You're right on, Mike. How's about this little gem from Montana? Oh, know, it's not about class:
quote:
"Netschert said he doesn’t like the idea of people in low-income housing spending money on cigarettes.
“I don’t know how to tactfully put this — a pack of cigarettes costs three or five bucks a day,” he said."
http://www.greatfallstribune.com...NEWS01/
70328008
Helena Housing Authority to ban smoking in public housing
The Associated Press
HELENA — Helena Housing Authority commissioners have decided to ban smoking at all HHA-owned property, beginning July 1.
HHA Executive Director Colleen McCarthy said the ban was merited in the authority’s 366 apartments because she has received complaints from nonsmoking tenants about the smell of smoke migrating into their apartments from other units or through windows; and because some tenants use tanks of highly flammable oxygen.
McCarthy also said cleaning apartments after smokers move out is expensive and sometimes ineffective.
Those caught smoking would be subject to eviction. The HHA has previously evicted residents who used oxygen tanks and continued to smoke.
Montana Legal Services Association lawyer Amy Hall said she was concerned the smoking ban would create more problems than it solves by leaving low-income people without a place to live if they couldn’t or wouldn’t quit smoking.
Commissioners initially proposed a rule that would have allowed residents to smoke if they stood more than 25 feet from any building. Residents had time to review the proposal and about 20 attended Tuesday’s meeting.
After a discussion over how the policy could be approved without changing the lease, Commissioner Steve Netschert said he wanted to “cut to the chase.” He proposed the smoking ban on all properties, which the other three commissioners pres-ent supported. Three other commissioners were absent.
Netschert said he doesn’t like the idea of people in low-income housing spending money on cigarettes.
“I don’t know how to tactfully put this — a pack of cigarettes costs three or five bucks a day,” he said.
Hall asked commissioners to spend more time to study the issue and to come up with a policy fair to both smokers and nonsmokers.
A new lease containing the smoking ban will go into effect April 1 and all tenants will have to sign the new lease.
Yes, it's easier to push the poor around because they have less recourses and resources. But this monster gets stronger the more people it eats .
As for the original article, it's not a great example. First, there are places than do ban using a cell phone in the car. But you're right: the penalties don't involve children and don't involve jail. But otoh, cell phones aren't elite. Almost everyone has one. Better if parent A were distracted by eating a caviar sandwich and sipping a latte. (On second thought, a really unappetizing mix.)
Also it seems to be an obvious set up to put the first parent in an SUV, and metaphorically bedecked with diamonds and pearls. The fact is that even in comparable KIA's, parent A would get off, and parent B would be jailed.
A further point is, that smoking isn't just a thing of the "lower class." It's rather that, since smoking's now CONSIDERED 'lower class", so are all smokers.
:
Totally off subject but I was amazed with this. There was an article on Yahoo showing a benefit of smoking without even once going on a tangent about how terrible it is. I am honestly amazed:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/
2007...rparkinsonsrisk
As for the main topic, just driving in a car period is a higher risk than the SHS you may expose your child to. Listening to your radio with the volume turned up could be considered the same.
The funniest thing to me is that the majority of anti-smokers who want to regulate smoking to non-existance under the guise of protecting childeren are ironicly putting their childern at even more of a risk than I am, a smoker, just by putting them in the car everyday. (I don't drive)
There is just something inherently mistaken with that mentality.
Michael;
Your class discrimination concern, is actually placing a discrimination on smokers first. Although it may be true, ethnic minorities and the poor smoke in larger proportions, smoking itself is not implicit to the poor or the disadvantaged.
Your statement paints a picture of what your minds eye describes in relation to smoking affording that picture to others as a legitamate description.
By your implication in comparing [a] to [b] you supplant an insult to smokers, by placing them exclusively in the lower class.
I am sure you have all recieved that email from time to time where they tell you how life was "in the good old days". You know the one where we all rode bikes without helmets, our parents smoked right in front of us, we played outside from dawn to dusk, drank water from the garden hose and so on. It ends with how we are still here and we are healthy. What it doesn't say though is that it is us who gave birth to these know it all jerks who comes up with and passes laws that they know nothing about, laws based on junk or fear with no real science behind it. These people are the all mighty who knows what is best for us all. The people who believe this crap are the ones who placed themselves on the proverbial pedestal. Always to busy to raise their own kids, but knows how to raise mine. They are so worried about a wisp of smoke but they are the same people who are in such a hurry that they "forget" to drop their child off at daycare and leave them in a hot sweltering car and cry when the baby is found dead. Or they might be the parent who crosses 3 lanes of traffic so to take the exit that is 5 feet away, not thinking about the cars behind them and the people whose lives they just jeopardized, as obviously, the road was built for them only. I drive the highways daily and some of the idiotic things I see is down right scary. I could go on but you get the drift. Maybe it isn't to late to be a parent and it is time to tell our kids to wake up and get a real job, one where you are focused on yourself and not your neighbor. Oh, I forget, they all have jobs and they work for healthcare in some capacity, as all the honest jobs have been outsourced to India.
Yesterday, in the city of Fort Worth, Texas, a man was leaving for work and seen his neighbors house on fire. He is friends with the 90 year old man who lives there and knew what part of the house his bedroom was in. He broke the window, cutting his arm and needed stitches, but still managed to crawl in and rescue the gentlemen who already had been burnt. The man survived and is doing quite well, but the hero neighbor who rescued him was interviewed and was actually holding a can of soda and smoking a cigarette. My first thought was, I wonder if an anti smoker would have been so heroic. How about it Bill and all. Would you have done what that smoker did or would you have just called 911 and directed traffic once the fire department arrived? An honest answer would be nice, but either way, it is your conscience, not mine!
To be sure, parent B is exposing her child to an increased risk of adverse health effects from the secondhand smoke.
Prove it to me doc, 'cuz I'm not buying it.
Show me one study where the exposure to SHS in a car with the window open going 60MPH resulted in even 1 ear infection. Maybe from the wind but smoke exposure? Right. Maybe from the wind, the smoke exposure wouldn't hurt a flea.
Lower class...because we smoke?
IMHO Lower life (class)- taking a high dollar education, with all of the benefits that affords one in life, and using junk science; personal agendas, dirty money to promote discrimination and dehumanizsing of your fellow citizens.
And
ya gotta wonder if there are any laws agaisnt riding a motorcycle with a kid on the back. Motorcycle= no seat belts, no air bags, = no protection.
Now I'll bet there is no a parent in the world wo si so stupid that they would put an infant in a carrier on the back of a motorcycle, but I'll bet there are no laws agaisnt it either.
Many of these car smoking bans also apply when a child is older , and at an age where they can hold on and ride on the back of a parent;s motorcycle. and I'll bet there are no laws agaisnt that either. ( of course, as long as the parent driving the motorcycle the child is riding on is not also smoking) Dave K
To be sure, parent B is exposing her child to an increased risk of adverse health effects from the secondhand smoke. But the magnitude of that increased risk is relatively small. And if health effects do occur, they will not be terribly severe. There is a small increased risk of the child coming down with an ear infection or upper respiratory infection due to the secondhand smoke exposure during the course of the car trip.
ARRRGGGHHHHH I can’t believe you continue to spout this crap. Adverse health effects from an increased risk that is so miniscule you have yet to produce the proof to convince us beyond a reasonable doubt? I’ve asked this before, and I’m asking again…………..WHERE is your irrefutable proof? MY own personal REAL LIFE, been there done that, experience with my own child, proves this statement to be false. Now, where’s your proof?
The incremental risk of an ear infection or upper respiratory infection for parent B's child is rather small, and the severity of such a consequence is obviously much less than that of a traffic accident.
And right here you contradict what you just said. I still want proof that justifies any ban.
While proponents of car smoking bans may not realize it, and certainly they are not doing it consciously, I believe that they are inadvertently falling into class discriminatory thinking in their singular preoccupation with the relatively minor incremental risks
Are you kidding? They know damned well what they are doing. This is NOT an unconscious act. We have provided you with the proof that part of the plan is to deliberately, carefully and continually project smoking at a totally Unacceptable habit………..by doing so, it then projects that any smoker still smoking is totally Unacceptable. Trust me Doc, this is a very well planned, pre-meditated act.
In the first case, the failure to aim to regulate smoking in the home reveals a respect for parental privacy and autonomy in the home which is apparently not respected for this group of parents in their own cars.
You still don’t get it, do you? Can you possibly really be THAT naďve AND blind? Once they succeed in the area of cars (while appearing to respect the “a man’s home is his castle” concept), they are ONLY 1 step away from moving into the homes, which IS the ultimate goal. They can’t get there without having it be acceptable to ban smoking in cars. They then can use the argument that “the children” (and too bad if you don’t have any) are now in extreme danger because the parents are smoking more at home and the poor, weak, little kidlets are dangerously exposed and could drop dead before puberty. AND YOU are helping them go there, every time you mention it, every time you utter the words “serious health hazard”, or “adverse health effects”. With nowhere left to smoke, smokers are then forced to either quit, OR become criminals. Either way, your side gets their goal met……………A SMOKE FREE SOCIETY. They don’t give a flying fart in space about anyone’s health, they just don’t want anyone to smoke because THEY hate the smell.
Read what you write Doc, and try to see exactly how a fanatic can take your very words as a weapon. We can do it, why can’t you? Better yet, why don’t you want to see it? Why do you keep feeding them?
I don't think it's a class distinction, Doc. It's a "I want". "I don't like cigarettes, where's the information (fact or fiction) that will get those out of here?" "Whoa whoa whoa...don't touch my cellphone, I LIKE that." They have decided which risks are acceptable, ie: The ones they don't like aren't, the ones they do like are. It is ok to pollute the air and waft out your own insiduous poison, drive cars that have a higher possibility of risk (an accident due to either your own recklessness or someone else's), send out your own SHS due to barbecuing or wood burning (or even worse, trash burning), and subject your child to the risk of abuse of all sorts by dropping them off at a birthday party with a person you've never seen in your life while you go get some "me" time. See, those are all accceptable, because those are LIKED. But heaven forbid these same uptight, demanding folks SEE a cigarette or a fat person, because they don't like cigarettes and they don't like seeing the fat people.
