In contrast, the majority of children who are exposed to secondhand smoke in cars do not suffer any long-term effects. There is an increased risk of ear infections and lower respiratory tract infections. But to compare that to child abuse?
Doc - here's your problem. You have advocated for education to reduce children's SHS exposure instead of coercion.
Yet you admit in the above statement that there is no real harm.
I will ask until I am blue in the face.
Why is this issue so compelling to so many public health ninnies? Surely with so much time and energy being spent on it there ought to be damaged children to trot out?
At least when MADD went out and embarked on their anti drunk driving mission - they had dead loved ones to make their case.
I've yet to see any of you prove anything that makes government intrusion into a parent's decision of when to light up anybody's business but their own.
Disapproving of my decisions over the potential for an extra earache is one thing, but using government power to interfere with personal choices about how to live our lives ought to have higher bar than that.
That's why none of you have chosen to meet my challenge. You can't.
The emporer has no clothes.
Dr. Siegel,
Do you favor the protection of concert workers by imposing loud music bans? Banning all exposure to music beyond 100 decibels would do more to help workers and kids than any smoking ban.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints...s/
ots_ears.html
"Why is it that parents must learn "more responsible behavior around children" in their cars, but not in their homes? Is it the harm being done to children that bothers our legislators, or is it just seeing the parents smoking that is the problem?"
I don't know. Why is it that employers must learn "more responsible behavior around workers" regarding SHS, but not regarding window washing and boxing without head gear? Is it the harm being done to workers that bothers Dr. Siegel, or is it just seeing the workers and patrons smoking that is the problem?
"Do it for the children" is a tired old cliche. But "do it for the workers" ain't far behind.
Sorry, Doc, in almost all cases you are guilty of the same muddled logic afflicting those you so rightly criticize. I appreciate your efforts to keep them honest. But as someone without a dog in this fight (I don't smoke, and I have not dedicated my life to TC) I can't hardly see the difference between your brand of extremism and "theirs."
Concerned parents who want to shelter their children from terrorist biological attack can now use affordable filtration machines to create "safe rooms" in their homes. Positive pressure is created in the room and incoming air is filtered of bacteria and viruses:
"In a terrorist attack there will be three concerns. The first would be airborne particulates like bacteria, germs, viruses, etc. which could be very harmful if inhaled. These would range in size from as large as 10 microns to as small as 0.01 of a micron in size. The IQAir Healthpro Hyper HEPA performance will be at least 99.99% efficient at removing particulates 0.3 of a micron and larger and at least 99.5% on particulates 0.16 of a micron and smaller down to 0.01 of a micron."
http://www.allergyconsumerreview...pa-
filters.html
I bet something like this "safe room" in reverse could create safe smoking rooms in public buildings.
OT -- Bill G., perhaps I was wrong? Interesting -- So... as smokers go black market, prostitutes go legit to make up the tax deficit? What interesting times we live in...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...ry_prostitution
Hungary gives permits to prostitutes
BUDAPEST, Hungary - In an effort to bring prostitutes into the legal economy, officials said Monday that Hungary will allow sex workers to apply for an entrepreneur's permit — a move that could generate government revenues from an industry worth an estimated $1 billion annually.
Human rights groups often have criticized European Union member Hungary for legalizing prostitution — which has been fully allowed under certain conditions since 1999. Opponents say legalization does not help prostitutes.
The permits allow prostitutes to give receipts to customers and become part of the legal economy by paying taxes and making social security contributions, said Agnes Foldi, head of the Hungarian Prostitutes' Interest Protection Association...
Doc:How can one suggest that physically abusing a child is worse than exposing a child to secondhand smoke? How can one suggest that physically abusing a child results in effects that last for a much shorter time than a child breathing in secondhand smoke?
Is the first sentence bass-ackwards from what you meant to say?
Hey, Doc--Yes, these fanatical groups are over-the-top and everyone loses when people attribute to them more credibility than they deserve.
Bill: I bet something like this "safe room" in reverse could create safe smoking rooms in public buildings.
Ya.
(That's the shortest response I've ever given!)
That isn't the reason that I stopped by. Actually, I wanted to say something completely off-topic...sort of.
Off-topic bit: I've been looking at this banning craze stuff for a while. By "a while" I mean since, say, last February. I decided to start a new website because (1) I *need* put it all together for my own sanity and (2) I *need* to put at least some of the wonderful things that I see people doing out in the open. (Mind you, there is some real talent flying around the various meeting places in c-space. Everything from poetry to humor to all that scientific jazz.) What I've learned from the experience is that (1) I would go stark-raving mad if I had to sift through everything all the time and (2) there are some really wonderful people around. So, as applies to the Doc and this blog...
I think it's worth noting that, if I feel like I could go off the deep end just looking at this for a few months, I can't imagine what the Doc goes through. (Yes, I ended another sentence with a preposition.) I mean, reading this stuff, writing it, writing *about* it, dealing the people on this blog from all different directions. And this is after coming to the grand and glorious conclusion that one was brainwashed? (Mind you, we all get brainwashed in one way or another. It's sorta human. We cope.) I promise that I can understand the frustration of watching people doing things that undermine one's...well, to borrow a 60s term, "thing." (Seriously, I get the same way about math. I once watched a prof slaughter the most eloquent and universal language in the universe simply because he had a problem with women and minorities in his classroom. *DTB faints*)
I have a whole new respect--and I think that's worth noting in a fairly BIG way.
HA! GDF! I just replied to you at the Tavern!!
Actually, I'm back with purpose. mkay. (Note to Self: Need to stop watching South Park.)
Now, let's get to the children.
(1) The *only* thing that I saw in that OEHHA report (or whatever the acronym) was that RR and stats for SIDS. Okay, sure, there's the WHO sudy showing what one might be tempted to call a "protective effect" for children exposed to tobacco smoke in the home. But, still, I said even on [the infamous day] that the SIDS stats were the ONLY ones that looked like something should be investigated further.
(2) If you believe that ADULTS--and remember that smoking is an ADULT activity--must be banned from smoking in public places and workplaces, then you are saying that people have to be protected from VOLUNTARY passive smoking. Yet, here, where children are concerned, you say that these little INVOLUNTARY passive smokers don't need that level of banning protection. Yes, it's an old question but it's still here and it's valid.
***********
Now, possibly your rationale is that, by legally forcing ADULTS to refrain from smoking in more and more places, you will get ADULTS to quit. Having the opposite effect of the Tobacco-Free Kids Campaign, which makes antismoking look like a "Kid Thing" to teens, this would make not smoking an "Adult Thing" that might appeal to teens trying to act "all grown-up." (Kinda like putting an "R" rating on movies that do NOT depict smoking. Saying that NOT smoking is an adult thing.) But that doesn't work because you're pushing all of the adult smokers onto the sidewalks in full view of kids who can always request a cigarette from one of these adult smokers--see "smirting."
No matter how you look at it, this doesn't make sense. If you believe that adults should be banned from smoking around other adults who have the choice to leave, then how can you believe that adults shouldn't be banned from smoking around children who are efectively a "captive" audience?
GDF: So... as smokers go black market, prostitutes go legit to make up the tax deficit?
As long as they don't allow their...erm, patrons to smoke afterward? Ah, man, it's Nevada all over again!
Doc--
when did we suddenly get to RR 1.3 for ETS lung cancer in nonsmokers? Based on whose study? Please provide citation(s), hopefully with access to the full text(s).
And when did we get to "cause" when such studies, at best, can suggest association, but never prove cause--and especially can't prove it with low RRs, lack of significance, lack of dose/response, and a large, impressive body of contradictory studies showing zero to minus harm. .
In fact, didn't your own vaunted restaurant study only conclude a "suggestion" that secondhand smoke "might" "in part" be considered as causal?
In fact, your own study on the children of smokers was methodologically questionable and mightily inconclusive-- even for ear aches. I'll bring this up again at a later date and earlier hour.
Nonetheless, I do thank you for bringing Nuttall to Forces. Good work, indeed.
:
Sooo.. is it a big WB to DTB? Hope so...
I think I'll let Sam deal with the question of the comparative workplace health risks for prostitutes for SHS vs.... their usual duties...
As for the rest of your post DTB --
"Yet, here, where children are concerned, you say that these little INVOLUNTARY passive smokers don't need that level of banning protection. Yes, it's an old question but it's still here and it's valid."
And the answer is -- no one needs to be "protected" from this nonsense because people can make health decisions for themselves, and parents can make health decisions for their children. IMHO, only folks who stand to profit, (or maybe those with inflated opinions of their own importance) would WANT the responsibility of making health decisions for other competent adults or for other people's children.
I notice, doctor, that a relative risk of 1.3 is your favorite statistic for both lung cancer and heart disease for passive smoking, and yet you signed off on the notorious EPA's 1992 study of 1.19 for lung cancer! Something cockeyed there. A 1.19 figure tanked by a federal judge, and yet you signed off on it. And now it's 1.3.
Moreover, when you talk about 'cause,' could you please tell us at what point 'cause' is a scientifically certain 'cause'? 1.0 is not cause as we all know; how about 1.01? 1.1? 1.19? Where exactly does 'cause' kick in for scientific certitude on your part? Or can you prove 'cause' with even a 1.0 figure (see below)?
And how about 0.99? Or 0.70? Is that scientific proof of NON-cause?
Don't bother replying (said the man addressing a marble bust of the Delphi Oracle); just asking.
And as to: "Active smoking causes cancer of many other organs besides the lung, while secondhand smoke has been shown to be a cause only of lung and nasal sinus cancer," well, HERE WE GO AGAIN! "Shown to be"? On what planet? Not, apparently, on the planet that Dr. Whelan lives on. And remember that she used some of the same stenuous arguments -- looking beyond the raw epidemiological figures -- against the CATO 400,000-deaths study that you've used to justify a low relative risk figure. Was her strenuous assessment correct when it came to the dangers of smoking but wrong when it comes to the dangers of secondhand smoke?
.
A big WB. *I feel so loved!*
Actually, I have not seen any evidence of SHS harm--in real life or in studies. However, I know that the Doc thinks we still need smoking bans. Yet, this seems to be very contradictory where children are concerned.
Speaking of hyopcrisy of smoking bans--like banning smoking everywhere but not thinking tobacco is deadly enough to outlaw--whathever happened to Enzi and outlawing tobacco?
"Actually, I have not seen any evidence of SHS harm--in real life or in studies. However, I know that the Doc thinks we still need smoking bans. Yet, this seems to be very contradictory where children are concerned."
That's a big point in my mind. What's the lower limit of number of years for rather intense exposure. Because if the lower limit is sometimes 20 years and not 30 or 40, then you've got the situation of kids living with parents for 18 years or more -- sometimes a lot more. And that brings up all sorts of complications in the argument.
Maybe someone could tackle that.
.
"That's a big point in my mind. What's the lower limit of number of years for rather intense exposure. Because if the lower limit is sometimes 20 years and not 30 or 40, then you've got the situation of kids living with parents for 18 years or more -- sometimes a lot more. And that brings up all sorts of complications in the argument."
Good point. I hadn't considered that. (If I'm reading you right.) The danger is working 40/40 in a smoky atmosphere. Kids would live at home (on average?) about half that. so, the danger is for the adults exposed 40/40?
With affordable filtration technology available that can filter even viruses from workplace air, no bar or restaurant worker these days needs to "suffer" for 40/40 in a smoky atmosphere. A doctor friend of mine who is aware of my efforts against smoking bans said to me, "In a crowded bar, I'd be more worried about avian flu than secondhand smoke." Affordable filtration technology is available protect all against both.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/d...cuments/
xj2.pdf
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/t...com/
tobacco.php
I am very new to all this, I only began to question when they wanted to ban smoking in public parks in Scotland.
The image of a huge municipal bonfire, with smoke, sparks and fireworks, yet the wisp of smoke from a cigarette was the most hazardous thing there and needed to banned for everyones protection?
I am also very puzzled as to how this all got started.
I was young in the 1950's, I remember the black smoke belching from factory chimneys and the toxic chemical smogs that came rolling up from the cities thick, yellow and evil smelling. I lived out in the country, but whenever it rained there were specks of black soot on my windowpane. The houses all burned coal and the stone walls even out in the country were black from the pollution.
So, seeing the industrial smoke that in cold weather dropped to ground level, combined with river mist and formed the legendary London smogs, why would anyone even think of tobacco as being the cause of lung cancer rather than all the airborne chemical filth?
Dr. Siegel wrote: "The relative risk of lung cancer associated with active smoking is about 17, yet only about 1.3 for passive smoking. Active smoking is a major cause of emphysema and chronic bronchitis (chronic obstructive lung disease), while secondhand smoke has not yet been shown to cause these conditions. Active smoking causes cancer of many other organs besides the lung, while secondhand smoke has been shown to be a cause only of lung and nasal sinus cancer."
I was going to comment on the doctors use of the word "cause" as he should know that the word in likely to cause confusion for the general public, but Harry has already commented and I have nothing new to add.
