"We also need to make sure that our interventions respect individual autonomy, freedom, and privacy. Banning smoking in homes to reduce smoking rates violates all three of these principles"
Doctor,
Would you argue for exceptions in the case of paid baby sitters, domestic staff, part time cleaners in the home etc?
"Many years ago, when I was lobbying for smoke-free workplace laws, opponents of these laws argued that this was just the first step: workplaces were the first step and eventually we [the antis] would be trying to get smoking banned in the home. I countered these arguments by stating no - you're wrong - we are going to stop after getting smoking banned in the workplace.".
Seems I do remember this speach from somewhere before, hmmmmm..... Now where was that again?
Oh, Wait, I remember now... Didn't HITLER say the SAME thing when he took Poland, and then Onward and outward as England and other's were fearful of causing "international" incidents, and each and every step of the way, "we are sorry, we forgot about this small action, but we'll stop right after we secure this country", Still....
I suppose the Doc can be forgiven for not seeing history repeating itself, after all, it was only the VICTIMS of HIS movement that were telling him EXACTLY what was coming, Sheesh, and they call us smoker's "less educated", "Lower Socioeconomic classes", "Stupid Addicts", etc, et al...
When are you going to actually DO something about it Doc? YOU and your precious movement ARE the aggressors here, do you need to be reminded of what it cost the WORLD to stop this type of $hit last time?
Maybe you need to be reminded that right now YOU are to be held as responsible for YOUR movement as the leaders of the this hatred were LAST time Doc? Your ONLY hope for salvation is to immediately begin to work to shut down your out of control movement. IF NOT, you deserve the same fate as all those who decided they knew how to run people's lives better than the individual's involved.
Okay, so you were warned both while lobbying and by those who post here. Our homes are next! My question to you and to ASH, along with all the other antis out there is, Are there enough prisons to house all smokers who are about to tell you to kiss my butt?
Let's see here. I can go to jail for smoking in my own home, a place where I pay the mortgage and taxes on. A place where the yard and gardens are beautifully maintained. While your tax dollars are growing so to be spent on construction of new jails to house all smokers, my house will now be in ruin as I am no longer working so to pay that mortgage and tax. While I am incarcerated, my property becomes run down, possibly being returned to the bank due to foreclosure as I no longer have an income and I am living off your tax dollars in jail. My run down home has now become an eyesore to the neighborhood, which in turns lowers the property value of your home and should you want to move, you will never beable to sell and get the money you invested in your home. That is okay with me though as I will be sitting in a jail cell, maybe only having to do the laundry for the facility but still getting my 3 meals a day and I will still have televisions and free computer service so to email friends and relatives so to discuss my situation and garner sympathy. Eventually I will write letters to the editors and tell them why I am letting my home go to ruins and maybe turn those emails and letters into a best selling book which someone will make into a movie and because it will be a true historical film we can smoke in the movie and label it with an R rating with gross sales in the millions the first week it hits the theaters.
To paraphrase Bill, I would have to say that I concur with ASH and say that this would be a win win for all smokers.
The pre-penultimate page of the Stiletto features the following quotes from Godshall and Banzhaf:
===
Smoke Free Pennsylvania’s Bill Godshall complained that, “Unfortunately for many involuntary smokers in Calabasas, the ordinance exempts many different locations, so people will still be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution…. The new rules exempt residences, backyards...”
and
John Banzhaf, founder of Action On Smoking and Health now boasts “Here we are literally reaching into the last frontier -- right into the home... No longer can you argue, 'My home is my castle. I've got the right to smoke.'
====
The Banzhaf quote is from Newsweek, Feb. 2006: almost two and a half years ago.
The Godshall quote is from right here on your blog about two weeks later, Mar. 18th 2006.
Nothing new really for anyone who's been paying attention.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Fredrik asked: "Would you argue for exceptions in the case of paid baby sitters, domestic staff, part time cleaners in the home etc?"
No. I wouldn't make an exception for residence-related jobs like this. The only exceptions I would make would be if the home served as a workplace (such as someone operates a doctor's or dentist's office out of their home) or if the home served as a child care facility.
The only exceptions I would make would be if the home served as a workplace (such as someone operates a doctor's or dentist's office out of their home) or if the home served as a child care facility.
Those exceptions are already written into most smoker ban laws anyway.
"The only way to prevent damage from occurring would be if the public merely views ASH as a fanatic group that has gone off the deep end. But that will not happen unless other anti-smoking groups are willing to publicly condemn ASH's support for banning smoking in the home."
Long-time lurker, first-time poster. I would suggest that public comments from a doctor who was instrumental in pushing for workplace smoking bans would carry a lot more weight than a denouncement from various local advocacy groups.
You know that ASH, GASP, CTFK, etc will never turn on each other. You also know that if Smoke-Free Ohio, for example, were to publicly condemn this proposal, either dissenting members would be purged from the organization, or funding would be pulled by their backers and the group would be rebuilt under a different name.
For all of your hand-wringing, doc, I'd expect a little more than a couple of blog posts every week. Interviews with forces.org are just preaching to the choir, and worse, give your critics opportunity to marginalize your opinion by associating you with pro-tobacco advocacy groups.
See, you're in a unique position, in that while your name may not carry much weight in TC circles anymore, it does to a general audience. Why do you think that people visit your site? Perhaps it's not fair to suggest that you should shoulder that responsibility, but who's going to get a reply when asking for an opportunity to respond to statements like this one from ASH? Mr. 9-to-5 Joe-six-pack with no official medical credentials? Or Dr. Michael Siegel, medical doctor and professor, expert witness for ETS trials, and author of papers calling for comprehensive smoke-free policies in all workplaces?
Dr. Siegel, it is time for you to DO something. I do believe that you will never do anything more important in your life than exposing these people and their purpose. It really is NOT about smoking or shs, Dr. Siegel. It is far more cancerous than that. PLEASE take that step.
I have taken the liberty of inserting the missing words in Banzhaf's press release. (In Bold)
"A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling.and even if there is no risk of harm, and even if the threat of ETS is a deliberate lie, and even if the whole purpose is to demonise and punish smokers. Why? because that is what I want and I always get what I want. I have successfully brainwashed and intimidated the entire world and this will expand the latest front in the war to persecute smokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars. According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars."
GreatScot
Doctor,
Why does a person serving drinks for wages in a private club deserve protection by law while a person serving
drinks for wages in a private house does not?
Enlightening, GreatScot.