Actually Dave, I'm one of those parents who rides a motorcycle with my daughter on the back, I smoke while I do as well.
Now I'll grant you, she is old enough to hang on and the law says she has to wear a brain bucket, which I vehemently disagree with. All the "studies" show that at any speeds greater than 11 mph, that brain bucket is actually a greater risk to her than if she went without it. There is the off chance that an accident (Yeah, right, "accident" it's called when the stupid idiots in the cages are to concerned with their cell phones to watch for traffic) can damage her head, but their is a much greater chance that the weight of the helmet will snap her little neck like a twig if we do have a collision.
Of course, the big difference between laws forcing riders to wear helmets and laws banning smoking is that Motorcycle riders are notoriously independent and willing to organize and take the time and trouble to fight back when the Nanny statists try to get helemt laws enacted.
"Now I'll bet there is no a parent in the world wo si so stupid that they would put an infant in a carrier on the back of a motorcycle,"
Umm..haven't met many rednecks have you? 
I have seen this, not at full speed down a highway, but I have seen it while driving over a couple of houses. To me that's just as unacceptable...
One thing that gets me is--1) cigarette smoking is stupid and 2) it's still deemed a complex enough activity that it can distract a driver as much as, say, a heated conversation.
I also think the argument of cigarettes meaning just 1 hand on the wheel is bogus--not advanced in this blog's post, which I think describes a worst case scenario well(case B) and shows how it STILL doesn't stack up to case A, but it's something tacked on as an extra gotcha. (In Connecticut, the 2nd argument was used as an additional safety measure. I think a message here linked to a 10 year old giving such testimony.) It's quite possible to hold a cigarette and drive or just leave the cigarette in an ashtray. Or wait until a stoplight.
Plus I never smoke while driving and yet I need to take my hand off the wheel sometimes. Any marginally conscientious smoker will take his hand off the wheel for a puff only when it is safe. I mean, smokers are characterized as addicts but they are ALWAYS able and willing to wait an extra minute or so to smoke if need be.
Arguments like this make me wonder if the people pushing for car bans are just trying to see how much they can get away with, because it assumes that smoking handicaps people much more than is reasonably possible if you look at the issue differently, and once people "buy" that, the argument can move on to other things.
Okay, by "wonder" above I mean "feel strongly that there is a significant percent of people who do" and so it's a biased application of the word. Sort of like someone on the Healthy side of the fence wondering what other damages sidestream smoke causes.
Let's not forget riding in the back of the pickup truck or how about those school buses with NO seatbelts? Chances are, nothing is going to happen so the risk is low, yet there are people who wants to regulate that and more people do let their kids ride those buses. Speaking of risk, what about the diesel fumes on that school bus that our kids inhale everyday? Gee's should kids be allowed to even be in the car when you need to stop for gas? Gasoline vapors equals health effects. Let's legislate them all.
What do you all see as the reason why smoking seems to be singled out as the one behavior for which society must dictate behavior, rather than respect decisions that people make (although use education and try to persuade people to make healthy choices)?
I just don't see the same kind of coercive appraoch with any other health behavior.
We have health promotion programs on college campuses for all kinds of behaviors: alcohol, smoking, physical activity, and diet. For 3 of those, we use education and health promotion. For only 1 of those - smoking - are we using coercion to dictate people's behavior on the campus.
Similarly, there are all sorts of behaviors that parents do to endanger the health of their children by putting them at small increased risk of adverse health effects. But I'm really only aware of one of them - smoking - for which health advocates are trying to get parents placed in jail, criminalized, or treated as child abusers.
The singling out of smoking demands an explanation, and I'm at a loss to explain it, other than to invoke my perception that it really comes down to a class discrimination issue.
And by the way, Kevin's point is well-taken. I am not suggesting that smokers are or should be treated as a separate class. I'm just noting what I observe health groups doing. I really do think that health groups have labeled smokers as being a lower social class group, as one deserving of less respect of their health decisions than other "higher" classes.
Lynda says "A SMOKE FREE SOCIETY. They don’t give a flying fart in space about anyone’s health, they just don’t want anyone to smoke because THEY hate the smell."
They don't hate the smell, they hate smokers!
Jerry, I agree, and also there is growing public outrage agaisnt kids driving off-road ATV's too, and motor boats too!
Did anyone see 60 minutes last sunday?
I think eventually people will rebell against the Nanny State
April 9, 2007
Dr. Evil: One Of The Good Guys
If you were one of the 20 million Americans who watched 60 Minutes last night, you probably saw aprofile of Center for Consumer Freedom Executive Director Rick Berman. If you did, you also caught a glimpse of CCF's nutty foil, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) food-scold-in-chief Michael Jacobson.
As a recurring villain in the fight for personal freedom, Jacobson uses junk science and sensationalism to scare Americans about the food they eat, even boasting that "CSPI is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything." [Click here for an in-depth exposé on Jacobson.]
His attacks cover the entire spectrum of food favorites from French fries to coffee. Under the mantra of "regulation through litigation," he uses lawsuits to force industry change, and employs equally hyperbolic measures to push extra taxes on foods he considers unhealthy, and government-mandated nutritional labeling on restaurant menus all across America.
The hero in this battle for consumer choice is Berman, whom 60 Minutes correspondent Morley Safer dubs a "six-foot-four, 64-year-old weapon of mass destruction." Safer follows Berman in his fight to ensure that America does not become "a nation of passive children ruled by the iron thumb of self-appointed 'nannies.'"
After the piece aired, the public responded with emails by the hundreds to our campaign for freedom with cheers, thanksgiving, and the occasional call of "Rick Berman for President." But the audience's assessment of Jacobson and his food-police movement was not so favorable. Though we normally give Jacobson the somewhat restrained title of nutritional scold, CBS viewers offered a few more colorful suggestions, such as "dweeb," "fruitcake," "snake oil doctor," "freak," "pathetic twerp," "goody two shoe granny," "elitist hypocrite," and "mad scientist."
Incidentally, I rememver a study, in Denmark, I think, which found smokers had faster reflexes behind the wheel than nonsmokers, and those faster relfexes were most enhanced when the dirver was actively smoking.
Doc, its the smell. That's it for anti & ex-smokers (generally speaking). I have found most non-smokers to be a lot more tolerant.
And if it's not that, we are back to some sections of society hating another...just because they can. I mean, it makes a nice change doesnt it? In our PC world, we have no targets left. All the minorities that were discriminated against are now rightfully protected. People, some would describe them as sub-human, simply have to project all that pent up rage at someone, dont they?
And who better than a government sanctioned target?
No seasons either. We are available to insult 24/7/365.
What is the only difference between (us) minority groups, blacks/gays/Mexican/Arabs/Jews/lepers/AIDS & HIV sufferers?
We chose. And we are damned for that choice.
If the health Nazi's have taught me anything at all, its that I should read all of their advice, then do the exact opposite.
I am a healthy 45 year old male of the human species, despite their "advice", not because of it.
So, if it is a smell, I say "Get ye hence to endless night, wussies!".
And if it is a new racism, I say "Get ye hence to endless night, bigots!"
Doctor,
I for one am following exactly what you are saying about the difference in so called classes that the anti's have placed a smoker in. Whenever the city or State is considering or pushing a smoking ban, it is because a smoker cost the district x amount of dollars in health care for their poor habit and smokers are normally from the poor section of town and are recieving welfare or some sort of financial aid. These reasons are reported in the news and network media and therefore anyone who hears/reads it will eventually believe that ONLY poor, lower class, uneduacated people are the only ones who smokes.
None of this is true and it shouldn't matter what your education level, or income level is. Smokers comes in all shapes and sizes, in all income levels and most importantly, they contribute far more than the do gooders would even consider doing. Placing anyone in a class has been going on since the beginning of time, and singling out the smoker has been around for more than 20 years. I am callous to it by now and I would love the day when I could have the chance to go one on one with any of them. I bet that a smoker has more class in their baby finger than any anti out there, and I challenge any of them to prove they are better than I am.
Smokers are defined as second class citizens and are thrown out in the street based on junk science. Not the sidewalk, but the street as they have to be 25 feet away from a building. You, good Doctor are responsible for that too. Everytime you testified at a smoking ban hearing, you were responsible for making a different "class" for a smoker. What will be next? Should the stubborn smoker who hides behind his cutains in his own living room wake up one morning to having a giant cigarette burning on his front lawn? The KKK is still alive and cross burning is still normal in the south, so why shouldn't I expect this to be happening real soon too. I would be more than pleased to hear you finally admit that you were part of the problem and that you are sorry for all you have done. Smokers are also very forgiving people too.
Dave,
This list was compiled by one of the UK motoring organisations. Smoking DOES appear on the top ten list of distractions whilst driving.
1. Passengers
2. Other road users
3. Fiddling with the radio/CD
4. Cell phones
5. Other in-car entertainment (Kids with Gameboys etc)
6. Eating
7. Fiddling with hair/applying make up. (women, obviously, and some French men)
8. Shaving (men, obviously, and some Greek women)
9. Smoking !
10. Reading signposts/SatNav/Maps
I'll see if I can find the original link.
Colin, I agree, it's the smell. And wonder of all wonders, it never was like that.
What do you suppose happend to suddenly evoke such horrified reaction to a smell?
of course, as long as the parent driving the motorcycle the child is riding on is not also smoking) Dave K
Dave you obviously don't ride a bike.
A lot of people although not a great idea do in fact take their kids on the back of the bike which on city streets is no different than riding a bicycle if you really think about it just no pedaling involved.
Smoking a cigarette while riding is not even an option, the wind blowing in your face should give you a hint, if you ever tried to take a draw off a cigarette facing into the wind you would have a hard time telling you were smoking the defused smoke has no effect. Its like trying to take a draw off a broken cigarette. Better to stop for a smoke break.
