The yellow star rises?
Why not tattoos with numbers as a more permanent notice as an insult to community values?
Maybe we need a permit to come up with stupid proposals, first one goes to Nicola Roxon - limit of one per year.
This post was just what I needed to cheer me up after reading prior articles!
(But at least Roxon shows her true colors -- "...to force people to quit.")
I’m sure all of the examples of licensing doctor Siegel suggest here would be perfectly acceptable to Dr. Simon Chapman as long as the person required to have such a license, is also a smoker.
Chapman’s suggestion is driven by pure hate, and stands as yet another testament to the abuse of tile and licensing within tobacco control.
Has any of them explained what the dire emergency is that requires any action to get smokers to quit?
Do we:
Need the tobacco fields for food?
Need more old people to burn up Social Security?
Need more nursing home and Alzheimer's patients?
Really, what's the emergency? Is the sky falling? It can't be so simple that these people are simply pricks, can it?
You left out licensing to consume coffee, a highly addictive substance.
Strict coffee rationing of 1 cup per day per person could be implemented under this system and, as an additional incentive, the price of coffee could be raised to unfordable levels. Coffee related advertising would be banned under the new system.
Workplace coffee bans could be put into effect everywhere.
A new litigation strategy could be developed, and lawyers could declare war on the Big Coffee companies in order to bring them to their knees. A coffee settlement could be reached with Big Coffee, and the money could be used to pay for health-related damages, such as coffee jitters and teeth staining.
I nominate for Line of The Month: It can't be so simple that these people are simply pricks, can it?
It might be the right time of the year to reread The Federalist Papers or some of Madison's letters. The general understanding of the Founders was that most people are (simply pricks) and their natural prickdom needs to be countered. The founders' deepest fear was that pricks with a megaphone would con the populace, arousing the general prickness of the mob and ruin the Republic. Alas...
:
Dear All,
I admire and envy your ability to laugh at and ridicule the ongoing assault and out of control, insane persecution of smokers, I however am rapidly becoming stressed, depressed and angry. Maybe we need a really outrageous example of the hatred to finally awaken smokers and tolerant non-smokers from their apathy?
BTW NHS Wales have confirmed that infertile smokers are denied IVF treatment as policy.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/new...91466-21168058/
happy independence day to all you freedom lovers, for those that believe controlling others is desirable and defensible, take Walt's advice.
GreatScot
Lets remind ourselves of one of Mr Chapmans other most interesting works
Markers of the Denormalization of Smoking and the Tobacco Industry
( Including the Spoiled Identity of Smokers )
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
spoilt.pdf
From reading about the goings on in Australia it sounds more like the Inquisition reborn, than a public health campaign.
"I admire and envy your ability to laugh at and ridicule the ongoing assault and out of control, insane persecution of smokers," GreatScot it is that precise ability that sets us apart from the jackbooted ranti brigade,who possess no human traits whatsoever.They have no redeeming qualities just a never ending urge to suppress and control those who they despise so much.There's enough to get depressed about in life ,so chin up.Let's go to Manchester and stock up on some guns,just to ensure our right to smoke is never forfeited lol.
So the intelligence or lack thereof now goes; if smokers are licensed they will quit smoking. Did It work in the auto industry? How about the medical profession?
Both seemed to promote a feeling of entitlement and accomplishment among the licensees.
Just as the tobacco industry wants it, we will define smoking as an adult only activity. For children, a rite [right]of passage.
I suggest a $1000 fee and a government issued license for every word that comes out of tobacco control.
This is how TC pays their debts;
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/Art....aspx?
e=1098821
"No safe cigarette" paired with health ministers avoiding obligation by claiming "there is no proof domestic tobacco is any safer than the much cheaper products produced elsewhere." Just like Micheal's claims, denouncing safer products in spite of the science.
Free trade job losses and TC will always go hand in hand
A couple of articles from the BBC laugh a day site.
Brain imbalance 'cot death key'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7489300.stm
No mention of ETS, I guess they don't need to keep blaming parents.
Denmark 'world's happiest nation'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...rld/
7487143.stm
Excerpts
"Our research indicates prosperity is linked with happiness. It does contribute," he says, "but it is not the most important factor.
"Personal freedom is even more important, and it's freedom in all kinds of ways. Political freedom, like with democracy and freedom of choice."
The study also found that the countries at the bottom of the list all struggle with widespread poverty or authoritarian governments.
How many deaths associated with misery and unhappiness? Strange for a UK news organisation not to say where the UK came in. I wonder why?
Si, I will try to keep my "chin up", off for a coffee and a smoke now.
GreatScot
The 'Red Coats' are still coming, but now they wear 'White Coats'.
Happy 4th to All.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Anonymous wrote: “So the intelligence or lack thereof now goes; if smokers are licensed they will quit smoking. Did It work in the auto industry?”
No one stopped driving, but, it did provide the government with additional sources of revenue and create provincial databases of all licensed vehicles (and all licensed drivers) across the country.
I’m sure the anti-smoker brigade will sleep better at night knowing that the police can identify and locate every smoker in the country in some new smoker’s database. It would sure make it easier to round us up when the box cars and concentration camps are ready. Not that any democratic government would contemplate such a thing.
Of course, if smokers were required to get a special license plate for their vehicle, it would make it easier for police to spot potential infractions of the new no smoking in cars with children present laws. And it would have the added advantage of identifying cars that were owned by smokers, thus protecting the non-smoking consumer from inadvertently buying one of their stinking vehicles.
A smoker’s database could be used to distribute compulsory warnings which smokers would have to display on their front door. For example, a very graphic warning, half the size of the door, that says: “Secondhand smoke kills! Enter at your own risk”.
Shit. Have they come out with a study yet that says smokers are at a greater risk of becoming paranoid than non-smokers?
PS Here's hoping all my friends south of the border have a wonderful fourth of July week-end. And, yes, that includes my in-laws in Boston and Jamestown.
The latest salvo from the TC cult comes in response to a new product on the market;
http://www.crown7.com/
In a local spooled news spot the propaganda reel featured a "Public Health expert" who with a straight face, in fact almost a look of terror exclaimed "we in the scientific community remain unconvinced this product can be considered safe".
A claim made despite the fact no harm has ever been associated with the alternative product. The expected switch went to file footage featuring the approved alternatives and promotional narrative, which featured the familiar Patch the Gum and inhalers, all of which are known to demonstrate increased risks.
This is indeed a battle for market share with Public Health partners, with absolutely no evidence to support their case, seen shamelessly Hocking for "the right product" in denying the marketability of possibly superior and less expensive products, which essentially are identical in function.
The difference resides solely in not being approved by their financial backers, the absolutely conflicted interests who will loose market share as the popularity of this product grows.
Expect "new research" [to set us straight] to be announced soon.
Have a great Fourth of July everyone.
I just wanted to say that I will be happy to queue up for a smokers permit.
I have conditions. The following groups also carry out risky behaviour that hurts them, kills them, and puts others at risk (I am thinking here of rescue teams):
Yachtsmen/women
Mountaineers
Hill walkers
Horseriders
Skateboarders
Football players
Rugby players
Hockey players
Parachutists
Eaters
Drinkers
Swimmers
Cyclists
Do It Yourselfers
Abseilers
Canoeists
And on, and on, and on.
In the UK, ALL of the above have hurt, maimed or killed themselves with a massive cost to our NHS.
Drinkers in Scotland alone (population 5.2 million) cost the NHS £2.6 BILLION per year to treat. The smokers, around 12 million of us, (in the whole of the UK), cost around £1.5 BILLION to treat.
I could no doubt find the figures for sporting injuries but it may take some time.
Permits? Oh my, yes.
But let's not restrict them to smokers.
Happy 4th of July!
I've used the term "health slavery " here before, ...this is the first step towards our health care system gaining ownership over our bodies.
Excellent idea.
I suggest the license be in the form of a yellow star with 6 spikes. The bearer of the license must sew it on his wear, so it's immediately visible on checking.
Those who are caught smoking without a license properly in place must be sent immediately into re-education camps. Those camps must be sorrounded by fences and barbed wire, and on the entrance they must bear the sign "arbeit mach frei".
Still think we stupid smoker's can't predict the future Doc?
Do you REALLY still believe you want to be in the forefront of THIS movement YOU helped to create?
Have you STILL not learned from history?
Are you SURE you are more learned than us "uneducated" folks who enjoy tobacco?
I hope you know what you're doing, because the last group we saw pulling this crap cost the world a whole lot more lives than you're movement are "saving".
Anybody else conjuring up images of trench coated smoke police marching up to smokers huddled in the back alleyways, barking "papers"?
Big Pharma? Big criminals, big sleaze.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...n.html?
ITO=1490
Three British firms are being sued by the Iraqi government for allegedly paying bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime.
They are among dozens of international companies accused of being involved in the 'biggest fraud in history'.
Drug company GlaxoSmith-Kline, London-based pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca and the Weir Group Scottish engineering firm are named in the lawsuit alleging they received cash, goods and services intended for the Iraqi people.
GreatScot:
Illegitimi Non Carborundum
GDF,
thanks, made me smile.
Unfortunately my Latin is not up to a decent reply (Ordinary Grade at age 16, many, many years ago and never used since).
GreatScot
Anybody else conjuring up images of trench coated smoke police marching up to smokers huddled in the back alleyways, barking "papers"?
GreatScot
Most definitely. How the doc doesn't see this is beyond my scope of comprehension (and my scope of comprehension is very, very wide indeed).
Happy Independence day everyone, even those who are NOT in the U.S. Enjoy it while you can, and start planning your escape from the tyranny that is fast approaching.
And to think, we have our soldiers off in the middle east fighting against this very thing that is happening in free countries around the world.
It's disgusting when you think about it.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon uses terms such as 'Force' and 'Punishment'.
Is this education or coercion? Public Health or what?
It is clear that 'the protection of non-smokers' is no longer on the agenda is it?
Why? What is happening?
Surly, with terms like these in use, the costs are now out weighing the benefits?
west
----
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.
.
.
AS I stated last night these words and their true meaning are lost on the nanny statists. No sane person could possibly understand the true meaning of these words and what caused them to be written and yet still seek to impose their personal preferences upon others at the point of a gun. The irony of this is totally lost on them. They want the force of law (gun point) to impose their will on others, yet they are the same ones who seek to deprive us our own guns.
I have a neighbor who reminds me of these control freaks. She's basically a lovely woman, but is a PETA type animal lover and is totally freaking out over our dispatching of raccoons and foxes on our property. She thinks we should be trapping them rather than shooting them. I told her she was more than welcome to put traps here, but she would also them be totally responsible for any damage done to either my animals (cats and a dog) or my child and her friends if they continued to attack. Rabies is a far more serious threat to public health than any amount of SHS that could possibly be incurred in any type setting.
These type people, including the good doctor, have their priorities entirely backwards.
On this day that we Americans celebrate that which is so great and good (or was) about our great nation, I would ask the good doctor to reflect upon the words I placed above from 232 years ago and please understand why those of us who take those words so seriously fight him and his movement so vigorously.
.
.
.
The Doc was to busy reading science books to take much notice of why and how this great country was founded Gabz. Obviously, every Politician today never understood it either. They are to busy scratching backs to consider what our forefathers had in mind when that greatest essay ever was written and why it was even considered for publication. I would like to see an amendment to it saying that every Political office must have it prominently displayed in their offices and that it be printed at the top of every ballot throughout the land. Even if the common man only reads it on election day, at least they see it and maybe one day understand it.
This morning on "Good Morning America" they did a segment on how our troops in Iraq was celebrating Independence Day in a war zone. They were eating the typical picnic food, but drinking sodas instead of beer. No alcohol for them in this war zone. They were playing some football and generally enjoying themselves. They were also smoking. Yep, the cameras caught them. There wasn't even a tsk tsk from anyone on the show once the segment ended. Wonder how they will feel once they return home and have to produce a paper saying that they can smoke in their own home?