I also echo Harry regarding RRs.
And again, doctor: Do you expect the elected officials to understand RRs? Why? You said that they are far too complicated for bartenders to fully grasp regarding a warning as opposed to a ban. So why should these people be different? Or are you saying that elected officials are smarter?
You seem to be going back and forth on this. Are RR numbers a good way to express the dangers of SHS or not? If they are, and if you expect people to understand them, then why can they not serve as the basis of an effective warning?
And if legislators, like bartenders, can never fully understand the dangers (or simply refuse to) then should they be making any laws regarding SHS at all?
Doc,
I echo the above. Please tell us just one person who has contracted lung or sinus cancer from SHS.
When the truth finally is told, it will go down as the biggest hoax ever pulled on the American people. I glad I'm not one of the organizers.
Just turn the clocks back to the sixties and seventies.You MAY be able to show that due to smoking as the root cause,with NO other factors involved,life expectancy was lower BUT THE QUALITY OF LIFE WAS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO THIS SHIT BEING PROMOTED BY THE NANNIES WHO MAKE HITLER LOOK CONSERVATIVE IN COMPARISON.LONGEVITY MEANS LITTLE OTHER THAN TO THE CONTROL FREAKS WHO HAVE HIJACKED IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM.A RELATIVE RISK OF 1.13 ALSO MEANS DR SIEGEL THAT YOU IGNORE BASIC EPIDEMIOLOGY TO SUIT.
Doc,
We're still waiting for your version of adequate or "sufficient" warning about the dangers of SHS to not only bartenders, but to anyone that may be exposed in whatever occupation they may choose. This of course would apply to parents smoking in their cars with children present, which according to you is not really so bad, and to Parents smoking in the home which again according to you is at least dangerous, and possibly borders on the claims of abuse by SHS you rail against.
What would you say, write, or otherwise produce in any media format of your choice that would in your opinion, and your opinion alone, constitute sufficient warning about the dangers of exposure to SHS?
Try pretending for just a minute that bartenders and wait staff (that may also be parents) are smart enough to understand anything and everything you say.
Give it a try.
The doctor says:
The relative risk of lung cancer associated with active smoking is about 17, yet only about 1.3 for passive smoking. Active smoking is a major cause of emphysema and chronic bronchitis (chronic obstructive lung disease), while secondhand smoke has not yet been shown to cause these conditions. Active smoking causes cancer of many other organs besides the lung, while secondhand smoke has been shown to be a cause only of lung and nasal sinus cancer.
Is there any proof besides epidemiological nonsense of these claims for active smoking? I have found none. Forces has credible evidence that refutes this.
Belief without proof equals faith equals religion/ideology. I thought you were a scientist, doctor.
Here we go again. And they call US uneducated?
Active smoking is a major cause of emphysema and chronic bronchitis (chronic obstructive lung disease), while secondhand smoke has not yet been shown to cause these conditions.
"Major cause" (as in absolute) or should that say major contributing factor? Because as we all know perfectly well, NOT everyone who smokes, actively OR passively, contracts emphysema or chronic bronchitis; or any other ailment you feel like pinning smoking on.
Active smoking causes cancer of many other organs besides the lung, while secondhand smoke has been shown to be a cause only of lung and nasal sinus cancer.
Again with "causes" as in absolutely no doubt this is the only contributing factor. Where's the proof doc? Just because a person smokes and contracts that disease is not proof. A person rarely exposed to SHS who doesn't smoke can also contract any of these diseases. There is NO guarantee that a smoker WILL get them either.
Where's the absolute proof of "cause". IF you mean increased risk, then say so. IF you mean major contributing factor, then say so. Stop using words that you know for a fact we take as "absolute".
Your own word games are the reason you think people are too stupid to make their own decisions.
I think it's painfully obvious that Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette wasn't slapped around enough as a child.
Sam M wrote:
“And if legislators, like bartenders, can never fully understand the dangers (or simply refuse to) then should they be making any laws regarding SHS at all?’’
I think all the questions from above are important. Sam’s question here reveals just how critical an issue this is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As far as names go. I could name 4 bartenders. I can’t be sure if they were smokers or not. Their bars were located within a 4 mile radius of one another. 2 of these bartenders were women. Both owned and worked in their bars for over 40 years, one died at 91, the other died at 97. The other two men, both owned and worked in their bars for decades. One died at 87, I believe the other man is still alive and must be in his 90s by now. There was no ventilation in any of these bars, comparable to days ventilation, that is, and smoking rates were much higher back then compared to today.
I’m not saying that bartenders do or do not died or become ill from SHS exposure. What I’m asking……is there any scientific evidence that could explain why these 4 bartenders/ owners I mentioned, did not die from SHS exposure; but 3 died at home while sleeping?
I drank, ate, laughed, watched football games, smoked, and listen to the most interesting stories about the pass, with all 4 of those people. They were alive and very well. That was 15 years ago. Today we would pass legislation to protect them; from what? Should I just forget I ever witnessed what I just wrote?
The few people that I know who died from lung cancer were welders and auto painters, one or two smoked, but smoking wasn’t their profession. The way things are explained (“cause”), sometimes, you’d swear smoking was their profession and only exposure.
Just a small point, but I'm convinced that these sorts of interventions almost always exacerbate the condition they seek to address. Perhaps a trick of fate -- or perhaps an indication of the perversity of people. Anyway -- okay, although I always drive with my car windows partly open, smoking with my left hand, (as cowbell described on a previous thread - blowing smoke straight out the window) if I'm driving in a state with a car ban -- seems I'd be more likely to roll UP the windows (maybe turn on the vent system) and hold the cig down and to my right -- toward the center of the car, decreasing the chance that any obvious smoke escaping the car would draw the attention of the police.
In short, it seems that the more smoke *escaping* from the car, the more likely a smoker would be stopped.
Jalestra: I think it's painfully obvious that Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette wasn't slapped around enough as a child.
Jalestra, any chance I could convince you to drop me an e-mail sometime? BlueRoseGarden-at-aol-dot-com
Bill H --That's one of my BIG beefs with antismoking...erm, rAntis. With all of their irrational tantrums against ventilation/filtration, they actively DISCOURAGE adequate systems. Filtration takes MORE than tobacco smoke outta the air, as you've noted. Ultimately, air quality suffers from smoking bans. (Sorry 'bout this but see "Deterioration of Air Quality" at http://www.stahlheart.com/
wispof...html#Nonsmokers I just hate having to re-write it all.)
GDF--Excellent point, as usual. 
that's sorta what I was saying about air quality--it diminishes with smoking bans, which is the opposite of the supposed desired effect. BTW, I also drive with the window down a bit, no matter what--with or without smoking. But, yes, in a ban state, I suppose that I'd be more apt to drive with the window closed.
Have you ever seen those people who drive while holding their cigarette out the window? Like they want to smoke but are afraid of their own secondhand smoke?
Jalestra: I think it's painfully obvious that Assemblyman Ivan Lafayette wasn't slapped around enough as a child.
Jales! Just writing that sentence here in Banland (sorry, Scotland) could get you arrested! We banned smacking children. We ban most things here. That way, we dont actually have to think about anything. We dont have to consider EVERYBODY. We can ignore the lunatics (some call them stakeholders, not us) and their ridiculous protests. Much easier to enact laws.
Nu-Labour have enacted over 3,000 new criminal offences in the ten years they have been in power. I think they are going for some kind of record....
Back on topic: I just wanted to echo Walts call for clarity on that shiny new RR the Doc issued.
What say you, Doc? Where'd it come from? Its okay, you can tell us....
"who drive while holding their cigarette out the window?"...
I thought they were just bein' cool. Like rolling the pack up in the T-shirt sleeve! (Or maybe they're driving a "no-smoking" company car.. *grin*)
One thing I haven't been able to figure -- what about convertibles? Do such bans apply? If so, I'd feel kinda silly if I were the PO-lice (that's how we say it here..) ticketing a smoker in a convertible.
Walt and Colin -- it came from the same place as "given the HARM we know IS DONE by smoking during pregnancy" (emphasis mine). I asked for a rephrasing of that yesterday --given the substantial number of children for whom there is zero evidence of harm. I believe that the statement is at least inflammatory and misleading.
The results of the 50-year british doctors study were published in the 2004 ed of the British medical journal.
Among those doctors who smoked, 5.8% developed lung cancer. among those who did not, 0.8% developed lung cancer. an RR=17???? I don't think so! , but statistically speaking significant nonetheless.
The thing is the brit doctors study was controlled for by profession. while auto body painters, and welders, and the like are usually compared with nonsmokers such as accountants, medical personal, and other white collar workers, enhancing the effects of firsthand smoking and lung cancer.
just another example of ignoring important counfounders, i say.
so 5.8/0.8= about 7, not 17. look at the difference ignoring counfounders makes!
By the way, doc, do you plan to make an appearance in Albany and speak out against the car ban to the legislature?
Dave K
I think we all understand that there is RISK with primary smoking.
When terms like "cause" are used it only contributes to the ignorance of the mob. And that is what the anti's want. They want sheep to be herded to their belief.
I have included the link to Dr. Siepmann's
http://www.data-yard.net/10c/sie...c/
siepmann1.htm
The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)
or
"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)
USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (
Oh, and by the way, the crude RR of the EPA report was 1.3, after adjusting for 6 coundounders, the adjusted RR was 1.19.
They adjusted for history of lung disease, family hsitory of lung dsease, cooking and heating methods,cooking with oil, diet, occupation. that got the risk down to 1.19.
If they had adjusted for urban residency, that 1.19 would ahve been further reduced to 1.05.
So, crude risk ratios can tell us the odds someone such as a smoker who is also a blue colar worker, might get lung cancer, but adjusted risk ratios give us some insite into what other causes also play a role.
Overall, since the difference between crude and adjusted risk ratios in shs studys is about 50%, it seems the obvious conclusion is that the other risks are a important as the purported shs risk. If the other risks are underestimated, even a little, then the shs risk disappears. ( this is one of enstrom's arguments)
Toss in about $800M dollars a year, and ya got a social movement, but ya don't have science. Dave K
Dave,
I read recently that there are 41 confounder's for lung cancer. If they adjusted for the 35 that they left out, what would THAT do to the RR?
Colin, it's not so much I wish my childhood on others out of meanness. I'm just saying that if they had been abused, they wouldn't be quite so quick to devalue the damage of such things. I really wouldn't WANT anyone to have an abused childhood, but I do want for them to appreciate what it is. However, it's becoming more and more clear that those who are so quick to devalue the effects of abuse are those that weren't abused. In that case it's not "I wish they had been abused" as much as it is "I wish they walked a mile in my shoes", if you can appreciate the difference. Maybe if he'd been slapped around a bit as a child, he wouldn't be so quick to blow it off.
And if they wanna arrest me for that, so be it. It's only the truth.
John R. Writes: "Is there any proof besides epidemiological nonsense of these claims for active smoking? I have found none. Forces has credible evidence that refutes this."
Forces is considered a crank/denialist web site, see:
http://scienceblogs.com/
denialis...supercranks.php
Dan, that is the male Cathy. I can't read that sight, the amount of idiocy there is staggering and might give me an idiot related heart attack...tho I'm sure it'd be blamed on smoking.
Dan - So Orac and his crowd think Forces is a denialist site -- and Cathy seems to think Michael is a tobacco shill (see any number of posts). And I would care about those views because...?
Mike wrote:
"How can one suggest that physically abusing a child is no worse than exposing a child to secondhand smoke?"
That statement misrepresents what Assemblyman Lafayette was quoted as saying.
Besides, exposing a child to secondhand smoke is physically abusing a child.
Mike would be wise to stick to debating the merits of policy proposals, and to stop misrepresenting the statements and views of those with whom he disagrees.
Policy advocacy that relies upon deception and personal attacks isn't very persuasive or effective. Just look at the policy advocacy record of FORCES.
Dave -- re: the Brit Dr's study -- one thing I've always wondered. The participation in the study would certainly have raised concerns for the Dr's about possible connections between lung cancer and smoking. Has anyone ever investigated (and could one even?) whether the smoking Dr's were more likely (due to a heightened concern and reasonable access) to get frequent chest X-rays?
Harry brings up an excellent point in evaluating the so called child abuse, which conflicts entirely with the general belief if smokers quit they will realize any benefit.
"Because if the lower limit is sometimes 20 years and not 30 or 40, then you've got the situation of kids living with parents for 18 years or more -- sometimes a lot more. And that brings up all sorts of complications in the argument.
Maybe someone could tackle that."
The evaluation of so called child abuse theory has already been done in a 50 year study which examines over 100 years of smoking habits among a group most would consider entirely meticulous in their responses and evaluations of their habits.
