Does the ban cover the cars as well ? Do you have to push your car from the road to the carpark with the engine switched off.Even Neanderthal Man had got morelogic in his little finger than these bunch of single cell amoeba.
"Perhaps the simplest thing to do, for the sake of public comprehension, would be for the City Council to ban all smoking."
Maybe they don't even understand what smoking means? Imagine the whole family driving 200 miles to spend a weekend in the park and they find out that smoking is prohibited. How do they know it does NOT apply to their BBQ grills?
This has to be an April fools joke.
Surely there is no one daft enough to propose this. Only an idiot would not see how stupid this proposal sounds.
Except the one who suggested pushing the cars in and out, another like me who sees the funny side. I've been giggling ever since I read the article.
Our council had complaints about cats digging up other people's back yards.
So some idiot on council tried to bring in a by law to prevent it.
Now can you imagine trying to enforce that. Chasing cats through hedges, over fences and up trees. One of the councillors wanted to be informed about a complaint so he could film the chase !
This to me belongs in a joke book of silly laws proposed. If the council goes along with this they should be asked to take an intelligence test.
It might not be so funny if the State of California wasn't best known for it's wild fires. How is that effecting the global warming problem, asthma rates, heart disease, lung capacity and so on and so on? Or is that their smoke is only contained to a certain area, preferably in the poor section of towns? Due to lack of subways, trains and public transportation, California also has the worst traffic congestion of all of the 50 States combined and they have the smog to prove it. So smoking in a parking lot, in the park, on the beach or anywhere in that State for that matter, should be the least of their concerns.
I had the unfortunate experience a couple of years ago when I got to drive the entire State from the northern border from Oregon to Los Angeles and as I said before, kids and dogs seeing a person smoking should be the least of their problems.
I was sent a poll yesterday from the Sunday paper of the Chicago Times and the question of whether smoking should be banned was asked. I just checked it and the results so far was over 54,000 no's and over 39,000 yes's and a whopping 797 saying they don't care. Maybe some City Council's should check out this poll and ask where that 70% of all American's are that are in favor of this legislation.
Diane,
I totally agree with you on the fact that cigarette smoke is the least of California's problems. However, THEY don't seem to think so, based on all the pathetic laws various towns and counties there are passing faster than you can say "this is a joke".
On a totally off topic note to all:
Breaking news on CNN 5 minutes ago: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is donating 500 million dollars to the "war on obesity in children".
Here comes the next phase folks. Tighten your seat belts.
Lynda F, I heard that on the radio as well. Wonder how easy this will be?
Perhaps they should demand anyone not interested in being ruled by health nazis, should just drop dead. Then they would have only the perfectly sized, sweet smelling stepford people, that would simply march along. 
This is really a funny look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/
sto...1013605,00.html
But only if your waistline lets you Lynda.
"Here comes the next phase folks. Tighten your seat belts."
Not in YOUR car, Linda. You smoke!
Harry,
I don't have a car.......hehehehehe
Fortunately I'm doing Atkins so they can't come after me. Of course, they'll probably pass bans against all meat, cheese, eggs.........and then I'll be sc**wed for good......hehehehehe
Sunz,
Cute article. And how true. Stuff they condemned years ago is suddenly good for you. And Vice Versa.
And then they wonder why the people don't believe them when there is a real threat?
All politicians, lawyers and public health folks need to re-read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". And they need to read it until they can recite it by heart.
I know Lynda, I go through this with a medication I take. In fact just today we are back to it's okay now. It was a mere 4 yrs ago, the med establishment went into a panic getting folks off of it. And this is who we depend on for medical answers.
Crazy world?
Sunz,
Yep, I'm on estrogen and when they came out a few years ago with how dangerous it was, my doctor wanted to change it. I just looked at her and said, forget it.....I've had no problems with the premarin so why fix what isn't broken. I'm willing to take my chances with the premarin. Fortunately, she had enough respect for me, not to mention that I was quite firm in my response, that she didn't push the issue.
Then I told her, besides, I smoke so I'm sure the chemicals in my cigs will kill anything that tries to go wrong.........hehehehehehe
When Ontario brought in the smoking ban they spent a small fortune installing no smoking signs in underground parking lots.
I find they make an excellent surface to butt out your smoke when your done.
The collection of butts below many such signs of government ignorance tells me the message is not lost on many others who smoke.
Same with me Lynda, I simply hold my ground.
Oops---the above was me:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
ar...MNG1SP2BDP1.DTL
I've been on their websites in the past.
What's the difference between a BBQ spewing out smoke?
What's the difference with a bonfire on the beach that they allow?
Broken record - But:
Ban all forms of smoke
Or ban none
Regulate all forms of smoke
Or regulate none
Ventilate all forms of smoke
Or ventilate none
To do otherwise is Discrimination.
"The worst part of this all, and one reason why it concerns me so much, is that efforts like this are going to harm even the legitimate efforts to protect people from ACTUAL exposure to SUBSTANTIAL amounts of secondhand smoke. Efforts like this make anti-smoking advocates appear to be overzealous crusaders. Eventually, that public image is going to hurt our important efforts - like eliminating smoking from bar, restaurant, and casino workplaces where employees are actually suffering significantly."
Funny that. I've been smoking in bars for well over 50 years, doctor, and I can't remember employees EVER suffering from secondhand smoke, let along suffering SIGNIFICANTLY from secondhand smoke – where do you get such nonsense? – as I’d be hard-pressed to recall ACTUAL circumstances, especially in late years, where I was exposed to SUBSTANTIAL amounts of secondhand smoke in a bar or restaurant. Unless, of course, you’re talking about those long-term effects which you’ve never been able to prove, even once, to anyone here, let alone quantify, and which Dr. Whelan disputed when she labeled it ‘a stretch.’ Doctor, who are you anyway – Rubberman?
And of course, even proper ventilation, whose efficacy you disallow by an act of abracadabra, won't stop them from suffering significantly now that they’ve been brainwashed into The New Reality, which has turned their minds into mush and hypochondria.
Really, doctor, don’t you think this farce has gone on long enough?
.
Steve Reidl may have to fight the Illinois smoking ban from a jail cell.
http://www.wjbc.com/wire2/news/0...-
WEB_141024.htm
Harry's right, Doc. I have never witnessed anyone suffering, especially significantly, whenever I was in bars or restaurants.
AND if they were, where's the proof that is was the cigarette smoke that caused that suffering and not something else? This is something else you have yet to provide us with or prove.
I'm with Harry on this one.
Steve Reidl may have to fight the Illinois smoking ban from a jail cell.
Awwww, what a shame. The poor dear, how awful for him.
Yes, that was pure sarcasm there.
Lynda, It wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that the "drugs" were planted. Not that they were, just wouldn't surprise me, I believe there are plenty of Anti's out there that would be more than capable of doing such a thing to discredit the opposition.
I agree with a lot more of what you say Dr. Siegel than I used to. On the "backlash" front you've still got some convincing to do.
From a theoretical standpoint this prediction seems plausible. I do think anti-smoking groups should be aware of this as a potential. But from a practical standpoint, I don't see any evidence that this is happening at least so far. I noticed that you've got someone in Australia that seems to agree with you on some of these issues, however this person is for car smoking bans which you adamately oppose. And I've seen an occasional editorial or article that you've posted on this site. But I still don't any kind of widespread backlash or the groundswell of resistance to reasonable smoking bans as a result of what's happening and what's been happening in California.
The latest polls in Va show steady progress even in the most sympathetic of southern tobacco states.
Looking at environmental issues, pollution controls, etc, if anything, CA is more of a predictor of what's to come nationwide than a source of backlashes.
I think the thing that you may be missing is an understanding of the anger many people feel toward tobacco. Not only is it an intrusive health threat and annoying, but most everyone has a family member who has died from tobacco use. Most people know that most people who smoke will tell you never to start because they regret doing so themselves. Add that to the industry documents that were brought to light in the last decade, and I don't see a lot of sympathy for the industry or for the "liberty" to smoke - especially among the younger generations who tend to see smoking as (in their words) "stupid."
Looking at what happened in Appleton where voters had 3 chances to turn down a smoking ban. Even when they had the opportunity to strip bars alone out of the ban, they didn't do it. If there was a chance for backlash, I would think you would have seen it there.
So here's the question. If there is a backlash, are you concerned that people will become non-supportive of standard public indoor smoking bans? Or non-supportive of the more far reaching kinds of ban and/or the TC movement in general.
I might be wrong, but I think there are a lot of barriers to the kind of backlash you're talking about.
Jerry, I am sure many would want to. But where would the uptight, no-fun, non-partying "anti's" get the "drugs" that they would "plant" on your man Steve Reidl?
I think its more likely that Steve has a cocaine habit.
I'm not gloating about it. I'm pointing it out just to show there are bad apples on both sides of the debate.
Carl,
If you were pointing it out just to show there were bad apples on both sides of the debate, who would(by implication) you consider a bad apple on your side of the debate?
Carl;
Asside from your apparent agreement on moralistic grounds, the movement is justified.
Do you have any credible research, which demonstrates the increased risk of children exposed in cars or in outdoor environments where any risk is evident at all?
If such a risk truly exists; real or believed, demonstrating a non-linear risk and no safe level exists;
What reason would smokers have from a health perspective to quit smoking, as their fate in your assessment is already sealed? They are all doomed to die from smoking.
No disrespect implied I am curious how the balancing works here.
Was the TC objective not originally aimed at convincing smokers to quit or at least cut down?
You seem to be carrying the message smokers have no right to exist.
Funny revenge against the industry has always made them more profitable,
Now smoking is on the increase their profits will continue to grow.
Would you consider TC efforts to date are successful?
Howso?
Andrew, someone posted an article not long ago about someone in government who had re-directed anti-tobacco funds for personal use. The person was brought up on embezzlement charges I believe, the implication made by the poster was that everyone in TC is a crook. This person is one of TC's bad apples.
John Banzhaf might be one also. He's a lawyer, he thinks and acts like one. I understand that being controversial is part of his persona as a law professor, but sometimes he forgets, like many lawyers do, that there are more important things than always being right.
Kevin, The only thing I can suggest is to go back and re-read my posts over the last few months. You're understanding of what I've written is pretty far off the mark. Also look at the stats on smoking. Many people smoke their whole lives and die from an unrelated cause. Smoking annually cheats hundreds of thousands out of a long and healthy retirement, but it's not automatic doom.
Carl you seem to be in a state of denial regarding HOW MUCH of the anti smoking feeling is down to the constant propaganda put out by the antis themselves.Most often this is doctored research to generate public hatred. There never was this level of hatred 20 years ago when the level of SHS was probably double that of today.SHS has always caused symptoms in non smokers if the level has been significant.I refer to sore throat,stinging eyes etc,not the IMMEDIATE THREAT TO LIFE touted now,which is purely done to stir up aggression in the Public.So we all have relatives who smoked and have died,it's something we all do-die.There has been a plethora of anti smoking activity for 30 years or even more.If the relative,or immediate family member wished to smoke,IT WAS THEIR CHOICE,no one elses.Blaming the Tobacco Companies is just looking for a scapegoat for those left behind who seem unable to accept that a choice was made they couldn't influence.If the younger generation is proclaiming smoking to be stupid,so what,however to listen to the panic merchants of anti tobacco,one would be excused for believing EVERY teenager was smoking.Which is it ? Why can't we have accurate research and facts presented in a manner that everyone can understand ?Money it appears is the reason.Money paid out by Pharmaceutical Companies in order to buy smoking bans,and money bled from the Tobacco Companies in order to fund ridiculous and downright idiotic research in order to promote anti smoking by indoctrinating a mindless general public.IF THE FACTS ARE SO DAMNING ABOUT TOBACCO,WHY DO THEY NEED TO CHURN OUT MEANINGLESS RESEARCH,AND CONTINUE TO DO SO ? STATISTICS IS THE PROOF POSITIVE,AND WHAT DO THEY ALWAYS SAY ABOUT STATISTICS ?
si, I don't think I've ever seen anything that says every kid is smoking.
And, if your Dad dies from smoking, it may have been his choice. But you've got to be kidding me to say that this is some kind of consolation to a teenager who has just lost their dad.
Yes, they chose to smoke, but people still get angry at the industry for making the product. Kids just don't isolate responsibility like that. Maybe they should, but they don't.
Kevin, One other thing, take a look at the uncontested part of the WHO study on SHS. There is a large body of research on the detrimental effects of SHS on children. There is nothing in the report that suggests that simply being in a car gives children protection from these effects.
Carl;
You really have something confused here The Who study demonstrated a curative effect of children who lived with smoking parents. The only RR which did not include one.
My reference to your moralistic stand seems to be demonstrated in your post to Michael.
Do you understand what I have been telling you in a linear Vs. non linear perspective.
Which do you believe is valid? Michael [Linear cause and effect by quantity and duration or the smoking bans in cars being reported as a health risk[Non linear no safe level].
BTW Simon Chapman is not onside with the bans in cars read his article again [Australia]
You can not have your cake and eat it too in a credible reality.
If casual exposure is a health risk to children demonstrating chronic effect. There would be no point in smokers quiting as it affects no benefit.
Do you understand that perspective?
Ok Carl, maybe you just missed a part of my post, but I'm thinking probably NOT, In that post I said that I doubted that the "drugs" (interesting that they chose to use words like "appears" to be cocaine tho isn't it?) were [lanted. But for the sake of argument, you really believe that the Anti's COULDN'T get ahold of illicit drugs? Come on, there are Anti's in every walk of life, just as there are smokers in every walk of life. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult at all for an Anti, who also happens to be a narcotics cop, to have "found" some drugs they didn't report, confiscated, but not reported. Gee, an Anti would never do anything dishonest tho would they?
If recent research actually conflicts with timeline observations and indicate casual exposures demonstrate increased risk of chronic effect to children.
In the past when virtually all children were exposed and demonstrating lower levels of effect.
