Michael;
The hypocrisy resides first in any of the named groups including TC having any say at all in these matters.
They collectively conspired to increase health risks and hatred against smokers in a move to "force smokers to quit" at least on the surface that is the impression they promote. In reality none of the groups have supported smokers quitting. Who, after all do they pretend to support in these discussions? They certainly do not support smokers. The FDA regulations do not involve non smokers so why would any of the groups who do nothing nut express hatred of smokers have the exclusive say in what is best for smokers.
You reinforce stereotypes in non-smoking public, which encourages exclusive principles. At the same time you reinforce in smokers the apparent futility in attempting to quit with statements supporting the intense nature of addiction and weakness of smokers who will be largely unsuccessful if they try to quit without aids, which in reality lessen the chances of quitting/ You twist science to your liking to sell the un-necessary fear of ETS in the public and complain bitterly when others do the same, following your own example.
None of the groups want to see smoking end, it keeps funding and continued support or relevance of existence sustained. Continued smoking keeps funding of the groups invigorated which obviously is the most important part of advocacy by all members involved.
All of the named groups in a sane world would be shown the door in these discussions the fact they will exclude smokers from the discussions and speak for them demonstrates how low the ethical considerations actually reside, and what a farce the entire political posturing game really is. Why not allow the Tobacco companies to make the rules they have been in control all along, anyone naïve enough to believe anything else deserves exactly what they get.
I see Dr. Siegel has found it necessary to delete my comment from Friday. So I will post it again and ask why this would be considered unacceptable. I was really trying to say some nice things about him. This was the best I could do. Honestly.
Clearly there is no pleasing Dr. Siegel. If governments make bans enforceable, he cries that smokers are going to wind up in jail. If the law is kept light so as to simply help educate parents that they shouldn't smoke in the car with their kids, we get this cynical nonsense. What he obviously wants is for the government to do nothing about this, a course of inaction which only serves to protect tobacco sales by keeping parents puffing away uninterrupted.
Then again, maybe he has a point. After all, what's a few ear infections compared to protecting parents from societal pressures to remove themselves from close proximity to their children when they smoke? The inconvenience might cause them to smoke a little less or even consider quitting, and we must spare them this aggravation. And it's just a risk. Risks are everywhere -- heck, you could choke on a chicken bone. What's next, are we going to prohibit parents from serving chicken? Besides, most kids will only go deaf in one ear, which still leaves them with one good one. You really have to weigh the costs and benefits. Because smoking has a lot of benefits.
And so what if the kid coughs and wheezes, they'll get over it. Bronchitis? No big deal, that'll just toughen them up. Congratulations Dr. Siegel on bucking the trend of physicians concerning themselves exclusively with health, we've had entirely too much of that. Most doctors don't seem to understand that it's very important to protect the right of parents to expose their children to an easily preventable source of sickness and disease.
And congratulations on your fine work helping to convince smokers that smoke-free air laws come from anti-smokers who hate them and wish to punish them -- because as we now know, it's important to treat the mind as well as the body. It takes a special doctor to come up with all these eloquent arguments when other MDs would be mindlessly bent on promoting health protection and healthier choices. Including providing sound bites for the websites of groups like CAGE whose sole purpose and function is to oppose legislated smoking restrictions. Because it's important to support groups that fight to protect the right to smoke.
So once again congratulations on your excellent work, doctor. You're a real credit to your profession.
As for his posts over the weekend and today, Dr. Siegel's repetitive use of the term "junk science" seems a bit like brainwashing to me, and is very interesting when one considers its origins: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
climat...1875760,00.html
Cathy, and yes, we all know that is you trying to be annon, so show some spine and use your name.
Why are you repeating this comment on this thread? I read this over the weekend. Your non-smoking intelligent brain probably just forgot WHAT thread you posted it to...........but not to worry, it happens to the best of us.
Your laws will NOT stop parents from smoking in front of their children. NO law would get me to stand outside my own home that *I* pay for just to smoke; especially when my home is about the only place left that I CAN smoke freely.
I hate to break it to you, dear, BUT my son was surrounded with two smoking parents, and that child was hardly ever ill and is still healthy as all get out at the ripe old age of 27. MY provable proof is in myself, my family, friends and child...all of whom are healthy and living breathing proof that your side is exaggerating facts in order to push YOUR personal agenda.
And yes, I do consider you an anti....anti-smoking AND anti-smoker. And I base that on the tone of your comments here. I base that on the rantings I've read on your homepage. AND since freedom of speech is still allowed (for now) and I am entitled to form my own opinion from what you have offered, I am more than entitled to voice that.
No, I didn't forget. New Jersey Town Bans Smoking in Cars with Kids. My comment is gone but still talked about. That's his right, I was just wondering why, since I was trying to say some nice things about him. You know, accentuate the positive.
Maybe I'm just anti-corporate BS, ever think of that? Read the article, it may open your eyes.
If you were anti-industry Cathy, why would you work so hard to protect the interests of the tobacco industry, while promoting hatred against their victims? Do you believe reinforcing stereotypes telling smokers their is no hope smoking is too hard to quit while describing them as weak, will be consistent with promoting an environment which would help them quit? Be honest, you want to milk this as long as possible TC has no intention or motivation to see anyone quit. Daily dips into the public trough depend on sustaining smoking indefinitely. Now that TC has succeeded in making smoking numbers rise for the first time in 50 years your Tobacco industry masters should be pleased although they need to realize your use will soon be done as well. The risk of detection grows with every new lie. Now competition is coming online competing in use of your same fraudulent claims and number twisting, confused and conflicted messages will soon be noticed. TC will soon be fodder for others feasting at the trough.
Admit it at least to yourself; you are just a Tobacco industry shill. Making profits while spreading unsubstantiated rumors about your neighbors.
Seek some professional help. You may even find some pleasant years ahead, once you deal with your internal projections and denials.
No, I didn't forget. New Jersey Town Bans Smoking in Cars with Kids.
Cathy, really........a news media article promoting YOUR favorite agenda of a smoke-free world, is your idea of PROOF that your claims are true? All that proves is that you can't trust the media anymore than you can trust a politician on the take.
Try providing some real facts. You know, the kind that are irrefutable, that leave NO reasonable doubt whatsoever? The problem is you know that proof does not exist as we have our own lives and the lives of our children to support us. What do you have? Some computer generated figures based on cherry-picked information fed it?
PUHLEEEZE, surely you can do better than that?
Then again, maybe not.
My Work Is (never) Done wrote:
"a course of inaction which only serves to protect tobacco sales by keeping parents puffing away uninterrupted."
You know, for somebody who came here and said they weren't anti-smoking, but just for smoke-free air (in places that don't belong to you), well, what is that, the 15th time you've made negative tobacco industry comments and the 25th time you've shown you have a problem with people who smoke?