If the majority of children live with their parents for 20 years or less where do we see any long term effects?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/3...t/328/7455/
1519
"Cessation at age 50 halved the hazard; cessation at 30
avoided almost all of it
On average, cigarette smokers die about 10 years younger
than non-smokers
Stopping at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 gains, respectively, about 3,
6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy"
Now examining this study compared to the much more condensed evaluations we see in media reports supporting the more recent conclusions. I would say the TC proponents have a lot of explaining to do in pointing a finger of child abuse. First they should be made to identify the harm or recant their abusive allegations. Harm which according to this research is a non starter.
Public health is undermining by rumor and abusive accusations alone parental rights of autonomy, and the wardship of the autonomy they temporarily control. Choices are made to smoke or not lawfully, as far as their children are concerned; Slanders are evident in TC campaigns by accusing all parents will smoke around their children, and all are guilty of abuse simply because they choose to smoke. That requires a lot more explanation as well.
"Besides, exposing a child to secondhand smoke is physically abusing a child."
Can you explain that further Bill? And would that apply to ALL smoke, or just tobacco?
Dan,
On that site anything that does not fit their view is labeled crank/denialist. I don't believe anyone has said there is no link or risk.
From Forces:
Now if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then the answer based upon current evidence should be "yes."
The thing most object to is the use of cause. Orec and his cronies tried to frame it to say Forces denied a link to cancer. Not True!! Who is guilty of "quote mining".
However, we all agree that Forces does not accept a risk relationship between SHS and lung cancer.
BTW'
Keep in mind if the effects seen are direct smoking effects, ETS would have to be assumed to have a much lower effect, unless of course the TC proponents somehow are saying, exposures to ETS are much more dangerous than a combination of primary and ETS exposures, of which smokers would experience the highest level of exposures.
In that assessment they would have to agree, smoking eliminates the effects of ETS which kind of exposes their logic for what it really is.
Dan: Forces is considered a crank/denialist web site, see: {crnaky website pretending to be "scientific"}
Bill Godshall: Mike would be wise to stick to debating the merits of policy proposals, and to stop misrepresenting the statements and views of those with whom he disagrees. Policy advocacy that relies upon deception and personal attacks isn't very persuasive or effective. Just look at the policy advocacy record of FORCES.
Does anyone lese see the hypocrisy? The lunacy? The ASDS? the very thing they accuse FORCES of doing is actually what *they* are doing. These people are intellectually and emotionally crippled. the last comment that I left on the scienceblog--actually only my second comment there--applies here, "I feel sorry for you."
****
Second Note: Accusing people of child abuse without any real evidence would be a sort of slander, wouldn't it? Are they setting themselves up for lawsuits?
********
Kevin:exposures to ETS are much more dangerous than a combination of primary and ETS exposures
I have a comment to that effect on my website.
Quick PS:
Now that I'm a News Editor for FORCES, I suppose that I should take those nasty remarks to heart--and I know firsthand that the members and people who work at FORCES are far from denialists and cranks. But I can't. I still just feel sorry for the poor souls who can't wake-up from their self-imposed nightmare of victimization.
Bill-
I'm not misrepresenting what the Assemblyman said. He said secondhand smoke was worse than slapping a kid in the face. And slapping a kid in the face, in my book, is child abuse.
As far as your statement that smoking around a child is physical abuse, what harm do you claim that it NECESSARILY causes to the child?
Mr Bill--
Since you again say that smoking is child abuse, I have to ask you again: based on your father's smoking, do you consider yourself abused? Or to put it more directly, would you label your own father as a "child abuser"? And, in fact, as a rapist, a public urinater,and a selfish delusional addict?
This isn't just an idle or peculiarly personal question. It goes to the heart of your program as an anti-tobacco ubermensch.
:
Colin, Were you referring to the first-hand smoking studies or the second-hand smoking studies. of course the 39 or 41 whatever toher causes of lung cancer would ahve to be factored in, but in addition, the actual contribution to the risk would ahve to be KNOWN EXACTLY. That, of course is impossible. That is why epi textbooks teach that if you do find a relationship, you have a hypothesis, not a fact.
inorder to confirm, you have to look at population studies, and the like. do pops with less exposure have less of the disease? do the disease trends change as would be expected when the exposure changes? and on-and-on.
GDF, I have always beleived X-rays do increrase likelyhood of LC in smokers and nonsmokers. Modern plates are much sensitive than the older ones used inthe 1950s, and therefore doses are much lower , but even so, it is no longer recommended that smokers get an annula chest x-ray, probably because they do recognise some added risk. Rememabe when the Amer Lung Assoc offered free chest X-rays to smokers? they no longer do that.
dave k
I'm pretty sure I've posted all this before but one mo time
Studies on the effects of parental smoking:
The first, co-authored by MICHAEL SIEGEL:
"Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and health effects in children: results from the 1991 National Health Intrerview Survey." Tobacco Control, 1996; 5
Using data from the eponymous source--which itself was based only upon telephone interviews-- adjusting only for "age, socioeconomic status, race, family size, sex, season and region of the country," the authors came up with this-- statistically insignificant weak associations:
Children exposed to smoke v. those not exposed had a higher incidence of acute respiratory illnesses [presumably colds, ear aches etc] --RR 1.10 (0.95-1.26); and of chronic respiratory diseases--RR 1.28 (0.99-1.65). They also had, "on average," 1.87 more days of restricted activity (0.20-3.45), 1.06 more days of bed confinement (0.20-1.92) and missed 1.45 more days of school per year (0.40-2.50.) (That's 1 1/2 extra days of missed school! Hardly "child abuse," even if true, and RR 1.1 w/o statistical significance --look at those CI's (!!)--is hardly a mortal peril-- or even a minor peril.)
The authors do add that since the confidence intervals "included unity...chance cannot be ruled out as being responsible for these findings."
A critic might also add that this data, weak in itself, was elicited on the phone (with all the pitfalls thereof, including faulty recall and a desire to be perceived as a "good"/ considerate parent by claiming one always keeps the sniffling kiddies at home) and that other important confounders-- like family health history, day care, and diet-- were not factored in. Nonetheless, the study confidently concludes that "ETS exposure in the home, which is completely preventable, is an important predictor of increased morbidity in children." and that "a portion of" these illnesses can be prevented by ...eliminating exposure to ETS."
This study has been analyzed by Martha Perske: http://www.forces.org/pages/martha4.htm
The second study was done at the U of WI School of Medicine by two economists
"Tobacco and Children: an economic evaluation of the medical effects of parental smoking." Aligne et al, Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 1997
Using "computerized bibliographic databases for 1980- 1996," the authors' method was to "search for key words" such as asthma, otitis media, burns, etc, scanning the articles for references to costs, and combining this estimated cost data with "results of previously published 'best estimates' " ( presumably of the frequency of symptoms? )
And they chose to define "children" as "up to the age of 18."
Voila: They determine that "8% of all children's medical costs are ets related." and project that this includes treatment for "5.4 million ear infections," and so on, postulating eventually that "at least 6200 US children a die each year because of their parents' smoking." This included: 2800 deaths due to low birth weight (arbitarily attributed to smoking); 2000 from SIDS (same arbitrariness), 1100 from respiratory infections, 250 from burns, and 14 from asthma. Again, these are all estimates projected on 'best estimates" dredged from the web.
This "study," in turn, was cited in countless other academic papers as though it had validity...
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi...tract/151/7/
648
..and summarized in a sensational paper from Cornell: "Cornell Child Abuse Expert Says It's Time to Recognize Smoking as Child Abuse," The "expert" was a guy named Garbarino, who called for a law against smoking near kids.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/
rele....abuse.ssl.html
.. and was trumpeted by ASH: "Parental Smoking Kills 6200 Kids Each Year and Costs $8.2 Billion."
In other words, once again, smoke and statistical mirrors.
That's my question Dave, if I were an M.D./smoker involved in a smoking/lung cancer study - I suspect I might be concerned enough to get an X-ray "now and then". Just to make sure -- ya know? As a non-smoking doctor, I think I wold be far less likely to have a chest x-ray. Thereby confounding the study. I mean, M.D.'s have relatively easy access to X-rays, (which makes this an important factor in this population) and I don't think they were instructed to record such exposure? I'm further mystified by the fact that no one ever brings up this question. I keep thinking maybe it has been asked and answered and I missed it. But I've never even seen it asked.
But there. I asked it.
Dan says: Forces is considered a crank/denialist web site.
Yet it is hard to find anything on their site that is demonstrably untrue or nonsensical - in contrast with the antis where nothing they say has any credibility.
Antis/Glowball warming nuts attack all opposition to their ideology as cranks/denialists.
Fascinating Walt. Thank you.
Godshall: "Mike would be wise to stick to debating the merits of policy proposals, and to stop misrepresenting the statements and views of those with whom he disagrees"
Case closed!
.
GDF, there might be other reasons for doctors to have a few extra X- rays.
From 1955
Why does Tuberculosis affect some and leave others free?
Doctors now know that most people have been infected by the T.B. germ by the time they reach adult life, since they are likely to come into contact with infectious sufferers in every crowded place-in the factory, office, canteen etc., etc. Mass X-ray surveys show that 3 persons in every 1,000 of the adult population are suffering from this disease and so may infect others without being aware of it. How often do we hear the saying "Oh, it's only a smoker's cough"
Not sure if thats in anyway relevant.
Air filtration machines can take avian flu from workplace air:
"Many experts predict that it is just a matter of time before the virus mutates into a form that can be transferred human to human. Health agencies all over the world have been preparing for this contingency. What special filtration precautions should be taken in case of an avian flu outbreak?
First, the avian flu virus ranges in size from 0.08 to 0.13 micrometers (microns) in diameter. In human to human contact they would be carried in respiratory secretions as small-particle aerosols ( 5 to 10 micrometers in diameter). Particles in this size range settle out of the air fairly quickly so the greatest danger would be within 3 feet of the infected person. Wearing a mask with at least an N95 rating would be necessary for anyone coming into close contact with someone infected with influenza A (H5N1). It is also advisable that anyone suspected of having the virus wear a mask as well. As with any virus the first line of defense would be frequent hand washing.
A patient with avian flu in any health care facility should be kept in an airborne isolation room with negative air pressure in relation to the surrounding areas with 6 to 12 air exchanges per hour. The HEPA air filters used in an airborne isolation room would be effective in stopping the airborne spread of the virus. If an airborne isolation room is not available, then a stand alone HEPA air purifier could be used with a minimum of 6 air exchanges per hour."
http://allergyclean.com/news/10.htm
I'm getting the impression that Dr. Siegel is not yet ready to apologize to the children of America, who lack the ability to protect themselves, for lobbying against measures to improve health conditions for them.
From the mouths of the drug pushers themselves: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation."
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/
e...dhand_smoke.asp
While laws prohibiting parents from smoking around their children inside the home are not even on the horizon in Canada (or anywhere else I know of), car smoking bans will happen soon in Ontario and perhaps BC. Other provinces will follow suit, sooner or later. Beyond the immediate protection from secondhand smoke exposure in cars, I believe car smoking bans will help change public attitudes toward smoking to the point where it would be unthinkable to smoke around children and infants indoors, even if smoking never goes away completely.
Progress in tobacco control is made in such ways, as Michael Siegel knows very well. Blanket public and workplace smoking bans didn't spring up overnight. Instead there was a gradual process which ultimately lead to widespread public acceptance of the full workplace and public smoking bans that now exist in many provinces of Canada and states of the U.S.
What we really don't need is this cynical argument that says unless we can completely eliminate the problem tomorrow, forget it, it's not worth passing laws to improve things. If that's the standard, we would never get anywhere, in tobacco control or anything else.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Let me rephrase the question Doc;
What in YOUR opinion, constitutes sufficient warning about the dangers of exposure to SHS to the degree that YOU WOULD AGREE that Bartenders and Wait staff have been "sufficiently" informed of the alledged danger?
What could be said to them that would quench your desire to save them from themselves once they had been informed?
Walt: Since you again say that smoking is child abuse, I have to ask you again: based on your father's smoking, do you consider yourself abused? Or to put it more directly, would you label your own father as a "child abuser"? And, in fact, as a rapist, a public urinater,and a selfish delusional addict?
Those are excellent questions, IMO. Of late, I've come across two raving antis--and *both*, as we later discovered, had their antismoking roots in problems they had with their parents. I do see this as a HUGE horrible part of antismoking. Evidently, those antismoking groups seek out and exacerbate familial tensions into full blown...well, problems. Children are indoctrinated to disrespect adults--including their own parents--based on smoking status. Parents all bot disown their (adult) children. Children are having nightmares induced by hooror shows put on by antismoking groups--often with deceptive "visual aids". More nightmares ensue from stories they're told about how they will watch their parents die in pain from supposedly tobacco-related diseases. I perceive this attack on families one of the biggest--if not THE biggest--offense of antismokers.
Walt< In other words, once again, smoke and statistical mirrors.
Ahd this shocks...who? (Whom?)
tobaccoscamalysis;
"it's not worth passing laws"
At least you got part of it right.
tobaccoanalysis (if that's your real name *snort*): From the mouths of the drug pushers themselves: {quot from PM site}
More hypocrisy? Of course, more hypocrisy. Blithely ignoring that fact that most antismoking groups are fronts for Big PhRMA (Not mispelled. Research it.).