I know someone out there did some study which gives Michael an impression about ear infections being caused by ETS, however I am sure if we dug through old medical texts we would find blowing smoke into a patients ear is also the best cure to ease the pain.
Perhaps socioeconomic standing and a higher likelyhood children who can't afford the fancy electronic toys might just spend more time playing outdoors and get more ear infections as a result, may be a point not well understood in acedemia, which is not at all related to poverty, except as a significant cause of it.
In population views it gets beyond the powers of vision to actualy see those germs you are discussing.
I think you're right Dr. Siegel...it has turned into a class issue. The perception is that only the "lower class" people smoke...as a result, there is a lot of closet smoking among people who fear they will be ostracized by their peers (or even fired from a job). Also, people who give up smoking for reasons other than their own (coercion by their peers, family, etc.), seem to take up other habits to provide focus or relief from stress or anxiety. Doesn't anyone notice the increased use of anti-depressant/anxiety drugs among the "higher class" population? And, the social acceptance of these drugs?
Smoking has become a class issue because the supposed "higher class" are much more worried about appearances and image than the average working class people (and the media has characterized smokers as a lower class of people). However, these "higher class" people are turning from cigarettes to a socially acceptable habit...prozac, zanax, percoset, etc...which is worse for their health than cigarettes.
This is just my opinion, but it is based on personal observation. Dr. Siegel, if your peers convince the media to back an anti-coffee agenda, and they demonize coffee the same way they do cigarettes, you will see a lot of these supposed "higher-class" people switch to tea (or become closet coffee-drinkers). Those who don't care what others think, though, will continue to drink and enjoy their coffee.
Think about it...we've all known the risks of cigarette smoking for decades. The "higher-class" people didn't start quitting (or hiding their smoking status) until recently...when it became socially unacceptable.
Julie....'Think about it...we've all known the risks of cigarette smoking for decades. The "higher-class" people didn't start quitting (or hiding their smoking status) until recently...when it became socially unacceptable'
Doctor do you see----this has been MADE UNACCEPTABLE along with the smell.
See Doctor...it's stuff like this:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re...p-
ssp040307.php
and this study:
"Researchers studied rats that were induced with periodontal disease. One group was not exposed to cigarette smoke while the other two groups were exposed to either 30 days of smoke inhalation produced by non-light cigarettes (cigarettes containing higher tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels) or light cigarettes (cigarettes containing lower tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels). Results showed that bone loss was greater in the subjects exposed to secondhand smoke regardless of if it was smoke from light or non-light cigarettes than those who were exposed to no smoke at all."
Is this the kind of experiment where they made the rats live in smoke-filled cubicles 24/7 for 3 months? If so, I don’t think the “science” is applicable to reality.
Kevin wrote:
"I know someone out there did some study which gives Michael an impression about ear infections being caused by ETS, however I am sure if we dug through old medical texts we would find blowing smoke into a patients ear is also the best cure to ease the pain."
IIRC ear infections come from the inside. So the smoke that causes the ear infection is inhaled. It's not outside exposure that does it.
Speaking of ear infection risks, if tobacco smoke is an irritant that can shut whatever that tube is in the ear, then so can vehicular exhaust. It has to be an irritant also.
So why aren't all parents cautioned that driving their kids around amounts to child abuse (or whatever the phrase for the day is)?
This is where coincidence provides the epidemiology that proves the hypothesis.How many more ridiculous studies "proving" these facts are going to occur whilst the Pharmaceutical industries can afford to pay money to promote their agenda to a movement which laps it up,after all it promotes their agenda.Does the Pharma industry class this funding as tax deductable or long term investment?Or even worse,is this part of the MSA rip off,where smokers themselves fund farcical science which will then be used to berate them.Corruption by any other method,or involving a target of anyone but smokers, would have attracted attention a long time ago.
In response to Diane's comment, I actually AM sorry that I have been a part of a movement that has turned out to be filled with hatred, intolerance, and lack of respect (and I'm only talking about how they feel about people within the movement who dissent; we haven't gotten to how they feel about smokers yet 
).
I am sorry that the movement has gone off the deep end and is not only going way too far in its agenda but that it is using unethical tactics to promote its agenda.
However, I can't take responsibility for the actions of others, other than to note that I do feel it is my responsibility to speak out against the actions of groups within the movement to which I belong. To a large extent, that is really the reason behind this blog. It was (and remains) somewhat an act of conscience. There's only so long I could or can wake up every day and see these unethical and irresponsible actions being taken and NOT speak out against it.
I understand that people might argue that it was my fault for not waking up and realizing what was going on much earlier. However, you need to remember two things. First, there is a fair amount of brainwashing that goes on in the movement. So it is not as easy as one might think to see the truth. Second, things got a lot worse after the tobacco companies abdicated their role as watchdog of the anti-smoking movement.
Remind me, if I forget, to write some posts about the type of brainwashing that goes on in the movement. I'm quite serious. It can be very difficult to see clearly from within the movement. Almost like being enshrouded in a cloud of smoke, so to speak.
The brainwashing aspect would be one of the most important posts you could provide Dr Siegel.It would allow an understanding as to why the science that disagrees with the agenda can be so easily disregarded and hidden away in order to perpetuate the myths that are needed in order to control the media and public.
I would like to pose a question to you Dr Siegel regarding your method of response which seems at odds with your new appreciation as to how much hatred and bitterness is being touted by these antis.On the few occasions that Bill agrees with your view,you seem to fall all over him with the buddybuddy approach,however his bitter resentment of you when you respond with an adversarial viewpoint is pretty appalling.I simply cannot reconcile your comments knowing the frequency of abuse he meters out to you.
Whilst you remain in a penitent mood Dr Siegel,can i again ask you why you were happy to link to Cathy Bell's website,when i and numerous other individuals had already commented on how extreme and vindictive her site was towards an individual who opposed her views ? I appreciate you may not wish to become embroiled in an arguement concerning censorship,but have you personally looked at the site and accepted its content ?
Mike wrote:
"I just don't see the same kind of coercive appraoch with any other health behavior."
Those who refuse to open their eyes don't see anything.
I suggest that Mike talk to or read about what has occurred to folks who have been arrested for driving with a .09 blood alcohol level, driving with an open can of beer, driving while naked, driving while smoking a joint, or driving with a small child that isn't secured in child restraint seat.
Mike's simplistic and biased comparison of A and B failed to take into account the folks who drive while holding a cigarette in one hand, holding a cell phone in the other hand, keeping the windows shut as to not let in any hot air (in the summer) or cold air (in the winter), and using their knees to control the steering wheel.
Mike is greatly exaggerating in an attempt to try creating a new class of purported victims, while smokefree advocates are simply trying to reduce the levels of tobacco smoke pollution that innocent bystanders are unfairly forced to breathe.
"driving while naked" Great, let's regulate that: no Second Hand Nakedness, that's a real health hazard.
"keeping the windows shut" Great, let's legislate against shut windows, by indicating the temperature range within which the windows may remain shut?
i like the term "innocent" bystanders. If we follow Bill's zeal for legislation and regulation, nobody will ever be innocent anymore.
if bill truly believes he is an 'innocent' bystander may i suggest he stand by somebody else.
Dr. Siegel, Do you think the brainwashing you experienced could have led to your refusal to cooperate with the smoking community in working together with them to come up with solutions such as ventilation? Or separate all-smoking bars? Why is it that the effects of every other chemical can be minimized by ventilation except second hand smoke? Why didn't your group work with smokers and people like Marcus to come up with a solution that would accomodate everyone instead of forcibly imposing total bans? It seems to me that if OSHA believes there can be a safe level, it's something worth lookng at. Can you see through your cloudy brainwashing residue to explore and honestly evaluate the ventilation alternative?
And Bill, you are (as always) missing the point. The college ban and the car ban are at the very least paternalistic...at worst, they are fascist. You don't like smokers, you don't like the smell, you want a smokeless community...we GOT it...you are an elitist who wants a society of diverse people to revolve around you.
Nowe lets see this in it's proper perspective;
The population risk of Cancer alone is 25%.
The elevated risk of the most extreme exposures of a bartender in a bar over 45 years elevates the risk of all diseases by .3 over the risk of Cancer: 25 to 25.3%
Now lets look at the kids he is so concerned about, and try to immagine such an infatisably small risk increase first being considered at all, let alone as it is being described as an extreme health risk in the child getting an ear infection or depending on the source either an upper or lower respratory infection. The increased risk of that even hapening above the risks in nowmal life are equally remote.
Give yourself a shake Bill what you are trying to sell here is exagerations so extreme as to challenge the most extremist imagination, and that does not sell among adults who can see past the sales pitch. Why not join the discussion for real, instead of continuing the normal instigator role.
It really is getting old.
So Bill, you have no response to the Doctor admitting the brainwashing that occurs in your social movemennt?(Michael Siegel | Homepage | 04.10.07 - 5:42 pm )
Or did you not 'see'that post?
"(Those who refuse to open their eyes don't see anything." Bill Godshall | Homepage | 04.10.07 - 8:32 pm)"
Perhaps Doctor in your reflecting on the brainwashing aspect, that will help you to see how the media Big Pharm and the antis have brainwashed perfectly (formerly resonable) people into suddenly being horrified by somke and smokers. Then you could share that with us.
Bill writes...'while smokefree advocates are simply trying to reduce the levels of tobacco smoke pollution that innocent bystanders are unfairly forced to breathe.'
Could it be Bill that you are "Almost like being enshrouded in a cloud of smoke, so to speak." as the Doctor wrote, of the anti-brainwashing you helped create?
Do tell.
Bill, Bill, Bill
"Mike's simplistic and biased comparison of A and B failed to take into account the folks who drive while holding a cigarette in one hand, holding a cell phone in the other hand, keeping the windows shut as to not let in any hot air (in the summer) or cold air (in the winter), and using their knees to control the steering wheel."