Also, did you know that the stop smoking drug Chantix is being tested on our soldiers who returns home diagnosed with PTDS? I believe there are something like 140 soldiers being used as guinea pigs to see if the drug does give suicide tendencies. These guys with Post traumatic syndrome is being given this drug! They already have suicidal thoughts without it and now the pharmacuticals and the FDA will beable to declare the drug harmless as these fine men returned home from a war zone already already injured and will be able to say there is no way to know if it was the drugs or real life that made them this way. This angers me so much. Especially today!
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!!!
If you can't get addictive pain-killers without a prescription, why allow such easy and uninformed access to tobacco? A license to buy cigarettes goes to the heart of whether nicotine should be treated like other legal but dangerous drugs, and Mike's silly comparisons to things like rock climbing don't address this issue.
I know a rock climber who says it keeps him in amazing shape. Could the doctor now explain for us the benefits of smoking?
http://www.statesman.com/
opinion...apman_edit.html
The American Lung Association supports smoking bans because it provides protection for non-smokers from exposure to secondhand smoke'
An Absolute lie;
SMOKER BANS ARE NOT A PROTECTION, THEY ARE A PUNISHMENT. For the Nanny state lemmings, believed to be a time out, for bad behavior. You naughty naughty little children. lol
Larger lies?
"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year"
"we all know that tobacco is the number one preventable cause of death."
Yada Yada Yada...
Now for a more credible view of the situation;
The American Government is facing a huge problem, with limited funding and an aging population. Poor fiscal planing and buying votes for too many years, is coming full circle.
Disease management [AKA passing the buck]is simply the cowardly way out of honoring their commitments.
They hired medical charities and invented lobbies, who all, if scrutinized even at a moderate level; have some large credibility problems in respect to, an almost complete failure to invest the funds given them, to actually find cures. Primarily those funds have been squandered and used to finance self indulgence beyond belief.
The charities are more than willing to join, in a shift of responsibility to their victims. The smoking patch sales people can be counted on to finance the propaganda campaigns and all that remains, is to wait for us to learn to hate each other enough, a step at a time and a theoretic study at a time until all of science is dictated by the Nazis of the growing public Health cult.
Governance is something you do for the people never something you do to them.
The traditional old school [Old Boys network]political parties, need to be driven off the roost. They have lost all respect for their employers and don't deserve to be employed, because they have never earned it. Now they just take job security for granted; because we are all too stupid to do anything about it.
Tobacco kills six million people each year. How many people died from rock climbing last year?
“The charities are more than willing to join, in a shift of responsibility to their victims. The smoking patch sales people can be counted on to finance the propaganda campaigns and all that remains, is to wait for us to learn to hate each other enough, a step at a time and a theoretic study at a time until all of science is dictated by the Nazis of the growing public Health cult.”
Not that I totally disagree Anonymous, But f888 you and your nazi comparisons. If those oppressed by the nazis had one tiny aspect of the freedoms smokers still have, they would have fought back with vengeances. Unfortunately PTA like politics seem to rule the day.
or from working as nurses on understaffed floors while putting up with this from their CEO's...
http://www.newsnet5.com/health/1...782/
detail.html
why do they do these messed up things on islands around the world? look at ireland and england. new zealand is hostile and hawaii is not a very friendly place for smokers either.
brandz
First place, Anonymous, that non-name is taken and you'll likely be prosecuted for identity theft, so find something else. I could make some suggestions, but not in a family newspaper.
If you've followed these pages or know how to google, you'll find there are many physical and mental benefits from smoking, from the nicotine and other naturally-occuring chemicals found in the plant, as well as from the carbon monoxide. But that medicalized and chilly utilitarian measurement overlooks pleasure. And yes, we freely acknowledge there are risks.
Now: would you kindly explain to us the medical and strictly utilitarian benefits of : reading poetry, raising dogs, growing a mustache, drinking single-malt Scotch, or eating Chinese food in bed with someone you're nuts about while watching an old Marx Brothers movie and following it all up with non-procreative sex?
Are you further aware that in the glorious heydey of the Cultural Revolution all non-utilitarian objects and activities were banned by Chairman Mao?
Happy July 4th.
And I too wonder if the Doctor, in his dogged pursuit of the narrow has forgotten the larger picture imagined by the founders.
:
That last one was meant for the Anonymous-whose-pal-crawls-around-rocks
The last part of the DoC:
"[I]t is their right, it is their duty
to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security."
Anonymous wrote:
"If you can't get addictive pain-killers without a prescription, why allow such easy and uninformed access to tobacco?"
You should be able to get any kind of painkillers without a prescription. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"I know a rock climber who says it keeps him in amazing shape. Could the doctor now explain for us the benefits of smoking?"
Yeah, smoking might keep many smokers from taking up such a dangerous pastime.
The same or another Anonymous wrote:
"Tobacco kills six million people each year. How many people died from rock climbing last year?"
Are there a billion rock climbers?
Also, what's the average age of death from rock climbing? It's probably a helluva lot more premature than from smoking. And harder to clean up.
Then there's also the time actually spent rock climbing. How many hours a day does a rock climber climb? Or I should probably ask, How many hours in a year?
I forgot to say, Thanks for the nomination, Walt. LOL
I'd like to thank my parents, especially my dad, who taught me, "If you don't like it, don't look."
That's something pricks need to learn.
From hansard, in response to the alledged 400,000 quitters
Harriet Harman (Lord Privy Seal, House of Commons; Camberwell & Peckham, Labour) Link to this | Hansard source | Watch this
"I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of the effect on public health of ending smoking in public places. We need to make further progress on this important public health issue. This is definitely a job for the nanny state."
It looks like any pretense about protecting workers from ETS is being dropped and smokers can look forward to more coercion and denormalisation.
GreatScot
Why can't we apply the exact same ventilation solution that ASHRAE accepts for enclosed parking garages to bars that allow smoking? I would really like an answer to this.
http://www.garasjeventilasjon.no...g%
20garages.pdf
Tim Clarke
Oh well caught, sir!
I can't remember who linked that PDF authored by Dr. Simon Chapman the guy who originally suggested the idea of smoking licenses.
I suggest you read his paper on the "denormalization" of smokers:
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
spoilt.pdf
You can also read it in HTML by typing it into Google and clicking "Read as HTML"
Here are a few choice pieces:
"News reports of developments with vaccines and nicotine antagonists
further position smokers as people somehow out of volitional control, needing medication."
"Recent public debate about whether smokers should be given
lower priority than non-smokers in surgical waiting lists or even denied elective surgery paid for by the public health system have drawn on implications that smokers are somehow unwilling to assist in improving their own prognosis. Those trying to counter such harsh accounts tend to frame smokers as victims of addiction, undeserving of such opprobrium. Either way, the image of sick, helpless smokers is unflattering."
"Today, while others enjoy food,
wine and conversation in a restaurant, many smokers are thinking about how they might quietly get outside to stand in the street to relieve their dis-ease from lack of nicotine."
"When each flight ends, it is then seen as necessary to remind smokers that they cannot light up until they get outside the airport buildings. Again, the sub-text of the message is plain: here are desperate addicts counting the seconds until they can smoke."
"In the 1990s, the tobacco industry lobbied for the construction of dedicated smokers’ rooms inside airports. In these, smokers congregated in small glassed-in rooms, typically thick with smoke and overflowing ashtrays, while other passengers moved past observing their segregation. Inside, smokers have time to reflect yet again on their “otherness”, and why they feel compelled to subject themselves to such indignity. “Fishbowl” smoking rooms may function as living anti-smoking “billboards”. Many sitting in them must occasionally pause to reflect: 'I’m sitting in this awful room because I smoke.' Smokers
sometimes protest that they are made to feel like social 'lepers'. In early 2007, these uninviting rooms were quietly removed from Australian airports with no fanfare or public objection."
And that is just for one section. The whole thing is filled with how good it is that smokers are viewed as criminal, selfish, uneducated, and so on.
I am sure I wrote a comment asking why the health minister was using terms like 'Force'.
In the 1 Year review of 'Smokefree England' they say
Medical and scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of serious medical conditions such as lung cancer, heart disease, asthma attacks, childhood respiratory disease, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and reduced lung function
No quantification of ETS.
Asthma rates are increasing ETS is falling.
SIDS has now been linked to genetics and possible misdiagnosis just how much of a 'risk' factor is ETS?
west
----
(Fake ?) Anonymous wrote: ”Could the doctor now explain for us the benefits of smoking?
I suspect the Doctor is a lifelong non-smoker and may need help with that question.
In a recent interview for the New York Times health section, Dr. David B. Abrams (The American Legacy Foundation) noted that: “The biggest problem with nicotine is that, actually, your brain works better on nicotine. It improves reaction time, it improves memory, it improves concentration, it helps you get through a frustrating workday. There are reasons why people hang on to nicotine. It’s almost the perfect drug.”
“I’m an ex-smoker, and I still miss it. I think I might actually have been more productive as a researcher if I’d continued to smoke, because I know it made my brain work better. It’s very, very hard to give up, and I’m very sympathetic”.
To the scammer attempting to abscond with my supreme likeness;
""If you can't get addictive pain-killers without a prescription, why allow such easy and uninformed access to tobacco?""
Why are we allowed access to such a dangerous product at all? Is the State and the majority of the population willing to accept responsibility for all the dangers associated with smoking, holding the licensees harmless from all damages which could occur during it's proper and legal use?
The anti smoker movement could be shut down, no more manufactured science will be required?
The lobbies created to support the hate campaigns would be lacking a target with the problem well under control?
What will the rent seeking victims have to whine about, after smoking is declared a government sanctioned and regulated activity?
And of course David, since you inquired;
"But f888 you and your nazi comparisons. If those oppressed by the nazis had one tiny aspect of the freedoms smokers still have, they would have fought back with vengeances."
Do you seriously believe anyone as an individual or in small groups could successfully fight back with a vengeance today? In retrospect we are much more oppressed as a society, than even Hitler dared to impose on his people. In today's society which is keyed up in fear of terrorist assaults, we have all but been denied any expectation to human rights or property rights. Now they come for your body. A society with a limited access to the popular media and with even the churches denormalized, where would a serious resistance be formed?
Calling someone a Nazi with good reason when they use the same methods and same entitlements, is not misguided it is simply identifying what you can see. If more people called Public Health experts, Nazis at every opportunity, the same psychology methods they use to defame others, would have it's effects on them as well. They would eventually have to wear the designation they richly deserve and earned.
Every oppressive act by the Nazis against Jews, Blacks, Russians and the Poles was entitled by the same protectionist mindset declaring the pure Aryan race as superior to all others. Now the Healthist fear mongers profit from the same promotions, found in the anti smoker campaign the same slurs, The same terms, the same slanders and the same accusations.
Many died in opposition to that very mindset which paints a human as less than others. If you were a Jew or Black you would understand that indescribable delegation society places upon them at birth. A delegation of pecking order, which will always keep us separated.
Some call it stereotype, some see it for what it really is; Bigotry and hatred. Because the dosage is lowered and spoken in guarded terms, does not make it less dangerous in fact when distributed in low dosages it has much more long term effect.
David oh David you moron. Do you think the Jews went to bed with all their freedoms intact and woke up the next day being shipped to Auschwitz? The rights of those oppressed were gradually removed over time. I know the actual concept of reading ALL your history is tres uncool, but if you're going to go around talking smack, perhaps you ought to KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.
Anonymous,
Perhaps you didn't read the whole post, but I agree with you. I do think smokers should require a license. It's just that I also think that other dangerous behaviors should also require a license. Obesity kills over 100,000 Americans a year and its related health care costs mirror those due to tobacco use. I think people should be allowed to make a decision to eat high-fat food and food containing trans-fats, but I think we should prevent "easy and uninformed access." A licensing system would do just that - ensuring that people do not have easy and uninformed access to high-fat and trans-fat containing food, but at the same time, balancing individual autonomy by allowing people to make their own informed decisions. I think it's a perfect balance between public health concerns and autonomy concerns.
I've never been one to use the Nazi analogy. Mostly because I don't think it exactly fits. When I have compared the anti-smoking movement to a historical event or movement it is usually to the Spanish Inquisition.
The constant search for unorthodoxy, the willingness to abandon long loyal allies for merely suggesting they are going too far, the hypocrisy of the those carrying out the crusade, believing that any criticism is the result of demonic forces and Satan (or worse FORCES and tobacco companies), and so on.