Honestly, I'll never get that ASDS page done because there are too many examples!
{ta continued with delusions of grandeur and self-importance}
Why aren't these people getting the professional psychological help that they so desparately need? This is not a rhetorical question, people.
Cathy-
I don't think you understand my argument. I am arguing that it is inappropriate to interfere with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children. The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints). So whether it would protect children or not to ban smoking in cars, I oppose the laws because they are an intrusion into parental privacy and autonomy.
It appears that the only criterion with which you judge an issue is whether it will protect children or not. Maybe that's not the case, but to find out, what is your answer to this question:
Would you support a law to ban smoking during pregnancy?
After you answer that, then we can discuss the weighing of parental autonomy vs. health benefits.
And Cathy - I'm still waiting for you to either retract your insinuation that this blog (or I) am funded by Big Tobacco or to provide evidence to back up your insinuation.
What we really don't need is this cynical argument that says unless we can completely eliminate the problem tomorrow, forget it, it's not worth passing laws to improve things. If that's the standard, we would never get anywhere, in tobacco control or anything else.
You are truly obtuse. You know damned well the doc's argument is NOT about eliminating the whole problem immediately, but about drawing lines in the sand that government should never, ever cross. The argument, is basically, where and when do you stop dictating what people can and cannot do in their private lives. And raising our children and driving them, IS part of our private life, whether you like that or not. If you make it into cars the homes are next (we are not so stupid to believe it won't happen as it already is in some places). The argument then goes on to show how the same things can be done in all areas of our lives.
For our own good of course, and most especially "for the children".
Spare me YOUR brand of caring, I'd rather be stung by hundreds of bees.
"The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints)."
Apparently for this particular medical doctor it's okay to maim a child for life as long as it's not life-threatening. How lovely. And SIDS isn't a life-threatening risk?
Yet again we see that Dr. Siegel wants to change the subject, in this case to talk about smoking during pregnancy. Car smoking bans are a positive step for the health and safety of children and infants, for the reasons I have outlined.
And I stated that I don't accuse Dr. Siegel of being funded by Big Tobacco, therefore there is nothing to retract.
John__R writes: "Yet it is hard to find anything on their site that is demonstrably untrue or nonsensical - in contrast with the antis where nothing they say has any credibility."
I would object to the absolute "where nothing they say has any credibility." Usually absolutes are false as exceptions can usually be found.
"Antis/Glowball warming nuts attack all opposition to their ideology as cranks/denialists."
Orac is an MD, PhD researcher and I pointed out that he considers forces a crank/denialist site. I make no such claim as have have not really visited forces another then when people he link to them.
My point is that if one wants to combat TC, one most use sound scientific arguments as Walt does so effectively above. Simply denying that SHS is a risk factor, will go nowhere, just as Cathy's arguments generally go nowhere as she normally does not do a good job backing them up.
The above Anonymous is me.
http://www.gaydeceiver.com/misc/smoking/ I wonder if Bill G has got the guts to answer Walt's very appropriate question.Let's see if the chip he carries that is so big it allows his vindictiveness towards smokers to constantly ooze out of him also affected his relationship with his own father.We wait with bated breath.If antis had the faintest degree of reality about them,they may realise the precipice is approaching.Continue to invent the science and whip the public into a mindless frenzy,it will prove to be your downfall.It is also tremendous publicity for FORCES who shred the ridiculous claims to pieces and prove the mindset of the many authors proclaiming anti sentiment proves conclusively that politics trumps science and knows no bounds.Is OREC the proclaimed obfuscating rectum ?The lead player in the production of greenhouse gas ?
"It appears that the only criterion with which you judge an issue is whether it will protect children or not."
That's not true. There's always two sides, costs and benefits. I've looked at the downside of car smoking bans and I've said that in my opinion the sacrifice required of parents is minimal. No one is being deprived of their right to smoke, for those who believe smoking is a right. They are simply being asked to exercise caution around their kids; it's a precaution, in much the same way that car restraints are a precaution.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
tobaccoscamalysis wrote: "Apparently for this particular medical doctor it's okay to maim a child for life as long as it's not life-threatening. How lovely. And SIDS isn't a life-threatening risk?"
The doctor said no such thing. There are insignificant increases in relative risk for benign childhood conditions like ear infections, which children under seven have short Eustachian tubes. While smoking is considered a weak link much stronger links are bottle feeding while the child is on his back, congestion due to colds, and others.
The link to SIDS is even weaker. Organizations that fund SIDS studies do not like that TC uses SHS as a connection. The truth of the matter is that currently the cause of SIDS is not understood. The act of driving with a child in a car is putting a child in far greater danger then any minor increase in risk posed by SHS.
And I stated that I don't accuse Dr. Siegel of being funded by Big Tobacco, therefore there is nothing to retract
Oh my dear, but you have, quite clearly insinuated that the doc MUST be funded by big tobacco to hold the opinions he does. In fact you insinuate, clearly, that we are ALL funded by big tobacco IF we dare hold a different view than you. According to you ALL "smokers rights" sites, blogs, etc are funded by big tobacco. According to you, they'd have to be, for that is the only possible explanation for anyone to have a differing view from yours.
So, WHERE'S THE BEEF? Produce your proof that we are all funded by BT.
Speaking of proof; I've asked this before, and will continue to ask it everytime you say it until you do answer it. WHERE is your irrefutable proof of your accusations of harm? Seems to me the SIDS foundation has asked your kind to stop associating SIDS with your cause (they are actually trying to accomplish REAL scientific research on SIDS).
WHERE are all the death certificates or police reports of these poor children who have died or been abused because their parents smoked? And just because something happens to the child of a smoking parent does NOT automatically mean that the smoke actually caused (as in brought on with no outside influence) the death or abuse.
And when you do produce it, remember - your rantings on your site are NOT proof, will you then go and tell my son what a bad mother I was, smoking while pregnant, while he grew up in the house, in the car? Will you then also tell him he has been harmed and is doomed to die and better start showing those syptoms? It's so annoying when a smoker's kid is healthy as a horse, isn't it?
Get a grip girl.
Doc, Cathy raises a good point. You set up the litmus test and SIDS is life threatening. How do you respond? Middle ear infections can and in some cases do cause deafness. I guess that's also far less important than making sure parents have the right to smoke around their kids when ever and where ever they please? I don't get it doc. I just don't get it.
I just don't get it.
Alan Piccun | 09.25.07 - 6:12 pm | # Don't worry too much ,i don't get the whole SHS scam,and that's a wee bit bigger than your concern.
Alan, while that may be true, more ear infections are caused by bottle feeding than anything. So, if we're going after smoking for ear infections, bottle feeding must also top the list. Do you support the return of wet nurses and the banning of bottle feeding?
SIDS, for the BILLIONTH time, is not linked with smoking. SIDS researchers have come out AGAINST those claims several times. But hey, what do they actually know about SIDS that you guys don't know better, huh?
They are simply being asked to exercise caution around their kids; it's a precaution, in much the same way that car restraints are a precaution.
No, they're being TOLD that it is dangerous enough to smoke around their kids even WITH a window open that they should never, ever smoke in the car, not even if they've opened a window, and even if air in, say, downtown rush hour traffic is worse than what is in the car.
I think many people already do exercise the caution of generally smoking less in potentially confined areas. And they did so well before bans. This law only serves at an attempt at instilling fear.
I've seen this antismoking tactic before: if people exercise caution, "just" that they "realize" it isn't enough. They really should do even more. It's a weird sort of induction and perversion of the concept of daily self improvement.
You set up the litmus test and SIDS is life threatening.
Environmental smoke is not a risk factor for SIDS when you eliminate confounding factors. I think it's been shown--people with better organized research folders than myself?
What we really don't need is this cynical argument that says unless we can completely eliminate the problem tomorrow, forget it, it's not worth passing laws to improve things. If that's the standard, we would never get anywhere, in tobacco control or anything else.
Well - for one thing - you first have to demonstrate that there's a problem, don't you?
Contrary to your rant's - I'm not reading any news stories about horribly sick and dying children who have been saved by being removed from smoke exposure.
So where's your compelling interest in lobbying for government intrusion into my personal decisions? You people need to find more constructive things to do with your time because I can think of a whole lot more important endeavors you could embark on that would improve the lives of a lot more children.
Until you examine my children and prove to me that I have caused them any harm - you're just blowing smoke.
NEWSFLASH for you morons - Parents Smoking in Cars is NOT a major public health problem requiring intervention by any of you. Just screaming loudly about your beliefs and preferences for my behavior does not make it one.
This test shows that filtration machines can clear the hexavalent chromium generated by welding stainless steel from the air of a welding shop and make the shop air cleaner while the welding is ongoing than before the welding began.
http://www.sentryair.com/specs/
H...pril19_2007.pdf
Bill G: "Mike would be wise to stick to debating the merits of policy proposals"
Are there any merits?
Siegel: Would you support a law to ban smoking during pregnancy?
Interesting question. A while back, there was a huge story about a woman who was refused service at a restaurant because she was pregnant and had ordered an alcoholic beverage. Now, this woman wasn't on a binge; she had simply ordered a drink. So, was the waitress correct to serve her a drink?
Dan: Orac is an MD, PhD researcher and I pointed out that he considers forces a crank/denialist site.
Yet Orac refuses to read--much less cinsider--the overwhelming solid evidence that FORCES has accumulated and analyzed. And the experts who have worked with FORCES are extremely credible. That makes Orac a crank in denial--regardless of whether or not he has any degrees.
Dan again: Organizations that fund SIDS studies do not like that TC uses SHS as a connection...The act of driving with a child in a car is putting a child in far greater danger then any minor increase in risk posed by SHS.
Both are very interesting comments. Very.
Si: I wonder if Bill G has got the guts to answer Walt's very appropriate question.Let's see if the chip he carries that is so big it allows his vindictiveness towards smokers to constantly ooze out of him also affected his relationship with his own father.We wait with bated breath.If antis had the faintest degree of reality about them,they may realise the precipice is approaching.
It's worse than that, Si. Antismokers encourage such tensions to fester and blossom into hatred--yes, even and especially within families. As much as that might make us angry, we have to realize that these people are emotionally injured and develop that into an emotionally crippled state--just as they choose to become intellectually crippled.
Alan Piccun: I don't get it doc. I just don't get it.
No, you don't. ;-(
tobaccoanalysis: They are simply being asked to exercise caution around their kids; it's a precaution, in much the same way that car restraints are a precaution.
You are contradicting yourself. You are not ASKING anybody to do anything. You are demanding that laws be passed based on your beliefs. Because others have different beliefs and we live in a free society, your demand should be declined. (In this case, because "belief" has come to replace medicine and people like you are treating "conventional" medicine as a religion, "freedom of religion" is applicable.)
I found this of interest.
http://www.politicswest.com/
loca...rpt_nanny_state
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi has written “Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do- Gooders, Priggish Moralists and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America Into a Nation of Children”
Boy has he chosen a good title or what?
.
Cathy: They are simply being asked to exercise caution around their kids
What's the difference between "being asked" and "being accused of child abuse"? None in your your terms?
Here we have legislators claiming child abuse is happening yet none have referred enforcement agencies to put a stop to it?
Can we rouse a single cop out of a donut shop to make even one arrest?
The no-mirror people:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...r=1&
oref=slogin
Excerpt:
"'There's no level of secondhand smoke exposure that can be declared to be safe,' said Matthew McKenna, director of the C.D.C.'s office on smoking and health ...
"He also pointed out that research measuring the effects of no-smoking policies in restaurants and bars has shown these policies are not bad for the bottom line.
"'The studies that are not funded by the tobacco industry very clearly demonstrate that there's no economic impact, no decrease in business,' Dr. McKenna said."
(So Michael M. and Dave K., you ARE funded by big tobacco!)
Well, with that, you get two monster lies for the price of one. How do these people live with themselves? Quite easily, it seems.
.
Back to the main argument:
Color me stupid, but I still can't understand the philosophical difference between a man's home is his castle and a man's business is his castle. It isn't because the government sets certain standards for businesses (health/fire) and does not for private homes, because that's obviously not true (electrical/plumbing codes, etc.).
So the antis hang their arguments on the fact that restaurants and bars INVITE THE PUBLIC IN. (Notice that they don't drag them through their doors, but say, "Here's what we have to offer and you can come in if you'd like!") Well if that's an argument, I don't get it; perhaps someone could please explain? In the meantime, I'll have to treat it as just another crap, manufactured argument and nothing more.
.
From Si's link (Ms King is one of my favorites)thanks for posting
~snip~
'Smokers have become the new greenhorns in the land of sweetness and health, scapegoats for a quintessentially American need, rooted in our fabled Great Diversity, to identify and punish the undesirables among us. Ethnic tobacco haters can get even for past slurs on their fastidiousness by refusing to inhale around dirty little smokers; WASP tobacco haters can once again savor the joys of being the "real Americans" by hurling with impunity the same dirty little insults their ancestors hurled with impunity'.