This demonstrates huge errors are evident in confounding being assumed.
If Meta analysis of studies prior to 1999 were compared to a Meta analysis of spirited studies post 1999 they would no doubt demonstrate a huge variance.
Children too young to be exposed to the higher levels in 1960 would demonstrate the truth in linear non-linear effect. An indication of the quality in what is being produced and defined as science.
Any volunteers?
Carl,
I'm afraid that a backlash could affect public support not only for the more extremist policies, like this one in Scotts Valley, but for more moderate proposals such as workplace (bar/restaurant/casino) smoking bans and for the tobacco control movement in general. You're certainly right that we haven't seen the backlash yet in terms of public support, but the tide can change awefully quickly. I saw something similar happen in both the animal rights and the environmental movements. I think social movements tend to follow a certain time course. They don't necessarily last forever. I think the more extreme anti-smoking groups may be shortening the life of the movement.
Michael would you feel comfortable commenting on the issues I posed to Carl?
Do you have any credible research, which demonstrates the increased risk of children exposed in cars or in outdoor environments, where any risk is evident at all?
If such a risk truly exists; real or believed, demonstrating a non-linear risk and no safe level exists;
What reason would smokers have from a health perspective to quit smoking, as their fate in this assessment is already sealed? They are all doomed to die from smoking.
No disrespect implied I am curious how the balancing works here.
Was the TC objective not originally aimed at convincing smokers to quit or at least cut down?
You seem to be carrying the message smokers have no right to exist.
Funny revenge against the industry has always made them more profitable,
Now smoking is on the increase their profits will continue to grow.
Would you consider TC efforts to date are successful?
Howso?
"And of course, even proper ventilation, whose efficacy you disallow by an act of abracadabra, won't stop them from suffering significantly now that they’ve been brainwashed into The New Reality, which has turned their minds into mush and hypochondria."
Talking about brainwashing! Have a closer look at this Irish study by Luke Clancy (director general of the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society und member of the board of ASH Ireland):
Effects of the Irish Smoking Ban on Respiratory Health of Bar Workers and Air Quality in Dublin Pubs
http://www.tri.ie/Portals/0/AJRC...ban%
2001.07.pdf
Volunteer bar staff were recruited through their trade union Mandate to partake in the health effects aspect of the study. Sixty-five volunteers supported the introduction of the ban, 5 opposed and 3 were undecided when entering the study.
The trade union Mandate is a member of Smokefree England and actively supporting smoking bans:
http://
www.smokefreeengland.co.u...ie_cassidy.html
http://
www.smokefreeengland.co.u...john_power.html
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.u...g-
smokefree.pdf
By the way, the results of their lung function tests are questionable, the results of the health questionnare are terribly biased (see above).
ASH seems hell bent on self destruction. Anyone reading this study knowing it's source would have a hard time not snickering while ASH demonstrates how creative writing is done.
Self reported health effects among non smoking participants tells us a lot I have to presume?
LOL
Carl wrote:
"And, if your Dad dies from smoking, it may have been his choice. But you've got to be kidding me to say that this is some kind of consolation to a teenager who has just lost their dad."
Carl, as harsh as it may sound, no one (tobacco companies, doctors, public health agencies, you, me) owes a teenager any consolation for a death. Death happens, and it hurts, but the world doesn't owe anyone any consolation for it. If you think public policy ought to be formulated based on the objective of "consoling" the distraught," you'd better rethink that.
There is a reason why we have a rule of law, not a rule of emotion (although that's now debatable). If a person makes a clear choice that may result in ill-health and death (smoking, being fat, excess drinking, etc.), you can't just exact retribution against the purveyor of the "evil" just because it makes you feel better. Adults actually do get to make choices, even if you hate that, and even if it doesn't satisfy your desire to have an Other to blame.
Something tells me that if the "kid," in your hypothetical scenario, lost a father to car racing, you wouldn't be clamoring to shut down car racing. This happened to Dale Earnhardt, as you might recall. Isn't it also "no consolation" to poor Dale Earnhardt, Jr., that the choice his father made was perfectly legal? Why aren't you agitating to make Nascar illegal?
I'm not saying this to be mean or sarcastic, but to ask you to face up to the logical conclusions of what you're proposing.
Carl, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be. . I'm just working off memory, and I don't want to make statements that aren't true), but did you not state on this blog at some point that a relative of yours died from smoking?
As sad as that is, it is not an argument for the demonization of smokers and the de facto prohibition that your movement supports. I don't know the circumstances of your relative's death, so I can't comment on how it came to be. But I do know:
1. People tend to get enraged when they feel a relative died "needlessly."
2. They tend to make that death the focus of a crusade to (quixotically and uselessly) make sure no one else ever dies from that cause.
3. They tend to become so zealous in this pursuit, that they ride roughshod over other people's freedoms. They begin to dehumanize other adults, and call for draconian measures to "save" these adults from themselves.
4. They lose sight of individual autonomy, and try to marshal the state to deprive adults of their rights to make choices - foolish or wise.
5. (And this one is going to seem especially harsh, but I don't mean it that way) They tend to beatify their dead relatives, and absolve them of any personal responsibility, so as to place ALL blame for their death on someone or something else that can be controlled or legislated against.
In this way, they make the "victim" entirely blameless, so as to cast the purveyor of the product in question (tobacco, alcohol, transfats, pharmaceuticals) as completely and UTTERLY to blame.
Such people also, in my opinion, tend to have an inordinate fear of death. Some part of them refuses to accept human mortality at all. Any death that didn't come at 85 years of age, in the dead of night, with "no apparent risk factors," is a "premature death" to them. They seem to forget that all people WILL die, and that the notion of "premature death" is vastly flexible and dependent on the current state of the medical art (and the moral zeitgeist).
Mind you, I have no sympathy for the deceptions that corporations have put over on consumers. I have nothing but contempt for companies that prey on ignorance and vulnerability in order to sell their products. I devote my career to calling the bluff on an industry that bamboozles the public in order to extract the maximum profit from the ignorant and vulnerable. To the extent that any smoker dies "prematurely" because of deliberate deception from a tobacco company, then that company should pay.
But I also live in the real world. I know (as do you) that most living adults these days know full well how potentially harmful excess smoking, eating, and drinking is. The days of "duped" smokers are pretty much long gone. You can't SPIT but be accosted by some health organization, or some rude person on the street, who's going to lecture you about how you're "killing yourself."
The fact is, people are still human. They still indulge in unhealthy habits, for a variety of reasons. Many, like me, know full well there may be health consequences to this. It may shorten my life. Although it's impossible for a person like you to believe, Carl, many of us would rather enjoy the time we have now doing what we do than alter the way we live for a *chance* at a few more years. That's not crazy; that's an adult's right to make choices, even if you don't like them.
If Public Health, and people like you, would go back to offering the public education, I'd be satisfied. If you'd content yourselves to helping people who actually want your help, and seek out your advice, I'd be satisfied. But that's never good enough for you. You simply must interject yourselves into every public policy debate, and do your damnedest to "help" all of us who don't want you butting into our lives in the first place.
Don't tell me it's only about "protecting" other people. It isn't. It's about control. You cannot stand that adults still have the legal right to do things you think are stupid, so you have to make up stories about how "degenerates" like me, Lynda, Margaret, Kevin, Dave K, and others are "hurting" everyone else.
We see through it, and we're not going to stop fighting until you back down and act like a reasonable person.
Benpal--
Similar results from the much touted Eisner (US, Calif) bartender study. Equivocal results on FEV which had to be diced into subsets to even yield equivocality.
Kevin--
In the past when virtually all children were exposed
See my rebuttal on the thread just below.
Josh--
Yes, Carl made his debut by saying that his father had died of lung cancer. What confounds me is his overt hatred of smokers (oh yeah, I forgot, "some of his best friends...") and desire to see them punished, even fined and jailed. If indeed it's the truth (that his father was a smoker who died of LC) the psychology is interesting. I could riff on that, but I won't, except to say that it's deeply twisted.
Walt;
" First, I think you're wrong in assuming that at mid-century there was no such thing as an "unexposed" kid. Even if 60% of adults smoked in the forties and fifties, it means 40% didn't, and lots of kids could grow up in a home w/o smoke."
Walt I hate to burst your bubble but the 40% who did not smoke were largely the stay at home moms. As for unexposed? Hardly even likely. I was there.
People smoked everywhere. Outside the door of the delivery room, were expectant fathers chain smoking. When you visited someone in the Hospital you sat at their bedside smoking. In a doctors office he would often do checkups on babies between drags. Grocery stores bowling alleys and in a world before computers when even color TV was a novelty; we had Saturday at the movies in palatial theatres where right along with the kids many adults and ushers also smoked. Wrestling or Hockey at Maple Leaf gardens was like looking through a fog. To state nearly 40% of Kids could be classed as unexposed in levels far exceeding a few minutes or even hours in a car today?
You’re dead wrong on that one.
As for the exception to the rule where neither parent smoked, yes there would be less exposure but certainly far from none.
No safe level is a lie and history proved it. If we have the same number of smokers today[Lately more] It is not possible smoking related diseases are responsible for more than 1/8 of the 20% they declare are caused by smoking today. If you took the time to do the math, ignoring the population prevalence and dealt with the real numbers you would quickly see that for yourself.
Meaning as they already know "Known safe levels" are predictable and should have been calculated decades ago.
Very few people including kids could avoid exposure and at that time filters were for women most took a long time to switch and a lot never did.
Ben pal reminded me of running to the store and buying smokes for my father at 10 years of age, 65 cents a pack handed to me by a variety store owner who chained smoked in the store along with most of his customers.
The common complaint then was "when they get to a dollar a pack I’m quitting", few actually did.
What they did not explore or record in their smoking studies were a lot of other things, which were common at that time as well. Up to the 70s I also remember shoveling coal into a furnace to heat the house like every other house on the street, Asbestos was common along with lead in the gasoline in cars with no pollution controls many burned more oil than gas. Pumping out blue smoke from big block V8 engines. The smokestacks from industrial plants and chemicals in the air. The East end of Toronto still has dangerous levels of lead in the soil from smelting plants they closed in the 60s In Hamilton they will likely never clean it up.
The groups you see dying today would be the ones who were in their 30s back then and are dying of what they call smoking related diseases today.
Classified by number crunchers who don’t even attempt to imagine what it was like before they were born, Its easy to rewrite history when those who lived it, are not numerous enough to complain. Theorists who believe a risk exists today in smoking, compared to what those people lived through?
The numbers the antis agree with are the secret to exposing the exaggerations they lay out today
I can not imagine what you would think would be gained by denying what anyone who lived at that time will tell you is absolutely accurate.
Everyone was exposed at some level.
They contend no safe level can be demonstrated, I say it hasn’t happened yet.
They cannot have a “no safe level” and sustain the 30 years to develop diseases cult, Risk which could be less if you quit.
The science just doesn't support both possibilities. Timeline perspective does not support either
What I find entirely amazing people can not grasp the idea.
If you double the population you have to expect to double the mortality rate and all the diseases rates.
It is expected.
In the case of smokers with the same number you have the same effect.
Any increases seen are related to population growth first and none of the increases can be associated to smoking. Not one.
Carl,i agree there is little consolation to a child who has just lost a parent,but for any reason,be it "smoking related" in your view,alcohol,car accident, anything.But these things still happen and life goes on,it may not be easy but suicide is your only other option.If you tell an the person that smoking is going to kill them and they continue,don't you customarily blame the person not a legitimate company who manufactures the product ?Where is all the anti car campaigners or anti alcohol,no it just happens to be anti tobacco.Why not be anti government for allowing the sale of tobacco ?Blame the tobacco companies if you want to,but to fervently crusade against tobacco is your hang up.You are deciding what another person can and cannot do,precisely what you complain about in smokers.
Carl,
If a loved one died as a result of a car accident, do you blame the auto industry? If they were driving a Ford, do you refuse to ever drive a Ford again and refuse to even ride in one? If they choked on a piece of steak, do you avoid all red meats? What about an airplane crash? If an American jet liner crashes, do you only fly Delta? A list is endless, but putting blame and hating the product or manufacturer will get you no where. Healing is love, I suggest you try it.
Carl stated:
"And, if your Dad dies from smoking, it may have been his choice. But you've got to be kidding me to say that this is some kind of consolation to a teenager who has just lost their dad. "
Carl, I hate to tell you this, but a man is his own property. He is not the property of his children, his parents, his spouse or the state. You are trying to invoke a collectivist idea with your reasoning.
Although an alcoholic is behaving irresponsibly, he is not doing something wrong. If he beats his child (whether drunk or not) he is doing something that in my view is wrong. But what he does to himself with alcohol is not a crime, and not wrong.
Carl,
Josh, Diane, Si, Soren are right. In 54 years of life, I realize that if life is about anything, it is about loss and how we deal with it.
Loss is difficult to deal with but it can be done. There really is no call for making anyone else in life miserable because they don't 'feel your pain'or want to live your reality.
My older sister died of lung cancer 3 years ago. She was not a smoker. Her twin sister, a smoker is alive and doing just fine. Who really can say how or why? I am not arrogant enough to presume my grief (or my families) should be the basis of how anyone else chooses to live their life. But I do know that when life ends, it is over; this is not a dress rehearsal. I'd rather enjoy the dance while I'm here
And to Ding Dong, Bill & Carl Ed and TC et al...who were all certain it would never come to the maximum penalties in this ban nonsense:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story....ro/
4687733.html
.
Carl wrote:
The latest polls in Va show steady progress even in the most sympathetic of southern tobacco states.
Well Carl, I have to disagree with you on that one, and basedon the 60/40 against stronger smoking restrictions taken yesterday by the VA House of Delegates, they disagree with you as well.
I don't doubt the issue will come back again next year, but at the rate the anti-smokers are shooting themselves in the collective foot, I don't know how much "progress" you will enjoy from the issue coming back again.
