Never mind fostering children - we will be lucky if we get to keep our own!
Do you remember Dr. Siegal - about a year ago - I warned that it was going to come down to smokers defending their right to raise their own children.
Mark my words! This is not a threat of any kind mind you - but somewhere someone is going to die over this issue.
Thank god we have people like you to be so concerned about our well-being Dr. Siegal. Thank you for attempting to save me from a smoking-related death in my 60s or 70s (or 80s or 90s).
Now - who do I thank for my degraded social value? Who do I thank for the negative impact on the quality of my life?
Are you really so sure that you still know what is best for me?
Michelle
Dr. Siegal
I would like you to read the letter from a teenage girl about banning smoking in cars that appeared in the Windsor Star at this link:
http://www.canada.com/windsorsta...d8-
849b8b0f629a
I googled this girl - she is obviously one of those "cheerleader" type perfect girls that we all remember from high school. A non-voting trustee of the local school board, contributor to her student newspaper, works on anti-smoking campaigns with the local health unit.
You know the type!
She talks about how 'trapped" she feels in a car with smokers and your heart just goes out to her for the feeling.
I remember that feeling very well and can't help but feel sympathy for her....until I remember a couple of things.
She feels "trapped" in a car with smokers....with a window that she controls right beside her???????
And then I remember why I feel such sympathy for her feelings of being trapped.....at 14, I was recovering from the death of my nephew by SIDS while I was babysitting him, I was caring for a mother dying of breast cancer, trying to run a family store that was our only source of income and take care of my 2 little sisters. I quit school at 15, to help see the family through!
This girl hates her parents for being smokers and feels "trapped"...in a situation where she has obviously been offered every advantage and support by loving parents.
This girl has obviously been heavily influenced by anti-smoking campaigns and her anti-smoking "friends" - is this resentment against her parents the price smokers must pay to "protect the children?"
Is this what you intended when you set out to "help" your smoking parents?
Michelle
Correction - I am sorry i meant your "smoking patients"
Michelle
“To categorically deny foster parenthood to individuals who smoke without even considering whether they will actually expose the children to tobacco smoke or not is not only discriminatory, but it seems hateful.”
Its a natural reaction which can be directly traced to a “movement” that needs to be shut down.
Its bad enough that many kids will be denied a home; but forcing them to live under the thumb of a giant lie is a criminal act.
Age 5 today. Age 10 tomorrow? Don't even bother applying after that? (Incrementalism)
Actually, my guess is they have plenty of people available for the really young ones. They still need smokers for the older ages.
Or maybe the 5+, because they'll be in school, will be regularly questioned if foster mom or dad is smoking in their presence.
Michael Siegel, from your description, I conclude that smoking has now reached the level of being equivalted to to child molesting and rape. Only a fanatic can deny it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth...C-
mostviewedbox Perhaps adding Public Health and Tobacco Control advocates would prove most advantageous ?
Its all got a bit out of hand now, hasn't it Doctor.
I think you understand by now that your research has been hijacked.
For those of us in the firing line, heres an article I found in American Heritage.
THE FORGOTTEN PLAGUE
The most detailed account I have found of the discovery of Niacin by the heroic Dr Joseph Goldberger,a bit more dramatic than scholarly.
Oxidized nicotine is mentioned.
http://www.americanheritage.com/
...2000_8_72.shtml
However, if high dose niacin is likely to be banned under the Codex, here is the alternative he used.
http://www.overseal.com/site/brewers.htm
Let them try banning that.
Not as pleasant as smoking though, but the pharmaceuticals don't get a penny.
For the beer drinkers amongst you, just in nice time for the purge on alcohol.
13 reasons to drink beer
http://www.draymans.com/articles...es/arts/
06.html
Though MrGodshall will doubtless say that this is propaganda and junkscience from BigBeer.
OT: Shia LaBeouf, the star of the Transformers and upcoming Indiana Jones movies, pleads not quilty to unlawful smoking. The comments by the readers are quite interesting:
http://ww.tmz.com/2008/03/19/shi...dge-smoke-this/
Boy one would think there are better things to spend law inforcement dollar on then someone smoking a cigarette on a sidewalk outside of a store.
OT: Bartender's charges go up in smoke:
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/
03...G3IPNK3.033.php
"Bureau County State's Attorney Pat Herrmann said after Karla Carrington's brief court hearing that once he reviewed the Smoke-Free Illinois Act, which banned indoor smoking in public places beginning this year, he found no authority to file a formal charge.
"Upon reading the statute, it appears the statute does not put any onus on the bar employee or bar owner to prohibit smoking," Herrmann said. "(The act) does prohibit the bar employee or bar owner from smoking.""
Pretty humorous read.