'nuff said.
.
COLIN,have you received anything regarding the "let's poison the wedding guests" TV advert,the one Dr Siegel took to pieces due to the scientific irregularity ?If you are interested in doing a piece for the freedom to choose site let me know and i can forward all of the paperwork i have ,along with the bogroll you need.
From a young American.
Will be accused of being accused of being a BT stooge?
http://www.purdueexponent.com/in...e&
story_id=7319
'Anti-smokers are dictating policy to us with complete disregard for democratic liberties and with no moral or legal regard. Their fight for constitutional "rights" paradoxically defies the bar owner's own constitutional rights.'
.
Speaking of slippery slopes, check this out in the Baltimore Sun:
"LANSING, Mich. - Get ready to say goodbye to the days of high-fat meals, junk-food snacks and that after-work cigarette you always enjoy smoking - at least if you intend to have a job and health insurance. The rules of the workplace are changing, and personal behavior and lifestyle habits - those unrelated to what you do at work - are now fair game for employers determined to cut health-care costs."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/
news...0,5558046.story
I will add, again, that the doctor has recently begun... pointing to this lippery slope. But it was there for everbody to see all along. And as nice as it might be to ee him confirm it, that doesn't go nearly far enough. We know the slope is slippery. We knew it all along. Thank you very much.
What's needed is someone to level the field. To admit that you can't have a little bit of Big Nanny State Bullying. It always feeds on itself.
So you either accept that the slope will shift and send us all into this kind of ridiculous paternalism...
Or you find a way to use your genius for communication to warn bartenders about the dangers of SHS and back away from a 100 percent ban.
One or the other. That might suck. It might be horrible. But that's the way it is. Stop complaining and do something about it. Or don't. Those are the only two options.
But don't worry doctor. In these disasters is the seeds of an answer to your problem. Read through the article a bit to this quote, from a business owner who not only demands that employees be smoke-free, but their spouses comply as well:
"It really comes down to a personal choice as far as do you want to be employed here," Climes said. "We're putting that on the employee to make a choice."
Really? Working some place is a personal choice? Well, then, bartenders can choose to work in a smoky bar. Or not.
Look. I think people ought to be allowed to hire and fire who they want. If they don't want to hire smokers, fine. But that means that bar owners ought to be allowed to only hire smokers, too. Which means the "worker safety" would not be an issue regarding SHS.
Problem solved.
Ms. Bell wrote:
While laws prohibiting parents from smoking around their children inside the home are not even on the horizon in Canada (or anywhere else I know of), car smoking bans will happen soon in Ontario and perhaps BC. Other provinces will follow suit, sooner or later. Beyond the immediate protection from secondhand smoke exposure in cars, I believe car smoking bans will help change public attitudes toward smoking to the point where it would be unthinkable to smoke around children and infants indoors, even if smoking never goes away completely.
Progress in tobacco control is made in such ways, as Michael Siegel knows very well. Blanket public and workplace smoking bans didn't spring up overnight. Instead there was a gradual process which ultimately lead to widespread public acceptance of the full workplace and public smoking bans that now exist in many provinces of Canada and states of the U.S.
What we really don't need is this cynical argument that says unless we can completely eliminate the problem tomorrow, forget it, it's not worth passing laws to improve things. If that's the standard, we would never get anywhere, in tobacco control or anything else.
Please notice "Progress in tobacco control is made in such ways, as Michael Siegel knows very well." There we have what we all know. Keep lying and filling the public with half-truths. Soon or later we will get what we want. The old Nazi tactic.
Again Ms. Bell you have neglected to answer the Doc's question concerning banning smoking during pregnancy.
Oh, by the way, my son weighed 11lbs8oz and was 24 inches. My wife smokes about a pack a day.
You also did not answer my question concerning the 1 million children killed every year by abortion.
Cathy, do you know that since 1973 35 million children have been slaughtered. To put that in perspective the total death toll from WW2 was 407,316. What is the most preventable cause of death in the US?
Si,
I have just heard that our complaint was not upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
One of our members is just mailing the hard copy to me, so I don't yet know the reasons behind their decision. I will post them here for you when I have them to hand.
I am told there are some "interesting" statements regarding the scientific evidence. Not sure quite what that means, but I will share it with you when I have the hard copy to refer to.
Cathy,
May I suggest you spend a couple of days/nights in a neonatal intensive care unit of a children's hospital, view the sick babies, talk with the parents, listen in on the professional counseling, watch the professional photographers taking pictures as they will be the only ones and then come back and tell me that smoking is the cause of all illnesses in children/infants. I also strongly suggest that you only talk about that which you are an expert in. It is obvious that until now, you are not an expert in much of anything.
As for ear infections. Kids gets them, parents are non-smokers, some are smokers. Doesn't make a difference. I know several children who in the 70's and 80's had tubes inserted which remedied this problem. This was done in only the extreme cases as some children are born with shortened tubes, which will grow to normal size by the time they are 8 years of age. For some reason and I suspect it to be at the request of the anti's, they have all but eliminated this procedure. It seems to me that is because it is much more important to push the medicine instead and it gives the anti's one more accusation, even though it is false. I know of a 2 year old child who spent most of his young days suffering and was prescribed medicine after medicine. His speech was impossible to understand too. In July of this year, his mother finally said enough is enough and insisted on the ear tube procedure that she heard so much about from the past. A month later, this child has not had another infection, his speech has gone from babble to conversational and he is finally a happy child. It is a simple procedure which takes less than 15 minutes. So by denying these kids who do suffer from ear infections the treatments they need and by pushing drugs on them, just who is abusing whom?
Colin,i've got the details if you want a copy,my details are with Michael (Cantilouper@aol.com)
Colin i meant to add it relates to all the weapons of mass destruction they found in Iraq .
RRgabe23;
"Cathy, do you know that since 1973 35 million children have been slaughtered. To put that in perspective the total death toll from WW2 was 407,316. What is the most preventable cause of death in the US?"
Without weighing in on the abortion issue a woman's right to choose was the defining factor. Now with smoking others believe they have a right to choose for anyone who smokes a cigarette. Why? "because of the greater public good" The making of a smokers life more difficult, could be the example to present in court which takes away that right "For the better good" as they will phrase it. The same bleeding heart liberals who promoted abortion are now promoting the undoing of it's legalization.
Governments in aging populations need to increase populations in order to offset the costs of aging with growing economies. Most are encouraging immigration because the deadbeat dad's campaign and grandstanding by Judge Judy, had an effect of people seeing the act of having kids, in a world of less stable relationships a poor choice. The birthrate has suffered in process. The legalizing of abortion and wider use of contraceptives creates a problem for governments. Who are likely in favor of reversal in the Roe vs Wade decision. It certainly would make their lives a lot easier.
They are certainly headed in that direction, for whatever reason. The only way that can be accomplished, would be to remove the one argument which swayed the judges; The right to choose.
"You are truly obtuse. You know damned well the doc's argument is NOT about eliminating the whole problem immediately, but about drawing lines in the sand that government should never, ever cross."
The founders of this wonderful country thought property rights were so important, we have *two* amendments to protect them. Until Dr. Siegel came along, that is.
His belief that no smoker should be in the same room with any non-smoker led him to take action to trump that venerable document.
Dr. Siegel has worked long and hard to make sure a line got crossed that never, ever should have been crossed.
He is not a stupid man, though he is operating on some faulty assumptions.
He sure must have known that the violation of one right makes it all the easier to violate another one. And another, until everything we do is dictated by the state.
With all the human history behind us, he didn't see this coming? Power corrupts. Duh.
Yet he remains convinced his line is the right line, and we should all toe it. By law.
I remain firmly convinced the Doc's ultimate goal *is* bans in private homes. The alternative is that he really is blind to the damage he's done.
Kevin,
To be clear I am not trying to argue either for or against.
I have grown weary of antis who use children as a front for their agenda. My point is that Cathy cares nothing about "the children" she only wants to further her goal of a non-smoking world. If she cared it would seem that any threat to a childs life would be worth her attention.
CC
The other reality is the growing level of criminal viability.
The new norm'
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...0926?
hub=Canada
It took 9 months to take down just one group. In that time 100s more, driven by easy money have gotten into the cigarette business.
Increase poverty and you increase health risks universally, including among thousands of other risks, smoking and crime. That should be a no brainer as well. In third world countries smoking is known to be widespread because cigarettes are cheaper than food and offers relief from hunger pains.
The "Experts" in Public Health can not see past the effects to deal with the problem directly, because dealing with effects is simply more profitable and ultimately sustainable. Taxing and attacking the Hospitality industry while empowering insurance companies to loot the pockets of those who predictably won't comply with the perfect Aryan perspective, increases poverty, so it is seen as good for business. If your business is promoted by leeching off the tragedies of others.
AKA Philanthropy.
rrgabe23;
I understood your point and I agree.
I was just pointing out a further self defeating hypocrisies in the majority who ultimately; will not have their cake and eat it to.
The State always wins, when they pit us against each other.
I don't know if this has already been linked to,but Dr Siegel,i hope you read the comments and SEE FOR YOURSELF THE MALICE AND HATRED THAT YOU HAVE HELPED MOVE ALONG,I AM DISGUSTED TO HAVE TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY WHERE THIS IS BECOMING THE NORMAL http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/
d..._locked_out.php
Lynda F. wrote to Cathy: "You are truly obtuse. You know damned well the doc's argument is NOT about eliminating the whole problem immediately, but about drawing lines in the sand that government should never, ever cross."
All I can say is thank you Lynda! At least there is someone out there who truly understands my position.
Alan - your argument makes no sense. There is absolutely no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke for a limited time in a car causes SIDS. In fact, it is not even clear that postnatal secondhand smoke exposure causes SIDS. The evidence points to SIDS being due primarily to the harmful effects of smoking DURING pregnancy. But even if that was all true, why a need to ban smoking in cars with children ages 3-16? If SIDS is the concern, then why not just ban smoking in cars with infants? Obviously, something other than SIDS is the motivating factor for these proposed bans.
And if the motivating factor is preventing ear infections and lower respiratory infections, well then those are not life-threatening, and the government has no business regulating what parents can or cannot do with respect to expsosing their children to increased risk.
So far, no one has successfully addressed the question of why the government is justified in regulating risks related to smoking in cars, but not those risks related to feeding kids junk food, letting them play hockey, or exposing them to wood smoke.
If someone can successfully address that concern, then I may well be convinced to change my position.
Finally, Callous Cowbell - I understand your skepticism about my position, but I assure you - my goal is not to ban smoking in private homes. If it were, then I certainly would be in favor of car smoking bans, because that is the best way to eventually get smoking banned in homes - start in cars and then move to the home.
I should note that if Alan is correct and there is a true need here to protect children from SIDS, then it is absolutely incumbent upon Alan to support banning smoking in homes with children. That is the ONLY regulation that will actually prevent SIDS if it is indeed caused by post-natal secondhand smoke exposure. So I would turn the tables and ask Alan - how can you possibly FAIL to support a ban on smoking in the home, give that you see post-natal SHS exposure as a cause of SIDS. I assure you - even if you are correct, banning smoking in cars will have no effect on SIDS. But banning smoking in the home will!
Michael -- you sure do throw around words and phrases like "cause" and "due to". I'm beginning to think that you skipped stats class completely.
"So far, no one has successfully addressed the question of why the government is justified in regulating risks related to smoking in cars, but not those risks related to feeding kids junk food, letting them play hockey, or exposing them to wood smoke."
Apparently they are -- Cathy addressed that in her theory of incremental public health intrusion.
Cathy wrote: "I don't accuse Dr. Siegel of being funded by Big Tobacco."
To which I respond:
Cathy - How could I possibly NOT be funded by Big Tobacco? I follow the big tobacco playbook exactly. I spew out all the same arguments that they do. I argue against cigarette taxes. I oppose car smoking bans. I oppose home smoking bans. I oppose many outdoor smoking bans. I sidetrack the issues repeatedly by bringing up issues of personal liberty and autonomy. I argue about the "slippery slope." I have Big Tobacco written all over me.
Perhaps you should search a little harder for your evidence. Nowadays, there are a lot of tobacco documents online (hint, hint). I would suggest trying www.tobaccodocuments.org, for starters.
"So far, no one has successfully addressed the question of why the government is justified in regulating risks related to smoking in cars, but not those risks related to feeding kids junk food, letting them play hockey, or exposing them to wood smoke."
But for the 500th time, you have not applied this standard to your own position. When challenged to answer why the government is justified in banning SHS as a workplace hazard but not other, significantly greater workplace hazards, you hedge. You say that you are not an expert on boxing or NASCAR or window washing.
Other times, you say that it is the MAGNITUDE of the death toll involved in SHS. That the sheer number of bodies piling up due to SHS (as opposed to fewer wrokers who die from boxing) justifies a ban on SHS before dealing with other hazards.