Polls: http://poll.suntimes.com/
320405,...mokingpoll.poll
Carl,
Thanks for the examples. I think the person in question was from Alberta. Here is more on the saga, but in this case I think that there is the question--money is missing, someone wasn't stopped, and nobody stepped in to stop it for too long. We need to ask questions, and he's not been proven guilty yet. Neither has Mr. Reidl, who has probably posted bail, so he won't have to lobby from a jail cell.
But, assuming both are guilty, a lack of institutional control is more likely to be something that spreads than a personal cocaine habit, even though both are bad.
Also on Banzhaf--what is more important than being right, and what is his weakness? It seems along the lines of saying "he's too sweet for his own good" and so your example seems a bit like Bill's, saying he corrects his mistakes then he points out an internet typo he made that everyone proofread in their minds anyway, to give the size of his typical error.
It's easy to generalize, but all the same I think "my side" has more of a right at this point to say "they-all have some rotten apples too."
Of course both sides feel that way in most debates, but people opposed to bans generally come in for more scorn and this blog already admits there are rotten apples on the tobacco side of the debate and the tobacco control side of the debate wants to avoid the appearance of impropriety(to use a phrase Bush did at the start of his presidency) so your observation seemed redundant at the least.
But I appreciate your giving some examples.
In response to Kevin's question about the documented health effects of secondhand smoke exposure in cars, the only health outcome for which there is solid documentation that short-term exposure, such as that in a car, can cause that outcome is exacerbation of asthma. The other major effects of secondhand smoke exposure among children are ear infections and upper respiratory infections, and induction of asthma, but there is no evidence I'm aware of that a brief exposure causes those latter effects. If health advocates really want to do something about reducing asthma, ear infections, and respiratory infections in children, then they ought to be addressing smoking in the home. The fact that they are not (but are dwelling on smoking in cars) suggests to me that they are being driven more by hatred of the idea of parents exposing their kids to high levels of smoke in cars then by a science-based strategy to promote kids' health.
I'm sorry Doc, but my kids have none of those problems, and neither do *thinks to be sure she's telling the truth*..nope, I don't see a huge occurence in my friends' kids' health as well. ALthough I do see a lot of ear infections in the summer in all of us...swimmer's ear every time though.
Doc, do you have scientific backing for the increase of ear infections, etc in children of smokers? It's really hard to take this at face value given what we see every day in our own children and the children of our friends. And what we hear about from other smokers and their friends.
If the United States ever needs an enema, we now know exactly where to place the hose.
I'm sorry, Doc. I have the same real life experience with my son as Jalestra with her children. My son did not have asthma, nor did he ever get asthma from exposure to SHS at home OR in the car. My neices however, along with their health food, clean freak, non-smoking parents, were always ill with something, and the strange thing was that their illness were mostly respiratory infections even though they were all hardly exposed to SHS. So, like Jalestra, I beg to differ with you here.
Then, lets not forget the infamous SG report last year, where the conclusions stated that the evidence was insufficient to infer causal relationship. You yourself pointed out how the report does not back up the SG press release. And now you still want to claim that SHS CAUSES asthma, ear infections? Where's your proof? You keep saying this but have yet to provide the proof that this is 100% fact. Especially since our own personal real life experiences say differently.
As for why TC is only focused on cars, that's because that's the next step, which will be followed by smoking in the home. AND in case you haven't noticed, it's already being banned in homes now (homes to me includes apartments as those are homes to the ones who live in them). You can't be so naive as to think they won't go there next. Can you?
The end result will be Calabasas style bans everywhere AND banned smoking in the home.However tobacco is still a legal product,so will we see the Federal Government step in or just ignore the situation .I wonder if it was the Senators who came up with the term US to mean USELESS ?
Jalestra Lynda
Had very simular experiences as you both, yet my sister was a clean freak and her kids were always sick with the croop, resp. infections, ears and constant runny noses!!
I was always amazed at the difference. Although I must say my sister had 7 children, and I only had two. So there was lots of spreading of what one got to all the others in her house!!
Yes, Doctor, how you can claim what do and still cannot see what you stated about the SG study, not proving any of what he said, as contradictory. I'm puzzled as well.
Sorry Doc, but I have to be with Lynda and Jalestra too. My dad was one of 16 kids and all were healthy as children and not one has passed away from cancer. I believe that 12 still survive with the oldest in his mid-90's. He is a smoker. Each of his siblings had at least 2 kids and none of my cousins were ever sick or missed school due to the so called smoking related illnesses. My dad fathered 6 kids and we all are healthy, no ear infections, repiratory either. My brother was killed by a drunk driver back in 1982. I don't hate alcohol nor do I hate the driver and as a matter of fact, I do enjoy a cold beer from time to time. My children never had ear infections, etc and I have their health records to prove it. My neices and nephews grew up around smokers and they too are healthy. A nephew married an anti and God forbid should you empty your pockets in front of her and pull out a cigarette, yet their son is constantly sick and missing school. The point I am trying to make and everyone else posting here is to tell you that you can sit at your computer and type in all the numbers you want, it never will beable to refute real living proof and that would be anyone over the age of 10.
Josh, you said in your post that when people lose a relative needlessly they, "They tend to make that death the focus of a crusade to (quixotically and uselessly) make sure no one else ever dies from that cause."
Many of our sex offender laws, (like megan's Law) and the Amber Alert system and Megan's law are clearly not useless and clearly do not infringe on autonomy in a way that I consider harmful. I agree however, that a precieved needless death creates an anger that has a single minded and highly motivated focus.
Dr. Siegel is worried about a backlash on reasonable smoking bans, my point was that there may never be a backlash simply because of the vast numbers of people all across the land who have lost a relative or friend to industry products and as such, have a rather intense dislike for the product and the habit in general.
These people, and I would guess that there are millions of them out there, simply have no sympathy for the "right" to smoke.
And I'm not even saying it's right, I am just saying that I think it's out there.
Carl,
You are right...it is out there. Bans and laws are enacted because the lobbyists pushing them and the people supporting them have no sympathy for smokers. That is why this war on second-hand smoke is so unjust. The anti-smoking groups are exagerating the affects of second-hand smoke in order to justify the ostracization and eventual elimination of smokers in society.
Much like what happened in the 1920's with marijuana. The government put out propaganda to make people believe that the weed was much worse than it really was. The intent was to gain support to criminalize it so they could deport a large part of their Mexican immigrants (who were known to enjoy smoking it back then). As a result, we have a costly (and ineffective) war on drugs to this date.
It seems like anti-tobacco is taking the same route.
Carl, you are correct to observe that attitude is out there. I acknowledge that, but I find it a dangerous and misguided one, which is why I criticize it.
In addition, it's not fair to compare this to laws that aim to prevent deliberate murder and molestation. The difference should be obvious.
Just because a group of overemotional people can't accept the choices of their loved ones is no reason to enact laws over it. It is wrong and unethical...and the very idea that these groups use that to push in laws is against everything our country stands for. Anyone that supports those people, no matter if the end result is something you like, is just as unethical and wrong as those who do it.
There will be a backlash, there already is as you anger more and more smokers, as more and more teenagers hear about smoking and go do it to find out what all the hoopla is about, as more and more people get sick of the clumsily hid plan to make a little lock-step utopia. The backlash has started, and it may take awhile to get off the ground..but it has started. I will enjoy the show...
Michael;
I don't know if you have children
I am pretty sure you don't smoke, lol
Do you think it likely if you had a child with Asthma who was especially sensitive to cigarette smoke, you would smoke in a car or any confined space near a child knowing the possibility of what would happen?
Because they smoke parents are not insensitive to their child's needs. The implication that a Law needs to written moves the government out of the realm of trust and into the realm of accuser.
Something about that circumstance does not feel right to me, how about you?
Similarly your support for smoking in the private home encroaches on the autonomy and presents imposition on those the Government does not trust.
Guilty before proven innocent rings true in both circumstances with little more than minor theoretical risk measured evidence a smoker is any different than any other parent or would create any more harm to anyone around them.
Josh, those laws come out of the same kind of anger. I am not saying they are exaclty the same, I am drawing similarities. So I don't see anything unfair about it.
And I also can't think of anything unethical about working within the legal constructs of a democracy to advocate for whatever it is that one believes in. I would have imagined that while you do not support your opponents that you would be willing to stand up for their right to be heard in the democracy which is all of ours.
In Canada
Smokers were told when they initiated extreme taxes on cigarettes, at both federal and provincial levels; it was to stop children from smoking, yet adult smokers were never offered rebates. As we see now with the increases in children smoking the taxation idea proof it had little effect, other than to increase Government spending during election campaigning. Similarly people with no children in their homes will also be the target. First smokers are told they are not trustworthy and second do not have a right to enjoy a legal product in their own home with absolutely no proof anyone will be harmed by their doing so.
Even if minor seepage occurs through the receptacles in the walls or from off gasses on their clothes.
Demonstrated in a short national broadcasted televised debate in Canada recently
In the identical language we heard a woman last week telling how her rental unit contained “blue air” we heard this once before when they told us waitress Heather Crowe was absolutely certain because her Doctors verified it, She died of lung cancer because of second hand smoke exposure in the work place. All other confounders had incredibly been eliminated.
Her Doctor to this day has not revealed to the rest of the medical world the process of elimination in this amazing statement, which enabled financial compensation in supporting her workers compensation claim.
I still feel this was fishy but the closed doors will never show me the truth. I am left having to trust the same government and medical groups who will not trust me, with my own health relevant choices. These promotions are always based in expanding the worst case to the normal exactly the same way harms are implied when normally none exists.
Jalestra, Audrey Silk tried to magnify the angry smokers thing as much as she could. If that would have worked anywhere it would have been NYC. It didn't work at all. If you go to the NYC Clash website you can see that they failed at almost all of their goals. I am surprised they haven't taken the site down - the Bloomberg for ex - mayor link is still up. He was easily re-elected. It seems to me that the site is little more than an ebarrassing record of the group's failures.
Appleton is another example - massive media about angry smokers, and financial losses in bars and the law was passed no fewer than 3 (three) times.
I might be wrong, but I just don't see it going anywhere based on what I've seen so far.
Carl, you are not looking. In Ireland the VFI has lost 10 % of its members since 2004, 1000 pubs have closed. I am sure you'll tell me it's the weather. The VIF knows perfectly well that it's the smoking ban.
In my country, Denmark, they know exactly what a smoking ban is. A small group of bar owners have started a protest. They are at http://www.rygervalg.dk. 400 establishments have joined the protest. You won't understand a word, because it's not in english. Their website is low cost. They are not running their operations with laundered tobacco money.
You can make all the fun you want out of NYC CLASH, but Audrey is spending her own money. That's a good deal more than can be said for your side of the fence.
Carl
Smoking bans in cars was put up as a trial balloon, by the OMA in Toronto, the response was so extremely against this law in polls, they quickly backed down. Now right on it's heels they are trying to debate the Home impositions. With similar response, when people's homes are involved you awaken the opposition I really hope they continue to over play this.
Today in the City of Toronto they are seeking to impose trans fat bans in the city pointing at smoking bans to support the move. Bar bans make a lot of people mad [deny it or not] The anger is starting to build as more people start asking each other where does all this nonsense come from all of a sudden.
The trough is starting to get overloaded with greedy self-interests who will add to the impending downfall.
Politicians are already talking figuratively about lobby groups with the growing awareness it is only a matter of time before a lot more, smell something rotten in the air even with no smoking allowed.
Carl we need to talk...
I support Bill and Carl’s position; Carl is absolutely in tune with what society is too afraid or too timid to voice.
I have been reading this blog for a while and the anti smoking movement IMHO needs to make a more active role more acceptable.
I run a Boy Scout Troup. One of the guys brought it to my attention last week a number of them were going out at night and beating the crap out of smokers.
At first I was angered and planned on kicking them out after giving them a stern lecture and notifying the police.
I slept on it.
I came to the conclusion considering what this disease imposes on others the only way around the incessant whining, is to let society take care of it on it's own. The kids are setting the standards for a life in their own world, my generation screwed it up enough. They are just smokers who really cares.
So I decided to turn a blind eye, and hope none of them will get caught or be punished for doing, what to them is only right.
Smokers made their own bed, I wont interfere.
Before everyone gets upset and starts posting like crazy.
I posted the anon comments above.
It is very similar to comments I did actually read in another forum.
A trial ballon if you will, to demonstrate where this is going, and who will be the ultimate victims of TC style campaigns.
The same Kids they seek to protect. By setting a dubious example which ignores reason.
How far will TC advocates and other Lobbies go to get what they want?
It occurs to me, has anyone in TC ever once considered now that you incite the radical components of hatred in societal engineering who now has the power to put the genie back in the bottle?
Glanz?
Vanzam?
The FDA?
Who can control what is clearly getting out of control?
Or perhaps the hatred is what was sought from the outset?
Carl, when you show hatred and contempt for someone they show it back. I think every true outbreak of smoking related violence is part of this backlash. When a smoker kills a non-smoker for complaining, it isn't a "typical" smoker, it's one that has had enough. We pay more taxes than you do, we put up with the threat of violence, and having schools *trying* to turn our children against us, getting run out of places that non-smokers don't even go to NOW after bans, reading of the violence society deems as "ok" to be acted out on smokers, run out of our jobs, distrusted, accused, and soon run out of our own homes. You don't think there's a backlash coming? You are not making anyone quit, you are insuring they will keep it up and that if you keep pushing them, they will fight back. Now, I don't say that a smoker should go out and start a killing spree or even one killing, but you ought to look at it from a human point of view. Keep pushing at a person, keep treating them as if they have no rights, and they will have nothing to lose, and then they come after you. And anyone that would have helped isn't going to care anymore. You act like this isjust the smokers, but it's not. It's been headed on the obesity "epidemic" and government going so far as to tell what you aren't allowed to choose to eat. Oh there's going to be a backlash all right, and to be honest, I'm not listening to any whining when it happens.