Michelle wrote: Mark my words! This is not a threat of any kind mind you - but somewhere someone is going to die over this issue.
From letters to the editor and editorial comments lately, I have a terrible feeling that it will come sooner than later.
http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publis...ctive&
s=letters
smoking - It is a proven fact that to expose anyone to second hand smoke, including children, places them "in substantial threat of severe harm." Second hand smoke should never be classified as "only a minor risk."
http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/inde...m?
group_id=1209
Smoking in the home: social and legal implications. In fact, given present knowledge of the harmful effects of ETS, particularly for children, and given the statutory obligation in both federal and provincial legislation to make custody and access decisions based upon the “best interests of the child,” courts are virtually compelled to factor smoking behaviour into decisions. - Garfield Mahood
http://www.sk.lung.ca/
content.cf...realword=xtra47
"Second-hand smoke is damaging to a child's health and is tantamount to child abuse. - The Lung Association of Saskatchewan
http://www.monchoix.ca/en/
news_r...rtotheHome.aspx
Reason Magazine - January 7, 2008 - A man's home may be his castle, but that doesn't mean he is free to abuse his children inside it by unnecessarily subjecting them to a substance which is known to cause cancer, and which kills thousands of children every year. - John Banzhaf
Dr Siegel, we need your voice out there in the Main Stream Media to fight this spiral. This propaganda is more damaging than any SHS research.
I think it is a shame that these babies are going to be denied loving parents who wants nothing more than to give a child love and security. I know several people who have been or are foster parents. A cousin of my husband's comes to mind at the moment. She took in a new born baby who was born with alcohol fetal syndrome. Little Jacob had several medical problems along with some facial distortions and has a slight mental retardation. It was not known from birth what all of his needs would be as he aged, but at one time, it was feared that he would never beable to hear or talk. Our cousin couldn't see that. All she could see was this beautiful little boy who she knew would be a handful later in life if not given the proper care and love from the beginning. She even went to classes and learned how to sign so that she would beable to communicate with this child. The child progressed quite nicely, he talks, hears, has had several surgeries to correct some of his medical problems and from what I understand is now a little hell raiser. Our cousin was paid $50 a week plus given food stamps for formula and diapers for the baby.
The natural mother of little Jacob was not only an alcoholic, but she was high on meth the day he was born. Naturally, the baby was removed from her right away and she eventually was given a jail sentence of 2 years, but only served 1 year, as she was considered a "model prisoner". Jacob was removed from the foster home and given back to his mother. This was so heartbreaking to our cousin who loved this child unconditonally. The State of New York also insisted that she return any unused food stamps and diapers and was given only hours to have them delivered back to Social Services. Three months later, Mom was caught with drugs again, returned to jail and Jacob went back to live with our cousin. A year later, he was given back to his mother and I understand that he is now in another foster home as our cousin can no longer live or give this child a yo yo life.
Our cousin smokes cigarettes, but is a loving parent who doesn't drink or do drugs and attends church every week. You know where and what the mother is. If push came to shove, who would you want raising your child?
Diane,
The answer is obvious. We say your cousin is the better parent.
TC and their stooges however, feel the drug addicted, neglectful natural mother of this child is.
And they sit there all smug claiming it's "for the children".
Yeah, and I'm the Virgin Mary.
What further proof does anyone need that Dr. Siegel precious "movement" has nothing to do with tobacco or public health?
Dr Siegel, i think it's time for you to finally realize that the tobacco control movement in its whole has turned into something that is going to cause far more harm than any good to a civil society.
Something that has no reason to exist anymore (supposing it ever had any).
Gilster - Dr Siegel, we need your voice out there in the Main Stream Media to fight this spiral. This propaganda is more damaging than any SHS research.
Admirable sentiment Gilster, but flawed reasoning, you know that the benefits of smoker persecution outweigh the costs.
We have been assured of that by a respected Tobacco Control Industry advocate and they never lie.
Of course, if the cost / benefit analysis was carried out by those actually paying the costs and not those receiving the Big Pharma and /or MSA benefits we may see a slightly different conclusion.
It seems to me that those who declare it's "a price worth paying" are those that pay nothing and have their snouts firmly in the benefit trough.
GreatScot
More stupidity
Dublin prohibits smoking in care facilities
"The city has been interested in passing such an ordinance because studies show that particulates from cigarette smoke lodge in a home's floors, furniture and walls, potentially causing harm"
http://www.insidebayarea.com/tri...news/
ci_8636331
The excuses for a bit of righteous persecution are getting sillier by the day.
So let me get this perfectly clear.
This measure is hypocritical and points to a horrible bias against smokers because:
1. It bans smokers from fostering kids.
2. But it does not ban any other person for any other reason, even people who would, demonstrably, be worse parents.
Is that the rationale?
