"A coalition of anti-smoking and health groups countered with a statement of their own, imploring the Supreme Court to uphold the advertising limits: "This is too important an issue for the Supreme Court to let the Constitution get in the way"
Here that folks-----too important an issur fo the SCOTUS let the CONSITIUTION get in the way!!!
They just get bolder by the minute.
I think it's time the SC tells the majority to take a walk
.
PM do not need to participate in the law suit. If the other Tobacco Companies win their case, PM will continue to advertise on the back of a level playing field argument. The other Tobacco Companies lose and PM has the moral highground.
Michael said:
"Here is what I imagine...."
How many of your loyal posters are going to miss this today?
One so far.
Doc Siegel said; - "Here is what I imagine to be the likely response of the companies to the advertising restrictions alone in the wake of passage of this legislation:......"
Why would you do this?
What is the reason for posting such imaginary meandering?
We know you don't like CFTFK, we get that already, but why even go down this road?
Slow news day in TC?
OH wait, I get it, ..it's a bad joke.
Since you likely don't have direct input with the decision makers at PM, s this your way of suggesting a course of action for/to them?
OR, is this your way of suggesting that the Supreme Court actually should consider abandoning the Constitution since it would be "For the sake of Children"?
Say now, thats a good idea.
Lets petition the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution everytime a group of extremely, obscenely well funded, special interests get together and decide that they can make even more money by declaring something they want to attain as being in the best interest of children, whales, forests, environment, minorities, security, and any other highly over-hyped sound-bite cause that is sure to draw support from the most extreme fringes of those groups members.
Yeah, ..lets do that, complete with catchy T-shirt slogans too.
If we are unsuccessful in defeating the Philip Morris/CTFK FDA legislative deal (which I remain confident that we will defeat), I totally agree with Mike's forecast.
Ironically, I twice attempted to post this very same prediction yesterday (in response to Mike's posting of yesterday), but for some strange reason my repeated postings didn't go through.
Bill do you agree with the following statement by the 'coalition' of anti-smoking 'health-groups'?
""This is too important an issue for the Supreme Court to let the Constitution get in the way"
A YES or a NO answer will do.
.
Yes - this is a mock news article.
Sometimes, I think the most useful way to analyze a public policy is to play out the scenario of what would actually happen if the policy were in place. How would the various stakeholders respond?
Thus, this is not a joke. It is a serious attempt to consider the actual implications of the legislation: something which, by the way, I do not believe the anti-smoking groups have done.
We can continue to talk in pure rhetoric, like TFK, or we can actually consider the hard, cold facts of what would actually occur.
That is what this post attempts to do.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing if you are a smoker or have anything to do with tobacco production. The history is clear. The mockery of the MSA were laws were changed just to accomodate suing the tobacco industry. Boy, Floriday couldn't wait to change theirs back after they got the bucks.
Anyway, most kids smoke to rebel or because of peer pressure. TFK uses this issue as with others to ensure a steady cash flow. Remember, these guys make big bucks.
Oh, check out the link. http://www.newsday.com/news/
loca...0,6622609.story
This is too important an issue for the Supreme Court to let the Constitution get in the way.
This is the scariest quote....so quick to abandon the very thing that protects us all. On this logic alone we can also ban guns, gays, alcohol, the right to congregate, the right to free speech (those climate deniers are lying to the "children"). The constitution is MEANT to "get in the way", especially of busybodies that would sell our entire lives out over their own disgusting and pathetic agenda.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, anti-tobacco idiots will applaud wildly as freedom and liberty go down the drain.
Well isn't this just too cute by half----The doctor making up 'Mock Stories" and Bill predicting them.
.
Talk about freedom and liberty going down the drain. Check out what some areas in the UK are seriously considering:
PATRONS WHO enjoy standing at the bar while they sup their favourite tipple face an uncertain future thanks to “bizarre and draconian” regulations drawn up by Perth and Kinross Council’s licensing board.
The local authority also hopes to call time on those who enjoy a pint with their sandwich— although those enjoying a more substantial lunch would be allowed wash it down with an alcoholic beverage.
In addition the board is calling on licensees to take more responsibility for “smoke drift” caused by those puffing outside their premises.
The measures are among a whole package of potential reforms drawn up by the board in an attempt to crack down on excessive drinking and anti- social behaviour.
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/
outp...y10119784t0.asp
I don't drink and can't stand drunks, and this still pisses me off big time.
What's worse, people like Bill and the Doc, can't even make the connection to the TC movement.
And Bill, the ONLY reason you are against the FDA bill is because it also includes smokeless tobacco. If it didn't, you and I and everyone else on this board knows full well you would be behind it 100%. You are such a hypocrite it's not even funny.
Imagination has it's merits, as does acting out a scenerio, but you should be careful as life tends to imitate art. Aren't you afraid that someone from the tobacco companies might read this blog today and actually take it to the Supreme court?
We can continue to talk in pure rhetoric, like TFK, or we can actually consider the hard, cold facts of what would actually occur.Dr Siegel,does this include the con of SHS being the 21st century plague ? You have solid facts of what you achieved in "your studies",220 of them possibly.Yet this is a fact of manipulative social engineering you remain silent on.Perhaps TFK aren't all that bad considering .....
and anti- social behaviour
Because you must love your comrades.
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what this phrase suggests to me:
In principle a Party member had no spare time, and was never alone except in bed. It was assumed that when he was not working, eating, or sleeping he would be taking part in some kind of communal recreations; to do anything that suggested a taste for solitude, even to go for a walk by yourself, was always slightly dangerous. There was a word for it in Newspeak: ownlife, it was called, meaning individualism and eccentricity. --George Orwell, 1984
It states that there was no law against taking solitary walks, just that it marked you. The thing is is this idea that you MUST like being around other people, you MUST be social or you aren't "right", whether right equates to mental problems or stepping off the party line. I know I don't like people at all. The trouble is, anti-social in the clinical sense does not exactly match anti-social in the perceived sense, if you get my meaning. Clinically, to be anti-social is to be a sociopath. However, those who just prefer a life of solitude and refuse to "conform" are called anti-social as well. Are we to force people to socialize? What does this mean, anti-social behavior? Is that the clinical or the common use definition? The scary thing is that by this wording they are trying to "outlaw", for lack of a better word, a feeling, a preference, a part of who some people are.
I'm not sure what's with England, apparently they felt 1984 was a governmental how-to book.
The counterfeit cigarettes were exceptionally more harmful than U.S.-made ones, because the fakes don't adhere to New York state law requiring "firesafe" cigarettes that automatically burn out if not puffed after a brief period of time, Rice said.As the article referred to by rrgabe23,CLEARLY SHOWS PUBLIC HEALTH DON'T GIVE A DAMN,HAVING HELPED CAUSE THIS SITUATION,THEY IGNORE IT AND PRESS AHEAD WITH FURTHER TAX RAISES.WE ARE ALL BEING CONNED BY THOSE MORE DESPICABLE THAN TOBACCO COMPANIES COULD EVER BE.
I'm not sure what's with England, apparently they felt 1984 was a governmental how-to book.
Jalestra | 08.14.07 - 12:12 pm | # It became a Dictatorship under MEIN FUHRER VON BLAIR.
Si----'WE ARE ALL BEING CONNED BY THOSE MORE DESPICABLE THAN TOBACCO COMPANIES COULD EVER BE"
Amen to that. And as bad a BT is/was they didn't try to undo society as we knew it.
Si you are DEAD ON WITH THIS!!!
.
Lynda,
Do you think a pattern is starting to form?
Headline
Alcohol abuse undoing gains from curbs on smoking
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2253774.ece
Re your link
Personally I would prefer a bar full of vertical drinkers than one that allows their patrons to drink enough to end up horizontal.
GreatScot
I was blaming Parliament, but I can't deny that Tony Blair was just as damaging to England as George Bush is to America. Don't worry though, America is right behind England, I promise I wasn't English bashing.
Apparently, GreatScot, all the smokers turned into drinkers...which actually suggests a multitude of things....
Tobacco companies have every right to be concerned about their Freedom of Speech. I'm no friend of BT, but geeeeze, get a grip!
Individual smokers and Smokers Rights Groups are already feeling the defacto restrictions on their Freedom of Speech through the one-sided coverage of the entire smoking issue.
It's a pattern repeated everyday somewhere in the country.
Pro-Ban proponents are interviewed ad-nauseam on the local news. Local "experts" are trotted before the camera to spin their perception of how smoking bans are good for everything from personal hygiene to the economy, to the environment, and everything in between, and then occasionally the self-hating smoker will even make a timid "aw-shucks" appearance to thank their benefactors for "helping" them to quit since they're so weak willed they could never do it on their own.
These people are the worst.(re; pathetic)
It is a RARE occurence, and nearly unheard of for a Knowledgeable, VOCAL Anti-ban proponent to get any real media coverage of any kind whatsoever at a local level. Newspaper, TV, or radio.
It's a completely One-sided debate. Our Freedom of speech may not have officially been rescinded, but no one is interested in an opposing viewpoint if the MEDIA doesn't portray that opposition as equally important enough to be heard. Our Freedom of Speech is virtually non-existent anyway when the media goes out of their way to make sure no one is listening, or only hears the "thank you for saving us from ourselves" from those poor smokers that have had enough of the endless brow-beating, intimidation and manufactured social ridicule and only want it to stop.
Freedom of Speech?... yeah it's still there but only if you're on the "right" side of the issue.
Perhaps a more enlightened scenario and one the other Tobacco companies will employ in good time,[once enough rope has been alloted] would be to compare the reasoning for smoking bans in an ideology versus traditional science campaign.
The levels of maximum exposures to bartenders produced a theoretical risk of arguably .3 increased risk above no risk; against all reasonable expectations this was actually propped up as a significant finding and cause for international concern. While assessing other risks such as pilot's risk of cancers as an occupational hazard at .7 it was described as comforting. Marginal risk has been expanded to the point policy makers and health care advocates are actually telling people to duct tape their keyholes promoting a mood approaching panic levels [The fire in the theatre]
When we look at the top risk professions, bar tending and office staff are not even in the top 50, yet their protection is imperative above all other occupational risks. The focus and it's objectives are also well known to be a punishment in order to coerce smokers to quit. Second hand smoke inventions required billions of public dollars invested, to prop up theology and panic, when all other occupations are left to suffer the tragedies produced in tremendously increased risk.
The planning and implementation of HIA health interventions are not a well hidden secret and the actual risk of ETS is much more predominantly an imagined risk than any traditional biological hazard as we have always known them.