But other times you back away from the magnitude argument. Particularly when it helps you get a ban passed. Like in Ammherst. In that case, you say, it was important to skip over the actual number of bodies piling up to focus on the "lifetime career risk." Because, as we all know, that number was scarier than the actual number.
So which is it? Does consistency require people to apply one standard to all risks, and to start with the risk that poses the greatest danger? Does arguing for a ban on one risk require ban supporters to actively pursue a ban on all risks that are greater?
If so, you demonstrably fail to rise to that level of consistency. Yet you keep taking others to task for doing the exact same thing.
That is, you CAN call people inconsistent and hypocritical for supporting a ban on smoking in cars but not in homes. Because smoking in homes obviously exposes children to a much greater level of the same "pollutant."
But you can't do that unless your own agenda avoids these kinds of inconsistencies and hypocrisies. And doctor, until you start arguing strenuously for a ban on hockey and boxing at Madison Square Garden, your "worker safety" agenda is just about as inconsistent and hypocritical as they come.
Harry,
every day I go out to my mailbox and look for my check from Big tobacco.
When antis claim all studies which find economic ban harm are funded by BT, they are simply wrong. Aside from ours, i have a collection of studies at my page under the economic impact of bans in Ca and other states, including one funded by the Univ of Wisc, and the Nat Rest assoc, not funded by big tobacco The claim that all studies finding econ harm, will be one of the first public exposures of the antis lies which is easily seen as a lie by the public, then the whole house of cards will fall.
There is a book titled "X-rays are Killing Us" actually there is concern about the negative imapcts of X-rays, it is just buried deep away from the public's eyes, cause it is a risk associated with the medical community, which contols what the public sees.
I am very fuzzy on this. but the initial estimates made of how much lifetime risk from X-rays was based on the incidence of cancer among the Hiroshima and nagasakki A-bomb survivors.
In the late 80s, or early 90s, physicists reexamined the estimates of the amount of radiation those bombs released downward by about a significant factor, which increased the estimates of waht number of cancers X-ray treatemnts would cause. by a significant factor.
in addition, later studies found the A-bomb survivors under estimated just how far they were from gorund zero, porbably because of the magnitudes of the blasts. Therefore the cancer outcome of the survivors was actually based on being exposed to lower doses, diluted by distance, than originally assumed, and ergo radiation is more dangerous than assumed.
other fun facts. approximately 200 yards from gorund zero, was a japanese bank with a diebold bank vault. The bank was gone. everything in the vault was Ok, and they built a new bank around the vault, and that vault is still in use today. I saw that on the hisroty channel. as an explanation of why bank robbers gave up on trying to rob banks at night.
dave K,
Has anyone linked to this intriguing story form the New York Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/2...r=1&
oref=slogin
It highlights the extent to which a lot of opposition to smoking in public places is related to a dislike for the smell. (Surprise!)
But even better, it has a great quote from somebody at the CDC. You know, one of the agencies that the doctor always points to as an important member of the SHS "consensus." Well, doctor, here's your respected agency's take on the issue:
“There’s no level of secondhand smoke exposure that can be declared to be safe,” said Matthew McKenna, director of the C.D.C.’s office on smoking and health..."
Time for you to stop your bellyaching and bow to the consensus, perhaps.
At least there is someone out there who truly understands my position.
Don’t get too excited Doc. Just because I understand your position, does NOT mean I agree with you. You see, the position you hold on the issue of car smoking bans, contradicts your position for bar/restaurant bans…..which I’ve pointed out several times.
and the government has no business regulating what parents can or cannot do with respect to expsosing their children to increased risk.
Then why do you feel the government has a perfect right to regulating the “obvious” in bars and restaurants? Once again, why do you feel parental autonomy is more precious than an individual private business owner’s autonomy?
If it were, then I certainly would be in favor of car smoking bans, because that is the best way to eventually get smoking banned in homes - start in cars and then move to the home.
Why do you think they are pushing for car smoking bans? It IS the last step before crashing through our front doors. All they need to do is get the people to sympathize with them……hence all this “for the children” BS, and they know they will then NOT be stopped from forcing their way into your home.
Once the cars bans pass…………………everything will be fair game and all our/ YOUR liberties will be lost.
I was heading out the door when I read Michael's last post and I realize on re-reading that I was a bit too harsh about the use of "cause" etc... There was only one sentence in that post that I actually found questionable, which was "The evidence points to SIDS being due primarily to the harmful effects of smoking DURING pregnancy." Even in the context of the paragraph in which it rests, I find the sentence not-so-good. No doubt I was still peeved about previous uses of "cause" (and other such words) and I should have noted that the last post was, overall better -- with the exception of that sentence which could have been constructed more carefully. I offer an apology Michael, for over-reacting.
"...and I think adults have to learn more responsible behavior around children" (Assemblywoman Sandra Galef - as quoted in this blog post)
I guess I maybe understand what she was trying to say... but anyone else hear an echo of "It's a Good Life" the old Twilight Zone episode?
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/...d/
goodlife.html
"It's A GoodLife"
An artistic view of the world as ordered by a six-year-old is presented in the well-known short story, "It's A Good Life," by Jerome Bixby. This story was dramatized for television on "The Twilight Zone" in 1961, screenplay by Rod Serling, and a somewhat different version of the story was used in the film, "Twilight Zone," in 1983. Here's the story used on television:
Anthony Fremont is a six-year-old with extraordinary powers to control the little town where he lives by simply wishing away people and things that anger or bore him. He has isolated the town by banishing electricity and cars. Other than his powerful wishing, Anthony has the mind and imagination of a typical little boy. He amuses himself with his special ability by giving a gopher three heads and then wishing the animal dead when the game becomes boring. The people in Peaksville have to smile all the time, think happy thoughts, and say happy things, because that's what Anthony commands and, if they disobey, he can wish them into a cornfield or change them into grotesque versions of themselves."
I think I remember that episode...his sister made him mad and he wished her into a cartoon.....
In actuality GDF, the statement is still wrong. As SIDS researchers have denied any relation to smoking since they don't know what causes it. THEY at least think it's jumping too far ahead to make claims about something they still aren't sure of. Not to mention being much more sensitive to parents who have lost children to SIDS, by not making accusations that aren't PROVEN TRUE and would make the situation worse at an already bad time.
When a workplace activity that owners, employees and patrons very much want to allow generates airborne toxins, the first appropriate question is: Does affordable technology exist that can sufficiently address the problem? A ban should only be imposed if such technology does not exist.
What is the risk level threshold?
If SHS is above that threshold then should any risk above that of SHS be dealt with by government intervention?
Many councils in the UK are now asking people to not smoke (1/2-4hrs) before a visit from a council worker. Presumably (although there is no agreement on the times), after a length of time the SHS risk is reduced to an acceptable level, other wise it would be illogical to allow the visit.
This is claimed to be a Health and Safety Issue.
In making a risk assessment, if a something in a premises poses a risk at or above that of SHS and to be consistant, should a council not allow the visit?
Should a council for instance be advising it's workers not to have a cup of tea because of the danger posed by Radon in the water? (esp in California apparently)
On topic, is the risk level for accidents/traffic fumes/general air pollution greater than that for SHS in a car?
west
----
Bill H.,
From the NYT article linked above:
"Airports face an arguably tougher choice. For instance, Detroit Metropolitan Airport allows smoking in two bars that have been outfitted with special ventilation systems. It also allows smoking in a room inside a Northwest Airlines WorldClub, a lounge accessible only to paying members."
Doctor: Is that OK with you?
How can anyone possibly believe an article when idiots stretch a concern and turn it around to prove their agenda,reference Sam's link above "The studies that are not funded by the tobacco industry very clearly demonstrate that there’s no economic impact, no decrease in business,” Dr. McKenna said." Now if we were talking about burials or cremation i may be open to suggestion BUT of course we're not.Clearly McKenna (not the hypnotist from the UK ?) but presumably someone who wishes to promote the ideal that anything stated other than by AN ANTI MUST BE INCORRECT/BIASED/DECEITFUL AD PUKE'UM.SORRY BUT THE RANTIS ARE THE BIGGEST LOAD OF BULLSHITTERS OUT,AND ITS ABOUT TIME FOR THEM TO BE TOLD AT EVERY AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY.
Sam M--the tone of that article is interesting. It notes
"it is getting tougher for travelers with a nicotine habit to find a place to light up."
"nicotine-deprived travelers"
"Travelers with a need for nicotine, it seems, find other ways to deal with their habit."
Then mentions patches, blah, blah.
All for a flowery turn of phrase, and/or to fall in with the consensus. And this is the New York Times. Eegh.
GDF--"I guess I maybe understand what she was trying to say... but anyone else hear an echo of "It's a Good Life" the old Twilight Zone episode?"
Yep, right along with the theme music.
.
Bill H said; "When a workplace activity that owners, employees and patrons very much want to allow generates airborne toxins, the first appropriate question is: Does affordable technology exist that can sufficiently address the problem? A ban should only be imposed if such technology does not exist."
I respectfully disagree Bill, that's really not the first question at all.
If this "toxic" atmosphere becomes a topic of conversation at all among those specific groups, the first question is much more likely to be;
"Does anybody really care?"
IF, anyone in those groups actually do care, then it's time for the OWNER to investigate the availability of "affordable technology" that can resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the OWNER alone. Not the employees, and Not the patrons. Even then, if the OWNER remains unconcerned even after the topic of conversation is raised, it's still ONLY the OWNERS call to make.
Regardless of this however, such a topic of conversation is almost invariably raised by someone other than a member of those three specific groups.
Typically a priggish Non-smoker that is not a "regular" patron and has somehow been offended by "regular" patrons, existing staff, or the owner themselves; a disgruntled Staff member initiating an "I'll show them" vendetta against the owner/management; or much more likely still, someone from outside this environment altogether.
A member of the local Health Gestapo on their holy crusade to save us all from ourselves.
If the only person that really matters is unconcerned (The Owner), then the bottom line remains the same; Don't Smoke?, Don't come in.
The business will either succeed or fail largely on that basis alone, and it should be no ones business otherwise.
This just isn't that hard to comprehend, and I still don't know why the Anti-culture doesn't get it.
For some of us, the "sufficient warning" the good Doctor recommends will never be sufficient enough.
It's a CHOICE TO BE MADE in light of, or more recently, in spite of such warnings and Nothing will change that.
At least not for me.
If, on the other hand, the health elite want to retro-fit my business with "affordable technology" that will resolve the "problem" for FREE using some of the tobacco taxes previously extorted from me, and will finally allow me to run MY BUSINESS the way I see fit, then by all means, have at it.
If the HealthScare corporations want a "healthy" environment in Bars, and Restaurants, and don't want those businesses to fail for lack of customers as a result of such totalitarian measures as Smoking Bans, then they should be willing to step up and PAY FOR IT.
Don't you think?
After-all, ...it's for the children.
Even knowing how pathetic, and narrow-minded TC is, I'm not overly concerned because, America (historically) always does the right thing,...
but only after we've tried every thing else.
Kevin,
Although the topic of this article is Incrementalism in Healthcare is goes directly to what you posted before.
http://www.afcm.org/
healthcareas...areassault.html
~snip~
"This is the pattern: first, the government imposes controls to sacrifice one group to another. Then the government's victims find ways to avoid sacrifice. In response, the government slaps on more controls, either to enforce the sacrifice, or to sacrifice yet another group to the current victims to allow the latter to go on sacrificing. Then the new victims try to escape, so the government—unwilling to abandon sacrifice—imposes even more controls. Controls breed controls. The only solution is: no more sacrifices, of anyone to anyone.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/
c...=rss_topstories
But these people should add regulating cigarettes to their, apparently useless, jobs. I really like this:
Despite knowing which drugs haven't been approved, the FDA refuses to release a full list to the public.
"Is the risk level for accidents/traffic fumes/general air pollution greater than that for SHS in a car?"
Good point, West, because if you want to dot every i and cross every t, you could call it child abuse to unnecessarily drive a car with a child in it through the toxic air of a big city (there’ve been studies on the effect of toxic big-city air on the health of bicyclists). That added to the risk of a traffic accident.
All unnecessary driving with kids in the car -- especially driving in a big city with its toxic air – should be regarded as child abuse. Kops could handle the problem. They could report to Cathy.
.
According to the Surgeon General, "Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet6.html
Even Philip Morris's website says that the conclusion of public health officials is that secondhand smoke causes SIDS.
So in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.
Michael Siegel said: "I am arguing that it is inappropriate to interfere with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children. The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints)."
Dr. Siegel says it's okay to interfere with parental autonomy when life-threatening risks are involved. SIDS is a life-threatening risk. Secondhand smoke greatly increases the risk of SIDS. Therefore, Dr. Siegel actually agrees with car smoking bans as well as home smoking bans (at least for infants), and he didn't even know it. Yes, self-realization is a very important thing -- no need to thank me, doctor. I'm here to help.
