Yes Doctor, I agree. It all goes too far.
Should have thought about the unintended consequences of your intial action on all of this?
'Those who are familiar with this blog know that I am all for protecting the public from secondhand smoke exposure in places where they cannot easily avoid that exposure"
If an establishment permits smoking, how hard is it to avoid?
Or are you of the mind that little lit tubes chase you everywhere you may want to go and emit smoke at you?
Doctor states.....'The upshot of this new policy is that the college is going to alienate many of the smokers in the community'
How is this ANY different than what you and TC have achieved all acrossed this country? At least college is a temporary arrangement. When you have settled in a home, and everything around you is suddely 'off limits' you are pretty much stuck.
This is the kind of thing that is going to give public health in general, and tobacco control specifically, a bad name.
Sorry-----That horse has already escaped from the barn. Too late once again. Sound like a wise acre, huh, just tired of being nice.
.
"Well - apparently, I was wrong"
Sorry to pick out one sentence, but I wanted to say that my respect for you, Dr Mike, just doubled. I have NEVER heard another TC advocate utter those words, far less see one of you write them down. Kudos to you.
I hope and pray that they get infected with your honesty.
It may be a waste of my time as they appear to have been innoculated against honesty, truth, and integrity.
I can't share Colin's enthusiasm for the "apparently I was wrong" comment. Because he is not admitting that he was wrong to engage in tobacco control and promotion of bans. He is not admitting that his own contributions to TC were/are wrong. He's just saying that he was wrong in thinking that TC would never go this far.
My sister was telling me about a neighborhood bartender that was anxiously looking forward to the NYC ban to take effect because he hated the smoke. When I pointed out to her that he shouldn't have chosen a career that he knew would expose him to something he hated, she argued that he had no choice. I pointed out that one has to go to school to become a bartender, and that he did in fact have a choice. She then used that same argument for the wait staff. Again, especially in NYC, they too had a choice as the city is loaded with bars and restaurants.
I still want to know why if so many non-smokers disliked the smoke why they didn't approach their local venues about having some go smoke free. Instead they waited for a law and now openly attack (verbally) all smokers. You should hear some of the stuff.
Even you Doc, did you ever meet with the local business owners to discuss some of them going smoke free? I'll bet you didn't. You also chose to find a way to force your preference on everyone.
Smokers get called selfish, but as you can see, rabid non-smokers are even more selfish. We at least are willing to meet reasonable compromises, we are not offended by totally seperate smoking/non-smoking venues. Rabid non-smokers and TC don't even have the word compromise in their vocabulary.
And as long as the good Doc insists on using words like "health hazard", "causes" "protection from exposure", I cannot share in the enthusiasm that the Doc is admitting he might be wrong. He's just admitting that what he said about not controlling people's lives was in error. We all knew it would go there, he chose to pretend it wouldn't; and it didn't take a degree of any kind for this non-college educated person to see that it would go this far, either.
I'm done being nice. Produce the proof. Prove beyond any reasonable doubt. Provide the guarantee that lung cancer will magically disappear. Maybe then I will go back to be reasonable and nice again. Until then, I'm pissed, beyond belief, and I will not tolerate any more bs quietly.
Another piece of American soil falls foul of the smoke nazis.Are they amending the sign on the campus to WELCOME TO STALAG LUFFTE 13.This is more control of people than paternalism.There are clearly no health benefits to be obtained,there is no other way to describe the Totalitarian approach adopted.The Taliban are alive and well,coming to a place near you SOOOOON.
Doc,
I am sure you were well aware of the tactics within Project Assist in the 1990's. I find it hard to believe you did not consider just how far they would go to de-normalise smokers and influence / shape society's perceptions.
Did you not get an incline of TC's fanaticism when the ANR refused to issue your retraction and apology?
"ANR (see Stanton Glantz) refused to post Siegel's retraction and apology, stating in e-mail correspondence to Siegel that--(emphasis added)
"After further discussion..[and] input from other ANR Board members, we have concluded that the possible 'clarification' that you and I discussed is simply not feasible...I realize that your views on the matter are heart-felt and sincere, and that mere removal of your name from the paper without more, will not be entirely satisfactory to you. But at this point ANR must put its political credibility ahead of what you consider to be your scientific credibility."