To further the imaginations of those who rest their evidence in ideology with no scientific proof and to expand their claims in promoting advertising restrictions takes us even father astray. The court would be forced to side with Tobacco companies until someone somewhere demonstrated the advertising restrictions promoted anything more than prophesy and the wishes of all participating partners irrespective of proof they would not create more problems than they solved.
Keeping in mind PM is onside with the current advertising campaign it should be apparent to all; they would not offer that support in absolute failure to defend themselves, without a huge carrot in their imaginations as well.
Perhaps a renewed corporate branding allowing them to work alongside Oil companies and chemical companies once more, with complete public confidence provided by a revived media blessing being endorsed by their Health care partners.
Health benefits will only be significant when the International health community stops playing power games, and starts addressing the most fundamental cause of increased risk; of which smoking is only a symptom.
When they start to reduce poverty instead of promoting it, they will finally find a useful course for themselves. Beyond that; they will always remain as a health risk in themselves as day dreamers and deceitful fear mongers.
If you sat on a jury and the facts were presented in theology versus natural science evidence, almost exclusively.
Which argument would you accept as a fact?
LightningBoy - Freedom of Speech?... yeah it's still there but only if you're on the "right" side of the issue.
........
LB,
The LA Times is a very good example. Here are just two instances:
1. When Glantz tried to destroy (may have succeeded) Enstrom's career, the Times carried a story so favorable to Glantz it would make you puke.
I sent a letter to the editor defending Enstrom. The Times printed four letters all in favor of Glantz's attack. Zero letters to the contrary.
2. The SCHIP issue: In articles and on the editorial page, only one viewpoint was allowed: Increase tobacco taxes.
I sent a letter mocking the idea. Zero letters were printed from anyone for or against. Rather amazing, really.
Sad, but the LA Times pretty much has a monopoly for a printed daily newspaper. It also owns a fair number of local newspapers (Burbank Leader, Glendale Newspress and many others)
More "proof" of Global Warming: The world's oldest people are dying!
"The world's oldest person, a great-great grandmother in Japan, has died at the age of 114. "
Rod,
This is exactly what I mean.
The media has has gone from reporting the news, (if you can call it that), to reporting the "news" that furthers the prescribed agenda.
Who's agenda?,...depends on who's paying the bill, or in this case, who's the biggest advertiser, supporter or contributor to the particular media outlets parent corporation.
The "media" has gone from informing the public to reforming the public, and is just as guilty as "Public Health" when it comes to deceitful interpertation and dissemination of the "facts" about Smoking and ETS.
Scary headlines sell papers, ad space and time in the spotlight for taking a position that's "pro-health" and Anti-Tobacco. Not because it's the right thing to do, but simply because they can.
Well worth reading...
Change the Health Rules, Scare the People - By Jack W. Dini
August 13, 2007
(Health Facts and Fears - American Council on Science and Health)
Lead in:
Be cautious when you hear that some disease has suddenly increased in numbers. Someone may have changed the rules. Examples include Alzheimer's, blood pressure, diabetes, autism, and obesity.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) substantially changed the rules for interpreting the data for many causes of death in 1999. One was Alzheimer's, which jumped by at least 55% above the level reported in 1998. This increase did not reflect a sudden surge in mortality but a change in classification, which has a substantial bearing on the epidemiology of the disease. (1)
According to Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, high blood pressure was defined for many years as above 140/90. An expert panel then introduced something called prehypertension in 2003, which is something between 120/80 and 140/90. Overnight, people with blood pressure in this range found they had a medical condition. (2)
Redefining Our Way into Epidemics
Excerpt:
"David Brooks sums it up quite well: "The chief moral lesson I take away from the recent CDC report is that Mother Nature is happy to tolerate marginally irresponsible behavior. She doesn't want you to go completely to seed. If you're truly obese and arouse hippos when you visit the zoo, you could still punch your ticket at any moment. But she does want you to eat the occasional Cinnabon, so long as it isn't bigger than Delaware."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2egq8k
Jalestra: I know I don't like people at all. However, those who just prefer a life of solitude and refuse to "conform" are called anti-social as well. Are we to force people to socialize? The scary thing is that by this wording they are trying to "outlaw", for lack of a better word, a feeling, a preference, a part of who some people are.
I so agree with you on this Jalestra. Solitude suits me just fine, always had. Even as a child I wasn’t sociable. I find most people irritate me, so I keep to myself, less stress that way. If I could find someplace to go……….I’d be a recluse. And quite happily so, too.
GreatScot: Personally I would prefer a bar full of vertical drinkers than one that allows their patrons to drink enough to end up horizontal.
I agree. I would think encouraging standing while drinking MIGHT actually cut down the amount some people drink. But what gets me even more, is the idea that you cannot drink in a open sidewalk café without a full meal. Can’t just sit and drink, can’t just have a sandwich or piece of cake, can only drink with an approved full meal. Are they serious?
And people don’t understand why I want as little to do with people as possible………..THIS is a good example…………far too many lunatics on the loose.
Kevin - If you sat on a jury and the facts were presented in theology versus natural science evidence, almost exclusively.
Which argument would you accept as a fact?
.....
Kevin,
In the case of SHS, the judge, prosecutor and the jury members were all those who previously declared SHS to be deadly and were and are dependent for their existence on funding to continue that claim.
My accusation is not a fantasy. I challenge any Big Tobacco Control advocate to disprove my assertion.
In the case of SHS, the judge, prosecutor and the jury members were all those who previously declared SHS to be deadly and were and are dependent for their existence on funding to continue that claim. Or rely on it to give them credability Rod.
Back to normal with this anon crap again.
A date rape charity has warned women of increased drink spiking following the recent smoking ban.
Video
http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/...g+ban&
go=Search
up 200% in Scotland
up 150% in England
More devastation on your hands, Doctor
GreatScot
"Here is what I imagine to be the likely response of the companies to the advertising restrictions alone in the wake of passage of this legislation:"
Exercising the imagination a little more; What would have happened had the TC movement instead of relying on suppositions and fear to promote their case, had relied instead on natural science and presented themselves in a more benevolent fashion.
We could find a cannon of scientific proof to sustain less smoking provides less mortality and mortality risk. No new research would have been necessary at all. If the message were of compassion, it would be a message of moderation without the inventions of ETS and a huge credibility disaster which will have repercussions for dfecades.
Support for those who could be convinced to cut down would have been entirely beneficial, making it far easier to quit for many. If half the smokers were convinced to smoke half as much you would quickly find a 25% reduction in use. No losses to the hospitality industry and no one kicked to the curb. Of course the Kids health care funding would suffer a devastating blow, and we can't forget those alternative markets, which would have lost billions.
How far fetched is that?
All TC has accomplished thus far is created rising opposition and divisions, with little to show in the way of health advantages.
The increased poverty and wasted resources place the campaign well into irreconcilable deficits.
You could have done a lot better, considering the resources at your disposal, you let us all down.
Power is so intoxicating few have the maturity to respect it, Lesson learned? or do we need to draw this out to the maximum of disaster before someone gets a clue?
GreatScot,
I was wondering when we'd hear about this date rape deal.
Too many loonies out there to figure it would not start happening.
;(
Sunz,
unlike the Doc's post this is not "Mock". This is real and 100% avoidable. I hope they all feel responsible and suitable ashamed.
GreatScot
I know GS---my daughter long ago learned in the single scene---you NEVER leave your drink unattended. They are not smokers so leaving would not have been something they needed to do.
You're right, 100% avoidable.
Rod,
Off topic so please forgive me. I think I recall you saying at one time that you were from California so I was hoping you could answer this for me.
Over the weekend, while out shopping, I parked next to a car with California tags. On the window of the drivers side was a sticker that said that in California, they know that gas fumes, etc, causes cancer. I didn't stand there and read the entie thing as I was afraid the owner would come out and accuse me wanting to steal his car. I was wondering just what that sticker was and does all cars in California require them.
Is it possible that car fumes also causes cancer? California says it does and we all know what happens when that State makes a claim as it did with smoking bans. Will cars eventually be pulled off the roads? Maybe a stop light on highways where they only let 20 cars at a time go through?
The sticker reminded me of a sign I read at the entrance of a hotel in California a couple of years ago. It said something about all Californians knew that smoking causes cancer, to which I said, cross the border to Oregon. All your propaganda has reached those folks too!
Kevin -Power is so intoxicating few have the maturity to respect it, Lesson learned? or do we need to draw this out to the maximum of disaster before someone gets a clue?
........
Kevin,
Power attracts the corruptible.
GreatScot, I'm not in the least surprised to find date rape on the rise. THAT was one of my first thoughts about the bans...........with all the crazies out there, leaving your drink unattended is NOT a smart move, and I knew taking it with you to the street was not going to happen either.
Unfortunately this is only the beginning, and they'll blame the girl for smoking, saying that IF she didn't go out to smoke it wouldn't have happened. Totally letting the s**mbag who spiked her drink off the hook.
Typical patriarchal situation.
Diane - Rod...about California..
........
Diane,
According to the California Scientific Review Panel (totally dominated by the Glantz gang), everything is a carcinogen.
Merely entering this state increases the risk of dying prematurely. There is no safe level of exposure. I am surprised that a signed and notarized consent form is not required.
Perhaps a large billboard at each road entering California: "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter."
California is not the "Golden State." It is the "Glantz State" or perhaps the "Land of Epidemics."
Being a southern California boy has been quite a burden:
Age ten: living in the south: If you're not from the southern US, you're a DamnYankee (always one word). And "You talk funny."
Age 17: in the service: All there is in LA is queers and cars and I don't see an exhaust pipe on you. "You talk funny."
20's and 30's: Bunch of weirdos out there: Beatniks, hippies, lotus-eaters. "You talk funny."
40's and 50's: Bunch of laid-back do-nothing, Mediterranean types. What do you do all day - sun yourself on the beach and contemplate your navel? "You talk funny."
Having lunch in a nice restaurant, overhearing the conversation at a table occupied by English travelers: "In California one must fairly chase their vegetables across the plate." By the way, they talked funny.
There are California warning signs at the entrance to almost every establishment - sometimes two or more. The manufacture of warning signs is big business here - even paid consultants as to type, size and placement of the signs.
Actually, California is not really a state - it's closer to being a country with regional cultures, values, etc.
more EIB exposure...to millions...raising red flags
~No More Donuts for Seasoned Citizens
RUSH: In New York: "Putnam County has decided to stop handing out free donuts at senior citizens nutrition centers. However, the elderly patrons say they're old enough to make their own decisions. The county north of New York City has decided to stop serving [donuts] at the county's five nutrition centers. The Office for the Aging has been getting free 'day old' donuts from local donut shops, delis and stores, and then passing them out," to the seniors "at the centers. But nutritionists have questioned if the donuts are good for the over 65 set, which is susceptible to high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes."
