of children and infants to SHS in homes and cars? Because that is the logical conclusion from your two statements above.
If you do agree that SHS poses serious health hazards to kids in homes and cars, then you would have to modify at least one of those statements. Do you have some other reason for opposing smoking bans in private homes and cars beyond health issues?
Perhaps Dr. Siegel doesn't like where this discussion is going, and I don't blame him. It's probably not often anyone confronts him with reality at this blog, judging from the other comments here. Or maybe he's just busy (understandable). So I will wait patiently for an answer.
I may have misinterpreted Dr. Siegel's statement when he said he opposes smoking bans in private homes and cars. Possibly he was being ironic or sarcastic.
In any event, the question surely isn't all that complicated. To repeat: Dr. Siegel, do you support car smoking bans, such as the one recently enacted in Bangor Maine, and why?
If he is unwilling to answer this, I would have to conclude that he is trying to have it both ways.
Why wait Cathy,whatever the answer,it is irrelevant to you since you just wish to make political gain.Science is lost and totally ignored by you.You have been shown umpteen references to scientific research concluding the minute risk involved.You just act like the anti automaton that you are.Rude,crude and on a mission.Neanderthals like you should be ignored but you will just make up the story to suit.I sincerley hope that anyone who reads this blog appreciates the class of person who makes up the anti movement,they have such blind hatred of smoke and smokers,they lose grip on reality.Be as mischevious as you wish,YOU WILL STILL CONTINUE TO LIE TO THE PUBLIC.
Cathy, if you would do like us normal folks do, and READ the archives, you will find that Dr. Siegel has actually answered that question, MANY TIMES.
The man does have some respect for peoples' privacy AND autonomy within the confines of THEIR OWN private enclosures (cars and homes).
It's not rocket science, really. And since most of us were raised with far more exposure to SHS than kids today, and our own kids are exposed to it and survive without all the dire consequences you all state children will suffer if exposed, WE are living, breathing proof that your fears are UNfounded.
Guys, don't feed the trolls!!!!! LOL
Cathy-
I oppose home smoking bans simply because I feel that we need to preserve the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding health risks to which their children are exposed and because I think we need to preserve privacy rights in the home. There are justifications for intrusion into the home, but these are limited to situations where physical or emotional harm are taking place, such as child abuse. I view cars as an extension of the home -- if we can ban smoking in cars, then we should also ban it in homes.
This - and not any lack of health effects - is why I oppose home and car smoking bans.
Lynda is exactly right about my opinion - I believe taht we need to have respect for people's privacy and autonomy within teh confines of their own private enclosures (cars and homes).
Cathy Bell wrote:
"Dr. Siegel has said "I support smoking bans when there is scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure".
(As do I, incidentally)"
No you don't. You said you're for smoking bans in cars. But there is no "scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure."
I've seen only several experiments (smoldering cigarettes in a car ashtray for example) as far as any evidence and I've seen nothing, absolutely nothing, which has concluded that smoking in cars has been deemed a "major public health problem."
Just how many ear infections does YOUR literature state are caused by smoking in cars? Or upper respiratory infections? Or lung cancer? How many heart attacks? Do you have any numbers?
And what in the world makes my kid's ear infections or lung cancer or heart attacks a PUBLIC health problem? Are they contagious?
Dr. Siegel, I wish you would have added the "health" aspect to your philosophical position you gave Cathy as your answer. The principle is strong but not strong enough for the likes of Cathy. So why didn't you also include what you've said before about the risk? Which was (if not exact then close to it), "The dose in cars have no appreciable effect on children's health."
But this one has to take the prize for this month:
It's probably not often anyone confronts him with reality at this blog, judging from the other comments here.
So who wants to count up all the times we've confronted (politely in almost all cases) our gracious host about how ETS studies prove nothing and have poked him over and over to explain how he could possibly still stand by his beliefs that ETS has been shown to be risky at all.
Yeah, I know, it's troll feeding but the lurkers make it difficult to just leave it unanswered and them in the dark.
Oh, and from Cathy's mouth (one anti-smoker) to Bill's (another's) ear!:
If he is unwilling to answer this, I would have to conclude that he is trying to have it both ways.
Hey Cathy, so what about the RR statements? Have you removed your accusation over it from your site yet? Haven't heard you answer this yet.
I see your point, JTF, and concede...it's just she's so closed minded about this I tend to think of her and not the other folks who read in silence. She's on a mission, and we aren't going to change that. Not with all the intelligence and science in the world.
