Dr. Siegel, are you even really even shocked anymore?
I'm not asking if you are mad, as a scientist you should be regardless of the results, but if you are still shocked to see this play out over and over again.
Doc, -"Are we no longer required to adhere to solid scientific practice in tobacco control?
Apparently, we are not. Somehow, I must have missed that memo."
You crack me up.
At what point are you going to stop asking yourself this rediculous question?
There is no methodology that is out of bounds to TC so long as the end justifies the means.
YOU KNOW THIS,....
If you are sincere about your new found enlightenment, you'll stop dwelling on the question of "Why are they doing this?" and start answering some of the more than justified questions posed to you here.
The only way YOU will understand why "THEY" are doing this is to provide some honesty of your own. YOU must have an open mind to the reasons we present here everyday, and be legitimately prepared re-evaluate your position, your "research" and most importantly, your personal level of tollerance to the choices that other people make for which you have absolutely no control over, no matter how much you dislike the choice, as well as recognizing that YOU should NEVER have such control.
Until you recognize that we don't need "public health" to play savior,.....you will remain lost.
LightningBoy & Harley---
I agree with you both. Thanks for stating it so well.
.
I'm not asking if you are mad, as a scientist you should be regardless of the results, but if you are still shocked to see this play out over and over again.
We can be shocked at things we sort of expected. Like seeing a #1 team roll over a winless team by 50 points.
I figure even if Dr Siegel is engaging in a bit of hyperbole, though, it may be the shock never quite wears off for something this at odds with how things should be.
I'm still surprised scientists would do this. When I saw a press release like this I always assumed they'd checked their work before and I bet many other people less cynical did too.
Ditto what Sunz said.
Regardles of his "enlightenment" Dr. siegel must bear some blame for this behavior of the anti-smoker cartel. The "science by press release" is nothing new, it has been going on for as long as the ant-smoker cult has been in existence.
The media bears no less blame for refusing to question these press releases. I used to drive my colleagues in the news room up the wall with my refusal to run press releases as news stories without firs contacting someone about them.......up to and including press releases about something as innocuous as fire prevention month (which is October, BTW)
"While Spiegel Online may be reporting that there were 551 fewer heart attacks in Scotland due to the smoking ban, Siegel Online is reporting that..."
Maybe I'm easily amused these days --but that did make me laugh out loud.
"Are we no longer required to adhere to solid scientific practice in tobacco control?"
The very term "tobacco control" betrays the fact that adherents are not interested in scientific practice. Instead, they're a bunch of activists who are interested in... control.
So, scientific practice has been out the window for a long time now when it comes to coming up with new ways to justify their attempts to vex, hector, and demonize smokers.
"There is one exception, and that is IF (and only if) one makes the study available for public scrutiny and review."
Why would this suffice? You have already established that bartenders are too thick to review the evidence and come to their own conclusion. Why do you think the public at large can? Are bartenders dumber, on average, than members of the general public?
I don't think you think that.So...
Why is it you think simply presenting the data works for the AMherst Board of Health and the general public, but not bartenders?
Remember, you said that you would back away from a ban if bartenders were sufficently warned.
So?
Hi all,
I am just back from my holiday in the Balearic Islands. Every bar and restaurant allowed smoking, I estimate that at least 40% of patrons smoked and much higher in some.
Contrary to all my expectations I witnessed the following:-
Deaths - 0
Ear infections - 0
Asthma attacks - 0
Heart Attacks - 0
Harmony and tolerance everywhere, just as it used to (and should) be.
I see that I have a lot of catching up to do, can anyone advise on the Mr Nuttall situation?
GreatScot
"Are we no longer required to adhere to solid scientific practice in tobacco control?"
I must have misunderstood something you'd previously said, doctor. I thought you'd said -- or implied -- that you were rescinding your identification with tobacco control. Not so? Still hanging in there?
.
Sam M, "sufficient Warning" is one of the things the Doc will have to be forthcoming with if he really wants honest debate on the issue.
(I'm not convinced that is the case)
It was his idea that *IF* there was such a thing, he would back away from bans, but as yet he has neglected to formulate what that warning would entail, or at the very least has neglected to provide such verbiage here. (maybe he thinks we're all bartenders, and is concerned that we won't understand it either)
Surely, like most other warnings in our modern culture, such verbiage could be "dumbded down" sufficiently enough for mass consumption and still get the point acrossed.
