Bravo! I hope you're writing this separately to the appropriate legislators as well as to the appropriate newspapers, beginnng, I'd guess with the Chi Trib and Sun Times and whatever the local rag is in Springfield. In NY, it's been proposed in Suffolk County, I believe, which is near enough to The City., and papers like the Post, News and Sun might be interested in hearing from you.
And while you're at it, how about a fine of 1500 hard-earned dollars also causing harm to the kids. What if the rent or the mortgage can't be paid? What if food or medicine can't be bought? What if mommy or daddy has to take a second job? Is this also not excessive as well as absurd?
All this makes me wonder why we're trying to lick the Taliban when we seem to be establishing our own Commissions of Public Vice.
:
The World Health Organization is an enormous Lobby Group
They claim Dominion over America as a member state
They practice modern day Eugenics
Did you Vote for Them?
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"The rest of the story is that in their zeal to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure (which is admirable)..."
What's so admirable about it?
Protecting kids from MAYBE getting an ear infection (from just one of many sources) while collecting a salary to do it? Or making themselves look good for when the next election rolls around?
Is this why you entered tobacco control, or why it was invented, to protect children from getting earaches?
This is nothing more than mission creep. The job's been accomplished. Society's been notified; smoking's not good for the lungs. Anything after that is merely to maintain getting that paycheck.
Admirable to me is giving someone a kidney, not this crap.
When you take on the treatment of the millions who smoke and you do them harm you owe them compensation for the damages if any occur. In an enthusiastic bandwagon approach smokers have sustained damages every one of them in depreciated life styles, real violence because of their smoking seen as fear and emotional distress. The daily pummeling in the media and being kicked to the curb with ban promotions utilizing every exaggeration possible. Children being encouraged to cough as they walk by a smoker in their classrooms of all places, illustrates clearly the level of hatred directed at all smokers in all of society.
What makes a smoker different than someone who is Gay, derives the secret of life’s mysteries sure to invoke the coming storm. In the smokers case they simply have not figured out yet in many ways they are the same. Gays convinced governments the only thing different between them and the rest of society was their chosen Lifestyle. Many believe choice was not as evident as gemology however the differences remain inconsequential. Because some one is different does not give us a right to abuse them. Smokers simply accept risks others do not, and obviously get something from the product which makes it worth the price of purchase. Now if we remove ETS from the calculation and realize it to be a non smoking concern, you have to admit what makes smokers different is their use of a product which is quite legal. How do we then justify the abuse and injuries they suffer in every day life, treated as a disease dehumanized in being referred to as a dying species, How do we or anyone defend a campaign which defies common logic, which defies all cultural norms in a balanced and just society. If society will no longer accept smoking what will they no longer accept next, and how much will it cost to convince us.
The fundamental enabler in gaining public support seems to be; we have all been convinced to fear the scent of a smoker. Fear driving sales is called coercion and although one of the most successful tactics in the advertising game, we have learned many painful lessons in history which taught us this not an acceptable political position and we need to let them know that at the ballot boxes and through demands of local representatives, society will mo longer tolerate fear.
For anyone charged with a smoking violation.
You can immediately destroy their case by submitting a motion to the judge as follows.
The prosecutor will attempt to introduce second hand smoke testimony to convict me of a charge I am defending by association, with out actually filing those charges or allowing me a right to defend them. I would object vehemently to any mention of ETS in connection with the charges being dealt with because I am on trial and the smoke is not. No one in Government, the scientific community or among any anti smoking factions have ever stated smokers are killing anyone, or causing any harm in society. How could they? This is a legal product and charges of harm of smokers against others is not being proposed in smoking ban legislation, If such acts occurred specific victims and specific perpetrators should be investigated and appropriate charges brought. Smoking bans are an obvious veiled attempt of the State in bypassing the court system taking the law into their own hands as a tool of punishment without the right of defense or proving by smoking I have ever injured a soul. This is a court room and politics belong outside the door if allegations are being made they need to accompany proof. I have seen no evidence in disclosure material any such allegations are being made so the trial of the smoke and criminal charges concerning the smoke belong elsewhere.
Doc,
You give credit and legitimacy where none is due. It is time to take off the rose tinted glasses.
These proposed laws have nothing to do with protecting children, and you know it. This is simply ratcheting up the de-normalisation process to make smoking socially unacceptable. The children are convenient tools to be used.
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel, I hope you are very vocal nationally about this invasive law and all others like it.
Sending kids to the germ cesspools of the public schools is more probable and direct cause for respiratory and ear infections for not only kids but adults working in this environment.
Dr Siegel,will you EVER reconsider your stance on SHS or is your position so firmly ensconced that you find it impossible to do so ? The scientific research you quoted in support of a statement made by yourself,is woefully inadequate in its presented form.How can you pan,studies like Helena and yet appear to stand so firm in light of the numerous questions raised,which remain unanswered ?Is this not science ?As more information becomes available ,existing consensus is questioned ? Why have you set your views on this singular issue in tablets of stone ?
Dr. Siegel, seems your recognition of the effects of language has finally arrived. I can only assume you took extraordinary and newly accepted care in verbalizing this entry because indeed it is noticeable.
Huge points for that. Deduct some for clinging to epidemiological results so weak in the first place.
Si,
the studies the Doctor quoted are discussed here.
http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...taurantAir.html
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel, How about this. The traffic cameras catch people running red lights, but since there is no one present, violaters are given a civil fine. There is never the possibility of jail because the action is a civil action.
Would you support a civil fine of $25 for smoking with an infant or child inside the car?
Why does anyone think by stoping parents from smoking with their kids in the car is going to change a thing. These are the SAME parents that when they go home they will still smoke with the kids in the house. This STUPID law will not help anyone..
How you call anything TC has done or is about to do admirable is beyond me.
You have essentially changed the way I as an individual am seen (quite suddenly) as I move through my day.
I resent it very much and you and your movement will never be forgiven for it.
BTW rather than persons being responsible for removing themselves (as I do) from an environment that is unappealing or unsafe, we now have Big Brother (along with Big T, Big Pharm, and Great Big TC)to do the bidding for you. What absolute vapid cowards you all are.
.
All Trials by machine, now thats a scary thought entirely keeping with the autocratic promotions these TC fanatics seem to adore.
Stupid law? It is more like a "feel good" law, seeing it is for the kids. Any Politicain who promotes these and enforces these bans/laws will be standing proud one day and tout it for re-election. They will remind everyone just what it was they did to protect the children and then ask for your vote. It is more like grandstanding. Believe me, come election day, I for one will be remembering these laws when I go to the polls and I hope you all do too.
To Carl, a civil fine? Don't we pay for enough for your roads, schools, health insurance and golf courses through higher taxes on cigarettes? What do you suggest they do with the revenue from civil fines? Build you a smokefree playground?
Dr. Siegel: to protect children from secondhand smoke exposure (which is admirable)
No, it's not. As has already been pointed out, it's not about The Children™ *hears hosannas from the sky*. It never has been.
They are just a convenient excuse that these groups (and not just TC) have discovered can be used to cram through an unpalatable agenda.
In fact, I would suggest that anytime anybody says "it's for the children" or "think of the children" then anything they say should be automatically discounted as irrelevant (if not verbally derided), because the likelihood is that their arguments and cause are untenable. That leaves them in a position of playing the emotion card in an attempt to shore up a weak position.
This also should be followed whenever the "precautionary principle" is invoked, and for the same reason.
I would suggest further that they be tarred, feathered and run out of town, but that doesn't work in modern society. More's the pity.
And speaking of emotion cards:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...1/
ngreen211.xml
I guess when you lay down with dogs...
.
Carl-
Before I give you an answer on your proposal about just making smoking in a car with children a civil infraction (with a $25-50 ticket), can we first amend the proposal to also make smoking around children in the home a civil offense, punishable by a $25 to $50 ticket?
Since the bulk of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke occurs not in cars, but in homes, if we really want to do anything to decrease the prevalence of ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma, then we need to protect kids where it matters most - in the home.
