Actually, I think being opposed to anything can be harmful.
I claim that 1) you aren't really invested in being opposed to something unless you can really get worked up about it. Note that it apparently wasn't enough for someone to be able to call ahead to see which restaurants are nonsmoking in Chicago, though over half are. Then it wasn't enough to say people can smoke in their own homes, or in their own cars, or in public.
2) as mentioned, anger is really bad, mmkay?
3) second-hand anger is a documented phenomenon. If one person starts yelling, others tend to. Plus there's the moral angle. If you are angry about something, and it is wrong, then you are wrong, and you're spreadin' that wrong. But if you are right, you should share your being right with other people, or you are wrong. Plus, the people you are getting to be angry won't have as good reasons as you, so its good effects aren't as good for them as you.
Fortunately there is a way to be angry and happy at the same time. It involves laughing at someone, as opposed to giving constructive criticism. Whisper campaigns are also a strong second, against an individual or a group. They also have a better effect-to-effort ratio.
So everyone except me, shut up and be happy. Oops, repression isn't good for you either! Eh well, I already got my catharsis.
Extreme stress can cause a heart attack. The anti's only weapon is to spread fear, so they buy off the media and tell us everyday how long it will take for secondhand smoke to kill you. Now, when a nonsmoker see a cigarette burning, they fear that they have less than 2 hours to survive and that stress actually brings on a heart attack. So, who is really killing who here? Seeing that smoking does not kill the passive smoker in that short time and takes more like 40 to maybe 60 years, then I would have to point the fingers at the people who are being paid to spew this nonsense. Fortunately, it is only the anti's who have lost all common sense and any reasoning as just plain old nonsmokers sees right through it.
Reading the tail end of the disclaimer has convinced me we can save lives by insisting smokers have that cigarette before sex as opposed to the post sex tradition.
BTW Michael; In a little less difficult train of thought do you know of any research describing morphologic effects [smoker / non smoker] and [smoker/smoker] which would demonstrate physical and emotional barriers or level thereof in respect to comparing smokers to non smokers.
I was thinking along the lines of an effect to a portion of the total of smokers which may not apply to others.
There is little doubt some personality types and many of those exhibiting highest or lowest in physical dimensions are known in some studies at least to be more likely to smoke.
Is any confounding normally applied or any thought to appropriateness or the validity of comparisons at all, or has the effect been ignored with some explanation provided in research?
"Anxiety, hostility, and stress also reduce heart rate variability."
Could it be that the non-smokers who participated in that experiment at the airport actually affected their own heart rate variability due to their intense hostility for smokers? I mean, they had to be in a room for two hours with people and habits they probably despised. Couldn't that cause anxiety (and affect their heart rate variability)?
Do you believe the thought of flying for the first time or exposure to jet fuel exhaust may play a tiny role in the results found?
One has to wonder how many free cups of coffee and dougnuts were offered to the subjects pre and post measurements.
I think (well sometimes), the warning is too low down the article.
It should be at the top and cover at least 30% of the articles area (International Standard). Slow readers could be at a higher risk.
west
----
Mike wrote:
"The Most Misleading Claim of them All: Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Instant Death"
and
"According to anti-smoking groups, then, reading this blog could potentially trigger a fatal cardiac arrhythmia in a reader"
and
"It's a sad state of affairs when this is the kind of weak, exaggerated, and distorted scientific reasoning that supports the claims being made by prominent anti-smoking groups."
It is hypocritical for Mike to make false and greatly exaggerated claims about others, while he simultanteously criticizes and bemoans inaccurate and exaggerated claims made by others.
If Mike was truly interested in educating the public about the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke, he
would not spend countless hours reading through hundreds of websites, press releases, news articles, etc. in an effort to find just one title, sentence or fragment of a sentence which he disagrees with, and then writing and posting blogs criticizing those entities (often by taking their statements out of context or by exaggeration) and casting blaming on every organization that advocates smokefree policies and laws.
This hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that Mike fails to critique thousands of absurdly false statements about the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke that are posted on pro-smoking websites (that promote this blog) and that are posted on this blog by pro-smoking fanatics.
Doctor, I don't get it.You're saying smoking and smelling it is unhealthy as all get out but not as bad as some people claim.
What the hell is the difference. If it's unhealthy at all, tobacco nazis have their ammunition.
Bill Godshall said..