If you want to make your enemy into something you can hate, you must first remove his humanity. Make them only icons. When they are seen as a TYPE and not as individuals, they are easy for a fanatical mind to grasp-and hate.--Unknown
Dr. Siegel, you have said you oppose car and home smoking bans, but you have also said "I support smoking bans when there is scientific evidence of a major public health problem being caused by that exposure".
So logically you must also be saying you don't agree with the scientific consensus that SHS in cars and homes creates a major public health problem for kids.
Are you going to split hairs now and say it's not a public health problem because the harm is being done in private?
You go on to say "There are justifications for intrusion into the home, but these are limited to situations where physical or emotional harm are taking place, such as child abuse."
Does exposing a child or infant to SHS for hours each day, perhaps in very close proximity, not constitute physical harm? Even with the scientific evidence linking SHS to bronchitis, peneumonia, SIDS, etc?
And what makes you so sure a car is not in the least public, just because you have ownership of that car? We have laws to regulate other sorts of behavior in a car, such as nudity or sexual behavior, because the car is out there on a public street. So perhaps we can have different rules for car and home.
Car smoking bans may not make the world a perfect place but it would be an improvement for kids. At least in the home they can go to another room. And like I said, it might help instill in parents the consciousness that SHS is bad for kids (sorry tobacco fans, but that IS the scientific medical consensus, like it or not). On the whole I don't see any downside to the Bangor Maine law, except for Joe Camel.
Lastly, you have referred to me several times as "anti-smoking". Can you give an example of where I have ever said or indicated that I am against smoking? (anti means against, right?) Is it your position that everyone who speaks out in defense of the right of non-smoking adults and children and infants to breathe smoke-free air must therefore be against smoking in general, in all circumstances? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose that people can be in favor of the right to smoke, just not in ways that harm other people? (and you have in fact acknowledged this harm, and have for that reason supported smoking bans in restaurants and bars)
Can you understand how your insistence on using this sort of inflammatory language could contribute to the perception that your real purpose here is to whip up public opposition to smoke-free air initiatives?
Cathy,
once again I am delighted to see you are in favour of smoking.
"Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose that people can be in favor of the right to smoke, just not in ways that harm other people?"
You are also obviously passionate about protecting the children.
Please answer the following questions.
Why are you in favour of smoke bans in bars when this will drive more people to smoke and drink) at home with children present?
Please state clearly where people should be able to smoke in your opinion.?
GreatScot
Scientific evidence Cathy,do you know what that actually means.Unless you respond to my previous questions,i must construe that you are unable to argue or comprehend what the science actually states in relation to SHS.Since YOU REFUSE to discuss anything other than your constant hectoring and badgering since your agenda dictates,can you advise as how much pharmaceutical money is paid into your pocket ? and/or how much money you are paid by the anti-smoking faction ?How much do you prostitute yourself for in order to lie and spread your evil discontent to a public that is unable to appreciate the malicious ideals you peddle.A refusal to answer will lead to an acceptance that you are a paid lacky of the pharmaceutical companies peddling their clean nicotine for them.Come to think of it EVERY QUESTION ASKED OF YOU,IF UNANSWERED WILL BE DEEMED TO BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.Only fair isn't it .
She's not going to answer you Si. That would be mature open-minded behavior, nothing like a fanatic. She's going to keep ignoring us becasue we are saying things she doesn't like and can't defend, and for all that we're a bunch of brain dead addicts, we use that science thing a little too well. I'm sure it's very scary to someone like her. I wouldn't give her any more attention than I would to a 2 year old throwing a fit. You know that just encourages more fits.
What's scary is not what she says, but the fact that she is so locked into it she sees nothing else. People like that will kill you in the name of their mission and then claim they did you a favor.
Cathy Bell wrote:
"Car smoking bans may not make the world a perfect place but it would be an improvement for kids. At least in the home they can go to another room."
Have you ever actually researched what you preach? You sound like a headline reader to me.
This is from Environmental Health Perspectives which is published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Note that the tests were done with the windows CLOSED.
"Even with the windows and vents closed, air circulation rates in vehicles are typically high, especially at high speeds. For instance, in the 1997 California study, the air exchange rate in a 1997 Ford Explorer standing still with the vents on the "recirculate" setting and the fan on "low" was 1.8 air changes per hour, more than in the average home. When driven at 55 mph with the vents and fan on the same settings, the rate inside the car increased to 13.5 air changes per hour. The 1991 Chevrolet Caprice, driven at 55 mph and with similar vent and fan settings, had nearly triple the Explorer's airflow, with 39 air changes per hour.
http://www.ehponline.org/docs/20...09-9/
focus.html
Remember, that was windows CLOSED.
