Personally, I am waiting to hear those immortal words,
"I have created a monster"
I'm trying very hard to muster even a smidgen of sympathy. Those of us who have spent many years fighting the insidiousness of the anti-smoker cartel have been saying much of this for years, and unlike Dr. Enstrom, have not received any funding from tobacco interests, restricted or unrestricted.
Politicians and the general public have been lied to, and folks trying to point out the lies have been lied about to the same politicians and general public by those selfsame liars and charlatans.
Oh what a tangled web you've woven.
The smell of tobacco smoke disappears with a bit of soap and water, unlike the stench of sanctimony and hypocracy which remain within the very bone marrow of the entire anti-smoker cartel.
"epidemiologic science"
Oxymoron alert!
The smell of tobacco smoke disappears with a bit of soap and water, unlike the stench of sanctimony and hypocracy which remain within the very bone marrow of the entire anti-smoker cartel.
Gabz | 10.23.07 - 12:22 pm | # I think i'd go just a little further and suggest it's more of a CANCER on society,that is terminal to civilization.Who could have ever envisaged seeing such a divide of such Universal proportions,between ONLY 2 groups of people,PUBLIC HEALTH AND ITS CULT FOLLOWERS and those who believe in freedom and free choice.This could never have formed a plot for Superman,yet it is happening.Is the planet Mercury deemed SMOKING ONLY ?
Well, Si, I did say I was trying to muster some sympathy 
But I do agree with you. These cultists are a cancer on society, and unlike the alleged harms of ETS exposure, the harm caused by the cultists is visible and proven.
"Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science."
SCIENCE!!?
yeah,....right.
Still waiting for an answer Doc.
What do I have to say, display, or otherwise provide to potential patrons and employees that would fit your heretofore undefined definition of "sufficient, or adequate warning"?
Surely you have some idea of what it would take to scare the bejeezes out of some poor soul who is clearly too stupid to understand the INTERNATIONALLY understood BIOHAZARD symbol on the front door of a Bar or Restaurant.
Surely you could quantify the "Risk" with some really scary numbers for those half wits that can't comprehend five syllables spread over two whole words; "Smoking Permitted"
There must be something you could say that would clarify your paternalistic concern for the safety and well being of fully grown and self determinate people that don't want, don't need, and didn't ask for your "special" brand of help.
I'll make it easier for you:
Tell me, (the business owner) why I should dissalow MY patrons, to smoke on MY property, in MY business, if thats what they and I prefer.
You and your TC buddies remain free to NOT ever set foot inside the building. How hard is that?
Regardless of how complex you portray the "problem" of ETS to be, it's till no more complex than this.
Don't smoke?,...don't come in.
Specifically as it applies to hospitality venues.
My parents are long since deceased, and I don't recall offering you, or anyone else in the fascist TC movement the position of replacement parent.
Lightning Boy, I applaud your persistence, but you are actually asking for rationality from a member, a true believer of an irrational cult. You will not get it.
While Dr. Siegel thinks he is exposing a problem in an effort to find a solution, and that is a noble gesture, it will come to nothing. The reason it will come to nothing is that Dr. Siegel is a major part of the problem insofar as he helped start the ball rolling down this slippery slope.
Don't get me wrong, as critical as I tend to be, I actually do like Dr. Siegel and am very appreciative of the fact he is so willing to allow those of us who oppose him and his nanny-state attitudes to speak freely in our opposition. Unlike the majority of the cultists, I would actually like to sit down and chat face to face over an adult beverage with the Doc and would go so far as to agree that it be in a non-smoking venue. None of the rest of the cult deserve such a courtesy.
OT Article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
he...icle3087276.ece
Unveiled: radical prescription for our health crisis.
Ok, Maybe it's not OT...
Just sent this e-mail to the councilman fighting a proposed smoking ban in Liberty, Missouri, just outside Kansas City. Also forwarded the e-mail to the press covering the Kansas City smoking ban nearby.
Councilman King,
I really think you should read today's blog entry by anti-smoking
researcher Dr. Michael Siegel: "Commentary in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations Highlights Threats to Science from Anti-Tobacco Activism". It concerns false claims anti-smoking groups use to push smoking bans and how honest scientists who try to blow the whistle on the fraud are punished.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Bill Hannegan
"I would actually like to sit down and chat face to face over an adult beverage with the Doc and would go so far as to agree that it be in a non-smoking venue."
Gabz, I believe that the doctor did once allow that should such a meeting take place, he thought he could put up with smoking during the session.