It is hypocritical for Mike to make false and greatly exaggerated claims about others, while he simultanteously criticizes and bemoans inaccurate and exaggerated claims made by others
Are the claims made, in this post specifically, 'greatly exaggerated?
I notice you accept that 'others' make 'inaccurate and exaggerated claims', are the 'others' refered to in this context anti-smoking groups, as suggested in the post?
west
----
Well Michael as you predicted credibility is waining.
What was it Bill said about progress yesterday?
So it begins...
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2830
or original link;
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/st...c7-
c51c4e12cb9d
Hawaii Reporter
Freedom to Report Real News
Bill Reverses Hawaii's Smoking Ban in Bars, Nightclubs and Restaurants
Small Businesses Across the State Say They Are Unduly Burdened by the New Law
By Rep. Colleen Meyer, R-Kaaawa, 1/30/2007 7:29:25 PM
Honolulu – I drafted and introduced Bill H.B. No. 792 in the Hawaii State House of Representatives to exempt bars, nightclubs, and restaurants from the complete ban on smoking, provided that exterior signage adequately warns the public that smoking is allowed within.
I'm very concerned with the calls my office is receiving about the loss of revenue that small business owners are experiencing across the state since the statewide smoking ban went into affect in November.
Many long time business establishments have closed in other states due to the passage of smoking ban legislation and hundreds of others are limping along with revenues 30 to 50 percent of what they were before the ban.
This is really a piece of common sense legislation that would allow a choice for both business owners and their patrons.
Nearly 4,000 people have signed a petition asking the Governor and the Legislature for a repeal of the smoking ban.
Now these people need to call and write the Legislative members of these committees if they want to affect a change.
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/st...c7-
c51c4e12cb9d
Dr. Siegel,
I appreciate your efforts to inject a little honesty onto the debate. But... But...
"If it is true that just two hours of exposure is enough to cause an otherwise healthy person to drop dead instantly, then let's face it - there's no justification for allowing smoking in any public place."
Why?
Even if there is a risk of "instant death" in some segment of the population, why is it OBVIOUS that it should be banned? I just don't see it. Or at least I don't see it as a consistent position. And you seem pretty keen on consistency.
To wit, a lot of jobs entail the risk of "instant death" to workers and patrons. Racing cars at 200 miles per hour around a track comes to mind. Drivers die. Spectators die. Instantly.
We could eliminate that "harm" by banning racing. Short of that, we could reduce the risk by legislatig a top track speed of 20 miles per hour as opposed to 200.
A ridiculous example, maybe. I could come up with others, I suppose. But too much of this debate is conducted via analogy.
So I guess my question is, to be consistent, wouldn't you have to ban ALL workplace activities that threaten workers and patrons with instant death? Even if the workers and patrons are otherwise healthy?
Aren't there a lot of those risks and harms threatening people all the time? Why would ETS obviously deserve to be banned, even if these exaggerated claims were true? Particularly if the ETS is contained in places where people don't have to go?
I don't know. I suspect that the question probably has an obvious answer. Or that I am being crass for posing it in this way. But it seems to me that people and workers risk sudden death all the time. And that banning those decisions on a consistent basis would require a pretty invasive form of government.
Sorry for the rambling non-question.
The only "fanatics" posting on this blog are the anti-smoker control freaks who have this holier than thou attitude. Just because your name includes His bill, no one died and made you God.........or even godlike.
This post seemed to have gotten eaten...hopefully it wasn't due to breaking any forum rules.
So I'll try again. OK, I guess we better clam up now. Bill obviously doesn't wade through any of our comments to point out what is wrong with our new and varied arguments, so he's consistent.
Because really, it's just pedantic in this case being recognizing that certain "snappy" statements that people can reflexively agree with are deceitful and that bad news does get passed around quickly by the "I wouldn't say it if it weren't true."
The courtesy to provide reciprocal links even to places he doesn't agree with is also indicative of a much much much more sinister arrangement, just as a whiff of secondhand smoke may or may not NEAR TO KILL YOU. Well, the possibility can't be totally discounted.
And it's just sophistry to realize there's a pattern when today's slight exaggeration that could be taken with a grain of salt and is an honest mistake starts appearing LOTS OF OTHER PLACES very quickly, so maybe it is being used as test runs to ramp up the message elsewhere.
On your end, Bill, in all seriousness I think it's also deceitful to drown out thoughtful arguments(or try to) with consistent charged catch phrases. What if the public had no protection from catch phrases such as the ones you send out? They would be at risk of mass dumb-ification from second-hand roteness.