GreatScot
http://www.forces.org/writers/kj...o/pdf/
tfw22.pdf
I didn't know that the word "wrong" was in your vocabulary. How many times, how many readers/writers have told you that you are wrong? Will Bill, Carl and all the Cathy's ever step up and admit they were wrong? Doubt it which is why you will read more about bans on college campuses.
When a young adult reaches college age, they are normally of age to decide about their own smoking issue. Should they be living in a dorm, that dorm becomes their "home" and they should beable to decide what it is they will do in "their home." They can drink in their room, have unprotected sex, do illegal drugs, but they can't have a legal cigarette? You will be seeing more and more students opting out of campus living and sharing apartments off campus. This may be the best arrangement for them, but what will it do for the college when room and board is no longer collected? Tuition increases? Many people can not afford tuition now so how is this going to help the few who are barely getting by pay for all their expenses?
This is no longer about health, this is about control of people's lives, working under the guise of health. Actually, it never was about health and Doctor, your leg was pulled when you thought it was.
Lynda,
I was just happy that someone in TC used those words.
They are a day late and a dollar short, but you know what these people are like when it comes to copying each other. This, is a beginning.
From little acorns the mighty oak doth grow.
GreatScott,
The potential of this sort of socialism always requires an if. Now the good Doctor claims this has all been done wrong---not done quite right. It all had so much potential he thought but.... it is the ifs, buts and shoulds he counted on, not the devastating reality of it. It's all pure noise. The good that socialism may do on RARE occasion is a distraction from the overwhelming pattern of failure that it has produced wherever it has been tried.
You think history would teach us something.
.
Banning tobacco on a campuses will appeal to nonsmokers.
Being forced to leave campus to smoke a cigarette, makes it difficult for a smoker to function as a student, teacher, or staff member. This effectively removes smokers from the competition and gives nonsmokers a workplace and educational advantage.
It is not altogether different than the Nazi's purge of Jews from academia which opened many excellent positions for non Jewish Germans.
When the students leave the campuse, they will then be on adjacent proeprties. here come the complaints, smokers hanging out, cigarette butts talking is to noisey, we don't want the younger kids to see or be exposed to tobacco smoke. The local municipal government will step in and add some new laws. Same old pattern. Assinine rules/laws just breed more assinine rules/laws.
Lynda F: I still want to know why if so many non-smokers disliked the smoke why they didn't approach their local venues about having some go smoke free.
Not that many years ago, one of the bigger local clubs here changed hands and the new owners decided to go smoke-free.
I remember being highly amused and suggesting it wouldn't last.
Then I was even more amused when 6 months later, they reverted to smoking....citing lack of business.
Of course, 2 years later the smoking ban hit ALL the bars, under the guise of the "level playing field", but as a solo effort, it failed miserably.
Maybe someone will open a college that respects ALL students, faculty and community whatever thier lifestyle choices.
That would be a real eduction.
west
----
Seriously, you have to wonder why, if the majority of the population is non-smokers, and the smaller percentage of smokers are supposed to be the poorer folks, how is it then that non-smoking venues cannot sustain themselves in a free market where the owners have a choice, and only succeed when all places are forced to go non-smoking (and even then many end up closing due to lack of business).
Am I the only one who wonders about this contradiction? Is that non-smokers do NOT go out regularly, even when all the smoke has cleared, but still want all places smoke free for the once a year they might go out? And that explains why even when the entire state is smoke free more places than normally close, go out of business?
I'm sorry, I just can't get the math to work on this one.
Colin,
I'm afraid in this instance, it will not happen. TC will never be satisfied and never admit they were wrong, they will just blame it on big T spending all those dollars on lobbying (as IF they didn't).
I just really can't find myself sharing the glee .......... and don't see it in my lifetime either unfortunately.
West2,
A better solution, a college and campus for smokers only. Non-smokers will have to sign release forms that they are aware that smoking is allowed all over and waive their right to complain, or bring suit ever.