LOL, only in Bill's mind. Most people have a little lever on the climate control that circulates outside air which passes the air through the heating or cooling coils, and can produce between 10 and 20 exchanges per hour, without having to open a window, nor subjecting the inhabitants to extreme temperature. To bad he's never discovered this little gizmo.
BTW Bill, a math question for you. After 20 exchanges, what is fractional proportion of particulate matter.. Is it?
A) 1/10
B) 1/1000
C) 1/1000000
"Mike is greatly exaggerating in an attempt to try creating a new class of purported victims, while smokefree advocates are simply trying to reduce the levels of tobacco smoke pollution that innocent bystanders are unfairly forced to breathe." -- Bill Godshall
Mike hasn't created anything Bill, It's people like you that have created this class of people to which you are trying to convience society to look down upon. It was never good enough just to push smokers outside, now you want that smoke free also, and hence your smoke free campus. Some even batting the mantra of to protect innocent bystanders from whisps of smoke in the great out of doors as a significant health risk. It seems your innocent bystanders are drawn to a smoker like moths to a candle, to which I hardly call innocent.
The correct answer is "C". With each air exchange, the level of particulate matter is reduced by 1/2, and 1/2 repeated 20 times is something like 1/1000000.
BTW, most studies on window position in cars note a significant correlation between the window open, and someone smoking in the car.
So tell me Bill, is the whole idea of a smoke free campus to punish those that smoke in order to coerce them to quit, or do you honestly feel there is a significant health hazard from someone smoking on the street? And do tell how a smokeless tobacco represents a more significant threat to these innocent bystanders?
I won't bother waiting on an answer from Bill, as he'll obviously miss the point.
But the point is this, We have groups like ASH which is trying to convience the public that outside smoking represents a significant health risk to non-smokers. Just as the Nazi's convienced their population that the Jewish were a significant threat to the fatherland. They fed on the frustrations of an economically bankrupt country. It wasn't the people that took notice of this happening that "created" a class, it was the people spreading the propaganda, just as groups like ASH has done in an attempt to sway public sentiment against those that use tobacco by making them feel endangered.
Bill's afraid of making smokers a protected class, but it's his own actions, and those like him which creates the need for such.
Now tell me that this is a reasonable reaction to a single herbal cigarette? Then tell me that smokers are the only person being harmed by "no safe levels" message.
Makes you wonder how a educated person could actually worry about "the effect it has on my lungs" so strong that it ruined the night, forced them to be upset for 10 minutes, and forced them to cry; become ill!
Yet some are thinking that there is no brainwashing in the public, and suffer one cigarette in a theatre.
Persephone decision to use lighted cigarette intolerable
The StarPhoenix
Published: Monday, April 09, 2007
A recent Persephone Theater production had an actor smoking a herbal cigarette on stage, in an enclosed environment with no air circulation.
I tried breathing through my sweater. During the performance, I asked a woman at the snack counter if she would open the theater doors because the smoke was too strong for me. She smiled and said that would affect the violin. I went outside for 10 minutes for fresh air. I was so upset, I cried.
What about the effect it has on my lungs and the ability to enjoy the show, I wondered.
Throughout the remainder of the show, I heard continual coughing.
I love live drama and attend plays for escape and enjoyment. I am dealing with fi bromyalgia and I am hypersensitive to smoke. This is not a trivial matter for me.
Why should I suffer and endure second-hand smoke at a show that I've paid to attend? Why not have the actor use a fake cigarette to get the point across. This was a totally unnecessary stress to put me through and unfair treatment of a captive audience.
There is a bylaw to protect me. Why does Persephone feel compelled to break it? Had its brochure cautioned that a herbal cigarette was involved, I would have given away our tickets or not bought them in the first place.
I shouldn't have to tolerate this. I left the theater disappointed, disturbed and ill.
I think the director made a very poor decision forcing the audience to breathe polluted air. The Persephone owes me a huge apology.
W. R. Janzen Saskatoon
"Brainwashing" is defined as instilling beliefs that are against a persons existing beliefs against a persons will. Some have speculated that certain vulnerable populations such as POWs, victims of abuse or those with psychological conditions are vulernable to "brainwashing." However, the American Psychological Association initally states that, "On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and concluded Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."
Needless to say I am looking forward to your post on "brainwashing." In particular I hope you'll tell us what your beliefs were prior to being brainwashed and how the brain washing process changed your beliefs. How were you indoctrinated against your will? I also hope you'll outline whether you feel you were a member of an identified vulernarable population.
Essentially brainwashing excuses oneself from responsibility of their thoughts and actions because according to the theory at least, brainwashing indoctrinates a person against their will. If that is the case, is it fair to hold members of TC responsible for their actions if in fact many within the community really don't believe in the movement but have been brainwashed into hate crimes against smokers? By the way, how do you think that would hold up in a court of law?
Funny how when you put brainwashing and smoking in google you get:
407,000 for Brainwashing smoking. (0.05 seconds)
Is that just smokers talking about extremists? Why of course not, its quit smoking counsellors saying that tobacco companies have been doing that to Billions of smokers every year! Wonder how they done that against millions of educated people in the last centuries. Let me get this right, Allen Carr is wrong when he said that the cigarette companies "brainwashed" smokers in the book "one way to stop smoking permanently".
Are you calling Allen Carr (the top selling book) wrong too??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Carr
brainwashing
1. a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2. persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship
-– Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary
Get a life, Carl.
.
Dave K, Colin--
Loads of studies on how smokers who've just smoked have much faster reaction time, including hand-eye coordination than do nonsmokers. Loads of studies on how smoking speeds up information processing, increases alertness and sharpens mental focus (especially, tho not exclusively, at boring tasks-- like, for instance, driving on a highway.)
There was a particular study that showed a smoker-who's-just-smoked could stop a car 1 1/2 car lengths faster than a nonsmoker could.
Not sure of its provenance but it was definitely in England. (not to say that there wasn't another one in Denmark.) As for Brit study, my guess is it was done by Ian Hindmarch or D.M. Warburton or (someoneorother) O'Connor.
Interesting, tho, to consider the alternative.
What about a tired smoker who needs the lift of a cigarette while driving, or a tense one who needs its calming effect, or a hungry one who needs it to stave off the pangs, or a smoker who just wants one for a none-of-your-business reason and who's distracted by not being able to have one?
In those situations, with the kiddie-poos in the car, which scenario would be "safer"? Letting the driver smoke (and drive more safely) or forbidding him to smoke and pleasing the health police?
:
In jumps Bill,damage limitation a foremost in his mind,to endeavour to dissuade people that Dr Siegel is raising valid and legitimate concerns and is instead grossly exaggerating the situation.Of course he avoids those concerns in the knowledge that they are of course irrelevant TO HIM,and his smoke(r) hating agenda.The realistic scenario provided by Dr Siegel,according to Bill,fails to take into account that smokers don't use their hands to steer their vehicles whilst they smoke and talk on their cell phones.I'm surprised that Bill hasn't suggested that smokers have three arms and use their third to drink their coffee.I'm amazed that Bill hasn't accused smokers OF CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and calling for their extermination,perhaps that will be his announcement for next week.
The passion of a born again smoker is reflective of the hatred he has for himself. A refusal to come to terms with an insatiable craving which he resists in fear of taunts in hypocrisy, which he could not bear, balanced against an internal struggle to give in to the cravings.
When maturity arrives he will understand smokers are not his enemy it is his own inner conflict, which fires the rage.
The cravings will stop when he either gives in to them or reflects inward and develops an inner peace by targeting the rage, which maintains the constant balance. In short; he has developed a rut, he has made little effort to climb out of because it affords comfort and stability. TC in its current form protects him from the ridicule he richly deserves.
Many others like him seek to be protected as well. If they decide banging tambourines is an effective effort, Bill will protect that ideal and likely seek out sources assisting others as to where to buy them. The movement is his passion and through it his protection. Without it he would be judged for the hatred he projects on the innocents around him, regardless of harm he would inflict on others. Low self-esteem will moralize anything, which avoids a long look in the mirror.
Bill is a product of his own inability to look within himself for answers, compensating for his inner conflict by blaming the world.
A textbook born again preacher personality type.
Walt,
What you say is true. You also highlight TC's single biggest mistake: consistently failing to think things through.
I laugh when I see newspaper reports here in Scotland, and just lately from Wales too (their ban kicked in on April 2nd), about those "unintended consequences".
They always come as a surprise to the control freaks. This despite the fact that they were told about these outcomes by people like us. We (Freedom to Choose) wrote to all and sundry and said that if you ban smoking in pubs, clubs and bingo halls, the following will happen.....and we went on to list the negative effects of smoker bans.
Lo and behold, within days of a ban enactment, our predictions come true.
Then the inevitable stories appear with the health Nazi's expressing "surprise", "dismay", "shock", and my personal favourite from Luke Clancy of ASH Ireland (when smoking prevalence increased) "I am mystified".
Bloody mystified!
We werent. We told him it would happen. We told them the same thing in Scotland. Again, they didnt listen, and here we are, one year on, with more smokers than we started with!
You couldnt make it up, could you?
There is a very good article here which explains why the perceptions within TC are flawed and the process is not only doomed to failure, it will leave significant damage in its wake.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/ful...ud%2c%
20Sigmund
As these realities come to surface the industrial moralists and their lackeys all basking in self worth, will be revealed as the true threat, well above physical self abuse as the true number one cause of premature mortality, crime and brutality.
Identified as a self-servicing pandemic currently percolating away within society. We used to call them bourgeois aristocrats now we call them Public Health authorities.
Hatred empowering hatred, to produce more unearned profits.
Colin, I am sure when Orwell wrote his book 1984. People thought it was a nice book of fiction. It turns out he was a able to predict the future. Now lets get back to the basics. Lets stop talking as if ETS is a real risk. Infering that a possiblity of a realtive risk of 2-3 ten thousands of 1% of chronic exposure does not prove anything. Especially when comparing it to short term exposure in an automobile. The real disease here is ANTIHYPOCHONDRIAJUNKSCIENTIFICA (AHJS)and it has spread to true epidemic proportions.