And one other thing. About the name calling. "Pro smoking fanatics." "Deluded addicts." And other stuff I've learned to laugh at, particularly the comparing smoking to rape. Do you use this language when talking to city officials or state assemblies? Or do you trot out the noblesse oblige, since you have to actually face people who you can't brush off?
----
west2--better yet, I don't think we should stop at cigarettes. I want warnings to cover all forms of SUVs, Hummers, etc. I want warnings on the contracts drivers sign to buy the cars, notifying them of the financial straits they may be in for the next few years. "Buying this car and the extra gas/repairs you need for it may force you to choose between buying stuff for your car or your kids."
PS Dr. Siegel, you haven't REALLY saved any lives, because the only people who read this are Bill(for what he has called humor value) and a bunch of deluded smokers and right-to-smoke advocates(his words again) already marked for early death due to our tolerance of this habit and acceptance of it within 30-40 feet of ourselves 
.
Another falsehood bill is to convey;
There is definite evidence many reporters are also reading this blog as proven in a number of reports over the past few months mentioning it.
The word is getting around.
Bill is simply living in denial he knows the fad is quickly fading away and he will have to go back to scouring the job postings soon, unless he works real hard at getting connected with the next big thing.
Global warming is looking for a few good spammers I hear. Do you know anything about polar bears Bill?
Maybe you need to do some hands on research.
Bill wrote
"This hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that Mike fails to critique thousands of absurdly false statements about the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke that are posted on pro-smoking websites (that promote this blog) and that are posted on this blog by pro-smoking fanatics."
Bill
First: please list the thousands of absurd statements you refer to, complete with your evidence of absurdity.
Second: Starting your last paragraph with "This hypocrisy is further compounded" and the petty insinuations to discredit the Doc's opinion and observations by associating him with "pro-smoking websites" and "pro-smoking fanatics" will fool no-one. In fact they do you a great disservice, your continued use of this tactic would imply that you are a one trick pony.
GreatScot
So Bill - after your long diatribe, are you agreeing or disagreeing that these anti-smoking groups (the ones I list in the post) are making an inaccurate, misleading, and unsubstantiated claim that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke for 2 hours are at risk of sudden death due to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia?
No speech is needed, just check
Agree;
or
Disagree
Sam,
I completely agree with your comment. If there were anything in my workplace to which I were exposed that put me at risk of sudden death - yes, I would want it banned. And I wouldn't show up here again until they got rid of it.
That's exactly my point. The claim is so absurd. How many times have you been eating in a smoky restaurant or bar and you see people dropping dead at the next table from fatal cardiac arrhthmias? Obviously, it doesn't happen.
What frightens me most is that anti-smoking groups are now willing to make health claims that are absurd on their face. We're apparently willing to risk our reputation on absurd claims in order to be able to sensationalize the health effects. This is not only not science. It's also extremely poor judgment.
"... reading this blog could potentially trigger a fatal cardiac arrhythmia in a reader"
Not the blog just Bill GODshall and his cohorts have caused this in my personal experience. Perhaps I could sue!
A California Assemblyman said "If the anti smokers lips are moving they are lying"
Of course that does not include Bill G that only "sands" the truth while embellishing it.
Dr. Siegel,
I appreciate your response, but I think you miss my point. That is, I assume that there ARE things at your work that could cause sudden death. Especially if you work in a lab. Or in a building with a boiler. But you accept those risks. More importantly, you allow others to assess those risks and either accept them or not. Even when sudden death can result.
At the risk of devolving into another analogy: We allow truck drivers to drive trucks. Even though we KNOW many of them are going to die from doing that job. Even drivers who are the picture of perfect health will die suddenly in accidents.
So even if the alarmists are correct and ETS can cause sudden death after brief exposure, how does that make it obvious that smoking in bars and restaurants should be banned?
What I am getting at is how you justify the idea of banning ETS in the workplace. Like I said, I know you have answered that in the past. It just seems to me that this question brings the debate into full relief. Even if these alarmist claims were true, I would still be against a ban in bars and restaurants.
If anything, these alarmist claims argue for a ban on smoking in the street and in parks. But that's a different question.
For now, I just wonder. If we allow race car drivers and truck drivers and deep sea divers to risk sudden death at work, why wouldn't we allow bartenders to risk the same fate? Are bartenders especially stupid, or in some other way incapable of making a calculation that makes sense for them and their families? Further, if you are correct and there is NO risk of sudden death from brief exposure, how can you still support a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants? Why does ETS get a different level of scrutiny?