And this precious bit:
"And congratulations on your fine work helping to convince smokers that smoke-free air laws come from anti-smokers who hate them and wish to punish them"
You really are a newb. Some of the people on here have been screaming that for more than a decade.
Yea, Cathy Bell, but what if that parent wants to smoke in front of their child and they think that SHS is not harmful because they have another child that grew up without any known complications? Who are you to say that's wrong? So SIDS is associated with SHS? Obviously this incident didn't affect the older child. And just because it seems like a small deal to you, going outside to smoke to protect the health of your children can be a real hassle. We don't want your knowledge of health issues, and who are you to say that health is more important than personal convenience? It is critically important to protect the right to smoke in front of infants and children because if we lose that right next they are going to take French fries away. I am a firm believe in protecting all of parental autonomy or none of it. There can be no middle ground.
And last, just because SHS is abusive to the health of a child doesn't mean its child abuse. Child abuse always involves immediate removal of the child from the home and if we allow these rogue governments to pass these kinds of ordinances next thing you know we'll have to wear helmets while we drive. You see, it’s not the initial ordinance that's bad, it that this is just the beginning. They are trying to turn this into a socialist society. It’s that simple. So don't ever let an anti tell you that smoking is abusive to the health of your children. These acts are nothing more than attempts to brainwash you into believing that you are doing something wrong by smoking around your toddlers. And anyone can get brainwashed. It even happened to Dr. Siegel before he got into an authorship dispute and realize how crooked the whole TC racket really is. So butt out Cathy Bell and don’t come back to this website.
OMG what UTTER TRIPE..........I'm laughing so hard I can barely type. OTOH, it is truly sad that so many people, otherwise normal intelligent people believe the tripe.
Contrary to the blatherings of the likes of the Miz Anonymous Cathys of the world, including the Bills, and Carls, and Swedas, and to a great extent the good Dr. Siegel himself, smoking bans are NOT about health, they are about control. Control of people. I just read an excerpt of yet another article in regard to the "consensus" on the science of global warming.....and once again they are comparing the skeptics on that issue to the tobacco industry and those who oppose smoker bans.
Basically it states that when it comes to global warming, everyone will do as the Al Gore types say regardless of the cost, 'you will assimilate, or else.' Just like the anti-smoker control freaks, they will bring to their knees anyone who bucks the trend or gets in their way.
Control freaks do not care who they harm as long as they attain their control over those they disagree with, and the more harm they inflict the more enjoyment they get out it.
If I sound a bit angry here, it is because I am, I've been abused by these people since the late 1980's and the abuse has only gotten worse. Back then I warned they would not stop at smoking/no smoking sections, they would go for total no smoking and even that wouldn't be good enough.......I was right
Absolutely it is about control. They want to control everything you do, and keep you from smoking. Gabz, what could be more pleasurable than keeping you from smoking? They get off on that kind of control. That's why they need to be stopped.
You were absolutely right, first smoking sections, then they use the excuse that smoking sections don't stop smoke from spreading around the restaurant to push for a complete ban in the restaurant. What an incredible premonition you had. It's a perfect example of the slippery slope in action. Now they want us to go outside.
One thing they need to get clear is that this it the kind of inconvenience that I'll never put up with if I have any say in it. I'll smoke my cigarette right where I am thank you, and if the rest don't like it they didn't have to come here in the first place.
Qbert,
Perhaps one day it will dawn upon Cathy that abuse comes in many forms, and the psychological stress she attempts to place on healthy children is far worse then any exposure to SHS. Nothing says "I love you" more then being told your parents are deliberately trying to hurt you.
And since Cathy considers any risk to be equivalent to actual harm, we must all surrender our children, such that individuals like Cathy can cause them real psychological harm.
Not too long ago there was a woman on Wife Swap, that insisted that feeding kids meat was child abuse.
Walt man, you hit the nail right on the head. What a pithy analysis, and you are probably right on the money with your psychoanalysis of Cathy. Probably the reasons she is the way she is is because her parents had to deal with the same kind of nuts that today's smoking parents have to deal with. Maybe one day she'll realize this comes full circle. I think just being in the same room as her risks harm, and since that is child abuse they should just go ahead and lock her up right now before she abuses anyone else by exercising her right to free speech. Last I think we should definitely protect children by not telling their parents that SHS is harmful. I am not advocating brainwashing or anything, but let's keep them ignorant. It is far better to let them deal with the health consequences than to let them know SHS is harmful to children. Information is really overrated - especially when it gets in the way of the parent child relationship.
Qbert,
You know, it's one thing to educate parents, and quite another to teach kids tell kids their parents are trying to harm them.
But you seem to have the same issue as Cathy, in not being able to distinguish between real harm, and risk.
What is worse, is the false impressions left behind, as even if a parent doesn't smoke in front of their children, simply because they smoke they must be guilty.
Cathy posted an excellent example of such not too long ago.
While parents should be mindful of the signs and potential hazards of smoking around children, to make the leap that the vast majority of children who suffer no ill concequences are being abused is well criminal. It is a false accusation and slander. Knowing that the vast majority of children do not suffer ill effects is "with malice."
No one. Not Cathy, Not Bill, Not Jill the Pill or even the good doc has demonstrated to me that SHS is "particularly" harmful to children. I've been asking over and over again for someone to take on the challenge and convince me the error of my ways. All I get are squishy stats about ear infections (which have never been a problem for my kids) and the almighty "everyone knows" and "it's just common sense". Even many smokers rights people just repeat the "it's not a good idea to smoke around kids" mantra. As if repeating something often enough just makes it true.
So I ask again - why the hell are you so compelled to change my behavior over a non-existent or at the most a miniscule problem? What am I missing here? Why so much hysteria that you feel the need to make me a criminal for exposing my children to SHS? Can't you guys find anything more compelling to do with your time?
No, I know the difference between real harm and risk. Saying that it is abusive to the health of infants and children to smoke in their presence is not really true. It's like not wearing a helmet. It would be slanderous to suggest that this is not a wise activity because not wearing a helmet only increases the risk for death, it doesn't actually cause death. We all know full well some riders will never be in accidents in the first place. Similarly SHS only increases the risk of ear infections/asthma/cancer/heart disease. Some parents choose to take that risk with the health of their children and their right to do so should be respected.
That is an excellent example Qbert, in Cathy's world any parent that doesn't put a helmet on their child before putting them in a car is a child abuser.
Likewise, one of the most common household triggers of asthma attacks are pets. Not only could they trigger a fatal asthma attack, but this also leads to an increased risk of middle ear infections.
Of course since Cathy isn't a caped crusader for PETA, this isn't a concern of hers, however the precidents she is attempting to set could be.
Yes and becuase of that parents should be allowed to do things how they want. No helmet, not problem. Tobacco smoke with an infant in teh back seat? No biggy. Its the parents chouice.
