This also presumes (falsely) that The Children begin smoking on account of their seeing ads.
First, they don't see them. Under 18s today don't read the papers or even the magazines.
Second, it presumes that if they did look at an ad (and the average time spent looking over an average ad is about 10 or less seconds) this quick shot "exposure" is enough to unravel all the brainwashing in school and the constant barrage of counterads that flicker across their screens. (This is some sorry admission for the AT nannies.)
Then too look at the ads if you can even manage to find one. They mostly show packages. Long gone are the days of selling sex, sirens and sports.
Finally, please show me all the ads for marijuana. Or the pleasure of sniffing glue, or the ecstacy of Ecstacy. In fact, while you're looking for them, show me the ads for sex. Show me the ads for sun. And show me all the tobacco ads from 1492. And the wine ads that prompted all the drinking Before Christ,
Reductio AD absurdum.
:
In Canada there has been a ban on cigarette advertising for years, in addition restictions on sponsoring athletic and community events which were largely depndant on the funding were also forbidden.
A very popular week long fireworks competition held in Toronto every year was canceled. The formerly sponsored Canadian open golf tournament, Race cars, Tennis tournaments and a host of other public events were forbidden from taking "dirty Tobacco money". As a result many ways tobacco used to give back to community were eliminated.
Child smoking rates and all smoking rates did not drop and recently we are told they are in fact climbing. The lobbies promised to save countless lives and all they delivered was financial hardship for many events which took years to recover and many events never did.
Now they impose the same hardships on the hospitality industry. I am still waiting for the bodies to rise from the dead. Just another poorly researched strike against once peaceful communities who are being driven into conflict, to supposedly achieve a decreased mortality rate. Mortality we see today, which they also say is a reflection of lifestyles 40 to 50 years in the past.
47,000 preventable deaths annually is just another lie repeated by self promotional politicians across the country on a daily basis.
All we can do is shake our heads and try to ignore the fact they make fools of themselves; talking as parrots, without once thinking about what they have been trained to repeat.
So what was gained?
The Americans should take notes from the Canadian "human experiments" and try not to waste a lot of cash chasing empty promises.
the governmental interest in protecting [a specific group of citizens] ... does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to [all citizens]
... especially since the claims are unfunded.
Heys Bill g., aren't you the one who likes to fight against unfunded claims (e.g. smoke-less tobacco).
How is it faulty reasoning? That is, how is it any more faulty than reasoning your have employed to promote your ideas?
Once, you said that 220 bartenders in Mass. would die. Why? Because they would all be exposed to choking levels of SHS 40 hours a week for 40 years. That reasoning is faulty because, as we all know, the bartenders will not be exposed to that level of SHS.
Sure. You said 220 would die "if" they were exposed to that extreme level of smoke. But we know that "if" statement to be false. And you used it anyway. Because it portrayed an accurate assessment of a true death toll? No. Because it advanced your agenda. So you said it. Even though it would have taken maybe 10 or 20 minutes to provide more accurate information.
In this case, CTFK is making claims about the impact this legislation will have. You are taking them to task, in part, because you believe it is OBVIOUS that the Supreme Court will strike it down.
Well, I think CTFK is pretty clearly ASSUMING that the legislation will pass constitutional muster and basing its claims on that fact.
That is, I think that in this case, their claims are far more on the level than things you yourself have done.
You should not base your studies on information you know to be false. But at least CTFK could ARGUE that the bill will stand up to litigation. Stranger things have happened. You can't make the same argument regarding your 220 disinformation.
Doc,...
Don't tell us, tell every member of the House and Senate!
Tell the media. ESPECIALLY the media, since that's where congress gets their "factual" information to begin with. The media of course, gets it from the "factual" TC advocates.
We already know, and genuinely believe that YOU believe CFTFK is deceptive, misleading and downright dishonest.
YOU'RE SING'N TO THE CHOIR!
At this point, clearly the House and Senate could care less what smokers think. WE ARE ROUTINELY IGNORED AND DISMISSED OUT OF HAND because we don't have any money, and we lack the organization that government funding has allowed TC to establish.
YOU COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU CHOSE TO. It's funny how the word CHOICE seems to creep into every aspect of the Tobacco Control debate isn't it?,....unless of course you happen to be a smoker, in which case your only choice is to comply or be crushed under the weight of manipulated opinion polls, restrictive government sanctions, and the gleeful extremely well funded persecution by much more militant Anti-tobacco zealots.
Step up to the plate doc, and try a little honesty. It would be a refreshing change in a crusade built on deception, omission, and outright lies.
Honesty, -("freedom from deceit or fraud.")
Not ASSUMPTIONS, -("Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof")
based on worse case exposure levels.
Just a thought,....