Sam,
I don't think that one needs a risk of sudden death to justify regulating workplace hazards. But I do think one needs to make a judgment as to whether that hazard is preventable. Driving a truck to make deliveries is not a preventable hazard. But inhaling secondhand smoke is preventable. That's what I see as the distinction.
I recognize that as you point out, there are risks of POTENTIAL exposures that could be fatal. But what the anti-smoking groups are talking about are ACTUAL exposures. I don't think we tolerate the risk of sudden death from actual exposures. But you're right- we of course tolerate potential exposures - usually, the risk of such accidents is quite small.
Bill (who else) wrote:
"If Mike was truly interested in educating the public...he
would not spend...hours reading...hundreds of websites...in an effort to find just one...sentence which he disagrees with...and...criticizing those entities...casting blaming on every organization..."
You didn't say what he should be doing. Or is that your idea of education in this instance; Silence?
"This hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that Mike fails to critique thousands of absurdly false statements...on pro-smoking websites..."
You don't want him critiquing your groups. Where's the hypocrisy?
Michael;
Surely more inclusive strategies could have been developed with a few less fanatical views at the table.
The hypocrisy is clear; smokers were never allowed to participate, despite the effect denormalizing plans were to have on all of them.
Perhaps A government agency dedicated to health needs to take another look at the legitimate non political science involved and incorporate a protection of all in community and not strictly demands of the few who wish to tear our communities apart in service of their industrial masters.
One benefit of all this nonsense; it becomes much easier for the electorate to separate the fools and followers from the leaders,
according to those reciting hymn and verse of The health scare advocacy groups.
Well luckily we all probably all know several walking, living proofs that we can trot out on this one. My husband has been exposed for 8 years (non-smoker)...not dead yet. So, find all your non-smoking, family and friends and let them all speak out about how dead they are because you smoked around them for two hours (or longer).
My mom, a never smoker, was married to my dad for 57 years before he passed away from a nonsmoking cause. She just came to Texas from New York to visit me and is still doing quite well for her older age. Dad smoked around her ALOT and according to what I just read, she should have dropped way before Dad passed. Heck, she shouldn't have even been able to give birth to 6 kids. She is religious so I wonder if that has anything to do with it.
I think that rather than argue the merits of Bill and his friends, we should be taking a harder look at that Supreme Court 1992 ruling that says restauants and bars are private places not public. That ruling alone should move Bill to the Artic where he can study global warming. That is the argument businesses needs to fight for their livelihoods in court.
Dr. Siegel,
Thanks again. And at the risk of belaboring the point, you write:
"But I do think one needs to make a judgment as to whether that hazard is preventable."
But we do allow preventable risks. All sorts of them. Allowing NASCAR drivers to go 200 miles per hour is certainly more dangerous than it would be if we restricted them to 100 mph. Or 20. But we allow them to go 200 mph. Why not prevent that risk? We allow people to handfell trees. Mechanized felling is safer. Hand-felling therefore poses a preventable risk. Should we ban it? Why not?
We could certainly prevent much of the risk involved in bullriding if we limited the size of the bulls and demanded the removal of their horns. We could clearly reduce much of the risk of professional hockey by forcing the NHL to switch to the non-contact version played in womens and international versions of the game. We could prevent much of the risk involved in coal mining by demanding that companies stripmine rather than using the traditional method.
Blah blah blah. I know this is tedious stuff. And probably belongs in a different post, if anywhere at all. It is just that the whole question of "consistency" has been bothering me of late. And it seems like the ultimate answer for why ETS is held to a different standard is a political answer. Not one rooted in principles or consistent logic.
I am not accusing you of being disingenuous in this fashion. It just seems like that's the "reasoning" that is driving these bans.
Doc, I agree that the claim is absurd on its face.
I also believe that one or other of these groups will even now be very anxious to top this most absurd claim.
I am going to go out on a limb and say that they will make a claim that someone with a weak ticker SAW someone light up and dropped dead.
They simply HAVE to make this scarier.
Its in their DNA.
Diane has come up with THE sound bite answer to this one. Not only will it make people go hmmmmm, but it will also effectively ridicule those advancing this nonsense:
(Slightly reworded into a question): Stress has the exact same effect on heart rate. So when a nonsmoker sees a cigarette burning, isn't it just as possible that they fear that they have less than 2 hours to survive and that stress actually brings on a heart attack?
