1. Tolerance and respect for smoking? That's a bad approach right from the start - smoking deserves neither.
2. Hamburgers don't cause sickness and disease in non-hamburger eaters.
3. Smoking is treated as a health-related behavior - smoking parents are modeling this behavior for their kids, who later copy this behavior thereby affecting their health.
Hey Spin control.... buy a clue. The analogy that eating a greasy burger in front of your kids, or a piece of cake between meals, and on and on, is exposing your child to "unhealthy" behavior, thus a "bad role model." But it isn't. And the fact that you can't get that simply shows you're a smoker bigot.
4. Hamburgers provide benefits as well as risks. Would the doctor care to outline for us briefly the benefits of smoking?
Yes I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so. Smoking has no redeeming qualites, and for smoking right next to her kids I say Spears is a lousy role model for her kids and for other parents.
OT, for the politically inclined. note the lie in the quotes about 23 states having smoking bans within 25 feet of buildings/doorways. quite tired of these lies, and they get away with them everytime.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/
an...y.html#comments
brandz
Dr. Siegel, you ask: I don't understand why this anti-smoking advocate, and many others like him, insist upon portraying smoking as an issue of integrity and character, rather than as simply a health-related behavior.
Because it achieves their goal of changing what THEY believe is the "norm." Behavior modification is not reserved for just smokers but the modification of the views (and behavior -- e.g. nonsmokers feeling free to assault a smoker) of nonsmokers toward smokers. Their experiment has not only had an effect on the public but most grossly has infiltrated the sanctity of the media. It's exhibited in the words of reporters (NOT opinion writers) who are now emboldened to express their hate-approved personal opinion and act as a disciple of Big Anti-Smoking/Er in their articles:
BRITNEY A PUFF MOMMY
NY Post - July 22, 2008
By David K. Li
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0722...ommy_120919.htm
It's bad enough that Britney Spears can't even keep a lid on her nasty cigarette habit long enough to avoid lighting up in front of one of her young sons, Sean Preston, 2 1/2. But then to leave her dirty cancer sticks and lighter within easy reach of the toddler?
The curious youngster went to pick them up from a table ashtray at her Beverly Hills home Sunday, as his bikini-clad, part-time mother took a long drag on her Marlboro.
Fortunately, Spears finally sprang into action and snatched them from him.
Still, she left the child to be exposed to her unhealthy, secondhand smoke.
THAT was the REPORTER'S own opening comments before introducing those he contacted to quote!!
Sciandra is also quoted in this article but there's more about the agenda you take issue with here:
"The pictures are sad on many levels," said Dr. Jonathan Field, director of the allergy and asthma clinic at NYU Hospital.
"We think of people who smoke as outside the norm, so just seeing a picture of someone smoking is odd - seeing someone smoking in front of their little child is shocking."
An answer to your question -- why do they insist on portraying it this way -- is because they can. And their water carried by the members of the media who are only supposed to report, not opine.
This article truly disgusted me.
Spin control wrote:
"Yes I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so."
Well, everyone needs a hobby.
Perhaps Spin Control would like to extol on the tremendous social benefits of publicly passing moral judgment of others. And while you are at it, please do explain why you believe we should set example to our children of telling others how they should raise their children.
Likewise there is much research that shows that people of faith, live longer and healthier lives. Does Spin believe that those that chose not to raise their children in the name of God are lousy role models?
As far as Hamburgers not causing sickness and disease in non-hamburger eaters, unless these hamburger eaters are eating them raw, there is very much evidence that exposure to frying foods is an even larger lung cancer risk then second hand smoke. There has been many studies largely with Chinese women (as there is a low prevalence of smoking in this group) yet have a high incidence of lung cancer. Even after correcting for SHS exposure, there remains a larger risk factor associated with stir fry, wok cooking, and certain types of cooking oils used. Therefore, exposure to that cooking hamburger could very well be more lethal than cigarette exposure. http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModele=aff...cpsidt=13473547
Likewise, a vegan would argue if there are any redeeming benefits from eating red meat, and my physician tells me people should avoid hamburger like it was the plague, and that it's a one way ticket to heart disease, and premature death. Sure does sound like a health hazard to me. He also said if I really feel I need some meat, I should stay with white meats like fish, then chicken, and lastly pork, but stay away from beef. But he's Hindu, so he might be slightly biased about meat. I wonder if he'd consider me a terrible role model if kids saw me eating something he is morally opposed to, and just might be his reincarnated great aunt.
Morality is the ultimate role for which a parent should model and pass on their offspring. To claim a smoker is a poor role model is claim they are without morals simply because they do something as trivial as smoke. Hobbes about morality wrote "By manners I mean not here decency of
behavior, as how one man should salute another, or how a man should wash his mouth or pick his teeth before company, and such other points of small morals, but those qualities of mankind that concern their living together in peace and unity"
It appears you can only live peacefully if you can control others behavior, and this is what you wish to pass on to your children.
There is one other point you seemed to have missed. SMOKING is an action and respect is not given to actions. Respect and tolerance is what you give to others. It is obvious, you have no respect or tolerance to anyone that smokes, which is fairly obvious. Yet, you seem to sanctimoniously seem to demand respect when none is given. Another of your redeeming qualities you wish to pass on to your offspring?
Intolerance only breeds more intolerance.
Arguing with cranks is not my hobby.
Spin Control is so proud of its bigotry and contempt for others who enjoy using a legal product it hates, that it needs to hide behind its computer screen using a silly ID where it is nice and safe.
I dare you to come to Phoenix and tell me to my face that I was a bad role model for my son. I dare you to tell him that to his face too.
I can't wait until the healthist/control freak nazi's get to something you do that they disapprove of. Wonder if you'll be singing the same bigoted song then.
And for your information, kids don't always copy their parents. I can't tell you the number of smoker haters I've seen post on the forums about their hatred of their parents' smoking. But they don't smoke.
Children who are communicated with in a healthy and open manner by their parents, learn to think for themselves and have no need to emulate anyone.
Britney isn't any kind of a role model for anyone. She is a spoiled brat who just needs a good walloping or two or three. She wasn't taught properly obviously. Her smoking is the LEAST of her issues.
"Russell Sciandra, a leading lobbyist with the New York State chapter of the American Cancer Society, is quoted in the Boston Herald Wednesday as calling smokers poor role models for their children."
Is this an indication the Cancer society is about to demonstrate some moral guidance, and ask the many smokers who supported the society for decades to come take back their money?
It is the right thing to do...
Spin One For The Team wrote:
"4. Hamburgers provide benefits as well as risks. Would the doctor care to outline for us briefly the benefits of smoking?"
As JTF pointed out, that wasn't the analogy. So you spun it. You should change your name from Spin Control to Spin. Or Cathy Bell.
Speaking of greasy burgers: Smokers weigh less than nonsmokers. There'a one redeeming value for you, you fat pig. LOL.
P.S. You're a bad example for kids. Hide in your closet when they're present...if you can fit in one.
Shes Back, and it isn't even close to Halloween yet.
"Would the doctor care to outline for us briefly the benefits of smoking?"
I am sure Rose could give Cathy a lot to moan about, while living in denial.
Cathy had a soapbox for a while, until some nasty smokers [Tobacco Industry shills she calls them] picked on her "facts" so much, she gave up in disgust because she really had nothing original to say. How do you defend Bigotry, against over 65 million people in North America alone?
Spin Control:
Your apparent attitude toward smokers, and the Cancer Society's Apparent same attitude is making more and more smokers feel no remorse that they are taking way your pay cheques and buying contraband!
I hope more and more see what their legal purchases are buying and encouraging. Yeap I want a society full of hate based on one aspect of a person (bigotry).
Spin Control - Yes I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so.
Echoes of the KKK, white supremacists, and every other bigotry based organisation ever, the fact that Spin is loud and proud says it all? How very, very sad. I guess with the obvious lack of respect and tolerance for others Spin could be considered a poor role model for the human race never mind just kids.
At least he/she/it is honest enough to say "smoker bigot" can we expect escalation from verbal abuse to physical from Spin and friends?
BTW I am not a bigot (loud and very proud) of any kind, never have been, never will be. Perhaps my parents were reasonable role models?
GreatScot
Spin control wrote: “Tolerance and respect for smoking? That's a bad approach right from the start - smoking deserves neither”.
I think the Doc was suggesting that smokers, not smoking, were deserving of tolerance and respect. A person’s value to society really can’t be measured by their eating habits, the frequency at which they engage in physical activity or whether or not they choose to smoke.
Since you are a self-proclaimed and proud bigot, I trust you understand that fear and hatred are at the heart of your condition, and that instilling those values in your children will have a much more detrimental effect than smoking in front of them.
Perhaps you should seek medical advice before setting such a bad example for your offspring?
That's some quality flaming. Very nicely done.
What we should remember about those like Spin Control, is that they have a massive investment in the original propaganda being true.
They can not afford to consider a different view and can't allow themselves to think that those they took the opportunity to abuse, might be human in any way.
After all in war thats the only way an ordinary citizen can kill the enemy, by mentally dehumanizing them.
Imagine the mental anguish in realising that you are the deluded villain, not the other way round.
The Doctor is a man of science and will follow the science where ever it leads, the important thing being what is true.
Painful though it might be, sometimes everyone has to reevaluate.
I believed all this was true ( except for that daft SHS is worse than firsthand smoke )until I started my own investigations.
I should in fairness, point out that the common belief (possibly put about by the early chemical companies)right up to the 60's was that manmade chemicals were harmless, so naturally people would not be looking for answers in that direction.
I certainly wore PVC in the 70's.
Vinyl chloride monomer
"In the early 1970s, Dr. John Creech and Dr. Maurice Johnson were the first to clearly link and recognize the carcinogenicity of vinyl chloride monomer to humans when workers in the polyvinyl chloride polymerization section of a B.F. Goodrich plant near Louisville, Kentucky, were diagnosed with liver angiosarcoma also known as hemangiosarcoma, a rare disease.[19] Since that time, studies of PVC workers in Australia, Italy, Germany, and the UK have all associated certain types of occupational cancers with exposure to vinyl chloride."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pol...yvinyl_chloride
"It is claimed he was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers' Association and two other companies, ICI and Dow Chemicals, for a review that when published in 1988 largely cleared vinyl chloride from any link with cancer apart from liver tumours.
This is despite other experts having concluded in 1979 that the substance - used to manufacture plastics - was a carcinogen that could affect the liver, brain, lungs and lymphatic system"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...-
companies.html
The words "role model" in and of itself is very very judgemental. A non-religious person would consider religious zealots to be "bad role models" for their children. A fashionista would consider a casual dresser to be a "bad role model" for their children.
The fact is that children do NOT belong to the state and it is not the place of the state to decide how they should be raised.
How many alcoholics were raised in homes where alcohol and drinkers were vilified? How many future smokers will be raised in homes where smoking is vilified?
Does that mean that a parents who vilify anything are "poor role models" because they set up the perfect behavior to adopt if a teenager wants to be rebellious?
In the end - unless you can prove child abuse or neglect - perhaps it would be best to allow those people with the child's interest most at heart (the parents) to decide what is in the child's best interest?
Michelle
The really sad part is, that "Spin Control" reflects the very attitude that tobacco control leaders sought to produce in the general public by the deliberate stigmatization of smoker campaigns. Through social disfiguration campaigns, people can be goaded into coersed into healthy lifestyles or face ostrizatation and exile from society.
I believe the cure is worse then the disease, and the practitioners have lost control of their Frankenstien.
Only losers need role models; people like Spin Control comes to mind.
Winners tend to think for themselves and define themselves; they don't wait with bated breath to see if they are accepted.
The fact is that children do NOT belong to the state and it is not the place of the state to decide how they should be raised.
Michelle
Michelle Gervais | 07.24.08 - 8:03 am | # ***********************************
Not yet Michelle...chilling Congressional proposals.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ind...ew&
pageId=70325
I'm going to break my rule about not arguing with cranks just this once because this is important. I said I don't have tolerance or respect for smoking, particularly around children, and I stand by that. If that makes me a bigot, fine, but that's as far as it goes. To then go and invoke the KKK and suggest there will be physical violence against smokers is unacceptable, and I don't think Michael Siegel wants to be known for promoting those sentiments.
Hey spin...........here's YOUR exact words (bolded emphasis mine): Yes I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so.
Someone suggested you were a smokeR-bigot, and instead of refuting it, you announced you were and were proud of it. Therefore THIS denial is too late.
So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Spin Control,
If you have been reading this blog for some time (which I do not know), you would have noticed that physical intimidation and violence against smokers has already occured. Whether you personally think it's a great idea or not is irrelevant--there are other "smoker-bigots" out there who have no problem engaging in it.
Speaking of bad role modeling;
From Marketwatch
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/...BCAB}&
dist=hppr
"Who Really Profits From Smoking Bans?
Opponents of Ohio Bans say "Just follow the money."
Last update: 12:07 p.m. EDT July 23, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 23, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- "Smoking bans in the U.S. have been funded by those who directly profit from the sales of Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT)," said Debi Kistner with Opponents of Ohio Bans. Robert Wood Johnson, the late CEO of Johnson & Johnson, established the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) tax exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) in the early 1970s. According to their November 2005 publication, "Taking on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Assault on Smoking", from 1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants. Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became ineligible for further grants.
As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is one of the company's largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson & Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban laws they've provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of the company's nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and Nicoderm CQ is touted as the "best selling smoking cessation patch in history". April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.
The foundation created the National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids and has provided more than $84,000,000 in grants to fund that advocacy group. As a non-profit the foundation can't legally lobby but the center can. The center aggressively promotes increased taxation on tobacco products. "
Here is the big one from the same article;
"The foundation sponsors conferences on "how to identify ways to increase the use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments" and awarded the American Cancer Society a nearly $1,000,000 grant to "expand the use of tobacco cessation treatments". It's about the money, profits for stockholders and control. Tobacco control is the best marketing strategy that pharmaceutical dollars can buy. "
The Cancer Society is in no position to be questioning the integrity of others they get paid to create hatred and divisions in communities by bigotry.
It appears they will no longer be accepting donations from smokers, else they would be known for their own hypocrisy and lies, while blaming smokers for their own failures to "find the cures" they advertise.
It is pretty hard to find science in ad agencies or the spin they produce, which represents their major focus and investments in their "search".
Is The Cancer Society any better than a snake oil salesperson standing on another soap box? I believe their actions are entirely consistent with consumer fraud.
I think Matt astutely points out the problem I have with Cathy's attitude, which is also expressed by Russ Sciandra. While the behavior of smoking might not be a good example to children, the SMOKER is not a bad person or bad role model because he or she chooses to smoke. That is the key difference which Cathy (and Russ Sciandra) doesn't seem able to appreciate here.
While I share Cathy's attitude about smoking, I don't share her attitude about smokers.
In general, I've become dismayed that the tobacco control movement has become much more anti-smoker than anti-smoking.
Finally, while I agree with Cathy that smoking does not have health benefits, I find it very judgmental of her to condemn people for making a particular health decision. Eating trans-fats doesn't have any health benefits either, but I wouldn't condemn people because they choose to consume trans-fats. (note: I'd be condemning myself as well)
As an example, I love Vienna Fingers (http://www2.kelloggs.com/Brand/brand.aspx?
brand=225). There is no health benefit to Vienna Fingers of which I am aware. I just happen to like them. Does this make me a bad role model for my children? I don't think so. The act of eating a snack food with no nutritional value and harmful trans-fats is certainly not a great example for my kids, but I do not become a bad role model simply because I eat Vienna Fingers.
I view smoking in the same way. When we start to condemn smokers rather than the behavior, we do indeed become bigoted. And I'm afraid that's where the tobacco control movement is headed.
I noticed that in all 49 comments, not one agreed with the author of this article. The commenters pretty much felt that this issue (smoking around children) is a NON-issue.