Now I keep telling you these are a bunch of nannies that want to control every part of your life, that you haven't got the smarts to make the right decisions and it is creeping up on all of us, this control. Now, you think this is ridiculous and it is. It is not the Office for the Aging's business! But I'm going to get some calls from some libs. "Yes it is. Yes it is, because if they are eating things that cost our healthcare costs to go up then we all have an interest that they eat healthy so that we don't have to pay." No, it's none of your business, and it's the idea that liberals want to make what people eat their business that ought to send some red flags up.
~Will Rush Tax Kill Cigar Industry?
August 14, 2007
CALLER: You realize that you alone are going to be the demise of the cigar industry in the United States? Because of you, the Democrats are targeting cigars because you are a cigar smoker.
RUSH: Well, I am the nation's most prominent cigar smoker, maybe right next to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and both of us can afford the tax, as Bill Clinton would say.
CALLER: But the cigar industry, with a $10-per-cigar tax, the cigar industry is doomed, so, you know, Cigar Aficionado magazine will go out of business, and it's all your fault.
RUSH: Well, just so you know, I did take the blame for this when I first heard of this tax because I do think there's a little bit of it that's personally targeted, but believe me most of it's not. They actually believe that cigar smokers are the upper crust, super-rich guys that couldn't care less and go out and pay for it. It's just like the yacht tax. You know, they passed a luxury tax back in the nineties on such things as yachts and things and people didn't stop buying them. They just went someplace where there wasn't a tax, and the people ended up getting hurt, were the people that make the yachts, and they had to rescind that tax. They had a tax is on jewelry items and a number of other things -- and that's where they really goofed it up. You put a luxury tax on jewelry and you've angered the female population. They all Democrats out there crave the women's vote. If the word got out the Democrats are the reason they're not getting diamonds and rubies and so forth for their birthdays, anniversaries, divorce presents or what have you, then all hell breaks loose. So that and the yacht tax combined -- I don't think this is ever going to see the light of day. I don't think a ten-dollar tax on cigars will ever see the light of day, because it would put the cigar business out of business. I don't think the Democrats would like to do that. They target enemies and set out to destroy 'em. Exactly what they say Karl Rove does, is precisely what they do.
CALLER: My comment was can we get to the Indian reservation and buy cigars where there's no tax?
RUSH: You know, it's interesting because you can do that with cigarettes. There's no tax on cigarettes at Indian reservations.
CALLER: I have a gas station that the Indians own one mile from my house. I can buy a pack of cigarettes there, or cartons of cigarettes there. Gas is cheap. They don't have pay no tax on it.
RUSH: I don't know about inside the casinos, though. Other than in Las Vegas, I've never been in a casino in this country, and I've not been in an Indian casino -- that I know of, anyway.
CALLER: I have not been to one, but they're going to build 'em up here in New York. They've gotta deal with Spitzer. It's going to be down in the Catskills.
RUSH: I know. I just did a story out there. They're building them everywhere for tax revenue and so forth.
CALLER: I heard that while I was waiting.
RUSH: But they're not all going to be Indian-owned casinos.
CALLER: Indians will own them, and they'll have handlers.
RUSH: Well, maybe the one you're talking about.
CALLER: There's a big one up here. Tiger's coming up to play in the tournament at Turning Stone. That's about 90 miles from us. It's Oneida nation.
RUSH: Okay. Well, I'll tell you, this whole Indian casino business is funny, because --
RUSH: Well, not funny, but you're close to how these things get structured, but regardless. I'm going to have to check into that. I'm sure you can buy -- you know I don't know because, as I say, I've not been in any casino outside of Las Vegas. I've been into a casino. I did a speech in one Louisiana for Hal Sutton and David Toms and a charity thing, but I walked through to a private meeting room and then went to a ballroom, did the speech, and left. So I didn't go in the casino. I think that's the only Indian casino. I may have been to one out in Paul Springs. No, I've just driven by that one. (interruption) You've been to one? Snerdley's been in an Indian casino in Seattle with totally tax-free cigarettes. But you didn't buy a cigar so you don't know if cigars are tax-free. It's the one great thing about casinos, you can still smoke in them and the people in them don't care. They're starting to get some little Nimrods in there. Well, that's one of the great things about going to Las Vegas. You can go to a casino, light up your cigar, play, and everybody accepts it. It's just cool. It's like a flashback to the old days when people weren't panicked and trying to tell everybody how they had to live and so forth. But Snerdley says the Seattle casinos are tax-free on the tobacco products. It's 40 miles outside Seattle. This tax-free business, it may exist, but trust me, it isn't going to last even for the Indians.
Read the Background Material...
Forbes: Cigar tax proposal threatens US retailers, Latin American countries
"We can continue to talk in pure rhetoric, like TFK, or we can actually consider the hard, cold facts of what would actually occur."
Wow. Cold hard facts matter now? OK. So how many Mass. bartenders are going to die? Not "if," not based on "assumptions."
I agree. Let's deal with cold hard facts. You are the expert. So tell me. You say the actual death toll is important. It matters more than anything.
Great. Knowing what we know about the real hours bartenders work, and the tremendous amount of turnover in the field, tell me how many are actually, truly, going to die.
Or explain to me why it doesn't matter.
Or just admit you have no idea, and that you are basing your policy presciptions on incomplete data. And that, in the end, it's not bartenders who don't understand the risks.
In fact, it's you who don't know them.
Simple as that. Which is it?
Remember. We are all about cold hard facts now. Not rhetoric. Not speculation.
Give me the real Mass. death toll based on reality. Not your dreams.
The greatest danger to Americans and our Republic is the removal of risk; the removal of choice, the philosophy that, not only are parents unable to make decisions regarding the health of their children, but that adults cannot make decisions regarding their own health and safety.
Only the state has the wisdom and knowledge to decide and enforce its decisions!
That philosophy denies the very reasons why America has been outstandingly successful.
Without America, the world be be under the thumb of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism. Hitler would have defeated Stalin had it not been for America's resolve, industrial production and military power.
Without America, could Europe and Britain been able to contain the USSR until it fell apart from its own daddy-knows-best fallacy?
The safe path, the sure path, leads to enslavement - but that's okay with the enslavers, the overseers.
Sam: Wow. Cold hard facts matter now? OK. So how many Mass. bartenders are going to die? Not "if," not based on "assumptions." ..... Give me the real Mass. death toll based on reality.
Sam,
Surely you realize the answer to this? I can tell you, right now, without a doubt, pure, unadulturated, 100% irrefutable FACT, that every single bartender in Mass. is going to die.
WHAT they die from, and what actually caused the what they die from is unknown at this time and cannot be known until an autopsy and thorough testing is done.
WHEN they die is also unknown as ONLY God has that answer.
What you should be insisting on, is the actual proof, the real science that proves that x number of bartenders in Mass. will in fact die from SHS exposure, and nothing else. I want proof that there was NO OTHER contributing factor to whatever killed them.
If that makes me callous, so be it. I'd rather be callous than blindly and cowardly follow someone just because they have some letters after their name, or hold some other title that they assume allows them control over others.
Sam-
In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars.
Sunz-
Although this is a mock news article, you should note that the anti-smoking groups were essentially making the argument that the law doesn't matter and should be ignored when it comes to smoking control. They essentially made this argument in the DOJ tobacco case, when they claimed that the DOJ should have ignored the clear language of the RICO statute and attempt to seek remedies that were not consistent with the statute.
You can read my commentaries on that here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....e-
other_05.html, and in a number of similar posts.
Maybe you should write for The Onion, Dr. Siegel.
Michael;
"In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars."
I though the prophesy supported "long term effect" if the ban just went into effect and no one is going to die from ETS should the bans be repealed?
How many bartenders were saved to date since the ban went into effect? and how many will really be saved down the road is closer to what was asked of you.
BTW what is the life expectancy of a bartender now that smoking bans are in play? How many years could I expect to add to my life if I were a bartender? We have to plan for those extra retirement years after all, don't we? It is only responsible to avoid adding extra burden on our loved ones. The extra costs will require extra overtime wages how much extra life should we budget for?
“Give me the real Mass. death toll based on reality. Not your dreams.” Sam M ..
Sam-
"In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars." MS…….Aug 15, 2007
..........................
Interesting.
“Secondhand smoke kills 53,000 people every year,” he says. “Salmonella kills less than 100.” MS…..B.U. Bridge Newspaper -Nov 22, 2002
http://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive...22/
smokeban.htm
So, how many Massachusetts bartenders died from secondhand smoke exposure in the year 2001?
Doctor, you were talking about “real cold hard facts” here; were you not? Actual deaths; salmonella vs. actual deaths; secondhand smoke?
Dr. Siegel, in lieu of an e-mail, if you ever want to attempt humor with a satirical Onion like article please let me know.
I'll be happy to help you. You managed to graduate from Medical School. I was a pre med major until those pesky Chemistry and Biology courses derailed my path to glory.
Your satire needs a lot of help. Your point is great though. If you want to know how it SHOULD have been written let me know on this thread.
It's a dead thread. Nobody is paying attention here besides me and you anyway.
Sam-
In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars.
Wow. Assuming that SHS is dangerous and the UK Gov. assessment that 95% of SHS exposure happens outside of work is correct, everybody should become bartenders. It seems they are now immune.
Doc,
I asked a while ago if Repace's mathematical model death calculation (4 per 100 per 40 years)had ever been supported by empirical science.
Repace's paper, faithfully reproduced and quoted by yourself, has been around since the early 90's. Plenty time to have observed and measured real LC deaths in never smoker bartenders working in smoking bars.
Is there any empirical data that supports or refutes Repace's mathematically produced death rate?
Thanks in advance
GreatScot
"In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars."
What a horrible attempt at a docge, as others have just pointed out. The deaths are not from acute exposure. They are from long-term exposure. The bartenders do not walk in, take a whiff, and die.
Many of them die years after retiring, I presume. Right doc? And we still call their deaths "smoking related."
So they should still be dying.
Don't engage in dishonest hackery. Answer the question or admit you can't.
Simple as that.
Sam M "Many of them die years after retiring, I presume."