Kevin,
I agree with your comment about car and home smoking bans, and the reasoning you provide is one reason why I oppose both.
Michael;
From a common ground approach any ideas how we can expand our boarders?
I suspect that is the holy grail most here seek, in participating in this Blog.
has this hate been posted yet?
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjo...e9-
badba9cd797e
Brandz,
What that guy did may not have been right, but in all honesty, the driver was dumping his ashtray out on the sidewalk. As a smoker, I find that disgusting and would have wanted to do what that other guy did.
No one was hurt in that, all that happened is the driver got his trash thrown back at him, in his lap. No harm, no foul. And personally, he deserved it for being a pig and emptying his ashtray on the sidewalk. Smokers like him give the rest of us a bad name.
Soren, I'm not making fun of Audrey, I'm pointing out that her strategy was highly unsuccessful in a city that prides itself on toughness. That says something about the idea that there is going to be some kind of "smoker's backlash."
And again, I am not saying I'm right. I am just pointing out that I just don't see the evidence that its even beginning to move that way.
As for the loss of 1000 pubs in Ireland, pubs turn over all the time. If it is true that 1000 were lost, my guess is that a similar number were lost in the same 3 year period prior to the ban. I would also guess that new pubs replace many if not all of the ones that didn't seem to be able to adapt.
http://www.nwipp-newspapers.com/
...70308297098.php
And what's so bad about debating the use of trans-fats? It seems like a fair question to me.
Kevin--
We'll just have to, as they say, "agree to disagree" about unexposed kids and let the horse rest in peace.
Carl--
Do you really think browbeating your father, criminalizing him, getting him fired, evicted, barred from public life, called rapist and abuser would have made him happy? would have made him cave? Did you LIKE your father, let alone love him? If so, then how could you so abuse him,-- individually and categorically--and posthumously try so hard to impose your will?
:
Carl,
I wouldn't make a bet on that if I were you. I believe you will find that while liquor sales haven't declined much, you will find a tremendous drop in pub sales, while the off-licence sales have jumped significantly. This indicates the irish are hitting the pubs less, and drinking more at home.
While more irish pubs are springing up around the world, I believe the number of pubs in RoI is on a sharp decline.
While I wouldn't attribute it entirely to the smoking ban, I believe some "credit" is due to the stricter enforcement of drinking and driving laws. None the less the irish pubs are on a decline as some people turn their living room into their private version of the local pub.
The teatotalers in ireland has been trying to end the pub culture for many years, perhaps they've found their vehicle.
This has also spawned new fears of people drinking at home (in front of their kids even), and the eventual rise in alcoholism.
As expected, I believe you will also find an increase in domestic violence.
This reminds me of a video I saw not too long ago.
A male and female drunk driving task force stop a man exiting the pub as he gets into his car. The female office could snag lighning. They ask the man if he's been drinking, and he replies yes, but isn't drunk.
The male officer asks if the drunk is willing to take the sobriety test, to which the man agrees. He instructs the man to stand up straight in front of his partner,as she smiles coyly at the drunk, and the male officer then proceeds to ask him if he'd would like to sleep with his partner. The drunk replies "aye", to which they promptly place him under arrest for being under the influence.
This is the irish version of the field sobriety test.
Lynda F: Fortunately I'm doing Atkins so they can't come after me. Of course, they'll probably pass bans against all meat, cheese, eggs.........and then I'll be sc**wed for good......hehehehehe
Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct.
While I have seen a few comments on more fruit, veg, less meat in reference to obesity, there appear to be several pro-vegan groups jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
In other words, promoting a vegan diet to help combat global warming.
So, we'll soon be seeing diet issues attacked from multiple directions.
Carl: So here's the question. If there is a backlash, are you concerned that people will become non-supportive of standard public indoor smoking bans? Or non-supportive of the more far reaching kinds of ban and/or the TC movement in general.
Actually, what he should be concerned about is what many of us have been pointing out for quite some time now....a gradually increasing distrust of doctors and the medical establishment in general.
In fact, a distrust of scientists and science in general.
While this is certainly being aided by the error of affording anti-smoking groups the name "health advocate" (thus confusing the two in peoples minds), the sort of behavior we're seeing from TC groups is by no means confined to those groups.
Many of the anti-whatever groups outside TC are actively fostering this distrust, accelerating the process. The ones that aren't are just as bad, in that they ignore half the science, drop data, cherry-pick information, personally attack dissenters/objectors, hide "non-compliant" results and outright lie....pretty much anything is ok, provided it furthers the agenda.
Does that sound familiar?
I've asked Dr. Siegel in the past whether he thought this behavior within TC was a symptom of the problems in the broader scientific/advocate community or the cause of it. Especially since many of the players are involved in the same behavior in more than one community at a time.
If I had to make a guess, I'd be inclined to say his answer (that it's a symptom) is only half right....that the poor behavior was begun outside TC (started, perhaps, by the anti-DDT or anti-nuclear crowd or even further back with acceptance of some of the more ridiculous anti-drug/alcohol studies), but the "honing of the skill-set" was mostly accomplished within the TC community over the past 30 years.
All you good people tried to reason, mostly warmly, with Carl over the blame game. His response? To compare it to laws over child molestation. If this doesn't define dense I don't know what does.
Same with his expectations for results within a rigid time frame. Smokers' rights hadn't been truly active until the last ten years. Anti-smoking (as far as ETS) has been at it for 30 years and only in the last ten years has it seen the real success it was after. And that took hundreds of millions of dollars to boot. Smokers' rights still has yet to be able to rub two nickels together (while Anti-Smoking has all of our nickels). According to Banzhaf himself it took 800 lawsuits against BT until he finally broke through. And Carl measures our side as defeated due to lack of big success in a short few year's time. I suppose Dr. Siegel should just hang it up because he hasn't had the true success he's looking for in the two years he's been at it. It's obviously over since nothing has happened yet.
Dense and no concept of time. There is no reasoning with such defective goods.
I would suggest they have found success for only 8 years and it had little to do with Banzhaf's lawsuits
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/e...en/pr99-
04.html
The numbers?
Over 2 with billion in government expenditures in Canada alone is the figure I am hearing. Add that to USA, The UK, and Australia? The Parma industry supplied the seed money
The government officials they extorted added the rest.
Designer public sentiment is expensive.
Is it any wonder other Lobbies are clinging on and pushing the agenda of hate? With a little more "help" for their theoretic victims added to the mix?
Again we have to consider who has the power to stop the growing state empowered body purity snowball?
No one I can identify, it took a world war last time this movement got promoted to this degree. We can only imagine what it will cost this time around.
"As for the loss of 1000 pubs in Ireland, pubs turn over all the time. If it is true that 1000 were lost, my guess is that a similar number were lost in the same 3 year period prior to the ban. I would also guess that new pubs replace many if not all of the ones that didn't seem to be able to adapt."
Carl, you must be the new Adam Smith.
Carl,
Once again, I am originally from a small village in upstate New York. The village houses 2 churches and 1 bar. When the village was first incorporated back in the 1800's, it was made law by the churches that only 1 bar could be erected. The building has stood in the same place for over 200 years and served as a whore house during prohibition. In my lifetime which is 56 years, it was only owned and runned by one family, but since the smoking ban in New York took effect some 4 or 5 years ago, it has had 4 owners, with the last owner taking control about a month ago. Each owner felt they could bring something new to the business and attract new customers, but reality has taken their life savings instead. It seems to me that in a village with only 1 bar there would be no competition and the anti's would/should be flocking to the establishment, but that just isn't the case. I will be visiting there at the end of the month and I will report back on how the customer base is for these new owners. Therefore, learning and believeing that 1000 pubs across Ireland shouldn't be such a stretch of the imagination, even for you.
Carl and his simple theory:
"As for the loss of 1000 pubs in Ireland, pubs turn over all the time. If it is true that 1000 were lost, my guess is that a similar number were lost in the same 3 year period prior to the ban. I would also guess that new pubs replace many if not all of the ones that didn't seem to be able to adapt."
Fine, now do you mind if we make the exact same 'guess' on the 'hundreds of lives' being saved by TC.
Thousand of people die all of the time, so we'll just guess that it's about the same amount that died in the same period prior to the bans. New or continuing smokers a will replace them, as they were not able to adapt to their new lifestyle.
Haven't seen Marcus here lately, so I visited his blog and found this:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ality-
test.html
Any comments Doctor?
Some of the bar damage in NY:
http://
www.minnesotansagainstsmo...ngbanreport.htm
~snip~
"Historically, the financial performance of eating and drinking establishments has tended to track the overall economy, as economic growth creates disposable income which is spent at New York's bars and restaurants. However, the recent past has seen a deviation from the long-term trend, as bars have reduced payrolls more sharply in the last two years than restaurants and the overall economy"
Or here:
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
Now Carl can you produce any proof of the 'hundreds (thousands, gazillion or whatever term you use these days) of lives' you have saved?
'And I also can't think of anything unethical about working within the legal constructs of a democracy to advocate for whatever it is that one believes in. I would have imagined that while you do not support your opponents that you would be willing to stand up for their right to be heard in the democracy which is all of ours.'
I can think of plenty wrong when you the twist the process, with emotional scare mongering, warped science, and science that is far from inconclusive. You (TC) have done it on the very backs of the smokers you wish to eliminate is from the very dirty industry you pretend to vilify. What a happy nest of self-hating, former smokers-healthiests and what have you you all are. Justice does not play anywhere in your world----but hopefully (I thought) your conscience was another thing. But that was not to be. I remember the big trend in the 80's was the 'victims of child abuse' and the regressed memory came to haunt us all. That you can possibly hate to the degree you do is unbelievable. That you are mad at your dad is not a matter for the public at large to deal with. So I would seek some help in dealing with that loss.
Hey Kevin
Buuuuuzzzzzz!!! Prize winning line of the week:
'Designer public sentiment is expensive'
What a jewel that is
While there is nothing wrong with debating transfats, or anything else for that matter, there is something wrong with the governmental body trying to tell you you aren't allowed transfats.
More and more this whole thing reminds me of "Demolition Man"...
Carl asks......'And what's so bad about debating the use of trans-fats? It seems like a fair question to me.'
Because it is none of you business what I eat! Therefore it is not open to debate.
Have your considered using a K instead of a C in your first name? With your thought process, (pardon me for poking my nose in your
business)it would seem appropriate.
More and more this whole thing reminds me of "Demolition Man"...
My thoughts exactly, Jalestra. I've been thinking that for a couple of years now.
The fact that TC doesn't make the connection is even worse. Or perhaps they do and that is the world they want, which makes it the most despicable thing ever (outside of child molestation).
In response to Anon's message about allowing his troop to beat up a bunch of smokers, may I remind you that about 30-40 years ago--and even today--it was OK to beat up, segregate, and marginalize racial and ethnic minorities. This view prevailed due to beliefs that they imposed some sort of societal burden or were innately inferior.
You said: "I came to the conclusion considering what this disease imposes on others the only way around the incessant whining, is to let society take care of it on it's own. The kids are setting the standards for a life in their own world, my generation screwed it up enough. They are just smokers who really cares."
It is absolutely absurd and unproductive to say that kids are going to set the standards through violence and hatred. These are kids! As history has demonstrated time and time again, trying to eradicate behaviors and populations through violence and hatred accomplishes very little. What I truly think is happening today is a smoking eugenics movement in a biopsychosocial sort of way. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if these antics continue, then there's no doubt that the 50 million smokers in this country will mobilize in some sort of way and react.
As far as being "just smokers," this is a significant segment of the population and while I hope that smoking behaviors change among those _motivated_ to change, I think smoking will always have a significant presence. I don't remember who posted it, but it was on the lines that smokers need health education that they can choose to utilize or not. Knowledge is power, so it's my responsibility to provide that knowledge. After that, the decisions are in their hands.
Going back to the violent behavior you condone, I don't understand why you don't foster tolerance and acceptance among your troop. Trust me, it will do them much more good and it will probably help them become productive members of society as opposed to rebels who beat up people who they arbitrarily judge as having a burdensome habit. From what I saw on the Boy Scouts of America webpage, the vision statement said that "future Scouting will continue to offer young people responsible fun and adventure; instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character as expressed in the Scout Oath and Law; train young people in citizenship, service, and leadership; and serve America's communities and families with its quality, value-based program."
I never realized that beating up smokers demonstrated civic service, leadership, and ethical character. It's no surprise to me that you signed your name as Anon. That demonstrates to me some sort of unconscious cognitive dissonance and I don't expect you to reveal yourself.
But when it comes down to it, using your "logic," why stop at smoking? There are so many diseases, conditions, and disorders (both physical and mental) that impose huge burdens. Should society just beat them up?
You've basically encouraged your troop that it's perfectly acceptable to take matters into their own hands and wage a violent, moral crusade. To say that society needs to just correct itself through violence is not good enough and never will be good enough. I do not condone this sort of outlook and I believe that people will continue to smoke regardless of the adversity and hatred presented to them. For many, it motivates them to smoke more. Because of that, the only way to ever have some sort of significant impact is to have healthy exchanges between smokers, nonsmokers, and those in tobacco control. Dr. Siegel and many participants of this blog have clearly expressed that they are not opposed to civil conversations that find common ground. I hope this changes your perspective and encourages you to see who smokers really are: human beings just like you who deserve decency and consideration.
Nick, I think Kevin posted the Anon comment.
By the way, 'society' is already beating up a minority of citzens, and has done so for the better part of the 20'th century. Citizens that take opium, cocaine, morphine, cannabis are systematically harassed and beaten up by 'authorities', all in the name of Health. These peaceful stimulant users are thrown into indoctrination camps and prisons, which are then no more than the Healthist equivalents of the communist Gulag.
Soon the dastardly smokers will be going to the Health Gulag as well.
The evidence that smoking bans hurt business just isn't there. Here's the Wisconsin Restaurant Assocation supporting a statewide smoking ban.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.c...0&PAG=461&
rfi=9
Innovative businesses will survive and thrive. It is true that stagnant ones won't, but they never have anyway.