OK. Then, to not be hypocritical, and to not be evidence of a terible bias against smokers, any proposed regulation would have to ban any and all factors demonstrably worse than smoking.
And that is the only way to avoid being considered a hypocrite and an anti smoker.
Well, there you go, Walt H. Isn't this the very thing you accused Cowbell of doing a few posts down? Isn't the doctor wrongly accusing these folks simply because they refuse to "take up the gauntlet" of consistency that he has thrown down?
So, back to factors 1 and 2. To what extent does the doctor apply them to his own positions regarding SHS in the workplace?
Not to throw any gauntlets or anything,
"With this kind of hateful policy toward smokers, is it any surprise that a large proportion of smokers are becoming increasingly resistant to the idea of quitting?"
But wait. I thought the doctor said his position had only to do with workplace safety. Now he is saying that he is concerend that some policies might lead actual smokers to keep smoking? Why would he care? He takes others to task for setting that as a goal. For instance, he cringes when people at the Cleveland Clinic say their hiring policies will encourage people to quit. He says it's none of their damn business what people do at home.
Well then why does he worry himself with what this policy does to smoking rates?
From the comments section of the article Dr. Siegel refers to today: " I have been a foster carer for sheffield social services for the past 14 yrs. This rule is not new, it was in place when i first became a carer all those years ago.I was told then, because i smoke i couldn't foster children under 5. Which suited me as i wanted to foster over 8's."
http://www.thestar.co.uk/
headlin...nned.3890060.jp
So this isn't news. What is it?
E=MC^2
Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
"DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper"
http://www.erowid.org/plants/
can...culture11.shtml
"Of all things, it is tobacco plants – which generally have a reputation as being dangerous to health – from which large quantities of proteins can be produced quickly, easy, safely and cheaply"
http://www.research.bayer.com/
ed...aceuticals.aspx
Mike wrote:
"Importantly, most smokers who want to adopt or foster children agree not to smoke around their children."
Perhaps Mike could provide some evidence substantiating this claim.
Also, would Mike support a foster care agency policy that required foster parents to sign an agreement (with the agency) to provide smokefree enclosed environments for their foster children?
It is unfortunate, but telling, that in this most recent hate mongering diatribe promoting a right-to-smoke, Mike expresses zero concern for the health of the children whose foster parents harm them with tobacco smoke pollution daily.
Rose: "Its all got a bit out of hand now, hasn't it Doctor?"
Don't worry about it, Rose. It's all just collateral damage.
.
Your right about one thing Doctor Siegel. Even if I were so inclined to quit smoking, which I most certainly am not, I wouldn't stop now out of pure spite for those that believe they could live my life better than I can. (yourself included)
At this point, all I can really do is pity the simple minded fools that have been sucked into the vaccum of your mindless cult and prepare to resist the Gestapo when they eventually come knocking on my door.
The first step in the cure Doc is admitting you have a problem, ...you should consider it.
And once again, for the record, ...we told you so.
Bill Godshall - "whose foster parents harm them with tobacco smoke pollution daily."
Perhaps Bill could provide some evidence substantiating this claim.
A theoretical minuscule increase in relative risk does not equate to harm.
I sometimes wonder what he was taught while completing his degree in public health. Perhaps his indoctrination into the Tobacco Control / Anti-Smoker Industry is to blame. Either way he sounds like a broken record, stuck in a groove of hate and desperation.
GreatScot
the health of the children whose foster parents harm them with tobacco smoke
You of course have the irrefutable proof to back this up, right, Bill?
My son survived two smoking parents just fine, with NO ill effects, thankUverymuch.
I survived growing up in the 50's and 60's, exposed 24/7/365 to SHS with NO ill effects.
Now, about that irrefutable proof you have?
An interesting report from the recent EU meeting on smoking.
http://www.thefreesociety.org/Is...open-
government
It's worth reading.
GreatScot
GreatScot,
Thanks for that link. Very interesting read and no big surprises either.
Makes you wonder exactly what they are keeping from the public, doesn't it?
It would appear that "they" have raised the bar on smoking in cars today. btw it is not refererd to as ETS anymore but TSP.(Tobacco Smoke Pollution)
although I haven't found it in print, my local radio station quotes Mr. Fong as saying even with all windows down and driving on a highway the level of toxicity will still be hazardous.
http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca...o.ca/
index.html
"Smoking even a single cigarette in a car generates extremely high average levels of tobacco smoke pollution and exceeded the levels of a smoky pub," says Taryn Sendzik, a UW graduate student who conducted the study with UW psychology professor Geoffrey Fong, and with Mark Travers and Andrew Hyland, two researchers from Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y.