Incorrect. ALL of them will die. The problem is SHS smoke does not kill. That is like saying guns kill. The truth is it is the person that uses the gun that actually kills and the gun is just a tool. That said, it is heart disease and cancer that kills and SHS smoke is believe to be a vector for those diseases. Thus a bar tender that lived in a perfectly smoke free world will probably still die from heart disease and/or cancer and it would still be considered a smoking/SHS related death. If the bar tender also happened to be obese, he could also be counted as a obesity related death or anything else that is thought to be a contributor to heart disease or the causes that can lead to it (high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc.) This is how the high numbers of smoking related death are arrived at. As long as someone dies of something that was smoke related, whether ever exposed to smoke or not, he can be counted. Thus in a hundred years, after most alive today have died and if everyone lived in a perfectly smoke free world until then, most people would still be dieing of smoke related diseases. Funny huh?
Doctor----'you should note that the anti-smoking groups were essentially making the argument that the law doesn't matter and should be ignored when it comes to smoking control. They essentially made this argument in the DOJ tobacco case,'
Very aware of that doctor and in case I forgot, the end-run you just pulled on Sam M----' "In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars." was an excellent reminder in how you all operate.
Tired of changing goal posts? Then just change the game!
How very clever.
.
From smokenreaders link In Michaels opinion it is better to exclude hospitality to all smokers, in bars and restos simply because they prefer to smoke. Regardless if the workers smoke or not or are willing to accept the risk in lieu of compensation.
The majority of non smokers will be made to feel comfortable and the rest will have to adjust or stay away? Isn't that a little off the mark?
Michael;
"“The majority of the public wants smoke-free bars and restaurants,” he says. “In fact, there is a huge number of people who don’t go to bars specifically because they’re exposed to secondhand smoke. People are afraid that if we eliminate smoking in bars, some of the customers may no longer come there. The reality is, there are a lot of people who are currently avoiding restaurants and bars because of smoke. If you ban smoking, they’re going to start coming. "
In other words the majority will be allowed the comforts of the "hospitality" industry and smokers will not. Is hospitality not exactly an industry based on the needs of it's own client base. Who better to assess that base? a lobby group selling cessation products or the industry itself. Now who has the right to tell that industry what clients they may serve? lobby groups or the industry themselves?
Does it not also follow those who do smoke will not show up? The argument is hypocritical and circular. People are creatures of habit although you may entice some to eat out with smoke free advertising, the effect will be short lived. The personality type is what grew the industry and non smokers simply do not fit the profile bars seek to attract. Smokers are more carefree and as such more fun more generous and less likely to cause litigious problems over every drink spilled by an employee.
Sorry if that sounds callous but smokers are a demographic which suits hospitality and both have served each others needs for a very long time, breaking that bond will have negative effects no matter how focussed your imagination defines it.
We are discussing a legal product not lethal enough to be banned, yet the philosophers encourage others to fear the smoke? Who is more expossed to the smoke than the smokers.
Are the lobbies suggesting governments and Health Charities in a failure to ban cigarettes altogether are ignoring a larger health risk affecting a quarter of the population, while catering to the much smaller concerns simply to appease the sound bites?
Or are they simply no more educated than witch doctors and sooth sayers in cashing in on a popular medicidal fad.
Anyone want to invest in a leech farm?
From smokenreaders link---- quoting Dr. Sieger----"Some still insist that lighting up a cigarette is intrinsic to bar culture, but Siegel says this image will go up in smoke as well. “It used to be common to see people smoking in movie theaters and airplanes, but social norms change,” he says. “Don’t forget, spittoons were an integral part of our culture once.”
Changing social norms are usually not done by force.
.
Kevin: Michael; "“The majority of the public wants smoke-free bars and restaurants,” he says. “In fact, there is a huge number of people who don’t go to bars specifically because they’re exposed to secondhand smoke. People are afraid that if we eliminate smoking in bars, some of the customers may no longer come there. The reality is, there are a lot of people who are currently avoiding restaurants and bars because of smoke. If you ban smoking, they’re going to start coming. "
I’ve always asked, and never received an answer to this either: IF the majority really DID want smoke-free bars and restaurants, then please explain how the minority (smokers) have managed to keep, and grow, the hospitality industry? WHY did the majority not speak up to encourage more places to choose to be smoke-free on their own?
Seriously, IF so many stayed home because of the smoke, how on earth did the industry ever manage to survive and grow to the level it has?
This is just another piece of BS put out there.
I don’t go to bars and clubs because I can’t stand crowds and drunks. It is MY choice. Using TC’s logic, we should then ban alcohol and crowds in bars and clubs……because I know I am not the only one who feels this way………yeah, good idea, it is just NOT fair the I have to choose to not go to bars and clubs to avoid drunks and crowds.
"In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars."
Jesus.
In London, no telephone users are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure in outdoor phone booths because smoking is now prohibited in outdoor phone booths. Smoking is also now prohibited in London in all public areas in blocks of flats. Thus, no owner of a flat is going to die from being exposed to secondhand smoke in the corridors, lifts or lobbies.
Doctor, you must think we're a bunch of morons (or are you the moron?). You're taking credit for a conclusion not proved, that ANY bartender EVER died from exposure to secondhand smoke in Massachusetts. Moreover, you feel no duty to prove it, that's the bitterly sad thing.
GreatScot-
Repace's mathematical model has been validated using epidemiologic data from one of the largest and cleanest secondhand smoke mortality studies. Using his model, he was able to accurately predict mortality of a large cohort of exposed and non-exposed people.
PUP-
I don't need to prove it. A large number of prominent scientific bodies have concluded that secondhand smoke exposure kills thousands of people a year, including OSHA, the National Toxicology Program, NIOSH, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Office on Smoking and Health, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and many more.
I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
Sam-
As far as the estimated number of deaths from secondhand smoke among Massachusetts bartenders, the best we can do is estimate. Based on Repace's models, the estimate for working lifetime mortality is about 220 deaths over 40 years, if all bartenders worked for 40 years. If you want to estimate the number of actual deaths that would have occurred, then just multiply the 220 by the fraction of exposure less than 40 hours per week. For example, if the average working career is 10 years rather than 40 years, then multiply by 0.25. That would yield an estimate of 55 deaths. Can I state the actual number? Of course not. It is only an estimate. But you have to start somewhere, and the 220 figure allows us to estimate the actual number under a variety of assumptions about the average years of exposure, as well as the average hours worked per week.
But please remember - as I said before - the long-term health effects are only one aspect of the need to protect these workers. Probably even more compelling is the need to protect them from the very serious acute health effects, including asthma attacks, sinus infections, exacerbation of lung disease, exacerbation of heart disease, angina, etc. Sure - the long-term effects and the mortality are important to assess, but the morbidity from secondhand smoke is substantial and equally important to consider.
"It is only an estimate. But you have to start somewhere, and the 220 figure allows us to estimate the actual number under a variety of assumptions about the average years of exposure, as well as the average hours worked per week."
If it's that easy, why didn't you do it? Since everyone, including you, knows that the 40/40 estimate is more preposterous for bartending than for any other profession, and if the goal really is to give an accurate feel for the "death toll," why leave it the way you did? You have said yourself that the public has a hard time following these stories. So much so that the poor bartenders can't make up their own minds about whether to work near SHs or not. (You'll make that decision for them, thank you very much.)
Given all these facts, looking back to that testimony, are you still comfortable with it? Since you know the 220 death toll was an inflacted estimate, should you have done an hour's work to find how long the typical worker actually works and offered a more accurate death toll?
If someone else were tesitfying about death tolls associated with other risks, would you expect thatexpert to do an hour's work to clarify a highly charged, politically contentious claim? Or would it be OK for them to lay out an assumption everyone knows to be false and base a death-toll estimate on that false assumption?
In your case, do you think that the average listener was able to say, "Well, he said IF THEY WORK 40 YEARS, and we all know they don't. SO by golly Marge, I'll just give a holler to my friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and get the real numbers myself. And then I will do some simple calculations and get the REAL death toll."
If the average listener can do that, why is it that the average bartender cannot be expected to adequately warn himself about the risks of SHS?
Seems kind of... inconsistent.
"But please remember - as I said before - the long-term health effects are only one aspect of the need to protect these workers."
But please remember nothing. Numerous times, when confronted with other professions that are obviously more "dangerous" than working in a bar with SHS, you have said, "Well, sure. But it's the DEATH TOLL that makes SHS unique. 53,000 dead bartenders, stacked like cordwood! If NASCAR had anything like that, I'd ban that, too! Unless, of course, NASCAR does have some dead bodies. In which case I will switch my reasining to something else. Until you forget about that and I start talking about the dead bodies again.
Lots of things are irritants. Especially for certain people excuisitely sensitive to certain things. Some people can't be in the sun for 10 seconds or they will die. This does not argue for banning lifeguarding as a profession. It argues for people with such sensitivities to choose their professions accordingly.
Asthmatics should not work in a smoky bar. People who are allergic to peanut butter should not become taste-testers for Jiffy. And people who have vertigo should not apply for jobs as high-wire walkers.
If all jobs have to be safe for all workers, you would have to ban everything.
So now I guess you will switch your argument back to the body count. See above.
GreatScot-
Repace's mathematical model has been validated using epidemiologic data from one of the largest and cleanest secondhand smoke mortality studies. Using his model, he was able to accurately predict mortality of a large cohort of exposed and non-exposed people. - Doc
Doc,
I asked if there was empirical data that supports Repace's mathematical model. You have referred to another statistical epidemiology study. This appears to be a rather circular argument.
Repace appears to have taken the Epidemiology findings, estimated a nicotine exposure, assumed a nicotine exposure for bartenders of 10 times that of the most exposed in the studies, assumed a linear response and projected the number of deaths.
To repeat my actual question. Is there any real, observed empirical data that supports Repace?
GreatScot
Sorry Sam.
Based on Repace's models, the estimate for working lifetime mortality is about 220 deaths over 40 years, if all bartenders worked for 40 years.
Doc did you mean this statement?
Did you really mean 220 deaths every year and not 220 spread over 40 years?
Greatscot
Having trouble with haloscan again, so if this posts twice, I apologize.
Using his model, he was able to accurately predict mortality of a large cohort of exposed and non-exposed people.
And where exactly did he find all these NON-exposed people? Unless they lived in a bubble, there is no such animal, not until the past 5 years anyway.
I don't need to prove it. A large number of prominent scientific bodies have concluded that secondhand smoke exposure kills thousands of people a year, including OSHA, the National Toxicology Program, NIOSH, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Office on Smoking and Health, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and many more.