NY Times letter to the Editor (published today, Aug 13, 2007) from:
Matthew L. Myers
President
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Washington, Aug. 3, 2007
"F.D.A. and Tobacco"
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2qo2uz
From Rod's link There is no merit to Patrick Basham’s argument that Food and Drug Administration regulation of tobacco products would mislead consumers that such products are less risky
Totally disagree. For years TC has boasted their conviction that the public are silly idiots who become addicts solely from seeing smoking in a movie. Now suddenly the same public must be capable of understanding that the FDA (an administration who's purpose is to warrant product safety) does control tobacco but doesn't warrant product safety.
LightningBoy - At this point, clearly the House and Senate could care less what smokers think. WE ARE ROUTINELY IGNORED AND DISMISSED OUT OF HAND because we don't have any money, and we lack the organization that government funding has allowed TC to establish.
............
LB,
Smokers are considered a renewable asset, livestock, to be exploited - not citizens or constituents.
We are very valuable to the Health Control industry and to politicians.
However, does one consult the herd?
Despite all this "save the children" and "smokers' healthcare costs" propaganda, the politicians and Health Control will make sure to maintain the smoking herd.
Off-topic letter from the (London) Evening Standard:
"The smoking ban is a typical government fudge. As a non-smoker, I used to be able to sit in a beer garden without being surrounded by arrogant smokers, who now make it impossible to enjoy eating al-fresco. If a garden belongs to a cafe or pub, why doesn't it fall under the ban too?" -- Themis Avraamides.
Friend of yours, doctor?
Rod,
You are of course correct.
Afterall why would they base a 35 BILLION dollar healthcare program for children soley on the taxes received from the smoking herd.
Clearly there is a "masterplan" to keep us smoking right?
Otherwise, despite how obviously stupid it appears to proclaim to anyone that will listen how you are trying to reduce the smoking rate while at the same time committing to such a "worthy" program on the projected revenue generated soley from the product you are trying to eradicate would be well,...stupid.
Our governments not stupid!?,...is it?
Say it aint so,..
PUP - If a garden belongs to a cafe or pub, why doesn't it fall under the ban too?" -- Themis Avraamides.
.......
PUP,
As we have seen elsewhere, an outdoor smoking ban is just around the corner.
From Rods link;
"Tobacco companies today are making deceptive health claims. The F.D.A. with its mandate to protect public health, not the tobacco industry with its long history of deception, should control what information the public receives about tobacco products."
So, ...do I have this right?
The FDA can say whatever they like, and the Tobacco companies are prohibited from acknowledging that the FDA has any say at all.,..hmmmm seems fair doesn't it?
Neither the FDA, nor the Tobacco companies can prohibit me from saying anything I like so long as it's, at least as "truthful" as TC and Tobacco companies have each been with each other AND with me to date.....that seems fair too.
LightningBoy,
The only way the various "herds" will ever have a say in the political and Health Control "process," is to combine resources (money, voting, etc.) to increase our clout.
Realistically, I don't think this is likely.
The Control crowd prefer being part of a group and being told what to do. It is much easier for them to organize and make alliance with politicians who thrive on these people.
Freedom lovers are usually the opposite. We are not joiners, we don't like being told what to do. Hence, very little banding together.
Most Americans don't see the chains that are being forged for them, link by link.
Things may have to get much worse before they wake up - if they wake up.
Rod,
I'm doing all I can to help people see those links being forged as I do;
The following is the closing statement in a form letter response I received:
"On August 2, 2007, the Senate voted 68-31 to reauthorize CHIP for
five years (H.R. 976). This legislation would increase the per-pack
tax on cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.00, generating revenue that will
allow CHIP to reach an additional 3.2 million children nationwide.
While I understand your concerns regarding this tax increase, the
public health benefit of reducing smoking, especially among
teenagers, and expanding health care access compelled me to vote in
favor of the legislation. H.R. 976 is now in the process of being
reconciled with the House version, which increased the cigarette tax
by $0.45 per pack, and will soon be presented to the President for
his final approval.
Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown"
I believe I am going to have this enlarged to poster size for display in the restaurant with a handwritten short translation:
"SMOKE MORE, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
The FDA regulation should provide equally entertaining visual display material for the business.
LightningBoy -I believe I am going to have this enlarged to poster size for display in the restaurant with a handwritten short translation:
"SMOKE MORE, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
The FDA regulation should provide equally entertaining visual display material for the business.
...
LB,
Reference Sherrod's reply:
"...the
public health benefit of reducing smoking, especially among
teenagers, and expanding health care access compelled me to vote in
favor of the legislation."
Her logic demands excise taxes on all things harmful and/or addictive to teenagers for funding the expansion of health care access.
If it works for tobacco, it must work for other harmful things:
Alcohol
Sugar (all forms of sucrose)
Trans fats
Other "bad" fats
Salt
Caffeine
This way, Sherrod would not be espousing the creation of up to 22 million more new smokers to fund health care.
"While I understand your concerns regarding this tax increase, the
public health benefit of reducing smoking, especially among
teenagers"
Has anybody ever wondered why ALL smokers should pay higher taxes when the purpose is to reduce youth smoking? I'm a grown-up person and don't know why I should be punished for the behavior of others.