The findings of the study, entitled An Experimental Investigation of Tobacco Smoke Pollution in Cars, are presented in a special report of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, which provided partial funding for the research.
http://www.otru.org/pdf/special/
...al_mar_2008.pdf
It should be noted that using the EPA ratings and those of other agencies as a guide in evaluating TSP may underestimate the actual
hazard, given that TSP, which is known to contain many carcinogens, is likely more hazardous per
unit weight than outdoor air pollution, for which these ratings have been created.(20)
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that TSP in cars can reach unhealthy levels under the most realistic
ventilation conditions. Smoking just one cigarette in a car can lead to levels of tobacco smoke
pollution that match and exceed by several times the levels found in the smokiest bars and
restaurants. Efforts to reduce TSP in cars should be aimed at informing the public about the
potentially high levels and risks of exposure, even under optimal ventilation conditions. These
findings offer additional evidence to support the recent interest among policymakers to adopt
smoke-free car policies, including the announcement by Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty that the
Government will introduce legislation to ban smoking in cars with children in the new session of the
Legislative Assembly.
The findings of this study, when combined with current biological and epidemiological evidence on
the effects of tobacco smoke exposure, contribute to the evidence base justifying the implementation
of personal and public policies to eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke in cars in the presence of
children.
In moderate ventilation conditions (air conditioning or having the smoking driver hold the cigarette
next to a half-open window), the average levels of PM2.5 were reduced, but still at significantly high
levels (air conditioning = 844 μg/m3; holding cigarette next to a half-open window = 223 μg/m3).
Why don't we just make it a point of telling every kid we see how wonderful smoking is and that, just like sex, their parents tell them not to do it because it's so much fun! If they want to take it to the children, I suppose we could too.
Personally, I hear there's still some smoking space in the Amazon..wonder if I can get a T1 line there....
moking just one cigarette in a car can lead to levels of tobacco smoke
pollution that match and exceed by several times the levels found in the smokiest bars and
restaurants.
So, smoking ONE cigarette, in a car with the window down, is worse than being in a room with 30 people smoking cigarettes where supposedly the smoke is so heavy that anti's can't even breathe? *mourns the death of science*
Ann W
But not I'll bet when the car is moving.
Even with the windows down if the car is in still air, say in a garage with the door shut, the smoke will stay in the car.
Like I said, I've done the tests .
Bill,
I keep telling myself that if I ignore you, you will go away, but there are times I just need you to stay, I guess. So,here goes. I need to echo Lynda and everyone else and ask you to please post your so called proof that smokers are harming children's health. Lynda claims 3 generations to prove you wrong. I can give you 4 generations. Then we can tour some nursing homes where some of these residents smoked and did so in front of their children. Let's bring in the tv reporters to interview the children of these residents and see how their health really is. From there, we can tour a couple of VA hospitals and see just what the conditions are that put these Vet's in a hospital and from there we can go on to Pittsburg's Children's Hospital and interview the parents of these sick children and see just exactly how much smoke they have sucked up. Living proof trumps hypoethical numbers everytime.
Diane, they would NEVER go around asking those questions..they know the answers would vastly support us.
Ann W
I suppose its time to produce the Einstein theory that Kevin asked me to find.
From Supernova to Smoke Ring: Recent Experiments
Underscore Weirdness of the Bose-Einstein Condensate
http://www.nist.gov/public_affai...ases/
tn6240.htm
Wether in a cigar bar, a car or a cardboard box, if there is a ceiling and the air is still it will have the same effect.
Rose,
I have done the studies too and I know that what Ann posted is nothing more than crap. A study that I haven't done, but plan to some day is test the air in my house after my husband backs the car out of the attached garage. Seems to me that even with the garage door open, there has to be lingering car exhaust in the air, seeping into your home. Wonder if this could be the reason for the high rate of asthma. Back in the 50's and 60's when no one had a respirator or inhaler, garages were normally for 1 car and was detached from the house. Could our convienence be to blame and not the cigarette?
On another note. I find it amusing everytime there is a news show on and they talk about the economy, how bad it is, the word recession leaks in, people can't afford their homes, food cost and fuel has sky rocketed, yet there seems to be money to pay for these so called "studies". Wouldn't that money be better spent somewhere where it really mattered? What ever happened to "a chicken in every pot"? Seems as only the elite tobacco control is eating chicken nowadays!
I'm curious at what age ETS becomes a "deadly toxin."
Dr. Siegel is outraged that some communities are preventing the exposure of small children, but demands the "protection" of adult bartenders at any cost?
In what universe does this make sense?