I got out a calculator some time ago and calculated infants (the fastest breathers at rest in the human race) with the lungs the size of an 8 year old would need 5 hours to inhale the entire volume of air in a Honda Civic.
Now tell me how the entire scientific medical community, or however you phrased it to give some air of authority to them, can claim smoking in cars is some kind of public health hazard?
Ridiculous.
And like I said, it might help instill in parents the consciousness that SHS is bad for kids (sorry tobacco fans, but that IS the scientific medical consensus, like it or not).
Sorry Cathy. You still have not provided any proof here. So, for the THIRD time...........WHERE is your irrefutable, absolute proof? If you can't provide it, you are just blowing hot air, like all those press releases and news articles you like so much.
I don't know if Cathy has been helpful really, but I suppose she has been amusing. I think you articulate just fine Andrew, much better than myself, especially when I get off in a rant. LOL
Well, there are some times when I haven't had a chance to jump in and say what I wanted. But I finally was able to, so I am grateful she was there, so her presence has been helpful even if she hasn't.
Now a small meta-rant:
I know I tend not to rant because of the risk of annoying someone short term, which they will probably forget about within the next day. So it helps to read others' rants as sometimes there was something I considered but rejected wrongly on my own, or sometimes I didn't realize that other people were at least as upset about an issue as I was.
"But what about annoying people I disagree with?" There are so many different ways to do annoy people(tacking on an extra post to clarify which brings up its own problems, agreeing with someone but misstating their point entirely, unfair flaming, weakening your own side's argument, gross annoying typos, etc.)
Gee whiz. What if you exchange "potentially annoy people" for "go out for a smoke to a place I'm welcome" and "so many different ways" with "so many different cancer causing chemicals?" (*)
Looks to me like different kinds of fearmongering.
(*) in nondangerous trace amounts, but let's ignore that, the sentence is long and tedious enough as it is.
No answer from Dr. Siegel, but that's okay, I understand. He's so practiced at propagating the tobacco industry's bull that inflammatory catch-phrases like "anti-smoking" just roll off his lips (or fingers, in this case), apparently without much thought.
Dr. Siegel knows perfectly well that SHS poses serious health hazards for children, but admitting that would be contrary to his purpose here. He's here to do just the opposite, to cast doubt on the science of SHS at every opportunity.
Consequently, this blog appeals only to a certain type of person, as evidenced by the comments left here.
"we're a bunch of brain dead addicts"
Thank you for that Jalestra, I couldn't have put it better myself.
However I find this not funny or gratifying, but sad that these people are being used in this way.
Dr. Siegel knows perfectly well that SHS poses serious health hazards for children - Cathy Bell
Before he proves that there is no health hazard, prove there is one.
Or if you prefer, prove there is no health hazard in embarking children in a car. If you can't prove it, get rid of your car.
Cathy-
I don't know how to explain it more clearly, but my opposition to car smoking bans is not based on a belief that there is not a health hazard. It is based on my belief that it is not justified to intervene with parental autonomy and regulate behavior in the private home in order merely to reduce the RISK of disease. The same reasoning being used to support smoking bans in private cars and homes could (and should) also be used to dictate other aspects of parents' behavior that puts their kids at risk of adverse health consequences - such as feeding them crappy food, taking them out every other night to McDonalds, exposing them to wood stove exhaust, and allowing them to ride heelies, motor bikes, bicycles, and scooters, or to play football or hockey or go skiing or skateboarding, or, most importantly, to drink alcohol or to drive in a car with their friends.
I'm arguing that there is more to a public policy decision than merely whether or not a health hazard exists. There are a lot of situations where a health hazard exists but we do not choose to regulate that hazard.
Cathy Bell wrote:
"No answer from Dr. Siegel, but that's okay, I understand. He's so practiced at propagating the tobacco industry's bull that inflammatory catch-phrases like "anti-smoking" just roll off his lips (or fingers, in this case), apparently without much thought."
Patrick Reymold's group, the Foundation for a Smokefree America, website address is http://www.anti-smoking.org/
The American College of Chest Physicians has a webpage ( http://www.chestnet.org/about/
li...antismoking.php ) titled, "Anti-Smoking Groups". They list:
American Cancer Society: Tobacco & Cancer
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids—Today's News
GLOBALink
Lung Cancer Alliance
WebMD: Smoking Cessation Center
Tobacco BBS
Tobacco cessation / education products from HealthEdCo
Trytostop.org
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) lists themselves as
"A National Charitable Antismoking & Nonsmokers' Rights Organization
Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions"
I could dig up hundreds of stories by hundreds of different reporters who use the term "anti-smoking" in their articles. Some examples: http://www.no-smoke.org/document...ment.php?
id=478
The rest of your stuff has been gone over before.