Spin Control lost control and said, "Yes I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so. Smoking has no redeeming qualites, and for smoking right next to her kids I say Spears is a lousy role model for her kids and for other parents."
Would everyone please take a look at 1) the picture, 2) the byline and 3) the comments.
http://www.bostonherald.com/
news...ticleid=1108540
1) I'm not convinced that this is Britney Spears. The picture looks staged and the child looks coached. The photographer is too close. This picture is just too cute squared.
2) The story has no author. The byline just says the "Herald Staff". This is not an editorial.
3) Well, the comments are about 99 to 1 in opposition to the point of view expressed in the story.
Conclusion: It's tabloid puff-aganda. Russ Sciandras anti-smoker comments, compared to the comments made by the readers, are a good measure of the loss of credibility the anti-smoker cartel has suffered in the eyes of the public.
Keep spinning it Spin Control.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Here's one thing I've never understood. If a normal healthy person locked himself in a garage with no ventilation while a car was running, he would die in a matter of minutes every single time. Conversely, if someone smoked incessantly around that person in the same setting, nothing would happen, at least not for a very long time. Based on how much more deadly car exhaust fumes are than secondhand smoke, couldn't one easily argue that driving a car makes you a far worse role model than smoking does?
Fleawarhol wrote:
"Here's one thing I've never understood. If a normal healthy person locked himself in a garage with no ventilation while a car was running, he would die in a matter of minutes every single time."
If you're thinking carbon monoxide, catalytic converters convert most of it into CO2 in today's cars.
I'm not sure how long it would take to die from car exhaust from a lack of oxygen, but I'm sure it'd take quite a while.
But if anyone thinks car exhaust is safe because the carbon monoxide output has mostly been replaced by carbon dioxide, I suggest they put a bag over their head and see how long they last breathing CO2 before gasping for air. It's actually kind of fun.
Russ Sciandra is spot on when stating that "Parents who smoke are a poor role model for their children.”
But as degrees of poor role modelling go, parents who repeatedly force their children to inhale tobacco smoke pollution are far worse role models (than parents who smoke outside and not near their children).
Children of cigarette smokers are twice as likely (as children of nonsmokers) to become addicted to cigarettes.
Never smoking or quitting smoking is the single most effective thing a parent can do to prevent his/her children from becoming addicted to cigarettes.
Mike wrote:
"I would have preferred that a message of tolerance and respect be delivered rather than one of moral condemnation."
Rationale people wouldn't consider Russ's comment as "moral condemnation", especially when compared to hundreds of postings by Mike (and others) on this blog.
Another turn of the screw:
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/i...tid=3&
aid=84058
.
Spin Control:
"Spears is a lousy role model for her kids and for other parents."
"Arguing with cranks is not my hobby."
"I'm going to break my rule about not arguing with cranks."
Breaking any rule shows that you're a lousy role model for kids. (Reminds me of My-work-here-is-done Cathy, who came back again and again for a time.) Being mealy-mouthed and infirm of purpose is definitely not being a role model for kids.
And since when has a bigot of whatever stripe been a role model for children?
.
If you're thinking carbon monoxide, catalytic converters convert most of it into CO2 in today's cars.
I'm not sure how long it would take to die from car exhaust from a lack of oxygen, but I'm sure it'd take quite a while.
- James Austin
You are totally right. When I wrote my post I was thinking of the lead singer of Boston's suicide in 2007. Car exhaust fumes were involved, but so were other things. So let's just pretend that major portion of my argument which is not true actually is. Then we'd all have to agree I'm brilliant. Ha!
Bill, I gave birth to a physically deformed child and raised him into a productive member of society, and I did that SMOKING THE WHOLE TIME. Care to come and tell me and him to our faces that I was a bad role model? You aren't worthy enough to kiss my a$$.
Fleawarhol, if catalytic converters are so wonderful, how do you explain that you STILL cannot run a car in an enclosed space? Doing so will still kill you, and probably within 30 minutes.
Doctor Siegel -
"There is no health benefit to Vienna Fingers of which I am aware."
On the contrary, for you, Vienna Fingers have great health benefits.
You don't say that you just like them, you say you love them!
Therefore, Vienna Fingers make you happy.
Happiness stalls high blood pressure
"A recent study suggests positive emotions inhibit elevated blood pressure, reduce risk of heart attack or stroke in certain individuals"
http://www.presstv.ir/
detail.asp...ctionid=3510210
Blood pressure link to happiness
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/scien...-
happiness.html
Now when we look at the nutritional information we find -
NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMIN MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID
http://www2.kelloggs.com/Product...oduct=2146&
cat=
I suggest you carry on enjoying your Vienna Fingers, in moderation and with no feeling of remorse.
Bill,
You're the last person who should be talking about what's rational. We've seen your posts, too.
Rationale people wouldn't consider Russ's comment as "moral condemnation", especially when compared to hundreds of postings by Mike (and others) on this blog.
Bill Godshall | 07.24.08 - 11:02 am
Wrong, Mr. Godshall. Only an irrational person, such as yourself, would not consider the comments to be "moral condemnation." Additionally rational (notice no added "e") people do not post personal opinion as FACT, something you do on a continual basis.
And I'm afraid that's where the tobacco control movement is headed.
Michael Siegel |
Sorry Doc, that horse got out of the barn YEARS ago.
Fleawarhol, if catalytic converters are so wonderful, how do you explain that you STILL cannot run a car in an enclosed space? Doing so will still kill you, and probably within 30 minutes.
Ragingly Callous Lynda F
I never said catalytic converters were wonderful. My original post said the following:
"Here's one thing I've never understood. If a normal healthy person locked himself in a garage with no ventilation while a car was running, he would die in a matter of minutes every single time. Conversely, if someone smoked incessantly around that person in the same setting, nothing would happen, at least not for a very long time. Based on how much more deadly car exhaust fumes are than secondhand smoke, couldn't one easily argue that driving a car makes you a far worse role model than smoking does?"
James Austin referenced the converters. I'm on your side, sista.
Harry
It looks like the state of NY has decided to withdraw tax-funded addiction treatment to smokers.
Shouldn't smokers get a rebate on their taxes? Why should we pay for addiction treatment for non-smokers?
If they want it - let them pay for it!
Michelle
Bill, you constantly amaze me. Do you keep your father/parent of the year award on the fireplace mantel for all to see?
When you, Sciandra or anyone else walks in my shoes, then you can tell me that I was not a good "role model" for my children and maybe your children too. While I was raising 2 children, moving around the globe every 3 years, helping them adjust to new schools, neighborhoods and making new friends and never forgetting the old friends. While I was keeping their home clean and cooking 3 balanced meals a day and helping them with their homework at night. While I maintained an open door policy for their friends and always had room at the dinner table for any and all of them. While I listened to their pains and wants and listened to their friends and offered advice when they needed it. While I played President of the PTA, team mom for any sport in season, room mom in their elementary classroom and then drove them to dance class, sports practices, bowling or to the movies. While I set the itinerary for family vacations where we visited amusement parks, Disneyland and museums on the same vacation. While I did this, you were busy laying the groundwork to label me an unfit parent"? I seriously doubt that the people who gave me my trophies and awards for all I did at the schools and for the children would agree with you.
I am the parent who went to the kids music assemblies and sat through the entire performance while it was parents like you who got up and left once their child had done their songs. Maybe you know me. I am the one who put their leg up and wouldn't let you leave your seat and I am the one who told you to sit your ass down and listen to my child sing, seeing that I just listened to your child. I was the parent who would go to a sports assembly on a Tuesday night and watch my child receive his third letter for varsity sports. It was an honor when he was awarded his school jacket as his team had just taken "All State". Then on Thursday night, I was the parent back at school while I proudly sat and watched my children being inducted into the National Honor Society. I was especially proud of them when they each tested out of English, Math and all foreign languages during their freshmen year at college, as getting an education was just as important to me as the 3 letters in athletics or the songs sang at assembly. Each and every night they would see me smoke and I felt I deserved it. I had just put in a real good day with my children!
I am especially proud of them now. Seeing what they grew up to be. Intelligent adults, with a great education, great jobs, new cars, their own homes and children of their own now. I remember the chills I got when each one told me that they wanted to bring their kids up the same way they were raised. Yes, I still smoke and yes, my grandchildren have seen me and they will continue to see me.
In all your eyes, you may think I was not a great role model, but I wouldn't change any day or any way my role as a smoking mother was. I don't have to display my mother of the year award on the mantel. I keep them in a box in the closet. I get to see my awards everytime I see my children and grandchildren.
Great post Diane.
My apologies Fleawarhol......the way it was up there I couldn't tell, it looked like you were addressing James with your last paragraph. Just color me "dense" today....hehehehehehe
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Children of cigarette smokers are twice as likely (as children of nonsmokers) to become addicted to cigarettes."
You make that sound like a bad thing.
I'll bet your kids are more likely to be asswipes. Now that IS a bad thing.
Fleawarhol
"So let's just pretend that major portion of my argument which is not true actually is. Then we'd all have to agree I'm brilliant. Ha!"
It may be true. I haven't tested it out myself. LOL
Lynda F,
I don't know the time that would be required, but I've heated garages in the winter with both diesel and kerosene heaters which burn fuel at a rate of 1 gallon/hour. No catalytic converters on those things and the worst that's ever happened to me is carbon monoxide headaches after several hours.
Granted, the heater isn't run constantly, but a car at idle burns far less fuel than 1 gal/hr.
I really don't think 30 minutes will do it.
Diane, Great post! Great job too!!!
James.............geeeez you just had to kill my argument? *pouting here* Guess I really do need to get some self-righteous non-smoker to take me up on my bet. How about it Bill? Care to put your money where you mouth is and volunteer to sit in a closed garage with a car running for an hour and the Doc can sit in a closed garage with 100 smokers smoking for an hour? We'll see who walks out, or at least who walks out healthier?
Diane
A wonderful post.
Wow! I was wondering if Spin Control was just someone trying to pose as an extreme anti smoking advocate.
But then Bill puts his two cents in, and they are both on the same level. True, it may not be a moral condemnation, but it is insulting enough without the moral condemnation.
Plus, shaming parents for smoking behavior makes it less likely they will go outdoors to smoke--where they can be seen and dirty-macked to posterity by self-appointed arbitrers of social standard such as Nice Mr Godshall. It's contrary to something he wants--unless he really wants total prohibition, or just to shame smokers in general.
Pointing parents out as a bad role model is often a great excuse for people who do other things wrong to go on doing that. "Well, they don't smoke around their children." Blow smoking out of proportion, and everyone looks good compared to smokers.
Smoking status is not a gateway to being a good or bad role model. You might have a parent who smokes and encourages his child to study every day. Or you might have a parent who doesn't smoke and tells his kid, "Gosh, junior, you don't hate smoking enough. What's wrong with you?"
I've made the point before that 2 minutes of verbal abuse a day is a lot more damaging than 2 minutes of exposure to a lit cigarette. But we are more likely to damn the second. And I remember how name calling was discouraged when I was younger. But I guess it is more than okay if you do it to smokers, especially if you belong to a large nonprofit organization or agree with them. You aren't really insulting smokers anyway. Just everything they do or might do, and how they ought to be seen.
I say people like Bill Godshall and Russell Sciandra are terrible role models for anyone who wishes to do good, because their actions and words--words they have no problem laying claim to in public forums where they'll be noticed--imply that you need to be rather insulting to do the most good.
Thanks to all. It really did come from the heart. You can try to send me outside, but when it comes to my kids and my way of bringing them up and telling me that I was and am not a role model, well that is when it is fighting words from me. Though I do not personally know anyone of you, I can imagine and bet that you were all the greatest parents too. I would put our kids up against theirs any day, with good health or with just plain simple dignity.
I would put our kids up against theirs any day, with good health or with just plain simple dignity.
I would put our kids up against theirs any day also, with good health AND dignity. I'd also throw in a ton of good manners, tolerance and respect for others.
Also, I'd like to add, anybody who goes along with the statements espoused by Russell Sciandra and Bill Godshall better not leave beloved family members off the hook. It's easy and fun and it gets a quick laugh in intellectual circles to dump on Britney, but generalizing to the non famous is the next step. Level playing field you know!
Therefore, anyone accepting the above statement can no longer wring their hands about "my father I loved who smoked for 50 years and died of lung cancer" from people who influence policy or wish to restrict smoking further. That sentence is now nonsensical oldspeak, because he was a lousy role model.
Then because environmental tobacco smoke is so dangerous, we can move on to parents who expose their kids at all.
Diane, you're AWESOME!!!!!!!!!
Lynda,
I'm with you on the car vs smokers thing.
Millions of smokers (and nonsmokers) in rooms, exposed to tobacco smoke, has not only been tested millions of times, but is retested every single day of the week in 100s of thousands of bars across our nation. How many walk out alive? I've never heard of one who didn't.
Anyone ever die after starting up their car in a closed garage? Yes.
Diane - great post!
We are reading more and more everyday about how "bad" smoking parents are, especially moms. It makes me wonder - is there anyone in TC that had a smoking parent, and doesn't hate them?
Going outside to smoke behind the garage so your kids won't see you sets an extremely bad example.
What's it say when you hide what you do? It says you're doing something shameful. And when your kid sees that he'll lose respect for you. He'll see you as a sniveling coward and piss on your grave.
Should my parents have hidden their nightly drink before dinner? Or should they have acted as adults, as they did, and told us (if necessary) that there's certain things adults can do that children can't? That's being a role model.
How can you respect people who instead of acting like adults, reduce themselves to living under the rules that govern children?
How can you possibly be a role model when all you're showing them is a fellow child?
I would put our kids up against theirs any day also, with good health AND dignity. I'd also throw in a ton of good manners, tolerance and respect for others.
Bingo, Lynda F!!!!!!!
Basically what the anti-smoker cartel is claiming is that smokers are poor role models and bigots are good role models. God(almighty)shall is living proof of that.
I joke with my friends, many former or never smokers, about how my daughter has them all snowed. They think she is the greatest kid and that hubby and I are doing an awesome job raising her. She's really just your average 10 year old, who happens to be on the bright side, but she has her moments (every parent here knows exactly what I mean) however, she knows not to pull that stuff when anywhere but at home- and even then it is frowned upon.
No one, and I mean no one, and especially no addlebrained anti-smoker bigot is going to tell me or my husband we are poor role models for our child because we smoke. I would put money on it that none would DARE say such a thing to my face. And heaven help anyone of these cultists that would dare to show up at my door spouting this BS. They would get a VERY quick lesson on the Constitution as their 1st Amendment rights end at my property line when my 4th A rights kick in and I enforce that with my 2nd Amendment rights.
Diane's post was just beautiful, and this expresses why the views of Russ Sciandra, Bill G., and Cathy Bell are so unfortunate. While we in public health can and should certainly argue that smoking is an unhealthy activity, we should NOT view the smoker as a bad person or a poor role model. Smoking has nothing to do with character and integrity. Any more than eating Vienna Fingers (thanks Rose for the nice rationalization!) or not exercising.
On the other hand, I would argue that bigotry does have something to do with character and integrity.
I think Lynda F. is right. Before spouting off a quote like that in the paper or supporting such a quote, answer this question:
Are you willing to go up to Lynda and her son and tell them, to their faces, that she was a poor role model for her son?
I think it's quite evident that the opposite is true. Many children with nonsmoking parents could only dream about having a parent as loving and nurturing (and as good a role model) as Lynda.
What Russ' quote is telling Lynda is precisely this: she was not a good role model for her son.
And I think that's quite unfortunate (as well as untrue).
Based on Lynda's comment, I feel ever more strongly in my condemnation of the attitude being expressed by Russ in this news article.
Mike wrote:
"Diane's post was just beautiful, and this expresses why the views of Russ Sciandra, Bill G., and Cathy Bell are so unfortunate."