Carl,
Brainwashing can be accomplished in many ways, but the most popular is by telling a lie often enough and it eventually becomes the truth. You have heard that one before, haven't you? It was repeated many times by the Nazi's.
I'm with you Nemo.
Hypochondriacs make me sick.
I am sure you have visited CarolAnn's website (http://www.smokershistory.com/) but I wonder how many others here have?
She says that infection is the worlds number one killer, not tobacco.
I confess that I have no medical training, but a lot of what she says makes a lot of sense. (The way she says it might inflame some, but you should try to look beyond that, and look at her evidence instead).
It would certainly explain the diseases that non smokers contract that are all too easy to pin on tobacco smoke.
For the record, I stopped believing that SHS/ETS was harmful over a year ago.
There simply is no compelling evidence.
And the good doctor here consistenly fails to provide any, despite repeated calls for such.
The resident anti smoking double act, Bill and Carl, fail miserably as well.
A nice link to brainwashing. It may not be what Carl (or any of us) was looking for, but here's one:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/
...ainwashing1.htm
Actually, according to the listed techniques, it appears we are the targets, not Dr. Siegel. Unlike Bill--who appears to agree with a number of the techniques--Doc has a problem with "treating" people this way.
If they dont like your link WLC, they can use mine:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/cult3.htm
I think that this suits them better. Not that they will be happy to hear it, of course, but, the truth hurts.
Live with it.
Bill, when you stop polluting this innocent bystander with your car, eliminate all forms of smoke, you are more than welcome to come after mine, with or without proof. That means NO burning,no trash burning, no barbecuing, no campfires, no industrial plants,no cars. It's hypocritical to denounce my form of smoke while you merrily waft your own around.
Colin,
I am wondering if the brainwashing that has occured is a combo of your link and either one of these (when you consider the antis emphasis on 'consensus').
Here:
http://www.learn-usa.com/transfo...cess/
acf001.htm
or:
http://www.eagleforum.org/educat...ov98/
focus.html
Love to hear your thoughts on this
Colin,
Great link! Now that, I would suggest, is what TC does to "the children" and anyone in the field who doesn't believe in their gospel.
Walt, i've noticed that on a long car trip, a cig does wake me up, so to speak, so thanks... it probably was the england study you spoke of,
Suppose coffee did become politically incorrect among the elete ?
Soon the elete who did give up coffee would envy those who did not because even though they gave up coffee, they would hate to see those who did not enjoy coffee in public which is something which they have denied to themselves.
Envy can easily evolve jealosy which evolves into hate.
I think Bill, for example remembers deep down inside just how much he enjoyed smoking in the past when he was a smoker. And boy, I can almost imagine how much envy he must have against those who, unlike him have elected to continue to indulge in the habit. Dang it Bill,,,, if you gotta suffer the pangs of hunger for a cigarette which you probably still feel, then ya gotta force the rest of us to share those pangs with you...RIGHT????
and what better way to accomplish that than to promote smoking bans????
Of course, it's not just enough to promote indoor smoking bans, because smokers can just step outdoors and still indulge in something you have given up, and are jealous of those who have not, so I can see why you fight for outdoor smoking bans too.
MISERY LOVES COMPANY!!!!
So, Bill, I believe your driving motivation is really to make all of us suffer as much as you do. and if someone claims purtported shs harm exists, then what better way to make us share in your misery?
I remember reading somewhere Galntz is an ex smoker too. he said something like if Stanford had'nt banned outdoor smokig, that he would probably still be a smoker too.
and noone says it better than my wife. she say the exsmokers are the worst antismoking activists. and she's right.
Dave K
Dave,
Not to mention the piles of dead bodies from his (Bill's) own SHS!!! Si, I believe is still waiting for the actual count on that.
Too true Sunz,UNLESS THERE AREN'T ANY AND HOW WOULD BILL EXPLAIN THAT ? Could it possibly be SHS POSES NO RISK AT ALL.
Could it be that the western nations really don't threaten the molsem nations either?
Yet, many of them hate us because we have something they don't have.. first they envy us, then over time they become jealous of us, and now they hate us. namely because we have a higher standard of living.
So the moslem extremists make up claims about how we are responsible for their misery. Then they attack us, even risking and sacrificing their own lives. Hate is such a destructive emotion. and the real victims are the haters. Yes, we lost 3000 americans on 9-11, but every day those who hate us are dying, and leaving their familys and children to try to make us share in their misery. and they have lost much more than we have in their unjustified struggle.
In the end, if the moslem extremists spent as much time and energy building their own society, as they spend trying to tear ours down, they would in fact, have a standard of living like ours, and in those moslem nations which have not self destructed due to hatred of us, this has mostly already occurred.
Dr. Siegel says he has become a victim of the war on tobacco, smokers ahve to some extent too. Owners of bars and restaurnats ahve been caught in the cross-fire. But the real victims are people who have learned to hate smokers. dave K
Did Bill ever say that the day he quit smoking his kids stopped having ear infections, asthma, etc?
Sunz,
Thanks. I am a wiser man for reading those links.
The Delphi Technique terrifies me. And it wouldnt surprise me in the least to learn that the anti's use it. It fits right in with their mindset. Poor Bill. Poor Carl. They are mere puppets, but the tragedy is that they have no idea.
I'll see if I can pick up some tips on the "disruption" process and get to work on them straightaway.
They are human beings, after all, and we should try to help our brethren and sistren wherever we can.
They will thank me in the end. You'll see.
Thanks Colin,
re: second link last paragraph, ever notice the recesses that are taken here when things are not in their control? He he he
BTW Colin, I am reading the link http://www.smokershistory.com/ from your earlier posting.
Diplomacy not being one of my strong point, I can easily see through the shrillness. It is well worth the time.
Bill, Ding Dong, (K)Carl....do you have travel plans to China:
http://english.people.com.cn/
200...407_364573.html
Your Comrad BloomingIdiot needs you.
Shows Bloombergs priorities, 10,000s of thousands of kids in NYCs schools sharing books or going without and he sends $125 million to China. Nazis making a deal with a communist. When do they sign a non agression treaty?
Colin writes: ''The Delphi Technique terrifies me. And it wouldnt surprise me in the least to learn that the anti's use it.''
Health Canada sure seems to be using it:
The Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision Making
Level 4 Technique:
Delphi Process
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/p...h-
delphi_e.html
China comments posted,
I hope no one gets hanged LOL
http://english.people.com.cn/
oth...407_364573.html
Delphi Technique implémentations
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tob...es/
index_e.html
And
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pub...ca/
index_e.html
Iro,
I had always wondered why anti smokers didnt "need" the science. You have provided the answer. The have consensus instead. Can someone explain to me how consensus = science?
Without diving into my history books I seem to remember that consensus is not always our friend. Wasnt "consensus" in some way responsible for:
Slavery
Homophobia
The Holocaust
Gulf War I
Gulf War II
Hiroshima
Nagasaki
Apartheid
The SARS "epidemic"
And, more recently, the HRT scare. Five years ago, "consensus" said that HRT is bad, bad, bad, and hundreds of thousands of women were taken off HRT and just last week, "consensus" changed its mind and said that HRT is good, good, good. They needlessly put all those poor women through heartache, and put them in harms way until they finally made up their minds that HRT was safe.
I look forward to Dr Mike's brainwashing article, and I will be actively hunting for the Delphi Technique.
It seems to be accepted as standard practise.
Quick question for Unkie Bill: how do you feel today, knowing that you have been manipulated since you joined the goon squad? How autonomous do you feel right now?
The same question to Dr S. Do you think you were manipulated like a puppet all these years? Do you think your conditioning affected the outcome of your studies? Do you think it coloured your court testimony? Do you think your conditioning forces you to make statements like "significant health hazard" without requiring evidence?
Dr. Siegel, this is all very fascinating to watch when you think about.
Liberals are supposed to be for the poor, the disenfranchised, the helpless and the minorities. It's their solemn purpose to protect them from discrimation.
But what happens when it is the anti tobacco Progressive Liberals themselves doing the discriminating against the poor (for their own good of course)? Who stands up for the poor Welfare mother's right to smoke a pack of Kools in her rent controlled public housing unit?
Answer: Nobody. It's a double edged sword. If the poor want to be a "ward of the state" and have Big Gubmint provide them with free Health Care and cheap housing, and so they vote for Liberals, they can't then turn around and cry when the Leviathan State dictates what they can and can't do.
After all, if it's the Gubmint's money paying for their health care and housing...Their money, their house, their rules.
I respect Dr. Seigel for his ability to admit where and when he went wrong and for apologizing to all of us smokers the best way he knows how via this blog.
Most people have extreme difficulty even admitting when they're wrong. Dr. Seigel, you deserve credit where credit is due there. But there is more you can and should be doing, namely NOT coddling or supporting rabid antis on any level by cozying up to them (like w/ Bill Godshall)the moment they attack you.
Now, since someone mentioned the stress foisted upon smokers as we are relegated to second class citizenship more and more each day by virulent anti-smoker policies by ordinance, law and employer policies & hiring/firing practices, think about this for a moment.
Recently, there has been much ado over the office shooting in Michigan where a fired employee "went postal", killing three people, two of whom were management level people in on his firing and a third who was a returning employee.
Due to the increasing trend of social Darwinism in our "Serengeti" economy and workplace environment, stressed out insecure people have increasingly resorted to extreme back-biting to elinate coworkers, ie eliminating potential competitors for job security and/ or promotions.
How many of these insecure neurotics who particpated in the malicious ruining of another's career, economic security, family solvency, etc are stressed out ex-smokers with no release for their misplaced angst?
Could they be channeling their unhappiness into promoting smoking bans and making smokers' lives miserable with the criminalizing of drivers who smoke, eviction of tenants in rent-controlled housing who smoke and the constructive discharge of coworkers who smoke?