Once we settle this amendment, then I wil give you my response on the overall proposal.
Something which exceedingly worries me, is how much of a disconnect science can be from public policy. It's exceedingly clear that the strength of the scientific argument is *not* what has prompted legislation. Political action groups are the cause of legislation, and as we have already seen, many times (more so than not) they just don't understand the science, can't express it's true strength (or lack thereof), and play on the heartstrings of the citizens in order to push a political agenda.
What is worse, is that there are scientists who like the limelight so much that they jump on board to obtain these research funds as well as notoriety from this work. When I personally read these works, they made me exceedingly frustrated. I work in the world of atoms and charges... if I were to publish anything like the work I have seen in these journals, I would be a laughing stock. A mechanical engineer turned medical statistician? Excuse me?
Anyways... what is even more frustrating, is that it is very clear that the rights of the masses (who are easily herded and brought to an emotional stance based on falsehoods) are continuing to outweigh the individual. This is democracy turned socialism. In a pure democracy, the majority of the people can control the minority of the people. For instance, a vote for redistributing wealth to those who are in need... the masses will speak, and certainly they'll chose to steal money from the rich, to give to the poor. But, this is clearly socialism. Even though it was done by vote.
So, the question then becomes, how does one protect the individual's rights? Do we allow precedent control the court-system with pseudo-laws? Do we allow emotionally charged laws without exceedingly strong scientific proof change the lives of a large population of americans (who are even self-deprecating on this issue)?
I fear for the U.S. on these issues. Perhaps we are forgetting why we left Britanny? Why we fought so hard?
This country was built upon the tobacco plant. We would not be a country without it. For anyone who doesn't believe me, look to the French's support of the revolutionary war.
um- I must apologize. Britanny should read Britan or UK... sorry!
People deserve only the rights they are willing to fight for, or at leat inconvenience themselves for. What are 50 million adult Amercan smokers doing for their right to be left alone?
Without apologies for bringing this forward (are you hoping it will just die a natural change-of-subject death, doctor?):
Even if the ½ to 2 packs a day is true with the chemicals mentioned, that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they reach or exceed PEL limits (as GreatScot mentioned). You could easily get a ½ to 2 packs a day figure and still not exceed the PEL limits because you started off from a very weak dose base to begin with. So the ½ to 2 packs a day for certain chemicals has absolutely no scientific/health meaning in itself.
Doctor, there’s been a lot of talk about PELs in the past, and pardon me if I missed it, but I can’t remember your ever responding to questions asked about PELs (if I’m wrong, I apologize). Marcus has repeatedly stressed PELs (as has Michael McFadden), but you seem to have always strenuously avoided the subject – am I wrong? And if I’m not, when are we going to hear something on the subject from you? It seems to me you can’t talk about risk without talking about PELs – is that true or is it not? It’s like the propaganda line repeated ad nauseam, that there are 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. Since I believe all propaganda is a lie, then that’s a lie (although factually true).
So I hope this ½ to 2 packs a day isn’t just another example of a lie masquerading as a fact. I think it requires further – and extensive – DISCUSSION.
Especially, you should DEBATE si’s figures on benzopyrene with a threshold limit of 0.2, and REPLY to Walt’s 03.12.07 - 12:53 am post (last string). Since you’ve got enough prestige to have articles published, how, if you’re giving out iffy – or false – information to the press, are you any different from those in tobacco control you find ‘mistaken’?
As for the abstracts you directed us to, I found them little help, since I found no mention of the two chemicals, and I was unsuccessful in accessing the full articles. But I did notice this in the Hammond et al. abstract:
“OBJECTIVES--To measure occupational exposures to environmental tobacco smoke in diverse settings, including offices and production areas, and to evaluate the effectiveness of policies that restrict or ban smoking in the workplace.”
That statement sounds pretty loaded up front to me – or maybe I’ve got a tin ear.
Stephen;
Most are keeping their heads low hoping the attention will go away fearful of what they will do next.
The trouble is with such a closed system no one believes they can do anything about it.
So for the moment the Bullies rule.
There will be a breaking point History has always demonstrated people will put up with a lot, but one straw will eventually break the camels back and watch how much damage will result.
Yhe brave ones now will be the cowards later like cockroaches exposed to the light.
Mark my words; We are on the brink of a huge storm. These self important braggarts haven't the collective inteligence to be afraid of what is inevitable.
Or know enough to quit while they are ahead.
Harry I searched and could not find a listing for cigarette smoke aparently no safe level places it more hazardous than any chemical we know.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
Look for yourself
Allen writes...Political action groups are the cause of legislation'
And you forgot the charities.
Which brings up the idea---how are they able to keep their tax exempt status (501 c3) and be so HEAVILY involved in getting legisation passed?
http://www.irs.gov/charities/
cha...d=96099,00.html
.
While downplaying the risk of ear infection or asthma attack for a child, whether a toddler or an infant, you simultaneously wildly overstate the likelihood of the imposition of the maximum potential penalty under this proposal from Illinois.
You state that "putting a child's parent in jail for a month causes severe and definite harm to a child," yet, in your posting on the previous item, you state that if "a person repeatedly shoplifts, then he SHOULD do jail time." So, if a parent who for the third time in his or her life takes an item from a store without paying, is stoppped, offers no physical resistance -- thus, no one is physically harmed -- (and the store recovers the item) and is found guilty of shoplifting and sent to prison, that's OK despite the "severe and definite harm to a child" who is separated from that parent.
But, in a worst case scenario, if a parent drives on a public way in a car with a child (perhaps an infant) with all the windows rolled up, and that infant suffers an asthma attack or an ear infection and is taken to the hospital's emergency room and the doctor advises the parent not to smoke or allow smoking around that infant and the parent ignores that advice and repeatedly does so in the next few days and weeks, and the infant is taken to emergency room several more times, your position is "no matter how many times a person smokes in a car" with a child present..."I don't believe they deserve any penalty," even if it's a small fine without any conviction of a criminal offense. Do you not see any gray area here?
Ed states....'
simultaneously wildly overstate the likelihood of the imposition of the maximum potential penalty under this proposal from Illinois.'
No overstatment with the experience in the past 25 years. All started out w/air travel....sort of made sense. Now you fine folks have us in a tiny, criminal corner of the world.
It appears to be YOU not representing what is/has accurately occured.
Ed;
Your attempts at this are embarasing yourself more than any value at debating the issue. Smokers are just like all other parents if a parent was warned they may be harming their child most would heed those warnings the current laws all ready on the books were created to control the actions of those who don't
Who are you trying to fool with all this inocent me act this law is designed to perform one function and one function only that being to harras the parents and will do absolutely nothing to protect a child.
If you are so thick to not understand that statement and the implications.
I pity your clients I certainly would not have someone with such limited capacities representing me at trial.
Correct me if I am wrong I awear Michael in earlier posts agreed smoking around a child was not likely to be a causal effect of Asthma and look what he writes today?
Harry,have you read the link courteously provided to me by GreatScot ? It makes interesting reading AND really does need to be debated,unless of course we don't wish to bat on a sticky wicket?
I would suggest anywhere this law is put in place, it will do more to discredit the TC movement than anything they hope to gain in the public psyche.
Once it is thrown out of court as frivalous in unfairly targeting individuals, the press reports and the sound bites will explain the forces at play here, and what they trully seek;
to harass and punish those who use a legal product with premeditaion and malice. resulting in injuries TC is jointly and sererely accepting of the civil responsibilty for.
Public documents are plentiful to establish that as a real and consistently demonstratable fact.
Not consistent however with the kind of facts being produced made to order, to sell TC smake oil promoted only with fear.
Ed - The scenario you describe, if it recurred repeatedly, would constitute child abuse and could be dealt with adequately under existing child protection laws. That is not the scenario which the proposed law is intended to deal with. We already have laws that prohibit parents from abusing their children - repeatedly and knowingly causing harm to them.