As for the family that poured their life savings into a smoking bar in the face of smoking bans, my heart goes out to them for their loss. But why would they proceed to dump multiple life savings into a dying business? It takes a certain sense to either change your model or close out. If you don't have that sense you're going to lose in business, smoking ban or not.
"my heart goes out to them for their loss"
Carl, you don't have a heart.
Well whether that was just an exercise or not, I just had to express my sentiments. Anybody read about the guy in Texas who got arrested for smoking in a bar and missing his court appearance?
You just don't get it do you Carl? Those people poured their life savings into a bar AFTER the smoking bans took effect, not before. They were trying to conform to your ideas of "how to make a living in my dreamworld". You say "no smoking" the say, "okay, I will give it a try-no smoking. Beides, the antis say they will be standing in waiting lines so to be seated in my no smoking, so called clean air business". You don't show up though, even with all the advertising and different menu items, more entertainment, and whatever else they try just to get you in the door. YOU are not going to these places and you never had any intention of ever going, therefore, it is YOU who have helped them lose their life savings!
I hope you finally understand what people are saying about how it is in the real world. If you still aren't getting it, then I am so sorry. You're lost and a GPS system in one hand and a road map in the other will never help you find your way home!
Soren,
Add brain and I agree.
Diane, the link on your homepage isn't working.
The hospitality business is a tough world.
http://www.southflorida.com/dini...omm=C-sfe-
miami
Take a look at the dislaimer on the lower right of the page.
There's no smoking ban in Florida bars.
What do you think explains a turnover rate that's so high, they want you to call ahead to make sure the bar you want to go to is still open?
Interesting, I was under the impression that Florida DID have a smoking ban. Only they are also allowed to allow smoking on outdoor patios (unlike most bans in most states).
I think the point you insist on not seeing Carl, is that the rate of failure is greater AFTER bans go in place than it was for the years before the ban. Why you refuse to admit this is beyond me, except that I realize it doesn't fit into your fantasy land.
Carl, you are truly a piece of work. That link shows 2 restaurants, and when you click for "more information" it tells you more about the services and adds: Important: Hours, prices and other information can change frequently. Please call ahead to confirm information.
Notice it suggests calling to confirm the information is still accurate, NOT, as you claim, to confirm it is still open.
You need to learn to read I think.
I expect it is more like false advertising, hoping that you will THINK that business is SO good. You know, everyone is coming, but we have room for you too. Just like the explanation that what the picture you see will not be exactly what you see on your plate! Did you NOT click onto the webpage that Sunz furnished about the restaurant and bar business in New York. Scroll upwards, it is still there.
Besides the businesses in NY that I just talked about, I know of others that have been hurt or are still hurting. My in-laws owns a restaurant/bar in upstate NY too. They are 83 and 84 years old and have been at it for years, but they continue to slave over it, in hopes of leaving something to their youngest child. As for my husband and myself, we would love it if they would just let Johnny have it, finally retire and let Johnny lose it. Our inheritance is secured. We were smart enough to take care of that before the ban.
So now Carl is a business expert along with being a wiz-bang health expert.
Will wonders ever cease?
I am sorry, but bar turnover isn't referring to hours of operation and menu item availability. The link does talk about that, but turnover is referring to the fact bars often close - hence the request that visitors check to see if the business is still open.
There are still people who believe the world is flat, that aliens landed in Rosewell, and that the moon landing was a hoax. And those people think everyone around them is nuts, and a "piece of work."
The only difference is that the Rosewell and the moon hoax believers aren't spreading out poisons based on their misbeliefs.
Sunz/
Buuuuuzzzzzz!!! Prize winning line of the week:
'Designer public sentiment is expensive'
As opposed to how you described it
"I can think of plenty wrong when you the twist the process, with emotional scare mongering, warped science, and science that is far from inconclusive. You (TC) have done it on the very backs of the smokers you wish to eliminate is from the very dirty industry you pretend to vilify. What a happy nest of self-hating, former smokers-healthiests and what have you you all are. Justice does not play anywhere in your world----but hopefully (I thought) your conscience was another thing. But that was not to be."
So, whats your point?
"The only difference is that the Rosewell and the moon hoax believers aren't spreading out poisons based on their misbeliefs."
Carl,
What comes out of your keyboard is more toxic than what might every come out of a cigarette.
No point----I just thought you came up with a great line. It was a compliment.
Hahaha. Toxic keyboard. I'll try to blow my keystrokes away from your direction.
Here's another good study abstract on the (non)effect of bans on businesses.
http://cat.inist.fr/?
aModele=aff...cpsidt=13905039
You're great debaters, but you're on the losing end of this one. The evidence is overwhelming.
Sunz;
For Carl it is not about conscience it's about cheering for the team. In order to stay onside he has to moralize his support. The TC process planted a lot of seeds in a planned process Carl is simply repeating the reasoning they gave him in order to explain his position.
The largest misconception most have in this would be that TC and ETS is something, which originated from the public.
It is actually something, which was introduced to the public. A treatment if you will.
The Process of HIA developed long term [10 year] and short term [one year] goals, developed an implementation period, process testing and adjustment protocols and went to work.
They assigned responsibilities to designates, assured all members would screen all public speak in order to not discredit their partners. Most important they analyzed the impediments and the subjects being treated ALL to be categorized and dealt with in process.
Some of the language we hear appears to be foolish and poorly conceived however every public statement has a target audience, “ some messages will resound more with one group than with others”.
“ Planting seeds is the secret to success when cultivating a garden.”
From the outset participants made the mistake of falling into a plan, which treats people like germs and smoking as a disease. The population view allowed this to be snuck past them, as they too were being conned into a morally reprehensible process.
The organizers were well educated in developing a fool proof process the one set back as we learned in history there will always be a few Adolphs in the crowd who can grow power from the public acceptance. This one demands body purity as an obligation to the State taking us back 100 years in time when Eugenics was being promoted at the expense of racial groups thought to be similar germs which needed treatment.
No one thought of preparing an exit strategy, and now with post prohibition peak effects, which were never planned for, having a reversal effect in cessation numbers. The cure is now a poison, which makes it harder for smokers to quit due to the social upheaval.
No one can slow down the enthused hatred bandwagon because no one is in control any longer. A further flaw in the process; leadership is scattered and no one knows who to turn to for advice and adjustment of the process.
The next stage as other lobbies get on board with the follow the leader to riches effect particularly seen in the Global warming and the anti fat campaigns; the campaign will now have to fall to competition of the stakeholders who will have no choice but to savage the reputation of each other to save the reputations of themselves.
No one realized there is only so much cash to go around before resistance of those paying for the perfect world start to have reservations.
If the plan had a longer implementation period it may well have succeeded. The rush to the finish has already doomed the strategy along with a lot of others based in theory and fear.
Who will see the damage of what was created and the increased smoking rates already seen are the scientists who took on the role of politicians and ignored the integrity of discovery and real applied science. Consensus science by any other name remains as always equivalent in every way to a cult belief system.
The founders of Greenpeace and MADD are not only no longer with the organizations but entirely opposed to the directions both have taken after gaining corporate support and an expanded public voice.
Both co-opted to increase corporate bottom lines.
TC ceased being TC in 1999, when they too signed a deal with the devil.
Ahh yes, the old fallback standby, when losing the debate, fall back on the "evidence is overwhelming", and yet, the "overwhelming evidence" is never supplied, why?
Show me one case where an area that enacted a ban on smoking in bars, has had an increase, proportionate to other business's in the same area, in their (bars only, no cheating with previously smoke free restaurant numbers here)business.
For that matter, show me one proven death or disease from second hand exposure to tobacco smoke, anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?, Beuhler?
The silence is deafening
Can anyone else hear those crickets chirping? LOL
Wow, I've always viewed myself as pretty much a weekend blogger. I didn't realize I was such an integral part of such a vast conspiracy.
Jerry, I guess you didn't see it. But I provided a link in my last post.
Chirp Chirp
No Carl,
Not a part just a germ like the rest of us.
Don't forget;
You are being treated too.
Do a google search for WHO HIA interventions.
You are being treated for a number of other defects as well.
Kevin,
No point----I just thought you came up with a great line. It was a compliment. I saved it along with my other "Kevin Unplugged stuff."
Sunz
I caught on with your previous explanation, I should have acknowleged it.
The BuuuZZZ thing threw me, I took it wrong, sorry
Kevin stated...
'Consensus science by any other name remains as always equivalent in every way to a cult belief system.'
Bingo.
Wonder what I feels like to sell your soul to become a member of a herd (of sheep/cattle)and to be marketed all over the globe like TC is?
BTW Carl
Do you live in S. Australia?
The reports states there is evidence of losses elsewhere.
" Background: Despite evidence to the contrary from overseas research, the introduction of smoke-free legislation in South Australia (SA), which required all restaurants to go smoke-free in January 1999, sparked concerns among the hospitality industry about loss of restaurant business. "
Kevin, The concern sparked by the ban was unfounded because of overseas evidence that showed no negative economic impact.
I live in the US. Stuides in NYC and CA have shown similar results.
From the Restaurant Assn.:
http://www.restaurant.org/
govern...ekit_200409.pdf
Carl;
OK; I will spell it out for you;
If you look a little closer at the personal opinions or what they call “studies”, the results are fudged in most by either reporting alcohol sales including take out. They included venues, which would not be affected, or they ignore population growth inspiring normal growth to accommodate new communities.
I have yet to see a balanced report. In all fairness, some by the odds should demonstrate harm while others report growth.
How many have you seen supported by the media, which demonstrate any deficits? And why are some of the venues still complaining if increased sales are the outcome?
The so-called experts state management is delinquent as a reason for failures of existing businesses; yet fail to give any indication of how to adjust to an imposition kicking more than half your clients to the curb. It is easy to point a finger of blame a lot harder to prove it. If adjustments were to be made to a business as a result of an imposition why now would it be an obligation of the bars to pay for that adjustment? Who is paying for utopia?
It is well known smokers were the majority in bar sales no level of adjustment in business practices will offset the amount of business lost. People smoking or not visit these venues at their leisure. Smoking bans as a selling point fails in all aspects of logic.
Hospitality is about serving all your clients needs to the best of your ability. Smoking bans simply remove a large part of that ability.
As a smoker, leisure does not include worrying about loosing my seat or my drink every half hour or so while I am outside. In the winter you have to retrieve a coat and take it off again, as you go in and out of hot and cold conditions increasing the chances of colds and the flu. The ability of someone to put something in my drink while unattended is increased, All in all, not representative of a relaxing atmosphere. I could simply buy a big screen and a box of beer invite over some friends and stay at home. Saving a fortune in tips and markup, which would more than pay for the new TV and the snacks as well in very short order.
Cheering for the current outcome may benefit some of the larger chains, but we will loose most of the best venues.
"..But why would they proceed to dump multiple life savings into a dying business?....-(K)Carl
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....put-out-
of.html
Uh...Carl it wasn't a dying business until the pharmaceutical nicotine lobby convince lawmakers to push tobacco nicotine bans in order to prop up pharmacetical nicotine sales.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-policy-
or.html
And the way in which lobbyists convince lawmakers is to lie about the risk........even in light of the new BMJ AQ report we've unearthed.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Carl, your link said NOTHING about bar turnover. It was a link to two restuarants. NO mention at all of turnover or checking to see if they are open. Maybe you should check that link again?
Kevin, I'm glad I refreshed the page before addressing Carl's ridiculous claim about the "studies."
What these "studies" do is compare license numbers and tax receipt numbers, but do so in toto, they do not break them out into off sales and inhouse sales, thus the numbers are skewed.
In February of 2003 I was given a look at the December 2002 numbers of several businesses in Delaware. 2 were restaurant/bars that also did catering, one was just a bar that also had an off-sale license (booze to go) and the other was a package store. For the 1st 2 establishments their dine-in and bar revenues were drastically down compared to December of 2001, yet their catering and take-out numbers had skyrocketed. The bar with the off-sale license saw the off-sale numbers increase, while at-bar revenue dropped. And the package store saw a dramatic increase in sales.
The shift to off-site sales in the 1st 3 businesses led to a decrease in hours and tips, thus total income, for the staff and in one case the loss of a number of staff. The package store just saw an increase in revenue, a staff increase was not needed.
By December of 2003, I no longer lived in Delaware, and the ownership of one of the restaurant/bars and the package had changed hands..........so my ability to check back with the same 4 establishments was lost.
Gabz,
Here in Minnesota, Minneapolis officials tried to fool everyone about the bar and restaurant losses by reporting revenues from only 353 of the 618 liquor licenses.....the establishments not included, 265, were most certainly seeing negative revenues.......officials further skewed the results by including revenue from hotel room bookings....hotel rooms are exempt from the smoking ban.
More here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....s-for-
bars.html
Carl, even IF your link about no loss in the Restaurant business is true(Which the result skewing methods have already been shown by other posters), I don't understand how a (supposedly) intelligent person like yourself, can confuse the difference between BAR business and restaurant business, The bar business is a MUCH different animal than restraunteers face. Restraunteers actuallt WANT client turnover, the greater the number of people they serve in an evening, the higher their profits, as opposed to the bar industry, which is looking for customers to remain there and imbibe. It's quite another thing to have turnover in a bar. They don't make their profits off of one order per customer, they don't even start breaking even off one order per customer.
Marcus, welcome back.
Carl wrote:
"The evidence that smoking bans hurt business just isn't there. Here's the Wisconsin Restaurant Assocation supporting a statewide smoking ban."
You didn't even bother read your own proof, did you? LMAO
From Carl's link:
Currently, there are 30 Wisconsin municipalities that have enacted some form of smoking ban. All of those bans have created winners and losers.