The "just as possible" is tongue in cheek as it regards ETS. That sound bite effect is also all in the delivery (tone)
Thanks Diane!
Bill,how many people did you kill when you were smoking 3 packs a day ? Or was it a case that you were never with a person for more 1hr59mins ?Since you never killed anyone (pray tell if you did) then by your own actions you have disproved this total sham.Have you ever had to step over a body who keeled over following toxic? poisoning by SHS ? If so how many people ?Any reasonable person versed even remidially in Public Health would know health scares are not in their best interests,perhaps that is why you aren't one.Please continue with your wisdom and appreciation,it emphasises your true agenda so succinctly.Keep the lies coming thick and fast.
Well said Diane! But you reckon the scientists in Antarctica actually want Bill there??
Sam perhaps if we all wore helmets to cross the road it would save one life!! Thats preventable death- how far do we really want to go??
ETS cant be as dangerous as any of those!! Yet thats the one being legislated!!
Dr Siegel writting to Sam:
"I recognize that as you point out, there are risks of POTENTIAL exposures that could be fatal. But what the anti-smoking groups are talking about are ACTUAL exposures. I don't think we tolerate the risk of sudden death from actual exposures. But you're right- we of course tolerate potential exposures - usually, the risk of such accidents is quite small."
Isn't this what the anti-smoking movement is all about?....'not tolerating "potential exposures- usually, the risk of such accidents is quite small"
The EPA and Board of Health departments in this country are now enacting regulation on wood stoves and fireplaces - why isn't anti-smoking jumping on this bandwagon and demanding bans on these devices that emit unnecessary smoke? They emit the same type of smoke on many levels.
Why the discrimination on types of smoke that is unnecessary to society?
Too many rights being trampled?
Doc says: "But inhaling secondhand smoke is preventable. That's what I see as the distinction.".
It's easily preventable, don't go where they allow smoking, simple huh?
Or, as has been demonstrated, time after time, ventilation works, if it works well enough for underground parking garages, it works well enough for SHS.
If it works well enough for welding fumes, it works well enough for SHS.
If it works well enough for viral protection, in negatively vented air pressure rooms, it cartainly works well enough for SHS, if it removes even 1/2 of the SHS in a room, what does that do to your vaunted "risk" studies concerning exposure to SHS, if it only removes 1/4 of the SHS, what would your own figures on "risk" evaluation become?
There is no justification for allowing the hostile takeover of private business's by nanny types who never intended to go to those establishments anyway.
Health effects? I believe this blog has introduced enough evidence to disprove most statements made by Anti smoker lobbyists.
I know their own "studies" have disproven all but the weakest statistical association of increased risk factors, and yet, we are still arguing about the semantics of ban vs no banm harm vs risk.
Enough already, prove the point or shut up.
Diane, it's been pointed out a number of times that private property is not considered public just because you let the public in. Even Doc here refuses to acknowledge it, based on the fact that we regulate EXTREME, and definitive poisoning. Even he refuses to budge on smoking bans in restaurants and such because (and he's stated this before) we regulate industries pollutants. Which, as someone who lives next to several, I can assure you industy pollutants and cigarette smoke are not even close to teh same class, let alone the fact that cigarette smoke has yet to show any actual harm being done whereas industry has.
It's not so much I don't want to acknowledge it, but that it has been pointed out and THEY refuse to acknowledge it. Considering right now what many of our politicians, you know the ones that are supposed to represent ALL of us, are doing the only thing I see happening with this information is changing the definition of public and private places.
Americans have an advantage in the public spaces argument with a canstitution which guarantees property rights.
In Canada as with many other places they simply redefined the term by legislation before the ban scam started. We never saw it coming or were the sleezy fiberals forthcoming in what they had in mind, prior to passing a seemingly harmless legislation which did not even warrant a mention in the press.
The current Conservative governemnt promissed amendments to enshrine property rights, however they have made no moves in that direction.
Bill Godshall "Send You a Plague of Locusts" writes:
This hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that Mike fails to critique thousands of absurdly false statements about the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke that are posted on pro-smoking websites (that promote this blog) and that are posted on this blog by pro-smoking fanatics.
___________________________________
Bill, why do you care? You are going to get your PA smoking ban because as you correctly predicted "You keep whining, we keep winning."