Its telling that Mike strongly defends parental smoking and exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution, while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke.
Bill, you are spinning...
Its telling that Mike strongly defends parental smoking and exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution, while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke.
Yes, Bill, it is telling(nice weasel words.) But dropping all the inflammatory adjectives and euphemistic word-bending on your part, what does it tell?
I see that a tobacco control advocate who believes strongly in his general movement's cause has come out strongly against this sort of intrusive badgering and insulting behavior people use to advance similar causes.
What's also telling is that, in the comment section of the article, people mention the lack of privacy for Mrs Spears. This does not seem to be an issue with the more vociferous tobacco control types. Perhaps if Bill wishes to generalize from Mrs Spears, he feels all smokers--or non--deserve that same lack of privacy? Or is tobacco control really more important than silly old fundamental privacy? Bill, would you like that same lack of privacy for someone to rate how you might raise a child? I wouldn't.
And yes, she IS smoking outdoors, like Bill wants smoking parents to do. Perhaps Bill thinks she should smoke further away from her kid so he might run and get lost. But hey, no tobacco smoke exposure!
Reading MrGodshall's remarks always serves as a reminder,that however much TC pushes, that for my own sanity and the common good, I must never give up smoking.
Bill,
You and your ilk to not encourage. You lie, extort, coerce, blacken reputations, incite hatred... need I go on, little man?
Bill, Mike doesn't have to defend parental smoking. Each one of us here is quite capable of doing that ourselves. We have our rewards and we earned them. Our children knows respect and how to show it. I am sorry that your parents failed to do the same for you.
They would get a VERY quick lesson on the Constitution as their 1st Amendment rights end at my property line when my 4th A rights kick in and I enforce that with my 2nd Amendment rights.
Gabz, you are a woman after my own heart!!!!
Don't take this wrong OR get any ideas... hehehehehe I love you!!! 
"How can you possibly be a role model when all you're showing them is a fellow child?"
Well said, James Austin.
And thanks to Diane for her nice post.
Diane....a heartfelt and beautiful statement about the love you have for your children, the time you devoted to making them great human beings, and the inconsequential fact that you were a smoker or a non-smoker as you did this. I do not live in a community where the hatred for smokers has become a fact of life....THank God. The anti-smokers would like for you to believe that such places are the norm, but in reality, I believe that is only so in places like CA and NY. Here, in the heartland, people are just people whether they are smokers or not. We judge parenting skills by the kids the parents produce, not by what the parents do in their private lives. Last year, my son was "graduating" from 8th grade. He is a straight A student, a class officer, an athlete, and a son any mom would be proud to call her son. I had a two day meeting three hours away and had stayed the night. The morning of graduation, I got up at 3:30 AM and made the drive back home to be on time for the ceremony. My son thought I was crazy for doing that, but he smiled at me as I took my seat. That was all I needed. As soon as the ceremony was over, I hugged him, got back in the car and made the three hour return trip to my meeting. I smoked along the way.
Bill Godshall wrote: “It’s telling that Mike strongly defends parental smoking and exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution, while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke”.
What bloody article are you reading?
Bill wrote: "Mike strongly defends parental smoking and exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution, while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke."
Matt is right. What article is Bill reading? Nowhere here do I defend parental smoking, defend exposing children to secondhand smoke, or criticize any health advocate for encouraging parents to quit smoking or not smoke around their children.
What's telling is how narrow a view of the world Bill has. If you make an argument that runs counter to his way of thinking, you are automatically a defender of smoking, disease, and death.
I should call Philip Morris up today. They've apparently been delinquent in sending me my check.
When I get it, I promise I'll share it with my readers.
But Dr. Siegel, you said, "Had the reporter talked to me, I would have stated that what Britney Spears, or any other parent, does in terms of raising their children is their own business (as long as it does not involve abuse or neglect)"
Bill Godshall, taking his cue from the anti-smoker cartel, has said before that parents who smoke in front of their children are child abusers. By extension, your position about how parents raise their children promotes child abuse because how parents raise their children is Bill Godshalls business.
Tedd mentioned it a few threads ago that advocacy groups aren't about science, they are about winning and that it is OK for them to exagerate to make their point. We see now with Bill Godhsall's, and Spin Controls, posts that they either don't know that they are parroting an anti-smoker cartel exageration or that they do know and just don't care.
Whether they can't tell when they are exagerating or not, I just want to encourage them to keep doing it. As we can see in the comments section of the Boston Herald article today they are losing credibility at an increasing rate.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Michael Siegel wrote:
"I should call Philip Morris up today. They've apparently been delinquent in sending me my check."
I'd try RJR if I were you. PM's probably a little miffed at you because of your stance on the FDA thing.
"When I get it, I promise I'll share it with my readers."
Can you work out some sort of equation for splitting it up? I don't want to appear as greedy, but I think length of time here, number of posts, quality of posts, minus smokeless tobacco ads, should determine how it's split.
P.S. I'll be writing RJR on your behalf...now that I have a stake in it too.
James, can I co-sign, please? I wouldn't want to be left behind...
Was that for me? My name is Spin Control. I hold you to a higher standard than your readers, so if you get to call me Cathy, I get to call you BTS. Fair enough?
If you were addicted to Vienna Fingers and needed 10 to 20 of them each day to function, I'd say it probably qualifies as bad role modeling if you eat them in front of your kids. Does your fondness for Vienna Fingers really compare with the health effects of smoking, DOCTOR? If you accept that smoking is a bad idea and you accept that children of smoking parents are much more likely to start smoking themselves, I don't see how that could not be bad role modeling.
My comment that I'm a smoker-bigot and proudly so was unfortunate, but I would just note that it came right after a hateful name-calling comment from another reader - par for the course for this blog. But I stand by the rest of what I said: smoking has no redeeming qualities, and Spears is a lousy role model to her kids and to other parents if she smokes around them.
But here's the thing. Most smokers became addicted as teenagers, before they really knew what they were getting into, and now they can't get out. So no, smokers are not unworthy of respect just for being smokers. But when some parents choose to smoke around their kids, that's not a behavior that merits tolerance or respect.
Take it for whatever you want, but I don't think this attitude is uncommon in tobacco control or among the public. It's not the smoker we object to - we want clean air, and we want kids to grow up without any kind of social pressure on them to smoke.
But I know I just wasted my time because nothing is going to stop Michael Siegel from promoting his doctrine of hate, from telling his readers over and over again that tobacco control groups hate them. And nothing will stop his blog's readers from accepting it, especially since it already corresponds to their system of beliefs. Hate breeds hate, and that's exactly what they want. They want you to get mad, fighting mad.
Spin Control
You might find this interesting.
"The AIDS epidemic has borne witness to the terrible burdens imposed by stigmatization and to the way in which marginalization could subvert the goals of HIV prevention. Out of that experience, and propelled by the linkage of public health and human rights, came the commonplace assertion that stigmatization was a retrograde force.
Yet, strikingly, the antitobacco movement has fostered a social transformation that involves the stigmatization of smokers. Does this transformation represent a troubling outcome of efforts to limit tobacco use and its associated morbidity and mortality; an ineffective, counterproductive, and moralizing approach that leads to a dead end; or a signal of public health achievement? If the latter is the case, are there unacknowledged costs?"
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/...nt/full/96/1/
47
Ok,...
The emphasis of my parenting as a father to my son was the clear cut difference between right and wrong, truth and lie, good and bad.
Interconnecting all of these things was every shade of grey.
There is no ALL Good, ALL Bad, ALL Truth, ALL Lies, ALL Right or ALL worng. At least not if you intend to function in society as something approaching "normal"
I have never set out to be a role model but I know that children, like so many adults, will attempt to emulate the qualities of others that they admire, ..good AND bad.
My son is,.....normal.
Purely a matter of perspective you understand. Oh, ..and he's reached the age 28 after being exposed to probably thousands of hours of SHS.
A miracle? Should I alert the press?
I really have nothing else to add, as it's all been said above, and quite well, .....except.
Godshall is still banned from the restaurant.
Ms. Spears can stop by anytime.
How about this?
"Hammond et al state that “social denormalization strategies seek ‘to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the
charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice.”
"Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation “from a whole and usual person to a
tainted, discounted one”, writing that “Stigma is a process by which the reaction of
others spoils normal identity”.
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
spoilt.pdf
Denormalization is such a useful keyword for doing searches.
Britney Spears has been in the public gaze since she was eleven and so it is hardly surprising that she has moved from one crisis to another.
I hope that this constant trial by media will one day subside for her so that she can be free to be a normal mother and not a commodity to be traded by vultures.
And here's another, from a time before anyone thought of hating smokers in England.
Don't Hate the Smoker
"When the smoking ban comes into force in England in July smokers will be exiled to the outdoors. Ash campaigned for the new law because we now know that second-hand smoke is a killer and it is only right that smokers should not harm those around them."
"But we don't want to see smokers marginalised, because there's a danger that they'll begin to see their habit as a badge of honour, a sign of individuality, something to be proud of."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen.../jan/08/
post877
Nice bit of autosuggestion
It seems to me that anti-smoker activists are a far worse role model for children than a smoker.
With a parent like Lynda, you may learn to find "ok" an unhealthy habit.
With a parent like Mr. Godshall or Spin Control, you may learn to find "ok" things like blind fanaticism, hatred and intolerance.
http://spincontrol.nl/spincontrol/
Spin and Godshall are clearly in the throes of fanaticism about smoking, and their antitobacco zeal trumps EVERYTHING else. Name calling, accusing people of child abuse, hurling the word "addict" like a curse, and so on. When the world doesn't fit with their view, they get really really ugly - they are addicted to the crusade, and it clearly burns their asses to see Dr, Siegel actually converse with smokers. And as for the assertion that smoking has no positive attributes or benefits, well, a lot of us who smoke could argue that it does have benefits, emotionally, physically, and socially.
Given an ultimatum I would RATHER teach my childen how to smoke, then how to be a BIGOT.
I use this on another forum all the time when told that all smokers are scum (or whatever the epitaph of the day happens to be): ALL ANTIS are BIGOTS. BIGOTS have killed MILLIONS of innocent people, including children.
Someone asked earlier, about carbon monoxide.
The Density of air is roughly 34 grams per cubic foot at STP.(1
A typical garage measuring 10'x20'x8' would be approximately 1600 cubic feet with a mass of air being 54,400 Grams.
A Lethal Dose for 50% of the population within 30 minutes is 3200 parts per million. Or a concentration of 0.32%(2).
This means that 175grams of Carbon Monoxide are required to reach the 0.32% concentration for the given garage.
The EPA Carbon Monoxide emission standard for a newer car is 15.5 grams per hour per brake horsepower.(3). A 100 horsepower engine would produce 1550grams per hour of carbon monoxide and still meet emission standards, or roughly 25.8 grams per minute or roughly 6.7 minutes to reach the 30 minute lethal range.
By contrast, a cigarette in that same time would produce typically between 10mg and 20mg of total mainstream and sidestream carbon monoxide.(seehttp://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/73/9/
1050.pdf).
Assuming the worst case, would require 8750 simultaneous burning cigarettes to match the carbon monoxide levels produce by a 100 hp engine that meets EPA emission standards in that same 7 minutes.
This is all interesting considering Carbon Monoxide is frequently indicted as the factor causing oxidative stress contributing to heart disease, and the majority of SHS related morbidity and mortality.
We are fighting mad, spin control because you have not spun the truth, you have reinvented it. At this point, we don't care what you think, but we will defy it till the end of time.
Cathy,
I think there's a big difference between saying that a particular behavior is bad role modeling and that a person is a bad role model. That's the distinction I'm drawing here which Russ Sciandra and Bill seem to miss. The former is a comment on the merits of a behavior, while the latter is a judgment of the worth of the person.
So while you say that it's not the smoker you object to, if you're calling the person a bad role model for their kids simply because they smoke, then you are indeed objecting to the person. If it was just the behavior, then you would have no way of calling that person either a good or bad role model because you know nothing about the character, integrity, or values of that individual.
As far as calling me BTS, that's fair game, but only if you can prove it. Otherwise, I'm afraid you have no business maligning me like that.
I would also add that to say that smoking has no redeeming qualities is inappropriately judgmental. If smoking has no redeeming qualities, I don't see how watching violent movies, sitting around watching TV all day like a couch potato, or eating loads of lard have any redeeming qualities either. It seems pretty judgmental to argue that the former has no redeeming qualities and all the latter poor health behaviors do. I don't buy it that one health behavior is of no value to the individual but other poor health behaviors are of value.
It is precisely this judgmental attitude that I am objecting to.
If you are talking about health value, then that's a different story. But in terms of overall value to the individual, who are YOU to determine the value of any particular behavior for any particular individual?
Does everyone need to come to Cathy Bell to determine whether their particular vice is of sufficient value or not?
I believe trying to steal and control the free will of others is a far more significant vice that should be treated, and discouraged in our society.
Smoker controllers, fit into this aborent behavior when they crossed over from helping someone quit, and into using forced coercion.
thanks for the wonderful post, diane. and thanks for the insightful link to the AJPH, rose.
you guys rock.
brandz
Walt H.,
Is that CO emission for the 100 hp car at idle or when the engine is outputting 100hp, or cruising down the highway?
If your calculations are correct I'd say I've died several times already from my heater. I've preheated the garage for a solid hour before going in before. The garage is a lot bigger than your example though. I'll see if I can find what its CO output is.
But I still think that if a new car is used for suicide, the death would come from CO2, not CO.
benpal,
If Dr. Siegel uses my suggestion on how to divvy up the money I'm sure you're in for a wad too.
I'm going to buy cigarettes with my money. LOL
Spears is a lousy role model to her kids and to other parents if she smokes around them.
Your half right. Britney Spears IS a lousy role model for her kids, your kids, my kids, and every other person out there. Her being a lousy role model has nothing to do with her smoking...her smoking is the least of her issues.
I'm going to buy cigarettes with my money. LOL - James Austin
That was priceless James
I enjoy a round of Golf on Sunday mornings. If I had a dime for all the people who told me it was a waste of time. The rewards to me are obvious so as with smoking, when they tell me I get nothing out of it, I simply don't agree because I know better.
Many of the TC crowd believe if they simply start living a new reality it will become the norm.
Guess what? we are all still smoking and smiling, at you and not with you.
Walt H.,
I just reread your post. I guess I should have done that before posting before.
I could be wrong, but I think you're treating the idling car as if it were putting out 100hp at idle.
I just looked up my car on some EPA webpage. My car is by no means a "green" car; it puts out 3x the smog pollution that Bill's Prius puts out.
It said my car emits 4.2 grams of CO per mile. It doesn't say at what speed, but many cars need only 12-15hp to go 55mph. If we go with that speed, my car emits only 231 grams of CO/hour, and it's doing more work at 55mph than at idle.
Anyway, I don't think a car at idle is producing the amount of CO you think it is.
Speaking of poor role models;
Who the hell would like to grow up to be like this guy?
http://ebar.com//images/
articles...king_30_lrg.jpg
Its telling that Mike strongly defends parental smoking and exposing children to tobacco smoke pollution, while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke.
Bill Godshall | 07.24.08 - 3:30 pm | #
Actually what is telling here is that you are not only a bigot, but something worse.
James,
Typically concentrations should be at 1.2% at idle, with the EPA standards. To use the concentration standard of the exhaust at 1% you need to calculate the air intake. For example a Wide open throttle is around 650 CFM and corresponds to 6000RPM Idle corresponds to approximately 1/10th of that (600 rpm) or 65CFM. At 1% that would be .65CFM of Carbon Monoxide at 35.5grams per CF or 23grams per minute Now this example is a L98 5.7 liter Chevy small block, even with catalytic converters, a car produces a very large amount of carbon monoxide. Even higher during the first 5 minutes.