I think it suits them quite well. And they also have another root, in theory they had good intentions. The Catholic Church wanted to save the souls of heretics and the tobacco control movement wants to reduce lung cancer and heart disease. But they both will harass and torment to "save" those people who refuse to do what they want. And neither had any remorse.
That is what C.S. Lewis meant about "moral busybodies" tormenting us with no end. They feel good about it. In their minds they are either tormenting heretics who either deserve no such respect or see their torment as something that will force one to give up their evil ways. I am convinced that a good sized majority of the anti-smoking movement would feel no disgust if there was numerous incidents of smokers being murdered for being smokers.
The point is that they have gone too far. It used to be that smoking was bad because it was bad for you. Now it is smoking is just bad. If you read the PDF ( http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
spoilt.pdf ) I and someone else linked earlier you can see the doctor in question is more concerned about how evil smokers are viewed and what a good job the movement did at cultivating that view. It's no longer "Quitting smoking will improve your health", but rather "Quitting smoking will end your treatment as subhuman filth".
That is just plain lame, Doc.
Doctor, I hope you forgot to put a '/sarc' after your last comment.
Why do I feel like I'm playing the game 'Mother May I'?
Harley, Dave Kuneman and I fought to keep the smoking lounges at Lambert Airport and we won. You can still smoke inside Lambert. But we had to fight like hell with a lot of intense, behind the scenes politics. It was fun and a sweet victory.
Gabz,
"that all men are created equal"
so long as you are a white male land owner.
Or to be more accurate tax avoiding , tobacco farmimg male expat British Aristocracy are created equal - just leg pulling.
When I am Prime Minister I shall make
sure that Austrailians are issued with
a "sport bragging" licence. Austrailians may brag about how good they are at cricket and rugby but only
if they produce a licence. This would be a good balance between British public health and Austrailian freedom. I am also
thinking about issuing a sex licence to the current Mrs Eich - but this idea has not been well received so far.
Smoking banned in parks, properties
"Resident Virginia Torbert, a big supporter of the nosmoking ordinance, said there has to be lots of written reminders all over parks and recreation areas reminding people where they can smoke"
“I’ve done some research on no smoking at parks in California, and they say it’s self enforcing,” she said. “The key is you have to flood the parks with signage.”
Well that should look most attractive.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dy...08-
1558983.html
Chapman's paper does make a start at documenting the deliberate stigmatization of smokers, and while does elude to just a few of the negative impacts it may have produced, it is just a start. As tobacco contol activists can no longer plead ignorance.
It does not address, the complete lack of ethics to promote or specifically attempt to create or engineer a stigmatization of another group of people. This is a gross human rights violation.
Rose about flooding parks with no-smoking signage: "Well that should look most attractive."
To an anti-smoking contol freak. How about requiring licenses for this bunch too?
Better yet, since they are a theat to liberty, why not require them to register, like sex offenders.
I do think smokers should require a license. It's just that I also think that other dangerous behaviors should also require a license. - Michael Siegel
What activity isn't dangerous? Just cooking food is fraught with danger - of burns, scalds, cuts. Every time I take a bath I'm in danger of drowning. Just walking up and down stairs is fraught with peril - one of my neighbours broke a leg when she tripped and fell down one of the darn things. Even reading a book is dangerous - I cut a finger quite badly once when I accidently ran it along the razor edge of a page.
Yeah, I too hope you forgot to put a '/sarc' after your last comment.
Walt H.
Though it is tempting to lobby for a ban on busybodies in parks, they too pay their taxes for the upkeep of these public places.
Perhaps a small area could be set aside so that they can lecture each other without disturbing anyone else.
From today's "Rest of the Story, "To be eligible, smokers would need to have their doctor affirm that they are smokers and then apply for a photo ID swipecard. Any new smokers wanting a licence after the scheme's starting date would be required to take a test, proving they fully understood the many health risks of smoking."
Dr. Siegel posted today, " I do think smokers should require a license ... I think we should prevent "easy and uninformed access." A licensing system would do just that..."
In other words all smokers would have to sign a paper that says they accept all of the antismokers junk science as being real and true. An oath of loyalty or better yet a public statement of religious conversion to antismoker dogma. These papers must be shown at predetermined checkpoints.
This is akin to requiring all people wishing to build a telescope like Galileo's, in the 15th century, to sign papers that require the signer to acknowledge that the Sun orbits the Earth.
Sometime in the future these oaths of allegiance to anti-smoker doctrines will be used against the smokers who have signed up. Your license to smoke will be revoked because you accepted our assessment of risk as a fact. You must be sick to keep smoking because smoking makes you sick.
Catch-22
How about requiring College Professors to apply for a license to teach on a yearly basis? No more tenure because tenure increases the risk of rogue intellectuals questioning the status quo.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
"It's just that I also think that other dangerous behaviors should also require a license"
I have a license that allows me to ride a 1000 motorcycle,but no skateboard license unfortunately.
Did I miss the license needed to own and use a pellet stove?
Sorry, guys. My comment was encased in "[sarc] [/sarc]" in the HTML.
I was simply trying to demonstrate to Anonymous how ridiculous and intrusive his or her suggestion of licensing smokers is.
I do think smokers should require a license. It's just that I also think that other dangerous behaviors should also require a license. Obesity kills over 100,000 Americans a year and its related health care costs mirror those due to tobacco use. I think people should be allowed to make a decision to eat high-fat food and food containing trans-fats, but I think we should prevent "easy and uninformed access." A licensing system would do just that - ensuring that people do not have easy and uninformed access to high-fat and trans-fat containing food, but at the same time, balancing individual autonomy by allowing people to make their own informed decisions. I think it's a perfect balance between public health concerns and autonomy concerns.
If this isn't sarcasm.......I don't even know where to begin, other than to say "GO TO HELL".
Where do you people get off this? You want a license? I have one for you. Every busy-body, do-gooder, tyrant-wannabe has to be licensed to prove they understand that independent free thinking people will tell them to F*** OFF!
There's a license for you.
Happy Independence Day weekend!
BTW did you see all the poisons those beautiful fireworks display in Boston produced? And all those people willingly exposed themselves to it, and still bitch about a little cigarette smoke.
KMA
Sorry, guys. My comment was encased in "[sarc] [/sarc]" in the HTML.
Thank Goddess for that much. You can ignore my last rage.........well partially anyway........I'm still pissed you consider smoking to be a serious health hazard when even you know it's NOT to the majority.
Matt--
Got a link to that NY Times article?
Doc--
Your efforts to "save the credibility" of what you still acknowledge as "your" movement have obviously been fruitless. The movement has moved very far beyond you (to a point where most of us always knew it was heading). Now that its methods and goals are unmistakeable and it's no longer plausible to pretend that they're either "mistakes" or aberrations, is it time to, instead, attempt to "save" your soul? And civil society? And republican (small r) principles?
Is it time, not only to shout from the rooftops that the Movement is now officially a monster, but to also admit that perhaps the "dangers" of "allowing" the existence of, just for example, smokers' restaurants (proclaimed so by signs)-- or train cars or actually anything-at-all are entirely contrived? That common decency as well as common sense proclaim that to be true? Or will you once again trot out your favorite asthmatic with cystic fibrosis (and an inability to read) as evidence to the contrary (and food for the monster)?
:
Michael wrote;
"Perhaps you didn't read the whole post, but I agree with you. I do think smokers should require a license. It's just that I also think that other dangerous behaviors should also require a license. Obesity kills over 100,000 Americans a year and its related health care costs mirror those due to tobacco use. I think people should be allowed to make a decision to eat high-fat food and food containing trans-fats, but I think we should prevent "easy and uninformed access." A licensing system would do just that - ensuring that people do not have easy and uninformed access to high-fat and trans-fat containing food, but at the same time, balancing individual autonomy by allowing people to make their own informed decisions. I think it's a perfect balance between public health concerns and autonomy concerns."
My response was to the other Anonymous post and was absolutely tongue in cheek, as I understood yours to be.
Unfortunately your TC organization is ripe with opportunists taking full advantage of an age of mixed messages being created as salesmanship or simply in support of primal instincts, to restrict the lives of others.
Your second sentence demonstrated that confusion, and by you, of all people, who should know better!!!
There is a large difference between supposition and science. It may be said; fat MAY cause 100,000 mortality s anally, however that segue, between risk and cause, is crossed far to frequently to not cause a great deal of confusion, in both the messages and their intention.
The problem of failures to regulate the greatly increased efficiencies in advertising coincidental to the political use of ad agencies to distribute health messages, would be absolutely counter to anyone's ability to decide; what is good advice and what is simply salesmanship and propaganda.
If we were to demand licensing as a qualifier for smoking who would define what is or is not good advice to give smokers? The Ad agencies? the Government? The lobbies? The charities? The mob? Priests? science fiction writers? Grandma?
Who do we ask to get the best advice? Solve that first before you start to define the rules by promoting speculation.
In a perfect world we would come to grips with the fact many will not or in many cases can not quit smoking. Punishing the failures of the second group while targeting the first will decrease the chances the second group will successfully quit if they want to, because of the increased pressure and a fear of ridicule when they fail.
You are seeing the process coming full circle now, leading to regulation where it should have started, in place of legislation and a reversal of the disease management strategy, putting the responsibility back into the hands of the state. Does anyone really lead or is this just chaos playing itself out?
Looking at the speculative design of our intelligence commonality, is there a hard and fast rule which demands the speculation has to always support fear as opposed to hope?
Far too many in public health, embrace the power of fear and hatred to motivate others, while the promotions of more positive messages have always proven more efficient and beneficial to all of us.
You would be the first to remind me "smoking is thought to kill half of it's users" or that "80% of small cell carcinomas are found to be among smokers".
If the message such as found here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...5?
dopt=Abstract
were to include; if you must smoke your chances of having to deal with small cell carcinoma can be reduced by eating right and supplementing your diet with vitamins and folic acid.
Or as I demonstrated in numerous studies, we could greatly decrease the risks by selection of one cigarette as opposed to another, again by regulating the filler and preparations.
If we can, by speculation's proofs, decrease the number of smokers who will die of smoking related disease from 50% to 25% how many potential lives would be saved?
25% of 60 million with significant proof, as opposed to your much less ambitious target dealing with only 400,000 said to be "preventable deaths" every year with marginal proof demonstrating no time line or biological reference? As for Dealing with second hand smoke we can only define it in all credibility as; A whole lot to do about nothing.
As you can see; the right and honest information, distributed in a more positive light, has a much larger potential than all of the self serving exaggerations and political speak, Huge advertising expenditures and a wide range of punishments and restrictions, you could ever imagine.
The end result? we could have a unified and more informed community and no one needs to be punished, for what you have personally described as a medical dependency.
Do I detect another persecution on the horizon? Apparently not enough smokers are quitting simply because the outdoor areas are too comfortable. Perhaps our 50% sheltered pig pens will have to go soon, maybe we will be banned from wearing a jacket or be restricted to smoking outdoors only in the rain or when the temperature is below freezing?
http://www.theargus.co.uk/
displa...2380030.0.0.php
Excerpts
Kate Lawson, the city's head of health promotion, assesses the impact of the smoking ban on the city's health and explains how comfy pub gardens may have dissuaded people from giving up.
The growth of comfortable outdoor seating and smoking areas in pubs may have negated the need for some people to give....
GreatScot
GS,
Quite a testiment to the fact that many view the smoking ban as a vehicle to coerce smokers into quitting rather then representing a significant health risk to non-smokers.
Walt H,
that was always the goal. The whole EST scam was never anything more than an obscene tactic in the overall war on smokers and by extension Big T.
GreatScot
I was only reading the other day that mood affects health.
We can see the effects smoking bans have...
Lynda F
Callous Lynda F
Ragingly Callous Lynda F
This can not be good for health. If people are 'forced' to give up then could this actually increase health problems?
I suggested last time that part of the health problems we now experience are a result of people giving up. This was backed by a recent study.
So could these measures being doing more harm than good?
Dr Siegel have you studied this aspect?