The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation lists, at http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/
smok...niversities.pdf, 41 colleges and universities in the United States that have 100% smoke-free campuses, both indoors and out. Michael, you predict that the College of Albemarle's policy "will have the result of keeping out many high school students or young adults who smoke, but will choose not to attend the college because of its attempt at lifestyle control." Do you have any evidence that this has in fact happened at any of the 41 smoke-free campuses listed by ANRF?
Conversely do you have any evidence to suggest to the contrary ? Since smokers make up approximately 25% of the population,there will of course be a fair proportion of younger smokers who WILL be affected by this nazi attempt at controlling a category of person.You amaze me that as a supposed lawyer,you are pro one group yet are quite happy to see another group be alienated.That is not being a lawyer,that is being a money grabbing "person".
Kind of hard to 'prove' how many students are not even applying at those schools.
Dr. Siegel is the person who made the prediction. I asked the question in order to learn whether he had any such evidence (and, if so, to evaluate it) or whether his prediction was merely speculation.
SPECULATION,isn't that what most Tobacco Control advocates presume to be fact ?No Mr Sweda,you are merely dabbling in a little mischief making,which appears to be the usual for you,given the very many wide and varied comments made about you.How about speculating WHY,there is such a NEED to prohibit tobacco use,when there is CLEARLY no health reason to do so.Strangely i hear very little from yourself concerning civil liberties,presumably since it doesn't pay no doubt.
Fortunately, I am through paying tuition and my kids went to private colleges which set me back a good chunk of change, but I will tell you now that if I still had it to look forward too, and there was a school with a strict policy against smoking or any other minority, I would not be paying that tuition. Should my kids still insist, they would be doing their own funding. My integrity does not allow any form of discrimination and believe it or not Mr. Sweda, should the day ever come when we had a chance to meet face to face I would some how find the way to smile, even though my thoughts might be elsewhere.
Of course banning the use of smokeless tobacco isn't even about protecting oneself, let alone anybody else.
One wonders if the term 'smokeless tobacco' includes nicotine chewing gum.
Its wonderful to see that the right to private property has been appreciated, and recognized.
How does the extremists reconcile the fact that they are trying to eliminate cars as private property? I would love to see the students stand up for private property rights int heir cars on this one.
Will we soon have the ability to stop everything in the car; just because its on the university's property? I can see it now ban on owning vans, due to promiscuity of the owners, or smoking not being able to be seen.
Ed, stop dodging the question and answer me
I'd still like to know:
Why make a law that punishes me if my child doesn't get sick constantly and does not have asthma?
Si says.....'Strangely i hear very little from yourself concerning civil liberties,presumably since it doesn't pay no doubt.'
It doesn't pay nearly as well as the bankroll he's on now. Remember Si, we are the vile ones, it would be fine with TC if we would all simply drop dead.
.
Ed - No, I'm not aware of any study of whether the existing smoke-free campus policies have resulted in discouraging smokers from applying to, or attending those universities. However, I think it's quite plausible. If I were a smoker, I likely would be dissuaded from attending a college where I couldn't smoke anywhere on campus if there was another option avaiable. Several smokers quoted in the newspaper about the Albemarle smoking ban stated that they were prepared to transfer out of the college. Of course, that doesn't mean that they will, but it does seem clear that they don't quite feel welcome.
I do think that the appropriate role that a university can play is to provide health promotion programs, education, and smoking cessation services (similar to what we do with other health behaviors like drinking, nutrition, physical activity), rather than to completely ban tobacco use -- except of course, as it affects secondhand smoke exposure of others (which doesn't seem to be the case with an all-out ban). And obviously, smokeless tobacco doesn't produce secondhand smokeless tobacco exposure.
Remember Si, we are the vile ones, it would be fine with TC if we would all simply drop dead.
No. It wouldn't. Their existence depends on us. We are the hosts; they are the parasites. If we die, they die. Can they work up the same moral ferver (and churn the same bucks) from obesity? Not until they can prove it's contagious (a theory even now being worked on) or else convince the public that fat people stink and make your hair all greasy. And Big Pharma comes up with ICRT (ice cream replacement therapy.) Alcohol won't work for them either; too many people like their beer martinis and single malts and aren't ready to be demonized (or a small enough group to allow such efforts to come off.) So they're wedded to us. In the same way the states require us to exist for the sake of their revenues.