I don't see why *I* should get a fine or jail term of any sort really. None of my children have asthma. My children don't even get ear infections except for Vance getting one and the doctor called it swimmer's ear, not smoker's ear. Yes, we had taken him swimming. Sooooo...why should I be paying any kind of fines or jail terms?
That was a very interesting read, Great Scot.
I, personally, would love to hear Dr. Siegel's explanation for his own "misrepresentations" (excuse me while I clear my throat) in order to push his own personal standard of lifestyle, helping create the hysteria that has allowed for all these bans.
Michael,
While you say that the scenario I described, if recurred repeatedly, would constitute child abuse and, thus be adequately covered by other statutes prohibitng child abuse, many people on this blog deny that exposure to secondhand smoke has been proven to be harmful to nonsmokers. Furthermore, in my scenario, what if the parent truly does not believe that his or her smoking is harming the child?
You stated in a June 16, 2006 posting that "it is dangerous to suggest that putting children at increased risk of a health problem represents child abuse." So, in my scenario, is it the second or third or fourth admonition from a doctor advising the parent not the smoke around the child -- and the second, thrid or fourth visit to the emergency room -- that crosses the line from non-abuse to abuse?
Kevin,
I do not doubt that most smokers would, if specifically advised by a doctor, refrain from smoking around a child. I was asking Dr. Siegel about the small minority of smoking parents who would continue to do so, even after being advised by a doctor not to do so. I asked Dr. Siegel that question because he had issued a 100% absolute, categorical statement that under no circumstances whatsoever should a law carrying a potential maximum penalty of one month in prison be enacted to prohibit smoking in a car where a child is present.
Sunz,
Exactly how many people in the past 25 years in the U.S. have been sentenced to prison because they smoke?
I was asking Dr. Siegel about the small minority of smoking parents who would continue to do so, even after being advised by a doctor not to do so.
Again, Ed, that is already covered by current child abuse laws.
I asked you, my child is not sickly, why make a law that punishes me if my child doesn't get sick constantly and does not have asthma?
Ed Sweda: "Exactly how many people in the past 25 years in the U.S. have been sentenced to prison because they smoke [tobacco]?"
According to one estimate, nearly 800,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges in 2005. Give the authorities an enforcement option and they won't use it???
NO ONE----and if you read my post I did not say that. But in the past 25 years life for smoker shas changed incrementely to the worse----and you and you ilk now attempt to shove us all in a criminal corner. The old slippery slope as it were. You know the one the antis get so very offened when they here it stated. See how easy it was for you to misrepresent what I said. No wonder you folks are good at the sham you are running. It really would be funny if you weren't so damned dangerous.
Mr. Sweda,
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, of the exactly 43,443 people killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2005, exactly 2348 were children from 0 to 15 years old.
Furthermore 31,000 children from 0 to 15 years sustained incapacitating bodily injuries.
See page 86, table 53 of the NHTSA "Traffic Safety Facts 2005" at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/...006/
TSF2005.pdf
If parents should be held accountable for and legally prohibited from increasing their children's risk from ear infections and athsma attacks arising from tobacco smoke exposure in motor vehicles, then parents most certainly should also be held accountable and legally prohibited from putting their chlidren at significant risk of death or severe bodily harm arising from transporting them in motor vehicles.
For a little kid, getting an athsma attack or an ear infection sucks. But it sure beats having his or her little guts splattered across the interstate.
Anyone who would put their child at risk for this kind of horrific carnage is unfit to be a parent.
Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right.
We all have a right to be free from the risk of getting splattered on the highway.
I mean, we all need an intact chest cavity and all 8 to 10 punts of blood to live, right?
My right to keep my or my children's skulls from being cracked open like eggs takes precedence over your right to barrel down Route 66 in your SUV or whatever it is you drive at 55 miles an hour.
Yes, Great Scot, very interesting read indeed - thank you for the link posted above.
TFK have been asked for an apology and a re-write of expression of findings...er...right?....OK.....uh...Liekwise
In order here?
Since the bulk of childhood exposure to secondhand smoke occurs not in cars, but in homes, if we really want to do anything to decrease the prevalence of ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma, then we need to protect kids where it matters most - in the home.
Dr. Siegel,
I WAS going to read through all the responses here before framing my own response, until I saw this from you in response to Carl. I still do plan on reading through the rest of the responses before making a response to your article/commentary, but this reminded me so much of a question that I have repeatedly asked of you tobacco control freaks that has NEVER been answered, that I believe it is an appropriate time to again repeat the question........maybe this time I will get some type of an answer, although I will not hold my breath.
"ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma," are always the major bugaboo nasties the antis claim are caused in children because they are exposed to tobacco smoke (they claim plenty more) yet have no explanation as to why those of us in our 40s, 50s, and above, who were exposed to far greater levels of tobacco smoke were far healthier as children than the children today who are hardly ever exposed to it?
Please explain, Dr. Siegel, why more children have ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma now than they did 30 or 40 years ago? Heck, even 20 years ago? Back when more parents and grandparents and other people around kids smoked........
Ed;
" I do not doubt that most smokers would, if specifically advised by a doctor, refrain from smoking around a child. I was asking Dr. Siegel about the small minority of smoking parents who would continue to do so, even after being advised by a doctor not to do so. I asked Dr. Siegel that question because he had issued a 100% absolute, categorical statement that under no circumstances whatsoever should a law carrying a potential maximum penalty of one month in prison be enacted to prohibit smoking in a car where a child is present. "
You are really preoccupied with this. It almost goes to fanatasizm. Why are you stuck on the idea smokers think any different than you do, or should have a multitude of highly personal laws defined to limit their freedom above the limits of yours.
Smoking around a child as the Baby Boomers demonstrated does not demonstrate a significant health risk as demonstrated in the WHO multi-year international research which verified an apparent currative effect. You can ask anti smoker advocate and your cult brother Collishaw, of Doctors for a smoke fee Thornbury [or something similar there are so many of them] He oversaw the research and was formerly with Health Canada. If anyone not backed by Tobacco money is required he can verify the authenticity of the report if you like.
Otherwise you would have to assume 100% of the kids in the 50s and 60s were all adversely affected. Medical evidence considering population growth shows no clear evidence this is the case. Health Canada in fact just told us those groups of elderly today who were predicted at birth to live to 65 are now averaging 84?
Keep in mind smoking was around for a long time before that generation came around. Smokers in the past were not worried about smoking with children present they traditionally smoked waitig for a child to be born right outside the delivery room door.
Many times the Doctor would join you while telling you about the delivery.
Guess what? most of us survived.
Lately most parents will either smoke outdoors while a baby is present or set up a smoking area within the home so no one who it bothers is affected. Guess what no fines were involved once again as with everyone else people can figure things out for themselves without the jackboots on their backs or others greedy hands in their wallets.
Laws in a democracy are supposed to encourage feedom not restrict it, as any good lawyer will tell you.
Targeting laws to selected minority groups because others dont like the way they smell, belongs in Hitlers Germany, certainly not in a free and democratic country unless of course you are trying hard to conmstruct something else.
Cathy that comment applies to your statement demonstrating your limited comprehension of how laws play a role in keeping government and Democracy strong.
HIA health interventions were designed to undermine those basic tenents and control the peoples choice candidate by coercion and blackmail and take away the peoples projected opinions of how government should work. HIA undermines democracy and steals the voice of the people to enhanse financial and political gain.
Put the laws in place, and I will make it a personal mission to assist everyone charged with documents and explanations to assist them in having this law thrown out. Making sure at the same time everyone knows who actually had it placed on the books.
-People who have convinced themselves we have a separate group with our society who are not human and deserve to be treated as less than human. The very people in TC who really are different than the rest of us.
Too true Kevin,Tobacco Control advocates hold such a strong fanatical belief,that it is they are who adrift from society.They have a constant need to push the boundaries back,in order to undermine the very existence of smokers.In any other circumstance,be it gays,lesbians,ethnic,anybody who is identifiably different in any way,it is called discrimination.They can continue to advocate for their Utopia,it will NEVER happen,Tobacco is here to stay,and will remain so,long after the TC crowd have expired.There are LIES,DAMNED LIES AND TOBACCO CONTROL ADVOCATES/PUBLIC HEALTH BUSYBODIES.