Sounds a lot like "collective punishment".
Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions.
And only one step away from Sippenhaft (kin liability) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sippenhaft
Sam--
Perhaps to restate what's implicit in your argument, in order to deduce 220 deaths, the assumption would have to be that all [53,000] bartenders in MA are exposed to choking smoke on a 40/40 basis. And that of this number [53,000] 220 would die.
Still wondering if the Doctor is planning to show up at that car-ban press conference and what he'd say if he did.
:
Three Key Challenges to Freedom (from one who should know)
Vaclav Klaus
CATO Institute Quarterly Message on Liberty
URL (pdf file): http://tinyurl.com/2xr3sa
Walt - Still wondering if the Doctor is planning to show up at that car-ban press conference and what he'd say if he did.
.......
The only motive for the invitation to the Doctor is to use him to bolster Gennaro's position.
If it appears the Doctor won't cooperate, Gennaro will dump him.
The Doctor has stated several times that he is against banning smoking in the car. I just think it would be interesting to see if he does show up anyway. Free press time is important to the cause isn't it Doc? Will he flip flop or will he take the oportunity to make Gennaro look like a fool instead?
Just took a look at Bill's website and maybe he is the one who should have been invited. Seems he is on a letter writing campaign to ban smoking in the casino's in Illinois. Maybe Bill could enlighten us to why he has to stick his nose into Illinois's Business, when he is suppose to be living in Pennsylvannia! Don't worry Bill, all that smoke will dissipate somewhere over the Ohio valley before it gets to you!
Walt and Rod,
Just to make my position clear, I oppose car smoking bans and therefore would not testify in support of the ordinance. As I have explained, the reason for my opposition is not that I don't think smoke in cars can be harmful to children, but that I think the law interferes with parental autonomy over decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children.
I also think the policy doesn't make sense, since most of the health effects observed in children due to secondhand smoke is due to exposure in the home, not in cars. It doesn't make sense to me to ban smoking in cars, but allow children to continue to be exposed in the home, where most of the damage (in cases where there is damage) is being done.
[And no - I wouldn't support a home smoking ban because I think it is a clear interference with parental autonomy and privacy]
I also think the policy doesn't make sense, since most of the health effects observed in children due to secondhand smoke is due to exposure in the home, not in cars. It doesn't make sense to me to ban smoking in cars, but allow children to continue to be exposed in the home, where most of the damage (in cases where there is damage) is being done.
Two things come to mind here:
1. I'm curious how you are able to tell where the exposure is from, yet you can't with hospitality workers.
2. In case you haven't figured it out yet, the car nonsense is just one step away from the home. IF they can get that through..........they'll be barging our doors down next.
I'm so thankful I have no small children, and will no longer associate with anyone who does have small children (unless they themselves smoke - and do so in their homes and cars, kids or no kids).
This is getting so outrageous. This is the worst nightmare I have ever in my life experienced.
Michael Siegel: but that I think the law interferes with parental autonomy over decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children.
[And no - I wouldn't support a home smoking ban because I think it is a clear interference with parental autonomy and privacy]
Why is parental autonomy more important than personal autonomy? Why aren't workplace bans interference with personal autonomy?
Yep, I've read all your arguments that workers (especially bartenders) MUST be protected whether they want to be protected or not.
I just don't understand at all why personal autonomy--of the employer as well as the employee--is not as important and subject to protection as parental autonomy. Why can't workers and business owners be given the freedom to choose the same as parents?
If parents can make such decisions for their child, why can't they make such decisions for themselves?
.
Let's assume that exposure to traffic exhausts represents a higher health risk than SHS inside cars. Shouldn't we then ban car traffic, for the sake of the children, of the workers, of all those who live close to busy streets? After all, nobody should be forced to inhale deadly fumes.
A recent study seems to show a clear causal association:
Residence close to high traffic and prevalence of coronary heart disease
For 3399 participants from two cities, we assessed the long-term personal traffic exposure and background air pollution, comparing residents living within 150 m of major roads with those living further away. The principal outcome variable was clinically manifest CHD.
Of 3399 participants, 242 (7.1%) had CHD. The crude odds ratio (OR) for prevalence of CHD at high traffic exposure was significantly elevated (1.62, 95%CI 1.12-2.34) and rose to 1.85 (95%CI 1.21-2.84) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and background air pollution.
Subgroup analysis showed stronger effects for men (OR 2.33, 95%CI 1.44-3.78 ), participants younger than 60 years (OR 2.67, 95%CI 1.24-5.74) and never-smokers (OR 2.72, 95%CI 1.40-5.29).
Conclusion: This study provides epidemiological evidence that the long-term exposure to traffic-related emissions may be an important risk factor for CHD.
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals....stract/
ehl278v1
If parents can make such decisions for their child, why can't they make such decisions for themselves?
A pertinent question.