As for carbon dioxide, the LD50 concentration is 100,000ppm or 10% carbon dioxide. where as 1% carbon monoxide is almost immediately fatal.
I really don't think that idling a car in an enclosed room is a good idea. Check out the link where I referenced the the LD50 concentration for carbon monoxide as it talks about the improvements made with CC's but there are still huge amounts of CO being emmitted.
In the past, motor car exhaust may have contained up to 25% carbon monoxide. Newer cars have catalytic converters, which can eliminate over 99% of carbon monoxide produced.[12] However, even cars with catalytic converters can produce substantial carbon monoxide if an idling car is left in an enclosed space
Bill G wrote
“while criticizing health advocates who encourage parents to quit smoking and those who encourage parents to not expose their children to tobacco smoke.”
I wasn’t aware that I gave you or any other heath advocate permission to encourage or discourage anything involving my family. In fact granting such an intrusion these days would most defiantly constituted piss poor parenting, and might possibly be criminal. With the exception of very few, I simply don’t believe that anyone of you are qualified beyond your shady propaganda.
Spin Control -
how do you know that "smoking has no redeeming qualities"
Have you ever been the victim of a concerted "denormalisation" campaign?
Walt H.,
I think this was written by the same people who write the SHS stuff:
"In the past...exhaust may have contained up to 25% carbon monoxide. Newer cars...can eliminate over 99%...However, even cars with catalytic converters can produce substantial carbon monoxide if an idling car is left in an enclosed space."
Pretty dire warning over something that's been reduced 99%.
Unless I'm missing the obvious, that's 1/100 of the CO of old. So instead of having 6.7 minutes to live that you calculated for today's cars, cars of old day would've killed in 4 seconds???
Also, I'm not sure airflow is as linear as you think:
"For example a Wide open throttle is around 650 CFM and corresponds to 6000RPM Idle corresponds to approximately 1/10th of that (600 rpm) or 65CFM."
At 600rpm at idle the engine is doing no work except keeping the crankshaft, belts, etc, spinning. But at WOT at 6k rpm I'm assuming the engine is not only doing that, but also turning the driveshaft and pushing thousands of pounds of car through air at some speed.
A car in 1st gear is going to do less work than when the car is in 6th gear at the same rpm. So as I was saying I don't think you can figure how much air the engine is pumping out without determining what loads are on the engine.
Oh, btw, I found the owner's manual for a heater only 5,000 BTU bigger than mine. (Mine's 150,000)
It didn't say the CO output, but going by what it had to say, I'm supposed to have a 4.5 sq. ft. hole to properly ventilate my garage.
Re: car exhausts.
Results An association was found between exposure to traffic and the onset of a myocardial infarction within one hour afterward - http://content.nejm.org/cgi/cont...ort/351/17/
1721
Air pollution is responsible for 310,000 premature deaths in Europe each year, research suggests. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/healt...lth/
4283295.stm
And that's in addition to the more immediate danger of CO poisoning.
The German professional association BGN has measured CO and other SHS substances in 57 hospitality venues
http://
praevention.portal.bgn.de...n_Betrieben.pdf
The results are shown on page 2 (microgram/M3):
median: 600, average: 2400, maximum: 19'800. The PEL for CO at work places (8 hour shift) is 35'000.
In one case, they found that the high CO value came from a leaking ventilation hood in the kitchen!
As can be seen on page 3, there is only a week correlation between the concentrations of nicotine and CO, indicating that there must be other CO sources in restaurants.
Today's madness
Council punishes decorator with on-the-spot fine for smoking in his van.
"A self-employed painter and decorator has been given a £30 on-the-spot fine for smoking in his own van because it is classified as a workplace."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle4393248.ece
The comments say it all.
Spin,
If Doc "had" to eat 10-20 Vienna Fingers every day, that's none of my (or your) business.... I am curious about those things and I'll see tomorrow if we have them in Illinois. 
I could probably deal with life without Brie, but why? *waves hand dismissively* Love that stuff!
And (I might add), smoking probably keeps me from choking the crap out of busybodies who need it So, that's a positive benefit for you, Spin!
WLC
If Vienna Fingers are similar to Viennese Whirls in England,they are indeed delicious.I haven't eaten one for years, and oddly I've been wanting to eat one all day.
"Viral marketing and viral advertising refer to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Vir...Viral_marketing
Surely he's not a shill for Big Biscuit!
:D
Surely he's not a shill for Big Biscuit!
Rose | 07.25.08 - 8:53 am | #
****************
ROTFLMAO
"Must buy Vienna Fingers,Must buy Vienna Fingers...."
Gilster
I have within the last 5 minutes caught my husband just setting off for the shops, and asked him to buy me a packet of Viennese Whirls!
Doctor-
Mr Kipling Viennese Whirls 6 Pack
http://
www.britishsupermarketwor...info_31003.html
Maybe Doc should get a check from Keebler's too
Vienna Fingers are cookies that can best be described as elongated vanilla oreos.
http://www2.kelloggs.com/Brand/b....aspx?
brand=225
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Vienna Fingers don't have trans fat anymore ;(
Since manufacturers reformulated their recipes to the 'fat police' regulations many foods don't taste that great anymore.
OMG: Trans Fat = Menthol
Since manufacturers reformulated their recipes to the 'fat police' regulations many foods don't taste that great anymore.
You're abolutely correct, Gilster. And the irony of that is who was among the frist to cave in to the fat police... None other than Kraft, aka Philip Morris...........
This is once again off topic but I wanted to share a conversation that I ended up being a part of, though did not seek out. I just ran down to the corner gas station/food mart for a couple packs of cigarettes. Another man was going in at the same time and stood behind me. I told the kid working the register what I wanted, he handed them to me and though he rang the purchase up, he told me the wrong total. It was in my favor and when I questioned it, the man behind me laughed and told me I was getting a good deal, to which I replied, "I think I will shop here more often". At that time, another cashier comes behind the counter and asks the man behind me if he could help him. He ordered a pack of Marlboro's. The cashier hands them to him and then says, "This is a hypothetical question and I would never do it, but if you had come in here and ordered these cigarettes and I threw them at you, would you quit smoking"? The man was still laughing at my cashiers mistake and misunderstood the question and says, "Yeah, what did you say"? The cashier repeats the question and asked once again if he would quit smoking if he threw them at him. The man became very serious now and said, "No, but I would pull out my 38." He looked at me and asked if I wouldn't do the same thing. I told him "No, but some quitting would be done and it would the cashier who just quit his job for his actions because the first thing I would do was make sure he was fired."
I have been replaying this conversation in my mind and I think I can now safely ask, "Who do you think will be first to let out the shot that will be heard around the world? I am afraid that it is going to come to this and I also want to know if this is what your movement had in mind from the beginning? You had to know that people will only be pushed so far.
Dr. Siegel, I don't know if you are a religious man. But I would submit to you that smoking is in fact an amoral behavior.
The Bible is very clear that God considers the human body a temple.
Corinthians 6:19-20 - Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
It is impossible to glorify God while regularly and excessively consuming poisons in the form of tobacco smoke, trans fat, or alcohol.
And no, I am not throwing my religion on to other people, but you've raised the debate about morality. From a Christian perspective smoking is against the word of God and is amoral.
Second, on a more practical level you ask: "Are parents who eat hamburgers bad role models for their children? What about parents who are fat? Those who often forget to take their medication? Those who aren't screened regularly for cancer? How about those who do not get enough physical activity? Those who watch movies that have violence in them?"
If they eat hamburgers everyday and they don't make an effort to model balance in the diet, then how could that possibly be considered a good role model? If they don't take care of their health then how can that be considered a good role model?
So yes, if they don't take care of their health that is poor modeling. Are you so bent on defending smokers that you can't call a spade a spade and say, that yes, modeling smoking behavior for your kids is not a good thing?
I understand your point about tolerance. But in your effort to defend smoking, you've backed yourself into a corner that simply can't be justified.
"indicating that there must be other CO sources in restaurants."
From the cars in their parking lots and nearby streets I'd guess. Ventilation sucking it in.
benpal,
That must be the 50th German publication you've posted here. Are you German or do you just know the language?
Getting back to amount of fuel burned while idling in garage trying to kill yourself I found a few numbers from here and there. Nothing real official, but here they are anyway.
Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 4.7 liter engine 0.38 gallons per hour at idle
Land Rover LR3 4.4 liter engine. 0.5 gallons
small engine 0.375
large engine .75
school bus 1
1998 4 cyl. .29
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Florida Section members self test .33. With air conditioning on: .5. (The average I guess)
large sleeper tractors 0.8 ("or more depending on idle speed and accessory loads").
Tedd you really need to visit PZ Myers' site found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/
pharyngu...ration.php#more
Tedd,
As a Christian myself, I find it disturbing that people tend to worship the TEMPLE, rather than God. I'm not suggesting you are, just making an observation.
But, admittedly,I'm a Christian Anarchist and have nothing to do with organized religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Chr...stian_anarchism
Tedd, Did you know that when God created heaven and earth, he also created the tobacco plant? The Bible also states that there is only one God and no other God should go before me. Therefore, you and Bill Godshall needs to move to the back of the line.
Tedd -
The Bible is very clear that God considers the human body a temple.
Tedd ,
I agree, and as a show of respect I always remove my shoes before entering a temple.
GreatScot
and don't get me started on that burning bush, friction is a bitch you know.
GreatScot
BTW Tedd My God is non-judgmental, how about yours?
Its OK Tedd, smoking has been banned in churches for centuries, it interferes with the incense smoke.
Just to make sure, our government has insisted that churches must be plastered with no smoking stickers or else they get prosecuted.
Heres a picture of a Vicar blessing a no smoking sign, nailed to the church's front door.
Holy smoke: Tongue-in-cheek blessing for ‘unsightly’ sign
"Canon Garlick says the blessing with incense and holy water was made to mock the law and because all new items in churches must be blessed.
He said: "There was an irony in doing the blessing with smoke on a No Smoking sign but we think the ban allows incense".
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/
new...ightly_sign.php
( Bit presumptious isn't it, speaking for God? )
We-ell, if we are quoting the bible now....
Tedd the Moralist needs to be less selective.
See Genesis 22.
(I am paraphrasing here)
"...and God gave us the beasts on the ground (that's the vegetarians buggered), the birds of the sky (the chicken DID come before the egg), and all the plants to ingest (please note that the tobacco plant was NOT excluded here)....".
Case closed. The Big Fella wants us to smoke.
Can I get a Hallelujah?
Oh and by the way, if wine was good enough for Jesus at the last supper, it's certainly good enough for me.
BTW Tedd,
I noticed in your list of desirable attributes for parents, you forgot to mention Love.
Here's a reminder.
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." http://nasb.scripturetext.com/1_...inthians/
13.htm
James Austin, I'm Swiss and a member of Forces Germany. We have some serious and reputable scientists and lawyers who openly speak out against the lies of TC and in particular the lies of the German branch of the WHO Collaboration Center (of which Stanton Glantz is a member, too).
Unfortunately their publications are in German or French, so I have to summarize when posting here.
Taking up your Diesel engine analogy, Prof. Grieshaber is the one who has debunked the Milan study comparing an idling Diesel to 3 cigarettes smoldering in an ashtray in the same garage by repeating the experiment under the auspices of a university. Grieshaber's verdict for the Milan study: fabricated junk and lies.
Tedd, did you not read in your bible about "judge not, lest ye be judged"?
How about "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"?
Or "you should be careful to remove the plank from your eye before removing the splinter from your neighbor's eye" (or something to that effect)?
My God gave me free will to use, She wouldn't then restrict its use. Apparently your God is rather contradictory.
Dr. Siegel, I don't know if you are a religious man. But I would submit to you that smoking is in fact an amoral behavior.
Tedd | 07.25.08 - 12:12 pm | #
So Tedd ran out of arguments and pulls the bible out from under his skirt like Carrie Nation.
Where's your Hatchet?
Tedd asked the question, "Dr. Siegel, I don't know if you are a religious man. But I would submit to you that smoking is in fact an amoral behavior."
Tedd you are absolutely right.
Can everybody hear that swooshing sound? That's 60 years of junk science going right down the toilet.
I think it was John the Baptist who quoted Isaiah, "I am a voice in the wilderness, clear the air for the lord." Or something like that.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Mike wrote:
"Nowhere here do I defend parental smoking, defend exposing children to secondhand smoke, or criticize any health advocate for encouraging parents to quit smoking or not smoke around their children."
Mike has posted at least a dozen notes on this blog criticizing reasonable and responsible measures (and supporters of those measures) that protect children from tobacco smoke pollution in homes and cars.
And Mike's most recent posting criticizes Russ Sciandra from pointing out the obvious (which a majority of smokers probably agree with); that parents who smoke are poor role models for their children (because doing so encourages and teaches children to smoke).
Bill, be a good parent to your children...Go out and play.
Bill, move on would you please? Can't you see that thanks to Tedd, we all have? On the other hand, should you want to stay on topic, let me tell you that I am considering a law suit of possibly slander. I should have a good case considering that you can not prove that I was not a great role model. Plus what is this statement, "which a majority of smokers probably would agree with"? Does anyone out there agree with Bill? Probably agree with? That is right up there with smoking and secondhand smoke should, would, could and maybe will cause cancer.
I doubt that a "majority of smokers" would think that Bill knows how to look after their children better than they do.
I have been meaning to ask, what is this obsession with other peoples children?
I find it rather disturbing.
If smoking is immoral because our body is a temple, then I'm quite a sinner, putting all those Vienna Fingers and tater tots in my body. And all the trans-fats that I consume in my diet. It's practically the third destruction of the Temple!
And I'm a terrible role model for my children. I'll have to let them know tonight so they can go out and find a better dad.
Fortunately, they love Vienna Fingers so I think they'd rather sit around being lazy and watching TV with a sinning, poor role model who gives them Vienna Fingers than a righteous and virtuous father who always models healthy behavior.
I think I can now safely ask, "Who do you think will be first to let out the shot that will be heard around the world? I am afraid that it is going to come to this - diane
Yes, it's going to come to this. And it's going to come to this because all our institutions and safeguards have failed us.
Science has failed us, by serving up epidemiological pseudo-science. Medicine has failed us, by blaming us for our own diseases. The law has failed us, by never standing up for our rights. Politics has failed us, as politicians enact laws against us. The media have failed us, as they ignore what happens to us. You name them, they failed us. Any one of them, any single one of them, could have stopped it. Any one of them could called a halt to it. But they never did.
What use are any of them any more? All that's left now is open war. All that's left is the gun. And that shot is coming.
Bill and Tedd don't seem to understand the difference between defending smoking and defending the smoker. They continually go beyond merely attacking smoking and they attribute moral value to the decision to smoke, as well as lack of character and integrity to the individual who makes that decision. I'm arguing that smoking is not an indication of lack of morals, poor character, or lower integrity. Smoking obviously doesn't set a good example for children, but by smoking, the parent does not become a poor role model. That may be a difficult concept for anti-smoking advocates to understand, but it is critical to our remaining public health practitioners, and not bigots.
Y'all got it wrong, Tedd is actually correct. Smoking is amoral as it is neither moral or immoral. It's just what it is, smoking, which remains a legal thing.
Godshall, well he is always wrong, but we all know that and one of these days he will figure out that little factoid.
Dr. Siegel missed one when he said, "Bill and Tedd don't seem to understand the difference between defending smoking and defending the smoker. They continually go beyond merely attacking smoking and they attribute moral value to the decision to smoke, as well as lack of character and integrity to the individual who makes that decision."
How about the subject of this threads article, "Russell Sciandra, a leading lobbyist with the New York State chapter of the American Cancer Society, is quoted in the Boston Herald Wednesday as calling smokers poor role models for their children..."
I haven't heard a peep from the American Cancer Society either so I'll throw them under the same bus.