In Madison and Appleton-where there are total workplace bans-bar owners have had to watch helplessly as their smoking customers migrated to bars just outside the city limits. In other municipalities where taverns are exempt from the smoking ban, restaurants with bars have seen their smoking customers go down the road or even across the street to taverns that serve food. Restaurants that don't serve alcohol have lost customers to bars that serve food (of which some coincidentally now serve breakfast), or to restaurants in nearby towns.
On the other hand, if smoking is banned everywhere, no one loses and the competitive environment is as fair as possible.
Thank you Jerry, I never really left....it's just that my new job in industrial ventilation (odd that I can make a living engineering filtration systems to eliminate the hazards from welding smoke...but according to activists we can't engineer filtration solutions for secondhand smoke)keeps me busy,
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....g-smoke-
vs.html
and I've devoted a some time to testify against the state smoking ban being attempted here in MN for the 4th or 5th year in a row.....I hope this new report from the BMJ makes an impact.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
AS for myself, I am done explaining to Carl. Mind you, I said explaining, not arguing. Having a discussion with Carl is like teaching a fish to talk. Just can't be done! So instead of wasting your time trying to show your stupidity, may I suggest that you audition for that new game show that is on FOX network on Thursday night. The name of the show is, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" and is hosted by Jeff Foxworthy. Just let us all know what night your segment airs so that we can tune in and see if you are smarter than a 5th grader! I see you leaving after the first 3 questions. By the way, the town in New Mexico is spelled Roswell, not Rosewell. That is my only help in case you get a spelling or geography question.
I've never put myself out there as "smarter" than anyone here or a better debater or more knowledgable. And in all honesty most of you seem to have a deeper knowledge of your side than I do of mine. Most of you are better at the written word than I am and most of you make your points better than I make mine. My writing is sloppy and my English is confused. The language I use suits me and not other people. Diane, my HS teachers felt similar frustration because I didn't blindly accept conventional wisdom and rules like half my anti-establishment yet conformist peers did. There are many 5th graders that are smarter than I am.
Its one thing to disagree. But the character assisination coming from you Diane and others is quite unbecoming of you and in my opinion reveals the true desperation of the pro-smoking positions. You're on weak ground and I think you know it. If you believed in your arguments you'd be foolish to reduce yourself by attacking some chump that simply has a different opinion than you.
So carry on.
And last, can anyone explain why NC, VA and SC are looking at smoking bans when more moderate states have still not acted? I would have expected these states and Kentucky to be the last ones on board for bans.
Maybe its a conspiracy.
Carl,the ground you are actually standing on is known as quicksand.There is little reason to ban smoking in bars,Dr Siegel's position is equally argued by recent research.It appears it is entirely dependant upon which way you view the research as to whether you go with a ban or not.OSHA regulations are not exceeded in bars where smoking is permitted.So you care little for the loss of jobs,by stating there aren't any,similarly why should anyone care about bar staff quitting their job seemingly due to SHS,same sort of thing really.So Carl,i'll argue from the original pretext for imposing bans,SHS is a crapload of bunkum.
Carl;
Your standing against the crowd took courage. Some do have decidedly personal suggestions, however looking at those individuals you have to understand they are only fighting fire with fire. Even if you had little to do with the TC campaign.
I know one in particular a pretty brave older woman who has had her business vandalized and her tires slashed because; she too stood against the crowd.
You can't hold with that anymore than the ganging up on you is really fair can you?
Perhaps if more were here to supply the reasoning, which brings them to force their ideals on others, it may make this a lot more balanced.
Keep up the fight on your side and don't get discouraged. Most of us are trying to get to the truth. Consider yourself a sparring partner helping us to sharpen our skills. In that sense, you’re doing a fine job.
Nothing personal, as far as I am concerned.
Michael;
If you see this post, can you respond to Dave's request to discuss the technical side of this?
I know many here including myself have a pretty good idea of the research process. There are a lot of unanswered questions of which many would appreciate your opinion.
"...and in my opinion reveals the true desperation of the pro-smoking positions. You're on weak ground and I think you know it. If you believed in your arguments you'd be foolish to reduce yourself by attacking some chump that simply has a different opinion than you."
Two points:
1. The ones on weak ground are those who parade idiotic studies like Helena as proof. Or our own Dr. Siegel who turned this finding:
"The epidemiologic evidence suggested that there may be a 50% increase in lung cancer risk among food-service workers that is in part attributable to tobacco smoke exposure in the workplace."
into this:
"Conclusions: Environmental tobacco smoke is a significant occupational health hazard for food-service workers. To protect these workers, smoking in bars and restaurants should be prohibited."
Weak ground? Who?????
2. You're not attacked because someone doesn't believe their own arguments. Diane stated, "Having a discussion with Carl is like teaching a fish to talk. Just can't be done!"
I believe it's called frustratration.
And last, can anyone explain why NC, VA and SC are looking at smoking bans when more moderate states have still not acted? I would have expected these states and Kentucky to be the last ones on board for bans.
Maybe its a conspiracy.
Carl | 04.06.07 - 6:01 pm | #
Carl, darling, did you not read what I posted yesterday - VA knew better and there is no smoking ban. It was an outrageous 60-40 defeat of a smoking ban. The people spoke and the BIG money antis lost. Oh yes, according to quotes in the press Philip Morris spent buckets of money to enrage their customers, but the truth of the matter is PM played little part in the defeat. The antis spent millions of dollars in radio and TV advertising, promoting bogus science in the early part of this week and lost their collective rearends when it came to a vote.
"For every 8 smokers who die they take 1 non-smoker with them." What kind of bogus BS is that? The only non-smoker I know (knew) that left this life with a smoker, was the cause of the car crash that killed both of them.
It started off a few years ago with the figure at 3000 ETS deaths annually, now with 1 in 8 it goes to 56,250 ETS deaths annually, and the sky really is the limit, with the ability to make it up as you go.
Unless they have decided to lower the 450,000 figure to 24,000
Too mant cooks?
no, Kevin, too many CROOKS!
Kevin-
I don't see Dave K's comment on this post. Could you let me know to what you are referring so I can address it.
I just got through watching Penn and Teller on Bullsh*t tonight, and the episode was on breasts.
At one point they interviewed this lawyer activist that made the claim that another child seeing an exposed breast during a feeding is just as devastating as a child having sex with an adult. She was offended by seeing other women breast feeding their children, and the only person gratified is the mother doing it, and therefore should be outlawed. (remind you of anybody we know?)
I swear people, Intolerance breeds intolerance.
Michael;
The comments were from the last topic, I will paste an excerpt below.
I was really hoping you would consider this one and actively discuss the mechanics. I appreciate your position, and would not presume to ask you to step over any line which would affect your carrer or reputation.
The choice is yours, many here simply want to sort out the facts from the fiction.
Dave K wrote;
"In particular, several blogs over the past few years have evolved into discussions of whether the Enstrom/Kabat study has scientific merit, or not. Others have hammered away about the Bradford Hill criteria. Others have made more general arguments that scientific measurements of any kind should include all sources of error, not just a select few.
Many of us, who post here do have a scientific understanding of basic epidemiology. other are interested in emidemiology but wish to learn more. Debate is the best way to accomplish this. However, your answers have mostly been weak, in those rare instances where you do answer our scientific questions, and dispute our claims that shs is not a hazard.
Many of us are disappointed that you have not addressed our beleifs that shs is not harmful more thorougly. despite a plethora of media claims indoctrinating much of America, as you know, many people including those outside this blog still disbelieve the claim shs is harmful...and for good reason. For example I remember a St. Louis talk show, where people were calling in and saying that if first hand smoking kills fewer than half of all smokers after 50 years that they simply cannot unsderstand how shs could kill anyone. These are things a lot of uninvolved people really think. I also hear a lot of comments from the general public that traffic fumes are worse, so why bother banning smoking?
While all your posts are really informing, and I do understand issues other than sceintific ones need to be publically debated, the core issue is the health effects. And I think you, me, and all of us would learn much more concentrating on this core issue more.
"
I'll post these excerpts from the Washington Post again. About the post-ban losses in Montgomery Cty, MD. The ban was restaurants-only, no taverns were involved.
While the sponsor of the ban-bill was crowing about a gain of 7.6%, he could only do so by including McDonald's and take-out places, which were never, in the first place, affected by bans. When the scope was limited to before and after figures for the full-service restaurants, the numbers went like this:
Dunno why that got cut off. Try again. From the Washington Post Feb 23, 2005:
sales tax receipts for Montgomery restaurants with liquor licenses grew by only $110,480, or .025 percent, while they grew 7 percent over the same period in neighboring [banless] Frederick County....
The number of restaurants with liquor licenses in the county fell to 402 by the end of December 2004 from a high of 526 in March 2003 , according to data from the state comptroller's office,
[S]ales tax data for Talbot County, which implemented a smoking ban in April [show] restaurant sales tax receipts fell by $2.9 million or 11 percent, while sales for similar establishments in neighboring [banless] Caroline County increased by 36 percent and in [banless] Dorchester County by 14 percent.
But Carl, in his guise as a social Darwinist would say that those restaurants in Talbot Cty, unable to adapt to his hostile environment, clearly deserved to die.
:
Carl;
Might want to think about what I pointed out earliar. Social marketing in the TC intervention is not actually although targeting smokers conditioning smokers.
It is the rest of community which is being conditioned.
Your amoung the germs being treated with this medicine.
Who again are on the loosing side?
You are living proof the treatment is working encouraging them to keep up the experiments.
When is the last time a smoker was told if you quit your life would be better.
What we get is advertising pushing us toward alternate products.
What the general public is hearing is false advertising utilizing a marketing strategy not normally allowed in North America in many years, with discrimination and hatred as a theme.
We know sex sells, Hate is much more powerful. The advertisers find very few instances where the public will allow them to get away with it. The anti smoker message is clearly one of those cases.
Federal law normally prohibits the low life ad campaigns and if targeting any other identifiable group you can name, the advertising sponsor would not only be attacked in the media they would likely be charged with a criminal offense and sued.
The conditioning has worked well because no one in the public has objected to the kind of things product advertisers are teaching their kids.
Poison is now thought to be a cure, however an acceptance of poison in community seems to be encouraging those same kids to smoke more.
Society is once again being sold a bill of goods in one of the most successful Industry partnered ad campaigns to date. The beauty of this slick ad campaign is we all get to pick up the tab for the ad agency promotions in addition to paying for the effect.
One would think that if you have to lie to beef up your "proof" and attack other scientists' character that disagree with your proof that perhaps YOU are the one on shaky ground. Considering it's been proving the anti's do that over and over and over ad nauseum, then they would be the ones on shaky ground...
that should be "proven" not "proving"...just woke up hehe
Antis were never in control of anything TC is a purchase resource, they are just paid employees with no job security or retirement benefits.
Or the results of poor medical treatments, where the industries are allowed to practice medicine with a license to steal.
http://healthcare-bandwagons.blo...s.blogspot.com/
speaking of science attacks, I found a team of people who are challenging the tobacco mouthpieces -the heartland "heartless" institute- for the lies they've spread on the health effects of tobacco smoke in a public debate
"One would think that if you have to lie to beef up your "proof" and attack other scientists' character that disagree with your proof that perhaps YOU are the one on shaky ground."
As you know, Jalestra, some of them skip the lies and are at the penultimate stage; some of them simply drop their pants and let their social-engineering, anti-smoking fascism hang right out there for everyone to see (and no, I'm not ashamed to use the word fascism in this case; if it isn't fascism, then what is it?):
"Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi launched a new front in his war on smoking Tuesday, announcing that the county is considering a smoking ban in parks."
"The cigarette tax hike Suozzi is seeking, which needs state legislative approval, has support in the Assembly, but may stall in the Republican-controlled Senate. However, a smoke-free park initiative requires only local legislative approval and has already won support from Presiding Officer Judy Jacobs (D-Woodbury), who said banning smoking in the parks would be consistent with the county's other smoking cessation efforts."
"Parks are synonymous with nature and health, and certainly smoking doesn't fit under that at all," said Jacobs."
Parks are synonymous with nature and health; therefore, ban the bastards! I love it! Couldn't get anymore bare-faced fanatical than that.
Notice that there's nothing here about any supposed dangers of secondhand smoke; this is all about cessation measures: taxes and bans. That's how cocky and brazen these people, pumped up with their own petty authority, have become.
And don't tell me how Carl feels about all this; I really don't want to know.
The Land of the Free.
.
Heartless;
" speaking of science attacks, I found a team of people who are challenging the tobacco mouthpieces -the heartland "heartless" institute- for the lies they've spread on the health effects of tobacco smoke in a public debate "
The Tobacco industry has been deliberately muted for years. We all know where the lies are comming from.
I and a good deal of others would be overjoyed at any ability to debate the so called "science" in either format.
In fact if you read this you will see good argumants the so called experts all refuse to face or explain in the absolutes movement.
http://healthcare-bandwagons.blo...s.blogspot.com/
Consider yourself just another conditioned cheerleader with no clue who to dance for.
N.H. HOUSE BILL 62
II. It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally release or intentionally cause to be released into the atmosphere one or more balloons inflated with lighter-than-air gases, except for:
(a) Balloons released by or on behalf of any agency of the United States, the state of New Hampshire, or any other state, territory, or government for scientific or meteorological purposes; or
(b) Hot air balloons recovered after launch.
Does that mean that if Carl, Bill or Cathy entered the state of New Hampshire that they’d have to be either tethered or recoverable?
.
Heartless ,more garbage from the ranti movement i see,the "Daily Kos" how appropriate it names itself after a type of lettuce,though perhaps mushroom would have been even better considering how they are cultivated.
and still more BS.
http://www.slate.com/id/2163255/...63255/fr/
flyout
In response to Kevin's request for me to address Dave K.'s query, I think the main thing I would note is that the magnitude of the increased risk of chronic disease associated with secondhand smoke exposure is quite small. We're talking about a 30% increase in risk over the level among people who are non-exposed. So this is not the kind of risk that is going to be readily observable or obvious to people. It is not a surprise that many people would not think secondhand smoke to have harmful long-term effects because the relative risk is so small that you can't readily associate an individual person's heart disease or lung cancer with their secondhand smoke exposure. These conclusions are based largely on epidemiologic evidence comparing large populations of people and detecting small increases in long-term risk. So what the whole thing comes down to is largely a discussion of the epidemiology.