I've tried to alert everyone here that you are on the verge of "winning" and encourage them to participate in self government by writing your PA public serpents with the truth. Nobody here cares apparently. Barring a miracle in which a few undecided dry cleaner/ fireman/legislators get a clue by listening to the facts, you will have a socially engineered smokefreepa.
Of course, if smoking rates don't decline, than you haven't really won have you?
On a personal note Bill:
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You will get what you have coming to you. It won't be because of anything I do or say. Call it "karma" or the old saying "what goes around comes around". It might not be this week, this year or this decade but one day you will reap what you sow.
Somewhere out there in Pittsburgh, there are people who toil for 12 hours in a factory. They have a tough life. One of the things that brings them just a little bit of joy is the pleasure of having a beer and cigarette in a saloon with their friends after work...
And you get to take that away from them! Using bogus studies, junk science and the power of the state.
Not much of an advantage Kevin really. It's begin ignored or loopholed constantly...it's not at all respected.
Eric, Pablo!great to "see" you and all..mr godshall will never be happy until we are all dead and gone...so he will never have to SEE anyone smoking a cigarette again.
the "reformed" "recovered" are deadly to We The Smoker.
A year ago I told Mr Bill, he was "causing" my stress levels to climb and to Please Stop, he was Killing Me! Stress Kills!
He has not stopped....I am NOT DEAD YET.....
Never Mind!
This has all been an interesting excercise in futility on mr bill and dr mike's labrat gyrations...
We are not going to keel over any time soon.
It has now become pitful watching them in action trying to fight the windmills they set up to "knock us down"....and we ain't goin very quietly into the night, ARE WE?????
Since the "risk" of death has not been enough to convince the younger generation to quit smoking, the Anti's have indeed developed a new "causal" factor in their efforts to scare the public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6325333.stm
It seems they did a survey, and found that what scared the clubgoers the most was vision loss, and lo and behold - a "new study" touting all the increased "risk" to the eyesight of these poor young unfortunate addicts.
I, personally, am going blind, and yes, it was first dignosed as Age Related Macular Degeneration, of course, this "diagnosis" was made at the local optical mall store, so I being rather a cautious individual, sought out another opinion, from a specialist. Turns out my age (nor my smoking incidentally) were casual factors to the vision loss for me. Turns out to be a genetically passed disease called Retinitus Pigmentosa.
My Rods and Cones are deteriorating in my eyes, and theres not a damn thing they can do about it, but quitting smoking will greatly help my condition, right?
Not really, I'm going blind whether I quit or not, would be whether I ever smoked or not. The funny thing is, they tell me it's unusual for the symptoms to show so late in life (old enough to remember first run Star Trek episodes, the first Super Bowl, etc, etc), as it usually rears up in the late teens, early twenties. I wonder what I did different that caused it to be delayed by 20-30 years?
Anyway, here is the "new" scare tactic of Public Health (S)Care" officials, "If you smoke, you will go blind", hmmm, seems to me I remember that warning from earlier in life, what was it I shouldn't do or I'd go blind? Oh, Yeah!, pleasure myself, I guess the warning hasn't really changed, just the method of pleasure LOL
Jerry--
Google it. I'm quite sure I've read that there ARE things to do. Upturn every stone.
Doc--
If I've got it right , your line seems to be drawn between preventable (potential, very small) risks and non-preventable(potential, very small) risks.
If it all hangs on preventable I have to remind you that everything's preventable. All it takes is a politician (also known as A Legislator). Right here in New York , A Legislator just made a health-conscious proposal to prevent talking on cell phones while walking down the street (I could not make that up) on the putative grounds of risk, (The risk, btw, is of getting hit by a car because it happened to one man in this Legislator's district. ) Contraception and integration have also been prevented. Everything's up for grabs.
Yes, even trucking vegetables and fruits, which you say is non-preventable (or did you really mean it was "necessary" or even something like "useful"? Which shouldn't, in any case, provide an excuse. A potential small risk is a potential small risk. And didn't the Constitution say they're all created equal? Shouldn't what's good for the Camel be good for the rutabaga? Vegetables could be biked. And when the global warmists succeed, vegetables will be biked.
And on the question of utility (if that's what you were about) I'd refer you to the quarrel between Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Mill was the one arguing that there was, in fact, enormous utility to pleasure.