This is just the alcohol prohibition of the early part of the 20th century redux. A moral campaign, this time against tobacco, that for the last 60 years has purchased the moral authority of science and medicine and twisted it to win the arguments that they couldn't win in the arena of public opinion on moral grounds alone.
With their unprecedented string of recent victories, (there has been no opponent since Big Tobacco left), they have just become cocky and sloppy and they are just showing their true colors.
When the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, banning alcohol, was passed in 1919 Billy Sunday was heard to say that "tobacco was next!"
http://www.billysunday.org/sermo...mons/
booze.php3
Would someone please tell me how Bill and Tedd and Russell don't sound a lot like Billy Sunday. Read the link above and just substitute tobacco for alcohol. Even Glantz, Repace and Banzhof sound like Billy Sunday.
We seem to have reached a point where the pretense of science and medicine is no longer needed. At least that's what the posts to this thread indicate.
PS I have reread the Billy Sunday link again and it's scary how close it is to where we are today with tobacco.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Tedd failed to mention that the Corinthians popular quote actually was about sexuality and morality. Nowhere does it mention smoking. However it does mention the UNJUST (BIGOTS):
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Gabz,
From the context of Tedd's comment, it certainly appears that he meant "immoral."
Tedd
You use a reference to I Corinthians Chapter 6 verses 19 and 20 in your argument against the use of tobacco. If you will begin at verse 12 and read to verse 19, I believe you will find that the Apostle Paul was talking about sexual immorality and not about eating, drinking or the use of tobacco. In verse 12, Paul begins by telling the Christians at Corinth that everthing is permissible for him, but not everything is beneficial. You alone decide what is beneficial for yourself. We have no right interfering in the free will of others as to what they may or may not do with their own bodies. I have no claim on your body the same as you have no claim on mine. You have no right to impose your morals on anyone as I have no right to impose my morals on another person.
I am using Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary for the following definitions.
Amoral---(a) being neither moral or immoral: lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply.
This is the word you used and I quote: "smoking is in fact an amoral behavior". If that is what you indeed meant to actually say, I fully agree, as smoking or the use of tobacco is not a moral issue.
Immoral---(a) not moral. conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles.
If this is the word that you meant to use, then I must ask you, whose generally held or traditional moral principles are smokers in conflict with? Whose morals and traditions are they violating?
We get ourselves in trouble when we quote Biblical scripture out of context, particularly in relation to subject matter and timeframe, and use incorrect definitions. I have done the same and so I speak from experience.
With respect,
Rev. Lee
Morality is what you make of it, and most of the Health gulag are soooo confused they don't know what they support anymore, so the just mimic the news releases, hoping to sound profound and wise, while obviously only acting as naive parrots;
And now for something completely different, insanity and hypocrisy by Royal ascent.
http://
ago.mobile.globeandmail.c...wcowente24.html
You just have to laugh at them all sometimes.
-----------------------------------
"Okay, so the government could regulate it. And how would that work? Would we have CCBOs or B.C. Cannabis Stores? Would they hand out a glossy magazine with alluring product shots? Would unionized clerks dispense advice on the best bong for your buck? Or maybe they'd run it like the lottery, and hire really good ad agencies to produce compulsive gamblers.
"What you might call the political economy of drug legalization is a bigger problem than the legalizers seem to grasp," Mr. Kleiman has said. "Either we will have a private industry whose profits depend on creating and maintaining addicts, or we will have a public bureaucracy whose revenues depend on creating and maintaining addicts." We could always lock it up behind the counter and plaster it with warning signs. But there's still the problem of supply. Who gets to grow it? How much THC content should it have? What should the profit margins be? If we tax the hell out of it, why won't illegal dealers sell it cheaper down the street?
Legalizers contend that marijuana laws do far more harm than marijuana does. They love to conjure up an image of prisons stuffed with innocent kids who were caught with a J or two. But that's a myth. Simple possession has been decriminalized in practice, if not in law. Under the Young Offenders Act, no kid gets a record for a drug offence. And cops don't bother to lay possession charges against adults, unless they also catch them doing something else.
Yet legalizers love ranting about the prison-industrial complex and George Bush's failed War on Drugs, as if that's our only alternative to the corner pot store. Many also argue that all drug laws should be repealed, as if cocaine were no worse than weed. Mark Kleiman has a middle view. He thinks people should probably be allowed to have and grow small amounts of pot for their own use, and that the cops should direct their efforts toward the most violent criminal dealing groups."
Michael;
"Bill and Tedd don't seem to understand the difference between defending smoking and defending the smoker. They continually go beyond merely attacking smoking and they attribute moral value to the decision to smoke, as well as lack of character and integrity to the individual who makes that decision."
You fail to realize the majority of smokers were already smoking before the denormalization strategy went into force [or did you?].
Can you credibly change the moral rule book, and condemn those formerly "normal" people caught in the process?
TC has never been respectful of current smokers. They continually rail against new youth smoking and dictate their protective punishments, against those they want to change.
People are convincing each other; changing the rules, is the way to win the game. Even the Kids know that is just cheating and poor sportsmanship both indicative of moral ignorance.
Who is really on the moral high ground and who are the louts, has never been in question, in spite of what TC advocates like to say about themselves, it has always been about attacking the innocent bystander's character while trying to inflate their own.
In Memory of a guy who didn't fear death enough to allow it to rule or destroy the quality of his life.
The moralists in public health could learn a lot from this guy.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/edu...usch-
obit_N.htm
Legitimate inspiration comes so seldom of late, Well done Randy, Well done.
Bill, in my household you would be deemed a bad role model. And not for what you do but for your very character. For the sake of this argument, my hand beats your hand.
Now, in order to equal the sides (which is what I know your impulse is to do), tell us that you think people who TAKE UP smoking have an inherently bad character.
In that case, we'd have a stand-off in terms of what constitutes "bad role model." Who wins Mr. What I Think is the Only RIGHT Way To Think?
But for the record, it wasn't until you guys came along and TOLD people (through massive and years long propaganda) that smoking is a bad (no, not "unhealthy" but BAD) thing to do that it took on the new form of "role modeling." This is a creation no different than if you marketed a new product. People either BUY it like a box on a shelf or not. I don't. And will never have a second thought or moment of shame about smoking around any kid regardless of age. Indoors too.
And my character STILL beats yours.
The head of a conservative Missouri group, a woman who had a lot to do with the scuttling of Republican Kurt Odenwald's 2006 St. Louis smoking ban because it exempted casinos, recently suggested to me that smoking in 2008 might well be a sin.
I think my family's take on smoking back in the 70's was pretty much right on. Secondhand smoke exposure would have been considered a joke only neurotics would worry about. Social smoking was considered OK as was smoking 5 cigarettes or less a day. 10 cigarettes a day was considered the maximum acceptable smoking limit. A pack or more a day was considered unacceptable and any family member smoking that much was pressured to try to cut back or quit altogether.
I remember a surgeon back then pressuring my mom to quit smoking. She said she only smoked 5 a day, as she had since she was 15. He replied, "OK , something else will probably kill you first."
From Manchester, UK
Councils wait on smoking plans
http://
www.manchestereveningnews...n_smoking_plans
Excerpt
COUNCIL chiefs have welcomed a sweeping array of proposals to reduce smoking in Greater Manchester - including banning youngsters under 18 from seeing films that show people smoking.
Leaders had also been asked to sign up to cutting all council funding to theatres and sports grounds that allow smoking, and using planning legislation to force stores to move cigarettes away from check-outs.
No smoking in cars with children present
No smoking by drivers
No smoking at outside tables in restaurants
No smoking on TV.
GreatScot
Doctor Mike, Now that transfat has been banned in California, you do realize that you will not beable to eat your Vienna Fingers while you are there to run the marathon, don't you? I could suggest that you sneak down a dark alley and crouch behind a dumpster so you do not get caught eating one. This is much like what a smoker goes through. You could also sell them out of the back of your car. That is what people with contraband cigarettes do, it is called Black Marketing. Very profitable though so you might want to think about it. Then when the health Gods in California reports the decrease in heart attacks since they told people what to eat and not eat, you can very smuggly smile and tell them that the transfat ban is a farce and your checkbook proves it.
Bill Hannegan,
Since Tedd decided to bring religion into the mix, this might be the time to ask that women who claims that" smoking in 2008 might well be a sin" this question. Where in the 10 Commandments does it say, Thou shall not smoke? I see quotes such as "Thou shall not steal" "Thou shall not lie" Thou shall honor thy father and mother" and 7 others that tobacco control has broken, but no where do I see Thou shall not smoke.
Ah, but thou shalt, Diane
"Throughout recorded history, humans have used the smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness. A sculpture from Persepolis shows Darius the Great (522–486 b.c.), the king of Persia, with two censers in front of him for burning Peganum harmala and/or sandalwood Santalum album, which was believed to protect the king from evil and disease. More than 300 plant species in 5 continents are used in smoke form for different diseases. As a method of drug administration, smoking is important as it is a simple, inexpensive, but very effective method of extracting particles containing active agents. More importantly, generating smoke reduces the particle size to a microscopic scale thereby increasing the absorption of its active chemical principles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke
Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria
"This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products' smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog microplate panels and Microlog database. We have observed that 1h treatment of medicinal smoke emanated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri=material used in oblation to fire all over India), on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24h in the closed room."
http://www.agri-history.org/pdf/...nal%
20smoke.pdf
Medicinal smokes
"Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%)"
"The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form. Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
sci...16f60593537320c
I suggest that the only people who really don't want you to smoke are the ones who make medicines out of coal tar and other scary chemicals. Who probably thought up this nonsense in the first place, when they discovered that aniline dyes killed bacteria, and later, their workforce.
Prepare for deletion...
Diane,
I plan to smuggle my own trans-fats into California!
Ted, - "I understand your point about tolerance."
Clearly,...you don't.
Godshall, - "parents who smoke are poor role models"
Bigots (that have been banned from family restaurants) are far worse.
"Bill and Ted",...how very, extrordinarily appropriate.
Two sides of the same coin.
Rose, - "what is this obsession with other peoples children?"
It IS disturbing, ....isn't it?
Could it have anything to do with this quote; "Your politics are not important, we have your children"
LB,
Bill and Ted's Excellent Online Adventure?
HaHa...LMAO
Is "trading on the grief of the WTC victims" good role modeling?
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ews1.php?
id=764
Is "lying" good role modeling?
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=765
Your reaction, Doc, to the second story would interest me greatly.
The EU states, ad nauseum, that ETS kills 79,000 Europeans every year. But when a widow (of an EU Commissioner) wants compensation for her husband's death, ETS harm cannot be proven.
In their own words, "manifestly unfounded".
For those who enjoy Billy Sunday Sermons...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
abs...9629C946696D6CF
And here is the PDF of the April 13th, 1917 article.
"The Holy Spirit will not live among a lot of limburger cheese or beer cases. It will not swim in tobacco juice up to its eyes. Keep your body clean."
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Lynda F
Here's another medicinal use for tobacco leaves.
From the Cherokee Messenger
"A favorite remedy for bee stings was the application of wet tobacco leaves"
Spot on.
Green tobacco leaves are alkaline.
"Bee sting venom is acidic and so its effects can be neutralised with bicarbonate of soda or alkali and this reaction reduces the pain"
http://www.insectstings.co.uk/st...or-
alkali.shtml
Note to James.
No, I will not be going out to deliberately get myself stung by a bee, just to test the theory!
James,
I believe we are arguing two different extremes. Using allowable limits on carbon monoxide at idle, empirically the production of carbon monoxide is capable of producing a lethal concentration for 50% of the population bringing death in a relatively short period of time (30 minutes). My estimates say this reaches this concentration within 7 minutes, where as carbon dioxide production would take around 20 minutes. This also assumes there is no dilution, assuming < 1 air exchange per hour would not significantly increase this rate. Based on the typical operating characteristic via dyne testing, it is apparent that the idle concentrations are very forgiving. In 2003, the average gpm from dyne testing showed the average car on the road produced 20 grams per mile. However this is not at idle, and in the prime of efficiency in terms of operating bands as most cars are tuned to optimal fuel efficiency at highway speeds. Carbon monoxide results from incomplete burning of fuel, too rich, and carbon monoxide production increases. Leaky fuel injectors or an aging 02 sensor are the usual suspects. As catalytic converters grow older, they lose their efficiency, so if you are saying can I take a new car, and put it in a closed environment, run it at idle for 30 minutes and have it not reach a lethal concentration, then I also agree. Empirically, I'd say if you can reach a CO concentration of < 0.4% then carbon dioxide would be the larger hazard. I believe the engine would stop for the lack of 02, however as the engine became o2 starved, the percentages would dramatically increase due to richening of the fuel/o2 percentage.
As to trying to compare the fuel burned in a heater to that of a car, the CO2 is more directly effected. Because the CO is dependant on the efficiency of the burn as to the percentage of CO production. For example a gas stove producing a yellow flame versus a blue flame. A yellow flame indicates the production of carbon monoxide.
However, the production of carbon monoxide by cigarettes is very small, in comparison. Tobacco Control has been on a witch hunt to find a disease in order to justify bans, and they latched on to heart disease. This was picked because heart disease is the largest killer, and being able to attribute even a small percentage of these deaths to SHS, yields body bag counts worthy of regulation. In doing so, they've attributed the harm to chronic exposure to increased levels of carbon monoxide as the pathology.
It is my believe the Otuska experiment could be reproduced substituting carbon monoxide for actual SHS. You will notice Otuska used carbon monoxide measurements as his quantifier to the degree of SHS exposure. But you won't find someone in tobacco control doing so, because there are far more industries that would have to be eliminated if we protected the workforce from the same level of increased carbon monoxide levels faced by bar tenders in a smoking environment.
Where I really have a problem is Glantz has based most of his jihad on the belief that SHS contains carbon monoxide, and chronic carbon monoxide causes increased atherosclorosis, and increased mortality, however he has not appied the pathology to seeking protection of workers from carbon monoxide, but instead ignored the larger case and used it to rationalize his argument against only tobacco smoke. They have deliberately played down research on carbon monoxide itself, and used SHS instead, because SHS is a minor contributor to carbon monoxide in the workplace.
"As to trying to compare the fuel burned in a heater to that of a car, the CO2 is more directly effected. Because the CO is dependant on the efficiency of the burn as to the percentage of CO production. For example a gas stove producing a yellow flame versus a blue flame. A yellow flame indicates the production of carbon monoxide."
I meant to add that I don't think you can meaningfully compare the fuel burn rates between cars and heaters because of this. Perhaps with CO2 but not CO.
Walt H and James, it would appear that they really do study everything......
The impact of catalytic converters on motor vehicle exhaust gas suicides
http://www.mja.com.au/public/iss...ey/
routley.html
A lady obeying the law
A police source told reporters: 'The two kids apparently approached the woman and asked her for a cigarette.
'But when she said no one of them slashed her across the arm.
'It is understood they used either a Stanley knife or a sharp razor blade.
'The cut didn't go right to the bone, but it was still a pretty deep cut and the woman was left in deep shock.'
"A police spokesman added: 'The victim received a cut to her arm after two boys attempted to steal a cigarette out of her mouth."
'The area surrounding the station is very isolated, which is a problem.'
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/ne...e.html?
ITO=1490
Well Doctor, cost/benefit?
Law abiding citizens are now sitting ducks.
For the same deadly toxins as in a baked potato?
Dietary nicotine: Won't mislead on passive smoking. . .: New insight into myocardial protection
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/308/6920/61/
c
Rose, in the bmj editorial Repace states: "assuming (dubiously)That nicotine does not evaporate during baking."
Would this evaporated nicotine not then be in the air for someone to inhale second hand?
Ann W
Indeed it would, and from frying tomatoes, and from the steam rising from the pizza at the next table or their fries, and from the fresh sliced tomatoes and green peppers in the salad.