Well Doc, it appears that the real TC agenda has finally appeared.
The ban in bars and pubs was the camel's nose in the tent, what ASH are now doing is giving us the first glimpse of the camel's arse.
Of course once the one camel is safely installed, there ought to be room for a few more (alcohol, fatty foods) and there will of course be the need for a camel-herder (read lawyer) to help them in (and make a tidy profit while doing it). Of course civil liberties are a minor and unimportant detail when there is so much lovely cash to be made.
This is where tobacco bans have always been leading, anyone who believes otherwise is naive, wilfully ignorant or malicious.
Which one were you Doc?
Once everyones house is included ( level playing field ) we could have inspections for unsuitable literature, like herbals and old history books.
The possibilities are endless.
From Banzhaf's press release, "According to a new survey, 57% of the people in Ireland support a ban on smoking in all homes and cars."
Was this survey done by 12 year olds? (See the last article about kids being encouraged to do anti surveys.) What was the question that 57% answered in the affirmative? Was it about smoking marijuana in homes and cars?
Today's press release is actually a very logical "next step" toward the prohibition of tobacco. This has always been the goal of the "movement" and this tact has removed any pretense that the "movement" is about anything else.
And, as just about everyone here has noted, if they can do it with tobacco they can do it with anything.
I'm convinced that these bullys, the rock stars of TC, have mental problems that create a need to exert control over other people. Tobacco, itself, is just a convenient first step for them.
Public Health should step back and rethink it's positions. They should draw a clear line between public and private health, at least in the US, as we approach the slope that is socialized medicine. Policies based on hysteria, and eventually financial bankruptcy, aren't policies at all. They are dogma that eventially degenerate into triage.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf.
Perhaps something that Bonzo Banzaf WILL NOT BE PROMOTING in his fascist new world http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...wer.php?
id=1252
Doc, are you truly THAT naive or just willfully that stupid?
You know damned well this was NEVER about health. It always was about prohibition. Except you people haven't the cajones to call it that. You know IF you call for prohibition you'll be laughed out of existance, given the huge success of last attempt at prohibition in the early part of the 20th century. This is still prohibition, being snuck in the back door by spineless crooks.
Damned right we're all saying "I TOLD YOU SO". How do you explain the fact that us smokers, that you all claim are mentally defficient, uneducated and stupid, were the only ones capable of seeing this from the start? Not only did we see THIS, but we also see that this allows for total control of everyone's lives.
What you refuse to accept or even acknowledge is that the minute you infringe upon the personal choices of anyone with legislation you open the door for tyranny.
Congratulations Doc! You'll have your smoke free world and the pleasure of telling your children and grandchildren about the large part YOU played in destroying what was a country of freedom and liberty into a 3rd world dictatorship.
My belief in KARMA and "harm none" is the only thing preventing me from wishing the most horrible things on your cohorts and anyone else working towards destroying my country.
Si,
bonzo doesn't have to promote THAT.....though I'll bet he blames McDonalds for forcing him to eat himself fat and that why he wants to sue them to death....there are plenty of fat haters out there already pushing for the same laws and force that he's used on smokers.
Of course, it's only for the children and their own good.
Gotta luv the irony there.
Wonder how willingly he'll submit to his betters (thin fit people)?
Dr. Siegel: ”It seems to me like one can feel the hatred oozing out of the press release and that ASH is trying to punish smokers in any way it can find - no matter how much damage that might cause to the children of those smokers or to societal values like privacy and autonomy”.
If you want to feel hatred, Doc, buy yourself a pack of Putter’s Light and step into our world for a few days; while you still can.
Up here in the wilds of Ontari-ari-ari-o, Premier Dalton McGuinty told bar and restaurant owners that separate smoking rooms, with their own ventilation system, would be acceptable by his government. He lied.
By the time the bars and restaurants had finished installing the new enclosed smoking rooms, young McGuinty’s government had passed the Smoke-Free Ontario Act. Bar owners were left to pay for the worthless renovations and chase their smoking customers into the back alley.
McGuinty promised a few years back there would be no ban on smoking in cars carrying children. He lied; last month his government passed a law imposing a $250.00 fine on anyone caught smoking in a car with a passenger under 16.
At the time, he promised that this was not a start down the slippery slope to government encroachment on personal freedom or autonomy in the home. Did I mention that the Premier has been known to lie?
Several years ago, some young fellow named Michael Siegel was telling people that tobacco control was about protecting working men and women from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Geez. I hope he’s not related to Dalton.
Ahh, what a noble path you have trodden, anti-smoker Cultists.
I seem to recall that "all" you wanted was domestic US flights to be smoke free.
See what happens when you give 'em an inch?
Unbelievable!! So many, many questions come to mind - how would he enforce this, what is the punishment, just what were the questions on that survey, why did he do it in Ireland and not the U.S., has he totally lost his mind????
This is a serious question:
Do legal grounds exist (in the USA) to ban the use of a legal product in a fully private home? Other than gun bans in certain cities (apparently overturned by SCOTUS yesterday), I can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing. And even if such a law were proposed, wouldn't the IV Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS..." be an insurmountable obstacle to its passage? What am I missing here?
How many were polled? I only see "clear majority". Clear majority of how many? Was every one surveyed or did they just ask a few standing at the bus stop, or was it just the members of ASH UK?
We have an news anchor who laughs at these studies and the best one I can remember off hand was when he was reporting on a breast cancer study where 14,000 women were reviewed. He blurted out, "now that is a good study, sure does beat those 100 people in Norway"! So I once again ask, how many were surveyed?
Well this guy could use Banzhaf for a cellmate.
OXFORD, Miss. (AP) -- Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, the attorney who built his career by taking on tobacco, asbestos and insurance companies, was sentenced Friday to five years in prison for conspiring to bribe a judge.
Here's what I really think.
Banzhaf is irrational. That's a given.
However, he is a snake in the grass.
I think he is trying to bring down anti-tobacco himself with last weeks declaration to fire all smokers and now officially attacking the home this week.
This will allow him more time to pursue fat or alcohol or whatever is up his sleeve.
However, as all fanatical antis, he is missing a piece of the puzzle.
The SOB is so fat himself, he will reap the benefit of his own crusades.
I do hope he is Dickie Scruggs cellmate before any of this really comes to pass.
The veil falls gently to the floor.
I propose a ban on drinking alcohol in the home. It should be drunk only in government licensed premises since Alcohol is far more socially dangerous than tobacco.