You know the warnings I'm speaking of:
"Caution, - Coffee is HOT", or
"Caution, - Apply hourly as prolonged exposure to direct sunlight may result in skin damage" or,
"Caution, - Closed course, Professional driver. Do Not Attempt" or, my personal favorite example "WALK / DON'T WALK"
How smart do you have to be to understand that ETS poses an unsubstantiated negligable risk?
Doc?
"Contrary to all my expectations I witnessed the following:-
"Deaths - 0
Ear infections - 0
Asthma attacks - 0
Heart Attacks - 0"
You know, there are probably two or three hundred YEARS of experience among us here, in all sorts of smoking situations, and I doubt that any among us could come up with a figure greater than zero for deaths, asthma or heart attacks (the ear infections are problematic). Guess they must all be happening off-stage -- or in doctors' offices.
.
More fun in Blighty:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/ea...3A09%3A00%
3A113
.
Just goes to show how the newspapers lie. Everybody knows that smoking bans in pubs don't hurt business. Which will be proven once winter sets in.
http://www.thepublican.com/story...ycode=56979&
c=1
As a Doctor you have to know that this so called study is ridiculous and a waste of time and paper. Without using words like "could, cause, maybes" and all the other words used by TC to scare the public, why won't you just admit that there is no way on earth you can tell who will have a heart attack, on what day, what month or what year. Just because someone eats red meat, or smokes or is friendly with a smoker can you tell just when he/she will suffer from a heart attack. This guy says there was a drop of 571 heart attacks, but will be report next year that they increased by 1114? When working in an ER, do you know how many car accident victims will be brought in on a given night? Didn't think so.
Off topic, but according to the newest study, alcohol increases a womens risk of getting breast cancer. One of wo drinks increases the risk by 10%, 3 or more inceases the risk by 30%. Sorry, looks like smoking is no longer the cause of that one. Looks like you will have to rewrite your "healthy living, Do what I say" guide book.
Harry,
You need to get ready for a shock.
An anti-smoking campaigner in Hong Kong, a doctor, no less, has suggested that VENTILATION may ease the economic burden HK bars and karaoke joints are facing because of their ban.
Full story here, (ignore my scribblings, just scroll down for the link):
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=355
We were stunned by this sensible solution......why oh why did we not think of it?
All this really proves is that although some scientists are dishonest, many news people are dumber.
I wonder how much global warming could be averted if studies of this nature (manufacturing total crap) were (1) taxed with cleaning up the mess (2) came out of the researchers own pocket instead of being funded by the never ending money source called smokers.(3) adopted the legal system usage of the 3 strikes rule.If these so called scientists spun 3 studies worth of diarrhea they would face possible suspension for a specified time.(4)Remove political affinity hiding under the guise of tobacco control.If the level of scientific integrity is not met,the author is deemed a PRAT and their research is served back on a plate for them to EAT.Failure to do so would result in further penalties,such as the removal of Deity status and being forced to endure a 1940's movie and present a study discussing the perils of celuloid passive smoke .
Michael;
Are you still clinging to the scant thread of disbelief, anyone in TC is not solely determined to defame smokers and make their lives as difficult as possible in order to coerce the decision to quit smoking? or do you doubt the TC campaign is the future defining example, as a foundation for the multitude of control campaigns yet to come?
The health care thing has always been a convenient ploy in acquiring power, and if you don't know that, I give you far too much credit.
Just as Hitler did it we are being brought like it or not, into a state of health, of not just the absence of disease, but in a health of mind as directed by the WHO. This has never been about free will or choice rather the opposite. To even suggest scientific credibility was ever involved disrespects us all.
Is that too far afield for you to understand or accept? while you continue to make these childish "I can't believe statements" we are encouraging you daily to Grow up or wake up.
Are we simply talking to a series of boilerplate messages created last year in some grotesque experiment? Or do the opinions here, have any effect on you at all?
The same principles which gave Hitler his power are a significant empowerment we see endemic in the political science community, evident in it's recent promotions of hatred without reason or allowing a modicum of civil discussion. Your efforts if they are to have any value at all, need focus and a reality base.