"In other words, by boasting about how much the FDA legislation will do to curtail cigarette advertising to youths and how much that will reduce youth smoking, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is making a mountain out of a mole hill." Very much like FORCES makes out of the SHS panic syndrome,with you leading it all Dr Siegel,RIGHT FROM ITS INCEPTION,BY WHATEVER MEANS WERE AT YOUR DISPOSAL.
Walt,
"...in order to deduce 220 deaths, the assumption would have to be that all [53,000] bartenders in MA are exposed to choking smoke on a 40/40 basis."
No need to use the "would have to be." The doctor has admitted that was his assumption. He admits that he knew it to be false. But says that's OK, because he prefaced his testimony with the words "If they work for 40 years..."
Knowing full well that hardly any of them would. And despite the fact that it would take maybe ten minutes to find the mean or median career length of actual bartenders in the state so as to provide a more useful number.
I asked the doctor why he would do that. He said it's because it is useful to know the "lifetime" "career" risk. Even though we know full well that the typical "lifetime" "career" of bartenders is substantially different than for other professions. In fact, the BLS makes special mention of it in their discussion of the field. It changes every consideration of the industry, from hiring and firing to career tracks to present and future job opportunities.
The one thing it does not affect, apparently, is a calculation of how risky that job is with regard to SHS. I wonder why.
I would note that for some reason, as far as I can tell, the doctor has never calculated the SHS risk (in terms of RR or anything else) for a TYPICAL bar worker. Only the imaginary one who (Can you believe it!) would be exposed to far, far more SHS than a real worker.
Along these lines, I think that the doctor, in assessing the dangers that a NASCAR driver faces, should make the 40/40 assumption instead of the real world. That is, drivers are really only "racing" about four hours a week, maybe 32 weeks a year. For maybe 10-15 years.
Now, we could ASSUME that the drivers are really on the oval, racing three-wide, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year for 40 years. And in doing so, we would come up with a mortality level so much higher than anything facing bartenders that it would make your nuts ache.
So why not do that? The doctor says that deriving and presenting the "lifetime career risk" in terms of 40/40 is "useful." But we have been discussing NASCAR drivers for months now. And the doctor says--insists!--that he is a consistent fellow. And would urge a ban for anything as or more dangerous than SHS exposure. Yet, he still has not derived that lifetime career risk for drivers.
I wonder why?
I wonder why he has not calculated RRs for real workers and calculated the death toll using Those statistics.
Perhaps because doing so would make his mountain of dead bartenders look more like a molehill?
No worry, though. Even if he were to do it, he would move the goalposts again and say that the REAL reason for bans is not because of the relative risk, but because of something else. Like "inherency." Until someone blows that idea out of the water and he goes back to the relaitve risk argument again.
Whack. A. Mole.
I repeat Diane's question. Will you show up at Gennera's dog and pony show?
If not why not?
Also you have stated that you have had many more enquiries from the press regarding this blog lately.
What are the names of those who have shown an interest in this matter/blog?
tnsmoker---'Why is parental autonomy more important than personal autonomy? Why aren't workplace bans interference with personal autonomy?'
I think this parental autonomy issue is just a ploy by the doctor. He will morph into that when we all accept (gradually) or shut up on the subject. Then there will be no autonmy permitted when it comes to smoking. Period. He stated as much (the incremental argument) on another thread. We'll just all grow to love the new tyranny we will all be living under.
.
.
even with all the rules and regulations, we're slipping in life expectancy around the world.
http://www.physorg.com/
news10612...s106121686.html
brandz - even with all the rules and regulations, we're slipping in life expectancy around the world.
http://www.physorg.com/ news10612...s106121686.html
......
Brandz,
Geez, Brandz...that's because we have too much freedom here in the US! The very idea that we can choose to be fit or fat is the reason we have failed!
All we have to do to live longer is to dump our constitution and conform.
Of course, there is a little thing niggling at the back of my memory. I get the idea that there wouldn't be these reports from WHO, etc. on how crappy the US is if we hadn't defeated the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists and finally caused the downfall of the USSR.
Yep, we fail to measure up.
I just don't get the fanatical obsession with living so long (as IF that is some great prize). You either will or you won't and nothing you do or don't do will change that.
I'd rather go out while young and active than old and unable to do anything.
~Our bodies are gardens, to which our wills are gardeners.~ Shakespeare
(Our wills have been banned.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/
a...D=7329022870623
SMOKERS~AMERICAN HEROES~4 KIDS
SMOKERS~THE NEW HUDDLED MASSES~4 KIDS
(I am not a smoker~and I am livid)
OK I got the above t-shirt slogan ideas from EIB...Maybe talk radio will move mountains...