The smoker-haters are, by and large, a miserable uptight, socially maladjusted lot. And misery loves company. WHat better way to achieve that than make others suffer?
As far as Dr. Seigel's premise about classism, he is actually right on the money:
The poor single mother or poor disabled elderly living in public housing might have precious little else to enjoy in their lives or calm their nerves and get through each day other than their coffee and cigarettes, yet these sanctimonious health Nazis want to take that away from them.
These same tobacco fascists want to eliminate competition for jobs in their own workplace by making it so that smokers get unjustly fired from their jobs or denied jobs at all to begin with.
Middle class people are struggling to barely hold onto what they worked so hard for (i.e., their homes, new cars, kids' college funds, inadequate retirement nest eggs, etc)so they are coerced into quitting smoking which, in turn, makes them miserable and angry ex-smokers.
They become resentful ex-smokers who resent their tax dollars supporting those able to stay home and enjoy a cigarette because they don't have jobs to be fired from for being smokers. Those smokers among the affluent, the upper-middle class such as two acquaintances of mine: One who is a DA, and the other who is a fellow property & casualty insurance agent - both became closet smokers, for fear of some potential backlash for failing to "conform" to the new societal norms.
This is all despite the fact that the tobacco taxes paid by smokers disproportionally fund programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, anti-smoking propaganda from pharmaceutical companies, and the list goes on.
Smokers also are surcharged 300% more on their health insurance premiums than non-smokers. So who is really subsidizing health care for whom?
Just like Jews were forced under Nazi rule to build the death camps which eventually destroyed and consumed 6 million of us, smokers today are being forced to subsidize our own persecution, discrimination and denial of civil rights. Think about it.
Eric - "After all, if it's the Gubmint's money paying for their health care and housing...Their money, their house, their rules.".
I have at least ONE major problem with that line, and thats the fact that it never was the "gubmint's" money, it is money collected by the government, of the people, for the people, and by the people, at least, that was the way it WAS supposed to work.
Thank you Jerry, I give you credit. There was only one glaring error in what I said and you nailed it.
You win a Cigar!
My faith in my fellow man has just been confirmed because you are the second person who has pointed that out. (we're 2/2, batting 1,000)
There is no such thing as Gubmint money. It's our money. We earned it. The social engineers than co-opt it through Gubmint research grant money and Tobacco excise and state sales taxes to use for an egalitarian TC experiment designed to coerce smokers to quit.
The founding fathers are probably turning over in their grave wondering how the Republic they founded, in which Gov't was designed to be our servants and not our masters, devolved into this nanny state nonsense.
I think Eric was being sarcastic. Or hope so.
:
No Walt, sadly I wasn't.
What would make you think that. I'd love to hear it.
At risk of being called a conspiracy nut one more time. HIA health interventions at the WHO and Health reforms being built without opposition internationally are described entirely in Delphi strategies.
The consensus building to raise political science above the credibility of real applied science has been evolving for a long time. Read the lengthy descriptions of Delphi hundreds of articles are found with a goggle search. Delphi needs a dragon and a protected group. It can be an application of protecting the poor, Children or racial minorities against primarily the painted as shameful middle class.
Think back over the past 2 decades and identify what demographic politicians of all stripes find as a favorite target. The poor are advocated for and rarely helped, the children or minority groups? Used as well. Create pressure to change by pitting groups against each other and taking the side of the oppressed. You paint a picture as a triumphant warrior. Whatever sounds empathetic in a sound bite will find support in community and through that power bases are formed.
The loving Liberal bleeding hearts capture the proxy of those who cannot argue against protection policies. The Conservative voice is forced to the center preaching Liberal policies in an attempt to compete for the political center and in compliance with the daily polls. The white middle class can always be relied on to feel guilty on a number of fronts; political correctness creates that shame on a regular basis. This allows an ability to turn traditional culture on its head and find support for policies, which would have them, hanged not that long ago. Persistence will always find opportunities for those instigated conflicts Social marketing grows compliance a campaign at a time, working always as a gentle mother or Nanny if you will, who can fix anything with determined compassion.
In Canada the legacy of Pierre Trudeau leaves him laughing in his grave. In the States we could look back to the Clinton era, which in one of the articles I read recently named Hilary Clinton as a former student of the now deceased Alinsky himself.
Alinsky was responsible for sweeping changes in the education system by partnering with community stakeholders they took over school funding, finding success in identifying leaders within local groups who rally others to do the real work, the energetic lobbyists driven by personal agendas.
The agendas could include in an anti smokier campaign the death of a loved one or simply a motivation in greed.
Here is a link to what is thought to be the most effective way to battle Delphi if you identify an initiative in progress you would like to diffuse
http://
www.propertyrightsresearc...alinsky_met.htm
As I have pointed out a number of times in the past more people need to familiarize themselves with HIA health interventions, which set the procedural rules which make Delphi most effective. It is not called by name however if you read through the training materials there is little doubt what is being created.
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
I Spoke too soon;
http://www.who.int/
patientsafety...up_report06.pdf
http://search.who.int/search?
q=S...ystylesheet=WHO
Proceedings
The Conceptual Framework Working Group presented the conceptual framework and formally proposed this be included in the Delphi consultation process. The Drafting Group evaluated the proposed conceptual framework and determined the conceptual framework is able to organize high level classes (groupings of like objects) and underlying concepts (units of knowledge made explicit with concrete, discrete definitions) into a transparent, theoretical and logical architecture which allows for the translation of information about patient safety events and/or near misses into a common language which can be aggregated, compared and analyzed for purposes of learning.
The Concept Identification Working Group provided an overview of the concepts and associated terms and definitions for both the high level classes and concepts underlying the high level classes. The Drafting Group thought it was essential that the term and definition for each concept be generic, neutral and “fit for purpose”. Once approved, these concepts will be included as part of the Delphi consultation process.
The Delphi Planning Working Group summarized the proposed methodology for a modified Delphi approach to gain consensus on, and acceptance of, the International Patient Safety Event Classification’s conceptual framework and the critical concepts to be contained therein. The methodology is an iterative process of collecting independent expert opinions on the extent to which the scope and focus of the International Patient Safety Event Classification can capture the reality of patient safety events and near misses in relevant environments and cultures in both developing and developed countries. Constituents participating in the Delphi process will represent a wide range of national and international health care, patient safety, legislative, regulatory and system development perspectives.
Eric....'The founding fathers are probably turning over in their grave wondering how the Republic they founded, in which Gov't was designed to be our servants and not our masters, devolved into this nanny state nonsense'
You are sooooo right. I just cannot pinpoint when our elected official stopped fearing us; we now are living in fear of them.
Eric--
Okay, ironic? In that I didn't think you were actually endorsing the "right" of gov't to control individual behavior-- even on a quid pro quo basis. Figuring you to be against Big G. Or were you actually saying that that was a reasonable proposition: that if people are in any way dependent on government, it's quite right that government (in loco parentis) should be able to control them in any way It likes?
I would agree that the gov't has no money, that in fact the government itself is a Welfare Queen, living off the citizens (tho acting like a monarch.) But I don't get your angle. Are you categorically against all subsidized housing? Do you seriously believe that anyone who has to rely on it is fair game?
There are a lot of people on this site willing to stand up and defend the "right" of a parent to smoke in the car with the windows rolled up.
Here's just one example of why I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a parent's "right" to smoke is something to be defended when the health of their kids is on the line.
http://randomreality.blogware.co...31/
1555309.html
Carl,
Could you please provide the quote where anyone, on this site proposed " the "right" of a parent to smoke in the car with the windows rolled up."
Perhaps you are experiencing a 'random reality' all your own, but I don't recall anyone here saying that is a good idea. But I could be wrong
BTW your link states:
ERROR
We're sorry but the requested URL: URL: http://randomreality.blogware.co...31/
1555309.html could not be retrieved at this time.
We're currently working to resolve this problem ASAP.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Generated Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:18:44 GMT by bw-sq2.blogware.com (squid/2.5.STABLE13)
Can you provide another link? After several time, I gave up.
So to recap, I'm waiting for:
1. the quote (requested above)
2. working link so I can see what you are alluding to.
Thanks so very much.
Carl wrote:
"Here's just one example of why I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a parent's "right" to smoke is something to be defended when the health of their kids is on the line."
Key words: "when the health of their kids is on the line"
The only "On the line" I can think of would be a SHS induced severe asthma attack.
I don't think anyone has shown kids having heart attacks......yet. LOL
Carl,
Believe it or not, smokers are not any less considerate than most people. I personally do not know of any smoker who does not crack the window when smoking with their child in the car (or any adult, for that matter). In fact, most smokers crack the window even when ALONE in the car. A ban based on the reasoning that smokers smoke with windows rolled up is based on exagerration and propaganda. This is the type of propaganda demagogues use when making their case to largely ignorant masses.
As with Sunz, I've never read anyone's comments on this blog about condoning smoking in a car, with a child, with the windows rolled up.
Carl,
Very touching link but what does this have to do with parental smoking in a car?
1) There was no mention that this fatal asthma attack occured in an automobile.
2) While the author has an extreme bias towards smokers, the assumption was made that cigarette smoke triggered the fatal attack. Perhaps it was the family pet? Are we now suppose to criminalize pet ownership by all parents? But rather, since the parents smoked, then it is presumed this is what triggered the fatal episode.
What if the parents were driving in the car with their asthmatic child with the windows up and they had their family pet with them? Gasp, we need make a law!
3) Nobody here is defending the "right" of a parent with a chronically ill child to smoke around them.
4) Asthma kills maybe 4,000 patients each year, children AND adults. Maybe, just maybe some of these may have been triggered by an exposure to SHS of which a few of these might have been exposed in an automobile, it would be quite rare.
However, over 10 times that many people die each year because of motor vehicles, with a large percentage being children (42,815 total fatalities in 2002). Clearly children are at far more risk from being exposed to automobiles, then they are from SHS exposure (in and out of a car).