Think about it, because every day you hesitate will decrease our ability to have any voice at all.
"Spiegel Online vs. Siegel Online"
That's a nice one ...
GreatScot: I am just back from my holiday in the Balearic Islands. Every bar and restaurant allowed smoking, I estimate that at least 40% of patrons smoked and much higher in some.
...
Harmony and tolerance everywhere, just as it used to (and should) be.
My question is, "Where are the Balearic Islands?" WB! 
benpal--LOL, I noticed that, too.
This Scottish study has been trashed up one side and down thother. My question here is, "Who's paying off the media buffoons?"
Hey Doc, saw your name mentioned in the Yahoo news sections:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...NvQFdZJgN8DW7oF
Just passing it along.
Scott:Hey Doc, saw your name mentioned in the Yahoo news sections:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ 20070...NvQFdZJgN8DW7oF
I noticed that Audrey silk is also quoted!! Cool. I was exchanging e-mails with her a couple of days ago. Gosh, I feel so...almost famous. 
(The doc's too busy too e-mail--and the tobacco smoke could always drift through the ISPs. You know how crafty that tobacco smoke is....I am *such* a smarty-pants!!)
"it seems a miracle has happened"
Anyone wanting to see just how much substance this "miracle" is likely to have only has to visit the shrine built to the last divine intervention, "The Great Helena Heart Miracle", where Saints Glantz, Shepard, and Sargent duck their critics in the Rapid Response section of the British Medical Journal.
See:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/
...055.715683.55v1
(In my own biased opinion my two favorites are "Helena, 1,000 Days" and "Independently Confirmed?" but they're all worth reading)
and you'll find that the crooning angels behind these studies tend to have very dirty feet when their curtain is pulled aside.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
The Doctor's wish for education has been granted to the tune of 5 million dollars in NY. Wonder who will be paying for this? Gee I thought no one was capable of understanding risk.
From the queen busy-body of the week:
State Assemblywoman Sandra Galef
Smoking near children needs state's attention
"We would have to examine any proposed laws closely to make sure the limits on adults smoking aren't taken too far, because we would never advocate for what some people actually would like to see: an all-out ban on tobacco"
http://www.auburnpub.com/article...w/
ourview01.txt
Good point, MJ!
I've been thinking about this:
To see how science by press release subverts scientific integrity, suppose that RJ Reynolds were to come out with a press release stating that Camel No. 9 cigarettes were found to reduce cancer risk by 20%. Newspaper headlines widely carried the headlines that Reynolds has produced a safer cigarette.
The first thing that anti-smoking groups would want to know is whether or not this research had been peer-reviewed and published. Suppose that it had not, and that the company did not release the study upon which these conclusions were based. There is no doubt that anti-smoking groups would condemn RJ Reynolds, question the validity of the study results, and claim that the company was widely misleading the public. RJ Reynolds would be attacked for violating established scientific standards.
S'pose so. For real. Suppose RJR decided to make sure that filters are not defective and/or stopped using tobacco sheets. (This, BTW, is feasible. They've already bought NAS and they offer organic smokes.) This would prove to be very fortuitous cancer-wise. However, the results wouldn't show for another couple of decades--during which time the BTC will have popularized bogus and/or misleading "studies" at lightning speed. Moreover, suppose RJR put some sort of ingredient in the smokes that actually did reduce lung cancer rates--antismoking zealots would *still* denounce a study showing the improvement--just like the smear campaign started by ACS over Enstrom's study. Antismoking groups would still attack RJRTC for violating research standards wheter or not the accusation were true.
Ya know, the press loves to tear down idols. It's just a matter of time before reporters pounce on BTC hotshots. (Then again, I think there have been past medical..well, stuff that's gone unchecked.) Give 'em a big enough headline and *blammo*.
Michael, perhaps with Helena Stanton Glantz, like Cosmo Kramer before him, happened on a Festivus Miracle. They happen a lot more often than many skeptics will admit.
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/b...vus-
miracle.asp
Harley-
No, I am no longer shocked. However, as Andrew pointed out "the shock never quite wears off for something this at odds with how things should be."
Jeeze, Colin, you're not paying attention. Ventilation is no good because in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room.
(Sorry, I should have put most of that in quotes.)