"Story #9: Smokers: The New Huddled Masses
'RUSH: "Companies seeking to cut rising health care costs are starting to dock the pay of overweight and unhealthy workers. Clarian Health, an Indiana hospital chain, will require workers who smoke to pay $5 out of each paycheck starting in 2009. For workers deemed obese, as much as $30 will be taken out each paycheck until they meet certain weight, cholesterol and blood pressure standards." It's in the Washington Times. The smokers are okay with it, but the obesity thing is making people mad. It's a civil rights question, you can't dock my pay because of my weight. This is a civil rights question. They're all upset about it. The obese crowd's upset. Smokers seem content with it. You know, we're funding health care for children with smoking. We had a story in the first hour of the program that smokers are smoking less and buying less because of the increased taxes. The new tax increase hasn't even gone into effect yet. So the evidence abounds, raise taxes, you diminish an activity, you cut back on it. However, as I said, I think one of the reasons is you can't smoke anywhere. Skinny, undernourished people are off the hook. They don't get any of their pay docked, cholesterol is normal, blood pressure is normal. They don't get any pay docked. Now, this is a health care company.
I have to point that out. But nevertheless, the smoking thing, I've always marveled, smokers ought to be the latest version of American heroes. They single-handedly are funding children's health care. Their taxes on cigarettes are going to go up a buck a pack, if this SCHIPs thing is signed into law by the president, and cigars are going to go up to ten dollars a stick in taxes. They're going to be fewer and fewer tobacco products sold. Then what are the programs going to do? Then what's going to happen? But you have to throw in the fact that people are smoking less also because there's nowhere they can outside the home and people don't stay home 24/7. So it's probably multifaceted reasons for this happening. Smokers are the new huddled masses. You ought to see it in New York. You drive down the street 10:30 in the morning during morning break time, people huddled, I don't care, it could be 30 below and snowing out there. "What do you want them to do, Mr. Limbaugh, smoke around all of us and give us cancer?" No, I'm not saying that, Mr. New Castrati. We've got so many real problems and we've got ourselves all wrapped up in a bunch of meaningless garbage that takes us away. All the constant attention on this Lohan person, the Paris Hilton and so forth, as lead stories in news broadcasts.'
Rod;
Thanks for the excellent link; The timely discussion brought forward some excellent points in respect to exactly the "izms" versus Human rights balances we are debating.
I would like to hear [Assuming Michael saw the link] if he can offer some insight and balance his perspectives in light of the points made. A lot of what was described seems to agree to a point with Michael's ethical values however in agreement with those values we seem to witness a lot of inconsistencies as well, in promotion of smoking bans in the idealogical lobby TC pursued, leading to broader support of ideology blue print in many other copy cat lobbies and a fad culture forming replacing the dominance and health benefits of natural sciences.
: http://tinyurl.com/2xr3sa
" All of those beliefs and assumptions
are associated with social sciences,
not with natural sciences. That
is why environmentalism — unlike scientific ecology — does not belong to the natural sciences and can be classified as an ideology. That fact is, however, not understood by the average person and by numerous politicians."
Any comments regarding in particular the "properly informed perspectives" you described in previous posts Michael?
Would any of Dr. Siegel's 220 bartenders have died if they had been protected by contemporary ventilation/filtration systems?
www.air-quality-eng.com
The trouble is you are talking from a physical science perspective and Michael is speaking in Ideological terms both will likely form differing conclusions.
Risk of Human health in measured and known safe levels allows for acceptable risk and has always been sufficient in offering us ample protections.
Ideologically we can ignore what is acceptable and speak in worst case scenarios with no safe level or acceptable risk, as though ideological or theorized risks actually existed.
Fear promotion and potentials for actions are increased when risks which only exist in determined imaginations are actually taken seriously.
When we are not properly informed and don't understand the difference between real risk and theological risk as in; the many what ifs, could, may, might, is possible and all the other carefully placed descriptors which are not recognized by most to mean exactly what they say. At a point they are no longer needed and it becomes acceptable to outright lie without fear, and drop the descriptors altogether. Leading us from association to cause which was amply demonstrated in the latest SGs report.
Trust is being deliberately taken advantage of, to gain profiting stakeholders needs while the public is never properly informed.
You call that fraud. Public Health calls it forward going strategies and progressive thinking.
benpal wrote:
"Let's assume that exposure to traffic exhausts represents a higher health risk than SHS inside cars. Shouldn't we then ban car traffic, for the sake of the children, of the workers, of all those who live close to busy streets? After all, nobody should be forced to inhale deadly fumes."
People like to ban things that don't affect them directly, so that's out.
I'd like to know why "public health advocates" don't push ads attacking car pollution. Why don't we see ads saying:
Kissing a driver is like licking an exhaust pipe.
There is no safe level of vehicle pollution.
Driving a Prius, carpooling, riding the bus: It's still oral rape.
About life expectancy:
The USA is among the nations with the lowest smoking prevalence. Japan has one of the highest prevalences in male smokers.
But then you can always blame it on the black population ...
Murray, from the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy.
A good reason for another tax increase on tobacco and a slogan for the T-shirt competition:
"I smoke to help improve life expectancy"
About life expectancy:
The USA is among the nations with the lowest smoking prevalence. Andorra, Japan have one of the highest prevalences in male smokers.
But then you can always blame it on the black population ...
Murray, from the University of Washington, said improved access to health insurance could increase life expectancy.