(Lynda F, I know the callous is making a point.)
serene west
-----------
"This is a wonderful idea, but why restrict it just to smoking? There are all sorts of health-related behaviors for which people should be required to have a permit."
For the hundred billionth time... this same logic applies to your support of a smoking ban to protect workers. Wonderful idea. But logical consistency requires you to apply a similar ban to NASCAR drivers, boxers, etc.
On this weekend, I am thankful for my independence. And that doctor Siegel and his friends have not snatched it all away from me yet.
Long live the 220.
BTW, I think that today marks the one year anniversary of Dr. Siegel's wretched rant of July 5 2007.
Still no apologies.
Still no reconsideration.
Still lots of funny jokes about a movement that is destroying people's lives.
Wait. That's not fair. The jokes really aren't funny.
Anyone who is interested can go back and read the thread.
And now... I suppose this post will get deleted.
GreatScot, nice link. Loved the comments too. Might want to read them Doc, as they are the same comments said on this side of the pond too.
Happy (belated) 4th of July, everyone.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon has warned smokers she is prepared to take radical action to force them to give up.
Well, it's radical, but it's not brave, because it's popular to take such actions, and who is really going to oppose it? It will mesmerize most people who wouldn't have the guts do do it themselves long enough so that they'll be impressed. Then, we can move on to the next magic trick.
The name Simon Chapman rings a bell because he has come down against outdoor bans as documented formerly on this blog:
here, here and here. He's also been against policies re: hiring people who smoke, here.
Better than most, no? But it seems even when a tobacco control practicioner might be on smokers' side, he comes up with a way not to be. A lot of these proposed measures seem to be 90% favored by tobacco control, so of course they all have to pass.
I'd say anyone supporting this would need to sign a list of potential backlashes that they might risk, and they would need to understand this as well, and be willing to be held accountable for any and all bad things that come to pass. In fact, they would need to sign on to any possible new Bad Thing(tm) that could result.
One other language nitpick is, Dr Chapman gets to ask "why not" while smokers are always asked "why." And of course the obvious answer to "why not" seems so tired if it is repeated, and without anyone actively fighting it, eventually it will fall to a Brave New Worldview.
Again, look where the burden of proof lies.
I don't know Dr. Chapman, so I don't know if this is a case of someone throwing smokers a bone in order to restrict them more later. But if it doesn't really make a difference if smokers intentionally expose others to Toxic Fumes, surely someone can see that intent doesn't make a difference if someone who allows some basic human rights for smokers comes in and proposes "hey, why not zap em from the other angle?"
Finally, what about people who want one cigar a year, say a New Year's Day cigar? They'd be potentially subject to more scrutiny than folks who want to just get wasted that night. Bizarro world.
Oh, and I don't see ANY possibilities for corruption under this scheme. Say, a doctor filling out forms that someone is a smoker when they aren't, so they can resell cigs to real smokers at a markup. Perhaps they might even sell to smokers too ashamed to admit they smoke.
After all, doctors never got carried away with the whole Nicotine Replacement Therapy think, and no-one was ever too quick to prescribe Zyban were they?
Oh wait. That doesn't matter. The big picture is worked out, and the details will fall in place, and anyone who doesn't believe that just needs to clap harder.
</sarcasm>
Anonymous,
Sorry - I was responding to the other Anonymous.
Anonymous's,
The two of you should get together and hammer this out over a cup of coffee, a cigarette, or a beer. After all, you live in the same town!
Matt cited: "The biggest problem with nicotine is that, actually, your brain works better on nicotine."
Non-smokers should be gratefull for being supplied - free of charge - with at least some nicotine through SHS. Makes their brain work better ...
"Anonymous's,
The two of you should get together and hammer this out over a cup of coffee, a cigarette, or a beer. After all, you live in the same town!"
Excellent idea Michael;
I am glad you are finally recognizing the tremendous social value of having a smoke together.
The Indians have been keeping the peace in a similar manner for centuries.
And don't worry if you don't have any cigarettes anon, you can always have one of mine.
Cheers
Andrew wrote:
"I don't know Dr. Chapman..."
Chapman is a typical anti-tobacco fellow. When a study (one he was involved with no less) showed the risk from SHS to be a joke he was unhappy. Those kind of results should've made him happy, wouldn't you think?
How about it, Dr. Siegel? Don't you think real "public health advocates" would rejoice when it was shown that the deaths they thought were there, weren't?
I can't read the Haloscan text as HTML. It comes through as a text-like file.
Dr. Siegel said, "Sorry, guys. My comment was encased in "[sarc] [/sarc]" in the HTML. I was simply trying to demonstrate to Anonymous how ridiculous and intrusive his or her suggestion of licensing smokers is."
Since I don't get the text as an HTML I don't know if there is a special button you push on your screen for "[sarc] [/sarc]" but I think it would leave a command in the properties version of the text. I don't see any code for "[sarc] [/sarc]" when I read the properties window for the Haloscan text.
I certainly accept the explanation of sarcasm just on good faith but if someone can show me how the "[sarc] [/sarc]" thing works, and how I will know when it is being used in the future, I would greatly appreciate it.
BTW, it felt good to practice with the Chutzpah I have that is on loan from John Banzhaf. If anyone here needs some Chutzpah you can use John Banzhaf's when I'm not using it.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
EinsteinSmoked,
Here's what happened, or some variant of it.
Dr Siegel writes a tage with [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] ... well, with the less-than/greater-than signs. Clicks preview. They are gone from the source of the document, and because they aren't recognized HTML tags, HaloScan probably zaps them in publishing or the preview.
But that's not all! When I tried to make a [sarcasm] tag, here's what happened. The correct way to do this is with the text </sarcasm> but if you preview it twice it goes to </sarcasm> and then it vanishes.
So to get it right that way, you'd need to click back on your browser after clicking preview, then click publish.
Now I just hope that everything works okay for me when I hit publish, or I'll feel foolish.
Andrew;
I believe preview is generated with your own local interpreter and prefs. While publish applies the restrictions set by the blog's admin. Going Back, simply digs up the previous version from your cache
Hope that makes sense...
Dr. Siegel said, "Sorry, guys. My comment was encased in "[sarc] [/sarc]" in the HTML. I was simply trying to demonstrate to Anonymous how ridiculous and intrusive his or her suggestion of licensing smokers is."
Herein lies the problem. Antismokers don't do sarcasm. They don't do humour either. Their dead straight literal. You read their wacko stuff, and think they must be pulling your leg, but they never are. And since they don't do sarcasm, they can't recognize it. So it was never going to work.
One day, when people like Banzhaf become figures of fun [Come soon! Come soon!] there's one thing that you can be sure of: people like Banzhaf won't get it.
I just hope anyone who is having children, will remember to put the TC crowd or at least their leadership,on their announcement list and send them all a good cigar so they can share in your joy.
I AM CONFIDENT, THEY WILL BE MOST APPRECIATIVE.
A recent post on Topix that shows again the horror of the anti smoking movement against smokers...and in Dr. Siegel's home state.
Louise III wrote:
"I say there is no debate and the discussion is over. Smokers can hang from a rafter, Al Queda is better for the unborn than cigarette and cigar smokers. I believe they should be hung in front of the common citizens of Massachusetts. They are killing us, they should feel the rath of the wise."
http://www.topix.com/forum/healt...I7P15SF85KJF/
p8
I am certainly an anti, but there's no question I am capable of sarcasm.
By the way, I'm not sure any anti has ever said this before, but cigarette smoking brings many people great pleasure. The failure of many anti-smoking advocates and groups to recognize this fact is perhaps the greatest downfall of the modern tobacco control movement.
As a direct and logical consequence of the deliberate stigmatization of smokers by tobacco control, Louise III's comments are just one more example for Chapman to illustrate as a Key Performance Indicator of tobacco control's success.
How anybody with ANY ethical basis what so ever, that can take pride in such accomplishment is more then I can fathom.
For them to call themselves a member of the health community should make Hippocrates spin in his grave.
Puritanism refuses to assign value to pleasure.
I'm not sure any anti has ever said this before, but cigarette smoking brings many people great pleasure. The failure of many anti-smoking advocates and groups to recognize this fact is perhaps the greatest downfall of the modern tobacco control movement.
So would you agree that, as a corollary, menthol cigarette smoking may give many people great pleasure? And it is not just about addiction? And this may be a downfall of any proposed legislation to eliminate it, even if said legislation should pass and not create too much of a black market?
Herein lies the problem. Antismokers don't do sarcasm. They don't do humour either.
idlex, I have to disagree too. I think it's natural for each side to agree they have the monopoly on sarcasm that means something. But Nice Mr Godshall has done his share of sarcasm. Whether or not it has humoristic or logical or moral merit is another case.
I see the difference as being sarcasm-as-offense vs sarcasm-as-defense. The antismokers have sarcasm-as-offense(which is potentially more dangerous, as it seeks to rub out dissent preemptorily,) which is easier to go along with, and they have it for so long that some pretty lame stuff gets through and it doesn't seem like humor. It's been around long enough that people either accept it as fact or good reasoning, or they dismiss it as total nonsense. I see a good dose of pre-emptive sarcasm too ie "don't even try argument X. It's already been disproven." When in fact people have legitimate takes on argument X. Or, sarcasm-as-offense can lure people new to the debate into certain semantic traps with ready made comebacks that seem like, in this case, obvious protection against smokers who lashed out for no reason whatsoever. When this sort of thing is institutionalized and recommended by charities(see ASH's talking points) it becomes very nasty indeed, offense masquerading as defense.
But of course, I'm biased in the way I see it. Sarcasm is best as a defense and not a defense mechanism, but I think antismokers have jumped the gun by claiming that it needs to be a defense against environmental tobacco smoke and is not an adequate defense in kind, but it's all poor nonsmokers can do against it without increasingly tough legislation.
cigarette smoking brings many people great pleasure. The failure of many anti-smoking advocates and groups to recognize this fact is perhaps the greatest downfall of the modern tobacco control movement.
Okay; I'll bite. Recognizing that fact, what would you personally do (if you were king) to "control" it and/or us?
Seems to me the "modern tc movement" is playing the pleasure principle for all it's worth: attempting to counter the pleasure with pain and tacitly asking smokers, as they tighten the rack, (no nights in the bar, no days at the beach, no rooms at the inn, no jobs, no housing, no custody of your kids) "had enough yet?"
So, to repeat: acknowledging pleasure, what would YOU do to deprive us of it?
:
Re the hugely successful smoking ban in England and the 400,000 quitters attributed to it. Here is an article from "Medical News" Dec 2004
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...icles/
17968.php
Excerpt
The new figures in the General Household Survey show that there has been a reduction of 400,000 smokers within the last year.
Should the recent headlines not have been "Smoking ban Experiment has no affect on making people Quit"?
GreatScot
"By the way, I'm not sure any anti has ever said this before, but cigarette smoking brings many people great pleasure."
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.05.08 - 9:56 pm | #
*******************
So technically you aren't an Anti -
You are a Prude. 
Anyone simple enough to buy into the fears of second hand smoke should put a sign on their front lawn "The residents here, are prepackaged and have a government seal of approval."
The anti smoker movement is a government funded initiative which was bought into primarily by countries with a larger problem. A crusade which promotes what they call "disease management" A cowardly act of government to shift responsibility for disease from the state and the industrial stakeholders they partnered with to the individual.
You see in a country with an aging population such as America, for too long Governments have been buying votes and squandering billions of dollars to sell their own virtues or doling it out, to corporate welfare swindles.
Now the time to pay for the baby boomers retirements has come and they don't want to admit they haven't got the money to live up to their responsibilities. Smoking related diseases encompass the majority of diseases traditionally known as diseases [Hardly preventable diseases]of the elderly who in their younger years, smoked a lot more than anyone smokes today. Punishing smokers in a real world sense is punishing the elderly, who at the time, were only guilty of living their lives as most considered normal.
Now we are being encouraged to punish them, by a government, who without our compliance in their hate campaigns, would have a lot of explaining to do.
Excellent, Gilster.
More benefits of smoking:
Smoking and inflammatory bowel disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/
10958212
Note that patches and gum are useless and plagues with side effects. Only smoking is effective.