When Good Studies Happen To Bad Apples
While many Americans name baseball as their favorite pastime, the food police can't tolerate any celebration involving chili-drenched hot dogs and ice cold beer. Instead, activist groups pass the time by fishing -- for statistics to support their agenda.
"According to the latest study ..." has been their anthem for a long time. But neither song, nor cheers accompanied the release of the most recent food study, "Toward the Reduction of Population Obesity" published in Psychological Bulletin. The reason for the dead silence may be the fact that the report did not fall on their side of the food fight.
Actually, the authors -- most notably Dr. David Allison -- debunked some of the food fanatics' favorite initiatives: Fat-taxes, food-zoning, and all-out bans.
The study found that prohibiting food (economically, geographically, or legally) could have multiple unintended effects: making forbidden foods more desirable, disproportionately affecting the poor, and actually driving people to eat more.
In fact, past attempts to legislate diet in the form of government subsidized food programs promoted over-consumption: Program participants ate 25 percent more for breakfast than their peers and 33 percent more for lunch.
This new evidence shows that these food policies not only don't meet desired goals, but can even produce the exact opposite outcome at times. So what's the response from fat-tax proponent Kelly Brownell? Nothing. Where is the press release from nutritional scold Michael Jacobson? Nowhere. And Marion Nestle's rebuttal? MIA.
Perhaps it's time for the food police to find a new calling.
Laws in a democracy are supposed to encourage feedom not restrict it, as any good lawyer will tell you.
Kevin, normally I would agree with you, but in this case you are talking to and about lawyers the likes of Ed Sweda and John Banzhaf who have this mistaken belief they are somehow better than us mere mortals without law degrees. Some years back an attorney friend of mine lamented the fact that the law had been changed and I was inelligible to sit for the Delaware Bar exam as I did not have the proper college degree. It mattered not to him that I had no degree at all, he believed I had a fuller concept of the law than most of the (then) current crop of law school graduates about to sit for the exams.
The current crop of money grubbers/grabbers that include the likes of the Ed Sweda's of the planet do not give a rat's behind about the foundations of this country or even of the simple principles of parental, let alone individual or private business owner, rights. All they care about is their wallets and what bugaboo they can stir up fear over to line those wallets.
Anon;
I fully understand what your saying their are good and bad in any profession.
If you notice I did say "As any Good Lawyer will tell you"
It was no accident.
Gabz- I was not aware that the rate of ear and upper respiratory infections in children are lower today than they were in the past. Is that based on research that you heard reported, or is it just an anecdotal observation? I have heard that asthma rates may be higher, but I think that's in spite of the reduction in secondhand smoke exposure. Clearly, something else is causing that increase.
Ed - The number of times that a parent would have to be instructed not to smoke around an asthmatic child and for that child to show up in the ER due to the parent smoking around him or her before we would refer the case to social services is depedent on the individual circumstances.
Anon states......'
'The current crop of money grubbers/grabbers that include the likes of the Ed Sweda's of the planet do not give a rat's behind about the foundations of this country or even of the simple principles of parental, let alone individual or private business owner, rights. All they care about is their wallets and what bugaboo they can stir up fear over to line those wallets'
And take a look at Ed and company's wallet:
http://www.phaionline.org/support
Doctor, Gabz stated....'Dr. Siegel, why more children have ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma now than they did 30 or 40 years ago?' Not that the incidence is lower. Your response indicates that something else is causing it. Am I correct? Then in all of this grand effort and money spent to control tobacco use, why is not some of this money dedicated to find what's happening to 'the children'?
*why more children have ear infections, upper respiratory tract infections, and asthma now than they did 30 or 40 years ago?*
A few years ago I asked the same question to a well respected "old school" medical professional regarding asthma. His response (off the record and in friendly confidence, of course) was that many years ago there were limited technical diagnostics and NO pharmaceutical treatments available so patients were assumed to have a psychological basis for their symptoms and treated as such. Parents were instructed in behavioral modification techniques and those, surprise surprise, were generally effective.
Sunz, good link. Look at all those generous sponsors "dedicated to protecting the health of the public"
Law is not only a tool for improving public health. It is also a health determinant. In approaching the obesity epidemic, it is essential to explore how law can be used as an effective tool to combat the obesity epidemic, and how the law can affect obesity in the population. As policy makers and other stakeholders explore options for controlling the obesity epidemic, they are often confronted by a complex set of legal systems. PHAI brings together practitioners in public health and law; legal academics; researchers; and advocates to explore the effective use of the law in combating obesity and to craft solutions to complex policy problems.
Hell, it's simple, just outlaw obesity and give all the money saved to Edward Sweda, Senior Staff Attorney, and his friends.
Some people are just bound and determined to have their view of the world as reality. I don't see why you don't just leave people alone and let them be fat if they want to be fat. If you want to see nothing but skinny, non-smokers, then surround yourself with them. I prefer to associate with beautiful PEOPLE, not beautiful bodies...
And they talk about conflicted funds.
This one is just too much
Some how you just had to know RWJF had to have a hand in all this
http://www.phaionline.org/tcrc/
And for your personal amusement there is much more.
I find this a lot of fun to watch. Lawyers championing political lobbies now there's a new segment of organized crime that should scare even the G men
http://www.phaionline.org/
PHAI and Northeastern University School of Law, with support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, held the First Conference on Public Health Literacy for Lawyers, April 11 - 13, 2003, in Boston. The conference was convened to develop a concrete plan for introducing public health into American legal education. The Conference was chaired by Wendy Parmet and Anthony Robbins.
Chaired by Anthony Robbins no less.
Guthie Renker's favorite boy toy
All that charisma such a wasted life, he could have wowed them in civil courts or Leading the Bible belts knocking sick people on their backsides, right across America.
I guess he fell to the alure of the bigger bucks on the infomercial road tour. Now he's moving into health scare teaching the Lawyers how to motivate others with his pain and pleasure schtick.
The Judges are in for a real treat watching the motivated acting out in courts of Law.
I must get a seat to watch this in action. Can we buy advanced seating from ticketron?
Howling with laughter.
Carl keeps referring to "infants and toddlers," yet many of these car bans refer to toddlers up to the age of 18, some infants are only 13, or 9, and fetusus are up to 7 years old.
Ed, too, postulates "infants" , further postulates "all the windows rolled up" (when the law he defends makes no such distinction) and manages to spin a nightmare scenario that might happen to 1 out of, say, a million asthmatic children (and if Carl's stats are right, that's a grand slam total of 4.5 kids) :
if a parent drives on a public way in a car with a child (perhaps an infant) with all the windows rolled up, and that infant suffers an asthma attack or an ear infection...
As for "suffers an ear infection" I'd like to be there in court when you, as a lawyer, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that any specific ear infection was causally related to smoke in a car. (In fact, you couldn;t prove that ear infections in general are caused by smoke in a car, or smoke anywhere else.)
I believe it was Si who came up with the appropriate analogy-- of a paper cut leading to an amputation. You're arguing on grounds exactly and precisely as hysterical as that.
:
:
Before he splits hairs on me, I neglected to paste the finale of Ed's nightmare. To wit:
that infant suffers an asthma attack or an ear infection and is taken to the hospital's emergency room and the doctor advises the parent not to smoke or allow smoking around that infant and the parent ignores that advice and repeatedly does so in the next few days and weeks, and the infant is taken to emergency room several more times...
:
One has to wonder what the Goose stepers of pandemic promotion will be saying about the researcher who did this report tomorrow.
Sound like a big Tobacco front group to you?
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/
h...ren_of_lon.html
Benzo(a)pyrene:
Per "Toxic Toxicology," Littlewood and Fennel. 1999, the number of cigarettes that would have to be smoked in a hermetically sealed 100 m3 room in order to reach the OSHA PEL is... 222,000.