Don't see too many PSA's calling parents who don't put helmets on their kids when they put them in the car, child abusers. Don't see PSA's calling parents who have pets child abusers.
But we do find anti-tobacco proponents doing exactly that if it involves smoking.
Thank you Walt H. and Qbert for pointing out these useful analogies. They do expose why it is ridiculous to call parents who smoke around their children child abusers. And Walt is right - you don't see too many health groups calling parents child abusers for failing to protect them from health risks in any way other than smoking. That's where the hatred appears to come in.
But Doctor,
Can't we use the same logic here that applies to bars and restaurants?
Ban supporters say, "No we cannot protect all workers from all risks, but since smoking is so EASY to eliminate from these environments, since it is so EASY for people to step outside... It's only a minor inconvenience..."
It is not as much of a leap as you might imagine.
And... if parents are not "abusing" their children by forcing them to breathe SHS, it seems clear that employers are not abusing employees, right?
Seriously. At least the employee has SOME say in the arrangement. The employee can quit. The child can't.
I am trying to think: Are there many other things we allow parents to do to their children, but forbid employers to do to employees because these things are such obvious and disgraceful health risks?
I can't think of any. Although I could be wrong.
Let me be clear: I am against all of these laws. I do, in fact, think people are unfairly singling out smokers, like the doctor suggests. And you can tell, because the people who are arguing to make smoking illegal around children are ignoring far greater threats that children face.
But as we have discussed on other threads, it seems clear that smoking bans in bars and restaurants ignore far greater threats to workers. OSHA compiles a list of the most dangerous jobs, after all. And tending bar ain't on the list.
So... if we are going to take the banners to task in this case because they ignore other threats to children, how should we approach "worker safety" regulations that single out smoke while ignoring other, deadlier threats?
I would suggest an amendment to any and all smoking ban ordinances that would extend the ban to any and all substances or practices that can be proven to be at least as deadly as SHS on a per-worker basis.
Fair enough?
PS: I don't think NASCAR will like that rule.
If parents don't make their children wash their hands before eating -- and not just with any soap but that anti-bacterial kind (which is so much B.S.)-- it needs to go on the child abuse list.
(Just felt like tossing another analogy out there).
Oh wait, I knew I had something else of more substance to say here.
Dr. Siegel, please comment on the content of this press release:
Doctors ill equipped to confront parent smoking, May 1, 2007
Contact: Anna Nguyen, Temple University
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re...u-
die042607.php
The Surgeon General’s report also found secondhand smoke causes... death in children...
The developing lungs of young children are severely affected by exposure to secondhand smoke...
Aside from the unbearable nag factor (that would keep me from seeing such a doctor) this press release promotes, do you find these statements to be exaggerated?
Why weren't the lungs of baby boomers "severely" affected by their parents smoking?
Why are children suffering higher rates of asthma, autism, life-threatening allergies than boomers did?
Has the health of children actually benefited because of anti-tobacco initives. Or have they merely be scared to death and trained to become risk adverse!
Why do people get to make their own judgement calls on things like forced vaccinations when "everyone knows" and "its only common sense" that children should be vaccinated?
Why do some parents insist on allowing their children to drink raw milk when such a practise was responsible for something like 25 % of all childhood mortality prior to pasturization?
Why are some parents allowed to treat their child with herbal medication when the entire industry is unregulated and many such medications have never be properly analysed to determine either content or efficacy?
This isn't about whether it is dangerous or merely discourteous to smoke in a car with your children!
It is about telling children that their parents don't "really love" them like the state and anti-tobacco does!
Its about introducing a schism in the basic family unit!
Its about using children to spy on and manipulate the parents!
Its about using enforcement officers - a select group of people who have been given special powers under legislation to protect the innocent from crimes - to enforce the social engineering goals of the few on the many!
Did we really allow anti-tobacco into the classrooms to provide children with information they needed to have in order that their decision to start smoking would be an informed decision.
Or did we allow anti-tobacco unfettered access to our children in order to have them used as political tools (without giving the children the information they needed to make the decision about whether they wanted to be used that way)?
Did we really want our children to become the personal emissaries of anti-tobacco in our homes and personal lives?
Cathy Bell - in case this has never occurred to you - there is a difference between "you" and "me". I was not put on this earth to fulfil YOUR goals and desires. My hopes and dreams are NOT, your hopes and dreams. My children are mine to nurture - not YOURS.
I have a natural right to self-determination that supercedes the anti-tobacco goals of control and social-engineering.
And I have the natural right to raise my children as I see fit.
Unless you can meet the criminal standards of proof for child abuse, then it is libel and slander to call parents who smoke in front of their children "child abusers"
Anti-tobacco have no right to reduce the very serious crime of child abuse to a misdemeanor punishable by fine like a traffic ticket!
My home, my family belongs to me. I have never transferred that ownership to anti-tobacco as their "last frontier".
Michelle
It really is very clear that everyone is is driven by this hatred of smokers. Why else would they want to keep people from smoking around their children. It's not because they see people smoking around kids and see an easily avoidable health hazard. It's not because smoking has been associated with SIDS, cancer, heart disease, and ear infections. It's not because most people have a sense that it is irresponsible for parents to put personal convenience over the health of their children. It is clear that this is being driven out of pure hatred and bigotry, just like the KKK or Nazi germany. These smoke haters must be stopped before smoking is driven out of society entirely.
Its very clear that tobacco control must be stopped before the state gains control not only of my children, depriving me of my natural right to parent and destroying the traditional family unit but also of my person to the point where my body belongs to the state instead of to me!
Michelle
Yes indeed, the "heal the mind as well as the body" phrase is typical Cathy Bell, sort of new age come eastern mystic religionist.
The problem is, as the anti-smoking crew are profoundly mentally sick and corrupt (as is shown by their propensity for lying) it is a case of: "physician, heal thyself" or "please take that ruddy big rafter out of your own eye before you try to take the piece of sawdust out of mine." Or maybe: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"...Even.
Yea verily: Mene,mene,tekel uphasin!
Well, guess my work here is done. Hi-yo Silver, Awwaaaay!
QBert,
ETS has not been sufficiently associated with SIDS Cancers and Heart diseases among children exposed and the Upper and Lower respiratory and Ear infections are on anything but stable ground either. This is a matter of who has a right to say how your own children will be raised and educated. If you have children you would understand the intrusive insult this represents. Your posts sound facetious as though you are trying to adjust the forum language to an accepted TC speech pattern. The references to those associations normally are only used in hypothetical reference not as accepted facts, because it is no secret the science is absolutely fraudulent in nature and in the way it is used.
Creating an opinion thinly supported by insignificant numbers of a possible increased association, and applying that risk calculation on a population group as though no other cause were possible; is statistical fraud when handed to the public as irrefutable fact makes the organization and all who support those dissertations guilty of frauds as well.