A good reason for another tax increase on tobacco and a slogan for the T-shirt competition:
"I smoke to help improve life expectancy"
Note on Andorra:
Population 72'000.
Agricultural production is limited and most food has to be imported. Some tobacco is grown locally. Manufacturing output consists mainly of cigarettes, cigars, and furniture.
Smoking prevalence 15 and older: 36%
15 - 24 old: 41%
(source: http://globalink.org/tccp/Andorra.pdf)
OT but of interest
Newsweek current article (cover) on GW is called what it is by it's own editor!!
http://epw.senate.gov/public/ind...ac-
d9f7facb61a7
~snip~
UPDATE: August 12, 2007 - Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived' - Excerpt: A contributing editor of Newsweek, slapped down the Magazine for what he termed a "highly contrived story" about the global warming "denial machine.”
_______________
And this sounded familiar:
~snip~
Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION and some change by comparison
'Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to make it appear as though the science is getting stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problems with that assertion..'
I noticed our friends in New York busted a Chinese cigarette ring.
I wonder how much of this is really going on and how much more after the tax increase?
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com...D_TOBACCO&
isub=
ETS makes your teeth fall out.
http://www.dentistry.co.uk/news/...tail.php?
id=658
and causes mouth cancer.
Excerpt
‘The results of this study show that a person doesn’t have to smoke themselves – if they live with a smoker and suffer with advanced gum disease then they are more likely to lose their teeth.
‘The smoking ban, which is already in operation in Scotland and Wales, will come into force in England on July 1st and will undoubtedly help. However, people can still smoke at home and this will have a big impact on their family’s oral and general health.’
‘Second-hand smoke has already been linked with mouth cancer,’ he added. ‘So it is vitally important that smokers consider the people around them before lighting up.’
GreatScot
I think this is the study:
http://www.joponline.org/doi/
abs...jop.2007.060323
Methods: A total of 36 male Wistar rats were used in the study. A ligature was placed around one of the mandibular first molars (ligated teeth) of each animal, and they were assigned randomly to one of three groups: group 1: control (N = 10), group 2: 30 days’ inhalation of smoke produced by high-yield cigarettes (N = 13), and group 3: 30 days’ inhalation of smoke produced by low-yield cigarettes (N = 13). The animals were sacrificed 30 days after ligature placement, and the specimens were processed for decalcified sections
.
And won't the Christians be so very happy when the hunt is on for them?
Citywide Ban of Alcohol
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...hibition_vote_3
~snip~
"If it can be voted out anywhere, it will be here because so many Christians are against it," said Teresa Thomas, who works in a Christian book store'
Wonder what her reaction will be when her bookstore is burned to the ground by the next crusade moving through town?
Bill raises a good point:
"Would any of Dr. Siegel's 220 bartenders have died if they had been protected by contemporary ventilation/filtration systems?"
Ban supporters act like you would have to remove 99.99 percent of the SHS to make things "safe." Meaning, basically, risk-free.
But what if you could reduce, say, half of it? That would mean, I guess, that the doctor's bartenders would have to work 40/80, or 80/40, to get the dead bodies piled 220 high.
The doctor admits that the busboy working for a summer is not going to die from SHS exposure. So there is some level of exposure that is not deadly.
So the question is not whether ventilation systems can reduce the risk to "zero" or something approaching it. It is whether it can make the rooms "safe enough."
Demanding zero-risk is not a consistent position. Especially if we are going to express every workplace hazard in terms of 40/40.
Ready to ban NASAR yet, doc?
Do some simple math. Seven NASCAR drivers died in a seven year span. I am guessing with practice and poling and all the rest, they might drive 20 hours a week. With about 40 drivers per race, that amounts to 800 hours worked per week, industry-wide. Let's say 40 races per year (an overstatement). So we are talking 32,000 working hours every year, for the ENTIRE INDUSTRY.
So over those seven years in which there were seven deaths, we are talking one death per 32,000 hours worked.
Now back to the Mass. bartenders. Forty hours a week, 50 weeks a year (assuming two weeks of vacation) means 2,000 hours per year, per bartender. Times 40 years. That means 80,000 hours per bartender over a 40 year career.
So if the risk for bartenders were as high as it is for NASCAR drivers, we would have more than two dead bartenders for every one bartender working.
My calculations might elevate the risks for NASCAR drivers a bit. Because why? Because I chose the deadliest stretch of years for the sport.
But if the doctor can choose imaginary bartenders, I ought to be able to base my assumptions on very real (and very dead) people.
Keep playing with the math. Imagine what the death toll for drivers would be if we were as loose with our assumptions as the doctor is. Let's say we assumed that all the drivers worked 40/40. A completely asinine assumption. But what the heck. As long as we admit we are cooking the books, it's OK.
So... what would the risk factor for driving be in that case? Obvioulsy a lot higher than it is for bartenders. Yet, for some reason, the doctor seems unmoved. Quite callous, I would say.