They all contain varying amounts of glycoalkaloids, solanine potato, tomatine tomato,nicotine in tobacco, and on and on, its a large family.
Dinner at my house is going to be an anti-smoker nightmare!
Fried green tomatoes, potato pancakes, and baba ganoush.
I won't bother mentioning the bonfire we will be lighting later. To do that would set them all foaming at the mouth because I will be dumping a months worth of cigarette butts into the fire.
Rose,
I realize the Bible states "Shalt" rather than "Shall" but I figured that since tobacco control was trying to change the Constitution, changing the Bible to fit their needs would come next. I just want to help them along. Unfortunately for them though, I know a whole slew of little old ladies who will not take kindly to anyone tampering with their "Good Book".
Gabz,
If you ever need more butts to fuel that fire, let me know, I have a bunch I would be happy to mail to you!
Ann W
Sorry to repost
"Note: All members of the botanical family Solanaceae - not just potatoes - produce glycoalkaloid toxins. Two common examples are tomatine from tomato and nicotine from tobacco. Some members of this family are historically notorious such as belladonna, now used for treating asthma, and the nightshades"
http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/a...ve/g1437/build/
I'm not sure that Fritz Lickint was well up on his nightshades, mind you even he realised that nicotine wasn't carcinogenic by 1936 according to Proctor, and decided it was tobacco tar instead.
http://www.environmentaloncology...7%
20proctor.pdf
Now the "tar" in tobacco appears to be a distillation of Solanesol, which is turned into Coenzyme Q10, ubiquinone, any described blackness, possibly due to tyrosine, which oxidizes to black, just like in a cut potato.
http://www.nwpharm.com/product/
_...me_Q10_API.html
However, you can extract it from potato leaves.
Diane, you are kindness itself to translate such a difficult word for them,I defer to you in all biblical matters.
Anyway, I don't often get the opportunity to use the word shalt
Gabz
Dear me
tomatine and fried green tomatoes
"I have read that glycoalkaloids are not
>destroyed by cooking. Does this mean that consumers of fried green
>tomatoes are ingesting poison?
Yes, you are ingesting poison, but not enough to do you any real harm."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/pla...uly/
026084.html
I read somewhere that its oxidized to nicotinic acid in the liver.
Personally I believe that smoking IS a good example to set for kids. It provides and early instance where parents can start explaining "do as I say, not as I do." It gives kids more choices in life, if they decide the want to smoke when they get older they will already know how to do it because they've watched their parents do it. What a great gift to give to your child. Further, the kids will grow up insensitive to the fact that smoking is harmful to other people in the room, so if they do start smoking they won't be burdened with worry about how their habit might affect family, friends, and others around them.
Clearly, smoking is a great example for parents to set. What is wrong with the mainstream news media. We shouldn't be talking about the health hazards of smoking, we should be talking about respect for smokers. This truly was a lost opportunity Dr. Siegel. What a shame that you did not set your priorities a little clearer that fateful day the newspaper called your office.
Siegel's comments to this blog entry: "Finally, while I agree with Cathy that smoking does not have health benefits, I find it very judgmental of her to condemn people for making a particular health decision. Eating trans-fats doesn't have any health benefits either, but I wouldn't condemn people because they choose to consume trans-fats. (note: I'd be condemning myself as well) As an example, I love Vienna Fingers (http://www2.kelloggs.com/Brand/brand.aspx? brand=225). There is no health benefit to Vienna Fingers of which I am aware. I just happen to like them. Does this make me a bad role model for my children? I don't think so." And then later: "Nowhere here do I defend parental smoking, defend exposing children to secondhand smoke, or criticize any health advocate for encouraging parents to quit smoking or not smoke around their children."
To suggest that you don't defend smoking here strains credulity. I would just point out that you are comparing a very harmful and dangerous drug habit with a basic and necessary physiological function, eating - in this case, a candy bar. Well every candy bar I've ever seen at least has calories, which you need to live.
And since when does a drug addiction qualify as a "health decision"?
Perhaps it was these sorts of arguments (ie, smoking is a valid personal choice just like eating cheeseburgers or french fries) that led your colleagues to describe your comments as "tobacco-industry soundbytes" when they booted you from their list-serve a couple of years ago. In any event, you should understand that these cynical and manipulative arguments eventually become exasperating, and people just throw their hands up and say enough. Personally I don't think you were mistreated at all. From what I've seen, you have earned the scorn of your colleagues and then some.
My appologies for misspelling Otsuka's name.
To back up some of my previous statements, here are some direct quotes from the study.
One or some of these toxic constituents may injure the arterial wall.21-23 Allred et al40 found that increased carbon monoxide level induced by short-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke resulted in more rapid onset of angina in patients with coronary artery disease as a result of endothelial dysfunction. In the present article, short-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increased the level of HbCO in nonsmokers, but in active smokers no difference in HbCO was found before and after passive smoking. This may be one of the reasons why passive smoking had a stronger adverse effect on CFVR in nonsmokers than in active smokers. -- http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/
con...a85d5354089af04
Clearly, the author suggests his finding are attributable to increased exposure to carbon monoxide.
How high was the carbon monoxide level in the smoking chamber? For non smokers it was 6.02 ppm.
According to the EPA "Average levels in homes without gas stoves vary from 0.5 to 5 parts per million (ppm). Levels near properly adjusted gas stoves are often 5 to 15 ppm and those near poorly adjusted stoves may be 30 ppm or higher." http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html So the level in the smoking chamber is only slightly higher than that found in the average home without a gas stove. An AQI of 100 (moderate) corresponds to 9ppm. The 8 hour workplace Time Weighted average limit is 35 ppm, so many workers are exposed to much higher levels then the smoking chamber in Otsuka's study to which tobacco control experts insist be protected because of the deadly threat, however remain silent knowing other workers face much higher carbon monoxide level exposures.
Tedd demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the anti-smoking movement today. They simply cannot address an argument that criticizes something they are doing with a substantive argument. All they can rely on is first, a quote from Corinthians, and second, a sarcastic rant that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
I have to say that it's a lot more fun, and a lot more rewarding to argue about issues with the smokers and smokers' rights advocates on this blog. At least we can have a decent discussion with substantive arguments being offered by both sides. I may not always agree with the other side's arguments, but at least they put up substantive arguments. With Bill and Tedd's not-so-excellent adventure, there is only one side. And if you don't agree with it, they will not defend their position substantively, only with personal attacks and irrelevant rantings that do not address the issue at hand.
As far as Cathy Bell's comments go, they are way out of line. I was not comparing smoking to eating a candy bar. Vienna Fingers are not candy bars. They are a type of cookie, kind of like an elongated vanilla oreo. If you're going to attack me on my own blog, at least get your facts straight!
If done properly, a smoking parent may have far more credibility in discussing smoking with a child then most non-smoking parents.
I believe one of the keys here is honesty. A trait missing from most anti-smoker crusaders, which seem to profess the "hairy palms" and "makes you go blind" school of scare tactic of intervention technique.
My philosophy is to tell the child it is their decision, and whatever it happens to be won't make change the fact they are loved any less or be a disappointment. To explain to them why you started, and why they still smoke. Tell them how you wondered how anyone could find it difficult to quit, thinking you'd smoke a few years and quit later if you felt it was affecting your health, only to put that off year after year as the decades roll by.
Tell them how sophisticated and adult you felt taking that first cigarette, how you learned to blow smoke rings, and how grown up you felt, only to look back at it and see how childish it really was, and that now you have to insure you have enough cigarettes for the morning before you go to bed every night. Or perhaps how you wanted to be a rebel, and you felt that cigarettes was one way to prove it to your peers. Tell them how you feel when you discover you ran out, and how irritable you become, and maybe they have even noticed.
After all, if you hold the reins too tight, and know you disapprove of smoking, there is a likelihood they will start smoking as a means to assert their independence. Since you can't stop them when they are away from you, the decision will ultimately be theirs anyway. Accept that fact, and provide them the benefits of your own experience and hope they make the right choice.
And so what Tedd going to tell his progeny... Don't smoke, you might cause someone to have a heart attack in 30 minutes or less?
Spin Well every candy bar I've ever seen at least has calories, which you need to live.
You need nicotinic acid too, less you develop pelegra and die. Never mind there are better sources for both (calories and niacin).
So there ya go, you've just rationalized why it's ok to eat candy bars and smoke tobacco.
Exasperated Spin Control (aka Cathy) should know best about being exasperating:
"I would just point out that you are comparing a [emotion-driven hyperbole redacted] habit with a basic and necessary physiological function, eating - in this case, a candy bar. Well every candy bar I've ever seen at least has calories, which you need to live."
I see. So an adult can eat Vienna Fingers morning, noon and night -- for every meal every day -- in front of their children and that's fine because it provides some kind of nutritious need.
Cathy, Cathy, Cathy... You blindly and deafly and with malicious bias ignore the difference between TREATS and SURVIVAL ("eating"). To survive by eating humans would ONLY need soy and water. Period. Everything else is the equivalent to tobacco in terms of necessity -- just something else to ingest.
I truly believe that you're SO dim that you can't reason that you're the dim one.
Bill Hannegan,
Since Tedd decided to bring religion into the mix, this might be the time to ask that women who claims that" smoking in 2008 might well be a sin" this question. Where in the 10 Commandments does it say, Thou shall not smoke? I see quotes such as "Thou shall not steal" "Thou shall not lie" Thou shall honor thy father and mother" and 7 others that tobacco control has broken, but no where do I see Thou shall not smoke.
Diane
She would refer to the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
She would also refer to the Catholic moral principle that allows one to use any substance as long it does not destroy one's reason or seriously threaten one's health.
It is interesting that this lady wrote a letter to the St. Louis County Council on behalf of her organization in opposition to all smoking bans, not just those that exempt casinos. The letter was a big deal and helped torpedo the ban in St. Louis that year. Here is key paragraph from that letter.
"It is true that smoking is well known to be identified with health risks; how many and how severe these are is less clear. However, many other activities and hobbies which are legal in St. Louis County also present clear health and safety risks. Avocations such as parachuting, flying ultra-lights, horseback riding or caving; lifestyle choices regarding diet and exercise, and of course, employment opportunities, especially in construction and industry, all present health and safety risks. It is not government’s role to be our nanny and remove our freedoms. Rather, it is the role of the Council to protect the property rights and legitimate personal freedoms of all residents."
In my last conversation with her, she told me that a priest on the radio had suggested that, "KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW TODAY ABOUT SMOKING", that to light up at all was a possible sin and so her opposition to smoking bans was falling into question. But I think both this lady and the priest have been taken in by an exaggerated estimate of the dangers of social or minimal smoking. Does anyone know how dangerous smoking five cigarettes a day is? How many cigarettes a week does it take to seriously threaten one's health?
Bill Hannegan wrote: Does anyone know how dangerous smoking five cigarettes a day is? How many cigarettes a week does it take to seriously threaten one's health?
http://www.netwellness.org/quest...n.cfm/
60432.htm
One cigarette per day for over twenty years!
As the expert:
Question: My mother is a healthy active woman in her early fifties. Over her adult life she has smoked one cigarette per day - only one! - for one or two years at a stretch. Then she stops for a few years, then back to the one-a-day schedule. I have researched this on the web and the main concern seems to be that a person who smokes at all will increase their smoking...but my mother doesn`t fit into this category. I realize she is not typical! So, is it harmful for her to do this? Thank you.
Answer:Good question. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of data on very light "chippers" as your mother's use would be termed. Perhaps 10% of smokers smoke 1-5 cigarettes per day and do not increase their habit. This is clearly different from the addictive smoker trying to quit who believes they can just have "one, now and then." They can't, and they delude themselves to believe they can.
Going back to your mother's risk; it isn't zero. We know this from the somewhat surprising research on secondhand smoke. Low dose exposure from other people's smoke clearly conveys a risk of heart attack, stroke and lung cancer, and perhaps, even breast cancer. 50,000 Americans die each year from what we would consider this "low dose" secondhand exposure, whereas 400,000 die from smoking themselves
Maybe the better question to ask is, "why does she need or want one cigarette per day?"
This one doesn't make any sense????
http://www.independent.co.uk/lif...ses-
507818.html
Just one cigarette a day can treble risk of fatal ilnesses
The steepest increase in risk was between one and four cigarettes a day. Above that level the risk rose more slowly. Writing in the medical journal Tobacco Control, the researchers blame the tobacco industry for fostering the notion since the 1970s that smoking a few cigarettes a day is not harmful to health.
Controversy has surrounded the effects of light smoking for more than a decade. Scientists have been puzzled by the disproportionate risks associated with passive smoking, which may mimic light smoking. A non-smoker who lives with a person who smokes 20 cigarettes a day has one-third of the risk of their partner even though they are actually exposed to only 1 per cent of the smoke, equivalent to one cigarette every five days.
Laboratory evidence suggests that is because the effect on the blood of toxins in tobacco smoke peak at low levels of exposure, increasing its stickiness (the tendency of the platelets to aggregate) and inflaming the arteries, increasing the risk of thrombosis - a blood clot that triggers a heart attack. The result is that the risk of heart problems increase rapidly for people who smoke one to five cigarettes a day but then rises more slowly as smoking increases to 20 cigarettes a day.
okay....now I get it - lol
The finding will add to concern about the Government's proposal to exempt pubs that do not serve food from the complete smoking ban that is due to come into effect in 2008.
Campaigners including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have called for a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, including pubs.
Tedd wrote:
"Personally I believe that smoking IS a good example to set for kids. It provides and early instance where parents can start explaining "do as I say, not as I do."
Would you have parents abstain from sex in case their kids would ask? Or would you explain why YOU can do it and they can't?
Is it acceptable to you for parents to have a drink in front of their kids? Or must a parent be forever underage?
Parents couldn't drive (in your world) because Junior might get the wrong idea and try the car out himself.
"Do as I say..."? Go ahead, treat yourself like an 8 year old. I taught my kids there's things I can do that they can't, and my kids are smart enough to understand that.
There's there's no "Do as I say" in my house. I told my kids they can smoke as adults if they like. I've also explained the pros and cons. The best somebody like you would do is the cons.
DIANE--
Your fine, passionate letter should be sent to the editor of every paper that did the Spears story and quoted Sciandra. cc to the reporters who wrote about it. Dunno the addresses for the Globe but for the NY Post (see JTF post quoting it) try:
letters@nypost.com and the reporter david.li@nypost.com
DOC--
since you were on the interview list, you could certainly get a letter printed and cc the reporter who couldn't wait for you to call back. Once again: if you're serious about this, get into real print with it where it'll actually do some good. You're not afraid of dissing Sciandra, are you?
And while I obviously back what you;re saying here, you too slipped in some awkward wording when you mused that "when we start to condemn smokers rather than the behavior..."
Do you really mean it's okay to "condemn" the behavior of smoking? Isn't that in itself a moral term, and a pretty strong one at that? My dictionary says it means to damn; to find someone guilty of a crime or a wrong; to censure, especially to censure publicly."
Would it then be correct to say that it's okay to condemn the eating of Vienna Fingers, just not the eater? Is eating VF's actually worthy of condemnation? Do any of these "health crimes" rise to that (rather Biblical) level?
And speaking of the Blble--
TEDD--
take a gander at the Old Testament. According to Leviticus, there's almost nothing that's not sinful. A shrimp cocktail can lead you to the thrid circle of Hell. Finally--
MS. CONTROL (or may I call you Cathy?)--
Is it possible that you have an unhealthy addiction to Siegel's blog? You seem to get "clean" for months at a time, but then obviously a painful withdrawal sets in and even though you know how bad it is for you (after all, we repeatedly demolish your arguments, show total disrespect, laugh at you, even, and label you aptly) you keep coming back. And how you come back! Like a girl a guy happens to mistakenly date once who keeps dialing his number and adopting phony voices that say-- all innocent,--"sorry, wrong number." Such behavior, which is more to pity than condemn, is generally thought of as out of control. A rather strange trait in a person who wants to control everyone else. Eh?