Just my kind of exercise, James
Good stuff.
Dr. Siegel... language, language, language. It's like real estate for pete's sake where location, location, location, is what everything else is built upon.
Cathy talks about the use of "anti-smoking" because it's true that that language is negative. But it doesn't make it any less true and, as James points out, used by even their own.
But there you go trying to argue the fine point between "risk of a disease" (in this case for children in the homes of smoking parents) by then assigning the phrase "health hazard" to it! You can't do that! Not with people like Cathy and not with the general public.
"Health hazard" in one profession's dictionary has a different definition in society's layman's dictionary. Say "health hazard" to any Joe Shmo on the street and it's instantaneous and absolute harm as defined in his mind's dictionary. They do not know the distinction that your profession's dictionary defines it as.
Here's a real easy analogy. The difference between the law enforement profession's definition of Burglary and Robbery. How many people say "my house was robbed!"? And how many people would ever question that what they meant was that their house was broken into? But a house canNOT be "robbed." Only people can be robbed. Homes are burglarized.
"Robbery" becomes interchangeable with "Burglary" for the masses. The same as your use of "health hazard" when you use it as another way to express "risk of disease." If you, as a professional, really want the masses to understand that you mean "risk of disease" in regards to "health hazard" then you'd better stop using "health hazard." Or you don't shake the Cathy's off your ankle.
Some of the groups which advocate in favor of restrictions on where people may smoke also advocate against smoking in general, but I do not. I support the freedom to smoke as long as smokers are willing to accept that they and only they should pay the price for their habit -- not bar and restaraunt workers, not the general public, and not their children.
Others may have used the term "anti-smoking", but I have not. Yes the term is negative, and that's intentional. As I outlined earlier, it is part of a wider strategy to get smokers angry by convincing them the real purpose of smoke-free air laws is to hassle them and pressure them to quit smoking.
Dr. Siegel, the difference between exposing kids to tobacco smoke and the other risks/health hazards you mentioned is this: people do need to eat, even if they don't always make the best dietary choices; people need to heat their homes, even if wood stoves aren't the most healthy way to do so; kids need recreation, even if some of the activities you mentioned can be dangerous. Smoking in the home and in cars, by contrast, produces no benefits (apart from the consumer's unfettered access to tobacco), only risks, or hazards, or whatever you want to call it.
I must say then that your philosophic argument resembles that of many other smoke-free air opponents, who seek to muddy the waters by introducing other issues as a diversion, and I find it unconvincing. Moreover, if your opposition to car smoking bans is not based on a belief that there is not a health hazard, then I fail to see much point in your constant criticisms of the health pronouncements of smoke-free air advocates -- whatever they might say about health would be largely irrelevant as you already oppose car smoking bans on the grounds of privacy and parental autonomy.
The message here seems to be that public health advocates are compulsive embellishers or exaggerators (or worse), so maybe SHS isn't really all that dangerous after all, which is to imply that the health effects of SHS don't warrant smoking bans.
Cathy-
If you read my commentaries, you'll see that I repeatedly remind my readers that I have been, and remain, a strong proponent of indoor smoking bans. In fact, while virtually the rest of the movement was caving in to the political pressure of the casino industry, I was one of the few (if not only) tobacco control advocate speaking out publicly against the exclusion for casino workers in New Jersey. One of the most wierd experiences I had was speaking at a conference in which I made Stan Glantz look like a moderate - he had no problem with the casino exemption; I argued that it violated basic public health principles. Perhaps the only time I've been more "radical" than Stan.
There's no question where I stand on various types of smoking bans. The question, instead, is what tactics are acceptable to promote smoking bans. Is deceiving the public about the true health effects of secondhand smoke acceptable to justify the ends of workplace smoking bans (which I support)?
I would argue NO - it is unethical to deceive the public about the health effects, no matter what our ultimate purpose. In my view, a noble purpose does not justify unethical techniques of deception.
Most of the tobacco control movement seems to disagree with me and to feel that this behavior is acceptable because the ultimate end is a good one, but that's a difference that I'll have to live with because I won't compromise ethical principles that I think we should have as public health practitioners.
Ok, im a high school student who is doing a research paper on the effects of first and second-hand smoke. I am really confused, I read somewhere that SHS was more harmful but then I found this so now Im confused. Is SHS more harmful or not?? I personally really hate smoke because it gives me headaches, a tickely throat, sometimes coughing fits and watery eyes, Plus it really stinks(I grew up around MANY people who smoked 
). Sorry for all that random stuff
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