"That will keep people healthy and we can regulate the amount they drink" said a public health representative. They went on to to say "it will reduce domestic violence and murders, a small price to pay for a healthier society"
We can even name the bodies.
The cost mounts.
west
----
Well, they seem to worry about the enforcement later, and they tack on extra stuff when they do--this really worries me.
I think the survey was done in Ireland because it's possible to ask slanted questions like "Given how Ireland took the lead in national smoking bans, would you be in favor if they again took the lead...?"
Without the questions, which they did not provide, we just can't tell the context.
Diane -- "How many were polled? I only see "clear majority". Clear majority of how many? Was every one surveyed or did they just ask a few standing at the bus stop, or was it just the members of ASH UK?"
I keep wondering why it matters what the majority think. Is it customary in Ireland to let the neighbors decide which legal products may be used in the private homes of their fellow citizens?
IMHO, this whole thing is what is usually referred to as a gambit. The Antis start from the wholly made up premise that banning smoking in private homes is perfectly legitimate. They are careful to include ALL homes, even (or rather, especially) homes without children, other non-smokers, near-by neighbors, etc.), so that they can pretend to negotiate down to the more "reasonable" compromise of only banning smoking in homes with children.
It's the original premise...that people's private homes and personal liberties are up for grabs by Anti in the first place...which must be vigorously resisted.
Do legal grounds exist (in the USA) to ban the use of a legal product in a fully private home? Other than gun bans in certain cities (apparently overturned by SCOTUS yesterday), I can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing. And even if such a law were proposed, wouldn't the IV Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and EFFECTS..." be an insurmountable obstacle to its passage? What am I missing here?
Judy
Judy, in theory the right to privately engage in legal activities inside one's home is constitutionally protected in the USA. However, municipalities implement laws that subtly test the boundaries of constitutionally protected rights all the time - the area of gun control is a great example. If a law is passed that may violate a constitutionally protected right, it can be challenged in the lower federal court system on those grounds, however, there are many liberal judges who have socialistic tendencies, and they legislate from the bench. You don't know how they might decide, no matter what the evidence or court precedents say. Decisions dealing with constitutionally protected rights can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court only hears a very small number of cases that come before it, so the lower court judge's decision could stand, and then that becomes the precedent that other jurisdictions follow. Basically, this strategy is a numbers game. Get a few crazy municipalities to implement laws that ban smoking inside all homes, and see where it goes from there.
Thanks for that excellent explanation, Fleawarhol. It's depressing to think that we have to battle all the way to the Supreme Court to protect even our fundamental Constitutional rights. Still, the "man's home is his castle" ethos is very strong in this country. Even liberal judges will be hesitant to open up that can of worms.
Seriously OT
Doc, if you ever consider a change of career.
http://www.thestar.com/entertain.../article/
448478
At 95, legendary pianist Pinetop Perkins' career is still smoking
Excerpts
He has smoked since age 10 – "I'm smokin' now," he chuckled down the line – and would eat Big Macs for every meal if he had his way.
In recent years, Perkins has been a prolific recording artist, putting out an album a year since he started out on his own in the early 1990s, under the watchful eye of manager Pat Morgan, a former public health professor who has organized a small band of trained health-care workers to function as ad-hoc roadies on the ancient musician's frequent road trips.
A group of non-judgmental health professionals? and it's not April the first. Wonders will never cease!
GreatScot
Still, the "man's home is his castle" ethos is very strong in this country. Even liberal judges will be hesitant to open up that can of worms.
Not necessarily, Judy. Remember how SCOTUS ruled in the Kelo decision regarding eminent domain. The court basically said the city could take the property of one taxpayer (the homeowner) and give it to another taxpayer (a developer) to increase the city tax base.
Thanks for reviewing and commenting on the press release Dr Siegel.
How about a segment on John Stossel's show?
I respect the right of others to have differing opinions about issues. What I have a hard time with is someone who lacks integrity in their work.
The title of today's post is that "ASH Suggests Banning Smoking in Homes." Wow, that's radical I thought. In fact, I find it hard to believe. So read the quotes in the article on this blog - there's nothing that says ASH is suggesting smoking be banned in homes.
Reading through the article itself I see a discussion about a survey from Ireland (showing 57% support a home ban), a few points about recent smoking ban battles in condos and foster homes, and a few editorial remarks about how policitians don't always do what's popular. No where in there is the suggestion that "smoking should be banned in homes" or anything to that effect.
Whether you are for or against the political agenda of the blog's author, this kind of misrepresentation should be a concern to everyone who reads here.
The story is being oversold. Why?
When the article states, "ASH)- a Washington, D.C.-based national anti-smoking group - called
banning smoking in homes the next front in the war on smoking " I don't see how you could question the intention of this article or the "survey" to support it. How would you call that "overselling the story"? Not paying attention to these so-called suggestions at the moment they are made is why we are where we are now. Wake up!
There's no doubt that in calling smoking in the home the next frontier in the war on smoking, Banzhaf is expressing support for the prohibition of smoking in homes. Plus, since I happen to know Banzhaf personally and speak with him frequently at conferences and have heard him present, I happen to know what his opinion is on this issue.
But nice try Tedd to impugn my integrity.
"There's no doubt that in calling smoking in the home the next frontier in the war on smoking, Banzhaf is expressing support for the prohibition of smoking in homes."
I can say that Mars is the next frontier in space, that doesn't mean that I support spending the money to go there.
If you had a direct quote from Banzaf saying "I am for banning smoking in homes in the USA." I'd retract my statement.
You wouldn't accept "I've heard him speak at conferences" as evidence to back the claim that someone is taking tobacco money. Yet, that's what you offer when challenged on your latest post.
I'm even more convinced than before that you've oversold the article- and yes, in my opinion, that is an integrity issue.
Tedd, you must be new here.
READ the article, "This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement..."
(BTW: Anti's do not say anything in plain terms, that's not how they work. Notice how they need to cover their a$$es by saying "may" "could" "possibly" "suggests" when they publish "scientific evidence" because they know one day it's all gonna come back to bite them one day.")
We who have been following the movement know how to read between the lines to see what Anti's really mean to say, and we have not been wrong yet.
If you'd take the time to follow ASH's past statements you would know that.
I'll be the first to volunteer to be arrested for smoking in my own private homebackyard. Let them try.
Tedd, Dr. Siegel and JM are correct here.
We all know enough of Banzhaf to know that going after private homes IS on his radar screen. Not only is the man a disgrace to the legal profession heis a menace to society as a whole.