:
Ann W, I agree with James Enstrom that secondhand smoke doesn't kill anyone. I reject life risk estimates for minimal smoking based on secondhand smoke death tolls.
http://www.scientificintegrityin...rg/
IT030106.pdf
"Laboratory evidence suggests that is because the effect on the blood of toxins in tobacco smoke peak at low levels of exposure, increasing its stickiness (the tendency of the platelets to aggregate) and inflaming the arteries, increasing the risk of thrombosis - a blood clot that triggers a heart attack. The result is that the risk of heart problems increase rapidly for people who smoke one to five cigarettes a day but then rises more slowly as smoking increases to 20 cigarettes a day."
Ann W.
Laboratory evidence? Not Otsuka, right? That one has been debunked over and over again. Are you referring to Stanton Glantz's recent work?
I see the problem
Now then, all you reckless smokers and you devil-may-care eaters of Vienna Fingers, don't click on these links.
YOU are beyond saving, but I have a mind to help Tedd and Spin in their quest for bodily purity.Their knowledge of plant chemicals is clearly limited so I will attempt to assist them.
http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/
pr..._food_plant.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=10645
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.p...=george&
dbid=62
There now,ignorance is no longer an excuse, good luck in your quest.
Rose,
does your link above mean that "Kids are a bad role model for Smokers"?
GreatScot
GreatScot
The worst, Spin is very dismissive of the severe risks of candy bars, but look at the plant chemicals.
And this is only the chocolate!
http://www.rain-tree.com/chocolate.htm
"The first signs of theobromine poisoning are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and increased urination. These can progress to cardiac arrhythmias, epileptic seizures, internal bleeding, heart attacks, and eventually death".
"Definitions of chocolate addiction and its potential relationship to dieting and problem eating were investigated in 50 individuals who identified themselves as "chocoholics". Respondents were interviewed and completed a battery of questionnaires on food cravings, eating, weight, dieting and depression"
"Consumers who preferred to eat in secret reported a higher degree of aberrant eating. The extent to which the behaviour of "chocolate addicts" resembles that of eating disordered individuals and other addictions remains to be clarified." http://www.chocolate.org/addiction.html
Could you have a hidden addiction?
"Foods such as potatoes - and even tomatoes and peppers - contain a natural poison called solanine just underneath their skin. In some people this chemical causes a natural high - and can therefore be addictive."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt...-
addiction.html
Could I have an addiction to potatoes?
Well as I only eat them in moderation, frankly, I really don't care.
From Rose's link, Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria
We have observed that 1 h treatment of medicinal smoke eminateation by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri = material used in oblation to fire all over India) on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min... Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonas syringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens in the open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.
Tobacco smoke would also seem to be a fumigant, and nicotine was once used for greenhouse fumigation.
MRSA is a variant form of Staphylococcus aureus, one of whose transmission routes is airborne. If smoke fumigation removes 94% of Staphylococcus lentus, why not 94% of Staph. aureus as well?
Could it be that the rise of MRSA in hospitals is, in part, a consequence of banning smoking in hospitals, and that clearing the air of tobacco smoke also cleared the air of an effective bactericidal fumigant?
idlex
Could very well be.
"Essential oils 'combat superbug'
Consultants at Wythenshawe Hospital found that using a vaporiser to spray essential oils into the atmosphere killed off micro-organisms."
" Airborne bacterial counts dropped by 90% and infections were reduced in a nine-month trial at the burns unit." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ter/
6471475.stm
Unfortunately
"The USA adopted Codex Alimentarius as the law of the land in June 2006. Codex Alimentarius is on schedule to completely eliminate all natural therapies including aromatherapy and the sale of essential oils by December 31, 2009.
Under Codex Alimentarius, essential oils are labeled not as beneficial healing agents but as toxins that need to be regulated by pharmaceutical companies and medical doctors."
I only found this out when the medical instructions of my newly bought bottle of essential oil, had disappeared, apparently under new EU legislation.
I should add that I know virtually nothing about aromatherapy, I just use essential oils to scent my bath, because commercial bubble baths and shower gels make my skin fall off.
Walt - Excellent point. I stand corrected. It was a poor choice of words.
http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModele=aff...cpsidt=13693416
Efficacy of certain indigenous fumigants as anti-microbial agents was evaluated in the present work. Against three test organisms viz., Bacillus subtilis Ehrenberg, Aspergillus niger V. Tiegh, Aspergillus flavus Link., efficacy of fumes of incense, Garlic, Turmeric, Neem, Vitex, Ficus and cowdung cake were tested. Spore carriers with known concentration of spores were subjected to fumes of indigenous fumigants. The spores exposed were tested for their viability. Viable count of experimental and control plates were compared and the survival percentage was calculated. Garlic fumes and Incense fumes were most effective against bacteria. Fumes of garlic, turmeric, cowdung cake, incense and Ficus exhibited powerful anti-fungal activity. The potential use of indigenous fumigants in sterilization and food grain preservation has been discussed.
http://indigolifecenter.wordpres...or-all-seasons/
Thyme (thymus vulgaris) symbolized innocence to the Ancients. The Greeks considered it a fumigant, on a par with attributes of purification. When burned as incense, according to Pliny the Elder, a Roman naturalist, 23-79 A.D., it put to flight all “venomous creatures”. To “smell of thyme” was a Greek expression of praise given to those whose style was admired. Ladies used thyme in their linens, much the same as lavender, to keep away insects
http://www.diet-and-health.net/N...y/
Rosemary.html
Rosemary is also one of the ingredients used in the preparation of Eau-de-Cologne. The leaves are burnt as an incense, fumigant and disinfectant.
It was an old custom to burn Rosemary in sick chambers, and in French hospitals it is customary to burn Rosemary with Juniper berries to purify the air and prevent infection. Like Rue, it was placed in the dock of courts of justice, as a preventative from the contagion of gaol-fever.
Dr. Siegel, why not pose this question to your class this fall: does the end justify the means? As a teacher myself, the question as the basis of a class research project would be a fascinating venture. Is the "denormalization" of fellow citizens and the fracture in social relations worth the end result? Is lying and producing concocted "studies" based upon poor science worth the end result? I am thinking of a project, similar to the professor in Chicago who each year assigns his criminology class a death row inmate's case to study and find proof of innocence. What other project in your field of public health could be more fascinating and rewarding? You have the best and brightest minds at your school. Put them to work, and settle the age old question: does the end justify the means? You might begin by reading All the King's Men by Robert Penn Warren, a novel that examines that question and reaches a conclusion. You have an opportunity to study the question through scientific investigation, through sociological impact, through media influence, through the study of real people affected by the bans, etc. It could be a collaborative project with a journalism class, the mathematics department, a sociology class, and of course your own public health studies.
For those interested in keeping your body pure and clean and protecting your precious bodily fluids:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?
v=N1...feature=related
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Bill Hannegan wrote: Laboratory evidence? Not Otsuka, right? That one has been debunked over and over again. Are you referring to Stanton Glantz's recent work?
Bill, not sure if you are directing that question at me but that quote was out of the newspaper article.
idlex
I think we should give these old remedies some serious study.
Rosemary was also worn in the hair of Greek scholars to help thought and memory, and it certainly does clear your head.
It occurs to me that you may well be right, theres that awful flu type thing you get when you are with hundreds of people in an enclosed place where smoking is not allowed.
Last time I had it for 3 weeks, but I've never caught anything in a pub.
It appears that these things fell out of favour somewhat, with the advent of something called Heroic Medicine ??
"Heroic medicine is a term for aggressive medical practices or methods of treatment, and usually refers to those which were later superseded by scientific advances.
It is not known who first used the pejorative term “heroic medicine”; but it is most likely that it was first used by US or British scholars of the history of medicine in the early years of the twentieth century.
Heroic medicine, in which the patient, rather than the physician (or the therapy) was heroic, flourished between the 1780s and 1850s"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Her...Heroic_medicine
Then of course we got fed coal tar derivatives in various guises.
http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/cen...80112/
coal.html
Spin Control,
"And since when does a drug addiction qualify as a "health decision"?"
You seem to be confusing the smoking of tobacco with lifestyle drugs such a heroin and cocaine.
Tobacco use an excellent marker for ill health because we can see that where people are more likely to get lung cancer(eg) they are more likely to die smoking. This
is because smoking can delay the average age of death from lung cancer in men age 61.13 to age 63.66 in women age 62.45 to age 63.77 which is very impressive for a medicine which is so is cheap to manufacture and no one has a patent on. I don't hate tobacco control I just think they are unwitting architects of a public health disaster because they are blaming the medicine for the disease
and as the global rise of lung cancer confirms - TC has not worked so far and it never can.
Haven't some studies showed that light smoking poses little danger?
Bill, do we really need studies to confirm common sense. There is nothing magic about tobacco (ask Rose!). Is inhaling barbecue fumes, car exhaust fumes, holy fumes in catholic or Greek churches, or ingesting arsenic (as in drinking water) sporadically in small quantities killing people?
Is eating apples, broccoli, bread, or meat deadly (see http://www.heartland.org/Article...fm?artId=10645)
?
benpal
I took a look at arsenic, I'm working through the lists of deadly toxins from the anti-smoking websites.
"The historical use of lead arsenate as an insecticide in apple orchards has come back to haunt us years later. Lead arsenate was used to control codling moth from the 1800s to the 1940s (when DDT became available), leaving behind both arsenic and lead in the topsoil. In recent years, as apple orchards were converted to housing developments, new owners discovered that their new yards and gardens were contaminated"
"In 2005, Florida researchers published a study showing high levels of arsenic in runoff (water) and in soil under treated decks. They estimated that 28,000 metric tons of arsenic had been imported into Florida by 2000, and that 4,600 tons had already leached into the environment. Over the next 40 years they predict that decks and other structures will leach out an additional 11,000 tons"
http://www.pesticide.org/hhg/
ars...pesticides.html
"In nature arsenic occurs naturally as an arsenide ore, is oxidized into solution through arsenite to arsenate, which flows to the sea where it is taken up by marine plants. These plants methylate the arsenic and incorporate it into a sugar. When the plant dies the arseno-sugars are released into the water where microbial and chemical processes break down the sugars eventually ending up (for a while) with dimethylarsinate"
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~agh/arsenic.htm
Seems like for any crop,it depends on the composition of the soil you grow on, or wether your predecessors went berserk with the pesticide.
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"Haven't some studies showed that light smoking poses little danger?"
I believe it was ACS CPS1 data which showed pipe and cigar smokers lived longer than everyone else.
There has been debate over this (naturally) that centered on the data not being randomly selected from the general population as it was mostly the more affluent who took the survey.
But I'd suggest it showed the more affluent may benefit from pipe and cigar smoking.
And I'd allow suggest, that as pipe and cigar smoking exposure is mostly SHS exposure as they aren't typically inhaled, SHS may, in part, be attributable to longer life.
Doctor Siegel, off topic but I have to say this. We are all just ordinary people without the resources to sue, something has to be done to stop this "Science by Slur". Each time it is repeated it becomes more and more considered as factual.
I was not aware that Steve Milloy's junkscience.com was a front for "Big Tobacco" are you?
I read this in my local news paper today. Please keep in mind that this is little regional paper in Southern Ontario
http://news.therecord.com/Opinio.../article/
389711
Opinions - Smokescreens
Junk science tactics are designed to confuse the public and the policy-makers - by Neil Arya
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) was created in 1993 by APCO public relations company as a front for Phillip Morris attempting to discredit any health effects from tobacco smoke in the environment. It later included the Lorillard tobacco company, and other corporations such as Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, General Motors, Dow Chemical and the National Pest Control Association. The coalition's executive director, Steve J. Milloy, a paid advocate for Phillip Morris and Exxon Mobil, founded the website junkscience.com -- which was dedicated to debunking the good scientific research that threatened the profit-making potential of his employers, or what Milloy claimed was environmental radicalism and false claims regarding such diverse issues as climate change and the pesticide DDT.
Industry-funded scientists -- who generally are not malicious or dupes -- may be consciously or unconsciously influenced by their backers.
and it's not the first time I have read this
(slide 15)
• JunkScience.com founded by a front group created by Philip Morris in 1993
• To cover up the association with PM, the front group aimed to link scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with "broader questions about government research and regulations" - such as "global warming", "nuclear waste disposal" and "biotechnology". - Geoffrey Fong
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/
~gf...tonWNTD2007.pdf
when I googled "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition "
I found these very nasty write ups:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The...ience_Coalition
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...ience_Coalition
here is what is said about Mr. Milloy on his website:
http://junkscience.com/Junkman.html
Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Anne,
anybody who does not march in time to the drums of the campaign de jour is automatically labeled as a paid lacky, belonging body and soul to the "enemy".
It has become a standard operating procedure. (Our host knows a bit about this from both sides, at one time advocating the tactic, not as just a tactic, but the tactic to employ, along with the advise "do not discuss the science")
It matters not, there is no room for dissension. Free thinking, investigation and challenging the consensus are no longer traits to be admired and striven for. They are career ending. Simply toe the line and join the masses, if everybody agrees and says the same thing, then it is irrefutably the truth. IMO science and the human race are all the poorer for it.
It is clearly heretical to challenge todays crusades, whatever they may be, tobacco control, global warming, the erosions of freedoms to protect us from terrorism, etc etc etc. Our masters have decided, get with the program or be annihilated, professionally, personally and coming soon, physically.
Rant over.
Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Milloy, I don't know if he is paid for or not. That said, I don't actually care, whatever the topic, I want to be able to consider all sides of the question, review all the studies,all the research, listen to all the opinions and ultimately make up MY OWN mind and live with the consequences.
I am not a number.
GreatScot
Walt,
Thankyou for your kind words about my post. I don't consider it to be any better than what any other parent does or has done to raise a child. I am just a mother who raised 2 healthy kids and I am proud of that. Instead of letters to the editors, I would prefer a segment on "Good Morning America" The Today Show" or "The View". It is time to put a face to the letter writers and let the world know that we are just everyday people who does not deserve these labels. I would love to see Diane Sawyer's reaction when I tell her we have been compared to murderers and rapists and are denied jobs. I choose "The View" too as the ladies on that show was discussing the Britney Spears smoking thing one day last week and Sherrie Shepherd did say that she considered smoking in front of your child as being a bad role model. I would like to remind her that our kids lives with us and we are not bi-coastal parents, living and working in New York 5 days a week and only visiting our children on weekends in California. Her living arrangement is for money and stardom and I do NOT consider that to be a good role model either. As her child grows up, he will think that money was more important than he was. Whoopie jumped all over her for that remark too!
Einstein, You paraphrased me as saying: "Tedd mentioned it a few threads ago that advocacy groups aren't about science, they are about winning and that it is OK for them to exagerate to make their point."
I would encourage you to go back and look at my post. Actually, never mind. You can't go back and look at them because Dr. Siegel censored them.
So here is what I said, "advocacy groups have been exaggerting to make their case as far back as any of us can remember." That's an observational statement rather than a judgement about what they are doing and whether it is ok or not.
The fact is, they all do it. The point I was making with that obveservation is why do you think this fact continues to shock an educated man like Dr. Siegel when there is really nothing at all new about it. It strikes me as very odd. Many of you who oppose my views have also expressed this question. And to keep myself off the delete list that's all I am going to say about it.
I just don't buy the argument that because everyone is doing it, it's OK. We are in the practice of public health, and there is a public health code of ethics which demands that we be honest in our communications with the public. I can't justify our dishonesty by pointing to dishonesty by opposition advocacy groups. I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right.
The other reason why I think it is particularly unacceptable for anti-smoking groups is that we have been attacking the tobacco industry for years for doing exactly the same thing: misleading the public by not telling the whole truth, by distorting or misrepresenting the science. If we weren't criticizing others for misleading the public, then perhaps I could give these groups a little more room for misleading the public themselves.