It is only a matter of time before competing interests with other motivations educate the public and those frauds will be exposed.
I would be careful walking in those slimy TC shoes, they will soon learn a new reality eventually every downward trend becomes a slippery slope, and there are many partners left wide open to credibility slippage.
Qbert,is your rhetoric supported by the WHO's study on SHS that suggests a protective effect.I believed Dr Siegel should have examined this curious anomaly in far greater detail since it flies in the face of his trusted EPA 2005 REPORT.THERE'S SO MUCH FISH ABOUT IT MUST BE FRIDAY.
I hope you are all aware that Qbert is just screwing with everyone. His backhanded statements are extremely like Cathy's earlier post. That oh, I agree you should be able to kill anyone you please however you like. Sarcasm, and you're not all that good at it. Subtlety..use more subtlety.
And "Qbert", smoking has not been associated with SIDS. Or should I say...Cathy?
Sam-
I think it is important to make a distinction between protecting workers in a workplace and protecting people in a private home. We tend not to intervene in the home unless the risk is an immediate and life-threatening one. We intervene in the workplace, however, to regulate hazards that merely increase long-term risk of disease. I think that's an important distinction that must not be ignored.
I do agree with you that workplace hazards more serious than secondhand smoke should also be regulated. However, I'm not aware of any that are not regulated, other than those which are an inherent part of a job. Can you provide an example of an occupational health hazard that causes more disease and deaths than secondhand smoke is estimated to cause by OSHA (approximately 40,000 deaths per year I think) but is not regulated? It would help me to see specifically what you are referring to.
Also, one more analogy might help explain my reasoning about why it is important to distinguish inherent risks from preventable ones. Suppose I run a cab business. I own the cabs and hire people to drive them. Any cab driver who works for me is going to have to assume the inherent risk that driving a car is dangerous. There is no way to avoid that risk completely. Few would argue that I cannot run a cab business because it presents risks to my workers.
However, suppose I decide not to maintain my cabs and I let the brakes go out of repair. Or suppose that the seat belts don't work and I refuse to fix them. Here, I have a responsibility to address these risks because they are preventable and the cab drivers should not assume these preventable risks. Sure, one could argue that as long as I tell them that the brakes don't work on their cab then they have a choice of not working for my company. But suppose they really need the money to support their families and no other jobs are easily available. It would be unacceptable for me not to maintain the brakes on my cabs.
This, in essence, is why I argue that we need to protect workers from preventable workplace hazards and why we cannot simply argue that if workers don't like it, they can just choose not to work for that employer. It also explains why I don't feel we need to regulate every workplace risk - those which are absolutely inherent to the job are not truly preventable, at least not within reason.
One has to wonder about the name Tobacco Control is this in reality actually indicative of control by the Tobacco industry? It certainly serves them well. They are accused of a number of sins yet who us being punished, and takes the brunt of public disdain? Smokers are accused of murder, Child abuse and a number of associations indicating ignorance and insensitivity compared to those who do not smoke.
The industry is still able to participate without opposition of the most prominent participating partners of TC in the creation of laws and regulations affecting the industry. Only smokers are painted as pariahs and are no longer permitted to speak. Yes I would say the evidence is over whelming, TC is the voice of the Tobacco Industry dedicated to growing the industry and protecting its increasing profits.
Michael;
Perhaps the risks in industry are simply not acknowledged because they are regulated and no longer pose a threat. How many do you calculate would die if say natural gas pipes were not inspected when installed?
The problem is ETS risk has never been clearly defined the “no safe level” is a convenient political scapegoat nothing more; every indication in research demonstrates risk increases with exposure rates and duration. Your own assessment in agreeing casual association causing chronic disease as ridiculous is in agreement with a linear association cause and effect [poison in the dose]. As with other chemical hazards in the workplace ETS can have known safe levels established. Review of the research with so little risk after a 45 year worst case lifetime exposure indicates those safe levels could be quite broad, indicative to the public how small the risk actually is.
As I demonstrated in an earlier thread a 30 year lifetime risk of radiation exposure to pilots was described as "comforting" in spite of the .7 increased risk which was reported as an increase of 25 to 25.7% Whereas ETS risk was widely reported as a 30% increased risk leaving the public with a much different perspective, inconsistently not stating an increase of 25to 25.3% and anything but the word comforting was used. In perspective flying in a plane is the same as the projected risk perspective as those being given fear casual exposures, of the smoke coming through a receptacle Major media groups viewers are being advised to duct tape their doors to avoid risks imposed on them by their neighbors This goes way too far.
No one from any of the learned crowd has been responsible enough to step forward to balance those fears, which to me speaks a lot to the quality of science and integrity demonstrated.
Dr. Siegel,
Excellent points. And I will attempt to address them.
Again, we go back the the question of "inherent." What is risks are "inherent" in driving a cab? The actual driving, sure. But a lot of things increase the risks. Unnecessarily. We allow cab drivers to take expressways to the airport, because it is faster. But faster can also mean more danger. So does that mean we ought to force cab drivers to take back streets at all times? Driving at night is clearly more dangerous than driving during the day. Should we mandate no cabs after sundown? People can clearly make appointements at other times.
It is also worth noting that in your scenario, regulations try to make the business in question AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE. Yes, we force the cab company to maintian brakes and seatbelts. But we do not force them to maintain a fleet of $65,000 Volvos. But why? Volvos are safer than other cars. As a matter of fact, why not insist that all cab companies maintain a level of safety NASCAR maintains? It would cost about $100,000 per vehicle, if not more. Which would drive some of them out of business. But we don't care when Joe's Smokes and Beers goes out of business. So why the double standards?
The fact of the matter is, these bans are just what they sound like. Bans. No degree of ventilation is allowable. We would not even permit a bar owner to operate a business if his workers tended bar in top-level haz-mat suits.
So I throw the question right back at you: Why, in the case of SHS, is the only acceptable level of risk "zero"?
I said it before: I think that some people exagerrate the damage that smoking bas do to some bars ad restaurants. But I think you would have admit that some banners minimize that damage. The fact of the matter is, bans destroy some businesses. Meaning that, in those cases, smoking was, in fact, an inherent part of the business plan. Just as being able to operate $25,000 vehicles as opposed to $100,000 is inherent to the success of some cab companies.
So would you support NASCAR-level safety standards for cab companies? Because people do die in cabs. And most of them probaby wouldn't if NASCAR rules prevailed. Meaning that the deaths are, in fact, preventable. Again, I admit that such standards would drive many cabs companies out of business. But we don't care about that. Safety first.