Would these be the same studies we have punched holes in and that you yourself have poked a few holes in (especially the SG’s)? And you never did tell us where to find the OSHA report you suddenly keep talking about the last few months. I’m having a hard time believing it’s not in electronic format. Would these be the same studies that received some if not a large amount of funding from the RWJF to do? Are any of those studies totally and completely free from ANY influential funding?
I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
No, Doc, the burden of proof is on you. WE, and our families and children, are walking, living, breathing, healthy refutation of your claims. Baby boomers in particular are a contradiction to your claims. You and yours have yet to provide proof that the diseases you claim are absolutely caused by smoking and SHS ONLY. You have yet to prove the deaths you claim attributable to SHS to be caused, absolutely and ONLY by SHS.
Based on Repace's models, the estimate for working lifetime mortality is about 220 deaths over 40 years, if all bartenders worked for 40 years.
And your guarantee that those same bartenders STILL wouldn’t die if there were no smoking at all is? Seriously………………can you guarantee that not one of those 220 will die anyway? You can’t. Therefore you are basing your estimate (we should all be so lucky to force others to our way based on guesstimates only) on the supposition that you are God and can absolutely guarantee they won’t die.
So which is it? Can you guarantee they won't die or can you admit they are adult enough to make their own choices without your nannying and bullying them?
And Doc, explain to me please WHY bans are necessary to protect a minority who are fully capable of choosing where to play and work?
Seriously, 50 million smokers surely is a majority compared to your 16 million asthmatics.
Therefore, I truly want to hear a reasonable, commonsense, answer to why a small percentage of bars and restaurants couldn't be smoker friendly................better yet, as stated elsewhere, IF the majority really want smoke-free why did the majority not discuss with the industry the "free market" concept of catering to the majority sooner on their own?
Dr. Siegel wrote:
I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
This is a statement I both agree and disagree with. On one hand, yes, the burden of proof is on us to show how consensus is wrong. It is perfectly fair.
However, there are several things wrong with calling it a conspiracy:
1. Using what you have said above versus previous statements, I could challenge you to prove that statements by ASH, Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights, American Cancer Society, a number of doctors, countless state and city public health offices, and, yes, even the Surgeon General have said about secondhand smoke. The claims that there are no safe levels (which violates basic toxicology), the claims that 5-60 minutes exposure can kill, etc.
Dr. Siegel, are we to believe that all these people and organizations are wrong and you know more than the Surgeon General? Or is it a vast conspiracy?
2. Calling it a conspiracy seems to imply that there are dozens organizations and at least hundreds of people working together to come up with lies.
I prefer to see it this way. The science on secondhand smoke is all over the place with a lot of conflicting results and as a med student I used to know put it, "It's like a Rorschach test, you see what you expect to see". That is what the case is with secondhand smoke data. You see the 1993 EPA report, Kabat's 1985 case control study on workplace ETS exposure, Repace's exposure models, etc. I see Kabat & Enstrom 1998, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory exposure experiment, etc.
Don't you think it is odd that scientists that work in public health are the probably the most likely to believe the hypothesis that ETS kills thousands, while other scientists and doctors seem to be a bit more skeptical than public health scientists? Do you think that there is something about the public health mindset that tends read more into statistically insignificant studies with small risks than other fields?
That is what I think it ultimately is about. Not that there is a conspiracy (small or large), but rather that they tend to add more weight to data that backs up what they are predisposed to believing. It isn't like public health officials and scientists thought that tobacco use was a strictly personal choice and didn't already believe it was the greatest threat to "public health" in developed nations already.
I'll admit that I'm very biased in my opinion on SHS and maybe I'm making more out of the inconsistencies than what is reasonably permitted and I will also admit that if I am wrong, I still would oppose smoking bans because the risk is very small, it would respect property rights, and a majority of people could avoid it if they had to do so.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "I don't need to prove it. .... I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke."
I do not deny that SHS maybe a cause for certain diseases that cause death. However, I believe the risk of a non-smoker getting a tobacco related illness that is actually cause by SHS and not something else is minimal at best. As I pointed out in an earlier post on this threat, anyone dieing of heart disease, smoking related cancers, or stroke is counted as a smoking related death. But all these could be due to others factors (excessive drinking, diet, etc.) The question then becomes, in a truly smoke and pollution free world, what would be the major cause of death. Without any research, I would claim, the likely causes of death would be heart disease, stroke, and cancer. So people would still be dieing of smoking related diseases even if there was no smoking. You could, however, make an easy case that these deaths due to these diseases will happen sooner to those who smoke and/or are exposed to SHS. I could buy that. Then the question becomes, how much sooner. Is your hypothetical bar tender going to die 1 day, 1 month, 1 year earlier, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years earlier? This would be useful information. The problem is that even when someone dies who is a heavy smoker, no one can say with certainty that the death was due to his/her smoking, genes, diet or any other lifestyle choice. One can only say that it is likely due to smoking. I would also claim, without proof that living in an urban setting, like NYC, is much more risky than SHS.
Finally, you have a problem, because of all the misinformation that is put out to the press. For example, a recent study showed drinking just one soda a day has the RR ~ 1.4 for heart disease and you admitted this was not considered as a confounder in the SHS studies. So how do we know that those exposed to SHS were not soda drinkers thus causing an RR = 1.3. Medical science also found that obesity is contagious. As a scientist, not medical, what bothers my most is that the studies were funded with the idea of proving SHS is harmful and thus we see researcher bias. While I do not work in your field, even I see it all the time. You have to chase funding sources. Big issue comes up that needs resolving and has lots of available dollars behind it, come up with a proposal to chase those dollars. If you want to continue to be funded or the program funded, make sure your finding meet the sponsors’ expectations or lose funding and program gets canceled. With the large amount of funding available to prove SHS is dangerous, you would have a difficult time convincing me that this is not the case. I seem to recall a study that looked at whether a scientific at the funding source as to whether a paper concluded whether SHS was harmful or not. The paper concluded that funding source was an important contributor to the finding of harmful effects of SHS. If research was funded by BT it was more likely to find no effect and by TC likely to find effect. The study was presented to prove results by researcher receiving big tobacco money could not be trusted. However, as a scientist, one most also ask “could it be that papers funded by those with a TC agenda” are equally or more likely the ones not to be trusted. Most recent papers are all funded by sponsors with an anti-smoking agenda.
I think in 10 or 20 years or longer, when you have achieved your agenda, which I believe to believe to be prohibition (maybe not you personally, but the TC in general), we will find the true story. Currently the average life expectancy is 76 in the USA, even though countries with higher smoking prevalence have better life expectancies. Since smoke cessation will not cause people not to die from smoking related diseases (the heart will give out sooner or later), by how much do you expect the average life expectancy to increase if everyone quit smoking today? I would bet it is quite small. Thus while I can see SHS being a risk factor for certain diseases, I would argue, the risk is to small to worry about and certainly not worth business owners having to give up property rights. While I do not deny SHS is harmful, believe one is taking a greater health risk when driving a car or living in a large city. I believe TC is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I'm sorry doctor, but scientifically and philosophically, the onus is on those claiming SHS is dangerous to provide the proof.
1. You can't prove a negative.
In some cases a reversed burden of proof may be appropriate. This occurs when there are two competing explanations, and neither can be confirmed by observation. For example: when an empirical relationship has been observed, but the underlying mechanism is unknown, it may be reasonable to infer from the lack of conflicting evidence that the observed relationship is most likely causal.
However, you say yours CAN be proven, therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU.
2. I don't think anyone has stated SHS is not dangerous, only not as dangerous as you like to claim. You are claiming an extreme risk, you must back that claim.
3. The fact that you are trying to interfere with the rights granted under our Constitution also places the burden of proof on you. You are denying private property owners their rights, on a legal product no less, therefore, you must prove you should have that right. If we can remove rights with no proof whatsoever then we, as a nation, are in far more trouble than we ever thought.
4. The burden of proof always lies with the accuser, not the accused. You must prove that smokers (and smoke) are guilty of the accusations you have leveled (we kill with our smoke). We are under no obligation to prove anything. We haven't accused you or your actions (up until a point) of anything. You started this mess, you accused us, now you must back your accusations. Our entire justice system is based on this type of thing, not just criminally, but also civilly. One cannot just accuse a corporation or individual of damage, one must also PROVE that such damage exists.
I'm sorry doctor, but on this one you are wrong across the board.
A large number of prominent scientific bodies have concluded that secondhand smoke exposure kills thousands of people a year, including OSHA, the National Toxicology Program, NIOSH, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Office on Smoking and Health, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and many more.
Yeah,
1. So what, just because a large number of "credible" *snorts* persons have made the claim means nothing. We should not stop thinking simply because of that.
2. OSHA had a ruling on the amount of cigarette smoke deemed safe, you like to ignore that, don't drag them into it now when it suits you.
3. The Surgeon General has already been proven a liar, I can't believe you still claim him as a credible source, but then again you also claim the CDC as one.
4. Doctor, for every "credible" agenda drive group you come up with, we can come up with just as many credible individuals (and REAL science) that have proven you are wrong. REally, are we going to play the old "my sources say" peeing contest? No one wins those. If you want to convince us, you'll have to use REAL evidence, not evidence you have a group of "scientists" behind you. We have that too...except most of ours are more than willing to lay out REAL science to refute your "let's pretend" science.
Yes, the "let's pretend" comment is a crack on the 220 bartender deaths.
Michael Siegel: I don't need to prove it. A large number of prominent scientific bodies have concluded that secondhand smoke exposure kills thousands of people a year, including OSHA, the National Toxicology Program, NIOSH, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Office on Smoking and Health, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and many more.
Yikes! Yes, YOU do have to prove it. PROVE IT OR REMOVE IT. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
What about the WHO study that showed a protective effect for children living with smokers?
Michael Siegel: I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
Where have you been the last couple of years??? Have you read--and comprehended--even a fraction of the comments that have been posted here on your blog in the last year alone??? Have you followed any of the links and read and comprehended what's there??? HAVE YOU BEEN LISTENING???
I would say I am done with this blog...but there is SO MUCH good information in the comments that I won't stop reading. Unlike the scummy little antis, I continue to read and educate myself on the subject.
.
FDA = Forced Death Administration
http://bothwell.typepad.com/
whos....html#trackback
tnsmoker,
Ha! Yeah. "Prove it or remove it." Remember when that was the doctor's standard? It still is, I guess. As long as it doesn't apply to him. CTRFK has to prove their remarks. So does the Surgeon General. ALS, too.
But not Doctor Siegel. Still, it is amazing to see him admit it. He comes right out and says it. "I dont have to prove it."