Michael Siegel said: "It appears that the only criterion with which you judge an issue is whether it will protect children or not. Maybe that's not the case, but to find out, what is your answer to this question:
Would you support a law to ban smoking during pregnancy?"
But the legislation under discussion in New York State is car smoking bans. So why does Michael Siegel want to change the subject and talk about an imaginary law against smoking during pregnancy instead? Simple: because he doesn't have a credible argument against car smoking bans.
Laws don't have to make the world a perfect place to have merit, and car smoking bans would be a positive step for the health and safety of children and infants.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
"All unnecessary driving with kids in the car -- especially driving in a big city with its toxic air – should be regarded as child abuse"
And when THEY begin to ask how can they conduct their social life, go to work etc---They will be told to stay home. Besides who wants the rest of us to have to deal with passive parenting, while they have the little ones in public.
.
Michael Siegel said: "Cathy - How could I possibly NOT be funded by Big Tobacco? I follow the big tobacco playbook exactly. I spew out all the same arguments that they do. I argue against cigarette taxes. I oppose car smoking bans. I oppose home smoking bans. I oppose many outdoor smoking bans. I sidetrack the issues repeatedly by bringing up issues of personal liberty and autonomy. I argue about the 'slippery slope.' I have Big Tobacco written all over me."
I have nothing to add, except to thank you for that frank assessment of your activities on this blog, and for so perfectly illustrating that any perceived insinuation that you or this blog are funded by Big Tobacco is really in your own head. I make no comment whatsoever on any funding ties with the tobacco industry in your case, since I know almost nothing about you apart from what I've read here. For all I know, you may be simply playing devil's advocate to amuse yourself (as I've said before).
Again this has become a distraction. It's not the first time you've done this when I made it clear that your arguments against car smoking bans don't hold water.
DancingTger writes: "Children are indoctrinated to disrespect adults--including their own parents--based on smoking status." This is true. My twelve year-old daughter was berated by a teacher for not condemning her mother for smoking. The teacher asked repeatedly "and it doesn't bother you that your mother smokes? Aren't you worried about her health?" blah, blah, blah.. I wonder how this sort of thing would fly in my liberal state (MA) if her father were a homosexual and the teacher asked "doesn't it bother you that he engaes in anal sex with other men? Don't you worry about him contracting AIDS?"
And Doc, I was given documents my mother-in-law downloaded from the 'net where Health Groups insisted SIDS was linked to SHS, not just maternal smoking. You and I discussed it (via e-mail) last year, and here is what you wrote: "Dawn,
I do believe that there is pretty strong evidence that secondhand smoke is a cause of SIDS, although it's not clear whether pre-natal exposure, post-natal exposure, or both are involved. There are studies in which the affected infants have been shown to have higher levels of cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) in their tissues. It is probably not the case that secondhand smoke DIRECTLY causes SIDS. Most likely, what occurs is that secondhand smoke exposure impairs the body's ability to respond to an insult that precipitates SIDS. For example, the secondhand smoke exposure will not stop a child from breathing. But if some other factor were to do so, then an infant who has had heavy exposure to secondhand smoke is much less able to resume the breathing process. For example, secondhand smoke has been found to interfere with the brain's ability to respond to apnea (a temporary cessation of breathing). So it all depends on how you define CAUSE. It is almost certainly not a DIRECT cause. But it is probably, in some cases, a contributing cause.
However, the proportion of cases of SIDS due to secondhand smoke is still modest, and it is therefore not possible in any particular case to make a determination of the cause. So one cannot say that in a particular case, secondhand smoke was the cause of, or contributed to, the SIDS."
So, have you changed your position regarding SIDS and SHS as a possible cause?
The Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Alliance
13l4 Bedford Avenue
Suite 210
Baltimore, Maryland 21208
410-653-8226
800-221-7437
FAX 410-653-8709
December 4,1996
John F. Bazhaf III, Esquire
Executive Director
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
20l3 H Street NW
Washington, DC 20006-4207
Dear Mr. Bazhaf,
We, at the SIDS Alliance applaud your efforts to bring to the attention of the American public the hazards associated with smoking and smoke exposure; we must, however, object to your organization's use of misleading data and terminology when linking Sudden Infant Death Syndrome to your cause.
Statistically, passive smoke exposure is a recognized, significant factor for SIDS. To date, no direct causal relationship has been established. In fact, the vast majority of infants born to smoking parents do not die of SIDS. And, since many SIDS deaths occur in a smoke-free environment, we must refrain from making smoke exposure appear to be linked to all SIDS deaths.
The sensational heading for one of your recent Internet reports [07/30] "Smoking Parents Are Killing Their Infants" has gone too far. The fact is, researchers still do not know what causes SIDS. Avoiding known risk factors for SIDS may reduce its incidence for some babies, but offers no guarantee for every baby. Risk factors alone do not cause SIDS.
It is likely that SIDS may be caused by a subtle developmental delay, an anatomical defect, or a functional failure. The first year of life is fraught with periods of rapid growth and development, during which a baby's system may become unstable; during such periods any baby may be vulnerable.
It is also important to realize that SIDS can claim any baby, in spite of parents doing "everything right." Insensitive generalizations about SIDS broadcast through print or the electronic media serve only to perpetuate the public's misconceptions. The last thing we need to do to parents who suffer this tragedy is stigmatize or marginalize them. The simple truth is that many SIDS victims have no known risk factors; and, most babies with one or more risk factors will survive.
Your literature states that smoking "kills more than 2,000 infants each year from SIDS." Any published figures are sheer speculation, or guesses, not grounded in actual experimentation. The best we can do at this juncture is talk in terms of attributable risk--and there is no consensus on what that might be.
So where does current scientific understanding leave us? It leaves us with a stronger than previously thought link between passive smoke exposure and SIDS. It adds weight to the recommendation that parents refrain from smoking during pregnancy and the critical first year of life. But it also leaves us still searching for the mechanisms behind SIDS, and a means of early detection and prevention.
The SIDS Alliance is a national, not-for-profit voluntary health organization dedicated to the support of SIDS families, public education, and medical research. You may be interested to know that three of the six new scientific projects we are funding during this year's cycle of research are focused on the effects of nicotine exposure on the developing infant. Perhaps ASH has the resources available to help us transform speculation about the impact of smoke exposure on the developing infant into verifiable facts?
Based on the copy retrieved over the Internet and the direct mail appeal recently brought to our attention (see attached), we respectfully request that you adjust your message as far as SIDS is concerned. While we support your cause, we can not do so at the expense of the tens of thousands of families we represent.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. A copy of our latest information brochure is enclosed.
We welcome your reply.
Sincerely,
Phipps Y. Cohe
National Public Affairs Director
I think these people know more about SIDS than a Surgeon General as it's their sole reason of existence. Funny how the SG made all those claims, but NONE of the groups involved are involved with SIDS. Nor, apparently, was the LEADING SIDS RESEARCHERS asked to participate.
Jales... ' I think these people know more about SIDS than a Surgeon General as it's their sole reason of existence.'
Agree. Good post Jales.
.
http://www.data-yard.net/10p2/sids.htm
"This is very good evidence that there definitely is a biological problem that contributes to SIDS," neuroscientist and study co-author David S. Paterson, PhD, tells WebMD.
Boston Children's Hospital neuropathologist Hannah Kinney, MD, has searched for a biological cause for SIDS for the past two decades.
She and Paterson had previously identified defects in the serotonin system of the lower brain stem in babies who had died of SIDS.
The brain stem serotonin system is believed to help coordinate breathing, blood pressure, sensitivity to carbon dioxide, arousal, and temperature. Serotonin works as a chemical messenger in this system.
Cathy wrote: "I make no comment whatsoever on any funding ties with the tobacco industry in your case."
OK - that's more like it. I'll take that as a retraction of her previous insinuations that this blog was a tobacco front or that I was a tobacco shill.
I accept her apology, and I'm glad that we can move on to discussing the issues without having to attack people's individual character.
I can't even remember how many times I've posted this and yet she still makes her little claims. Reading comprehension issues much?
"I accept her apology."...Doctor
Could you kindly point out the apology.
Or am I the only 'idiot' who missed it.
.
"I accept her apology" Very amusing. I didn't apologize since the "insinuation" was a product of your imagination. I think I made that clear.
Now that I've illustrated that you actually agree with car smoking bans as well as home smoking bans (at least for infants), will you be issuing an apology to the children of America, who lack the ability to protect themselves, for lobbying against measures to improve health conditions for them?
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
THE ONLY TIME SCAMARSE OR WHATEVER SHE PREFERS TO BE CALLED ACCEPTS ANYTHING THE TOBACCO COMPANIES STATE IS WHEN IT SUITS HER PURPOSE.SURELY THEY ALWAYS LIE,?
Oh Caaaathy, no comment on the SIDS information?
Keep talking baby, you make smokers look GOOD.
Cathy, you are truly a piece of work (*biting my tongue, slapping my hands from writing what I really think*).
Doc, WHAT apology? She didn't apologize for squat, because she really does believe that she never once said you were a tobacco shill and the blog a front for BT. Please, someone tell me you have the location of at least one of those times she's accused us here of this..............I really don't do researching archives well at all (and don't have the time right now either).
And Cathy, be sure to check Jalestra's comment, and do some real research. Your lies are getting boring.
We are STILL waiting for all the proof we keep asking for too.
I would suggest you put up or shut up.
LB-- "Even knowing how pathetic, and narrow-minded TC is, I'm not overly concerned because, America (historically) always does the right thing,... but only after we've tried every thing else."
Well -- that was a (sort of) optimistic thought. Thanks!
OK, OK, OT, but I had to include this humorous post on Clarian's new policy:
Health Discrimination is Here
"Sorry, Mrs. Smith, while we appreciate your excellent attendance and work ethic here at Clarian Health, it's come to our attention that you're fat, so we want you to submit to a blood test to measure your cholesterol. If you refuse, you're fired. If your cholesterol is high, you're going to pay more for our insurance."
"What's that you say? Drawing your blood without your permission is assault? I think you're mistaken, Mr. Smith. Our company policy requires this test be taken because we're a hospital group and we know what's best for you."
"You have what? What are you talking about Mrs. Smith? We don't see Cushings Syndrome or diabetes on our exclusion list. You're just fat, young lady, and we know that fat people are high risk for our insurer so suck it up."
"You want us to speak to whom? The ACLU? Who are they? Oh, you mean those guys. We're really not worried, Mrs. Smith about them, honey. You see Mrs. Smith, those guys need insurance and I hear they're all fat, too."
http://drwes.blogspot.com/2007/
0...here.html#links
Cathy seems to be playing ignorant of her clear insinuations that this blog or I am being tobacco-funded and that I am some sort of tobacco promoter.
For starters:
"Dr. Siegel, there is no need for me to accuse you of anything because you make it clear what you are up to in each one of your posts. Defending smoking, smokers, and the tobacco industry.
This is what it's all about, getting young people to take up smoking. In Canada, tobacco advertising in magazines is banned, and along with other strong tobacco controls this has led to one of the lowest smoking rates anywhere. Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.
Dr. Siegel gets out of bed each day and makes it his personal mission to combat each and every one of these tobacco control measures. Today it's to attack a group that opposes tobacco advertising aimed at young people. Why don't you just cut the subterfuge and go work for PM? I could actually respect that.
The only tobacco control measure I've seen that Dr. Siegel doesn't oppose is indoor smoking bans, which he championed before he made his magical transformation to tobacco defender, so he can't very well change his position on that. Besides, he probably does believe in indoor smoking bans, any reasonable person would. But he can still undermine those efforts too in his own way.
It's very sad to see a medical doctor defend smoking. As for Iro Cyr and Joel Demers, I know they too are disciples of Dr. Siegel as he is frequently quoted by them on CAGE's website and letters to the editor -- generally out of context, naturally.
Dr. Siegel, your response to my last post is typical. Ignore everything of substance I say, in which I essentially demolish your arguments, and then jump on the one jackass thing I said, and imply that therefore nothing else I said could have any validity. That's quite typical of the way denialists (tobacco industry and other) operate, in my experience.
tobaccoscamalysis | Edit comment Delete comment | 08.23.07 - 3:00 pm | #
All of the activities Dr. Siegel has mentioned – playing hockey, eating junk food, and so on – either provide a benefit to the child, represent a much smaller health problem than parental smoking, are not easily preventable, or all three. (Also note that unlike parental smoking, these are mostly activities the child chooses.) Dr. Siegel ignores these important distinctions and attempts to mix parental smoking with other issues. That's why Michael Siegel is a spin doctor, and sadly, a defender of smoking and parental smoking.
But this is what tobacco promoters do. The same tactics get used to oppose other tobacco control measures, such as public and workplace smoking bans. See chapter one of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Claim smoking is a fundamental right, introduce other issues as a diversion."
http://geocities.com/corporate_o......?pg=5&cnt=1&
t=a
It's sad and disturbing to see a medical doctor work so hard to defend the "parental autonomy" to expose children to unnecessary and pointless health risks (Dr. Siegel has stated that he opposes car and home smoking regulations in principle, not just the car smoking ban proposed in New York), particularly when the remedy is so simple and easy. The only real downside to parental indoor smoking restrictions is for tobacco companies, as parents would smoke less and be more likely to quit.