Tedd wrote, "If you had a direct quote from Banzaf saying "I am for banning smoking in homes in the USA." I'd retract my statement. "
Tedd, did you somehow miss the quote from Banzhaf in Newsweek above?
“Here we are literally reaching into the last frontier -- right into the home... No longer can you argue, 'My home is my castle. I've got the right to smoke.' ”
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
I don't think there is any question that ASH is supporting the idea of banning smoking in homes.
Not only does ASH call homes the next frontier, but it also states explicitly that ASH is working to ban smoking in homes: it acknowledges that ASH is the group "behind restrictions on smoking in homes in almost three fourths of the states."
So not only is ASH stating that they support banning smoking in homes, they are explicitly stating that they have worked on restricting smoking in homes in almost 3/4 of the states.
Moreover, and the icing on the cake here, is that in the press release itself Banzhaf refers to himself as the man "who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars."
So how can Tedd POSSIBLY suggest that I am over-stating the case when I am simply noting what Banzhaf HIMSELF ADMITTED: that he is working [racking up victories] IN THE BATTLE TO BAN SMOKING IN PRIVATE DWELLINGS.
Sorry Tedd but your attack on me is weak, very weak. But I do appreciate the brashness. It takes a lot to accuse me of over-stating the case when the press release itself acknowledges that ASH has been, and is working to ban smoking in private homes.
In the future, I do hope that readers will take the time to actually read the full text of the cited material before they accuse me of wrongdoing. I think I'm owed that little bit of respect.
Dr. Siegel wrote, "So how can Tedd POSSIBLY suggest that I am over-stating the case..."
Dr. Siegel, he's an Antismoker. ANYthing is possible if it's coming out of their mouths.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Whether Banzhaf would personally support bans in the home in the future is not the question.
The Blog post says that ASH is suggesting this happen now - advocating, supporting home smoking bans.
I don't see any evidence of that in the article or in any of the the comments each of you posted above.
I think JM hit the nail on the head when he said, "We who have been following the movement know how to read between the lines."
And that's my point, Dr. Siegel is reading between the lines, rather than reporting and commenting on the facts as they exist in the article. In a blog (especially one where the value of evidence has been held out as paramount) I see that as an integrity issue.
So again, if anyone can provide a quote that shows direct support for in home bans, I'll retract the statement.
JM since you've covered ash more closely than I have, maybe you can post something to clear this up?
Until then I remain more convinced than ever that Dr. Siegel is "reading between the lines" when it suits his agenda.
There is an inconsistency there and that should be a concern to honest and fair minded readers of this blog.
Asking where the 57% came from: Where else "Pfizer".
http://www.vhi.ie/news/N050608b.jsp
As for Tedd, the "press release" was issued by Banzhaf using a propaganda technique called "bandwagoning", to promote an agenda. What might that agenda be, said the joker to the thief?
Besides tooting his own horn, do tell Tedd, what do you believe was the purpose of Banzhaf issuing such a press release?
Banzhaf's victories in banning smoking in private dwellings have been in foster homes and multi-unit dwellings where smoke can transfer between units.
Banzahf has no victories toward this unannounced effort to ban smoking in all private homes like single family dwellings.
So by this measure there is in fact no evidence to suggest - key - No Evidence to Suggest - that this press release is equivalent to suggesting that smoking be banned in all private homes.
Its a small point, but its a real one. Does the author need to base his work on the evidence that is there or is it OK to "read between the lines?
I stand by my original post, I think Dr. Siegel is overselling the article.
If that annoys you, I am sorry. But this is my opinion and usually what I do on blogs is write my opinion.
Tedd - Regardless of whether they are "multiunit" or not it is STILL MY HOME!
I pay my rent on time EVERY month, I have the right to enjoy a LEGAL substance in MY OWN HOME.
Simply put your doublespeak doesn't wash here. I refer you to my ealrier post on this thread..."We'll stop just as soon as 'this" reasonable step is accomplished", and we've been waiting for you to stop since banning smoking on domestic, short, airline flights, and we've also been waiting very patiently for the PROOF of ONE CAUSAL connection to be PROVEN. The ball is in your court Anti.
The bandwagon is the 57% of the irish. The bandwagon Tedd, is the previous lead as Banzhaf calls it in national bans in other venues when he writes "Ireland led the way by being the first country to introduce the smoking ban in the workplace in 2004," notes ASH Ireland.
Banzhaf claims ""Court after court and judge after judge has ruled that there is no right to smoke, so that courts, regulators, and legislatures are free to ban it in homes and in cars."
So here he says it's fair game for legislators.
Next he tells people why they should demand such... Smoking imposes a huge financial burden on society of over $140 billion each year, most of which is paid by nonsmokers in the form of higher taxes and bloated bills for health insurance.
And he closes with the objective. Since restrictions of smoking are one of the most effective -- and virtually the least expensive -- way to help smokers quit, it is no surprise that there is growing support for smoking restrictions, even if no nonsmokers' health is being put at risk by the smoking, suggests Banzhaf.
Again the bandwagon for support for more smoking restrictions via "suggestion".
All pure propaganda technique.
Siegel hasn't overstated anything, and I consider your opinion to be flawed and nieve.
Siegel's headline aptly summarizes this topic by "Action on Smoking and Health Suggests Banning Smoking in All Homes", and clearly Banzhaf is promoting this idea.
Doctor,
What is your opinion on the situation
where a housing officer, who has to do four or five home visits a day is exposed to ETS on a daily basis over many years through visiting private homes? Is this housing officer not in need of protection from chronic exposure to ETS just as a bar staff are protected? Would it not be true to say that instead of allowing discretion in private homes it would be better to ban smoking in private homes on the grounds that this would be a level playing field and that public servants should not have to take on this extra risk? Just to earn a living?
The exact words are not there Tedd.
Again, you need to follow ASH's history, read what is said AND between-the-lines, and know a group's intent to truly understand the words.
Look at their history.
In this case, we do not need exact words to know the intent. It is clear as a bell for anyone with an open mind and understanding of TC's movement.
Ban Banzhaf.
"The exact words are not there Tedd."
Thank you JM for having the honesty to admit that.
Jerry, I am not debating the merits of Banzhaf's "goals" stated or unstated. What I wanted to do was point out that the author of this blog is stepping beyond or overselling what is stated in the literature he cites.