And, incidentally, those 'nonsmokers' also apparently include patrons, who enter a bar that allows smoking of their own free will. But I guess there's no way you can craft a warning about the dangers of secondhand smoke that those dummies might understand, anymore than you can craft a warning that all those dummy bartenders might understand.
So what's your problem, Colin? For godsake, get with the message!
.
Great Scot--
About Nuttall. AFAIK, we're waiting to get his address, and waiting to see if Forest will coordinate. If not, apparently Forces will. But we still need his address. And so, we wait.
DTB--
The islands are off the coast of Spain. Majorca's one of them.
:
Walt,
I have heard from Forest. Simon Clark advised me that Forces are taking the lead.
I contacted Gian Turci and he confirmed that this is so. Forces has contacted John Nuttall, (who is a little overwhelmed by the worldwide attention he is receiving) and John has requested some time to think. Forces (possibly with our help) will contact John again on Monday (1st Oct) to ask him what he wants to do.
I will update yall on whatever thread is active at the time.
Harry,
Sorry.
Note to self: get with the program!
BTW, we have written to the nice doctor in Hong Kong to ask his views on ventilation, and why he thinks it would work in HK, but NOT anywhere else. I'll keep you posted. (It would appear that Dr Ka-Ki did not get the memo either.....)
Walt:The islands are off the coast of Spain. Majorca's one of them.
Mmmmm....peace...harmony...island living. does kinda make ya wanna chill out and sit back with a nice smoke and a marguarita--and I don't even drink. Heck, give the marguarita to the waitress and I'll make some sweet tea. Aaaaaah!
Colin--Hope all goes well for Nutall. We'll be interested to know what the HK doctor has to say for himself, LOL.
"Jeeze, Colin, you're not paying attention. Ventilation is no good because in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room." Harry
Substitute smoker for welder. It can be done.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/w...com/
welding.php
""Jeeze, Colin, you're not paying attention. Ventilation is no good because in order to remove the health hazard, you would have to eliminate the smoke immediately after it left the cigarette but BEFORE it reached the nonsmokers in the room." Harry"
We still have to find a way to appease the terrified, who will have to endure the smoke outdoors, sometimes smelled blocks away.
We can't forget either the horrendous and callous premeditated attacks of "selfish smokers "Affecting the passengers of every passing bus, passengers who are dropping like flies 30 years later.
"Are we no longer required to adhere to solid scientific practice in tobacco control?"
When did you ever?
"Deadly gas"
"220 will die"
"hurricane force winds"
Plus:
"Worker" safety that includes patrons.
Education works for everyone but bartenders.
Personal and parental autonomy, except for people deciding where to work, drink, or eat.
Your own personal beliefs about SHS are not solid or scientific. You are certainly no a man to be tooting that horn too loudly, Doc.
"'Worker' safety that includes patrons.
"Education works for everyone but bartenders."
Beautiful, CC, and beautifully succinct.
DR. SIEGEL, IF YOU WRITE THAT 100 TIMES ON THE BLACKBOARD I'LL GIVE YOU A NICKLE.
Any retort, doctor? Be assured, we're all impatiently waiting.
.
"Any retort, doctor? Be assured, we're all impatiently waiting." STILL DEAD HARRY.
"STILL DEAD HARRY."
Harry was dead? And now he's back? There, indisputable proof that there is hope for the 220 bartenders!
Perhaps they'll check in here when they return----just like Harry. They can join in the wait.
Cowbell,
Appreciate your wonderfully expressed comments. BTW-you are NOT callous.
Thank you, Harry and Sunz. You're very kind.
Dr. Siegel called me callous for being unimpressed by his hypothetical "body count" of 220. (All of us, really.)
Most folks who say "x number will die" are basing this on people who have already died. Every year 8-15 Alaskan crab fishermen have died, so it reasonable to assume that nexy year, somewhere between 8 and 15 fishermen will die.
Same for coal miners, window cleaners, construction workers, and people who drive cars.
Bartending is the only profession in which we have no actual deaths on which to base our projections, so Dr. Siegel made the number up, and admitted to doing it.
The one flaw in that operation is that
we do have a number for the bartending profession. That number is zero. Dr. Siegel knows this, but this numberwould not have achieved a smoking ban.
My favorite of the made-up numbers is 440,000. It's so biblical. Why not use that one?