As for other risks that kill 40,000 people per year, I will ignore the pat response of, "Show me the list." Instead, I will again point out the problem of population size. Million upon million of people work in the bar/restaurant industry. Only 40-60 people drive in NASCAR's top series every year. And every few years one of them dies--amounting to a death that could have been prevented had the government intervened. Meaning that in some given years, a full 2 percent of NASCAR drivers die due to preventable job risks.
Is the precentage anywhere near as high for bartenders?
Again, you seem content to allow cab companies to simply MINIMIZE risks. Eliminating the risks would just be too expensive, and many companies would go under. But in the case of bar owners who want to provide a welcoming environment for smokers, you demand the complete elimination of risk. And if they go under, too bad.
That seems like a double standard.
BTW when you grow popular opinion based in distortion of perspectives; what is the natural tendency of human nature after realization occurs they have been duped and large financial resources have been fraudulently taken in support of promoting that distortion.
Who will be the target of that reaction and how many participating partners will ultimately be at risk of ETS promoted fears.
That is the true danger of ETS.
Doc, and just like the cab drivers must understand the risk of driving when they take the job, so must anyone assess their perspective working environment and figure if those risks are worth it.
Quite frankly, the regulations we do have is because it is PROVEN, not with epidemiology, but with real corpses, that there was a problem. I have yet to see one corpse that can be attributed to smoking. I mean, is it diet? Smoking? Asbestos? Allergens? Campfires? Molds in the home? The problem is, the things that kill smokers are all attributable to many things...and when someone dies of them the common reaction by our lazy medical community is "smoking". This isn't House and noone goes and investigates our homes for other causes. Most bars are located either in the industrial section of town or by major roads, or both...perhaps it's this? While I'll never say smoking is innocent, until our medical community gets off it's lazy butt, I'll never believe that people can have horrible diets, living conditions, habits that are automatically cleared just because they smoke.
Sam;
I think your point could be better made by drawing attention to how many people occupy a car with mandatory seat belts and how many ride in school buses or commuter buses and trains with no seat belt regulations.
How much potential risk is demonstrated and why is that inherent risk not recognized?
It certainly was pointed out when mandating car seat belts, the risk as opposed to how many would be saved.
Financial feasibility seems to be the most common explanation in establishing acceptable risk however no one seems to touch the subject of how much a single life is worth, unless of course you are promoting industry financed lobby group causes. The only groups I see with enough cash at hand to promote noticeable media opinions. Or to browbeat legislators who do not tow the line.
A bit off topic, but when you say financial feasibility you definitely don't mean the common man: http://www.canada.com/nationalpo...84-
b62dee548fda
Just those rich enough to influence someone.
JALESTRA,your comments regarding PROVEN HARM is at the heart of this deceit.Where is the proof Dr Siegel ?You appear to be doing your best to dodge this issue.Why won't you debate it openly and fully ?
Too many analogies, too many comparisons to other issues, only serves to muddy the waters. As an example: hockey provides kids with meaningful benefits and it entails a certain amount of rough contact, inherent to the sport. Smoking in close proximity to children and infants, on the other hand, provides no benefits (except for tobacco companies) and needn't be an inherent part of driving a kid to school. We are talking about an easily prevantable cause of sickness and disease.
Smoking in the home will never be regulated because it would entail police intervention in the home that even most non-smokers would find unacceptable. That's a red herring. Car smoking bans are just an easy way to provide a bit of protection for kids from SHS exposure at very close quarters, and perhaps more importantly, to help educate parents about what they shouldn't be doing in the home.
And just to be clear (Keven), I don't hold a position or even belong to any group related to tobacco control. If you think my arguments indicate such an affiliation, I would suggest that any objective person could come here and quickly see the flaws in Dr. Siegel's arguments against car smoking bans. And if I were in tobacco control, I doubt I would have much time for this blog. I suspect they have concluded that Dr. Siegel and his cynical arguments deserve simply to be ignored.
Well, they do think Doc should be ignored. Like you Cathy, they don't listen to facts...
Easily preventable Cathy ? Only because you want it to be so.Every spout you make fails to provide evidence of what you are stating as fact,if you can provide the evidence then do so,so far you've provided enough hot air to provide a city with its heating requirements in winter,as to evidence,you are like the Marie Celeste.Go on surprise us all.
If they ignore Doc, it's only because TC knows which side it's bread is buttered on.
occupational health hazard that causes more disease and deaths than secondhand smoke is estimated to cause by OSHA (approximately 40,000 deaths per year I think)
Doc, you have mentioned this several times in the past few days. I've checked the OSHA site and cannot find ANY reference to this statement at all. WHERE is it?
As for these regulations never impacting home life: nonsense. People in various jursidictions have already proposed them. It is only a matter of time. (I was living in Montgomery County, MD, when someone proposed such an idea.)
As for "easily preventable:" I go back to the idea of what a given bar or restaurant actually does. Let's say I operate Sam's Billiards and Beer Room. And let's say 95 percent of my clientele smokes. And let's say they won't come if I ban smoking. Or will come less. Or will drink and socialize less if they do come.
In this case, SHS would still be "easily preventable" from your perspective, because the regulation would make the bar better for you. But the fact of the matter is, I am not interested in serving you. I am interested in serving my existing clientele. Because it's a good business.
But whatever else it is, banning SHS is NOT "easy." it harms my business. It makes my customers less happy with the place. And in it does, in fact, take away at least some modicum of my capacity to dispense with my property as I see fit.
Again, you can argue that the ban is worth the hassle it causes. And that it is worth whatever businesses it harms. Fine. Great. Go ahead. You can make a good case for that. But to argue that such bans are "easy" is to be dishonest.
Look, a ban on bad words in music would be "easy" for me. I am not a recording artist. Nor is my collection heavy on artists who use a lot of profanity. But for heaven's sake, even if I think such a ban were a good idea, I would clearly have to admit that it would be a real burden on certain people, some of them in terms of economics, some in terms of culture, and others in terms of simple satisfaction.
That is, it would not be "easy."
The fact of the matter is, you hate smoking. Fine. But don't act like legislation you are using to make society more to your liking is anything other than that.
Lynda,
The OSHA report on secondhand smoke is not online, probably because the report was prepared before the internet was really widely available. You are right - I cannot find it online either. I will try, however, to get a citation for it. Perhaps the report is available from OSHA in hard copy.
Cathy-"We are talking about an easily prevantable cause of sickness and disease."
No we are not.
SHS has not been proven as a cause of any sickness or disease. We are talking, at worst, a theoretical, statistical minuscule increase in risk.
If I am wrong, please provide the incontrovertible proof of sickness and diseases caused by exposure to ETS in cars.
As explained above, "easily" is subjective. It is "easy" to adversely affect others when you have no accountability for or conscience about the consequences.
"Too many analogies, too many comparisons to other issues, only serves to muddy the waters. "
You are ably demonstrating just how monocular you are on this issue. Perhaps you would like to go back a few threads and read Ellen's commentary on narcissism and psychopathy.