So Doc, you can admit that smoking brings pleasure to so many and still want to corral us for a few?
That you can say this on Independence Day weekend with a straight face is amazing..........knowing you are promoting the absolute opposite of "Indedendence".
Nice going. Wonder if you'll be so sanctimonious when it's your turn to be corralled by some group who doesn't like something about you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda also has much in common with public information campaigns by governments, which are intended to encourage or discourage certain forms of behavior (such as wearing seat belts, not smoking, not littering and so forth). Again, the emphasis is more political in propaganda. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium. In the case of the United States, there is also an important legal (imposed by law) distinction between advertising (a type of overt propaganda) and what the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an arm of the United States Congress, refers to as "covert propaganda."
Journalistic theory generally holds that news items should be objective, giving the reader an accurate background and analysis of the subject at hand. On the other hand, advertisements evolved from the traditional commercial advertisements to include also a new type in the form of paid articles or broadcasts disguised as news. These generally present an issue in a very subjective and often misleading light, primarily meant to persuade rather than inform. Normally they use only subtle propaganda techniques and not the more obvious ones used in traditional commercial advertisements. If the reader believes that a paid advertisement is in fact a news item, the message the advertiser is trying to communicate will be more easily "believed" or "internalized."
Now we look at cherry picking the activity of taking the tasty morsels and rejecting those we don't want to know about;
The crowd supporting smoker hatred who generally just don't like the smell of tobacco smoke, Or the many primal beings among us, who just like to hate, a target is not important as long as they are allowed to vent. All are being used as pawns by the deliberate effort to confuse speculation [epidemiology] with physical science.
Theoretical science can never determine a cause, only a direction. It is only a deliberate play on deceptive language which allows anyone to state smoking causes anything, because to date nothing by biological sciences has been confirmed, including lung cancers. Rats tested were found to be less likely to get cancer, They lived longer were more active and much smarter.
Smoking is enjoyable
Smoking stimulates internal mechanisms which regulate cognitive abilities such as alertness, Stress relief, Problem solving, Heart rate, blood flow, respiration, it works as an anti depressant and is one of the few methods available to moderate the temperature in the human body deliberately.
Cigarette smoke by physical description is the least likely of all particulate categories to be trapped and accumulate in the lung leading to long term effects. This would explain why few can tell by visual observation which lung came from a smoker and which didn'. The lack of accumulated particulate allows lung transplants to originate from smokers without consequence. You cannot take the lungs of a coal miner and use them for transplants for obvious and quite visible reasons.
Second hand smoke is .15 to .25 microns Primary smoke is .25 to .36 microns classed as fine particulate. Coarse particulate by weight might be trapped. As would ultra fine particulate such as diesel exhaust be trapped because of it's size. Tobacco smoke does not fit well into either category.
Current research is seeing tremendous progress in the alleviation of Parkinson's, Dementia and Alzheimer's disease, in use of those same 4000 deadly ingredients we hear about in second hand smoke.
Small cell cancers although attributed to smoking can be reduced by regulating the intake of vitamins [b12]and folic acid.
The carcinogens most strongly associated with small cell cancers of the lung, can be reduced by as much as 95% by regulating the tobacco plant used and in avoidance of roots and stems. The histamines can similarly be reduced by as much as 95% by flue curing processes.
Reduced levels of NNN and NNK exposures demonstrates a tumor killing ability compared to high dose animal testing and normal tumor killer cells can be restored in animals expossed to high doses of NNK and NNN tobacco specific nitrates. by the use of interleukin-12
http://www.informaworld.com/
smpp...=all~order=page
The adaption of the "no safe cigarette" campaign denies protective regulations and eliminated all which were formerly in place, with a fear smokers can never be allowed to think cigarettes could be safer. Quit or die is superior to reduced risk or moderation in an ability to promote political fear and hatred.
The totality of smoking related research in connection with second hand smoke is decisive, when seen in it's totality; second hand smoke is not likely to present a harm in the current population at the levels of exposure currently being seen or was it likely to have presented much of a risk in the past when exposure rates were tremendously higher. The largest studies show clear evidence children expossed to second hand smoke see a health benefit despite all the presentations and denials.
There are approximately the same number of smokers in Canada and the United States today, as there were in 1960. Smoking related disease numbers, especially cancers, have always been lower in Canada than in the States. Despite this Health warnings by all the major charities and so called "Health care experts" have always expressed a more fearful perspective in absolute prediction numbers in Canada, reflecting a desire to sustain an equitable level of fear, beyond an honest distribution of reliable health information. The changes in smoking related disease numbers exhibit, beyond folklore, a failure to explain the large changes with an entirely stable exposure rate.
Smokers do not inhale nicotine directly, they burn it first therefore, a smoking patch can never replace a cigarette or the wealth of health benefits derived from nicotinic acid which is formed [AKA Niacin or vitamin B3]and inhaled every day by smokers.
If the Medical institutions wanted smokers to successfully quit in larger numbers they would be prescribing B complex vitamines [specifically B3, B6 and B12] to aleviate the cravings, and not shamelessly marketing the highly over price and largely ineffective smoking patches. Marketed by the same industries who pay for anti smoker advertisements and medical conferences, which encourage the medical practitioners, to take a page out of Hitler's playbook to achieve anti smoker compliance, by punishing what they know, for many, is a medical dependency.
Torturing by abuse and defamation those in their care.
another nice plump cherry...
http://www.informaworld.com/
smpp...=all~order=page
"the reported extent of ETS exposure. Average total NNAL excretion in the non-smokers with detectable NNAL levels was 74 times less than in 20 smokers who were also investigated. The cotinine/total NNAL ratios in urine of smokers (9900) and non-smokers (9300) were similar. This appears to be at variance with the ratios of the corresponding precursors (nicotine/NNK) in mainstream smoke (16400) and ETS (1000). Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed. The possible role of NNK as a lung carcinogen in non-smokers is unclear, especially since NNK exposure in non-smokers is several orders of magnitude lower than the ordinary exposure to exogenous and endogenous N-nitrosamines and the role of NNK as a human lung carcinogen is not fully understood. "
Walt asked: "acknowledging pleasure, what would YOU do to deprive us of it?"
I don't support any policies which would deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking. The policies I support would provide education and support for smokers who want to quit, but would not force anyone to quit who doesn't want to.
Policies which do deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking - such as requiring employees not to smoke - are being supported by many anti-smoking groups. But I oppose such policies.
The doctor rhetorically asks "why restrict it just to smoking?"
A group of people who are morally opposed to the use of cigarette, and are determined to coerce and otherwise force individuals which use tobacco to stop through whatever means are available to them. Since they are myopically focused on tobacco use, and are fixated with it's control and prevention, they have no interest in licensing other pleasure producing activities at this time. However, look for them to find a new cause for them to become fixated with, once they have nearly eliminated their current focus of attention. These people can often be described as "control freaks" as they have an uncontrollable desire to control the behavior of others. Hence, a license plays so well into their gratification.
Throughout history, society has been plagued with periods where groups of people with this personality disorder have sought to impose restrictions on large segments of the population. The use of alcohol, has frequently been the target of such endeavors. Usually ending with a prohibition, followed by the creation of illicit trade and black markets, and then ultimately the revocation of the prohibition, as the side effects are usually worse, and effect more innocent people then the original issue.
Ultimately in order to garner public support of such actions, the controllers usually mount campaigns designed to garner influence and support of the general population through the use of fear and dehumanization, as a means to divide the population, and segregate those they are morally opposed to. Should the practice become too defocused or widespread, those targeted soon become a majority, and the social aberrant are quickly seen for their medaling and controlling behavior, and hence, the answer to the question as to why other behaviors are not also proposed to be licensed.
The doctor rhetorically asks "why restrict it just to smoking?"
A group of people who are morally opposed to the use of cigarette, and are determined to coerce and otherwise force individuals which use tobacco to stop through whatever means are available to them. Since they are myopically focused on tobacco use, and are fixated with it's control and prevention, they have no interest in licensing other pleasure producing activities at this time. However, look for them to find a new cause for them to become fixated with, once they have nearly eliminated their current focus of attention. These people can often be described as "control freaks" as they have an uncontrollable desire to control the behavior of others. Hence, a license plays so well into their gratification.
Throughout history, society has been plagued with periods where groups of people with this personality disorder have sought to impose restrictions on large segments of the population. The use of alcohol, has frequently been the target of such endeavors. Usually ending with a prohibition, followed by the creation of illicit trade and black markets, and then ultimately the revocation of the prohibition, as the side effects are usually worse, and effect more innocent people then the original issue.
Ultimately in order to garner public support of such actions, the controllers usually mount campaigns designed to garner influence and support of the general population through the use of fear and dehumanization, as a means to divide the population, and segregate those they are morally opposed to. Should the practice become too defocused or widespread, those targeted soon become a majority, and the social aberrant are quickly seen for their medaling and controlling behavior, and hence, the answer to the question as to why other behaviors are not also proposed to be licensed.
Ultimately, since these individuals (the controllers) are the group that sow the seeds of discontent, I suggest that they should be the ones which should have to be licensed and controlled.
I am certainly an anti, but there's no question I am capable of sarcasm. - Michael Siegel
But there is a question. Both Gilster and I missed the sarcasm in your post, and you had to explicitly declare, a little heavy-handedly, that the 'HTML sarcasm' had gone missing.
idlex, I have to disagree too. I think it's natural for each side to agree they have the monopoly on sarcasm that means something. But Nice Mr Godshall has done his share of sarcasm. - andrew
Has he? I don't read much of Godshall's stuff. But I've not seen any sarcasm in it so far.
And it's not about monopoly or anything. Though we have some great sarcastic writers here.
But I do read quite a lot of Michael's stuff. I'm now at the point where I can read a couple of lines of his posts and recognise his rather painstaking style of writing before my eyes fall on the name of the author at the bottom. He is a very consistent writer. I mean that stylistically rather than logically. But it's a slightly flat style of writing, that lacks the vivacity and bounce of some of the other posters. It's a very good style for picking data and arguments apart, but it's not so good for telling jokes.
But, hey, what do I know? Perhaps people might flag it up for me whenever they catch Michael telling a joke.
One has to wonder what proficiency tests, one would have to complete in order to obtain a license to smoke.
Will they be issuing learners permits?
Or would a new smoker have to be accompanied by an experienced smoker?
With a permit would we hear the end of the claim "no one has a right to smoke" or would we be told "smoking is a privilege not a right", such as we hear about driving.
So much to decide by those with no qualifications to do so.
The WHO doesn't hire smokers any more.
I remember reading a smoker's rights magazine published in the 70's or 80's. They had a story about a third world communist country where people were being arrested for smoking cigarettes. I was absolutely aghast that such a thing was going on in the world.
In your web browser, examine the source code of some of the anti-smoking websites. There are indeed some very unusual html tags ind there - >commie<>/commie< and >nazi<>/nazi<.
Reverse thinking
Moffitt Cancer Center Study Shows That Pain Causes Increased Desire To Smoke Cigarettes
"More than half of all people with chronic pain are smokers, and research at suggests that cigarette smoking may make chronically painful conditions worse. In a recent study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Moffitt researchers found for the first time that smokers often have greater urges to smoke and smoke more cigarettes when they experience pain.