I really don't give a crap about 220 imaginary people. Never will. Show me the real people who died last year, and I'll care about them.
If this is the doc's definition of "callous," I'll wear it like a crown. I'm not possessive of it. Anyone who chooses can also wear it.
(You might have to take it in a bit.)
The doc thinks I'm callous, but I think he's a fanatic, a deliberate liar, and a hypocrite.
I also have enough stenghth of character to evaluate others' opinions of me to determine if they have merit.
Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I even change my opinions, even my behavior. It's my belief that such things are necessary for personal growth.
With the number of times Dr. Siegel has been called a hypocrite, you'd think he'd examine the possibility of it being true.
"Dr. Siegel called me callous for being unimpressed by his hypothetical 'body count' of 220." -- Cowbell
Maybe he meant you were hypothetically callous?
But I've forgotten. What was the word Dr. Siegel used to describe our unconcern about non-smoking bartenders having to look for either another line of work or a smoke-free bar to work in, and jobs not that easy to come by? Can't remember how he framed that, but shame on us anyway. Though I never could understand the argument when non-smoking bartenders were working in smoking bars to begin with. Er ... asthma?
So bars close or lose customers. Owners lose their businesses and have to look for work. Bartenders and waiters and waitresses either lose a whole lot of their income in tips or they too lose their jobs (and maybe it was one of two or three jobs a single mother worked at to keep food on the table and their children clothed). While a lot of smokers are deprived of an atmosphere that meant a lot in their lives. And out of the mouth of Dr. Siegel pops the word 'callous.'
But I forgot. Dr. Siegel did a scientific drive-by check of the bars in the Boston area and found them overflowing with customers -- remember? It's called 'drive-by science.'
So that's all settled, then. We're all callous and he's a fine, upstanding member of society who looks out for the little guy. The little guy who has to be nannied because he's too stupid to be able to understand a warning written by a frothing-at-the mouth, articulate Anti about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Ladies and germs, if you like farce, this is the place for it.
.
"We're all callous and he's a fine, upstanding member of society who looks out for the little guy."
Darn skippy, Harry. Remember, he looks out for the little guy, whether the little guy wants to be looked out for or not. We're all His Patients.
I also don't give a crap about asthmatics who are responsible for their own well-being.
Rather than have people with medical conditions acknowledge that their are places they shouldn't go and jobs they shouldn't do, we now pass laws that say we must cater to the weakest members of society.
My cousin had nasty asthma when he was a child. He was not allowed to play in the dirt, lest the dust set off an attack. The rest of us could get as dirty as we wanted.
Dr. Siegel would ban all of us from playing. Or maybe just ban the sand from the sandbox to protect poor Johnny.
All that does is make all the kids hate Johnny.
These kinds of laws make us all equally weak. To my callous heart, not a good thing.
CC (and people ask ME where "Cantiloper" came from???) wrote, "Dr. Siegel would ban all of us from playing. Or maybe just ban the sand from the sandbox to protect poor Johnny."
No, sand is "necessary" to the sandbox. However, sandboxes could be banned from playgrounds.
On the other hand, outdoor patios are quite clearly not necessary to the act of eating, and they DO clearly expose innocent workers, many of them being mere underage childen, to the deadly radiation put out by the sun.
Why do we allow degenerate and inconsiderate Sunners to continue to abuse our children simply so they can sip Margaritas in a cancerous environment? Where are our protectors, our saviors, our "Dr." Glantz's who would stand forth and protect our babes?
::sigh::
I fear there are no champions for those of us suffering xeroderma pigmentosum. Not even Dr. Siegel will step forth and demand an end to our abuse.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
I have to disagree, Mr. McFadden. Sand is not necessary to the enjoyment of the box. Kids can enjoy the box just as much without the sand. In fact, they have a right to sand-free entertainment.
If they're so addicted to their dirt, they can simply step outside. Banning sandboxes entirely would be prohibitionist, and I'm not that kind of girl.
(Got a fever? All you need is more Cowbell. Where does Cantiloper comefrom?)
CC "Dr. Siegel would ban all of us from playing."
This paternalism requires that all adults submit to a 'father knows best' ruler. He seems to think it's for our survival but I call it tyranny.
Becoming an adult is no longer acceptable. With the "for your own good" crowd it is not even desirable.