Furthermore, there isn't any evidence that the parents "smoked" around the child, yet people are willing to condemn the parents and as one blogger suggested the EMT should have told the parents "They killed their child". Clearly this boarders on pure outright hatred and bigotry.
Your argument is based not on logic, but rather a plea to emotion, and you are in search of a reason to punish smokers.
I've seen a lot of people roll the window down a little bit in the car, but I've also seen them keep them up, especially in the summer when the AC is on.
It is perfectly legal for parents with asthmatic children to smoke around their kids and in the car with the windows rolled up.
It is illegal to drive down the road at 75 miles and hour with the cell phone on. That's speeding and "failure to pay full time and attention." Both dangerous and both illegal.
If someone doesn't put their child in a car seat and then has a fatal accident is it "outright hatred and bigotry" to inform them of that fact? Or are you for sugar coating it?
Anonymous,
1) You do not know if the A/C was on or not. But most likely it was. The next question is, was it set to recirculate of outside vent? If set to outside vent, the number of air exchanges per hour runs somewhere between 10 and 20 exchanges per hour. At this rate, after one hour, the volume of particulate will be halved 10 to 20 times, placing it at about 1/1000 - 1/1,000,000 of a sealed environment. Get out your calculator and multiply 1/2 by itself 10 and 20 times, as with each air exchange, the smoke content will be dilluted by 1/2.
Maybe driving 75 is illegal in your state, but in mine it is perfectly legal where posted. However, in our beltway the posted limit is 55. If you drive 55, you will be run over by the truckers, and other commuters. The law enforcement doesn't even attempt to stop anyone under driving under 65.
In a recent poll nearly 1/3 of all parents talk on their cell phones while dropping their kids off at school.
You asked, if someone doesn't put their child in a car seat and then has a fatal accident is it "outright hatred and bigotry" to inform them of that fact?
Why do you feel you must pass judgement on the grieving parents?
You do not know if the car seat failed, became unbuckled, another child undid the latch. Would the child have survived even if it was in the car seat? You are jumping to conclusions before you have all the facts and passing judgement. Do you want your neigbors deciding how you should raise your kids? Do they feed them, and house them? Provide their nuturing, and love? Why the hell do you think it's any of your business in the first place?
As in the case of the EMT. The EMT stated unequivocably Hated smoking parents. This was part of the title. Because of this hatred, without all the facts, the author asserts the asthma attack was triggered by cigarette smoke with no further supporting information. The author presented no testimony that the parents actually smoked in front of their child, nor produced any testimony that the childs asthma is exaserbated by tobacco smoke. For all we know, the little girl may have suffered from a nightmare, and this triggered her asthma attack. It is impossible to know without further information. Furthermore, the EMT said the parents went "outside" to smoke a cigarette, while in a smoke filled waiting room. Yet the jurist of smoker haters, wanted the EMT to tell the parents THEY killed their child.
strap on dildo
We are discussing strapping children in car seats and then smoking in the car, I think you landed in the wrong site.
Now move along.
Walt,
I simply do not understand why anyone would have such an over-ridding need to pass judgement when a child is dead. Those parents will never get over 'what did I do' including down to the time they left the house that day. All of the 'if only's'
Now we are seeing the 'need' to save every living being on earth the grief they may suffer. All so the 'do gooders' in life suffer no second-hand stress!!! For pity sakes, what a world we are quickly dissolving into.
Walt and Carl:
Walt asks a good question that deserves an intelligent response. Carl makes a stupid statement that deserves a profane response.
Karl Marx writes:
"There are a lot of people on this site willing to stand up and defend the "right" of a parent to smoke in the car with the windows rolled up."
I don't smoke in the car or in my house around my children Carl. Ask me why. Please. Ok, you are too afraid to ask me and engage in an intelligent debate so I'll help you out and pretend you were capable of a debate.
Carl would write if he could:
"See Eric, you claim that SHS is harmless but yet you won't smoke around your kids. Why is that? Huh, huh? Tell me."
Here's why I don't smoke around my kids in my house or car Carl:
Because it's my f'ing house, I pay the bills here and if someone doesn't like it they can get the f out! And it's my f'ing car, I own it. If somebody tries to smoke a big Macanudo cigar in it while my daughter is in her car seat sleeping, I'll kick their ass out onto the pavement while the car is still going 70 mph.
Walt writes:
But I don't get your angle. Are you categorically against all subsidized housing? Do you seriously believe that anyone who has to rely on it is fair game?
Am I against subsidized housing? Yes.
Somebody owns that property and they should be free to charge fair market rent.
As for the second part of your question, you have to think of it intellectually and toss it around in your head, in other words, sleep on it for a few days before you get back to me...
If Gubmint is charged with paying for people's healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid) isn't it their right, indeed their duty, to intervene and reduce their costs on behalf of the taxpayers?
Think about it.
Does that answer your question?
Sunz,
It's quite easy, these individuals loathe smokers, examples such as Carl's simply "justify" his own bigotry. Racism has typically used such to persuade public acceptance of their beliefs.
If you will notice, the author uses a single case of an asthmatic child, to rationalize his hatred of all smoking parents.
Carl uses his irrational hypothetical to punish all smoking parents, because it is plausible something could happen, all the while ignoring the more highly likely outcome of injury coming from an automobile accident.
How about telling parents they killed their kid because they put them in a jepordy by putting them in the car in the first place? Why stop at car seats which aren't 100% effective at preventing injury.
How about all those parents who place their kids on school busses that don't even have seatbelts.
Bigotry, is when you convict an entire group for the actions of an individual, or subset of the population.
Carl want to penalize all smoking parents because a small subset of these might have an asthmatic child, and might attempt to drive with their windows rolled up. Yet ignore any other trigger which might exacerbate asthma. The case of asthma is mearly an excuse to rationalize his belief that smoking parents should be punished, while ignoring most of the major triggers of asthma.
Do tell Carl, do you believe all parents should be prevented from transporting their kids and their pets at the same time because this might trigger a fatal asthma attack? If not, why do you single out only smoking parents for applicable laws?
Quite frankly I do not think that the government, and I don't care whose bills they pay, has any rights to telling anyone how to live. Because if you really want to go there...why don't they take away kids of welfare moms who spend all the welfare money on going to the bar? Why not take her off of it? Or better yet, do us all a favor and make these parents get some kind of training (paid for by our government)since that will save the taxpayers severe amounts of money in raising that child through welfare, even if it's a temporarily higher cost now? If the government is so bent on saving money, why not buy what they need cheaper? The hammer they pay $100 for I pay $20 for and it lasts twice as long. How about they fix where THEY are blowing my money before they start worrying about where John might be blowing it? John's cigarette habit is a heck of a lot cheaper than the amount of hammers they buy!
And who on earth here hasn't yet realized that when you let the government into your life based on one justification, you've just invited them into your life on many more...that's part of what this whole smoking fight is about! The fact that the government has decided it has the right to regulate the private property of it's citizens because "the public comes in". And now it's decided it has the right to regulate your behavior because of someone else's health, who doesn't even have a health PROBLEM because they "might have one".
Eric writes: (Eliding some of the patronizing parts)
Am I against subsidized housing? Yes.
Somebody owns that property and they should be free to charge fair market rent....
If Gubmint is charged with paying for people's healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid) isn't it their right, indeed their duty, to intervene and reduce their costs on behalf of the taxpayers?
Most subsidized housing is gov't built and owned to begin with. (ie "the projects"). It does not confiscate private property. In rare cases where gov't uses private property on a so-called emergency basis (ie "welfare hotels") it indeed pays often exorbitatant market rates. The very recent new trend to induce builders of new condos/ co-ops to include 5% "affordable housing" in the mix, compensates owners with huge tax breaks and zoning variations if they decide to play along.
As to part two: No. For a million reasons, all involving civil liberties. For the million-and-first, the "government" in this capacity isn't the "govt of, by and for the people," it's a handful of usually unelected bureaucrats. And the "taxpayers" you're protecting also include smokers, not to mention the fat, the fecund, and all manner of potentially expensive people. The Slippery Slope shouldn't need to be defined.
If your libertarianism is such that you want to undo all gov't programs, swell, give it a shot. But in the meantime, don't counterproductively expand the role of government vs the individual in direct violation of libertarian principles.
As you would say: Think about it.
:
CARL "HERE'S WHY I HATE " ,the choice of words rather says it all.Random reality,seems more like "LET'S TAKE A POTSHOT AT ANYTHING WE DESPISE".Emotion driven crap.Are you happy to know half a story,we don't know all the details,we guess,who guesses like you do,the antis ?Fine if you want to live in a "what if" world.What if killer bees continue their march northwards ?The FACTS should dictate the storyline,not vice-versa.From a medical perspective (without all the emotion of a Mills and Boon storyline) i seem to recollect Margaret making some pretty accurate comments as to asthma and smoking.
Carl,
I'm still waiting on an answer.
Do tell Carl, do you believe all parents should be prevented from transporting their kids and their pets at the same time because this might trigger a fatal asthma attack? If not, why do you single out only smoking parents for applicable laws?
This simple fact as an incosistancey of your position clearly shows you are mearly looking for ways to justify your belief that smokers should be punished.
Walt, I hope you realize that I am not in favor of banning people in housing projects from smoking, I am playing devils advocate here in order to promote an interesting discussion.
You're right, the housing projects are usually built through Gov't HUD money (I was referring to private rent controlled apts). And in addition to cheap public housing, the poor and indigent also get access to Medicaid. In the DPRNY, the NY City budget for Medicaid and Medicare is over 33% of the city budget. That's why they are agitating for trans fat bans, menu calorie labeling, fast food restaurant zoning laws...if they don't do something about their health care costs the city will be bankrupt in 20 years.
So I stand on my original premise. You can't have it both ways. You can't ask gov't to pay for healthcare and then complain when they insitute draconian measures to control the sheeple and to reduce taxpayer's expense.
If someone advocates for left wing Socialism and collectivism, this nanny state nonsense is what they get as a byproduct.