GreatScot
It gets worse Jelestra.
The Flick off campaign by Branson of Virgin airlines, is telling people to switch off those florescents which reduces their lifetime and increases the energy used
If you install one in your bathroom and switch it off every time you will increase power used as much as 6 times. They take a lot more energy to start than they use in operation.
Incredibly telling people also to dim them uses no less power either. A dimmer is a resistor in series which takes more of the energy leaving less for the lamp. In totasl circuit wattage nothing changes except how much you waste using it up across the dimmer with less light produced.
The kids get to swear on their T shirts with public aproval. This being all that is really being promoted kind of like stupid.ca promoted smokers smelling like dog crap. Ignorance sells.
Dr Siegel's view of the chronic effects of SHS causing ill health is acceptable IF ONLY THOSE BARS WHERE STAFF HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO SHS FOR A SUFFICIENTLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME BAN SMOKING.
In reagrd to OSHA, I don't recall them ever saying anything about SHS causing 40,000 deaths a year........I believe it was the CDC that pulled that assinine number out of thin air and the anti-smoker cartel sucked it up like so much soup.
What I do recall about OSHA Is ASH (or possibly ANR) demanding they declare a "no-safe level" of SHS for the workplace and when OSHA refused they took them court. In the end the antis had to withdraw the lawsuit basically because OSHA already has set acceptable levels of most consituents of SHS and even in smoky bars such levels are not exceeded.
The antis of course declared victory, but my take at the time of it was they tucked their tails between their legs and ran for the hills..they knew damned well that if they continued to push it all of their lies would come tumbling down around their empty heads and bans based upon Junk Science (all of them are) would no longer be legitimate (not that any of them are anyway)....
Just like politicians, it is very easy to determine when an anti-smoker is lying --- anytime they open their mouth or engage their keyboards.
I found this on the OSHA site which I thought was rather insteresting. AND the only conclusion I can come to is that TC was thrilled with this withdrawal because the 1994 regs probably showed little to no danger from SHS. More interesting is the statement that today (this was in December of 2001) about 70% of workplaces were already smoke-free ON THEIR OWN. So, Doc, explain again the NEED for government intervention and bans?
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&
p_id=17
TRADE NEWS RELEASE: USDL 01-476
Dec. 14, 2001
OSHA Withdraws Indoor Air Proposal With Support Of Anti-Smoking Groups
WASHINGTON -- Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health John Henshaw announced that OSHA is withdrawing an inactive indoor air quality regulation proposed in 1994. The decision was reached with the support of major anti-smoking public health groups including the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
"Most of the activity on workplace smoking restrictions is now taking place at the state and local level," Henshaw said. "Today's action takes the positive step of setting aside what had become a contentious and unproductive effort. Of course, this action does not preclude future agency action if the need arises."
According to the American Lung Association, there has been a 50 percent increase in workplaces that have a smoke-free policy since 1994. Today, nearly 70 percent of employees work in businesses that have instituted smoke-free workplace policies.
"The urgency for federal action that existed when the rule making began has been changed by the actions of local communities, private employers and the states," Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids said in a letter to OSHA.
Sorry, here's the link again:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...ELEASES&
p_id=17
Come on Cathy, who are you trying to kid here? your TC consistent euphemisms tell everyone exactly who you are.
Your guided knowledge as opposed to investigated knowledge, which would lead you to other conclusions, gives you away. You are consistently parroting scripted verse.
casual exposure to ETS has not been shown to significantly elevate the health risks among children. Your preaching, as an inexcusable act is pretentious and entirely abusive. You will find opposition to those views significantly among those who care about their children the most, and resent your interference and insinuations, which designate you as a self absorbed zealot who cares little about the feelings of others or of the well being of children.
If your pay check does not originate in TC I would have to wonder whom you sleep with, aside from big Tobacco.
How do you know that Cathy is TC - because she uses the logic that ALL she wants is to restrict smoking in your own private car.
She wouldn't DREAM of having the police investigate in your private home. Is it so hard, is it so much to ask? Just a little inconvenience really?
Wasn't that the same type of logic that got TC from no smoking on airplanes to total smoking bans in any place where the public may enter or people may work??
Yes Cathy - it is too inconvenient. Yes it is too much to ask. Yes Cathy - its too damn hard!
Either prove I am abusing my children or take a hike.
Smokers have now lost a right guaranteed in both the Charter of Rights and the US equivilent. The right to associate with each other! I have no intention of losing any more rights and I will defend my home and my children.
Dr. Siegal - if managing and reducing risk is an acceptable means of protecting worker safety in every other industry - why is the use of ventilation not an acceptable means of reducing risks in the hospitality sector or in any other workplace?
Some hospitality industry have already proven that it is not financially viable to implement total smoking bans as a means of managing risk to workers. Certainly the bingo industry has been devastated because of total smoking bans.
And if workers are unable to decide to undergo the health risks of working in a smoking environment than why are miners, toll booth operators and hydro workers allowed to make that choice.
And if smokers can be discriminated against in employment with the full support and encouragement of TC - then who can complain if a bar owner decides to manage the risks of SHS exposure by choosing to hire only people who smoke?
Dr. Siegal - it is time for you to face your own hypocrisy, inconsistency and junk science to admit that there is no real reason for your support of total smoking bans. And every day that you delay compounds the damage you did to smokers in supporting TC and there hidden agendas for 20 years.
Michelle
Michelle,
The answer to all your questions here is easy: THEY hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and NO ventilation removes the SMELL. The good Doc will claim that it is proven that ventilation cannot remove ALL the particles, and that is their argument. However, we all know the bottom line here, since nothing removes ALL contaminants out of the air completely anyway, is that they hate the smell of the smoke.
Kevin: BTW when you grow popular opinion based in distortion of perspectives; what is the natural tendency of human nature after realization occurs they have been duped and large financial resources have been fraudulently taken in support of promoting that distortion.
Mmmmm. Lynch-mobs.
Cathy wrote: "Smoking in the home will never be regulated because it would entail police intervention in the home that even most non-smokers would find unacceptable."
I don't have any proof of it, but it certainly sounds to me like Cathy is a tobacco shill. After all, she's making exactly the same argument that the tobacco companies make - that we can't intervene, we can't regulate, because it's not something we want the police to be doing.
Big Tobacco used that argument in California, they used it in many other states, and it's an argument that they repeatedly advance to block protection of the public from secondhand smoke.
Too many analogies, too many comparisons to other issues, only serves to muddy the waters. Smoking in close proximity to children and infants, on the other hand, provides no benefits (except for tobacco companies) and needn't be an inherent part of living in a home with a child. We are talking about an easily prevantable cause of sickness and disease.