Which, he is allowed to do. I just think that with his backdrop of integrity and his history of attacking those who suggest an organization is a front group for tobacco, that its worth pointing out that he does not require the same standard of proof for his own work.
Too bad Tedd you don't have the honesty to admit that Banzhaf closes by suggesting that "restrictions on smoking" such as the subject of this press release is the "most effective" and "least expensive" way to "help smokers to quit".
Oh and Tedd, what was the subject of Banzhaf's press release? Oh yea... "Majority Want Smoking Banned in All Homes..."!
Michael said;
"This is an important story and perhaps a sentinel moment in the history of the tobacco control movement because to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that an anti-smoking group has publicly and officially called for a ban on smoking in all homes and suggested that this is the next front in the war against smoking."
Oh the horrors where will it all lead;
Michael your shock and awe are really disrespectful to anyone reading your latest scream to the heavens.
We have been hearing this home invasion intent going back as far as the year 2000.
This from the Federal Health Canada website;
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...ee-auto-
eng.php
"There is considerable research available on second-hand smoke in the workplace, but there is a need for additional research on exposure to second-hand smoke in the home and car, therefore Health Canada will be conducting research in the area prior to the 2005-2006 campaign."
The admission of intent to produce research in time for the next campaign season, exposes your entire field of study as nothing more than an exercise in glad handing and fraud.
The expression the majority would support smoking bans in the home is simply an extrapolation of "the majority don't smoke" so they wouldn't approve of smoking in their own homes. ergo the majority would support the ban. because the majority will likely not oppose it.
You want another glimpse of your future next time you stick you head out of the cave?
Lat month we were informed children in cars when smoking is now illegal.
Today with no fanfare and a lot of congratulatory language on all news networks, we were informed in the evening news, next week we will be seeing an amendment the impaired driving law to combat other impairments.
In Canada the sentence for refusing a breathalyzer is the same as a conviction for drunk driving. Now with the new amendment a cop has the right to demand; blood, urine and saliva on the grounds of "suspicion" any time he likes.
If you refuse to comply your car will be sized and disposed of. Thinking of taking a holiday trip north Michael? I would suggest driving a rental.
Your slam dunk in helping to create the killing of our rights of autonomy by coercing decisions, is paying big dividends.
You can sit back and say only in Canada, if you like, based in historical developments the same disrespect will be coming to a neigborhood near you, compliments of the same old Healthist Nazi lingo you helped to popularize.
"The World health organization warns by the year 2020..."
How many times does it take for people witnessing the same ratchet down strategy by lobby campaign, over and over, eliminating personal rights and freedoms a slice at a time, before people start to awaken to the fact; something is really wrong here, and the free world has suddenly become much less free?
Tedd no thanks are required. I am merely pointing out that the exact words that you so desperately require are not there, but they do not need to be there to understand the point.
The point is that the 'exact words' do not have to be there to understand what his goal is. If my kid is running towards the street and I yell "NO!" she will stop. I don't have to say "NO! Do not run out into the street" as my kid will "get it" without the exact words.
Dr. Siegel is not 'overselling' the intent of the article.
From the article: "This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers' movement..." Tedd, what do you think that means? Do you think the article suggests at all that ASH is against the idea???
Here's some food for thought folks........from Title 18
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
--------------------------
Seems to me there seems to be a clear indication the anti-smoker cartel can and should be prosecuted under this subsection.
As to Tedd's ramblings, he still remains wrong. ASH is promoting smoking bans in private homes and Banzhaf IS ASH -- ergo, Banzhaf is promoting bans in private homes.
He has already accomplished changing the definition of public places to include private property where the owner invites members of the public. Under that definition there is no such thing as private property as we all invite membrs fo the public to enter our homes....because we are all members of the public.
The anti-smoker cartel is nothing of a less criminal nature than the mafia, but at least they have more respect for the average joe/jane business owner than this group of theives. The mafia will at least pay for the damages they cause to an owner's establishment, the anti-smoker cartel blames the victim for any damage they inflict.
Does this help at all? From ASH's website http://ash.org/scroll/
ashinspire...mokingbans.html
" ASH-Inspired Smoking Spreading(sic) Bans Spreading, Now Into Homes Also
Yes, smoking bans are spreading, especially into areas – like outdoors, into private homes, etc. – originally inspired and pioneered by ASH. "
The last line from that reads:
"The most recent victory was in Belmont, CA, which – in part because of ASH’s urging – banned smoking in all units of multi-story, multi-unit residences, including balconies and patios.. "
Tedd is correct on a couple of points. Dr. Siegel does not require the same standard of proof for his own work as he does for others.
Dr. Siegel also overstates his case when it suits his purpose. An example of that would be conducting a study HE saysthat shows restaurant workers in one category have a slightly elevated cancer risk that may be in part due to ETS, then saying that ETS is a severe health hazard for not only all restaurant workers, but all workers.
This particular post, however, is an opinion piece on Banzhaf's intention in writing this particular press release.
Having thorough read the article in question, I have to agree with Dr. Siegel.
Banzhaf's piece is not a journalistic article reporting on a study. It's a self-written press release, creepily using the third person, with quotes only from himself and from ASH (which is himself).
When he states that legislators are far behind public sentiment in restrictive and punitive measures against smoking, and lists rights that have already been stripped from property owners, the inference is that current laws do not go nearly far enough for his taste.
He says, "Court after court and judge after judge has ruled that there is no right to smoke, so that courts, regulators, and legislatures are free to ban it in homes and in cars."
This, to me, is a bold statement indicating the desirability of such prohibitions, and the earlier paragraph is calling all legislators wusses for not doing so.
Tedd's position is justified, but only to a point. Bazhaf's words say these shocking policies are to "help smokers quit." They're not. They're to force the eradication of tobacco use everywhere, period. To believe anything else is hopelessly naive.
What Banz has really done here is expose his true motivation. Previously, the bulk of his yapping has been about protecting the non-smokers. He has now dropped this pretense entirely.
Dr. Siegel's word are filled with the usual bullsh. Even this post has the same logical fallacies and standards of integrity he does not maintain for himself. As always, Dr. Siegel's biggest concern is for the anti-tobacco movement, which undermines the lip service he plays to anyone's rights. It's right in there as what "scares him the most."
Weasel words from an anti-smoker lawyer / lawyer in waiting or lawyer of the barrack room variety, desperately trying to scrape a passmark for Banzhaf while besmirching the reputation of our host and deflecting focus from the issue at hand.