A final caveat. My math has always been suspect. And it's possible that my calculations could be off by several orders of magnitude. But even if they are, I bet driving is still more dangerous than tending bar at Smokey Joe's.
Ah but Sam, Michael is an anti smoking advocate not an anti race car advocate so his imagination is somewhat focused on the ideology he is specializing in.
If he were to focus on the racing scene I am sure he could develop a lot of what ifs to keep race fans up at night as well.
The power of suggestion is much more persuasive and advantageous than actual facts and real risks as they really stand observing natural science.
Just took a look at Bill's website and maybe he is the one who should have been invited. Seems he is on a letter writing campaign to ban smoking in the casino's in Illinois. Maybe Bill could enlighten us to why he has to stick his nose into Illinois's Business, when he is suppose to be living in Pennsylvannia!
Is this the same Bill Godshall who ripped on disrespectful smokers for sticking their noses in the business of a state they don't live in?
It's always useful to see double standards pointed out, no matter what the issue. But I guess nonprofits can get away with it because, well, they're only getting power and prestige out of it.
GreatScot: However, people can still smoke at home and this will have a big impact on their family’s oral and general health.’
They are setting up their argument to push for banning smoking in your own home now. This also allows them to deny any attempt to prohibit tobacco. Hypocrites.
Andrew: Is this the same Bill Godshall who ripped on disrespectful smokers for sticking their noses in the business of a state they don't live in?
Yep, that would be the one. He is the only one, and his loyal followers of course, who are allowed to make demands on cities and states and countries they don’t reside in. But no outsider is allowed to have a say in their locale. Bill is an open hypocrite and doesn’t hide that fact too well at all. People like him are extremely dangerous. I’d rather get shot than live under people like him.
Dr. Siegel, you must have overlooked my post above.
I asked: Why is parental autonomy more important than personal autonomy? Why aren't workplace bans interference with personal autonomy?
I just don't understand at all why personal autonomy--of the employer as well as the employee--is not as important and subject to protection as parental autonomy. Why can't workers and business owners be given the freedom to choose the same as parents?
If parents can make such decisions for their child, why can't they make such decisions for themselves?
Please explain why you do not extend the same protection to personal autonomy that you do parental autonomy. Why can't adults be allowed to make the same choices for themselves as you allow parents to make for their children?
.
What a scream that citywide ban on alcohol was Sunz.The most relevant part of it was :"Gooch isn't worried about the city losing businesses or tax revenues if alcohol sales are banned. Normal economic growth and God will make up any difference if residents dump the bottle, he said." Now surely Dr Siegel,God can help out with a ventilation system to stop those poor bar staff from keeling over.Do you rely on your SHS gained "peerage" to remain main stream tobacco control ? Without it,would your career have been given the obvious publicity you needed to scale the heights ?If your answer is no Dr Siegel,then why won't you discuss your original studies ?
tnsmoker asked "Why is parental autonomy more important than personal autonomy? Why aren't workplace bans interference with personal autonomy?"
The answer is that workplace smoking bans are necessary to protect OTHER people from the effects of smoking. We are not talking about interfering with individual autonomy in order to protect THAT person.
Clearly, the state has a much lower threshold for interfering with personal autonomy when that interference is needed to protect innocent bystanders than when it is intended to protect the person from their own behavior.
This is the difference between paternalism and protection. To me, paternalism is a much harder to justify interference with personal autonomy than protection.
In addition, business regulations aren't interfering with personal autonomy so much as they are interfering with business autonomy. It is the business entity that is being regulated, not really so much the individual.
The answer is that workplace smoking bans are necessary to protect OTHER people from the effects of smoking.
Because apparently THOSE people are way too stupid to decide on their own. Only SMOKING adults are smart enough to decide for themselves and their children. Other adults, well...they just don't have the intelligence....
It is the business entity that is being regulated, not really so much the individual.
Heard a story on the radio about a clown in the UK whose one-man act consisted of entertaining groups of kids by tying baloons into various shapes (of animals, objects) and using a bubble machine to blow bubbles.
First, the city council banned his bubble machine because children might slip and fall on the bubbles. Then they banned his twistiing baloons into guns because it "sent the wrong message," and finally they banned his use of baloons because children in the crowd could be allergic to Latex.
But, hey. It was the business entity that was regulated, not really so much the individual clown. (Or the kiddies who wanted to see bubbles and baloons.)
Right.
:
The answer is that workplace smoking bans are necessary to protect OTHER people from the effects of smoking. We are not talking about interfering with individual autonomy in order to protect THAT person.
Clearly, the state has a much lower threshold for interfering with personal autonomy when that interference is needed to protect innocent bystanders than when it is intended to protect the person from their own behavior.
This is the difference between paternalism and protection. To me, paternalism is a much harder to justify interference with personal autonomy than protection.
In addition, business regulations aren't interfering with personal autonomy so much as they are interfering with business autonomy. It is the business entity that is being regulated, not really so much the individual.