Unfortunately, tho, we are the cake and they are both having and eating us.
And nothing will change. Their tower of crap won't fall under its own weight. The media and the Public won't even smell it. Justice is rarely ever just "done." Somebody's gotta "do" it.
:
Dr. Siegel in answer to Swindle Sweda's challenge for hard figures:
Several smokers quoted in the newspaper about the Albemarle smoking ban stated that they were prepared to transfer out of the college. Of course, that doesn't mean that they will, but it does seem clear that they don't quite feel welcome.
Ahhh, very good. Because how many times have we heard the anti-smokers hold up the Zagat poll and the like as their proof that bans don't hurt business. And yet the pre-ban poll question (gunning for all its propaganda perception's worth) reads this way:
"If smoking is banned will you eat out more often, less often, or no change?"
And they throw the figures of those who say they PLAN to eat out more as if it's written in stone that's what they WILL do -- so no harm to business!
There isn't a shred of anything decent in these people. Whatever it takes. Contradictions be damned.
Walt,
And Big Pharma comes up with ICRT (ice cream replacement therapy.)
You are indeed right Walt, we die they die.
Michael,
Thank you for confirming that your prediction is speculative.
Jalestra,
I'll answer your question with a question: If you are driving late at night and there are no other vehicles in the vicinity and there are no pedestrians in the vicinity and you drive up to a red traffic light, why should you have to stop and wait for the light to turn green, rather than just driving through the red light?
"JustTheFacts"
If you had read my question to Dr. Siegel, you would have noted that I asked about the other 41 campuses that have already gone smoke-free, not about the College of the Albemarle, whose policy had not yet gone into effect.
Speculative maybe,probable a certainty.Unless you expect every smoker to willingly accept a removal of their civil liberty in exchange for nil health benefit.
Ed,
In the short term the natural re-distribution of college students will paper over any problems. Smokers will opt to go where their lifestyle choices are accommodated and non-smokers will back fill in colleges that prohibit smoking.
Problems will only become apparent when when the balance is destroyed and prospective students, that smoke, choose not to conform to social pressure and take their custom elsewhere. Possibly abroad to finish their education.
No bad thing in my opinion as they may learn a thing or to about tolerance,compromise and living together without judgment.
GreatScot
Ed, as all other anti's you have used a completely unrelated analogy AND did NOT answer my question. I suppose I should have expected so little, but alas, I persevere.
An actual related analogy would be: We punish you for buying beer because one member of your family MIGHT be an alcoholic. We have no proof that one is, we don't even care when you tell us none of them are alcoholics. We go ahead and punish you because someone MIGHT be an alcoholic. It is irrelevant that none of YOUR family is an alcoholic, because even if they aren't, SOME people have family members who are, so you have to pay the price as well. Do you understand the analogy? See, the analogy works because I'm using a legal product that costs taxpayers immense amounts of money (proven), causes much death and destruction (proven), and it has the needed particulars (a possible victim/someone we need to protect, you the innocent just using a legal product, and a well, legal product). Cigarettes are a legal product that *might* cost the taxpayers some money (doesn't because we pay it in cig taxes), may/increases the risk/etc of MAYBE hurting someone, and has the limits set (victim/someone to protect, innocent user of a legal product, and legal product).
You're analogy falls FAR short of any kind of comparision. I fail to see how running a red light (an act against the law) compares with using a legal product that shows no proof of harm? I fail to see how running a red light (an illegal act) compares to getting a ticket because your child MIGHT have asthma.
I won't hold my breath for a real answer to my question....but you can consider anything you say blown off. See, if you REALLY want to help my children by educating me, then I suggest you talk to me in a intelligent adult manner instead of alienating me with logic even (a little joke at my own expense) a woman can't follow and again dodging a very reasonable question.
I agree with Jalestra here. I see no reason to ban smoking by everyone in cars with children if the only concern is to protect the small minority of kids who have asthma. As I responded above, I believe those kids are already protected under existing child protection laws against repeated smoking by their parents if the doctors determine that their asthma attacks are being precipitated by secondhand smoke exposure.
Clearly, what this issue is about is protecting children from the RISK of ear infections and upper respiratory infections.