He can just point to a series of "experts." All of whom he has taken to task for not... proving what they say.
So the Surgeon General has to put up or shit up. To prove or remove.
But Doctor Siegel? He can just say the Surgeon General told him so. Amazing.
In the meantime, when someone QUESTIONS the facts, the Doctor ASSUMES his version of events to be true. He says that people who don;t think what he thinks about SHS must not be truly informed. Why? Because SHS is "clearly" a severe health threat.
No proof. No removal. Just his version of the facts. Everyone esle is an idiot in need of some reeducation. Which he could provide, mind you. But won't.
So weird.
Sorry all, my last post was a little ambiguous.
Doc stated "Based on Repace's models, the estimate for working lifetime mortality is about 220 deaths over 40 years, if all bartenders worked for 40 years."
220 deaths over 40 years is 5.5 deaths per year if all bartenders are:-
a) non-smokers (40% smoke)
b) full time (40% are part time)
c) never smokers (don't know the %)
So we are talking about 1 per year or more likely much less.
All dependent on the accuracy of Repace's mathematical model, based on 1980 data, which at best has never been adjusted for reducing smoking prevalence, better ventilation,etc. and to my knowledge has never been empirically tested.
GreatScot
Great Scot,
And even that's not taking into account that almost none of the non-smoking bartenders who work full-time ACTUALLY WORK FOR 40 YEARS.
All of a sudden, NASCAR is looking worse and worse.
I eagerly await the doctor's high-minded campaing to protect those workers. You know. It's the consistent thing to do.
Sam M: Ha! Yeah. "Prove it or remove it." Remember when that was the doctor's standard?
Yep, that's why I used it!
.
Sam,
Your are right. How remiss of me to forget that small fact.
Please multiply the "much less than 1" by at most 25% (Docs 10 years)to get a very significant number between 0 and 0.25 people per year.
GreatScot
Sam,
Just as an aside, the Doc's statement about 25% seems to support the "no safe level" argument. 10 years ETS exposure equates to 25% of the statistical deaths. Ignoring totally "the dose makes the poison".
GreatScot
Doctor ----"I dont have to prove it."
The arrogance is unbelievable.
.
And about that proof thing. The doctor points to a few "reputable sources" and says I need to disprove them. But why would I? Dr. Gori has done a lot of work in that regard. Mr Levy. (Remember him?) Dr. Whelan. Etc. Etc. Etc. Enstrom... You get the picture. For some reason, the doctor does not need to disprove what they say. I guess they have not been properly warned.
In fact, there is so little consensus about the "fact" of the risks SHS poses that, just a few weeks ago, the doctor pointed to that lack of a consensus and said that it meant we had to have bans. Because (get this) the lack of a consensus made it impossible for bartenders to be properly warned about the dangers.
Strange. The doctor says their is a grand consensus about the risks when a grand consensus would seem to argue for a ban. But when a ban requires there to NOT be a consensus, there is not a consensus.
So which is it, doctor? Is there a grand consensus or not? If not, it hardly seems important for me to disprove it.
But if there is, then your argument that properly warning bartenders is impossible basically falls apart. If everyone agrees, then shoot. Just print a few simple pamphlets that spell it all out.
Seems to me that you are in a bit of a bind, here. Being a veteran observer of such situations, I fully expect you to switch to the inherency argument now. Until that gets uncomfortable. At which time you will likely go back to the body count argument. After that, you will say that the lack of a consensus means that we need a ban. And from there, you will argue that the sheer consensus about such things is what really calls for the ban. Or maybe it's the body count.
Because after all, if all bartenders get shot in the face with a howitzer while working, many, many of them will die. Which isn't really based on a good assumption. But it's useful to know the lifetime-howitzer-face-shooting risk associated with many professions. As long as it argues for a ban on smoking in all public places. If not, something about inherency. Or body count...
QED.
Doctor,
Should you have to PROVE a conspiracy between Enstrom/Kabat and Gori and Whelan?
DO you have ANY evidence of any of them exaggerating thier claims? Falsifying them?
Do you have any proof of unscientific rhetorical games?
Huh. If only someone could provide the same for the experts you mention. I mean, if someone could only call the integrity of the Surgeon General into question regarding SHS? I mean, what would it mean of someone could find him playing fast and loose with the numbers, inventing ridiculouc claims for effect.
Wait...
Someone has done that. You have. So much for your experts.
Any similar discrediting remarks regarding my experts? Shouldn't YOU be the one doing the proving, seeing that YOUR side has proven itself to be dishonest?
So step to. And get yourself some research assistants. Luckily for you, it turns out that there are a lot of people looking for work. As Great Scot has so ably shown, Almost all of those 220 dead bartenders are actually still alive, their SHS-clouded demise having been greatly exagerrated.
I am sure they owe you big time. So how about you put them to work proving your claims. If they aren't to thick for that kind of work, of course. They are incredibly hard to educate properly. Or so I hear.
You're all completely missing the point. The point is that the link between secondhands smoke and lung cancer has already been proven. It has been well-documented by numerous studies and by numerous scientific bodies, including OSHA, the National Toxicology Program, NIOSH, the CDC, the Surgeon General, the Office on Smoking and Health, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and many more.
The truth is - you all simply don't believe their conclusions. That's fine. You have the right to your own opinions, and you have the right to disagree with the consensus in the scientific community, at least among these major organizations.
But the conclusion has already been made. And by the most reputable scientific organizations that we have.
That's what I meant when I said that the burden of proof now rests with those who are challenging these conclusions.
The conclusions have been made. There is a clear scientific consensus. It's fine to oppose that consensus, but you need to provide strong arguments for why all these groups are wrong.
So far, I haven't seen anything that can stand up for two minutes to careful scrutiny. That doesn't mean there isn't any, but it means I haven't seen it yet.
You ask me to provide proof. I offer in evidence the 727 page Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke, the 800 page California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment report, the OSHA risk assessment summary, and more than 300 scientific studies.
Now what do you offer?
The point is that the link between secondhands smoke and lung cancer has already been proven.
The POINT, Doc, is that your link is for a small increase in risk, NOT for ABSOLUTE CAUSE, and THAT is OUR point.
Your explanation regarding how science uses the word cause to mean increased risk, knowing the general public uses the word cause as an absolute cause/effect, means you are deliberately misleading people because you don't clarify your use of the word. The entire world uses cause as absolute, not as one of many links.
I offer in evidence the 727 page Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke
Do you really want me to do for you what I did for ..... was it Cathy? Pull out all the conclusions from those 727 pages, 90% of which do NOT back up your claims?
You yourself pointed out all the errors in that last year. NOW you think it is the bible? Make up your mind Doc.
Harley-
I think you make a very interesting point about the "conspiracy" idea. Let me just offer 2 thoughts.
First, while I understand your idea that perhaps all public health scientists are biased and more likely to interpret a study as showing an effect, the problem is that most of the bodies that have concluded secondhand smoke causes cancer are not public health organizations. They are independent scientific bodies that have no direct public health role. For example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and the National Academy of Sciences. I think it would take a lot more than simply "investigator bias" to explain away the fact that so many scientific bodies that have reviewed the evidence have come to an identical conclusion.
Second, it IS actually my opinion that a "conspiracy" of sorts has taken place with regards to the 30 minute claims -- the claims of immediate heart disease or heart attacks from brief secondhand smoke exposure in healthy individuals.
As I showed in a previous post, the American Cancer Society actually prepared a strategy guide in which they essentially said: We need to sensationalize the health effects of secondhand smoke. The way to do that is to communicate that secondhand smoke causes immediate heart disease. So here are the statements that we encourage all other anti-smoking groups to make.
And several other prominent groups made a similar decision -- to make this the mainstay of their communications and to encourage other groups to do the same.
It is not a very well-organized "conspiracy" and there is no evil intent; however, there is some degree of a systematic, planned effort to make these inaccurate or misleading messages the mainstay of the communications from the tobacco control movement to the public.
"The conclusions have been made. There is a clear scientific consensus. It's fine to oppose that consensus, but you need to provide strong arguments for why all these groups are wrong."
Wow. I mean really. Wow. That is utterly astonishing. Because a week or so ago, you said the reason that bartenders can't be properly warned is because...
Why?
They are stupid? No. You would never say that.
Because you don't know how to educate people? Heck no. You're a pro at that.
No. The reason they can't be properly warned is because there is no...
Wait for it... Wait for it...
Because there is no consensus. But today? There is.
Do you need me to scroll back through the posts and the comments to find it?
You know what? I don't care if you want me to or not. When I get a chance, I will post your exact words on the subject. And then I will ask you, once and for all, if there is a scientific consensus or not.
And if there is, as you now say, I would like to revisit the idea of warning bartenders. Which you said you would support. But then said you couldn't support. Because of a lack of consensus.
So now that the consensus exists... And the only thing standing in the way of warning bartenders properly was that consensus... And in light of your promise to back away from bans should bartenders be properly warned...
(That, sir, is a rock. To the left? That would be the hard place. Welcome. Enjoy your stay.)
But just hold on for a few hours. I'll go get your exact quote. And I will put it side by side with your new one. I am eager to see how you explain yourself.
Consensus? No consensus? I guess it depends on which fits the argument you are trying to make that day.
Awesome.
It is not a very well-organized "conspiracy" and there is no evil intent;
Are you seriously suggesting that deliberately setting out a goal to eliminate an activity by constant repitition of DECEITFUL "facts" and purposely discriminating against, denormalizing and harrassing smokers is NOT a well organized conspiracy or "evil intent"?
You honestly do not believe that social engineering to reign in the behaviour of the masses to suit your personal preference is NOT a well organized conspiracy or "evil intent"?
You jest, surely you jest. It sure looks well organized from this side of the fence, Doc. You should stroll over here a bit and see for yourself.
Just a quick thought... given the number of organizations/authorities that seem to have backed the 30 minute death ray theory...
Doesn't that mean there's scientific consensus there?
And if we are supposed to bow to the "scientific consensus" regarding secondary smoke and lung cancer then shouldn't Dr. Siegel bow to the sci. consensus on 30 minute smoke exposures?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Well doctor, well done with the proof..again. You consistently (the only consistent thing you do here lately) make these arguments while seriously neglecting the actual proof part. Your "proof" is that apparently, these only credible when you feel like it, agenda driven, money hogging, power mongering "public health" groups say so.