Damn Doc, you just proved our point in letting things go long enough so you have enough rope to hang yourself.
Using YOUR logic here, you then MUST ban adults from smoking in front of their children, in their cars, and in their homes. After all, there is no other being who is truly more of an innocent bystander, than "the children" who truly have NO choice in where they live or who drives them around and raises them.
IF you feel justified in removing everyone else's god-given "free will" to choose to enter or work in an establishment where the PRIVATE business owner has CHOSEN to allow smoking, then surely your next step MUST be parents and cars and homes. It HAS to go to that level for children ARE the only true innocent bystanders. The adults ALL had the choice to make.
And the way the laws are written it IS in fact ALSO individual autonomy that has been regulated by NOT allowing business owners to make their own rules in this area and by NOT allowing other free adults to choose where to patronize OR work.
Using YOUR logic here, IF your goal is truly based strictly on the health of the innocent bystander, then there can be NO difference between business, parental, personal autonomy, since they all tend to mesh together in that sense, unless you wish to admit that your bans are not now, nor have ever been about health, but have in fact been about forcing the world to live by your personal preference of not having to decide to eat/drink at the establishment on your side of the street that allows smoking or crossing the street to the smoke-free establishment.
Lynda,
Could it be that 'health'was a ruse, and that what was wanted all along was the elimination of tobacco ---they just needed lots of money along the way to get it done. I mean an activist should not have to live the life of an ordinary citizen while he is accomplishing such great things for the good of all?
Hey Si----Update on Alcohol Ban in Alabama
Alabama city rejects Prohibition measure
http://
seattletimes.nwsource.com...hibition15.html
Wonder what Gooch will say now? Perhaps God will help him find another way to pervert the free-will (God-given) of his fellow citizens?
.
Could it be that 'health'was a ruse, and that what was wanted all along was the elimination of tobacco
Of course it was. We have known that all along. IF it were truly about health, then all us smoking baby boomers would be dead or near dead already (and yet here we are about to bankrupt the social security system) as would all our families and friends who were exposed to our SHS for decades.
The fact that we are here, is proof of their health scare promotion to control the masses.
Wonder what Gooch will say now? Perhaps God will help him find another way to pervert the free-will (God-given) of his fellow citizens?
Goddess save us all from these religious zealots. The most hypocritical and bigoted people I have ever met, were "religious". I've found them to be tremendous liars on top of it.
On the other had from Alabama---
Northport approves ban on smoking
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/
ar...mplate=dateline
Can't cut and paste from article??? The councilman supporting the ban sated he had many comments from citizens and business that the council should address the problem. Could he not have advised the businesses to go smoke free on their own? Suggest to the complaining citizens the marketing oppurtunity of opening a smoke free eatery? No, come here, you just let BIG DADDY take care of all this for you.
.
Could he not have advised the businesses to go smoke free on their own? Suggest to the complaining citizens the marketing oppurtunity of opening a smoke free eatery?
But, but,but.........they need a "level playing field" in order to do that.
Didncha get the memo? hehehehehe 
I was preparing a rebuttal to your statements, but Lynda F said it very well. (Thank you, Lynda!)
Dr. Siegel, your logic is flawed. You are stifling the individual autonomy of the OTHER people, what you call innocent bystanders. Whether they are smokers or non-smokers, they deserve the respect of being able to make their own choices of whether they enter or work in a smoking environment or a non-smoking environment. And believe it or not, many non-smokers don't mind being in a smoking environment.
Michael Siegel: In addition, business regulations aren't interfering with personal autonomy so much as they are interfering with business autonomy. It is the business entity that is being regulated, not really so much the individual.
Tell that to the smokers who are forced outside in 105 degree weather this summer to smoke. Tell that to the elderly in northern Canada who are forced outside in well below zero wind chill weather in the winter. Tell that to the smokers who are forced outside at night in unsafe neighborhoods and have been raped, robbed, and murdered. Tell that to the bartenders and waitstaff who have lost their jobs, the bar and restaurant owners who have lost their life savings and livelihoods, and the communities who have lost their social gathering places. What you antis can't seem to comprehend is that hospitality businesses are MORE than just businesses; they are comprised of INDIVIDUALS--the owners, the workers, and the patrons--whose personal autonomy should be protected, too.
.
Tnsmoker, rape and murder are nothing compared to those poor 15,998 asthmatics too blind to see a "Smoking Permitted" sign.
Doc wrote:
In contrast, the majority of children who are exposed to secondhand smoke in cars do not suffer any long-term effects. There is an increased risk of ear infections and lower respiratory tract infections. But to compare that to child abuse?
There is an increased risk???? Is this some more magic from epidemiology?
Doc said:
Active smoking causes cancer of many other organs besides the lung, while secondhand smoke has been shown to be a cause only of lung and nasal sinus cancer.
Where has it been shown that SHS causes lung and nasal sinus cancer? Is there one person that has been proven to have contracted either disease from SHS?
Is there one person who has been proven to have dies from SHS exposure?
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