Perhaps it is due to the fact that epidemiological evidence on SHS, however illogical this may sound, purportedly demonstrates an increased risk of cancer from SHS exposure in adults, but, quite inexplicably, not in the case of children.
Diane, don't you find it kind of interesting on the credentials of the people that did the study. Let's see,
psychology and epidemiology doing air quality testing. That's as bad as an Epidemiologist doing ecomonic studies.
Project Team:
Taryn Sendzik, BA1 (Student Investigator)
Geoffrey T. Fong, PhD Faculty Investigator)University of Waterloo Professor and Director, Health Psychology Lab
He received his BA in psychology from Stanford University and his PhD in social psychology from the University of Michigan.
In addition to my research interests in social psychology and public health, I have expertise in conducting research studies relevant to trademark law in the United States. I have served as an expert witness in Federal trademark cases in which I have conducted trademark surveys to address questions of likelihood of confusion, secondary meaning, and genericness. I have represented a broad range of companies, including Volkswagen of America, Genessee Brewing Company, and Schick.
Andrew Hyland, PhD is an Associate Member in the Department of Health Behavior at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Dr. Hyland holds a PhD in Epidemiology and a MA in Statistics from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Dr. Hyland directs the Survey Research and data Acquisition Resource at Roswell Park. He has over 120 peer reviewed publications, is the PI on numerous grants and contracts, is a Senior Editor for the journal Tobacco Control, and leads the Roswell Park secondhand smoke research program, which was awarded the 2007 Global Smokefree Partnership Award for research excellence.
Mark Travers is currently a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University at Buffalo. Mark graduated from Johns Hopkins University with a BS in Biomedical Engineering and from the University at Buffalo with an MS in epidemiology. He is currently a research affiliate at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York in the Department of Health Behavior.
The Waterloo Study
University of Waterloo Media Relations
http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca...o.ca/
index.html
The Report itself
http://www.otru.org/pdf/special/
...al_mar_2008.pdf
The Equipment Used to Measure Smoke
http://www.bis.fm/products/
TSI_8...520_Dustrak.asp
Technical Specs for the equipment used
http://www.bis.fm/assets/documen...ata%
20Sheet.pdf
Using their own data it is safe to conclude that opening car windows significantly reduces exposure to smoke and other smells.
Opening all of the windows reduced exposure by 98.5%. Just opening the smokers driverside window about 7 inches, alone, reduced exposure by 95.3%
Taken at face value, this study proves that ventilation works that we should continue to install windows that can be opened and closed in all new vehicles.
Even an anti who has ever had a passenger share a "personal breeze" in their car can agree with this.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
"Perhaps it is due to the fact that epidemiological evidence on SHS, however illogical this may sound, purportedly demonstrates an increased risk of cancer from SHS exposure in adults, but, quite inexplicably, not in the case of children."
Perhaps, but it depends on which group is ranting. The general consensus of Dr. Siegel's collegues is that ETS exposure is "worse for children."
He himself views a "slight elevated risk" as insufficient to ban smoking around children.
However, when it comes to adults an RR of 1.19 is also a "slight elevated risk," but the doc pronounces it "severe health hazard."
It's a puzzlement.
My local news station just ran the report and the reporter and the anchors made personal comments afterwards.
The report stated that even the researchers are shocked at how toxic the levels were in the cars. They were not expecting it to be this bad.
The anchors shock their heads and said that maybe this will finally be a wake up call for parents.
SOLD!!! lock, stock and barrel.
Diane
If I were to go off into a world of fantasy I'd say that this is some kind of distraction.
Then again if I look at history the last time it happened they already knew about nicotinic acid because they had already made a synthetic used in at least one medicine called Prostrophanta, apparently an injected pick-me-up.
Now if you had gone to all that trouble, why would you want everyone using an alternative?
So Nicotilon and Analeptol cessation products were made and sold just like now.Same theories, same warnings same propaganda.
Political help
"The mayor releases the ghostbusters from their control not because it was wrong to arrest them or because it’s the right thing to do but because Bill Murray reminded him he’d be saving the lives of millions of registered voters. In other words, the mayor doesn’t care about saving people, he cares about being re-elected. After realizing his job’s at stake, he’s willing to hand the ghostbusters unlimited state resources"
http://www.rcpe.ac.uk/
publicatio...edical_care.pdf
http://www.environmentaloncology...7%
20proctor.pdf
Pure fantasy of course.
On the subject of chickens, at the time of this article, you were probably short on them as you'd kindly sent your eggs to us.page2
See what they say about vitamin B
Time 1941
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,795342,00.html
OT: Dr. Siegel's playbook at work:
"Out-of-marriage births, father absence, and divorce are personal choices and legal, but detrimental to a child’s well-being and the nation’s general welfare. How do we reverse the trend? One way is through a campaign to shift societal norms, an effort with which the nation has had recent success.