A few years down the line when a blanket ban in all homes is enacted, I can imagine Tedd wringing his hands in mock shock and claiming he had no idea this was coming because Banzhaf only implied and insinuated and hinted and stated that Judges could impose home bans and encouraged them to do so.
All so predictable and nauseating.
Banzhaf's intentions are clear and his own weasel words and goals are unambiguous and obvious to all but the blindingly stupid.
GreatScot
Ted wrote:
“I just think that with his backdrop of integrity and his history of attacking those who suggest an organization is a front group for tobacco, that its worth pointing out that he does not require the same standard of proof for his own work.”
It’s also worth pointing out that none of those who were allegedly attacked has put forth even a sliver of evidence supporting their obviously false claims.
Rather it has become well known IMO that when anti-smokers are backed into a corner, they act like children and blurt out more falsehoods. When that won’t do they pull out the biggest whopper of them all “a front group for tobacco”. And again, seldom if ever is there any evidence whatsoever that substantiates their claims. All this despite the pleads and plethora of evidence to the contrary so often presented by those accused.
Its appalling but ironic that anti-smokers would use the words: integrity, history, and attacking, all in the same sentence. Although I support their right to do so. I doubt very much whether they can recite those words in front of a mirror, while considering the reputations and in some cases the careers they have ruined.
Tedd,
The horse is dedd.
Continuing your increasingly desperate efforts at parsing this stuff, only indicates the total blindness of your zealotry.
The real question, however, is why are sane people bothering to continue to debate with this guy? In the swift words of Swift: "You can't reason people out of something they haven't been reasoned into."
Judy--
The police can enter your home for "probable cause" that you're breaking a law. Any law. So if there's ever a law against smoking in your home...
For example, you can't smoke marijuana in your home. For another example, the SCOTUS case, Lawrence v Texas had the cops entering a home where 2 consenting homosexuals were in the middle of homosexing and busted the guys because, at the time, it was against Texas law. Similarly, when Connecticut had a law against contraception, the cops could--at least technically-- enter your home on suspicion of rubber.
The constitution ain't all we believe it to be.
On Banzaf--
By accident, I caught him on the radio this morning as I dialed to get the weather. It was a cooking show, I gathered, and there he was, oozing arrogance and contempt, and boasting of how his mere threats of a lawsuit had brought McDonald's to its knees (and somehow or other cost them $20 milion) and how he'd bullied school administrators and soft drink companies with the same kind of threats. His self-proclaimed theory is that lawsuits can, at least de facto, make laws, bypassing the whole legislative aka democratic process. The host, by the way, was cheering him on as he spoke about using the techniques of AT to "attack" obesity.
So, yes, he's working to exert his power over every aspect of everybody's "lifestyle" in every way he can.
And no, it won't surprise me to learn that once he's through with intimidating restaurants and food manufacturers, he'll come into the home. After all, he'll reason, isn't the home where The Children are most exposed to the horrifying dangers of Mom's apple pie?
:
Tobacco Nannies: The Mask Comes Off
Over the span of only about a dozen years, the message spread by Banzhaf and his ilk has morphed from the blandly pleasant "Please don't smoke if you think it could bother others" to an outright threat: "Give me those fags, dirtbag, or I'm battering your front door down."
http://snipurl.com/2qbuv
I knew I forgot something as soon as I clicked Publish.
I observe that, from time to time, the Doctor himself shows Teddish tendencies when he justifies the cruelty of nursing home policies, even when the policies cause injury and death to some hapless ancients. Or hospital policies that harm the already-ill. He, too, tends to parse both sentences and sentiments in defense of his crusade, and refuses to face its appalling consequences, perpetually putting lipstick on its dragon face.
Nor has he ever expressed shock or regret as the stories pile up about smokers being murdered, raped or assaulted, nor extended personal sympathy to one of our posters whose whole family has been attacked and seriously injured . And forget that those miseries have been caused by the policies he continues to promote; just as human being-- person to person-- you'd think he'd extend a thought. Sorry, wrong number.
And no regrets are expressed for the workers who've lost their jobs or the owners who've lost their businesses in the wake of his worked-for bans; collateral damage, unacknowledged and unmourned., Not a word for the people who've actually lost friends and the ability to socialize with friends they stlll have, not only because of his laws but the propaganda that goes with them.
In his mind, he seems to believe that smokers are in fact and indeed second class and even slightly subhuman. Since his only human sympathies apparently lie with the nonsmoking neighbor or the nonsmoking sports fan who might, on some occasion, find himself within the same ballpark as a smoker.
:
TEDD: "Jerry, I am not debating the merits of Banzhaf's "goals" stated or unstated. What I wanted to do was point out that the author of this blog is stepping beyond or overselling what is stated in the literature he cites.
Which, he is allowed to do. I just think that with his backdrop of integrity and his history of attacking those who suggest an organization is a front group for tobacco, that its worth pointing out that he does not require the same standard of proof for his own work.
Tedd | 06.27.08 - 11:50 pm | # ".
I'm NOT debating whether the Doc is blowing wind up his skirt with "his" proclamations, after all, he comes from you Anti's, and we've seen ALL of you lie at one point or another in your march towards TC (Total Control).
Just that because you can't see the INTENT of a "press Release" in no way makes the Docs post "oversold".
The social consequences, the cost mounts, well said walt
west
----
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...ee-auto-
eng.php
From the key message section;
" * Over one million Canadian children are exposed to second-hand smoke on a regular basis
* Second-hand smoke causes diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, etc."
In Reality Does anyone believe or have cause to believe; children are at risk of asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, due to second hand smoke?
Or should we interpret the Federal government's message to be one of promoting lies and irresponsible fear mongering by yelling fire in the theater? Is this truly "best value" for tax money spent?
From Target audience;
"Primary
* Parents (smokers and non-smokers living with a smoker) aged 20-54 with children under 18 in the home.
Secondary
* Adults 20-54, media, health practitioners, health associations
"
Targeting primarily the 50% of population to Young to have experienced the taste of a community based society and those who have never experienced the full measure of freedom we once enjoyed in that society before socialism took hold, which empowered the modern day Fascists to dominate government policies, by expanding on that socialist power.
Social Marketing could never have existed in open and public Government policy statements 50 years ago, because the same politicians who are now in a dominant position, would not have feared just loosing elections or by investigation of their lies incarceration, primarily they would have feared for their lives.