Doctor, I used to tell my husband that the reason I read your blog all the time was because out of all the anti smoking BS out there, you were the only one that actually seemed to care about the science, willing to provide real numbers and debate the issue. However, in the last month you have become just as bad as the rest. Your fall back to every argument has NOT been to argue any science, simply to trot out a huge number of fools, that you, YOURSELF, have proven to be fools. Your arguments are circular, at best, and emotionally driven rhetoric. You are not, and I fully believe at this moment, have never been, interested in discussion. You were hiding under a mask. I'd say I was disappointed, but not really. I figured one day you'd be like everyone else, I was just willing to be proven wrong. It's a real shame that I wasn't. I don't know what's happened to you here lately, but I hope it goes away and brings back the good Doctor I had so much respect for.
I'd say I'd quit reading this thing, except the other posters are quite intelligent, maybe I'll just skip the blog and read the other posters.
Michael-
A very good point. And I would respond by saying, NO - we should not automatically bow to any scientific communications, even if there is a consensus. But my point is, simply, that if you want to challenge that consensus, you need to provide strong evidence as to why that consensus is wrong. The burden really is on you to do that.
Thus, when I am challenging the apparent consensus in the tobacco control community that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke causes heart disease, I spend a lot of time laying out my argument, providing documentation, etc. The burden is on me to demonstrate why the organizations are wrong. I have tried to do that (I think I have done it successfully).
I am NOT asking people to blindly accept the consensus among scientific bodies on secondhand smoke. However, I am just noting that if one is going to challenge that consensus, one needs to set out the evidence against it.
I don't think people should attack me for being some sort of crazy, unscientific person when I have reviewed the evidence myself and come to the same conclusion as these numerous reputable scientific bodies.
I could still be wrong, as could they, but it's a far cry from my standing alone on a ledge screaming that secondhand smoke is a chronic disease hazard.
Sam-
A very fair point (about whether or not there is a consensus). I believe that there is a solid scientific consensus. However, I DO NOT believe that there is a public consensus. And the two are very different. This is actually a critical distinction that I think people need to understand.
Just because there is a scientific consensus does not mean that there is necessarily a public consensus. When you have organizations out there challenging the scientific consensus, then it helps to prevent a public consensus from occurring.
A great example is global warming. There seems to be a pretty clear scientific consensus on this. However, a lot of groups, many of them connected to the industries which are producing the most pollution, are challenging the conclusions. Thus, I do not believe we are at a point yet where there is a public consensus on the magnitude of the problem. And I'm not weighing in on who's right and who's wrong. I'm merely noting that there is a discrepancy between the scientific consensus and public opinion.
In order for people to be adequately informed such that they can make an informed decision about assuming a risk, I believe there needs to be a public consensus, not merely a scientific consensus.
Another good example, which works in the opposite direction, is asbestos in schools. There is, I believe, a scientific consensus that non-friable asbestos does not represent a significant hazard and should not be removed. However, tell a bunch of parents that there is asbestos in a school, and they are going to demand that millions of dollars be spent to remove that asbestos, even though the most recent evidence suggests that this is not only a waste of money, but may actually PRODUCE risk. Here, there is a clear discrepancy between the scientific consensus and the public consensus.
Another example - what to do about kids with lice in schools. There is a scientific consensus that we should NOT keep kids out of school for lice. However, the public still tends to believe that kids should be kept out of school. Many parents are not going to be happy to hear that their kid's classmate has lice and is still coming to school. The scientific consensus is clear; the public consensus is just not there.
consensus?
The earth is flat
The sun orbits the earth
The earth is the centre of the universe
Rats cause the plaque
From Michael Crichton
"Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. "
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/
s...balwarming.html
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel said:
I don't think people should attack me for being some sort of crazy, unscientific person when I have reviewed the evidence myself and come to the same conclusion as these numerous reputable scientific bodies.
I don't and I never have. I respect you as a person and as scientist that is why I refer to you as Dr. Siegel and not Mike or Mr. Siegel. You started this blog to expose dishonesty in your field and you allow a wide variety of people of differing opinions to discuss and debate an issue you are rather passionate about. You have potentially risked your career in an attempt to force your colleagues to be truthful and fair. Even if I didn't like you, I would still respect that.
I also don't argue that consensus is based on nothing. There are plenty of studies supporting the consensus and a lot of legitimate scientists. I just don't think the science behind it is as strong as what it is made out to be.
Considering all the conflicting studies, the fact that most of the evidence that SHS science is based on epidemiology (while a legitimate and valuable science, not the most accurate), the majority of studies are statistically insignificant, etc. While the supporting the hypothesis that secondhand smoke is deadly is not without any basis, acting like it is as solid as Evolution, Gravity, or even man-made Global Warming (Didn't you raise some questions about that issue yourself?), is really misleading.
You have admitted that some chemicals that have been shown to have more of an effect on lung cancer and heart disease have not been accounted for in most secondhand smoke studies. When you are dealing with such small Relative Risks, I think that is a good reason to doubt the strength of the evidence involved. If we were talking about smoking firsthand, it would be reasonable to suggest that the estimates of smoking deaths are somewhat inflated, but it would be wrong to suggest that smoking is harmless because the increases in most smoking related diseases are too large to be explained by unaccounted confounders.
That is why I'm skeptical of SHS science, there are too many conflicting studies, too many unaccounted confounders, the margins of error are too wide, and the increase in risk is too small to confidently assert that there is a risk at all. I'll admit that I could be wrong. I speak to a biology student on a regular basis, he is skeptical for many of the same reasons as I am, although he does also mention that it is quite possible that we are wrong because several studies do show a link between increased cotinine levels and increased rates of lung cancer in non-smokers, so it is not like being skeptical about most of the claims means that you think the consensus is 100% wrong and that despite the fact you are a layman know so much more than people who actually spent 8-10 years in university perfecting their craft and have many years experience or in the other guy's case, a fourth year biology student at the University of Rochester.
The scientific consensus is "clear"? What does that mean? I have asked this before. And I still don;t get a response.
If it is "clear" that the sky is blue, and someone insists that it is red, we say that the person in question is deficient in some way. That person is blind. Or just doesn't know his colors. Or perhaps is lying for some reason.
So how do you account for the people who say you are wrong? I am not talking about yahoos. I am talking about serious scientists.
You say that you present as evidence the 727-page SG resport. But you yourself have spent a great deal of time lambasting the ultimate compiler of that report (the Surgeon General) for playing fast and loose with the data and his conclusions.
So perhaps as evidence, I could plop a big copy of Enstrom/Kabat on your doorstep. You might be able to point to a deficiency here or there. But nothing so devastating as proof of outright dishonesty, I don't think. Remember, Entrom/Kabat is not "a" study. It is "the" study in terms of hard evidence, sample size, and all the rest. Again, you might see problems with it. But I think that any objective observer would have a hard time seeing it as more problematic than the evidence you offer.
So how are you defining "consensus"? A convincing totality of all the data ever generated? Obviously not. Because here is what Dr. Gori had to say about that:
"Of the 75 published studies of ets and lung cancer, some 70 percent did
not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk, and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk. Thus, reported studies do not offer consistent results."
So 83 percent of studies either fail to support your "consensus" or disprove it outright.
As for a consensus among "scientists," I wonder what you mean. Do Enstrom, Kabat, Whelan, Gori, and all the rest "count"? Even more importantly, do the people supporting the "30 seconds and you are dead" claims count? I would think not in the latter case. If they are so driven by ideology and aesthetics to give themselves over to "the cause" so completely that they believe that (I think you have characterized it as "nonsense") can we trust their judgement in this regard? So removing them from the headcount, what's that leave you? What percentage of doctors are we talking? How many have made a cool, hard calculation of the data, removed from the "brainwashing" that has affected so many?
Last, when would you say this "consensus" became a reality? Was there a watershed moment? When was it? If it happened gradually, when might you say it formed?
I ask because you say its existence is crucial in explaining your support for smoking bans. But you have been advocating bans for decades. Long before many of the studies you mentioned were ever completed. So was this consensus in effect in, say, 1989? 1979?
When did you begin politically agitating for bans? Was it before the consensus existed? If so, how can you explain that? If the consensus is an important part of the justuification for a ban...
???
GreatScot great link to Michael Crichton, he and Arthur C. Clarke are my favorite authors and both are scientists. I could not have stated it better myself:
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." Michael Crichton
I will further state that a consensus is nothing more then this example: Imagine 100 scientists in a room discussing global warming. One goes “Do we have proof it happens do to human activity and is not due to normal fluctuation in global temperature.” Another one states, “We have a computer model that seems to point to human causes.” Another one states, “We cannot predict the weather with any reasonable accuracy a week from now with the models we have.” Another one states, “That there maybe problems with the models and more accurate one are needed if possible. Some of the variable going into it are not well understood.” The chairman of the group states, "Based on available evidence, the computer model though flawed point to human cause for global warming. That is the best evidence we currently have. The politicians need to make a decision, let take a vote. Who believes, based on what we have that humans are the cause for global warming? Ok 51 yes and 49 no, good we have a consensus."
If as a scientist, did what the medical sciences do, I would have been fired long ago. We need proof not a consensus. The other 49 in the example above are expected to toe the line. If you have those claiming to be scientists speak of consensus, an immediate red flag should come up. Consensus is used to make political policy when no overwhelming proof is available. Read Crichton's article, no only did he study science he also studied medicine. Read what he says about Carl Sagan and his nuclear winter BS. It gives a clear picture of what the medical sciences (science? Or is it an art) are doing. When Dr. Siegel organizations came up with a consensus, I would place money that scientist that were smokers we excluded, scientists that ever had anything to do with BT were excluded, and that most making up the consensus were already on board the TC agenda even before any studies were available. Yep GreatScot, great link.
Final comment what a consensus really is. We do not have proof, but lets take a vote so a policy or political decision can be made. More here:
"Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such agreements (for information on the practice of achieving formal consensus, see Consensus decision-making).
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
"Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships."
I might add that even if the "consensus" about the risks of SHS exists, that says little about which policy prescriptions make sense. Which is obvious. Many of the people who agree with the doctor about the risk want to ban smoking in cars with children. The doctor does not. So obvioulsy, agreeing that SHS is a huge risk still leaves us with serious questions. In which case it might make sense to look to other cases for guidance.
Do scientists and policy makers agree that logging and driving a racecar pose huge risks? Of course they do. And do they agree that certain measures exist that could ameliorate the danger without eliminating the activity? Of course. Drivers could simply go slower. And loggers could use mechanical fellwe bunchers. You would still have racing. And you would still have logging. Those things would just be different.
So do we legislate all such changes? No. We don't. Because even though there is a general consensus among public health experts about these risks, we still allow people to take them.