In 1964, 50 percent of American men and 35 percent of American women smoked. That same year, the Surgeon General reported on smoking’s harmful effects. Slowly, smoking became more widely acknowledged as a health hazard, first to smokers themselves, then to others. By 1985, former Health, Education, and Welfare secretary Joseph Califano called it not just “slow motion suicide,” but “slow motion murder.” California’s Department of Health Services sought to “denormalize” smoking such that it became “an abnormal practice.” By 2003, smoking was “considered a deviant behavior.”14
It may be neither desirable nor necessary to conduct a campaign stigmatizing single mothers and absent fathers as deviants. It may be more effective, rather, to promote marriage and the idea that submission of the self to the responsibilities of raising one’s children into a better life is among the highest and most noble of callings. This will take work, but it is no more impossible than the societal mobilization that has so reduced smoking and its deadly consequences. Moreover, a failure to even attempt to address family structure as it pertains to child well-being calls into question the values of a society that so often claims to place before virtually all else the interests of children. Demanding ever more money for schools and universal preschool may make some feel good, but it is misplaced, because while another generation is being born into fractured or never-were families, and another generation of kids will be left to cope with a social disease we are unwilling to cure."
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/
ope...d4345_print.asp
You gotta love California.
I don't see the problem -- so smokers can't be foster caregivers of kids less than 5. So what?
The Fostering network site was promoting this bullshit back in June 2007
http://www.fostering.net/
resourc...licy_june07.pdf
Quote:
"2.5
While all children have the right to be placed in a smoke-free environment, there
are particular health risks for children under five that need to be taken into
consideration when being placed. No children under five years old should be
placed with non-related foster carers who smoke – this is because of the
particularly high health risks for very young children and toddlers who spend most of their day physically close to their carers. Evidence confirms that it is not
practical or safe for foster carers to create a smoke-free environment for very
young children by (for example) smoking outside"
What a sick joke.
You make a really strong point their Cowbell. Perhaps I've been wrong and we should start taking away kids from parents who won't quit smoking. Why start with smoking in cars when we can just make them quit or lose their kids. Never mind the fact that occupational health and safety laws have always been more restrictive then those dealing with child raising.
And Anonymous could be correct pointing out that employers should be able to control their employees behavior if it's for their own good, less one be a hypocrite.
And never mind the fact that Siegel has repeatedly justified his opinion that while he feels parents shouldn't smoke around children, he believes parental autonomy is more important. Let's just call him a hypocrite to keep him from criticizing others in tobacco control. Right Cathy Bell, err Cowbell.
Bars owners have a right to allow the use of a legal product on their property if they can thru ventilation and air filtration sufficiently clear the smoke. Owners of enclosed indoor parking garages and welding shops are allowed to address their smoke issues with such technology. Why is tobacco smoke being singled out as a special hazard that cannot be addressed sufficiently with this technology?
http://www.garasjeventilasjon.no...g%
20garages.pdf
I am working on a new letter to lawmakers in Pennsylvania. I would appreciate any posts that explain the contradiction put forth in my previous post.
Bill Hannegan, I have looked into this before and in a nutshell, no one in authority is interested or willing to set a standard,
thus there will never be a "safe" level.
http://xp20.ashrae.org/STANDARDS...S/62-
2001_o.pdf
FOREWORD
Addendum 62o removes reference to smoking spaces from Table 2 of outdoor air requirements, making it clear that the
requirements in the table apply to only no-smoking spaces. It also adds a requirement for additional ventilation and/or air cleaning
in spaces where smoking is permitted and prohibits recirculation or transfer of air from smoking to no-smoking areas. In
adding the requirement for additional ventilation and/or air cleaning, it is noted that the specific amount of additional ventilation
cannot be determined until cognizant health authorities have determined an acceptable level of environmental tobacco smoke
(ETS). In addition, this addendum adds an informative appendix (not required for compliance with the standard) that contains
a method for determining ventilation rates in smoking spaces that address only comfort (odor control).
Smoking just a single cigarette in a car generated extremely high average levels of PM2.5: >3,800 μg/m3 in the condition with the least airflow (motionless car, windows closed). This is equivalent to over 100 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour standard for fine particle exposure of 35 μg/m3, and 15 times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 24-hour “hazardous” rating of 250 μg/m3 for fine particle exposure.
Considering this "hazardous rating" is a 24 hour time weighted average, these researchers comparing an very short duration transient readings, and fallaciously comparing it against this 24 hour average value. This is outright fraud. They further make comparisons with observed short durations against annual averages. Clearly they are trying to mislead the untrained public and create public hysteria to promote their agenda. Fear mongering, blatant and in black and white.