Half the smokers were randomly selected to undergo a pain-induction procedure. Pain was induced through what is called a laboratory cold-pressor procedure, which required the smokers to place their hand into ice-cold water (maintained between 0-1˚ Celsius) until they could no longer tolerate the pain. Once they removed their hand, the smokers were asked to indicate how badly they wanted a cigarette and were given the opportunity to smoke"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...cles/
113619.php
"Niacin is really nicotinic acid in medical circles and was the third B vitamin to be discovered. This is the reason it's knows as vitamin B3. It wasn't until about 1943, though, that a couple of doctors reported that niacin worked wonders in relieving the pain and stiffness associated with arthritis. Unfortunately, their research was never well publicized since that was around the time that drug companies were promoting their own miracle "cure" for arthritis-cortisone."
http://www.afountainofyouth.org/...is_niacinamide/
Nicotine, Chili Peppers Offer Post-Surgery Pain Relief
"Nicotine patches are approved for use to help smokers quit cigarettes. However, previous studies have shown that nicotine also has some pain-relief benefits"
"We were expecting an analgesic effect from capsaicin and were pleased to see it"
http://www.dentalplans.com/artic...articles/26599/
"The chilli pepper (also chili or chile) is the fruit of the plant Capsicum, a relative of the tomato in the nightshade family (Solanaceae) Cultivated since prehistoric times in Peru and Mexico"
"Capsaicinoids are the name given to the class of compounds found present in members of the capsicum family of plants. The most common of these compounds is Capsaicin, which is found in the white ‘ribs’ inside hot chillies. Capsaicin probably evolved in plants as a protective mechanism, to discourage certain pests.
http://www.fearthechilli.com/
Chi...ChilliFacts.htm
Carbon monoxide may protect against MS symptoms
"In a novel experiment, moderate doses of carbon monoxide protected against the symptoms of multiple sclerosis in mice"
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...s-
symptoms.html
Carbon monoxide could fight disease
"In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too"
http://www.newscientist.com/
chan...Id=health_rss20
Actually, the reason I don't read Godshall much is that I often simply don't understand what he's driving at. When you consistently don't understand someone, you may as well not bother to read them.
I don't have that problem with Michael's writing, even if I don't catch the nuances of it that he tells me are there.
In your web browser, examine the source code of some of the anti-smoking websites.
Can you direct me to one? I never visit any.
Which reminds me to mention Forty Lashes, an essay by Mat Coward. I was rather intrigued by this:
...just pausing to enjoy what is possibly the most useful smoking-related statistic I’ve ever encountered: "A person on 25 cigarettes a day for 50 years will have smoked the equivalent of one cigarette more than 22 miles long." (Independent, 25 Mar 93.)
"Swimming permits would follow the traditional YMCA levels of: guppy, minnow, tadpole, fish, flying fish, and shark"
It is there..
Someone mentioned the testing of Champix on veterans. here s the related article from the Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/n...eterans/?
page=1
VA testing drugs on war veterans
Experiments raise ethical questions
Audrey Hudson (Contact)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
* Comment
*
* UPDATE: Obama's office sent a letter Tuesday to James Peake, secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, on the issue. You can read the full text of the letter here.
UPDATE II: Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, issued his own letter to Peake as well. You can read it here.
The government is testing drugs with severe side effects like psychosis and suicidal behavior on hundreds of military veterans, using small cash payments to attract patients into medical experiments that often target distressed soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a Washington Times/ABC News investigation has found.
In one such experiment involving the controversial anti-smoking drug Chantix, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) took three months to alert its patients about severe mental side effects. The warning did not arrive until after one of the veterans taking the drug had suffered a psychotic episode that ended in a near lethal confrontation with police.
ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES Veteran James Elliott arrives at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington for his scheduled substance-abuse class in April. Mr. Elliott, a chain smoker, served 15 months in Iraq as an Army sharpshooter and suffers post-traumatic stress disorder.
ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES Iraq war veteran James Elliott opted for a government clinical trial for a smoking-cessation drug for $30 a month, starting in November. Two weeks later, the FDA informed the VA of serious side effects.
ROD LAMKEY JR./THE WASHINGTON TIMES STILL SMOKING: Iraq war veteran James Elliott smokes on his porch in Silver Spring as he talks about his experiences in war and dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. Mr. Elliott suffered a psychotic episode while taking the anti-smoking drug Chantix.
James Elliott, a decorated Army sharpshooter who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after serving 15 months in Iraq, was confused and psychotic when he was Tasered by police in February as he reached for a concealed handgun when officers responded to a 911 call at his Maryland home.
For photos, video of James Elliott, official FDA documents and more, visit the interactive site for the Disposable Heroes report.
Mr. Elliott, a chain smoker, began taking Chantix last fall as part of a VA experiment that specifically targeted veterans with PTSD, opting to collect $30 a month for enrolling in the clinical trial because he needed cash as he returned to school. He soon began suffering hallucinations and suicidal thoughts, unaware that the new drug he was taking could have caused them.
Just two weeks after Mr. Elliott began taking Chantix in November, the VA learned from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that the drug was linked to a large number of hallucinations, suicide attempts and psychotic behavior. But the VA did not alert Mr. Elliott before his own episode in February.
In failing to do so, Mr. Elliott said, the VA treated him like a "disposable hero."
"You're a lab rat for $30 a month," Mr. Elliott said.
Brightcove Video
Play Disposable Heroes - Part 1
Brightcove Video
Play Disposable Heroes - Part 2
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Add as Favorite
TIMES NETWORK
Your life in their hands. Trust me I'm a doctor.Do no harm.
Ethical?
GreatScot
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Policies which do deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking - such as requiring employees not to smoke - are being supported by many anti-smoking groups. But I oppose such policies."
Unless, of course, we talk about workplace smoking bans which you wholeheartedly support.
Btw, on Day 2 of our city's new "No Smoking in Bars" ordinance, a bartender at my friend's favorite watering hole after work, saw her tips go from $150 to $25 on her first post ban work day.
But I will say this in your favor. She told my friend that before during Happy Hours she was usually too busy to smoke, but the ban garnered her enough idle time for her to actually leave from behind the bar, go outside and derive pleasure from smoking 6 times.
What I don't get is how you consider her smart enough to make the decision to smoke without you stopping her, but not smart enough to decide for herself if SHS is bad for her.
Banzhaf's latest press release:
http://www.pr-inside.com/racist-...-at-
r687815.htm
"Racist" Lethal Menthol Loophole at FDA Hit in Letters to Capital Hill // Flap Could Strengthen FDA Cigarette Regulation Bill by Delaying It
~snip~end of article~
ASH suggests in its letter to key members of Congress that the short delay to get the menthol loophole out of the bills would provide a number of advantages, since it would almost certain push to matter to the next Congress when there are likely to be far more pro-regulation legislators, are no threat of a presidential veto as there is now.
"While President Bush has threatened to veto any bill giving the FDA jurisdiction to regulate cigarettes - thereby requiring a veto override, and giving opponents of effective regulation even more bargaining power - both major presidential candidates seem much more supportive of the bill, thereby making it easier to pass one which is even more effective, and with no menthol loophole."
"In short, waiting until the next Congress is likely to strengthen the hand of those seeking to protect children and others from the ravages of cigarettes, avoid the suggestions that passing the bill with the menthol loophole is racist (or at least racially insensitive), provide an opportunity for more participation by the entire antismoking community (not just a few behemoths), and perhaps for less participation and less undue pressure from the most deadly company on earth."
ASH seems to prefer distributing their monlogs through prinsid4e which suggests an easy route to the popular press.
If ASH trash gets through the system, it stands to reason others could use the same venue to counter their arguments with useful and more factual content.
Dave K. and Mike Ms study could find it's way into the public relm in this way. As could a lot of Michael's criticisms of ASH misconceptions and exaggerations.
The sign up is pretty simplistic and if you remain within bounds of journalism anyone can take a shot, in hopes of reaching the monotone centrist media who need some controversy to spice up their networks. LOL
Smoking is enjoyable among those who have an established addiction. And the pleasure it gives comes its ability to suspend nicotine withdrawal symptoms which are ironically created by the addiction itself.
A non-smoker who lights up will experience no pleasure from smoking. Nausea and dizziness are what most people feel when they smoke for the first time.
It is only once the body develops a tolerance for the drug and toxins in the smoke that the smoker experiences "pleasure."
If you put your hand in a vice for an hour and then loosen it up, you'll experience pleasure from the vice being lossened. And you'll likely experience a sense of calm from the vice being loosened.
Most people, including medical professionals don't understand how addicition works. They haven't been addicted to anything in their lifetimes. Joel over at WHY QUIT speaks to this mistunderstanding at his site.
http://whyquit.com/joel/
Joel_Ind...l_Index_01.html
Anonymous, Great Observation.
Just went back to the PR site.
Anyone can put up a story to PR.
These PR stories show up when you google news search. I was just surfing 'smoking ban' and bumped into it.
"If you put your hand in a vice for an hour and then loosen it up, you'll experience pleasure from the vice being lossened."
Tedd, is this the same pleasure you experience when you post here? What exactly did you put in a vice for an hour? Could it have been your brain?
Yes. I have a removable brain. I just take it out, put it in the vice and then put it back later.
Anonymous
You may like this -
Has anyone suffered vitamin B addiction?
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/488103
It looks like the UK will be tobacco free by 2035 according to the smokers' friend the BMA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7490368.stm
http://www.bma.org.uk/pressrel.n...cument&
vw=wfmms
Walt asked: ”Got a link to that NY Times article?”
http://health.nytimes.com/ref/he...ing-
expert.html
Sorry for the slow response.
The report
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/
Att...forevercool.pdf
Michael Siegel: I don't support any policies which would deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking.
Yes, you do.
I have, in the past, derived great pleasure while smoking at my workplace.
I have, in the past, derived great pleasure while smoking in various waiting rooms.
I derive great pleasure from lighting up a cigarette and smoking it while waiting for my order to arrive in a restaurant. I also derive great pleasure from smoking a cigarette after I've eaten. And I derive great pleasure smoking while at a bar.
(These are just a few examples.)
You and the other tobacco control freaks have taken these pleasures from me and many others.
So, yes, you do support policies which deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking.
.
"A non-smoker who lights up will experience no pleasure from smoking."
True, smoking is an acquired taste. An acquired taste often refers to an appreciation for a food or beverage or fine tobacco.
For example, a person who has never acquired a taste for sushi might find it terribly revolting, and become an anti-sushi activist.
Thanks Rose;
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/488103
My suggestion;
Vitamin B3 is actually nicotinic acid. Your likely hooked on Nicotine. Most are not aware of this fact smokers do not inhale nicotine directly, they burn it first creating the purest most effective form of Vitamin B3 [niacin] known. Although the medical community is currently selling the marvels of overpriced smoking patches which are almost completely ineffective in reducing the cravings smokers feel when trying to quit. The symptoms you described are very similar to what a smoker feels when quitting.
The medical profession [if they really do want smokers to quit] might want to consider giving smokers what they actually crave in a prescription of B complex vitamins [B3, B6 and B12] The strategy could do more to get smokers to quit than the billions wasted to date, teaching the rest of us to hate them.
Anonymous
And the beauty of it is that vitamin B3 is not addictive.
They trade on people not knowing whats in the smoke, how do you "denormalize" someone taking an essential vitamin?
Of course if they really do have a problem with niacin deficiency we then get the phenomenon of the ex-smoker who hates what he secretly craves.
If the theory is correct then its a problem easily solved, no money in niacin though.
A non-smoker who lights up will experience no pleasure from smoking.
A non-smoker who hears that smokers are stupid, etc., and more dangerous to him than they think, may experience no pleasure from doing so or saying so. It's only when he hears the message many times that it becomes normal to his belief system, after which he has fun insulting smokers and campaigning against them.
Plus, on this logic, people should not try to read Middle English literature, because it's certainly painful to work through it the first time, and it's a mystery why people try as it gives no benefit. Those addicted to it are upset when they are without it.
P.S. I enjoyed the first cigar I ever had. I'm glad I did.
A non-smoker who lights up will experience no pleasure from smoking.
Perhaps this is what distinguishes them as a non-smoker, and why they remain non-smokers.
But I'm interested Tedd, what is it that you believe motivates people to want to coerce to the point of tormenting others to give up smoking?
"A non-smoker who lights up will experience no pleasure from smoking."
And I get no pleasure from drinking alcohol, but its my loss, and I certainly have no desire to make anyone give it up just because I don't enjoy it.Nor do I think that there is anything peculiar about the practice.
I don't want to skydive either, because I'm scared of heights, but its great to watch and I am happy for the people who enjoy doing it.
Rose;
""And the beauty of it is that vitamin B3 is not addictive.
If you noticed what sounds like an addiction and perceived to be an addiction by the person in the post.
What was being experienced was a relief of a painful condition which returned after cessation.