OT: Anti-tobacco lawyer does the movement proud:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/
att...627065909990002
Walt,
That's because it's ONLY the non-smokers who are victims. The typical anti reply to your various scenarios is that all the smoker had to do was NOT smoke and none of those horrible things would have happened. It's the typical blame the victim syndrom they use on rape victims.
Including the laid off workers HAVING to find new jobs, that apparently non-smokers shouldn't have to do AND aren't capable of doing. And the business owners losing their livlihood and life savings? Well, they obviously weren't good businessmen. The antis NEVER attribute such lay-offs and loss to their beloved bans.
The Nazi-like mentality is disgusting.
Something else I noticed, and while I expected it from godshall, I didn't expect it from the doc whom I used to think at least had a modicum of fairness and humanity....I don't recall the Doc ever congratulating Jalestra on the uncomplicated birth of her very healthy baby. Talk about showing your colors, that was clearly showing their annoyance that a smoker dared have an uncomplicated delivery and then such a big, healthy baby. It also proved your point that we are considered to be second class scum not deserving of the same kind of communication as their "pure" non-smokers. Care to bet that had her baby had a problem they would all have jumped right in with their "I told you so's"?
The whole thing is disgusting and makes me puke.
God, you are such a fucking moron!
"God, you are such a fucking moron!"
Now, now. The people who like God might be offended by that comment.
To be fair, I think I remember the doc chiming in with belated wishes for the gentleman whose son was brutally assaulted in an unsafe smoking area.
He had nothing to say of the gentleman's wife, who was also attacked.
He has gone out of his way, many times, however, to say that the benefits of bans have yet to outweigh the costs.
He has gone out of his way, many times, however, to say that the benefits of bans have yet to outweigh the costs.
You are absolutely correct there Cowbell, and it matters not about all the pain, suffering, death, and destruction the bans cause. That callous disregard for society as a whole and individuals in particular will come back to haunt the entire anti-smoker movement.
From the Tobacco Smoke Causes Paranoia Department:
On 6/19 we were treated to the "Smoking is Good For You" presentation by Nightlight. Missing In Action on all subsequent posts.
On 6/27 we read Tedds' "Ode to John Banzhaf". If Tedd goes Missing in Action after this thread we might be justified in asking where do these posters come from and where do they go after they have stirred up the pot?
Have we become virtual lab rats whose behavioural reactions to different stimuli are being measured?
Maybe it's just the smoke.
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf.
P.S. for Tedd. If you know where there is any Big Tobacco money floating around that isn't already commited to anti-smokers I'd greatly appreciate the help.
Those words of wisdom by "Wow" ,how does he know God is an anti smoker,that's fantastic,shall i back Germany or Spain in Euro 2008 ?
"Have we become virtual lab rats whose behavioural reactions to different stimuli are being measured?" I think you've nailed it right on the head ES.
Callous Lynda F wrote:
"I don't recall the Doc ever congratulating Jalestra on the uncomplicated birth of...."
I didn't congratulate her either.
There's enough things to fault Siegel and the rest of them on without assuming things like that.
Point taken James A, but my point was that it was ONLY the smokers here congratulating her and NOT one of the 2 or 3 very prominent antis on the list - including the blog owner.
I might be remembering wrong too, but it stands out for me because at the time I was amazed realizing that they can't even let go of their bias and hate long enough to simply congratulate another human being on the birth of her child. It very well could have been simple oversight on the Doc's part..............or it could simply have been nothing more than she's a smoker and not deserving of the most basic and common of courtesies.
And it wasn't just the Doc I was talking about. Not a single anti who posts here said a word. NOT ONE.
While no one is ever obligated to do so, I just found it quite noticable.
God, you are such a fucking moron!
Wow | 06.28.08 - 9:37 am
now THERE's intelligence for you!
Wow, you need to tell your mommy to utilize the parental controls on the computer better. OH and tell her to wash your mouth out with soap while your at it.
Thanks for pointing that out Lynda. I was wondering why it didn't get censored. Why did you let that go through Doc?
... "Smoking is Good For You" presentation by Nightlight. Missing In Action on all subsequent posts.
That "Smoking is Good For You" thread was still growing, reaching 320 posts by this morning. I do have quite a bit of other stuff on my 'task list' though, including quite demanding 'day job'. With or without me taking permanent residence in this forum, smoking will still remain just as good for you as ever. So, light it up and enjoy.
OT, but I just stumbled across this "news release" from February 2008 (are these releases PAID FOR by the persons submitting the release?):
"Don't Feed the Obese" Bill Salvageable, Says Expert -- But Narrow the Bill to Protect Children and Preserve Principle, He Urges
2008-02-02 21:04:58 - A bill which would prevent all restaurants from serving food to obese people - which is being roundly criticized or treated as a bad joke - can be made viable and worthy of serious consideration if it can be refocused on children eating at fast food chain restaurants without a parent or guardian, and only prevents them from ordering food items or meals which are extraordinarily and especially fattening, says the public interest law professor behind the modern anti-obesity movement.
(snip)
Banzhaf suggests that the bill be focused exclusively on children, arguing that "While most people have a very strong and almost visceral objection to any governmental restrictions imposed to protect their own health from their own bad judgments, we have a long tradition of protecting children from the own inability to make mature judgments."
"Thus, while we traditionally have not prevented adults from smoking tobacco, abusing alcohol, engaging in very dangerous sports and other activities, etc., we have not hesitated to legislate against children purchasing tobacco or alcohol or fire works, engaging in a variety of activities presenting even moderate dangers (e.g., getting tattoos or even vaccinations, etc.
"Focusing your bill on protecting children rather than adults would remove the major objection to it, and provide a strong argument for it - one likely to be echoed by many groups concerned about child health and welfare."
http://www.pr-inside.com/don-t-f...ble-
r418545.htm
This guy has some real personal life issues IMHO.
Enjoy;
http://lieberaldictators.blogspo...or-
freedom.html
"Banzhaf suggests that the bill be focused exclusively on children"
Otherwise Banzhaf himself would be banned from all restaurants. Where does all his body fat come from?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/
2...0INLqw2lAu7xkAw
Lawyers?
Class-Action Lawyer Gets 5 Years in Bribery Case
Richard F. Scruggs, whose successful battle against the tobacco industry in the 1990s made him one of the country’s best-known plaintiff’s lawyers, was sentenced on Friday to five years in prison for conspiring to bribe a judge.
Shylocks; many of them eventually move into Politics and legal immunity, if they aren't convicted first.