For THAT, we are willing to allow a judge to rule that a parent must serve a month in jail?
If we're discussing ear infections: http://www.kidshealth.org/
parent...itis_media.html
Children develop ear infections more frequently in the first 2 to 4 years of life for several reasons:
Their eustachian tubes are shorter and more horizontal than those of adults, which allows bacteria and viruses to find their way into the middle ear more easily. Their tubes are also narrower and less stiff, which makes them more prone to blockage.
The adenoids, which are gland-like structures located in the back of the upper throat near the eustachian tubes, are large in children and can interfere with the opening of the eustachian tubes.
Children's immune systems aren't fully developed until the age of 7. Therefore, they have more trouble fighting infections.
There are also a number of other factors that contribute to children getting ear infections. The more common ones are exposure to cigarette smoke, bottle-feeding, and day-care attendance.
Ear infections also occur more commonly in boys than girls, in children whose families have a history of ear infections, and more often in the winter season when upper respiratory tract infections or colds are most frequent.
Doc, I'm not posting all that for your benefit, as a doctor I'm assuming you know this 
. In the interest of disclosure, I included the whole post, but if everyone will look you will see that supposedly the 3 "causes" of ear infections are smoking, bottle feeding, and day cares. So, therefore, we must also, in the interest of the child's ears, ban bottle feeding and daycares! Breast feeding is infinitely more healthy anyhow, so that's nothing but health benefits! Parents putting their children in daycares (and think of all the other illnesses you'll get away from!) and using bottles should face fines as high as $1500 and possible jail time! Hateful, selfish, child abusers every one of 'em!
I agree Jalestra. Using the "risk of ear infection" as an excuse means we also have to eliminate all other "risks of ear infection".
Though I would have fought against the breast feeding thing........I had a nurse try to tell me she would have me convinced to breast feed my child by the time I gave birth and I told her if she tried, I'd sue her for harrassment (and this was in 1980). She never mentioned it to me again....hehehehe Pointed out that I was bottle fed and was still alive and healthy, and I was NOT comfortable with the idea of breast feeding and if she didn't like it, to bad, as it was MY body, and my ba baby, and not hers.
oh boy, typos galore there.....sorry about that.
Given the fact that the proposed law applies to driving on a public way, which is a privilege and not a right, and
Given the fact that there are other laws that regulate conduct while driving (such as laws requiring the usage of seat belts) even though the risk of harm, such as being injured more severely if one is involved in a crash, is very low on any given trip, and
Given the fact that, following Dr. Siegel's recommendation, an asthmatic child who rides in a smoke-filled car must be subjected to repeated trips (of an unspecified number) to a hospital's emergency room before there might be governmental action -- and then such action can take the form of removing that child from the home. All this to avoid the miniscule likelihood of a judge deciding to impose the maximum sentence (one month in jail) on a parent who has no criminal record whatsoever, rather than imposing a lesser penalty of any of the following: dismissal upon payment of a fine; dismissal upon the performance of community service; a continuance without a finidng; a guilty finding with probation; a guilty finidng with a prison sentence suspended for a specified period of time.
Michael, on this issue we must agree to disagree.
Who is the medically qualified person in the above arena,and is best placed to judge the severity of ear infections ?Do children suddenly develop asthma on a car journey,so severe it may be life threatening,without any previous warning signs or anything at all to signify they may have a potential problem ?IT MUST BE THE CARS.Can anyone advise if this is specific to US made cars or imports.MOLEHILL TWISTED FAILED ATTEMPT AT LOGIC ?
Well, Ed, just in case a child is being abused, all children brought to the hospital with a broken bone must be taken away from their parents until such a time as it is proven that the parents are NOT in fact abusing the child. Also, all children brought in ill should be removed from their parents just in case the mother actually made the child ill because she has Munchausen's (sp?). While a very miniscule risk, well, risk is risk and we MUST NOT RISK THE CHILDREN!
BTW, Ed, again, as per anti behavior, you have NOT answered my question. Seems like your need to help people takes a distant 30th to your first need: Enforcing YOUR will on the masses.