Walt H,
Do you hear the sound of crickets?
chirp, chirp
Carl's silence is quite telling.
Eric--
"Devil's advocate" (your term) seemed to be the same as "sarcastic/ ironic" (my less precise terms) in the sense that in neither case does the speaker endorse the opinions stated.
I will thoroly agree with you that the only reason employers, on the one hand, and gov't, on the other, in any way concern themselves with managing peoples' lives is not only because they're paying but they're suddenly paying A LOT. Note-- the buttinsky business didn't start until the costs started astronomically rising, c. mid-1980s.
I've always believed at least part of the Answer lay in decoupling insurance from employment (easily enough done were there the will and imagination and Bush had the start of a feasible idea) tho I'm not sure how to decouple it from government-- whether it could ever be done politically, or how it could be done w/o, at this point, doing real harm to great numbers of people. We're too far down the road. Can you actually suggest a viable alternative to Medicaid, Medicare and other such subsidies?
Meanwhile-- and it's going to be a very long meanwhile even if you've got a stunning idea-- your syllogism is merely sophistic abstraction. Fact A (that "the gov't" picks up the tab) can't be used as the basis of the logical proposition that it's thus justifiable-- in its own special terms-- that the gov't gets to Mickey Mouse the lives of individuals. That's fascism's anthem and the road to serfdom. Break it in half. If the gov't in a free society pays the bill, it still lacks the right to trample those hard-won individual liberties.
:
Well, I don't see how their health care costs got so crazy anyhow. Why not lower health care costs. The stupid hospitals are billing to the point of ridiculous anyhow. For the cost I would spend on ONE tylenol in a hospital, I can go to any local store and get an entire bottle and a cup of coffee. If they were really all that concerned with health care costs, they'd lower them, instead of trampeling people.
Dave K, I'm sorry to see that you've been duped by the phony-conservatives at the Center for Consumer Freedom. They are conspiring with the CSPI in a quest to sicken the global population. Both the CCF and CSPI are practicing "stealth eugenics"...CCF through the toxic foodstuff (including meat and milk full of growth hormones), and CSPI through toxic drugs.
The CSPI is a Codex-affiliated front group for Big Pharma. They have openly come out against Stevia (a healthy artificial sweetener) in favor of toxic artificial sweeteners (aspartame and sucralose). They are directly responsible for trans fats being in the food supply in the first place.
Hi, guys.
The effects of combustion engine and industrial pollution on human health are evident both individually and en masse, although drastic effects may appear only in the more vulnerable.
Also evident is the transference of these effects by industries (otherwise liable) to the individual's actions, both in industry-influenced studies and in popular mythology through the media.
The problem with having children in cars is, of course, that the fossil fuel emissions enter the car both from the vehicle used and from highway pollution.
The worst-case scenario is, however, not the individual car - or any cigarettes smoked within - but the school bus.
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f.../full/167/5/
505
'... as evidence grows about the connection between diesel exhaust, air pollution and ill health, so does public pressure to use cleaner fuels and vehicles.
'Diesel fuel produces exhaust components that tend to form into spherical, respirable particles about 0.1–0.5 µm in diameter. These particles consist of an inert carbonaceous core with a large surface area that is ideal for adsorbing heavy metals and organic compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are small compounds of 3 to 5 benzene rings that diffuse easily through cell membranes and bind to receptors within the cytoplasm.1
'In 1989 the International Agency for Research on Cancer identified exhaust emissions from diesel engines as a probable human carcinogen.2 A number of studies have linked occupational exposure to diesel engine emissions with an elevated risk of lung cancer.3,4 In addition, diesel exhaust contains several of the Environmental Protection Agency's "criteria" air pollutants (www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html) — including sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter (< 10 µ in diameter) — that have been associated with the exacerbation of asthma. Once inhaled, diesel-exhaust particles are thought to promote the release of specific cytokines, immunoglobulins and oxidants, which can culminate in airway inflammation, mucous secretion, serum leakage into the airways and contraction of bronchial smooth muscle.1
'The link between exposure to diesel exhaust and asthma has been borne out epidemiologically in studies indicating that children living along major trucking thoroughfares are at increased risk of asthma and allergic symptoms5 and of having objective evidence of respiratory dysfunction.6 Last year the National Resources Defense Council conducted a study to measure the level of diesel exhaust to which children are typically exposed as they ride on buses to and from school.2 The study showed that a child riding inside a diesel school bus may be exposed to as much as 4 times the level of diesel exhaust as someone riding in a car ahead of it. Exposure levels were higher in the back of the bus and when windows were closed. The study indicated that exposure of children to diesel exhaust while riding in a school bus for 1–2 hours a day, 180 days a year for 10 years might result in 23–46 additional cancer deaths per 1 million children. In addition, the investigators stated that the implications of this exposure for asthma are very troubling.2
'...Although exposure to diesel-exhaust particles is not mentioned specifically, a smog advisory has been developed for parents, counselling them about activity levels, air conditioners and the importance of monitoring respiratory function during bad air days...'
Fossil fuel/industrial air pollution and cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory problems go together like beans and other emissions.
Because certain types of beans typically and consistently produce similar effects in groups of consumers in all areas, the consumption of beans is known to produce specific results.
If water is invariably drunk together with the ingestion of such beans, one could be misled into believing that water is the cause of flatulance, except that the effect does not appear when water is consumed under most other circumstance, even though flatulance is a common result of multiple circumstances and water is typically consumed by those suffering such effect.
Cause and effect can be implied when effect follows cause in a consistent and repeatable manner, something which cannot be truthfully said of anti claims regarding tobacco smoke.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp...13994977~db=all
http://springerlink.com/content/...8566x12k727832/
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp...13846458~db=all
The emissions of internal combustion ice surfacing machines are the predominate and most likely cause of 'unique and high prevalence of airway dysfunction in ice arena athletes'.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapres...MR1WP0UJ5A6.pdf
http://taylorandfrancis.metapres...0H137501W53.pdf
Children especially are at risk outdoors especially when near high-traffic areas.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp...0?words=tobac...
We are told ETS causes virtually all of our current ills, but independent and industry testing generally produce entirely different results. Certainly, in this test, the smoke condensate actually yielded 3 elements over 100 ng per cigarette in the concentrated amount, although it seems obvious to me that dispersal in air, the rapid settling of such relatively heavy particle and the unliklihood of chance inhalation would appear to reduce the odds of any measureable amount being inhaled by bystanders.
http://taylorandfrancis.metapres...15XVK2F8403.pdf.
But not surprisingly, tobacco smoke fails to elicit allergic/asthma response in the independent lab as it's failed to do in humans generally throughout human history.
But vehicular emissions are a whole different ball game from natural smoke produced by vegetative combustion.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp...14007634~db=all
A high proportion of the particles produced by diesel are tiny enough to enter cells, accumulate, and remain in the body until after death; such durable particles - both those of fossil fuels and of asbestos fibres - appear to be found when looked for in the lungs of cancer patients.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp...25256584~db=all
And the combination produced specifically by diesel fuel appears to be particularly virulent, although each individual molecule is not anxiously added up, or potential if unmeasureable chemical of each compound frantically thrown onto a heap intended to overshadow the hundred thousand industry chemicals claimed safe by producers, with their mere presence in the body no cause for alarm to be reserved for human pleasures such as coffee, tea, smoking and alcohol.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.c...705284/ABSTRACT
http://www.tompaine.com/articles...ted_science.php
Perhaps the claims made against ETS are some form of emissions trading imposed on an unknowing public: according to the EPA, its new (2006) soot standard mentioned here 'would permit 3,700 premature soot-caused deaths every year in nine cities alone.'
By strange coincidence, these numbers are so often mirrored by anti ETS claims...
The emissions of industry are measured in annual tons, hundreds or thousands of tons of chemicals, gasses and particles; the hundreds of thousands of industry-produced artificial chemicals to which humanity is subjected for corporate profit are all presumed safe, where nanograms of those present in a herb long used as a panacea are said to produce the effects of all other exposure.
A whole consortium of varied toxic industry are concerned that they might be restricted and required to pay the costs inflicted on smokers in their stead, if the diseases of industry causation are not nailed to the scapegoat shared by all.
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness, but not to blame the particulates so produced in traditional human uses for the results of inadequately filtered diesel and other exhaust and millions upon millions of pounds of toxic gasses and particles released annually in the interests of ever-increased quarterly cost-saving and profit by multiple industries in each of many provinces/states world-wide.
I have to turn the computer over and merely hope that this half-finished monster makes clear the essential points.
Because it looks as though hope is almost all that remains.
Arghh! Knew I'd have typos, omissions and boobs which would need correction, but it's not my computer, it was supposedly needed right away and I thought it would take too long to save...
Don't know how to edit and can't give the blasted thing a rewrite, but for starters, we're subjected to hundreds of thousands OF TONS of industry chemicals. Egad.
I'm going to have a whole pot of coffee and let the linked articles above speak for themselves.
The brain bone may refuse to connect even to the eyelid bone in my case right now, but luckily the facts are not contingent on my ability to present them.
And there are so many amazing people posting on this site that the bulk can surely sort things out, I hope.
Thanks to Darth Chaos for giving warning re industry front groups.
It seems as though almost all of the organizations appearing to defend our interests are linked to, and working in the interests of, the ones actually using our personal choices as cover (who has money anymore but industry?) so that we all pay both fiscally and health-wise, draining (and denigrating) smokers - typically of the poorest and most vulnerable group - specifically so that giant industry and associated interests can squeeze out a bigger profit/share price while continuing to cause damage to our health, democracy and environment.
The degree of social damage caused by such PR strategies as those conducted against smokers affects literally everything in achieving the poisoned atmosphere and destruction of civilization required for the shift to totalitarian corporate rule.
It's essential that we are dismissed unheard, repressed and eliminated so that the only message heard is the official version and it becomes unthinkable to think.
Because even the most casual consideration of history tells us more than they'd like us to know.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