For may who smoke this reality is also apparent. When someone quits thy are often prone to aches and pains they ever noticed before You see people developing or perhaps discovering, previously undiagnosed heart conditions and respiratory ailments. Most significantly you see people developing depression. The later is confirmed in research which predicts a large percentage of former smokers will be prone to depression.
With so many smokers such a large change as they seek to make, could well lead to a much larger healthcare crisis than the one they seek to cure. How many are truly saved when the continuation or extension of life involves a greater measure of pain or disease.
Smokers unfortunately are being made into one of the largest human experiments ever seen. The predictable results will only increase the societal pressure and hatred of smokers, as communities are deprived of medical care as a direct result of the bandwagon crowd exerting their power.
A war declared against those who use to be seen as just neighbors and friends. Normal people who were only acting normally before the great health scare crusades.
"If you put your hand in a vice for an hour and then loosen it up, you'll experience pleasure from the vice being lossened. And you'll likely experience a sense of calm from the vice being loosened."
I would interpret that sensation more as "relief" than "pleasure." An abrupt cessation of pain can cause euphoria.
A feeling of calmness after the cessation of torture seems to be a loose interpretation of "calm."
If my torturer is still around, I would probably be in a state of fear, rather than calm.
Rose;
""And the beauty of it is that vitamin B3 is not addictive.
If you noticed what sounds like an addiction and perceived to be an addiction by the person in the post.
What was being experienced was a relief of a painful condition which returned after cessation.
The addiction perceived was not an addiction at all, just a pleasure derived from the relief found in the cure.
For may who smoke this reality is also apparent. When someone quits they are often prone to aches and pains they ever noticed before You see people developing or perhaps discovering, previously undiagnosed heart conditions and respiratory ailments. Most significantly you see people developing depression. The later is confirmed in research which predicts a large percentage of former smokers will be prone to depression.
With so many smokers, such a large change as they seek to make in such a short time frame demanded, could well lead to a much larger healthcare crisis than the one they seek to avoid. How many are truly saved when the continuation or extension of life involves a greater measure of pain or disease, Is there no consideration in their plan for quality of life? Or is productivity until he day you slouch over your shovel, the new norm they will demand of their owned human property.
Smokers unfortunately are being made into one of the largest human experiments ever seen. The predictable results will only increase societal pressures and hatred of smokers or anyone els they depict as useless eaters, as communities are deprived of medical care in a direct response to the bandwagon crowd exerting their power.
A war was declared against those who use to be seen as just neighbors and friends. Normal people who were only acting normally before the great health scare crusades turned us into a culture of fearful pessimists.
We seem to have embraced a national and international addiction to dread and apprehension, with few able to understand; divisions by solitudes are the most difficult divisions to heal.
As with the tambourine bangers in our past, people eventually grow weary of living in a negatively inspired society and grow to admire those who live their lives.
In time, TC will fall by the wayside and likely inspire by their expulsion, a larger tobacco use, perhaps even larger than we saw the last time they crawled back under their rock.
I guess that when I say that I don't think antismokers do humour, what I really mean is that they don't do humanity - which for me means sympathy and understanding for my fellows, and allowance for their foibles. Anyone who devotes most of their lives to suppressing and denying and restricting their fellows is for me quite simply someone who is devoid of humanity, devoid of compassion, and devoid of mercy. I think such people are utterly poisonous.
Antismokers always seem surprised when I tell them that I don't want to know them. They seem to think that while they can dehumanise me - strip me of my rights and my good name - I'll never do the same to them.
But I can. And I do. And actually, at that moment that they strip me of my humanity, I also strip them of theirs. I have stripped Bill Godshall, Stanton Glantz, Ken Repace, and all the rest of them of their humanity and their rights and property and status and good name. And these things are not recoverable.
Of course, they can and will just laugh. I don't matter. And really I don't. But when there are 10 or 100 or 1000 people like me, they might stop laughing. And I think that there already are easily already 1000 people like me. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if there were a million people like me, scattered all round the world, in whom a feral hatred of antismokers has been ignited. And with every new ban, every new exclusion, every new humiliation, those numbers jump. Pretty soon it will be 10 million. And then 100 million. The global tidal wave of bans and restrictions sweeping round the world, which fills antismokers with such glee, is generating its own reflected tidal wave of hatred towards antismokers. It's already happening. And it's only going to gather momentum.
And I don't think there is any stopping this now. I think it's absolutely inevitable. I think it's the operation of an inexorable law of nature. It doesn't need me. Antismokers set out to degrade and reduce smokers, and they have been very successful about it, ruining lots of people's lives - and so, voila, this is exactly what's going to happen to them. Only it's going to be far worse for them. What they did to smokers is going to be returned with interest. Compound interest accrued over 50 years. It's going to be utterly shattering.
I guess most likely Bill Godshall figures one day on hanging up his antismoking boots and retiring to the country with the ill-gotten loot he's extracted from smokers, to become a respected old gentleman raising cattle or something.
After being told for years how effective the pictures on cigarette packages have been. While the only reaction they seemed to invoke was kids trading them like baseball cards. Another bold exaggeration falls by the wayside.
http://www.canada.com/windsorsta...30-
0671b6bfdf2f
"Tobacco warnings fall flat
Canwest News Service
Published: Saturday, July 05, 2008
OTTAWA - Graphic health warnings on cigarette packages are failing to move the majority of smokers to quit, a new government survey has found.
Over the last five years, the percentage of smokers who say the warnings are ineffective at getting them to try to kick the habit has increased, according to the newly released Health Canada poll."
TC monkey see monkey do, Fools
I didn't include Michael Siegel among the antismokers I listed. He might want to know if he's going to find himself hanging from some tree one day.
All I can say is: so do I.
~snip from West2
I was only reading the other day that mood affects health.
We can see the effects smoking bans have...
Lynda F
Callous Lynda F
Ragingly Callous Lynda F
This can not be good for health. If people are 'forced' to give up then could this actually increase health problems?~West2
West 2 you are on to something there....not only Ragingly Callous Lynda F
(may God grant me 1/10th of her or anon's eloquence) but us NON-SMOKERS moods and health have been greatly affected by this nonsense...(you are so right anonymous)
I started blogging just about a year ago when I came across doc's Cleveland Clinic article:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....itable-
for.html
I was raging mad then and couldn't believe that a company could do this in THIS country. Working for the Cleveland Clinic as a registered nurse my main concern was THERE IS A NURSING SHORTAGE and they are NOT going to hire qualified SMOKERS???!!! I was livid right off the bat because I WILL PAY THE PRICE working short staffed on the floors...my health has suffered as well as my mood, not only because of the heavy load of patients, but because of this utopian nonsense.
I have ranted and raved at work to anyone that will listen, have had petitions signed and emailed CEO's and actually met with the regional CEO face to face a few months ago. I have spent my time blogging instead of taking care of my family or myself. I get home from work and your site is perfect for venting tho, I must admit, I don't have time to read all the posts and half the time you're probably scratching your heads after my entry. This stuff is keeping me up at nite! I have never done anything like this in my LIFE. (Good therapy, thanks.)
You know I have a license to kill, tho usually I walk a fine line, as I push Demerol, Dilaudid, Morphine, Fentanyl, to name a few....more often than not to drug seekers....and I can't smoke a cigarette???!!!
Since that one or two puffs on Sept. 1, 2007 (the day the NO SMOKERS ban went into effect at the Cleveland Clinic) I haven't touched them...but I want to, more and more, the longer this craziness goes on. See what you have wrought? The pack of Marlboro's is tucked away in my garage for the 1st anniversary.
Time for an anniversary article doc?
You owe us here in Cleveand after all we've had to endure from Boston.
Ragingly Livid RN
Matt--
Thanks for the link. Taken as a whole, the interview becomes a fascinating case study. Here's this guy ("caring doctor") who first recommends Chantix (blaming its victims, not the drug, for the side effects), thinks vaccines that destroy pleasure pathways in the brain are the great hope of the future, and thinks it'd be swell if the FDA reduced nicotine to remove the purpose and the pleasure from smoking... and then admits that nicotine enhances thinking and maybe even life and confesses he misses it.
Subject for a psychological dissertation.
Tedd--
Please tell us your experience with tobacco and how you came to hate it. Did you hate it the first time or did you gradually become habituated to hatred?
The experiment you cite is completely beside the point. If people are accustomed to smoking to releive stress ( and among other things, pain is stress), of course they;d want to smoke. If they were accustomed to drinking, they'd want to drink, tho in the particular situation, alcohol and nicotine, as vasoconstrictors, would be counterproductive in restoring circulation. This has zero to do with any other usual acute or chronic kind of pain which smoking can, and provably does, relieve.
This, however, is typical of the kind of circular (as in vicious circle) reasoning your team likes to engage in. You tell us we only think we get pleasure from smoking when we're actually just relieving the PAIN of withdrawal, just as we only think we get relief from stress and pain.
There was a case a few years ago that made the papers: guy was trapped under a beam of a caved in construction site for hours and begged the medic for a cigarette. He was refused, because, well, you know, smoking is bad for you. Would you, too, have denied the poor bugger a cigarette on the ground that he only THOUGHT it might relieve his suffering and you knew better? Where do you go to school to get that kind of knowledge?
On the other hand, there are, of course, people who like pain. They're called masochists. And people who like to inflict it are called sadists.
Just a thought.
:
Anonymous | 07.05.08 - 8:41 am, wrote;
“Do you seriously believe anyone as an individual or in small groups could successfully fight back with a vengeance today?”
Yes of course I do. I’d rather be dead than give in to any other concept.
Come on, you must know that whatever positive end result may come of this will be the result or collective results of an individual or small groups successfully fighting back. And sure those small groups may swell to larger groups. And yes because of how far things have gone any process would be slow going. You also know that this is not about smoking. You know; that “churches” (religions) have been “denormalizd” before. That “human rights” beyond this as well as “property rights” have suffered countless attacks on top of being largely ignored both past and present. That nearly every form of tyranny has progressively gotten worse. So…I’ am baffled as to why you would even ask “where would a serious resistance be formed?” I would guess in a similar place used for such purpose successfully since the dawn of human race? Perhaps Anonymous | 07.05.08 - 8:54 am could draw us a map?lol on my part, I should say that f888 was in poor taste ,and with vengeance a figure of speech. A peaceful resistance….to the furthest extent possible.
I would hope that you know (for many of the reason stated in the mid to end of your post) that tying this multi billon dollar hulk, to a small or large group of nazis still out there is poor judgment as well, point taken as to the target, but poor judgment IMO. How many times has it been pointed out to the doc; how his movement has moved way beyond its original intent? He’s even said as much. You and I ,and others have very little if any control over the entire consequence of continually and relentlessly calling public health “experts” nazis. Who else will needlessly fall into this vacuum? I think it’s a bit reckless, maybe I’m wrong or just not as oppressed as others truly are.
The denormalization strategy in a nutshell,and you thought you were just obeying the law?
"But on a solemn note Gilmore explains that people choosing to stand outside to smoke, shivering in the cold, demonstrates that tobacco is a “drug of addiction”.
And now, time to strap on the body armour for all those who like the occasional drink.
"However, Gilmore suggests the harm alcohol can cause if abused can be more widespread than that caused by smoking."
“Fifty per cent of domestic violence is almost certainly fuelled by alcohol, then there’s damage to unborn children, street violence, drink-driving – there is a catalogue of harm that is considerably greater than smoking,” he says. “We need to emphasise that it is a major problem with alcohol misuse.”
http://www.thepublican.com/
story...storycode=60253
Pass me the gin...
David;
Although I agree any success will come as a collection of small groups and individuals, the word vengeance was what I found difficult to comprehend. And I notice you seem to agree “vengeance” will not be found here, it is certainly not a word which describes what I am pursuing.
I have seen many perspectives and opinions some I would agree with entirely and others I could never accept. Everyone has a background and a life’s experience which forms those opinions, so no one can really be totally wrong, nearly as often as they are misunderstood.
This is of course much more than an issue of just smoking, which IMO is a wedge issue affecting many others. We have a multi-faceted problem which requires many solutions. By that perspective, we will need many strategies and many opinions.
Simplifying the matter won’t be easy. When you look at my suggestion of attaching the word Nazi to the healthcare profession you only see a single dimension of fighting hate with hate.