The one exception to this is asthma exacerbation, which one can readily see can be triggered by secondhand smoke exposure.
I think the main thing I would note is that the magnitude of the increased risk of chronic disease associated with secondhand smoke exposure is quite small
And you still think banning smoking in all bars and restaurants is necessary?
Seriously, if we are going to ban things where the risk of illness or disease is "quite small", we better start banning all sports, all desserts, all nuts (the edible ones I mean though the human ones being banned would suit me fine too), all alcohol, perfumes, shellfish, anything that anyone might possibly be allergic to that CAN be controlled (dust and mold are not really controllable). And then lets not forget industrial plants, cars, trucks, planes, trains, busses. Basically, let's just go back to living as the neanderthals did before they invented fire (can't have wood smoke either).
I mean seriously Doc, did you really think such a small risk actually warranted these bans? Personally I think you used it as an excuse to push your personal preference on the rest of us.
Along Lynda's train of thought, Doc don't you think the job and business losses due to smoking bans are far more damaging than the benefits derived..... for as you point out "secondhand smoke exposure (risk) is quite small..."
http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm
Keep in mind, each of the bar & restaurant closings listed in the above link employed.....and laid off, 20 - 30 employees. That's 10,000 - 20,000 job losses.
It's time to end the pharma funded smoking ban agenda. Which reminds me Doc.....
When you were blindly pushing the smoking ban agenda......how much of your funding (or University funding) came from RWJF?
Isn't it true, doctor, that the 30% increased risk you've settled on, as low as it is, is still rather towards the HIGH END of the assumed risk of these studies, and that the assumed risk is even lower in other studies -- some much lower? And isn't it also true as true can be that we really don't know if there's any increased risk at all -- that it's only an educated guess, if even that -- and that even if there is a small increased risk that those many confounding factors that can't possibly be all accounted for could drag the risk down very close to zero? And then where would we be? Would we be in a world where we'd damn well better start worrying, if it's in our nature, about other toxic elements in the air and stop worrying secondhand smoke to death and making outcasts of a quarter of the population? There's a real evil there, doctor.
Well, that's all been said many times before; still, we've never got an answer that satisfies anybody. And that's why this 'core issue,' as Dave K calls it (and it IS the core issue) has still to be thrashed out.
And let's not forget PELs. I can't remember that you've ever responded to requests that you go into the subject of PELs and why you believe they're not worthy of consideration as tools to get at the truth? And it isn't as though you haven't been asked.
Dave K says that your answers have mostly been weak. I think they have, and I think most people here would agree.
Ball in your court. You might start with that 30%.
.
What's funny is they were supposedly too desperate to quit their jobs in smoking venues (the employees) and ironically have lost their jobs because of this huge effort to protect them....wow...I believe the phrase is "Damned if you do, damned if you don't"
I have been doing some reading on PELS apparently employers can establish the levels.
http://www.aiha.org/content/acce.../gov/
wppels.htm
It is suggested levels can be determined by obtaining OELs, which are recommended safe exposure levels from the manufacturer. I wonder how difficult it would be to have those levels provided by the Tobacco companies in regard to not the smokers safe levels but for the ETS levels?
Pels and NOISH guides in HTML format can be found here if anyone is interested.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html
I knew that Redenbacher gut looked guilty, now the flavor in Popcorn is a killer.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/20...ocs/2004-110/
#e
Dr Siegel
Since you have said that a Public Health action must weigh all concerns and on balance be beneficial, are you saying the benefits of smoking bans outweigh the harm (Social, Psychological, Economic) of smoking bans? Even when smoking rates (sometimes after a time delay) apparently remain unaffected or even begin to increase and some people may be more exposed to ETS after a ban?
I have said before that Bradford-Hill would certainly have thought twice before proposing action, even more so since ETS health concerns do not apparently fulfill all his criteria.
west
----
Dr Seigel, do the ends justify the means?
Is this statment from UK NHS smokefree site acceptable? NHS
Breathing in secondhand smoke makes the blood more sticky. This means that there is a risk of blood clots forming. A blood clot can block an artery and cause heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure.
This goes back to a previous thread and apprently suggests secondhand smoke leads to complete heart failure.
They do not say this directly, though they do use the one thing leads to another line of reasoning.
west
----
Marcus
http://www.forces.org/evidence/m...ney/
listorg.htm
'Join Together - Housed at the Boston University School of Public Health and funded by RWJF, Join Together is a part of RWJF's Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Though it ostensibly is about substance abuse of all sorts, there has been definite focus on tobacco.'
From: http://www.google.com/search?
sou...ing+boston+univ
West2 ,let's see what happens regarding the advert on TV,where those figures are being quoted.I for one have complained saying that science does not support the garbage spouted.The Advertising Standards Authority have confirmed they already have quite a file ,of complaints and are looking into it.Marcus,great to see you commenting again,i for one,have missed the knowledge you bring.This sort of discussion on SHS is long overdue,let's just see how blown up this angle is,something like Zimbabwe's inflation rate i guess.
Si,
Here is the latest on those "hooked" adverts.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle1624180.ece
I also wrote in to complain.
Seems the pen really is mightier than the sword.
RE: Advertising-American Legacy Foundation
http://www.enterstageright.com/
a...0700smoking.htm
~snip~
'So if tobacco advertising doesn’t persuade teens to smoke, we can hardly conclude that anti-smoking campaigns persuade smokers to give up the habit. All this raises questions about the American Legacy Foundation and whether it will use its tobacco billions to successfully reduce teenage tobacco use.
Far more likely, the foundation’s ultimate legacy will be a massive transfer of wealth from tobacco consumers and the retail market to well-to-do foundation officials and advertising executives.'
Sound like the transfer of wealth about to occur with the global warming pushers?
"Global-warming activists can learn from the anti-smoking campaign"
http://www.grist.org/comments/so...04/02/03/smoke/
Thanks for the info Colin,i have also complained about the more recent one regarding SHS and the "invisible smoke" ,i think it's set around a party or something.This is the one i refered to as being factually incorrect.
got cut off. They've indeed learned well from the anti-smoking crowd. Now all that is left is to continue to twist science, generate fear, guilt and anxiety and they are on their way to a home-run.
I hope all of the nasally (sp) offended nazis (scientists most especially) are very comfortable not 'having to breathe' a few waifs of cigarette smoke. You have indeed set the stage for quite mess.
As a child I was fasinated with the very idea that there was a place to go to really find answers to issues in life: science. The answers might not be what we wanted to hear but they were what guided us to the great growth in the world we see around today. Now that science genuflects to politics, I see my beliefs in science may have just been a childhood fantasy
Kevin, good PEL links. Here's the link to OSHA where you can find permissible exposure limits (PEL)s for any airborne hazard in the workplace.
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
Sunz......thank you for RWJF grant verification at Boston U. Truth be told I don't know of a college or University that hasn't received RWJF funding.....thus making any professor's smoking ban agenda suspect.
si it's good to be back, though I can only handle it in small doses........my blood pressure sometimes begins to boil over.
Marcus,
I think we all here suffer from the 'second-hand' high blood pressure!!! (at least I do)
BTW--Good luck in your new job.
Si/Colin good points.
It would be interesting to know what Dr Siegel thinks of the claims in the UK ads.
The Times does say the ASA are going to give a wrap on the knuckles for the ads, though they seem to be saying it is because of the 'graphic nature' rather than the substance of the claim. Does this have implications for the graphic warnings on cig packs?
westcoast2
----------
I believe the most substantial argument can be found here
http://www.cseindia.org/dte-supp.../
toxic_risk.htm
It is beyond reason to ban Tobacco smoke from the workplace while ignoring the fact there is an ambient hazard volumously much more dangerous which affects everyone and which can not be avoided. It is rare to find an inlet filter system in a building which could eliminate particulate below PM2.5 which by volume could easily exceede the PM2.5 levels and ultimate risk from tobacco smoke in a bar or most other work environments you could name.
"Diesel vehicles emit extremely carcinogenic particulates that significantly damage our health. Diesel particles are coated with extremely toxic chemicals — about 40 known carcinogenic substances have been identified in diesel exhaust. In 1998, the California Air Resources Board, USA, branded diesel particles as toxic air contaminants. Subsequently, the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) also accepted diesel particles as carcinogens.
In its assessment of new emission regulations for heavy-duty diesel vehicles, slated to come into force in 2007, USEPA states that "the most compelling information that suggests a carcinogenic hazard is the consistent association observed between lung cancer and diesel exhaust exposure in occupationally exposed workers". EPAreviewing published literature, and found that about 30 different epidemiological studies showed an increased risk of lung cancer associated with diesel emissions. EPA evaluated 22 studies most relevant for risk assessment; 16 reported significant increase in lung cancer risks — 20 to 167 per cent — due to exposure to diesel exhaust.
The only study available on Indian cars, by Swedish consultancy Ecotraffic, shows that the cancer potency of diesel exhaust is more than twice that of petrol cars. If only particulate emissions are considered, the carcinogenic effect of one new diesel car is equivalent to 24 new petrol cars and 84 new CNG cars on the road. According to a study conducted by the German Federal Environment Agency, diesel is "several dozen" times more cancer-causing than petrol.
The problem: small particles that harm
Nearly all diesel particles fall into the fine particle size range (less than 2.5 microns); 50-90 per cent fall into the ultra-fine particle size range (less than 0.1 micron). Small size and large numbers offer greater surface area that allows toxic organic compounds to get adsorbed easily. In this way, diesel particles can go deep into the lower respiratory tract and, damaging lungs.
"
I don't see any assessment of ETS [even with the spirited exaggerations], which go to this level of risk, or identify any hazard exists in ETS lifetime risk, which can compete with risks associated with even minor exposures to Diesel exhaust.
The medical community and TC have convinced the public and lawmakers the opposite is true, which in itself likely has already caused increased mortality and disease outcomes.
Someone needs to set things right or we can add callous indifference to the list of failures in the TC campaign example.
Kevin,
AFAIK the arugments go
1 You do not drive diesels in restaurants
2 There is a risk from ETS so we must do something about that, just because there is more risk in diesels is irrelevant.
And if the above fail....
3 My clothes smell after a night out
The fact that science has been undermined (the real cause) is not seen at all and/or dismissed.
west
----
west2-
I think that statement is very misleading. While not being technically inaccurate, it is irresponsible because it would naturally lead people to believe that brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart attacks, strokes, angina or even complete heart failure. It is true that brief secondhand smoke exposure makes the blood stickier, but this increased stickiness is not going to cause a blood clot in someone who doesn't already have severe atherosclerotic disease.
Thanks for the reply Dr Siegel.
You said
It is true that brief secondhand smoke exposure makes the blood stickier
Is this for any quantity?
Is quantity relevant, as I notice you seem to refer to 'secondhand smoke'?
If I say exposure to Radon can cause serious illnes and then said 'Drinking normal tap water causes serious illness' most would say that is not the case, yet drinking water (esp in CA) contains Radon.
west
----
The creative writing in this report masks the reality of a 70% increased risk over normal population risk or more than double the increased risk of ETS lifetime exposures is described as extremely low? Comforting?
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._15/
ai_70734907
" Lewis and Bennett found that a Trans-Atlantic round trip would expose aircrew and passengers to an extremely low cumulative level of cosmic energy - about that of one dental x-ray. Lewis explained that over the course of time about 25 percent of the general population will die of cancer. Exposure to 6 mSv/yr of ionizing radiation over 30 years raises the risk of developing a fatal cancer from 25 to 25.7 percent. "
It is likely irresponsible for the reality in the unaceptable level demonstrated should not be relayed to those pilots who may one day take their children to work and be accused of child abuse in doing so.
From the text, perhaps we should also set off alarms advising the public of the huge cancer risks associated with barium enemas.
Is it ethical to make 'technicaly' correct yet misleading statements. (Especialy from a National Health Service)?
west
----
West;
Similar to your Radon in water example;
ETS in restaurant air is suspended in ambient air which in urban centers contains large quantities of Diesel exhaust particulate along with a lot of other things we can not avoid in every day life. It is likely almost imposible to distinguish described physical effects believed to be caused by ETS from identical damages known to result of Diesel Exhaust exposures, commonly referred to as smoking related diseases.
The SGs report clearly stated the exposures of ETS have droppped by more than 75% While diesel engine use continues to climb with a push toward public transit and ever increased numbers of busses and trains in use. Along with energy conscious consumers, who know diesel engines traditionally are cheaper to operate. The promotions of bio-diesel will only increase the problem.
As I have demonstrated a number of times, the so called smoking related diseases have increased substantially over the past 50 years while the number of smokers has not.
In 1950 it was not common to use diesel engines in commercial vehicles the increased use is higher than even population growth, and likely paralleled to the increases of those same smoking related diseases which also climbed faster than population.
ETS exposures similarly although low in number can easily be confused with the effects of diesel exhaust exposures.
If it quacks like a duck why is everyone so determined to keep calling it a turkey?
As for the smell on your clothes?
Gas up a diesel vehicle and take a whiff, I have to warn you though if you know what diesel exhaust smells like you have likely been expossed to levels which exceede levels of safety.
Think about that next time you are in an underground parking lot and you see a no smoking sign. Or you are sitting at a banned smoking patio with a Bus exhaust stack 10 feet away from your table. Now think about how much smoke is produced by that bus compared to how many cigarettes would be smoked on that patio.
Looking back at the radiation risk of pilots
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._15/
ai_70734907
Health Canada is sending a dangerous message here.
To put this all in perspective the Canadian Government is telling Pilots whose working lifetime is 50% shorter than a hospitality worker. The increased risk is 70% over a working lifetime of a pilot yet a 30% increased working lifetime risk to a hospitality worker set off a campaign of protection internationally, which demands Protection of hospitality workers. With a risk 225% higher pilots should feel comforted?