Ed-
We can disagree, but you don't actually follow my reasoning. I don't oppose these laws because of the off-chance that a child is taken away from a parent. I oppose these laws because I believe that it is inappropriate to regulate parental behaviors with respect to relatively minor health risks to which they expose their children. I believe it is simply not appropriate to interfere with parental autonomy regarding the risks to which they expose their children. If you support the government interfering with parental autonomy because kids may get ear infections or upper respiratory infections or even asthma, then the same reasoning would support a ban on smoking in homes with children. I view that as an inappropriate intrusion into parental privacy and autonomy. The fact that some of these proposals make smoking in a car a criminal offense is just the icing on the cake, so to speak. What that tells me is that this is not simply about health protection; it is about a desire to punish.
Mr. Sweda's chest beating about the poor athsmatic child who gets hospitalized seems a bit of a red herring.
Could somebody please explain how it could be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt - or even by a preponderance of evidence that ETS exposure in an automobile - and NOT ETS exposure in, say, the home, or exposure to other pollutants - could be the proximate cause of an athsmatic attack that was severe enough to require hospitalization?
If a particular child's health is that precarious that ETS exposure during an auto ride is enough to trigger an attack so severe it requires hospitalization, then I'll bet that's not the only thing this kid is really sensitive to.
It's not about protecting anybody. It's all about punishing smokers.
Ed, your straw man gets even more elaborate by adding that this hypothetical asthmatic child, only suffers these hospitilizing attacks while riding in a car.
I think it's fairly safe to say, that since you ignore the more common and obvious asthmatic triggers, and want to apply it to only those that smoke, I'd say you have a thing for wanting to punish smokers.
Or to add to Walt H., why ignore smoking in the home, which is a much more important cause of asthma attacks among children than smoking in cars, at least based on my experience as a physician.
If the reasoning supporting these proposals were consistent, then these laws should be protecting children from exposure to secondhand smoke in the home, not only in a car, where exposure is much lower than in the home.
Michael,
You now say that "I don't oppose these laws because of the off-chance that a child is taken away from a parent." But in your March 9th posting you stated: "Is it worth sending a parent to jail for a month to teach them a lesson about what the state thinks they should be doing to protect the health of their kids? In what possible way does it help the child to have their parent removed from them from a month? I can hardly think of a more damaging thing for a child -- and that includes exposure to secondhand smoke." The entire "Rest of the Story" response from you dealt with the prospect of "criminalizing" parents and the over-the-top refernce to opening "a special wing of our prisons for all the parents who expose their children to health risks." Then a hypothetical conversation in such a prison about a parent being there for smoking in a car with a seven-year-old. You made it seem for more likely than "off-chance" that such an outcome might occur. If you go back and read again my 5:49 P.M. (March 9)response to your post, you will see that I explained why your scenario had no connection to real-life application of criminal law.
Ed, TC has misled the public and lawmakers into believing brief exposures to tobacco smoke while in a car is far more hazardous to children as a whole than the actual journey.
This is what I call "Over the top".
As for your argument that the penalty is maximum penalty is rarely applied, then why stop at 30 days, why not make it a capital crime. After all this is about coercion right?
I have personally seen one case (and I'm sure where there's one, there's several) of someone possessing a small amount of marijuana (what would constitute "personal use") go down at the maximum penalty simply to "throw the book at them" and "teach them a lesson". I don't see it as that unrealistic at all.
It's interesting to note that much of the hate legislation is justified by TC advocates using something that is already illegal or criminal.
For example, Ed's hypothetical asmatic child is only exacerbated by exposure in a car and demonstrating actual harm.
Litter, the pet peave and rally cry of the ban smoking outdoor croud. Sorry folks but most places already have anti-litter ordinances. Enforce the laws on the books. But the smoker punishers aren't happy with that, they want NEW laws directed at ONLY smokers.
Since these laws are directed at a minority of the population, they should be seen for what they are... discriminatory.
Jalestra, don't get me started on the hypocrisy of the marijuana laws. But many in TC won't be happy until we start filling our prisons with tobacco users, like we have with marijuana users.
Remember it was in the name of public health that marijuana was criminalized.
Also remember that Marijuana laws came to be in order to punish mexican laborers who came to this country to earn a living.