But the mantra of tobacco control has been that that the tobacco companies and their allies are dishonest and have been misleading the public by distorting the science and that we in tobacco control are the trustworthy ones who are to be counted on for an accurate portrayal of the science. So I think with that comes a higher level of responsibility.
You can't sling arrows at others and then commit the same offense.
Inventing Pollution : Coal, Smoke, and Culture by Peter Thorsheim
Britain's supremacy in the nineteenth century depended in large part on its vast deposits of coal. This coal not only powered steam engines in factories, ships, and railway locomotives but also warmed homes and cooked food. As coal consumption skyrocketed, the air in Britain's cities and towns became filled with ever-greater and denser clouds of smoke. In this far-reaching study, Peter Thorsheim explains that, for much of the nineteenth century, few people in Britain even considered coal smoke to be pollution. To them, pollution meant miasma: invisible gases generated by decomposing plant and animal matter. Far from viewing coal smoke as pollution, most people considered smoke to be a valuable disinfectant, for its carbon and sulfur were thought capable of rendering miasma harmless. Inventing Pollution examines the radically new understanding of pollution that emerged in the late nineteenth century, one that centered not on organic decay but on coal. combustion. This change, as Peter Thorsheim argues, gave birth to the smoke-abatement movement and to new ways of thinking about the relationships among humanity, technology, and the environment.
Tedd corrected me, ""advocacy groups have been exaggerting to make their case as far back as any of us can remember." "That's an observational statement rather than a judgement about what they are doing and whether it is ok or not.
The fact is, they all do it."
Point taken. Please read my sign off. I'm an advocate for CASH. If I exagerated your post with my paraphrase of it then I was just doing what all the other advocates do.
I encourage you to carefully read more of the posts to this blog made by smokers. They don't exagerate much.
You said, "why do you think this fact continues to shock an educated man like Dr. Siegel..." I don't think he is shocked. The dishonesty, or exageration, is expected.
I don't mean to speak for Dr. Siegel but I want to encourage you and Spin Control and others with your points of view to post more here. It is educational and thought provoking. The only rules of the road I know of for posting is to not make personal attacks and don't swear.
Lastly, I agree with you that Dr. Siegel is an educated man. But I would like to make it clear that everyone who posts here is educated.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers without exagerating
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Bill, do we really need studies to confirm common sense.
I'd submit that we need to make sure the common sense is sound. I know there are certainly people out there who push poll common sense, and opposite sides of a coin can be common sense to different people.
After all, common sense also once told us the world was flat, Newtonian mechanics were all about the world, etc. And once we were wrong about that, whole new areas of research opened up, and new common sense was refuted(planetary orbits are elliptical not circular, etc.) These conclusions were arrived at by theory, but I think that eventually people accepted the new ways as common sense.
Obviously studies can ingrain common sense the wrong way, and we probably need more studies to refute what is received as common sense but which is more the popular way to look at things at the moment. I'd say we need straightforward studies to confirm that common sense passed down from the generations, especially where we measure things like human consumption and its effects on health/nature etc, still is valid.
Anyone seen this ASH ad in which the twin towers are replaced by cigarettes? Here's Freedom2Choose's response. I hope they use the ad: It goes to show how sick and twisted these people are.
I just couldn't resist;
Doctor Siegel, - "I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right."
But 3 lefts do.
This is how TC operates.
Get through the opposition by taking the long, less obvious route.
A new twist on premature deaths, it will now be an "agonizing early death"
http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Edi...ls/
200807260281
I love this quote:
Oxford University epidemiologist Richard Peto summed up: "I reckon this will avoid tens of millions of deaths in my lifetime, and hundreds of millions in my kids' lifetimes."
I wonder if he really means all these people aren't going to die ever, because that is what it sounds like.
Frederic;
"I don't hate tobacco control I just think they are unwitting architects of a public health disaster because they are blaming the medicine for the disease
and as the global rise of lung cancer confirms - TC has not worked so far and it never can."
-----------------------------------------
Reading between the lines from this latest tirade from the Cancer Society they seem to establish they are having little effect, despite the millions invested, the societal upheaval and the unrestricted level of bigotry promoted.
http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/...int/54/2/
68.pdf
"Writing in the Journal of the National
Cancer Institute (2003;95:1,681–1,691),
Researchers from the Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health and
Colleagues reported that adult smoking
Prevalence dropped more in the 17 states that took part in the federally-funded American Stop Smoking Intervention Study (ASSIST) than in other states. ASSIST provided $128 million to participating states to implement antismoking programs over eight years (1991 to 1999).
The researchers calculated that if all 50 states and the District of Columbia had participated in ASSIST, there would be about 278,700 fewer smokers in the United States today."
In other words; one third of the states participated and if all had participated the results would be tripled, so they claim; they were successful in producing 90,000 fewer smokers among 60 million smokers over eight years [90 of 60,000 or .6666%]they go on to say;
"Stillman’s report bolsters the findings of
an earlier study, published in the Journal
of Health Economics (2003;22:843– 859),
which found that cigarette sales dropped
more than twice as much in states with
strong anti-tobacco programs as they did
in the United States as a whole between
1990 and 2000."
--------------------------------------
In other words of the 90 thousand they claim to their credit over eight years we know 45 thousand would have quit regardless of the eight year plan and the millions invested.
In all; over eight years they managed to reduce smoking by less than .08% not .7% which has been the annual average of a prevalence reduction rate for decades, [.666% distributed over eight years = .08%] more as a factor of population growth than the raw number of smokers still smoking,
"Which has not changed significantly in over fifty years" [ according to Bill Godshall et al]
So; all in all, they produced a total effect over eight years of less than 5% of the total number of reductions which would have occurred anyway, had they done nothing at all.
So did they do anything at all?
The latest stats now show smoking is much higher among teens currently smoking than the stats among the general population.
Yes I believe they did have a resounding effect, which remains to be seen; as those children grow and eventually start to influence the overall smoking averages.
The effect will soon be seen, measured by levels of success which can no longer be attributed to the influences of the Tobacco Industry who now take a minority seat to the levels of promotion produced by TC.
The new gold standards in healthist speak, which are joyfully repeated by Tobacco Company execs world wide.
Reality is sinking in;
http://www.canada.com/calgaryher...c8-
8baff677ef3b
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/s...oking-
bans.html
http://www.postbulletin.com/news...p?z=12&
a=353734
http://www.examiner.com/x-455-Ch...cockroaches-
etc
http://www.simcoereformer.ca/Art....aspx?
e=1129801
I need help on being a role model.
With the almost weekly stories on cell phones being linked to brain tumors, etc., is using a cell phone in front of children considered being a poor role model?
Tedd?
Is letting your kids use a cell phone considered child abuse or endangerment? Should the cell phone company be considered a rapist?
Bill?
Campfires. Poor role modeling or child abuse?
Role models?
The article is almost a much fun as the comments;
http://www.startribune.com/
lifes...refer=Lifestyle
Look at this looser and imagine the example he left for American children...
http://www.startribune.com/
photo...ezsmoke0728.jpg
Doc--
thanks for the retraction.
DIANE--
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good-- or in this case, of the possible. The odds of getting your wonderful "letter" published by the Globe, and the Post and any other local paper, tho perhaps not great, are astronomically higher than your getting an invitatiion to do a guest shot on The View. Tho, hey, check their webpage for some kind of contact and send it to them too-- using the comments someone made on the air as your "reason for writing." If Whoopee (who was or maybe still is a smoker) defended smokers on air, then send it to her too. Even if you have to type it out and mail it. But I'd really urge you to do the papers and do them fast.
Your letter is exactly the kind of "human interest" -- from an obviously decent articulate human being-- that could most help us all against this crusade.
Even if the editors don't print your letter, a cc to the reporters who editorialized on their own, overtly backing the "lousy mom" track, could move them to think twice the next time they're tempted to categorical slander.
Sic 'em.
:
.
Pubs cry into beer no one is drinking
"Pubs are serving fewer drinks than ever. Publicans say that they are pulling 1.4 million pints a day - 1.6 million fewer than at the height of the market in 1979. The decline has been blamed on closures after the smoking ban, rising costs and competition from supermarkets"
“Beer sales in pubs are now at their lowest level since the Great Depression of the 1930s"
http://
business.timesonline.co.u...icle4413761.ece
Burning desire
'A sportsperson highly reliant on their fitness would clearly be stupid to smoke,' says Dr Keith Prowse, chairman of the British Lung Foundation.
'But in the short term, smoking won't do much beyond irritate the nose and throat.'
According to Jarvis, there might even be - gulp - a benefit. 'Nicotine is a psychomotive stimulant, in the same group of drugs as amphetamines,' he says. 'So a cigarette could potentially enhance performance in "explosive" events like sprinting.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/footba...s&
feed=football
Well thats a new one, I thought we were meant to be all feeble and weak!
From the bodybuilders -
"As an ATP catalyst, nicotinic acid enhances muscular energy. As a vasodilator, this ability is further enhanced by the increased delivery of oxygen and food derived nutrients to muscle tissue. Nicotinic acid is an effective muscular recovery agent for this reason"
I'm not saying a word..
Michael wrote;
"I just don't buy the argument that because everyone is doing it, it's OK. We are in the practice of public health, and there is a public health code of ethics which demands that we be honest in our communications with the public. I can't justify our dishonesty by pointing to dishonesty by opposition advocacy groups. I don't see how 2 wrongs make a right."
--------------------------------------------------
---------
When you raise the price of a package of cigarettes to reduce smoking you are deliberately undermining personal autonomy. Smoking bans being promoted to reduce smoking by further undermining personal authority over one's own body. Sold to the public as a health protection? few could possibly claim, that is being honest with the public. How does that fit with someone also claiming a high ethical value?
When you move from risk to cause and include every death in every category linked by statistical association and claim that all of those deaths are not associated but “caused” by smoking or even “preventable” if smoking ceased, is that being honest?
Or does it fall within medical ethics; to shame or abuse by defamation every person who smokes, blaming them for a litany of sins, which by observation can only be compared with the way Hitler spoke of Jews, can you claim a strong ethical path is being promoted, or are you only following others and doing what they tell you works? In fact not once evaluating the long list of ethical mistakes being made along the road? As long as some enthused speaker stands and strokes your egos constantly, anything is possible and any step toward the common good is morally and ethically sound.
Code of professional ethics??? Sorry you lost any claim to that musing, a long way back.
from Anonymous' link:
http://www.startribune.com/ lifes...refer=Lifestyle
Comments posted by AuntieWendy:
Tens of thousands of people are murdered every year by second-hand smoke.
I hope TC is proud.............
Can anyone take even a precursory look at HIA Health interventions and claim any minor sense of professional ethics is being respected?
The supreme process of advocacy to the max, with all the safeguards and ethical responsibilities minimized or eliminated.
Just looking at this process and understanding it to be anything more than a forming of a gang of bullies all of whom will gain by the campaign on the backs of those who are powerless to defend themselves, in fact any defence possible is considered and deliberately minimized by the same process.
Ignoring someone's claim to personal rights is now replaced not by debate or sound reasoning but by ridicule, preformed responses and talk to the hand mindsets.
Bullies in lab coats are following blindly while deliberately abusing position and trust, in order to force their own perspectives on their victims. From the day TC was formed, they never considered a smoker or someone who didn't wear a bicycle helmet as humans; they were first spoken of as a different species, before being delegated as a disease that needed to be eliminated at all cost.
We can all see it now, only as a reflection of your own misguided ego, which has learned to find comfort stroking itself, in response to your own addiction with your mirror or of the only legitimate claim to professional or personal worth, which is found listed as a number, on deposit in a bank.
To stand now and try to lay claim to any perspective of ethics, personal or professional, is insulting and disrespectful to all of humanity.
No one legitimately purchases credibility or respect, or do you find it as a member of the largest gang. Product branding is left to corporate entities and deceptive marketing ethics. Honesty, Integrity and intestinal fortitude are found outside of financial balances, as a product of what you do and the example you set to inspire others.
Ethics 101
"The only rules of the road I know of for posting is to not make personal attacks and don't swear."
No, there are other rules that exist as well. My only 'attacks' if you will have been professional, I've never said anything negative about Dr. Siegel as a person. Many of us, mostly those of us who are against tobacco, have had our comments deleted. Dr. Siegel does it quietly and with the exception of the last post of mine he deleted, he doesn't make any kind of announcement that he's done it. One moment your comments are there and bam, the next moment they are censored.
Fine, it's his blog, but that leaves the rest of the folks believing that this is some kind of neutral forum where all opinions are tolerated. That is a false assumption. I think most people would be surprised to know that he censors the blog regularly - and not just for vulgarities and personal attacks.
I'd tell you more, but as you know, he will delete my comments, so I fall into line and refrain.
And yes, Einstein you did exaggerate, which is exactly what TC does and so do a lot of the pro Tobacco folks on here. I think it silly that you would propose that most of the people on this board don't exaggerate.
Most posters on this blog exaggerate the safety of smoking and of SHS by minimizing the negative health effects. They exaggerate the economic impact of smoking bans. They exaggerate slippery slope arguments about freedom and personal rights. They exaggerate the negative effects of regulating restaurants and bars which survive and flourish under smoking bans nationwide.
Any person who is advocating for a position is going to be naturally inclined to see the facts in their favor. It isn't right to lie, but perception does vary among people of different walks of life and humans do have a tendency to exaggerate especially when they feel strongly about an issue. It is completely wrong lie. But they all do it. Its human nature. How many articles do you need to write expressing shock that an advocacy group is willing to exaggerate facts to further their cause? Once or twice is enough, beyond that you start to strain credibility.
Dr. Siegel himself exaggerates, if you noticed his comment that "just because everyone is doing it, I don't think it is ok." I never said that it was OK, and I don't think anyone on here has said that it is OK to lie because "everyone else is doing it."
At least you Einstein had the grace to admit that you had misquoted me and corrected yourself with an apology. I honestly haven't seen the same from Dr. Siegel.
Yes, TC used to take more of the "moral highroad" if you will. But that was when TC was a fledgling movement that had just a few hardcore professional supporters. The movement has grown exponentially in the last 5 - 10 years. And somehow it continues to shock him that its become sloppier and harder to control centrally, harder to stop groups from getting carried away with their message?
Dr. Siegel is a public health advocate. Most of the people against smoking are not public health officials, they are lawyers and other folk that have a cause. To refer to them as public health officials and to expect to be able to hold them to the same level of professionalism is ridiculous.
That's been my point, I haven't actually seen Dr. Siegel make a direct response to these questions without exaggerating my position responding as though I were arguing that it is OK to lie and exaggerate. Maybe he did and I missed it and someone can point it out to me.
OK - then if it's not OK to lie and distort the science, then why is Tedd attacking me for criticizing public health organizations that do this?
Mr. Tedd is making no sense. On the one hand, he attacks me for criticizing public health organizations for lying.
Then, he comes back and says that it is indeed wrong for them to be lying.
So then why attack me for the criticism?
I'm getting a headache just trying to figure out what the hell Tedd is talking about.
>>Hamburgers provide benefits as well as risks. Would the doctor care to outline for us briefly the benefits of smoking?
...Hamburgers provide benefits as well as risks. Would the doctor care to outline for us briefly the benefits of smoking?...
It prevents one from becoming a whiny busybody intent on using Big Brother to control the lives of others.
Seeing the behavior of the anti-smoker hate mongers, both here and elsewhere, I'd be hard pressed to find a poorer role model for children. They are teaching their kids to love junk science and hate their fellow human beings.
A smoking parent believes the people should be left alone to make their own decisions, even poor ones, is a far far better role model than an anti-smoking bigot who teaches his larvae that smokers are evil and to go into fake-cough hysterics whenever they see someone smoking.
Commenting by HaloScan