Where is the concern for their safety, which exceeds the lifetime risk when we had smoking allowed in the planes?
Know all those little kids with respiratory problems that we smokers are responsible for? Just read an article where it says that some of it could be caused by infected tonsils. It is a fact that for many years, Doctors had stopped removing tonsils and adnoids and have taken a second look at the procedure and more kids are now having them removed. It also went on to say that the diagnosis of ADHD had risen 500% and our children have been misdiagnosed and placed on medication for ADHD, when actually it was their tonsils causing the behaviour problem. Seems they aren't getting the needed amount of sleep because of the discomfort and it causes them to act up during the day, leading many to believe they need to be controlled by medication. The article also pointed out that this is not the case in all children and tonsils shouldn't be removed needlessly as they are needed for a good immune system, but it seems to me that many of these kids that I am blamed for breathing problems because I smoked around them at one time really could be a medical problem not caused by us at all.
Take that and the study that proves that nicotine can ward off parkinson's disease and we might finally be onto something.
This one is entirely sobering primarily linked to your air miles card with side references to self serve gas stations.
http://www.uvm.edu/~empact/air/
D...enzenePaper.rtf
We are considering the benefits of banning smoking in Airports?
ETS as any risk at all isn't even on the same page. All the diseases related to smoking and ETS are the same These toxins can actually demonstrate physical cause and effect. Is the obviosly higher risk believed to be harmless?
http://www.earthisland.org/eijou...72&
journalID=43
west2 asked "Is it ethical to make 'technically' correct yet misleading statements?" (especially for the NHS)
I would argue that in the context of a health agency purporting to provide the scientific "facts" about secondhand smoke and apparently trying to embellish those facts to sensationlize them, it is NOT ethical.
This is why I have been arguing that the 100+ anti-smoking groups making fallacious claims about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke are acting unethically.
Dr Siegel wrote
I would argue that in the context of a health agency purporting to provide the scientific "facts" about secondhand smoke and apparently trying to embellish those facts to sensationlize them, it is NOT ethical.
This is why I have been arguing that the 100+ anti-smoking groups making fallacious claims about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke are acting unethically.
Thank you and I agree. I am glad you have been trying to bring this type of statement to people's attention.
Yet this is not an anti-smoking group making this claim, it is the British National Health Service - run by the Department of Health for the British Government.
What can I say.
west
----
And I wouldn't be so quick to label a government entity such as that as "led astray". If they are too stupid to try to hear both sides of an issue and do what's best for the country as a whole rather than just what gets them the votes, then that's their own fault. Just wanted to tack that in before someone excused these people for their stupidity.
Actually West2,i think it is the NHS run by Tony Blair,who is so desperate for a legacy that he is prepared to DO ANYTHING to see his name in lights.Old has beens often never realise how contemptible they have become.Notice how Global Warming has suddenly become a target for massive reductions in emissions so great ,our GNP could end up like a fourth rate African country.It is very pleasant to see Dr Siegel's view of the NHS campaign to lie to the general public.The whole issue of Blair's England is that you can give yourself cirrhosis of the liver,have an anti social behaviour order telling you that you are naughty if you are drunk and disorderly but a cigarette causes SO MUCH HARM TO OTHERS,that we must use prohibition in some form.Also we'll consider making alcohol and tobacco more of a dangerous drug than most everything else.So drink your liver to exhaustion and snort your cocaine in the pubs,WELCOME TO ENGLAND.
Si;
The Swedish study I posted earlier evaluating Global warming is more on track, if an investment is to be made. The current Kyoto and Kyoto 2 plans are heavily front end loaded with a payoff in 3-400 years.
If we took the same investment and spread it over 50 years investing heavily in technology within 50 years instead of being carbon neutral we could be carbon reduced.
Industry lobbies that again cannot accept alternate opinions quickly silenced those thoughts. As we were told “the situation is much worse than we imagined”.
I would love to have the imagination it took to dream up this scam. We should be very concerned with what that imagination will dream up next.
Kevin,
Great points about diesel exhaust.....the benzene exhaust by-product from one vehicle far, far exceeds anything an entire neighborhood of bars could produce from secondhand smoke.
By the way Doc, I'm still waiting to hear your reaction to analysis of this BMJ report:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Dr. Siegel, I don't know if you are trying to milk this nonsense for effect.
You act as if you are shocked...SHOCKED I tell you. Yet this type of policy is right there in the anti-tobacco playbook as a way to reduce smoking rates.
"Over a decade of research by the National Cancer Institute has shown that the most effective way to reduce smoking rates is to decrease public tolerance of tobacco use through changes in policy, accompanied by media and educational programs."
"Changing the public acceptance of tobacco use will require policy change, a critical ingredient of societal change."
Apparently you didn't get the memo Doc:
1993 ASSIST Study (American Stop Smoking Intervention Study) : Read it here for yourself.
PS Doc, you can understand this a lot better than the part time state legislators/accountants/businesspeople/attorneys/
homemakers/ dry cleaners who pass these smoking bans because they are too stupid or busy to actually read something...
The EPA Report that the ASSIST Study references was a disgrace to every scientific study ever conducted. In effect, they were facing 4th and Goal on the 4 yard line and they were stuffed on their power sweep. So they just moved the Goal Line back 5 yards. Result...Touchdown!
Don't worry Billy G. The stupid legislators in PA won't ever read this. Your secret is safe here.
The United States Federal Court Decision by Judge Osteen: On the off chance a legislator wants to know the truth, they can read the whole thing for themselves here. If they'd rather watch a Discovery Channel special on the African Dung Beetle before reading a legal opinion, than the Readers' Digest Cliff Note version will do. Excerpts from Judge Osteen’s July 18, 1998, 90 page-plus Memorandum Opinion appear below: a.) On page 73 Judge Osteen specifically referenced EPA’s use of a 90 percent confidence level in place of the customary 95 percent: “The first contention is EPA switched, without explanation, from using standard 95% confidence intervals to 90% confidence intervals to enhance the likelihood that its meta-analysis would appear statistically significant. This shift assisted EPA in obtaining statistically significant results. Studies that are not statistically significant are "null studies"; they cannot support a Group A classification. See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir. 1989) ("If the confidence interval is so great that it includes the number 1.0, then the study will be said to show no statistically significant 'association between the factor and the disease."). EPA used a 95% confidence interval in the 1990 Draft ETS Risk Assessment, but later switched to a 90% confidence interval. Most prominently, this drew criticism from IAQC's epidemiologist, who was also a contributor to the ETS Risk Assessment: The use of 90% confidence intervals, instead of the conventionally used 95% confidence intervals, is to be discouraged. It looks like a[n] attempt to achieve statistical significance for a result which otherwise would not achieve significance.” (Underline added.) b.) On page 72 Judge Osteen’s conclusions included a statement that EPA cherry-picked data: “EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality.” c.) On page 60 Judge Osteen concluded that it was possible EPA adopted different methodologies for each chapter based on the outcome desired: “The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. This possibility is most potent where EPA rejected MS-ETS similarities to avoid a "cigarette-equivalents" analysis in determining carcinogenicity of ETS exposure. Use of cigarette-equivalents analysis may have lead to a conclusion that ETS is not a Group A carcinogen." It is striking that MS and ETS were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding ETS a carcinogen.” (Underline added.)
Which is precisely the reason why there was never any chance of a live and let live attitude,and the chance of a mediated settlement which suited both parties.It is a cynical exploitation of the public,who remain oblivious to the fact that they are pawns in a game to be used and abused on a whim.And people call the Tobacco Companies corrupt.They were only playing at it,Public Health and Total Control perfected it,a long time ago.You are perfectly correct Dr Siegel in seeing the starting signs of the movement imploding in upon itself,courtesy of its own clamour to speed up the denormalisation of smokers by the use of rigged research and corrupt practices.
Did anyone see 60 Min last night Rick Berman aka 'Dr Evil' :
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...le2653020.shtml
Maybe there is hope before we are all bulldozed into submission.
Thanks Sunz;
I did enjoy that more than you know. Here is what I was writing prior to seeing the article. LOL
http://www.enterstageright.com/
a...0201smoking.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/
a...lowingsmoke.htm
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...67362076597913/
http://www.enterstageright.com/
a...booksmoking.htm
http://www.scientificintegrityin...yinstitute.org/
http://randomreality.blogware.co...31/
1555309.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...st_uids=6536943
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
http://
scotlandonsunday.scotsman...552007#comments
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.c...ult.aspx?
ID=788
http://www.aehs.com/conferences/...y/
indoorair.htm
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/
articl...1031002421.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
entr...l=pubmed_docsum
http://www.cseindia.org/dte-supp.../
toxic_risk.htm
It is so addictive to be drawn back again and again into the truth telling debate. We can look back 10 years and see the missiles which were delivered in salvos claiming formidable victories on both sides of this war of words and theology.
Anti smoking plans in 1997 to tailor the collective mindset and impose a hate of smoking which ultimately played out as a hatred of smokers themselves. At the time it was little more than spirited wishful thinking, little did they know their ability to do just that on a larger scale than any could imagine would be handed to them. A power they have not managed well, put within their reach with the 1999 partnership of the drug companies and the World Health Organization, partners who sought to increase sales through investment. The anti-smoking advocates are only now starting to realize the larger reality; they have as a voice been purchased to be used as a media tool. Purchased as the founders of Green peace and MADD will tell you along with a number of woman’s rights groups and pretty well any large lobby you can recall emboldened in the media demanding legislative change over the last number of decades, Industry investments allow industry to control not only the final; say but every thing which is implied along the way. The pubic attention is narrowly focused, where it is directed has always afforded protection for those industrialists who live in fear should that focus ever shift.
Pro-choice groups’ fought on convinced victory is just slightly out of reach declaring they can prove the science was false. The plan presented implied a public advice campaign could be the road to victory ignoring the fact with such a formidable opponent as one fact or study is dispelled with decided sneers or amazement of the media agent delivering the news, described as junk science or spin, another two announcements will quickly take it’s place, reassuring the public the original though was more correct and life is all good once again.
The public is enthralled with the promotion of intolerance allowing them to let their hair down, with someone it now is acceptable to hate, after being shackled for so long with media inspired political corrections limiting even their thoughts. We fail to realize smokers are not the targets of the big guns. It is and has always been society as a whole who will have another ingrained reality etched permanently into their psyche. Regardless of the validity of theoretic facts, urban legends will outlast the passing of time or even presentations of physical proof.
The Eugenics movement at the start of the last century distributed theology which found the human gene was at risk due to corruption of inferior genes these identified in racial groups who were believed to threaten us all. We have to protect our children after all form the horrors of future threats. This invoked a public responsibility to denormalize those identified inferior racial groups. Despite The assasination of the Kennedys and of Martin Luther King, or the horrors of the death camps and spirited anti Semitic and anti hate laws, along with a determined effort of many civil liberties groups and religious groups for over 60 years, the same racial groups still suffer the effects of urban legends created over one hundred years ago.
Politicians play us against each other in deliberately divided groups both sides of this war are being encouraged to continue and increase the profits of it’s instigators. Munitions companies profit from wars and sell nothing in times of peace. Can anyone deny, as investment groups who target unethical funds know well, the larger and longer the war the more profits will be drawn by the munitions industries?
Business is good. With an obvious ability to control the media groups Industry will always be believed to be good, while ignorring that they take enormously from our standard of living and pay little back in return. Our taxes subsidize the same charity foundations they use to imposse restictive laws and higher taxes against us to keep those subsidies flowing with little support of change. Tobacco company profits increase every year with stagnant sales figures. The profits of drug companies supplying competing products with a Nicotine ingredient purchased from Tobacco companies makes both munitions sales forces entirely satisfied. Media groups, Insurance companies Lobby groups and government coffers bulging with the spoils of war, and who gets left to pick up the tab? We all do.
The war has gone on long enough in my opinion; reassessment and negotiations are the only logical course if society is ever to be reclaimed as a whole with the ending of the societal civil wars.
Doesn't anyone ever wonder why politicians are so eager to buy more busses and trains and increase Airport capacities?
The facts seem to indicate the health affects will be devastating. Focus on DPM would cost the oil industries responsible for supplying it trillions of dollars. Smoking bans cost the general public billions and make industries who promote them more profits while the addiction market is expanded.
http://www.cseindia.org/dte-supp.../
toxic_risk.htm
Diesel Particulate matter [DPM]VS Second hand smoke[ETS]?
DPM is just about 6 per cent of US’ total ambient fine particulate matter inventory. Yet, the US wishes to control it
In urban areas such as California, Colorado and Arizona DPM is 10-36 per cent of ambient fine particulate level.
Exposure from diesel vehicles (mid 1990s estimate) — 0.5 to 0.8 micrograme DPM/cum of inhaled air in rural and urban areas, respectively.
For localised urban areas where people spend a large portion of their time outdoors — 4.0 micrograme DPM/cum of inhaled air.
Outcome
US is investing aggressively to cut diesel emissions by nearly 95 per cent with the most stringent standards ever.
Why? Some particles are more deadly and therefore, a special cause of concern. These are diesel particulates and sulphate particles that are formed by the release of sulphur dioxide when diesel is burnt. These are responsible for serious health problems including a large number of premature deaths worldwide.
Applied science affords reality, while theoretic Science affords speculation.
Which one currently guides us?
Why?
"Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things." -- P.K. today.
Still no response from Dr. Siegel about PEL's, OSHA safe limits or the Osteen decision, which are all part of the 'core issue,' which Dave K pleaded with us to get back to.
And the posters here are not just trying to win an argument, they're trying to win a WAR, which they have every right, given the evidence, to believe is one between the Forces of Good and the Forces of Evil.
Well, maybe that's a little bit over-the-top, ha-ha, but just how much over-the-top is it, really?
.
Commenting by HaloScan