:
Jalestra;
Property rights are a huge advantage to anyone who wants to have a ban overturned in court. The definition of public spaces won't hold up. As the legal study I posted concluded. The owner controls the indoor environment in a bar or restaurant. Not as outdoors where the air is common property. A non smoker is compensated for the discomfort by the cost of food the company or any other compensation which brings him in the door in spite of a sign which warns them people are smoking inside, which would be the only obligation of the owner. To provide a warning allowing all who enter to make a choice. Employees also have a choice and are compensated by demanding higher wages to compensate danger if any. The same as any other career.
Anyone demanding a right to breathe clean air has no such right inside a bar. They do have a right to go elsewhere.
Only if governments respect rights to property any Government which imposes smoking bans, fails that duty and sends the electorate a clear message.
In Kitchener Ontario the owners of a bar purchased a bus and forbade employees from entering it they left it heated and ventilated asking smokers to take the responsibility to empty the ashtrays allowing a smoking area for the comfort of their patrons. The city laid numerous charges on the owner not even related to the bus and forced him to move the bus off his own property in spite of the fact it was parked in his owned parking lot and had valid plates.
That indicates the ban is not about anyone’s safety but about making people uncomfortable first and foremost.
Something to consider;
If a health department closes a beach due to Ecoli bacteria counts. Has anyone ever heard of fines being imposed for those who choose to swim there anyway?
How about gas stations despite knowing the level of benzene allowed is hundreds of times above safe levels which result in high probability of cancers Governments do not fine you for gassing up your car. This allows a tremendously higher risk than second hand smoke could ever impose to a higher proportion of the population.
Will they be banning gas stations? They haven't even considered moving them out of residential areas, any other dangerous chemical plants would never be allowed to reside on the same site even with a fraction of the public risk.
Smoking bans are a measure of punishment to force a compliance no different than torturing a prisoner to get information. The public needs to see it for what it really is; a declaration we are no more civilized than the Taliban for even considering them.
That is the power of the hate being promoted here coerced decisions made in reaction of fear, are we all "scared stupid?"
I recently received a notice from the Federal Trade Commission regarding my purchase long ago of a product sold to me which made unsubstantiated medical claims. The notice wanted me to return it indicating the what the amount of my refund would be. If I had other receipts, I could include them to increase my 'refund'.
Question: Aren't these foundations and various other 'public health' and just whiners and complainers guilty of this same unfounded medical and scientific 'promises'?
Sunz;
Considering the rise in population, triple in the past 50 years smoking is one of the major components in your environment which did not triple but remained constant.
The focus being directed away from other risks which did triple by claiming a similar rise in smoking related risk, would not bode well for the defendants of anyone who wanted to sue the Gov or the lobbies for supplying misleading health information which increased the health risk to all of us.
People make bad health choices every day increasing their own risk in not knowing the substantially elevated dangers exist. Largely due to poor quality information supplied to us, Health groups are killing people deliberately and should be punished for that ignorance. The absolute accuracy of health relevant information after all is the basis for Autonomy rights. Health relevant information is much more than a political football to create facts as desired.
People will remain smokers as long as that reduced level of confidence in our institutions exist, As that confidence wanes smoker prevalence will increase.
Reluctance to feel any level of confidence is confirmed to our communities by numerous exaggerations and lies, which are demonstrated in this blog daily.
The public is not scared stupid they just are not involved enough yet to act.
Kevin----Thanks for the response. "The absolute accuracy of health relevant information after all is the basis for Autonomy rights. Health relevant information is much more than a political football to create facts as desired"
So very important, but the point seems to be lost on so many people. They seem to think....oh, it's only about smoking, not seeing the larger picture.
Mike wrote:
"So Bill - after your long diatribe,
are you agreeing or disagreeing that these anti-smoking groups (the ones I list in the post) are making an inaccurate, misleading, and unsubstantiated claim that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke for 2 hours are at risk of sudden death due to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia?"
The first half of my relatively short post included two inaccurate statements that were posted by Mike, while the third statement of Mike's that I posted complained about others engaging in behaviors that Mike engages in on this blog.
If Mike doesn't like inaccurate and exaggerated claims, he should stop making inaccurate and exaggerated claims on this blog, and he should start correcting the thousands of inaccurate and exaggerated claims posted by pro smoking smokers on this blog.
Finally, it should be noted that Mike's reply to my posting failed to address anything I wrote about in my posting.
Bill wrote:
"[H]e [Dr. Siegel] should start correcting the thousands of inaccurate and exaggerated claims posted by pro smoking smokers on this blog."