A similar number (in both cases, derived from the bAp output per cigarette as measured and published by the US gov't) is found a similar published chart, “Mainstream and Environmental Tobacco Smoke” Gori, Mantel, Reg Toxic Pharmacol, 14; 1991
:
Lies on lies can not hide the truth forever. Reality bites for TC and fear mongers every where;
It appears this study and many others which support it identifies the main target of TC and groups such as CSPI are the most disadvantaged.
They target the lowest of the socioeconomic scale for one reason they are the least able to defend themselves.
One has to wonder how that will play out in the press "The WHO and it's partners simply hate poor people" and seek to crush what little they have, in the financial impositions they suggest in the vast najority of campaigns they support.
Targeting the poor with financial penalties less likely to harm the rich causes more damage creating child poverty levels to rise and increases mortality risks.
These are the experts who are going to lead the way?
Do as I say or no gruel for you this week.
The greatest indicator of health is individual economy.
Now what was it we were hearing here a cheering for financial penalties on the working poor, who dare smoke in cars on the way to daycares dropping off the kids on the way to work???
To bad more of these clowns never had to do honest work. They might respect their victims a little more and consider taking a little less off their tables.
It wasn't that long ago mom would have been home with those kids and that trip was not necessary, because a single parent used to make enough to sustain a family.
That is no longer possible, Largely due to going to the higher cost well, every time a fanatic wants to sell some hair brained idea linked to controlling the behavior of others.
Doctor,
re your emotive testimony about workers being exposed to 1/2 to 2 packs a day for selected components.
After reading the critique posted above and in light of the OHSA PEL's I have to agree with you 100% when you wrote
You are quite correct. The use of cigarette equivalents can be very misleading.
GreatScot
Let me make a prediction for you Michael and I will bet the farm on this one.
After the effects of the CSPI inspired Pan Canadian strategy takes effect on the store shelves, smoking rates will climb substantially.
As poverty levels increase; we will learn a painfull lesson, one the poorest counttries in the third world already know.
Snoking levels rise because smoking alleviates humger pains.
You can take that one to the bank.
Off topic. My bad. Sorry.
But I think it is important to highlight failures, especially as they were predicted by many on here.
Have a look at Scotland:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/new...-
name_page.html
And New Zealand:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
catego...jectid=10428238
The Scottish report is low on detail, but I will search for the study at the Cancer Research site and post it. The NZ story includes some "new strategies" for dealing with the "problem". Someone finally noticed that smokers have a brain!
Read 'em and weep AT!
I have heard that asthma rates may be higher, but I think that's in spite of the reduction in secondhand smoke exposure. Clearly, something else is causing that increase.
And yet, rather than find the real causes, you still insist it is SHS that causes all these ear infections, respiratory issues, and asthma. Why is it so hard to get off that horse, Doc? Can your hatred of one product really be THAT deep?
Lynda F
From Sir Winston Churchill:
'A fanatic is one who can't change his mind, and won't change the topic.'
.
Linda;
What you dont get here is the fine distinction of hating the product snd hating the person which is unclear in observing the actions of this group.
They win because you are dehumanized they make all kinds of outrageus claims about the product yet focus their actions on punishing you.
Yhey can not point at you and claim all these horrific crimes are done by you against anyone they can produce. Having you charged with murder or wreckless endangerment, because "they suspect" the smoke is the cause, is not clear enough evidence, to link you to anothers specific damages.
In time however they might, once they plant the perception of fear in others they may well succede in gaining convictions, as in the States non smokers believing they have a case are trying to sue big tobacco for injuries they belive they sufferd becauise of percieved fear created of the smoke.
What you need to ask yourself right now is how do you feel? Have you suffered a loss or other injury and who is really responsible?
TC took ownership of your Health and that carries with it a huge responsibility, if they cause you harm.
Did they cause you harm?
Talk to a lawyer and ask what you can do about it. If they did...
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?
Jalestra,
At this point, I think, simply because they can.
.
Kevin, These days, I can say yes, they are probably causing me harm. My blood pressure goes up when dealing with this issue, every time I see a no smoking sign, every time some nosey-body passes a rude comment about my smoking or does that arm waving thing and phoney cough. I'll have get my pressure checked regularly now, since I tend to have a perfect 120/80 blood pressure most of the time, I'd bet it's higher these days. Think I can sue if I develop consistent high blood pressure?
Jalestra, I agree with you totally. There is no need to ban smoking in cars with children for everyone, since: 1. only 20-25% of the population smokes; 2. not all of that percentage of smokers have small children (mine is an adult and on his own now); 3. Of those who do have children, not all of them are consistently ill or have asthma. So I too would love to hear TC justify this over a tiny percentage, instead of allowing existing child abuse laws to be utiliized only when absolutely necessary.
Sunz, you are so correct....they do it because they can. They can because we are letting them. It is time us smokers starting fighting back. I can no longer be reasonable when what's being promoted is totally beyond any reason.
So Dr Siegel how about a debate ?
Wow Ed, nice straw man!
Since pet dander is a known trigger for asthma, we can take your extreme and substitute triggers.
Are you saying that transporting kids and pets at the same time should be treated the same?
But wait, since some kids could have allergic reactions to peanuts, we should criminalize all parental use of peanut butter in the presents of children, right?
The essence of the argument is as follows....
Some act[fill in the blank i.e. smoking in a car with the windows up] may cause serious detrimental effects [fill in the results.. i.e. multiple trips to the hospital] in an afflicted child [fill in the condition... i.e. a child with asthma], therefore this justifies laws [i.e. smoking in a car with children present] to penalize this activity [$1500 fine] and prohibit all parents, whether their child has this affliction or not.
As was previously mentioned, if the act of smoking in a car with a child present (windows up or down) deserves a $1500 fine for the potential risk the child is exposed to, then simply putting them in a moving vehicle should be a capital offense in terms of relative risks!
But Walt,look at the possibilities.Mr Sweda could represent the child and take his blood money from the pickings.It is irrelevant whether the child is 1mth old or 17years 364 days.
It's difficult to argue with Walt on this one, and I don't recommend that anyone try.
Walt's argument shows why we do not regulate risks that parents expose their children to, except under the rare circumstances where the risk is either so high in probability or so severe in consequences.
But clearly, putting a child in a car is putting them at huge risk in the first place - much greater than the incremental risk of smoking in that car, especially if the windows are open and car moving fast. We wouldn't, of course, ban taking children for a ride in a car, but we could force parents to justify the reason why they need to take their kids out. If we could just get rid of all the unnecessary trips, we could save lots of kids' lives.
I'm telling you, ban kids, ban births, sterilize everyone the day they are born.
End of problem.
JAILER: So, what are you in for?
PRISONER: I hit a guy in the side of the head causing him to go deaf in one ear, so they put me in here.
JAILER: Funny you should mention that. My kid went deaf in one ear last week because of an ear infection. They gave me a promotion for never being late. You see, I expose my child to secondhand smoke for 3 hours each day driving him to and from school on my way to work; not stopping the car to get out and smoke ensures that I won't be late. (My child also has asthma but I don't worry when he gets wheezy or has attacks because a doctor said it's reversible)
PRISONER: I guess that's what educated folk'd call irony. We both knew the potential consequences of our actions, but I'm here and you got promoted.
JAILER: But if the government tells me not to smoke in the car, all hell would break loose. Soon they would have to ban smoking in the home too otherwise it would be inconsistent, and laws can never be inconsistent, laws have to be perfect to do any good. And then they would have to regulate other things that pose a danger to kids, like playing hockey, eating junk food, and playing in the sun.
PRISONER: But dude, playing hockey and playing in the sun may carry some health risks, but they also provide a lot of benefits. And junk food also provides benefits as well as health risks, after all people still need to eat even if they don't always make the best choices. Tobacco, by contrast, has no redeeming qualities. Besides, all they are asking you to do is smoke away from your kids. How did you ever come up with such ridiculous comparisons?
JAILER: Um, I dunno, I guess I must have read it on the internet.