One should also take note of the graphs, how quickly the level returns to background levels.
http://www.otru.org/pdf/special/
...al_mar_2008.pdf
Ann W., does their argument run like this?:
No, there is no safe level of worker exposure to car exhaust, welding smoke or ETS. Government authorities tolerate the risks of car exhaust and welding smoke in the workplace, reduced as much as possible by air filtration and ventilation, because they are necessary risks to the functioning of society. But smoking in a bar has only negative value. The remedy to ETS in public places (smokers stepping outside) does not hurt the businesses involved and only has positive effects on society.
Bill,
Pretty much on target. Except, I think that a negative impact on bars may be a desirable consequence for some. Let's just call it a "head start" in the stride to healthism.
"And never mind the fact that Siegel has repeatedly justified his opinion that while he feels parents shouldn't smoke around children, he believes parental autonomy is more important. Let's just call him a hypocrite to keep him from criticizing others in tobacco control. Right Cathy Bell, err Cowbell."
Hello again, Walt H.,
I am simply curious about the science behind it. It seems inconsistent.
Using your logic, since Dr. Siegel speaks against one injustice, his own injustices are okay?
Walt H. the hysteria is growing:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/s...eandHealth/
home
The principal researchers, Taryn Sendzik and Geoffrey Fong, were astounded by their own findings, contained in a report by the provincial Ministry of Health's Ontario Tobacco Research Unit.
"We had to make sure the machines weren't broken," said Dr. Fong, a University of Waterloo psychology professor and principal investigator for the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. "We eventually had to switch machines because the ones we use to monitor smoky bars couldn't actually record levels this high."
A car with its windows rolled up registered 11 times the particulate of the average smoky bar.
"That's particularly relevant to us and our cold winters when rolling down the windows isn't an option," Mr. Cunningham said.
Mr Bill--
Since you so thoroughly agree that smokers should be barred from fostering children under 5 years old on account of the terrible "dangers" to the kids, don't you also agree that smokers should be barred from caring for their own natural children? At the very least, for the first 5 years?
Why should natural offspring not have the same protection as abandonned children? Or bartenders?
Surely, you'd have to agree with this proposition. If you don't, I'd be eager to hear why not.
As for your comment: in this most recent hate mongering diatribe promoting a right-to-smoke, Mike...
Day by day, hour by hour, you display an almost frightening case of mental imbalance. That you find "hate mongering" in Siegel's article is beyond the bounds of reason. Who, please tell, is he fingering for "hate"? Would you please quote a passage you believe incites it?
On "promoting the right to smoke," it's already been established that, in your mind, anything that doesn't punish, fine, or ostracize smokers, prevent them from earning a living or having a place to live is the Godshall definition of "promoting the right to smoke." So we need no further clarification on that point.
:
an almost frightening case of mental imbalance.
Thats what tipped me off to look for a deficiency disease that started when people gave up smoking.
Many ex smokers are perfectly rational and clearly weren't supplementing a deficiency, but you get a few that seem to be on the verge of madness.
See Pellagra
Perhaps I should add that the antismoking version of my theory is that "underlying mental conditions" are revealed when people give up smoking.Obviously insinuating that only people mad enough to ignore their persistant lecturing, would take up smoking.
The difficulty with that is that clearly their "mental condition" had been so improved by their smoking that no one had previously noticed.
Cowbell says, "I am simply curious about the science behind it. It seems inconsistent."
It's real easy to find inconsistencies when one refuses to acknowledge other factors were considered. Especially considering that this has been repeatedly asked and answered.
Obviously you feel parents have little or no autonomy when exposing a child to risk. As this is Siegel's stated position which you repeatedly fail to consider and ignore. Just as the other Bell failed to consider as she portrayed Siegel as a hypocrite by only considering "the science" on this very issue. This is also exactly what anti-smokers want to discount as they attempt to promote smoking bans in cars and homes, citing the very argument you make that since bar workers are protected in many states, why aren't our kids.
Walt H,
Anyone who believes that pointing out the logical fallacy about adult bartenders being protected while children are not, will result in anything other than an escalation to a home ban (ultimately) has not grasped the tactical strategy of TC. There will be no backtracking until there are dire professional and personal consequences for those pushing the agenda.
Pre ban our UK government went to great pains to emphasise that 95% of ETS exposure did not happen in bars and restaurants. I physically cringed when many pro-choice advocates claimed this as a reason to not implement the ban when in fact it was the reason in waiting to extend the ban.