IMO if a coalition’s solidarity is to be challenged, we have to demonstrate to the groups which comprise that coalition, the perils of loaning a proxy and how they will be used to promote ideals they would not normally accept. If the Nazi moniker is heard often enough groups may splinter away from the ASH nucleus simply to demonstrate they do not support the more than obvious Nazi mindset or control principles ASH is employing.
It will only take one major stakeholder partner to understand the value of their own reputation and how it is soiled in the company of radicals, to destroy the partnership and turn them upon each other.
Fragmentation will eventually come in good time, because power doesn't like company or second opinions, helping it along just minimizes the damage they will do in the mean time.
We all do what we can to improve our situation and many times that of others, in the absence of one truth or one solution, more so in the absence of unity, spawned in a world of uncontrollable egos, most of us will have to go it alone.
Doctor Siegel, - "I don't support any policies which would deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking."
Wrong,....again.
Forget that I smoke for just a second.
This isn't about my pleasures derived from smoking first hand.
This is about the pleasure derived from knowing that I provided an environment to my patrons that specifically sought out my establishment because they knew they were welcomed to enjoy tobacco consumption in my establishment.
I derived a great deal of pride and pleasure in knowing that I was able to provide this environment to customers that had already been bannished from every other establishment in town that had VOLUNTARILY adopted a "Smoke Free" policy ahead of, and long before the notion of a law prohibiting the activity was ever considered as necessary "for our own good".
My patrons derived pleasure from the non-judgmental atmosphere, and I derived pleasure in providing it.
My local competition had already bowed to the Health Gestapo and banned tobacco from their business model.
Yet these same competitors, at the urging of the same Gestapo that brow beat them into submission in the first palce, are now crying about the "level playing field" and how it's "not fair" that some establishments allow smoking and some do not. What's wrong with this picture? It's business you socialist morons.
If I can offer a product, service, or environment that you can't or won't,.. that business. Good for me, bad for you, but forcing me to ignore, or forcing me to deliberately not make the most of the business potential is un-American. It's anti-capitalist. It's incredibly stupid, and I get no pleasure from that at all.
There is no "RIGHT" to breath "Clean Air", just as there is no "Right" to smoke. These are personal preferences.
There are no rights to breath clean air enumerated in the Constitution, Property Rights however, are mentioned more than just a few times.
"In the interest of Public Health",...should more specifically read: "In an effort to side-step the Constitution"
"In the interest of",...is simply the polite, non-aggressive justification for ignoring the Constitution and herding the masses toward the unattainable socialist utopia.
I derive no pleasure in knowing that either.
idlex wrote:
"I guess most likely Bill Godshall figures one day on hanging up his antismoking boots and retiring to the country with the ill-gotten loot he's extracted from smokers..."
Others, sure, but not Bill.
If he's ever received a dime from his war on smokers he's put it in his gas tank so he could drive more often to lobby for smoking bans.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bill drives his Prius, not to save the earth, but for that reason.
And remember that Bill also lobbied for seatbelt laws. I don't see where any financial reward would come from that.
Bill's motivation isn't money. My guess is his sperm count is too low to cause reproduction, so he helps get laws passed to make us his surrogate children.
I don't support any policies which would deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking.
Dr. Siegel, as others have pointed out, quite elequently, your own support of smoking bans in private businesses shows the lie of that statement.
While I truly believe that you totally believe the above quoted statement, thus you are not lying when stating it, I also know you are deceiving only yourself if you think for a minute any of us would fall for it.
Your words and actions of the past 22 speak to the opposite of your statement above. Your words and actions have not only worked to create policies that deprive smokers of pleasure from smoking, but have also deprived not only smokers but many non-smokers of their livelihoods and in some cases their entire life savings which was tied up in a business they created and you helped destroy.
That you continue to cling to your mantra that the benefits of smoking bans outweigh the consequences also puts the lie to the above quote. I have to see an honest evaluation of ANY benefit to smoking bans that does not include such subjective things as "I don't smell like smoke when I leave the bar."
We, smokers and non-smokers alike, who live in the real world and not the rarified air of academia know for a fact that policies that you have helped promote and create do far more damage than good to society as a whole.
By claiming that an asthmatic should not have to choose a job over health, while at the same time saying a person with a seafood or peanut allergy should know better than to work in such an athmosphere proves beyond a shadow of a doubt this entire crusade has nothing to do with public health, but just about smokers.
As I said above Doctor, you are deceiving no one but yourself.
Every time I read these articles and the comments, and the links listed, I find myself shaking with horror. I simply had no idea there was such a far-reaching agenda. "Confidence trick", denormalization, all the rest.
As far as the pdf about the kids and smoking's imagery as "cool" - how can they not get it that rebellion will always be what's "cool" to a significant percentage of youth.
In fact, the more the "goody-goodies" are involved in "decooling" anything, the more attractive it becomes.
In my day, it simply didn't occur to the control-freak kids to use smoking against me (I'm sure they disapproved, though). They did, however,demand I "learn my lesson" about other things ("judicial board," college dorm).
Of course, this has been mentioned before on this site: that pot, acid, and other illegal drugs have never been advertised in the mainstream media - or even glamourized (with a few exceptions!) in films etc. How can they not see that cool, for many, is experimenting with forbidden fruit? And then often finding it was all lies (Reefer Madness). For instance, how many kids did actually get hooked on crack because they were told, "once will get you hooked." Then they do it once, if for no other reason than curiosity - or even knowing someone else who did it once and didn't get hooked - and guess what - not hooked. So they stop believing and - well, crack is pretty powerful - do eventually get hooked (whatever that is).
I think even the most appalling is the idea that smokers are still too comfortable. That a smoking lounge might have comfortable chairs. Or that a smoker might even have a chair. That there are people who just cannot bear that we might be "given" a smoking situation with any degree of civility, comfort or sociability. And those who are raped or freeze to death "had it coming."
It seems to me that that is the power of suggestion. 30 years ago, even while things were clearly in the non-smoking direction, it didn't seem to occur to people to be so mean-spirited and vicious. It really fits the "mobbing" mentality. And I understand that Banzhaf has jumped over alcohol (I guess, in the U.S., prohibition is too close - he'll save it for last) and gone straight to demonizing chubby kids (it's again "for the kids" but I did see references that he's not so skinny himself and it might seem a little hypocritical....).
So now, that most smokers have been kicked into submission, they will create a truly horrific scenario . all the so-called hdhd whatever have been Ritalinized, now the rest of the kids are going to be ostracized, humiliated, medicated...
I think I posted once before and mentioned my own situation - it's pretty good in Zurich, altho there's a vote coming in Sept. which I don't know the details of yet.
We even have a smoking office (6 of us - all agreed on it). I'm trying now to find out about the next Zurich vote (Sept 2
. So I have no personal vendetta, or horror stories right now (altho that train station cafe in Bellinzona closed the winter after the Ticino smoking ban - voted in - the regulars were train workers who smoked).
Another thing that's horrified me: if I get a Yahoo "alert" - keyword "smoking" and the article has comments: 99% of the hateful comments are antis, 1% are smokers: f--- you, I'll blow smoke in your face. Kinda scary!
I meant scary in terms of 99% to 1% - not what the 1% say.
I don't support any policies which would deprive smokers of the ability to derive pleasure from smoking.
My turn.
1) smokers are seen as people who can, or better, adjust to their environment, and if they tough it out, they can still enjoy it
2) nonsmokers upset with smoking can, and are encouraged to, stump for restrictions BY LAW. To say they can't put up with anything like this. And why should they?
In other words, smokers, despite being called a raft of names, are expected to be more level headed and adaptable.
Also, Kendra's point about relative addictions is an interesting one--if people say cigarettes are as addictive as heroin/crack and then they try cigarettes and don't enjoy them...
...then no problem, they can try heroin/crack just once!
This is the consequence of trying to get people not to A and B by saying "A is worse than B, and B is worse than A. Well, you get our general point, it's pretty obvious."
On pleasure:
Ok. doc. Drinking a good single malt Scotch in a leather chair by a fireplace in a club among friends is a pleasure. How about having to drink it outside, 20 feet from the doorway in the freezing rain? Would the "pleasure" be, let's say, considerably dampened? As Gabz and others were attempting to point out, that IS your policy.
Kendra--
Didn't I read that Geneva just "went"? Never liked it much anyway--it always seemed sterile-- but I wonder if places like St Moritz etc will follow the examples of our Colorado ski town/ upper class retreats. Keep us posted. Those of us shopping for a civilized country are always on the lookout.
:
Yes, Walt, I've read that too... and yes, Geneva seems sterile anyway in comparison with Zurich.
Re St. Moritz, etc.: My husband (Swiss) has been saying for years, Europeans (Swiss, anyway)copy everything the U.S. does, just 20 years later (even after the U.S. realizes a mistake was made). And I'd see ski resorts that depend on tourists (esp. uptight Americans) copping out easily. I'm only hoping that the info on the real effects of a blanket ban - esp. on the hospitality industry that caters to inhabitants at least as much as tourists, as in Zurich - become more known before the German part of Switzerland falls under the axe. I do know Austria is resisting - no one says anything about it, but I wonder if the "too close for comfort" - WWII history - has had a delaying effect, in Austria and here.
When I return in August, I will find out what's up with the Zurich vote in Sept. Meanwhile, the public buildings ban that entered into force July 1 hasn't had much effect, since no one smoked in public buildings anyway. Maybe we'll just start seeing ugly, obnoxious signs all over the place.
My comments on pleasure! I don't usually smoke unless I really feel the nicotine desire (like after a long train journey) without something nice to drink! That's the whole pleasure part, smoking WITH a nice coffee, glass of wine, whiskey, or whatever. And it seems there are all these places where you're not even allowed to take it outside, let alone the state of the weather!
Again on kids - I didn't really mean it that way, Andrew. I meant simply forbidding anything will have an effect on a certain kind of kid - much more of an effect than seeing it glamorized or succumbing to seductive advertising. That is why no matter how much propaganda there is that it's "not cool" to smoke - the very fact that it's forbidden is exactly what makes it cool to do, just like with drugs! And then if there is lying discovered (as in my example), the kids only feel contempt at 1. control in the first place and 2. control based on lies.
Goody-goody kids usually stay goody-goody, ending up with embittered, sour faces, and, probably because they don't have any other fun, turn into control-freaks quite early on.
And now, because some schizo anti complained during a performance of Jersey Boys in Chicago, the writers have had to rewrite smoking scenes and essentially history, to comply with the smoking ban. Our world, our culture, and our history is spinning out of control. We MUST stop this insanity.
Anonymous,
Very well said.
Sheri, what happened in Chicago? Do you have a link?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
ne...0,3332443.story
Late here, but a point...first, thanks for the link, Sheri.
Kendra, my example may have been more of a thought experiment...too often I'll read a post here and it will make me either say 1) why didn't I think of it that way or 2) gee, that's a good idea, maybe it'll help me to look at things like X. So I extrapolated a bit.
I forgot to mention what I found interesting about James's post...about Bill and his Prius.
We may not be able to infer full intent, but it's pretty sad to see conclusive proof that a good idea can be tainted, or it can be used as rope for "Well, maybe I am a little nasty to smokers, but it's consistent with my other views, and maybe I drive a less polluted car, so I have a right to push people around."
I seem to recall statements to the effect "I'm doing everything I can, so I have a right to judge those who aren't, or make them try to do as well as I do." The first part of the statement: good. The second? Not so good.
I have to give Bill credit for a good act even if it is for a bad reason. However, it reminds me of the pitfalls of self righteousness we all can fall into if we are too happy about doing the right thing, or about doing the right thing more than others. Other people can immediately see they don't want to be like us, even if they don't know why, and the easy way to do so is not to try, period. The problem is that many people may want to buy a Prius, but don't want to be as self righteous as Bill is when he talks down to smokers. There's no full logical connection, but then there is none for the people who think it's okay to insult smokers and try to make them feel glad it's not worse.
But at least Bill's acts and words here belie the fact that the more you do for society, or the more non-profity and Green you are, the better person you must be. Being a leftie, I can lose focus of that.
Commenting by HaloScan