It was promoted by a self appointed savior to protect the public, and with the cooperation of the newpaper mongel who had an interest in protecting their pulp paper industry that brought the highly exaggerated claims that marijuana use caused homicidal behavior and insanity.
Today the media protects the pharmaceutical industry since tobacco industry is no longer allowed to advertise.
Now that marijuana is no longer a minority and lower class drug, the cries to legalize it now grow strong.
The upper middle class don't want it's kids going to jail, but it's a non issue when its just the poor urban youth drug, lock em up.
why ignore smoking in the home,
You still don't get it, do you Doc? THIS is exactly where they are going. The cars is just the first (and last) step. This has been the goal all along, only Belmont is about to beat them to it by actually banning smoking everywhere.........can we say prohibition?
The best part is, I'll also bet that cigarettes will still be sold in Belmont, after all........we can't have them losing their cash cow now can we. They'll take the smokers money alright, but won't let them use the product anywhere in town. Can we say HYPOCRITES?
Doc, for an educated man, you are really quite naive.
As Sweda well knows it's impossible to prove a negative. Therefore, w/o interviewing every college age kid in the state-- or perhaps the nation-- it's impossible to know how many did NOT go to this (or any other smoker-punishing) college because of such bans.
Just as it's impossible to know how many people did NOT go to restaurants and bars in a given city or state because of bans. However, at least w/i certain confines, it's possible to know where they DID go INSTEAD.
The banners like to "prove" than bans don't globally hurt restaurants and bars-- even tho they might cause ruin to specific nameable places. They do it by citing stats ( themselves usually tortured and skewed by a including take out joints and milk bars) which indicate either a gain or no loss following a ban.
But an article in the Washington Post exploded that neatly. As banners in Montgomery Cty, MD were boasting a sales gain in full service restaurants of .025% in the year after a ban, neighboring (banless) Frederick posted gains of 7% and sales in "similar establishments in neighboring Caroline County increased by 36 percent and in Dorchester County by 14 percent."
Kuneman & McFadden did an economic analysis that pretty well proved this pattern was national. ie, if there WAS any post-ban bar andrestaurant growth, it nonetheless lagged behind the growth of other businesses (eg, retail) w/i the same area, and also lagged considerably behind the sales in bars and restaurants in places without bans.
:
I'm tempted to start my post with "How dense can a lawyer be?" but it sounds too much like the start of a lawyer joke.
Whether it's best scenerio "off-chance" or worst scenerio "strict application" there is no escaping that law exists and is INTENDED to be enforced AS WRITTEN. Or else why even bother writing it that way? For fun? An "oh don't worry, we're not really serious?" Is this the low the serious business of lawmaking has sunk to just to keep smokers in line? And that as a lawyer you support "we don't mean what we say" laws?
Buy a vowel Vanna. While you argue the fine points of "no connection to real-life application of criminal law," and I'm sure you'll bring up all sorts of examples of laws that aren't enforced to the maximum, the entire point is that this law shouldn't exist to be applied in any way in the first place.
Sorry Dr Siegel,but you aren't going to be allowed the luxury of waiting to see if the raving loonies in Tobacco Control/Public Health come around to your slightly more conservative thinking.Unless of course you merely wish to state a somewhat limp i tried rather than a more robust i tried my hardest.The US is becoming ever more like 'toontown' ,i'm just thinking of who best fits the role of Bugs Bunny,there appear to be so many prime candidates for the role.I really do think that you are having a hard time reconciling your views with events since you are much more aligned to the rabid element than you care to disclose.You cling tenuously to your belief in SHS even though elements of which have been questioned in light of what you have said and what you wish to believe in.If events in Belmont unfold as planned,what do you propose to do ?Continue pointing out the MINOR inconsistencies in the loony sector,or take the plunge and decide what you really want to expose.
Hi, guys.
Did I miss the response, or did nobody pick up on Ed's pronouncement that use of a public roadway - most assuredly a right even in feudal systems centuries back - was, in his mind, not a right but a privilege which could, no doubt, be restricted by Those Entitled To Rule?
If you had any doubts about this 'movement'aiming for totalitarian ownership and control, I trust these are now resting comfortably.
None of the rest of us may ever do so again...
Commenting by HaloScan