PRISONER: You know what, I'm starting to think I'm getting a raw deal here. After all, by hitting the guy on the side of the head I was only exposing him to a RISK that he would go deaf or sustain permanent brain damage. And the discomfort of being hit, like the swelling and such, all that stuff is totally reversible.
JAILER: I guess it's a good thing kids can't speak up for their rights and that they are treated like second-class citizens. Because if the same standards applied to the mistreatment of children, I could be where you are right now.
With an imagination like that ,you ought to be able to write a novel or two.Perhaps it may be a little far fetched compared to Harry Potter, but there again reality has never been your strong point has it Cathy ? Only in your little world of hatred and intolerance.
Cathy,
Actually, I read it the first time. If I didn't know you better, I'd swear it was a parody (and a dammed good one).
Ding Dong
And without any redeeming qualities of your own. (just 'cause I said so, you don't), Keep your day job.
BTW, here is ONE redeeming quality:
http://www.plantpharma.org/ials/...index.php?
id=95
OK, here is is.
Cathy,
So where is all this proof you have to present to us to back up your "facts"? You've only been asked at least 8 times now (and 4 or 5 of those times by me personally).
So, where is all your irrufutable proof? Remember, press releases and soundbytes are NOT allowable.
Until you present such, anything you post is basically meaningless junk.
Ah, so smoking is actually good for your health. Thanks for clearing that up.
I've also been enjoying the page about how smoking helps prevent lung cancer. http://www.joevialls.co.uk/trans...ns/
smoking.html
Cathy Bell's scenario fails to mention several things:
Ear infections are easily treatable. In her scenario the parent neglected to have their child treated with anti-biotics.
Ear infections are mostly harmless. Just recently I read that doctors are now saying to leave ear infections alone as many clear up on their own. Only if the symptoms persist should a doctor be seen.
Cathy also neglects to say how rare deafness is in children. According to a study cited by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association:
"Profound, early-onset deafness is present in 4-11 per 10,000 children, and is attributable to genetic causes in at least 50% of cases."
That an average estimate of 7.5/10,000. With at least 50% being genetic leaves
My post above was cut off for some reason.
Getting smacked in the head is mostly harmless too. It's relatively rare that it results in deafness or permanent brain damage. So how can one be okay and the other not? Only if children are second-class citizens who don't deserve the same regard for their health as bar and restaurant workers.
I didn't say or imply that; are you illiterate too?
I won't rain on Cathy's parade since as you can guess I greatly appreciate any attempt at satire. However, I would merely point out that we are now comparing a brief exposure to secondhand smoke with smacking someone in the head. In other words, we're comparing a relatively minor health risk with physical violence.
Cathy are you a parent or a child ? The way you rant about children being second class citizens gives me the impression that you are so aggrieved that you must be suffering yourself,otherwise if you are a parent but cannot understand that smokers do make good parents however you wish to vilify them,then i wonder if you are not the parent you would like to be.Where is your research to suggest that there is a hardcore percentage of parents who smoke around their children.Come on Cathy how about some figures,or is it what you wish to think.
Cathy,
I have smoked around my kids for a total of 29 years. Neither have been to see the doctor for any of the numerous complaints that you say ETS is responsible for.
Ask Dr Mike for my email address. I will give you my permission to contact our family GP so that you can verify that I am telling the truth.
29 years. No smoke related maladies. (For interest, no illness for me either, nor my wife. Nor my dogs. Nor my sons hamster).
Makes a mockery of all your shrieking, does it not?
Is my family immune? Is it pure dumb luck? Genetics, perhaps?
Or have you overstated your case?
I think Cathy needs a class in reading comprehension. I didn't see anything in WLC's link that stated smoking was healthy, just the they were genetically modifiying a tobacco plant to produce the serum for the HPV vaccine.
Cathy, we are still awaiting all your proof to back up your claims.
JAILER: So, what are you in for?
PRISONER: I repeatedly smoked in my car with my children present.
JAILER: How are your kids?
PRISONER: Well, absolutely fine actually.
JAILER: Funny you should mention that. I signed my child up to play in a football league and he got a concussion from being tackled.
PRISONER: You know what, I'm starting to think I'm getting a raw deal here. My kid is fine and I get prison time and your kid has a concussion and you get nothing.
JAILER: Well, football is a form of recreation. Albeit a needlessly more dangerous form than say, tag football, but that's inexplicitly irrelevant.
PRISONER: Smoking is recreation for me though. And if smoking is deadly enough to warrant arresting people over it, why is it still sold legally?
JAILER: Because we base our health care off the tax revenue from the statically poorer minority and we don't want to give that up. Oh, and we like football too.
Hi.
Just wanted to introduce some details.
http://www.abc.net.au/health/reg...eatures/diesel/
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/
...irty_diesel.htm
http://taylorandfrancis.metapres...j92aacn40qp6pa/
Search 'diesel' for abstracts.
Of particular interest are:
'Chronic Nose-only Inhalation Study in Rats, comparing Room-aged Sidestream Cigarette Smoke and Diesel Engine Exhaust' where DEE but not RASS produced a dose-related and persistent inflammatory response.
'Invisible' microscopic contamination must be recalled; carcinogens are so prevalent due to industry profiteering and governmental complicity/complacency, that it is to be expected that lab countertops will contain and shed asbestos and that plastic water and food dishes will subject the animals to endocrine disruptors having deleterious and potentially carcinogenic effects at minute fractions of other toxins, as they mimic hormones and induce inappropriate cellular 'on/off' signalling, so that control animals are also placed at cancer risk - apart from such heritable genetic attachments passed on from parent stock also subjected to endocrine disruptors in plastics, common chemicals in (now likely GM potentially cancer-causing feed) food, and drink, etc.
Please note that early detection scans in a study recently conducted showed a 2% rate of lung cancer in Canadian current and ex smokers - the rate at which the control animals exposed only to filtered air developed the disease - with a similar level found in neversmokers.
In this case, the control animals exposed only to filtered air developed tumours at a rate of 2% - in all groups 'predominately bronchiolo-alveolar adenomas' - with the smoke-exposed group at 5%, described as similar in number to the control group, (numbers in groups not given) while the incidence was 46% in the DEE exposed group, the only one to develop malignant and multiple tumours.
'Our results suggest that in rats exposed to DEE, but not to RASS, the following series of events occurs: particle deposition in lungs - lung "overload" - pulmonary inflammation - tumorigenesis, without a significant modifying role of cell proliferation or DNA adduct formation.'
'Effects of Diesel Exhaust Particles and Carbon Black...'
Among other important observations:
'...We conclude that on a mass basis, DEPs had the greatest potential to enhance allergic induction, indicating that chemical composition is more important than particle size in determining potency for this health effect.'
(Yes, I know it's a 'duh' issue, but a lot of people don't seem to get this - or at least pretend not to.
I'm forever seeing 'particulates' lumped together irrespective of properties, at least above nano-size.)
'A REVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ON DIESEL EXHAUST PARTICLES AND NASAL EPITHELIUM ALTERATIONS' found that'...DEP can induce in allergic subjects sensitization to a neoallergen, sensitization that did not occur with exposure to the neoantigen alone. Particulate pollutants such as DEP, encountered in urban areas, are therefore thought to be contributing causal factors to the exaggerated sensitization to allergens in subjects...sensitization that they might not otherwise have experienced. These findings add weight to the hypothesis that DEP are involved in the increased prevalence of airway allergic diseases.'
(If we had a 'genetic tendency' toward smoke allergies, we'd never have made it into the caves, never mind out.)
'Organic Chemicals Adsorbed onto Diesel Exhaust Particles Directly Alter the Differentiation of Fetal Thymocytes Through Arylhydrocarbon Receptor but Not Oxidative Stress Responses' - testing indications of DEP having 'adverse effects on the immune system of laboratory animals and to induce thymic involution, particularly when exposure occurred during the fetal or lactational period.'
Examining 'the direct effect of DEP extracts and their constituents on gene expression and phenotype in the fetal thymus' showed results in these suggesting 'that organic compounds adsorbed onto DEP alter thymic gene expression and directly affect thymocyte development by activating the AhR.'