Well I guess that to Cathy, what's a few ear infections compared to protecting parents from societal pressures to remove themselves from close proximity to their children when they smoke? The inconvenience might cause them to smoke a little less or even consider quitting, and we must spare them this aggravation. And it's just a risk. Risks are everywhere -- heck, you could choke on a chicken bone. What's next, are we going to prohibit parents from serving chicken? Besides, most kids will only go deaf in one ear, which still leaves them with one good one. You really have to weigh the costs and benefits. Because smoking has a lot of benefits.
And so what if the kid coughs and wheezes, they'll get over it. Bronchitis? No big deal, that'll just toughen them up.
Congratulations Cathy on on bucking the trend of citizens concerning themselves exclusively with health, we've had entirely too much of that. Most people don't seem to understand that it's very important to protect the right of parents to expose their children to an easily preventable source of sickness and disease.
And congratulations on your fine work helping to convince smokers that smoke-free air laws come from rabid anti-smokers who disrespect the police and want the police to be terrorizing people in their private homes. It takes a special person to come up with all these eloquent arguments when other people would be mindlessly bent on promoting health protection and healthier choices.
Look what you've done. Now you've provided sound bites for the websites of groups like CAGE whose sole purpose and function is to oppose legislated smoking restrictions. Because it's important to support groups that fight to protect the right to smoke.
So once again congratulations on your excellent work, Cathy.
Now my work here is done.
Cathy Bell: hockey provides kids with meaningful benefits and it entails a certain amount of rough contact, inherent to the sport
Which benefits would those be?
Can they be obtained through other, non-contact sports?
If so, then why should we allow hockey and excuse it for these "benefits"?
Do we consider raising your kids to be violence-prone thugs to be a benefit or detriment?
Smoking in the home will never be regulated because it would entail police intervention in the home that even most non-smokers would find unacceptable
Funny, I've noticed a push happening lately to regulate smoking in apartment buildings in Canada. Or is that a different kind of "home"?
As for police intervention.....um, yeah....here in Vancouver, all it takes is a phone-call from some "well-meaning" neighbor to get a fine for a business. That'd be without proof, except the say-so of said neighbor.
I would suggest that any objective person could come here and quickly see the flaws in Dr. Siegel's arguments against car smoking bans
So, you would say you're objective? Unbiased?
Ahhhh, thanks for the laugh.
As for your claim to be non-affiliated with TC.....what are you considering TC here?
Does your claim include the volunteer "grass-roots" groups?
The phrasing you use tends to be verbatim the phrasing used in such groups, something I find a little suspect for someone uninvolved.... as I find suspect the fact that an "uninvolved" person would spend so much time and effort pursuing CAGE and Dr Romano.
Dr Siegel: Can you provide an example of an occupational health hazard that causes more disease and deaths than secondhand smoke is estimated to cause by OSHA (approximately 40,000 deaths per year I think) but is not regulated?
Yes, a second for a link for that 40,000 occupational figure please.
Especially considering the TOTAL "deaths from passive smoking" claimed is between 22,000 and 69,000 (depending on the TC source cited). So, they're ALL from workplace ETS exposure?
I must say that that website is spectacularly bad at making information easily accessible.
As for the request you made, are we talking per capita or as absolute numbers?
Lots of occupations have reasonably high risks involved that aren't regulated, but the absolute numbers are going to be small (due to low numbers of the population performing that job)....whereas when translated to a per capita equivalent are going to be very high.
We're even beginning to accept high risks in everyday life that are questionable whether they should be allowed....CF lightbulbs and their mercury content being a good example.
I'm sorry, but having to call haz-mat for a broken lightbulb seems a touch problematic to me.
We intervene in the workplace, however, to regulate hazards that merely increase long-term risk of disease.
Well, yes and no. While there certainly has been a fair bit of legislation and regulation on certain workplace risks over the years, the vast majority of it has been to regulate issues that have MUCH higher risks than the ones stated for ETS.
Take asbestos, for example.
The miners of asbestos contaminated vermiculite in Libby, Montana had an increased mortality of 165.8 from asbestosis and 23.3 form pleural cancer. The 1.7 from lung cancer doesn't even enter into it at that point, does it?
The study authors stated "the observed dose-related increases in asbestosis and lung cancer mortality highlight the need for better understanding and control of exposures that may occur when homeowners or construction workers (including plumbers, cable installers, electricians, telephone repair personnel, and insulators) disturb loose-fill attic insulation made with asbestos-contaminated vermiculite from Libby, Montana."
Note that they said "highlight the need for better understanding" rather than need for more regulation.
Then there is the rubber industry, where workers are at risk of higher mortality to various cancers (respiratory and non) between 131 and 550...but I don't see much mandatory regulation on the OSHA site for rubber workers, nor a call for such for secondary workers (cutters, molders, material handlers, etc in second level manufacturing)
The burden of proof to justify the regulation in the first place has also been MUCH higher than what we're looking at for ETS in a bar or restaurant.....especially if we're talking about DSRs, where worker exposure is so low as to be negligible or even non-existent.
Near as I can tell, from my past digging through pub-med, there seems to be no other situation where mandatory regulation has been put in place for such low SMRs for occupations....as a general rule, such regulation has been in the form of suggestions or voluntary changes rather than requirements.
Doc,
Thanks for the laugh. Although I doubt that Cathy appreciates it.
GreatScot
Dr. Seigel says:
"I think it is important to make a distinction between protecting workers in a workplace and protecting people in a private home. We tend not to intervene in the home unless the risk is an immediate and life-threatening one. We intervene in the workplace, however, to regulate hazards that merely increase long-term risk of disease. I think that's an important distinction that must not be ignored."
You've made this point many times, but I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Many adults have been terrified out of their minds over the chance of encountering even a wisp of SHS...OUTDOORS. And why not? They've watched as smokers were marched out of every public and private venue to huddle in their forlorn little groups; they've witnessed the economic hardships and/or failures of so many mom&pop eateries and bars; they've read in the papers how nursing homes now face "tough decisions" over whether it's better to allow a few senior citizens to freeze TO DEATH rather than to allow them to smoke within 25 feet of the front door (much less a smoking room somewhere inside). Adults see all this, and much more, and naturally conclude that if the government is willing to go THAT far to upend people's lives in order to protect adults from SHS, surely it ought to go at least that far to "protect the children" as well.
Your distinctions about immediate vs. long-term harm and nuances about parental automony mean nothing in the face of all the carnage that's gone on in the effort to simply "protect" the adults so far. In fact, I sometimes wonder if TC almost has to pick this fight with smoking parents to justify all their hysteria over getting the grown-ups out of harm's way. Think about it like this: if TC is successfully arguing that 30 seconds of SHS at the beach is all it takes to knock a couple of decades off an adult lifespan (and they are), how can they possibly ignore an entire childhood surrounded by mommy's cigarette smoke? Leaving alone this "SHS in the private home issue" just flies in the face of TC's contention that there's "no safe level of SHS." And we can't have that, can we?