Maybe if they were being quoted in newspapers and legislation was being crafted using these "exaggerated claims" it would matter.
One trick pony Bill tries again to deflect and discredit.
"If Mike doesn't like inaccurate and exaggerated claims, he should stop making inaccurate and exaggerated claims on this blog, and he should start correcting the thousands of inaccurate and exaggerated claims posted by pro smoking smokers on this blog."
Bill,
It is only fair that the people who post, in your humble opinion, inaccurate statements have the chance to debate or admit their mistake.
Therefore I will repeat my question from above to you. ( I do note you have moderated your language somewhat, absurd has become inaccurate.)
please list the thousands of absurd statements you refer to, complete with your evidence of absurdity.
You have not answered the Doc's question either. Truncated version, see above for the full question.
Agree or disagree?
GreatScot
Interesting reading about low-level doses:
It's true, genotoxic carcinogens react with DNA and form adducts, that upon development (promotion) can lead to clinical cancer. Williams has demonstrated that with genotoxic carcinogens, there is small but measurable cancer risk. He has also proven that there are no-effect levels even with DNA-reactive carcinogens -- but the levels at which genotoxic carcinogens have no effect at all are low.
In contrast, epigenetic carcinogens have easily-determined, fairly high no-effect levels, meaning they are, all else being equal, more dangerous. In smoking studies, Wynder and Hoffmann have shown that people who smoke twenty or more cigarettes/day have a high risk not only of several specific cancers, but also CHD. The risk with four cigarrettes/day, though, is virtually unmeasurable. The reason is that the cigarettes contain only small amounts of genotoxic carcinogens, the carcinogens with lower and thus more-dangerous no-effect levels (PAH plus the tobacco-specific nitrosamines, as discovered in 1974).
The actual action of tobacco product depends heavily on non-genotoxic promoters, mainly in the "acidic fraction." That is why the dose-response has a virtual-no-effect level of four cigarettes/day. Also, people who stop smoking after some fifteen years have a progressively lower risk, so that after about twenty-seven years they display a similar risk to that of never-smokers, due to the fact that stopping removes the promoting stimulus - http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Following up GreatScot above, Bill does not endeavor to prove how the statements by Dr. Siegel are innacurate or exaggerated. A breach of the very foundation of scientific debate (well, except if you're an anti-smoker then the breach is to engage in anything but ad hominem attacks).
Bill further accuses Dr. Siegel of picking out "a sentence here or a fragment of a sentence there" as if THAT is the sentence or words that are absolutely the irrelevant ones. If that's the one Dr. Siegel picked then it MUST be the one that means nothing to whatever the rest of the paper said. Is that it, Bill? Is that your litmus test? Behold Bill's study on determining what part of a paper is unimportant.
Well, let me add to the list of sentences that must mean nothing. Have we or has anyone gotten around to this one yet?:
Study: Secondhand Smoke Is Much More Dangerous Than First Thought
ABC News - June 29, 2004
(reposted at http://www.nctobaccofreeschools..../shsstudy.shtm)
"Those heart attacks occur with low levels of exposure and they occur very soon after people get exposed," said Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco, one of the country's leading researchers on the effects of tobacco.
Glantz said the study should come as a wake-up call to many communities
"In the past I had thought you had to get a lot of secondhand smoke. You had to be hanging out in a bar," he said. "And what this is showing is that just about any exposure you get is causing substantial increase in risk."
In short, Glantz said, just being near someone smoking a few cigarettes a day is almost like being a light smoker yourself. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure can give you almost the same risk of a heart attack as if you smoked one to nine cigarettes a day.
Godshall wrote:
"If Mike doesn't like inaccurate and exaggerated claims, he should stop making inaccurate and exaggerated claims on this blog, and he should start correcting the thousands of inaccurate and exaggerated claims posted by pro smoking smokers on this blog."
I've noticed some inaccurate claims from my fellow smokers as well. Such as saying the Constitution saying, "All men are created equal" (that was the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal power other than stating the original 13 colonies are no longer British territories) and a few mistaken dates and so on. But those are relatively minor. Especially compared to saying that environmental tobacco smoke kills on contact.
You see, Godshall, most of the people that post on this blog are regular blue-collar people and are not members of any political pressure group. It is one thing when Bob the mechanic or Jane from accounting gets their facts wrong, it is another when someone who makes their living from spreading these "facts" completely makes them up.
7 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