(Naturally - in all senses - the tobacco herb does not contain these most deadly petrochemicals any more than it does endocrine disruptors - and has clearly failed to create modern and predicted future disease rates throughout the history of its use, including from the 1920s on, when smoking became popular among both sexes.)
http://www.mindfully.org/Air/Dio...y-
Collusion.htm
Note TCDD 10 times more potent than potent human carcinogen aflatoxin and a complete carcinogen when applied to skin.
Is diesel - with similar evoked responses to those induced by TCDD - a contributor also to skin cancer rates?
'DIESEL EXHAUST (DE) AFFECTS THE REGULATION OF TESTICULAR FUNCTION IN MALE FISCHER 344 RATS'
A number of significant changes occurred in a number of areas.
'... In conclusion, DE appears to exert greater effects on accessory glands than on testes in Fischer 344 rats, and the responsiveness of rats is less than that found in mice.'
Not only common pesticides, household cleaning, and other industry chemicals - several hundred (among a hundred thousand globally present and potentially within us) tested for and found in the umbilical cords of newborns - but industry pollution and diesel exhaust are in particular directly related to the skyrocketing rates of allergies, asthma and various respiratory problems, lung diseases and cancers evident over the past few decades.
The more facts published regarding actual (lucrative) hazards with direct cause and effect, with mechanisms of disease causation/genetic damage shown, the faster the industry PR spin whirls, whipping out a strategy of confusion often involving nothing more than the simple substitution of 'tobacco smoke' for whatever industry-profiting substance has been proven as a hazard in another, scientific study generally triggered by obvious population/environmental health effects.
Legitimate concern must be focussed on real problems, not on arbitrary scapegoats, especially as this is used to destroy the most basic tenet of democracy - that of a society of equals, ruled by the ruled - in substituting an illegal elite of powerful interests presenting rights as theirs alone and subject to their choice.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...ty/
interference
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific...-
libraries.html
The massive degree of political manipulation of U.S. (and other countries) federal science is protested by over 11,000 scientists - as the Bush Admin. shuts down the EPA libraries, removing evidence accumulated over decades of industry and governmental abuses and damage to health and the environment.
A list is presented here below at
http://www.ucsusa.org/
scientific...tific_integrity
Please particularly note 'EPA Air Pollution Decision...' and the evident (if unmentioned) PR/anti transference of the drastic health effects of air pollution to tobacco smoke.
And while the FDA is regarded by many as the virtual alter ego of Big Pharma, interchangeable staff and all, it's good to hear that some must be pressured into passing hundreds of unsafe drugs, rather than doing so willingly on the assurance of a cushy job down the road.
GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out - was, I believe, first commonly popularized with regard to computers.
But when commercial industry produces falsified studies even at 'independent' institutions to suit its own or an associated bottom line, epidemiology cannot expect to find truth through the compilation of data from a series of studies too often produced with 'adjusted' data or methodology arranged to produce a desirable or expected result.
When not only employment but a reputation free of calumny may be dependent on producing the 'right' answer for a preponderance of major employers, it's not surprising that many researchers bend to the wind passed by producing industry.
The root cause is the lack of public control over public servants concealing public information and policy from the owning public, enabling industry and other powerful self-interests to essentially provide the pool of political choices we are offered, and to spin from whole cloth the hoodwink pulled over our heads.
As long as the personal choice scapegoat is allowed to function as concealment strategy for toxic industry in enabling slow, mass murder for profit, with the bulk of assessed risk automatically and without verification assigned to tobacco smoke and thereby reducing/removing liability from those responsible for our ills, the situation will continue to worsen, and little time remains if we are to salvage what survives of our planet.
'Personal choice' illnesses and dysfunctions - including behavioral alterations - of industry chemical
causation also affect wild-life even in isolated areas, with many of the same cumulative endocrine disrupting, carcinogenic industry chemicals of greatest concern found in their bodies - and permanently attached to their genes - as are in ours.
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/pdf/
GM_F...e_Unfolding.pdf
GM foods and factory farm cost-cutting techniques of mass production with reliance on obesity-producing and frequently carcinogenic production-enhancing hormones, drugs and chemicals instead of nutrients - with literal garbage fed animals - form another major category of causation of ill health, allergies and disease.
This apart from over 5000 specifically food additives, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
These examples are only a few representatives and a portion of one aspect of the global orchestrated attack on smokers.
Except it's not, really, but one on democracy and the shrinking future of those unfortunate enough yet to come.
Ellen truly fascinating,i sincerely hope you stick around and continue to add your comments and perspective .
Thanks for this info Ellen. Please do come back!
"I don't accuse you of being a tobacco industry stooge, principally because I know nothing about your financing."
Thank you Cathy - how kind of you.
"But it is your own actions/positions/statements that make speculation on this association inevitable."
Ah - so anyone who opposes an item on the anti-smoking agenda is therefore suspected of being a tobacco industry stooge, even if they have 21 years of experience in fighting the tobacco industry.
What a pitiful movement this is, then.
Cathy,earlier you stated you read the article by Joe Vialls and "enjoyed" it.Now how about using that space in between your ears to answer me as TO WHERE YOU KNOW all those radioactive particles are now situated.Perhaps you could even do a precis on Ellen North's article above.You are so well versed in knowing EVERYTHING revolves around tobacco smoke,I JUST KNOW YOU CAN GIVE ME ALL THE ANSWERS.
Cathy,
a couple of questions that you must be able to answer.
1 How much ETS gets into the rear of a car when an adult smokes with the window down and traveling at a reasonable speed?
2 How many cigarettes are smoked during the hypothetical 3 hours.
Please provide your proof with the answers.
Doc,
I know why you deleted a post from last night, but I stand by the sentiment.
GreatScot
I've also been enjoying the page about how smoking helps prevent lung cancer. http://www.joevialls.co.uk/trans...ns/ smoking.html
Cathy Bell
Then you should equally enjoy this book, which seems to be the source for Mr. Vialls' information:
The Smoking Scare De-Bunked by Dr. William T. Whitby
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/c...pdf&
ref=results
Happy reading!
The Bell rings in with...... 'Getting smacked in the head is mostly harmless too. It's relatively rare that it results in deafness or permanent brain damage.'
So with all of your wisdom how much liability are YOU willing to accept for this particular outcome? With all of your spouting off about dangers to others by smokers:
All this family needs is 1 pitbull attorney and you might pipe down a little, pip sqeak.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0308..._livingston.htm
Perhaps one of your contacts can provide you with the appropriate anxiety medication---at cost.
Ding-a-Lingggggggg-- 'Let me suggest that this is the type of free medical advice we can all do without' (she chimes to Dr. Siegel.)
Let me suggest, that YOUR advise, is something the entire world could do without.
Pavlov's Bell goes off with this:
As Mr. Prisoner above was kind enough to point out, the slippery slope scenario is bogus. Car smoking bans don't necessitate a home ban or all kinds of other intrusions into privacy and parental autonomy.
This gets the laugh award of the week. First planes, then separate sections in restaurants, then complete restaurant ban, then bars, then feet from doorways, then streets, then cars, then.... what? Oh yeah, no slippery slope! So nothing else. Why would we think differently?
Ahh, it's time for someone to collect their pellet. I think you'll find it in Bill's pocket.
Cathy assures us our homes are safe.
JTF cynically points out the incremental progression of bans so far and rhetorically asks what next. (as if we don't know).
Active Grants
Tobacco Use & Exposure
Project:
Eliminating smoking in rental housing units
Grant Detail:
$74,901, (awarded on Dec 1, 2006, starting Dec 1, 2006 ending Dec 31, 2007) ID# 59343
Grantee:
City of Portland
389 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04101-3509(207) 874-8449
Belmont have got ahead of themselves but this clearly indicates where we go from here. Rental housing, don't want to upset the upper class's yet, then....
Any ideas Cathy?
GreatScot
Thanks, si and Sunz, for the lovely welcome.