Think of how secure their jobs/positions are when we all NEED such guidance. Childish societies require some form of tyranny to survive. We are tyrannized by the very people who supposedly served us. Just as the overgrown children of our culture are -- and the rest of us with them -- by the paternal institutions created to afford them this perpetual childhood.
And they call this progress.
BTW CC you might enjoy this interview with Diana West about her new book 'The Death of The Grownup'
This book is on my must read list:
http://climber.wordpress.com/200...-by-diana-west/
Scroll 1/2 way down the page for Parts 1 & 2.
.
Another written interview w/Ms West can be found here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Arti...80-
ff317a0901b9
~snip~
'In considering the strong links between an increasingly paternalistic nanny state and the death of the grown-up, I found that Tocqueville (of course) had long ago made the connections. He tried to imagine under what conditions despotism could come to the United States. He came up with a vision of the nation characterized, on the one hand, by an "innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls," and, on the other, by the "immense protective power" of the state. "Banal pleasures" and "immense state power" might have sounded downright science-fictional in the middle of the 19th century; by the start of the 21st century, it begins to sound all too familiar. Indeed, speaking of the all-powerful state, he wrote:
"It would resemble parental authority if, fatherlike, it tried to prepare its charges for a man's life, but, on the contrary, it only tries to keep them in perpetual childhood."
Perhaps the extent to which we, liberals and conservatives alike, have acquiesced to our state's parental authority shows how far along we, as a culture, have reached Tocqueville's state of "perpetual childhood."'
******
This is reminscent of Kevin's many posts on paternalism.
CC, Cantiloper comes from QumQuat, a former play-alias on the C-64's Quantum Link network when only staff were allowed to have names beginning with "Q".
As for sandless sandboxes,I must disagree. Boxes are fine toys, and I enjoyed many of them as a child, but sandboxes do necessarily involve sand. Unfortunately so do sandwiches, at least when eaten in sandboxes.
Now if we could get rid of sand on beaches, THAT would be quite a public health jump! There'd be a huge slash in drowning deaths without the need for swimming Prohibition simply because beaches would no longer be such nice places to hang out. The lives saved and taxpayer savings from reduced geriatric skin cancer would be incredible!
Ban The Sand!
And Sunz, many thanks for the Tocqueville quote... fascinating!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Kids are imaginative. They could IMAGINE sand in the sandbox. Perfect solution!
Oops! That would be discrimination against the unimaginative kids. Sorry I was so stupid.
"CC 'Dr. Siegel would ban all of us from playing.'"
Maybe not Dr. Siegel, CC, but remember that fine group of so-called educators who banned playing tag in playgrounds because the kids might injure themselves?
"... by the paternal institutions created to afford them this perpetual childhood." Boy, Sunz, is that ever on the mark! And let me add my thanks for the Tocqueville quote.
.
To put even more strain on the sandbox metaphor, without the box even more kids would be playing on the swings. With all the dust kicked up, the Wheezy Johnnys are in even more danger.
Before the smoking ban hit Philadelphia, I never smoked in my house. Not for health reasons, but to protect Sig's massive record collection.
I enjoyed the bar because they were the last place left to smoke indoors. I'm not a big drinker; I went to the bar to smoke and play the quiz.
When the ban came in, I announced that I would no longer be going to the bar. My butts can get frozen and rained on on my private patio, for free.
Sig, a non-smoker, liked having me in the bar. He likes his beer, his trivia, and his sweetie all in one place.
This disruption of his non-smoking life spurred him to strike a deal with me. We could build a smoking room in the house if I would still attend quiz night.
Now I smoke in the house with Sig and my kid. I attend quiz night, but no other. I stand on a seedy corner of Pine Street and smoke between rounds.
I only drink Cokes now, because drinking without smoking truly sucks. The closest bar with an exemption has a quiz, but a long walk through less-than-safe streets. (Driving is out, for obvious reasons.)
So the box is still there, and so are the toys. But Philly's bars are sandboxes without sand.
CC, re Philly sandboxes... I know of several with sand still in them. Let's all get together some night!
:>
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Dr Siegel,
Can you please show me your working out for the 16.7% drop? I'm not doubting you at all, it's just my Maths leaves a lot to be desired.
Commenting by HaloScan