Note that Dr. Siegel frequently makes a big deal out of the prospect of children being taken away from their parents who smoke around them, even though no one has seriously proposed this as a remedy. I see this as a deliberate attempt to promote fear and anger in smokers, and very much in keeping with many of Dr. Siegel's writings on this blog in which he frequently claims that non-smokers hate smokers and wish to punish them. Well if he thinks that's bad, then what about the children who lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses? If confronting smokers on their drug habit makes it more likely they will quit, that's another good reason for Dr. Siegel to support indoor smoking restrictions (all of them), as a medical doctor that is.
One can only hope that at some point Michael Siegel's conscience may get the better of him, and he will reexamine his activities in campaigning against measures to improve health conditions for children.
tobaccoscamalysis | Edit comment Delete comment | 08.25.07 - 1:00 pm | #
Dr. Siegel loves it when anyone suggests anything related to involvement with the tobacco industry because it means he doesn't have to respond to the substance of the arguments against him vis a vis parental smoking laws. He can just harp on how he's been so hard done by instead.
Anonymous | Edit comment Delete comment | 08.26.07 - 4:54 pm | #
If you want to know about tobacco front groups, read my website on Mychoice.ca (known tobacco front group) and Citizens Against Government Encroachment (likely tobacco front group).
tobaccoscamalysis | Edit comment Delete comment | 08.26.07 - 5:09 pm | #
What I really see here and on other smokers' rights websites, sadly, is a few professional tobacco promoters working very hard to rally a small group of fanatical smokers against tobacco control initiatives in order to give the impression that there is widespread public opposition to such laws. See Appendix 8 of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Exploiting mentally vulnerable people".
http://geocities.com/corporate_o......pg=21&cnt=1&
t=a
Apparently it's not enough for tobacco companies to addict and kill their customers, but they also feel the need to rally them to promote their political agenda.
tobaccoscamalysis | Edit comment Delete comment | 08.23.07 - 3:18 pm | #
That's a wonderful Catch-22 they've got going, seeing as how they aren't obligated to disclose their specific funding sources, and tobacco companies don't have to disclose who they give money to. Therefore, no one can ever talk about the possibility that tobacco comapanies are funding groups that oppose tobacco control laws. CAGE has stated that "it is on the corporate members that we depend the most for financing" (since this much could be ascertained under public disclosure laws) but doesn't specify who those corporate donors are. http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=3&cnt=1&
t=a Meanwhile they use known tobacco industry tactics and arguments to lobby the media and government against a range of tobacco control laws, and raise funds to support legal actions against those laws (bar owners' legal challenge of smoking ban), and we're supposed to ignore the possible connection because the system is set up to hide any proof of tobacco industry involvement. That's a pretty sweet deal.
09.21.07 - 5:23 pm
I could go on and on (and I am not going to share here my screenshots of the places where Cathy makes much more definitive insinuations of my tobacco funding).
But despite all of this, I am willing to forgive and forget. Cathy has retracted her accusation. She has clearly stated that she does not accuse me of being tobacco industry-funded. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new period of discussion where we can focus on the arguments and issues and not the merits of the individuals making those arguments.
Lynda -- if you look toward the bottom of the 81 comments to the blog of 8/15/07 titled:
New York City Council to Consider Bill to Ban Smoking in Cars Carrying Minors
You'll see some references to Michael using the "tobacco promotion playbook".
Oh Gosh -- I was too late!
"a few professional tobacco promoters working very hard"
tobaccoscamalysis
Who are they?
Who are they?
And where is my check/automatic deposit. My account is really tight this week....could sure could use that Big T $$$$
"Cathy has retracted her accusation"
Not really. She simply denied it.
"Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new period of discussion where we can focus on the arguments."
Come again? Does that mean, doctor, that we are now entering a new period of discussion where you'll begin answering the questions asked of you repeatedly but which you've refrained from answering? Or, like Bill Godshall, are you going to say, "I already answered that"?
If you'd like a list of those questions, I think we could all get our heads together and provide one.
.
Here is a question David Kuneman and I would like answered: What does Dr. Siegel think of the Bellagio Casino air quality tests?
http://reason.com/blog/show/122606.html
http://www.americangaming.org/as...APER_7-7-
06.pdf
Further questions for Dr. Siegel:
Is it child abuse to bring a child every week to a Catholic or Orthodox Church service where incense is always burnt? Is it further child abuse to enroll this same young girl in a "Campfire Girls" program that surely entails her sitting nearby a fire emitting gobs of carcinogens? Doctor Siegel, these are a two hard questions you need to answer for the sake of America's children!
Bill H. - I'm with you. If it's child abuse to expose a kid to secondhand smoke, then it would also be child abuse to expose a kid to other forms of smoke, like wood smoke, for example, which has been shown to markedly increase health risks. You are nicely pointing out why it is ridiculous to consider smoking as a form of child abuse.
Confession time.
With all these spurious accusations from Miz My Work Iz Done, I feel obliged to make a statement.
In January/February 2006 I was incensed about the Scottish smoker ban, which was due to be implemented on March 26th 2006. I thought hard, and in the end I convinced myself that the most obvious thing to do was to alert the British Tobacco industry. At the time, they seemed painfully unaware of events. I could find no evidence that they had lifted a finger to prevent the ban from being enacted. So I wrote to them. All of them. And I asked for money. They ignored my letters so I wrote again, begging this time, for funds so that we could fight the bans, fight ASH, fight Smoke Free Scotland, fight the Scottish Executive, hell, fight anyone who supported these Draconian measures.
You know what, Miz Bell? I couldn't get a penny out of them. Not one red cent.
Even today, and I speak as Chairman of Freedom to Choose, I would take their money. Gladly. To me, its no different than any anti-smoker group taking money from Big Pharma. It is no more or less tainted. I would lose zero sleep over it. Our group could sorely use the money in this David and Goliath fight.
Besides, it doesn't seem to matter if we deny being shills for Big Tobacco, what you people don't know, you are quick to fabricate anyway. Fabrication is what you do best.
Confession over.
Now its your turn.
Show us the evidence, or shut the hell up with your accusations.
In the United States, Big Tobacco has cut some sort of deal with the antismoking groups not to fight the smoking bans if antismoking groups ease up on the lawsuits. BT doesn't send any experts to contradict the testimony of groups like the ACS and ALA before state legislatures and city councils. If any testimony is given, it is done by unpaid citizens like David Kuneman and Michael McFadden. When Kansas City was considering a smoking ban, I was the only speaker before the Council to present scientific evidence against the ban. But private citizens can only do so much on their own nickel. That's partly why the ban in Chicago and the rest of Illinois passed so easily.
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/EMRS.html
"Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new period of discussion where we can focus on the arguments and issues and not the merits of the individuals making those arguments."
That does not appear to be the case. I think it's become evident that Michael Siegel has decided to continue to harp on the past because I have proven that his position on car smoking bans doesn't hold up.
According to the Surgeon General, "Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)"
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet6.html
Even Philip Morris's website says that the conclusion of public health officials is that secondhand smoke causes SIDS.
So in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them.
Michael Siegel said: "I am arguing that it is inappropriate to interfere with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children. The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints)."
Dr. Siegel says it's okay to interfere with parental autonomy when life-threatening risks are involved. SIDS is a life-threatening risk. Secondhand smoke greatly increases the risk of SIDS. Therefore, Dr. Siegel actually agrees with car smoking bans as well as home smoking bans (at least for infants), and he didn't even know it.
Michael Siegel said: "It appears that the only criterion with which you judge an issue is whether it will protect children or not. Maybe that's not the case, but to find out, what is your answer to this question: Would you support a law to ban smoking during pregnancy?"
But the legislation under discussion in New York State is car smoking bans. So why does Dr. Siegel want to change the subject and talk about an imaginary law against smoking during pregnancy instead? Simple: because he doesn't have a credible argument against car smoking bans.
Laws don't have to make the world a perfect place to have merit, and car smoking bans would be a positive step for the health and safety of children and infants.
Dr. Siegel, now that I've illustrated that you actually agree with car smoking bans as well as home smoking bans (at least for infants), will you be issuing an apology to the children of America, who lack the ability to protect themselves, for lobbying against measures to improve health conditions for them?
That was a question by the way, in case you missed it.
If you don't care to answer any of this, I will just assume that you only wish to discuss these issues with other smoke-free opponents, or better yet, with smoke-free supporters who lack the ability to point out the hypocrisy of your arguments.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Tobaccoscamalysis writes: "According to the Surgeon General, "Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)"
The Surgeon Generial made political statement not whole supported by what was in the report.
"Even Philip Morris's website says that the conclusion of public health officials is that secondhand smoke causes SIDS."
PM states that public health concludes a lot of things. That does not mean that they support the conclusions."
"So in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe them."
You obviously have not read Jalestra's post and in my humble opinion are no longer worth listening to.
So, I suppose now, cathy will announce to the world that Dr. siegel supports car smoking Bans?
That's the way you work...right cathy?
dave K
Cathy,
You appear to be egotistical and paranoid, your conspiracy, persecution issues know no bounds. Get help.
You have proven nothing, you have demonstrated nothing, your arguments are insubstantial and like the hazard of ETS insignificant.
GreatScot
PS who are you accusing to be Dr Romero / Lucy / Iro this week?
Cathy--
If putting children at risk of colds constitutes chld abuse, then how about letting them go out w/o a sweater? or go to school w/o galoshes when the radio says it'll rain? Or not giving them vitamins? Or taking them out in crowds? Or letting them fly on planes?
Doesnt this also increase the risk of a cold? And aren't these risks preventable?
:
GreatScot wrote:
"PS who are you accusing to be Dr Romero / Lucy / Iro this week?"
Just looked it up. It's your turn to be Romano, I'm Lucy, and one of the Walt's is supposed to be Iro.
Sunz is the alternate in case one of us is sick.
Oh damn, never mind. That's next week's schedule.
Doc: I could go on and on (and I am not going to share here my screenshots of the places where Cathy makes much more definitive insinuations of my tobacco funding).
But despite all of this, I am willing to forgive and forget. Cathy has retracted her accusation. She has clearly stated that she does not accuse me of being tobacco industry-funded. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new period of discussion where we can focus on the arguments and issues and not the merits of the individuals making those arguments.
Gosh darnit, doc. How many times do I need to tell you. Of course, you could go on and on. Cathy keeps coming back--over and over--and trying desperately to get your attention with her tirades and accusations. She has a thing for ya. She does.
(BTW, do you have to register as some sort of raving antismoker to get access to those tobacco documents? I can't figure out what their deal is.)
Bill H: In the United States, Big Tobacco has cut some sort of deal with the antismoking groups not to fight the smoking bans if antismoking groups ease up on the lawsuits.
Interestingly, I make a comment about lawsuits on my political empowerment page. It's apt that antismoking groups strongly encouraged people to sue tobacco companies--and even showed them how to do it! Now, the funding behind those groups, largely Big Pharma is getting sued left and right--because, hey, that's where all the money is now. We constantly see ads from lawyers trying to find people who've had such-and-such an injury from such-and-such drugs. Live by the sword...etc...
I used to have several smokers on my payroll. They did smell up the office and customers complained. They were good workers that had been with me for a number of years so I didn't want to get rid of them nor did I want them standing outside to smoke. My office layout made it easy to separate them into a sealed area with it's own ventilation system. We painted the whole office and put in new carpet (needed it anyway). I then got a friend that is hypersensitive and allergic to everything come in for a test. She smelled no smoke nor had any of the reactions she gets around smoke. I thought the complaints would end but they didn't. Women actually complained because they could see ashtrays and people smoking through the glass door! I got an email from a customer complaining that she wanted me to make those people quit smoking not accommodate them. For a lot of people it's not about harm it's about imposing their will on others. I would
bet money that that's what it's about for these folks too.
smoking is child abuse
Cathy wrote: Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer
Cathy, I found a cherry for you:
ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96).
From the largest ever epi study done in Europe, by the most authoritive (?) health organisation WHO: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...9&
dopt=Abstract
Why do you think we should believe the rest of your claims, Cathy?
If smoking is child abuse; and you believe that anonymous; how many people have you reported??
Where is you moral obligation to enforce regs already in place. Why do we need new regulations??? You see just because you say it's abuse doesn't make it so. Although I would like to see how many times you have called to have parents lose their children on this matter.
Abuse is abuse, isn't it? Lets get the reality of this situation into perspective, shall we? Lets see how many parents lose their children, since public relations people don't denounce these statements there must be that belief. Lets put your words and beliefs into the real agenda of this whole campaign. Call 911, its your moral obligation to have parents lose their children for smoking in a car!
Commenting by HaloScan