So, as far as I'm concerned the stage for this next (and I think it will be epic) battle was set as soon as TC (yourself included) convinced everyone that not only should smoking be banned in the general workplace, but that it was sacrilege to even consider that common sense compromises to accommodate smokers could be (and should be) made. The zealotry, the missteps and fallacious commentary (a.k.a. "lies") by TC, all the things you lament in your blog, Dr. Seigel, really began indoors, a long time ago. And you should have stood up and told the truth then.
So, fine. The battle lines are now drawn. It's to be the intolerance by TC for any amount of SHS vs. the intolerance of parents to relinquish their babies to the government. And it's going to be a very dark day for the losers in this fight to be sure.
Dr. Siegel' comment: We tend not to intervene in the home unless the risk is an immediate and life-threatening one. We intervene in the workplace, however, to regulate hazards that merely increase long-term risk of disease.
We also intervene in how people conduct themselves in a car, regardless of the fact that it may (or may not) be the driver's private property. There is no expectation of privacy in a car.
By his own criteria, then, car smoking bans are justified.
Congratulations Dr. Siegel on bucking the trend of physicians concerning themselves exclusively with health, we've had entirely too much of that. Most doctors don't seem to understand that it's very important to protect the right of parents to expose their children to an easily preventable source of sickness and disease.
And congratulations on your fine work helping to convince smokers that smoke-free air laws come from anti-smokers who hate them and wish to punish them -- because as we now know, it's important to treat the mind as well as the body. It takes a special doctor to come up with all these eloquent arguments when other MDs would be mindlessly bent on promoting health protection and healthier choices.
Dr. Siegel's attempt to spin the term "junk science" to his advantage is very interesting given that it appears to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants in their campaign to cast doubt on the health hazards of smoking and passive smoking. It later came to be used by other denialists, such as global warming denialists.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
climat...1875760,00.html
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/...0Into%20Junk%
22
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/...ch%20bialous%
22
This could be seen as a very subtle way of supporting those denialists who use the term "junk science". He seems to be going far out of his way to use this term; it's a bit of a stretch to call a public opinion poll "science".
Cathy, I'd respond to your garbage but you are just not worth the time or energy in educating. It is quite obvious that your view is to be obeyed.
Well, you can KMA before I'd ever consider even listening to you and your gibberish.
Too bad there's no "ignore button" on haloscan, so that I could read others' comments without having to put up with you and Bill and Carl and Sweda, etal.
Tell you what Cathy,how about debating the respective merits of Dr Siegel and stanton glans,who appears to be your mentor.Should we also change the term junk science into shit science when we discuss SHS ?
Cathy Bell wrote:
"This could be seen as a very subtle way of supporting those denialists who use the term "junk science". He seems to be going far out of his way to use this term; it's a bit of a stretch to call a public opinion poll "science"."
1. A public opinion poll is not really different than an epidemiological study.
2. Why don't you tell us which words and phrases are acceptable to you and what would be acceptable replacements for them.
You seem to have a problem with "junk science". Would you prefer "rotten science"? I've seen that used before.
Bill Godshall prefers "tobacco smoke pollution" and "oral rape" to the more familiar SHS, ETS, passive smoking. Which one(s) would make you happy?
If you're not anti-smoking or anti-tobacco, how would you like to be labelled?
James,
That just gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over.........thanks...hehehe
Lynda,
That warm and fuzzy feeling is probably from all the popcorn you've been eating. If you're not careful you're going to die from obesity and not from smoking. LOL
Epidemiological studies are backed up by biomedical evidence linking SHS to illnesses, particularly in the case of heart disease. Calling people up on the phone and asking them questions doesn't seem like "science" to me.
I'm pro-clean indoor air in public and in the workplace. And if I were against smoking in principle, it wouldn't detract from the validity of smoke-free air laws on the grounds of public health. Taking a risk for yourself doesn't entitle you to impose a risk on others.
James, As long as something kills me, and soon too the way things are going. I never wanted to live to be 100 anyway, and these days, I don't care if I don't see my next birthday........I've lived my life and am satisfied with that.
Cathy, you can have all the clean indoor air you want, however there is NO reason why every bar, every restaurant, every club HAS to be catering to you only. Some could and should be allowed to cater to smokers and smoking employees. That fact that you can't see that or accept that fact, makes you anti-smoking. Get over yourself already.
Taking a risk for yourself doesn't entitle you to impose a risk on others.
Actually, that is what business is founded on. Someone with a new idea in business looks for investors, who are willing to take that risk.
If you mean health risk then you need to define what is manageable and why you feel sidestream smoke affects that.
Otherwise you have just overgeneralized into something that sounds good if people don't think about it. I think "junk catch phrases" may apply here.
I also don't feel that if someone I dislike uses an apt word or phrase that I can't use it in another context in the future. That would be willful self-censorship and is not to be encouraged in any context.
If polls were scientific George W. Bush wouldn't have been President for one day. I know that has nothing to do with tobacco but I couldn't resist.
Dear Cathy,
Why do you think I said they were similar?
BROWNSON, R.C., ALAVANJA, M.C.R., HOCK, E.T., AND LOY, T.S.
"PASSIVE SMOKING AND LUNG CANCER IN NONSMOKING WONEN,"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH 82: 1525-1530, 1992
Study Overview
Case-control study with 432 "lifetime" nonsmokers and
186 exsmokers, and 1,402 controls.
One of the largest U.S. studies reporting on ETS
exposure and lung cancer incidence.
Interviews conducted by telephone: 402 surrogate (i.e.,
other than actual person exposed) interviews conducted
among 618 cases.
-------------------------
And something else worth noting: In 2/3 of the cases they didn't ask the actual person. They asked someone else to try to guess for them.
If it provides the correct result,Cathy is all for it.Cathy's call for clean air also omits the many polutant elements that naturally occur all around us,air moves moving particulate matter with it.Perhaps Cathy would be happier in a bubble ?
If you're not anti-smoking or anti-tobacco, how would you like to be labelled? (James Austin)
I would vote for stomp idiot.
There was a law passed in Nantucket
Demanding all heads wear a bucket.
T'was said, it's no joke,
In protecting from smoke,
But the whole town just told them to quit it.
There was a law passed in Nantucket They grew balls and said oh f...dear it A puff is no joke When i can smell that orrible smoke so i'll just have to eat my fish raw.
There was a young man name of si
Tackled antis in wondering why
They turned apoplectic
Arrested by logic
Indecent exposure of lies.
Facts don't sit well with the antis, fairy stories are all they can stand, So Ellen with her logical thinking, Will seriously damage their brain.
Commenting by HaloScan