LOL
Today's news
230,000 smokers kick habit south of border in first year of public ban
http://
scotlandonsunday.scotsman...ticleid=4233933
Cheers! Publicans Drink To Smoking Ban
Almost half (48%) said they "strongly" supported the ban, saying food sales had increased and their health had improved
http://news.sky.com/skynews/arti...7,00.html?
f=rss
British Pubs Closing At Fastest Rate Ever
Pubs are closing down at their fastest rate ever - with those in towns and cities being hit the hardest"
http://news.sky.com/skynews/
arti...1320118,00.html
'The hollow boast of the smoking ban'
"Today that boast raises a hollow laugh as village after village and town after town lose their pubs. Research by trade magazine The Publican shows that only one in three licensees has attracted new customers since the new rules came in last July"
http://www.thepublican.com/story...ycode=60281&
c=1
LAST orders may soon be called at workingmen’s clubs across Wales because the smoking ban is dragging down business
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/new...91466-21168056/
Confused?
You missed one Rose.
http://tinyurl.com/68cgxz
In this piece, (mindblowing in and of itself, given that the MSM are mostly deaf, dumb and blind to ban damage), we learn that 78,000 bar staff have been sacked due to reduced business in pubs since the ban came in last July. We learn that a staggering 22,500 pubs will go to the wall.
I just wanted to thank all the anti-smokers out there for
a) showing us that bar staff really CAN be protected from SHS
b) showing us that bans really ARE good for business
and that
c) all non-smokers will rush to fill up the sweet smelling pubs.
And, while we are off topic, if you are interested, this is my take on the last 12 months or so:
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ews1.php?
id=728
The good news is that thousands of theoretical lives have been saved.
Be still my beating heart.
Excellent article Collin.
Definitely on the must read list.
As they tear down our venues which served us better than the news media ever could in forming communities for generations while freely exchanging ideas.
In doing so they take away our ability to exchange ideas and community values, that they can't control. That is precisely why they initially attacked the churches and that is why the pubs and bingo's are expendable as well. Too many people in one place might have an inspired thought and they can't afford the growth of alternative opinions.
Is that the sound of boots marching in the distance?
Cheers
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports today that a poll paid for by the American Lung Association of Illinois, the American Cancer Society-Illinois and the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, asked 606 Illinoisans if the Illinois smoking ban had been "beneficial". 73 percent said yes.
So what! If I had been asked the same question, I would answer yes too. There will be benefits to any ban. The real question that should have been asked is: "Is the loss of freedom and curtailment of property rights due to the Illinois smoking ban justified by whatever health benefits the ban provides?" My answer to that question is no!
This St. Louis Post-Dispatch article only quotes smoking ban proponents concerning the poll. Is that good journalism?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday...3F?
OpenDocument
The difference between journalism and public relations or propaganda is the former should provide both sides of a story. As with Banzhaf and his press release, only one side of a issue is presented and highlighting only positive aspects to promote an agenda. Clearly the author of this piece, gives overwhelming coverage of just one side of this issue, and in my opinion is a propagandist, and not a journalist. The editors of this rag are also guilty for allowing such biased coverage to reach print. Clearly this paper isn't worthy of lining the bottom of a bird cage, much less being called a news paper.
Bill H wrote:
"This St. Louis Post-Dispatch article only quotes smoking ban proponents concerning the poll. Is that good journalism?"
From Bill H link
"The Washington-based firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research polled 606 Illinoisans on the smoking ban from May 28 to June 1. The poll was paid for by the American Lung Association of Illinois, the American Cancer Society-Illinois and the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago."
Here’s some other clients of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research:
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Nevada Tobacco Prevention Coalition, Physicians for Social Responsibility…
http://www.greenbergresearch.com...ndex.php?
ID=109
I have to ask, is citing polls from “researchers” who’s clients by their very nature present conflicts of interests; is that good journalism? Or is there just such a low standard placed on ban related issues?
Good grief!
Now its up to 400,000!
400,000 smokers have quit in year since ban
'These figures show the largest fall in the number of smokers on record. I never expected such a dramatic impact,' said Prof Robert West of Cancer Research UK.
Just think 170,000 gave up this very afternoon, now thats what I call impressive.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/arti...3&
in_page_id=34
Good article Colin.
"We have a proven record of advancing the interests of people and organizations seeking progressive change, like the Nobel Peace Prize winning Campaign to Ban Landmines, the International Committee of the Red Cross's work to understand the impact of war on civilians around the world, and the Natural Resource Defense Council's work on global climate change." -- Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Web Site. http://www.greenbergresearch.com...ndex.php?
ID=409
Seems there is more focus on Public Relations, and advancing the agenda of the client, then conducting scientific research. Clearly the NGO's are spending donors money for Public Marketing rather then researching cures, and why I will no longer contribute to these organizations.
As these NGO's have adopted to move into the realms of Political Action Commitees and away from the benevolent non-profit charity to which they were granted special tax treatment and benifits, they should be seen for what they really are; special interest lobby groups. As such, they should have their tax exempt status restricted, as are other PAC's like the NRA.
Thanks Rose.
The author of this guff obviously didnt bother to proof-read his/her report.
"Another new study, published in the medical journal Lancet Oncology, found smoke-free policies cut adult smoking rates and exposure to second-hand smoke without reducing trade at pubs and cafes.
It also claimed that take-up rates among youths have fallen and predicted heart disease and lung cancer will drop as a result of the ban.
The authors said: 'These policies have many effects on smoking behaviour which compound the expected health benefits.'
But a recent survey found 77 per cent of pub owners thought their business had been battered by the ban".
Read the first sentence, then the last sentence.
Spot any problems there?
They want it both ways.....
I would be glad for anyone to back me up on the main St. Louis Post-Dispatch political blog:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone.../political-fix/
More accurately:
http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone...comment-time-9/
Bill H;
Smoking bans are punishment not protection, as the Ontario Premier admitted numerous times publicly, in advance of the smoker bans “smokers better get out their carrot sticks or be punished.” [Normally a responsibility of the courts]
That "Punishment" is being used as a tool for illegal acts of coercion. The use of government authority, to force personal autonomous decisions. Interference beyond government jurisdiction, in respect to the management of ones own body.
Anyone dense enough to believe Politicians and anti smoker lobbies are thinking about the safety of the public, is missing the boat. Just listen to the frothing and contempt in their language while talking about "Helping smokers to quit" and the mother Theresa product branding looses a lot, credibility wise.
This is about creating a destroyed identity, and it’s just a warm up for more crimes to come.
Governments ar