But here's what I would propose. Because as we all know he's not riding on any Straight Talk Express, and we know that we're not going to get any honest answers from him to several of our questions (for reasons having to do with position or reputation or hard-headedness or god knows what), then we could perhaps ask the doctor to MIME his answers. In that way he'd have deniability, he wouldn't be on record, his reputation would remain intact, we might get a few honest responses and we could all go away happy. Other than that, as I see it, there remains only the bastinado.
.
That is truly chilling
One to give Bill and Cathy that warm, fuzzy, wet feeling.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/c...ews.pl?
id=26725
GreatScot
LighteningBoy:Still waiting for an answer Doc.
What do I have to say, display, or otherwise provide to potential patrons and employees that would fit your heretofore undefined definition of "sufficient, or adequate warning"?
LB, he has answered that question, actually before you really asked it. His response to us about this very thing, back in July was that IF you put a warning up, and people STILL choose to enter, then they are NOT sufficiently warned about the hazardous dangers of SHS that HE (the Doc) claims they have to know to make an informed decision. Seriously, he said that…………..almost word for word IF my memory serves me correctly (for I remember choking on that response and replying back in a totally flabbergasted manner).
Unless your warning guarantees no one will actually choose to take the risk, and makes them believe as the Doc does, they cannot possibly have been adequately and satisfactorily warned.
In other words: There is NO warning sufficient enough to enable people to make the right choice (to avoid the smoking establishment).
Didn’t you get the memo? Sorry, I’ll add you to that list now. LOL
Gabz:Unveiled: radical prescription for our health crisis.
OMG it really is George Orwell’s 1984 coming to life. I really need to find a hole, cave, island to just fall off the face of the earth into……..OMG, please tell me this is NOT something that is under serious consideration. Has it really progressed THIS far THAT fast?
Same story with comments
Charge Smokers Right to Buy Cigarettes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...nsmoking123.xml
No wonder we don't NEED to vote on the EEC constitution,WE AREN'T EUROPEANS according to the Government.This is the biggest load of bollocks since the phenomenally successful scam about SHS.Earlier reading an article on FORCES obese people lose AN ADDITIONAL 3 YEARS COMPARED TO SMOKERS,AND THAT IS WITHOUT SMOKING !This is just TOO UNBELIEVABLE,next week global warming will cause the EARTH to destruct before 2008.SCIENTISTS ? MY KIDS KNOW MORE AND THEY'RE ONLY 12.
If you buy a permit they will know who you are.
Lynda F; "In other words: There is NO warning sufficient enough to enable people to make the right choice (to avoid the smoking establishment)."
Yeah I remember reading that particular piece of nonsensical childish drivel as well.
So, Not only is there NO SAFE LEVEL of ETS, There is No Adequate warning that the apparent mindless masses could possibly EVER comprehend.
Puhleeeeze.
Your insulting every single member of the American population with such a rediculous position.
Freedom be damned!,..eh Doc?
You're not promoting health, you're building a fascist state in the name of health.
So I guess the "DO NOT ENTER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE" warning on the door has either too many letters, too many syllables or fails because it doesn't provide the appropriate level of electrical shock therapy to smokers that insist on touching the door handle.
Perhaps if the signage simply read;
THIS BUSINESS IS NOW CLOSED.
THANKS TOBACCO CONTROL.
WE COULDN'T HAVE FAILED WITHOUT YOU.
(Epidemiologic "science" clearly indicates that there is significant risk reduction in the imaginary harm from ETS when a business is forced to close due to implementation of smoking bans.)
That's the conclusion of my own Epidemiologic study!,....
(It came to me the same way all similar conclusions are reached in such studies,......in your dreams!)
Yes, smoking licences, see then Simon Clak's commentary on LeGrand at:
http://
takingliberties.squarespa...d.html#comments
Harking back and with regard to the topic of epidemiology, I've decided to stop studying it and taken up astrology and numerology instead. They are both far more accurate. They are, they really are!
From Rose’s link:
The scheme would ensure smokers had to make a conscious decision to continue the habit
Is there some reason these people actually believe we DON”T make a conscious decision to smoke? Do they really and truly think us SO stupid and robotic that we can’t think? How bloody insulting (but then the whole TC movement is one big fat insult to anyone with two functioning brain cells).
And then: and require people to become "registered addicts
Oh, yes, I’d be growing my own……in fact I will be just because I refuse to support programs the likes of bill, cathy and the doc himself wouldn’t want their taxes raised for to fund. I believe I read somewhere that there’s a tobacco plant I believe that can be grown in those 5 gallon buckets quite nicely, for those apartment dwellers who don’t have a garden of their own.