Do all loggers truly understand the magnitude of the dangers they face? I am here to tell you that no, they don't. Many--if not most--of them attribute the death and injuries suffered by other loggers as "failures." The guys were being stupid. Or they were drunk. And "that can't happen to me." I know. I wrote a book about loggers.
It is a pernicious problem that comes out most clearly in the loggers' insistence in going to work alone. Which is so ridiculous on its face that no sane person would ever do it. Right? Well, they do. Many justify it by arguing that it is actually safer. That they only have to worry about "their" trees. That if a buddy is working with them, the buddy might screw up and drop a tree in the wrong direction.
This is akin, scientifically, to the notion that SHS has an inoculating effect and is actually good for you. In fact, there is more evidence to support the inocculating effects of SHS. So loggers are even LESS informed than bartenders, apparently.
The difference? We allow loggers to make these decisions. But we do not allow bartenders to make similar decisions regarding SHS.
We could ban logging alone. We could ban hand-felling. Both of which would eliminate huge risks that are not inherent to the job. But we don't ban such things.
So obviously, I disagree with the doctor about the dangers of SHS. So do many prominent scientists of great reknown.
But even if the doctor is right and we are wrong... So what? Accepting that SHS is a great risk--accepting the "consensus," whatever that means--still leaves you with the fact that SHS is risky. (A 1.19 risk factor, by the way, which is not exaclty akin to getting attacked by a pack of wolves.)
But accepting that it is risky still does not lead directly to the doctors position on a ban. If accepting the consensus lead to obvious policy prescriptions, the doctor would agree about the ban in cars. He does not. That is, he is bucking the consensus.
The only way you could make the argument that the doctor is offering, I think, is if you accept that SHS is not only a "risk," but a HUGE risk that surpasses all of the other risks that we allow people to take.
And as logging and NASCAR prove, we do, in fact, allow all sorts of people, informed and uninformed, smart and stupid, take all kinds of risks all the time.
The only way that the doctor could prove that he is not singling out SHS would be to attach a rider to all of his approved legislation demanding a ban on all things proven to be as dangerous or more dangerous than SHS.
And here the 40/40 claims has taken hold:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health...tory?
id=3243388
Funny that they keep whoopin' it up about how successful they are----number of smokers down, cig sales down----how many people in REAL LIFE are exposed to 40/40 hrs of SHS?
Maybe I'm just to dumb to understand this>
.
.
I might add that opposing legislative action to "protect" workers--loggers, drivers, bartenders or otherwise--is a far cry from callously disregarding their health and safety. And it is even farther from gleefully blowing smoke in faces or dropping trees on heads. In many cases--most, I could say--people opposed to legislative action are the ones working hardest to improve safety while respecting worker autonomy.
I think again of loggers. I would be opposed to a law forbidding them from working in the woods alone. Because i hope they die? No. I just see other ways. As do many other people.
Sawmills, logging companies, insurance companies and government agencies have made a foll-frontal assault on dangerous logging practices. There are seminars. Awards. Incentives in terms of workers-comp rates. All sorts of things to get logging crews to protect their workers.
And you know what? Some of them still resist. Some of them are hard-headed. Others see--probably rightly--that the safer way is not always the most profitable way, and are willing to take the risk to make an extra buck. And in a free society, we respect that choice.
Same with NASCAR. In the wake of the Dale Ernhardt fiasco, there was more discussion of some safety measures NASCAR could take. Public pressure. All the rest. NASCAR made some changes, rejected others. Drivers re-assessed their decision to race NASCAR and accept the dangers--inherent and otherwise. A few drivers from other racing series have decided to join the circuit. Others still view it as completely barbaric and refuse to race stock cars on an oval. Their choice.
What I am saying is, there are other ways to address the "risks" of SHS. Ventilation might not remove all the smoke. But it removes some of it. And as the doctor admits, reducing the exposure by half reduces mortality by half. (Not sure if I buy that. But for now, fine.) So all of a sudden that 1.19 is looking even less significant.
And then, even if that's not good enough, there are other measures. Insurance incentives. Moral suasion. In fact, these things appear to be working. In the Pittsburgh area there are already more than 300 smoke-free bars and restaurants. And more all the time. Almost all the national chains have gone smoke-free. Regional ones, too.
The fact of the matter is, there are always going to be risk-takers. Loggers who work alone. Drivers who go 200 mph, four-wide into the corner. And a free society makes a place for those people.
And this free society has made room for these people. Except now, the doctor is insisting that we stop doing that. That no matter what measures are in place, no matter how few venues allow smoking, we must BAN it. We must assign armed police officers to patrol the streets. And if people will not comply, they must be dealt with forcefully. They must NOT be ALLOWED to take risks the doctor does not want them to take.
Talk about danger.
Going from "X is a risk" to "We must forbid anyone from exposing themselves to X" is an enormous leap that the doctor seems to make with little concern.
Scientific consensus is generally decided by scientists debating and discussing the evidence. In most cases the hypothesis is attacked quite vigorously by other scientists, playing Devil's Advocate and aggressively trying to find fault in a hypothesis or proposed theory is what weeds out weak and lousy science.
A better way for Dr. Siegel to frame his point would be to explain how SHS has stood up to this rigorous examination, rather than merely say, "It's consensus".
I also forgot to mention that you really can't prove a negative. In fact it is hard to "prove" (as in solid and undisputed) pretty much anything. The burden of proof is on those who question SHS science at this point, but what we can do is question it by bringing up flaws in the studies and presenting conflicting studies and see how the science stands up to it.
It is not like you can do a study showing secondhand smoke is harmless (I haven't seen many people here or elsewhere seriously suggest that it doesn't cause any harm), it would just come up as inconclusive. You can show that it is harmful in regards to X or that it is has benefits regarding Y, but to show something has no effect is pretty damn difficult.
I'm also not too trusting of many of the groups that Dr. Siegel has mentioned. The Surgeon General was making claims that were not even in his own report and Dr. Siegel pointed that out. The World Health Organization left out that they found a 23% decrease in the children of smokers and spun the results to make it sound like the risks were both more serious and more solid than what it really was.
Harley---' Scientific consensus is generally decided by scientists debating and discussing the evidence. In most cases the hypothesis is attacked quite vigorously by other scientists, playing Devil's Advocate and aggressively trying to find fault in a hypothesis or proposed theory is what weeds out weak and lousy science'
So a 'vote' taken by the scientists that are funded by the various groups seeking a certain set of outcomes is an acceptable 'vote', and therefore consensus? I'd say that is a weak and lousy way to go about this.
.
It is not so much a vote, but rather when a majority have agree with the basic facts of a theory or hypothesis. It happens pretty naturally, scientists usually look at something from a variety of angles and consider rational possibilities and usually decide from that. It happens pretty naturally.
Occasionally, scientific consensus is wrong, but luckily it is pretty much self-correcting.
Well, if science is allowed to follow it's normal operations and dissent is permitted AND listened to objectively. Something the majority of today's "scientists" seem incapable of.
Doc wrote:
I think the burden of proof is actually on those who deny the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer to prove that EVERY SINGLE one of these organizations is compeletely wrong and that there is some sort of conspiracy among all these groups to commit fraud on the American people and mislead them about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
Fine Doc, no problem. None of your studies show any statistically significant epidemiological evidence of causation, yet you all claim that correlation equals causation, (but only) when it comes to HS.
The burden of proof is on YOU and your cohorts to PROVE the statistically INSIGNIFICANT statistics of SHS exposure mean a damned thing. You claim it does, you prove it.
Far too many of the charlatans of tobacco control have proven to be OUTRIGHT liars here, there, and everywhere. That you support anything any of them say Dr. Siegel, makes you very suspect in my mind. Particularly noting the fact you have questioned many of the comments of many of them your self.
Gabz,
Welcome back. While I'm no way speaking for others, we (me, myself and I that is) missed you.
So strange that Dr Siegel wants the evidence against his biased conviction of SHS,AFTER ALL HE KEEPS HIS STUDIES TUCKED OUT OF SIGHT,BUT when they are factually presented,AS THEY HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY,HE IGNORES THEM.In my books if you won't answer the questions you are little different than the rest of your cohorts who manufacture the studies to suit and ignore those which don't preach the same message.
Dr. Siegel: ...you need to provide strong arguments for why all these groups are wrong. So far, I haven't seen anything that can stand up for two minutes to careful scrutiny.
So all the evidence, the tons that have been provided by many here over the two years -- none of it has been able to stand up to careful scrutiny?
Okay, fine. For argument's sake let's say it's true. In that case, here I provide the card that holds up the deck on which the your house is built. But first, more quotes of yours:
The point is that the link between secondhands smoke and lung cancer has already been proven.
...the problem [with Harley's premise] is that most of the bodies that have concluded secondhand smoke causes cancer are not public health organizations. They are independent scientific bodies that have no direct public health role.
For purposes not entirely necessary to my argument I'd still like to have it noted that you switched from "the link has already been proven" to "SHS causes cancer" (by implicit agreement in your defense of the scientific bodies).
The first statement is faulty. The second one is just plain false.
The first is more correct in saying that your side says there is a "link." However, having IDENTIFIED a link is not the same as conclusive "proof."
The second -- the one I truly believe you have a greater affinity for -- is, as I said, impossible, and which sets me up best for the card that holds up your entire house.
ALL the ETS studies are epidmiologic.
For one of most clearest explanations I turn to The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a nonprofit nonpartisan organization which wrote an article on the science of epidemiology:
"What exactly has been demonstrated by all these studies? Cause? Cure?
"In fact, it’s neither. Epidemiology, the science of looking for risk factors by comparing populations, is never able to establish “causation” in either direction. All that it can show is “association,” a much-misunderstood term.
"The biggest single problem is that few people – including journalists – understand how health risk studies actually operate. We mistake correlation for causation, and coincidence for conviction.
Hence, we are continually fooled into thinking that we know something when we really don’t. When all goes well in an epidemiological study, one finds an association between two things. No more, no less. And that’s true even of the best of studies, those that are methodologically rigorous and carefully constructed."
(The link to this was http://www.stats.org/newsletters.../0006/
guilt.htm but no longer)
Dr. Siegel, you said: So far, I haven't seen anything that can stand up for two minutes to careful scrutiny.
Rhetorically asking, does this?
And once you agree it does, then you have never had anything more than a suspicion that SHS is responsible for anything no matter how many scientific bodies say so (or rather agree on a handful of independent studies) and no matter how much material you have or how strong you think it is (taking into consideration that the vast majority are not only epidemiologic in nature but very weak).
Commenting by HaloScan