And to Michael Siegel for having the integrity and sense to use his painfully gained inside knowledge in the attempt at countering the worst excesses of the anti contingent.
Can anybody explain how the smoke-demons introduce pathogenic organisms into the ear?
Sent in, shrieking malediction, on a microscopic broom?
Do they alight at the entrance and crawl in, bearing barbed-tailed bacteria which strangely survive on the lit tip of a cigarette, rising in phoenix glory to divide and conquer in the nearest child-sized ear?
The particles of tobacco smoke are relatively heavy and settle out on a comparatively fast basis.
Unless an empty head is equalizing pressure nearby, tobacco smoke is unlikely to thread, airborne, into the ear, except possibly if guided by an intelligent bacterium with wings - or that postulated broomstick.
I haven't been able to make any sense of this tobacco smoke causation of ear infection theory.
Perhaps tiny cigarette-paper airplanes?
Please help.
Personally, I'm awaiting the announcement of the Smoker's Hairy Palm Syndrome, due any time - I think everything else has already been blamed on tobacco smoke.
Of course, new diseases and dysfunctions are appearing all the time, due to such things as (the rapidly increasing by thousands annually) 100,000 industry chemicals present world-wide, with nearly 300 of these tested for and found in the umbilical cords of newborns, increasingly developing 'personal choice' diseases/dysfunctions in the womb or in childhood, 'protected' only from herbal tobacco smoke which failed to ever cause the health issues exploding at progressively faster rates over the past 30 years and expected to double and/or triple again between 2005 and 2010.
We are ordered to believe that tobacco smoke has waited close to a century to create effects possibly peaking by 2020, and typically expected to worsen until that time.
Lung cancer has a standard averaged latent period - when the bulk of disease appears following exposure to the causal factor - of 20 years.
A symptomatic allergic response appears within hours or days.
The toxified system can react to anything, even beneficial substances or organs within the body, and tissue within the ears is susceptible to swelling, which may produce an environment conducive to an increase in bacteria, yeast and/or fungi, but this most often occurs with food allergies, now endemic and progressively more often life-threatening - although assumption too often rules in attribution.
Increased airway allergies are due to diesel exhaust as previously discussed and other industry-created causes I won't get into here.
But parents who bring their children onto travelled roadways are putting them at risk from everything from diesel and other exhaust to industrial pollution.
Sunshine is listed as a carcinogen parents continually expose children to.
Children within a modern home or other building are placed at risk from a litany of damaging and carcinogenic substances ranging from radon and asbestos to multiple chemicals, bacteria, yeast and molds.
I'd suggest freezing them in purified water - it's about all one can do.
Do not use tap water for this purpose; over 700 chemicals have been identified in U.S. tap water, which includes asbestos - predominately from chrysotile asbestos used in cement water pipes - and carcinogenic chemicals.
Other industrialized countries are unlikely to fare much better.
Possibly the least toxic manufactured substance of concern we now encounter is tobacco smoke, smoking stated by the WHO (prior to the addition of the 're') as being less harmful than (merely not actively healthy) inactivity, immediately and typically reversed and seized on by PR strategists as the 2nd most harmful problem, with smoking given full precedence.
http://www.informedparent.com/
ar...oblemsallergies
Food allergies - now common, in good part due to the toxicity created by the cost-cutting, lucrative global agribusiness/chemical/GM industries intent on controlling the global food supply - cause not only ear but respiratory problems, including coughing, wheezing, and/or nasal congestion.
Misdiagnosing this in accordance with global industry priorities regarding the tobacco scapegoat continues the misery and places children at risk of worsening health issues as the problems then remain - increasing pharma sales.
http://www.informedparent.com/
ar...icle=allergicac
Asthma is not necessarily allergy-related, and is less likely to be in small children.
The type triggered by emotions can be triggered by the PR-created expectation of cigarette smoke doing so.
And while one may demand the universal banning of smoking and air conditioning in case anyone with a problem may ever want to go there, the weather is a different matter.
It sucks, but personal sensitivities have to be dealt with by each individual case.
Every known substance probably has someone sensitive to it; the world cannot be banned on this account.
Tobacco smoke is not considered an allergen; some people with problems merely react to that as potentially to any substance.
Diesel exhaust is publicized as hazardous in both immediate and long-term effects, creating allergies as well as cancer and respiratory and other problems all at high rates, being especially damaging to the foetus and the young - and the tobacco spin again increases to obscure all such threats, saving money for powerful industry avoiding life-saving improvements while transferring blame on the pretext of 'protecting our health'.
http://www.informedparent.com/
ar...d.earinfections
Internal structures in children's ears are not angled well under 2 years of age, affecting drainage progressively less until fully repositioned around the age of 6; problems with the Eustachian tube increase the likelihood of ear infection.
It's 'age, status of immune system and exposure to infectious agents that will determine if a child will be prone to ear infections.'
Day care increases exposure to contagion and resultant ear infections.
But then the obligatory universal tobacco blame issue arises with the claim that ETS now (if not throughout history) strongly relates to ear infection, this reliant on the strength of articles published in reputable journals.
But the relatively recently publicized Cox-2 drug scandal, in example, with 16 falsified studies - half produced at 'independent' universities to provide plausibility - showed how widespread is the problem of not only bad science but outright lying (not to mention invasion into the educational system) within the drug industry, producing the great bulk of our 'health information' according to industry requirements.
And the comment in court of one Merck executive that 6 heart attacks/failures/strokes 'was the same' as 1 in a hundred in a control group, when questioned about unmentioned study findings by a lawyer, shows the industry attitude toward the health and lives of its consumers.
These demand control of everything we buy and every personal decision made, through the results of their 'findings' passed into repressive law in defiance of democracy and fact - not to 'protect our health' but to increase corporate profit and power.
Much of what's printed in medical journals relates more to commercal industry priorities than to science or the improvement of lucrative ill health.
http://www.lse.co.uk/
ShowStory.a...y_former_editor
In the following, especially note 'Regaining control'
http://www.canadianmedicaljourna.../full/175/4/
374
Don't miss out on link re footnote #29 on 1st article in that following. (Headspin warning.)
http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/per...l/per/
per46.htm
Many of the issues discussed make plain the disastrous intrusion of a pathological psychology into a once civilized and reasonably sane society, due predominately to corporate influence on government and illegal alteration to law.
Constitutions were devised precisely so they could not be overridden by oppressive government, and principles broadly established so that individual rights were protected and never contingent on the whim of any; the principle of equality alone forbids this.
One of the myriad aspects of the anti-smoking campaign and legislation is the abandonment of democracy itself, of the egalitarian society, rule by the ruled, with all entitled to equal rights, treatment and opportunity, entailed forever for those to come - for a tyranny in which the few control even the most personal aspects of the lives of all population members.
No more right exists for any person or group to abuse and repress pacific, law-abiding others for the 'good of their health' as for the 'good of their souls' in forcing conversion to their own religious preferences.
And it's been made very clear that health is not the purpose, but control of not only products and purchasing choice but the population itself.
A necessary step on the road to this is the reversal of the democratic assumption in law of adults being presumed competent to make personal decision, with the essential legal precedent established through smoking legislation that all adults are to be assumed incompetent in this and therefore all areas, with commercial industry determining in law the personally acceptable health risks of all, (not only the worth of our lives, but what we are permitted to consider personally worthwhile) according to the corporate priorities of immediate profit/share increase alone, with profits/expansion related to and dependent on corresponding increases in disease - rendering the public unable to initiate legal defenses under any circumstance.
The very concept of 'Free' is being copyrighted - and we can't afford the cost.
I thought we lived in a American? Not china or the once was soviet union. Who are you or anyone else going to tell me what I can or can't do in my car. I bought it and I had my kid. If I chose to smoke in my car, that is my choice. I am so sick of all of these dumbass laws. Just like you can't smoke in a restaurant. That should be the owners choice, not the goverments. Everyone should stop trying to control everything. Just let people do what they want as long as they don't harm others. You being around smoke in restaurant or car for 20 min is not going to kill you. How about if you don't like stay at home.
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