AND: Once the scheme was up and running, it could be extended so smokers had to get a doctor's signature that their health was not at "massive risk" by smoking in order to get a licence.
And TC gets insulted when we make the Nazi connection?
The only good thing about the article is that the majority of the comments (there’s always a few idiots who can’t think) are just as shocked as I am.
Lynda
Found this, this afternoon interesting after the technical bit
http://www.homeopathy-academy.or...rch/
Tobacco.htm
"IF you put a warning up, and people STILL choose to enter, then they are NOT sufficiently warned about the hazardous dangers of SHS that HE (the Doc) claims they have to know to make an informed decision. Seriously, he said that."
Yes he did say that. My favorite part was when he said that the problem with education was that he could present his "facts," but someone else might come along and present conflicting information.
If an opposing point of view is presented to the bartender, then Dr. Siegel's "fact" might appear to be mere conjecture. If that happens, then the bartender cannot be properly informed.
See? Education is only possible if Dr. Siegel is the sole source of the information. So smoking must be banned, regardless of the bartender's smoking status or his ability to read and make his own decisions.
I'm delighted to hear (and see) that I was mistaken, when I posted a comment to this blog about Prof. Carl Phillips having been silenced by his detractors!
I humbly apologize for disseminating, here, my mistaken impression about that.
Rose, did you know that the Native Americans grew this (Nicotiana Rustica) for the purpose of making poison for their arrows?
Darts, anyone? vbweg (very big wicked evil grin)
all i have to say is so much for a smoke-free california. NOT.
Doctor, that sound you hear outside your bedroom window is all your chickens coming home to roost.
.
Lynda,
thank you for that, the way things are going these days, that might prove to be very valuable information, I am already considering heading for the hills.
I've moved past the consideration phase. The problem is finding the hills you'd be willing to live in. I was planning on putting through my claim of citizenship jure sanguinis(dual citizen by blood line) of Italy. Though Italy seems to have fallen to the public health nazis as well. Guess the only refuge of the sinner, at least that wouldn't require a huge lifestyle change, is New Orleans. New Orleans is probably the one place left in this country that anything like a smoking ban would either be ignored or cause a revolt if enforced. Not to mention that a waiter can make a good deal of money and, since every thing's still open when I'd get off work, I'd be able to have a good time.
Tommy,
New Orleans always looks fun , my Mum took my son there when he was little and he came back garlanded with necklaces, they had such a happy time.
In England people are leaving the country in droves,but being a bloody minded Brit I intend to stay and face them down.
New Orleans is a great example of how very different people can live in the same city and get along. The high minded aristocrats rule the French Quarter by day. With all the artists and musicians and the freaks rule by night with all the drinking, smoking, tarot readers and gutter punks.
thank you for that, the way things are going these days, that might prove to be very valuable information, I am already considering heading for the hills.
Rose, you’re very welcome, and I agree that it just might come in handy. And I’m right there with you in heading for the hills, only I’m seeking a deserted island, in the tropics (hate the cold)……….hehehehehe
And I hate the heat, but I'll confess
I LOVE coffee :D
Heat bad, cold good. You have an AC/heater to deal with either extreme. But, as I always say, when it gets cold outside you can always put more clothes on. But, when it gets hot, you can only take off so much.
I say that same thing Tommy, except it's "you can only take off so much before you get arrested" lol
Ahhh, but for me, adding clothing doesn't make me warmer. Being cold tenses my body, my jaw is clenched, and I end up feeling miserable.
With the heat, I find I can cool down easier than I can heat up in the cold.
Given the two, I'd rather deal with the heat and cooling down than the cold and tension that accompanies it.
But that's just me........hehehehe
I'm pretty sure I've got this right:
New Orleans has a smoking ban (at least in restaurants, not sure about bars) and Louisiana has a smoking-in-your-car ban.
Hoping to be contradicted...
Walt,
Sorry no contradicion here:
http://www.tobacco.org/news/227283.html
~snip~
In a prepared statement, Blanco said she signed the bill "as a progressive health care measure that will protect people, especially children, from second-hand smoke in public places. It is time that we focus on keeping our citizens and children healthy and encourage wellness."
It would allow smoking in bars and gambling outlets, privately chartered limos, private homes, so-called "cigar bars" and any retail tobacco business.
******
They will allow up to 50% of hotel rooms to be set aside for smokers.
Generous huh?
.
from above post:
"It is time that we focus on keeping our citizens and children healthy and encourage wellness." Gov Blanco-LA
I guess she doesn't see drowning as a health/wellness issue.
.
Commenting by HaloScan