Similarly arguing over bar closures is futile, in Scotland, the then Health Minister, Andy (AKA Juan) Kerr went as far as to state on national TV that bar closures were not a bad thing in the fight against Scotland's drinking culture. (He may have had his knuckles rapped for premature ejaculation as he never repeated it)
In the UK there is a concerted healthist effort to demonise alcohol and many crackpot ideas are being floated,(no drinking while standing up / no alcohol unless with food / 2 drink limit with food / 2 or 4 drink limit per person per night / separate check outs for alcohol in supermarkets forcing shoppers to queue twice to name a few) possibly these are designed so that when the first actual restrictions are implemented they will seem reasonable.
The closure of working men's pubs and clubs is privately welcomed by the lobbyists, healthists and politicians.
Of Course the impact of the smoking ban on the hospitality industry is being downplayed, with recession (smokescreen) and cheap supermarket alcohol (future target) being blamed.
The hospitality industry by buying into this scam, like they did with the no smoking level playing field, are in fact joint architects of their own demise.
GreatScot
What if we find due to the boyancy of tobacco smoke and the sticky nature of the tar actually works to inhibit the spread of airborne toxins and by creating smoke free environments we increasde the health risk of every person in such an environment?
Will we have pro smoking promotion introduced by health care advocates berating anyone who fails to protect the children?
It just gets more dysfunctional by the moment. "Stakeholders" [Following the money] is the key word in all of this. No average person has an ability to wage a media campaign to adjust the publics thinking.
If it is a process of stakeholder investment it has a goal attached to financial returns, which are deliberately immunized from acknowledgments of any social consequences.
Simply to maximize the potential returns on stakeholder investments.
A process this large has to be quite profitable, otherwise we would never be seeing so much focussed attention by the big money players.
GreatScot, the same is happening in Canada. In my province Ontario there is a group called: Provincial Cancer Prevention and Screening Council (PCPSC). They hold their meetings at the Canadian Cancer Society and cover it all: tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity, sun exposure....
I have been following them for a couple of years.
http://www.cancercare.on.ca/
docu...05_Approved.pdf
Approved Minutes of May 27, 2005
"Once a firm outline of Bill 164 is confirmed, remaining tasks will be identified and Michael Perley will notify Council how it can be of assistance.
"A clear message on the link between alcohol use and cancer is required. Public awareness about alcohol and cancer needs to be raised. Available information should be written in an op ed piece and shared with Globe and Mail writer Andre Picard."
"The food industry needs to be denormalized.
• The denormalization of the food industry is much more difficult than denormalizing the tobacco industry. Currently, the food industry is promoting physical activity and encouraging consumers to eat what ever they want. This pits one risk factor against the next. The OCGHE is promoting the need for a comprehensive strategy with an emphasis on sustainable change. We do not want the government to only respond with a media campaign. Lessons have been taken from tobacco. We are starting to see important community and citizen engagement such as the high school student who was awarded for encouraging contract transparency between school boards and food/drink companies.
Ann W,
they will overstep the mark, their arrogance and contempt for Joe/Jane Public will be their undoing.
OT. It is interesting to see TC's re-badging of tobacco smoke from SHS (not frightening enough) to ETS (implying no escape) to TSP (tobacco smoke pollution) thus assocciating a few wisps of harmless tobacco smoke with the emotive word "pollution".
Just like years ago when the sweet aroma of tobacco smoke metamorphosised into first a smell and then a "stink".
Their mind games are so transparent, hopefully their arrogance will bite them in the arse.
GreatScot
This is highly insightful, considering the real effect;
"The closure of working men's pubs and clubs is privately welcomed by the lobbyists, healthists and politicians.
Of Course the impact of the smoking ban on the hospitality industry is being downplayed, with recession (smokescreen) and cheap supermarket alcohol (future target) being blamed.
The hospitality industry by buying into this scam, like they did with the no smoking level playing field, are in fact joint architects of their own demise."
Few realize the escalation factor when we close the venues where people talk and reason out their feelings, we compress he ability and power of the media to direct your reasoning.
dumbing down communities is key to acceptance of otherwise entirely unpopular activities.
They started out attacking the churches now they are targeting the second most important venues where word of mouth is formed and initiated.
Well Anonymous in Ontario the The hospitality industry didn't buy into this scam, they were paid off.
http://www.orhma.com/gr/bill164_05.pdf
Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association presentation RE: the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.
"However, we must remember that this Bill affects more than just those 700 operators. 17,000 operators licensed to sell liquor will be affected by this Bill in one way or another, specifically in reduced sales revenues. In order to assist licensees the ORHMA recommends that the government eliminate the gallonage fee. The gallonage fee is a tax on alcohol, paid only by Ontario liquor licensees. It is charged, on top of all other provincial and federal taxes and levies, at a rate of 12% for the purchase of wine and spirits and $2.64 per hectoliter on the purchase of beer. This is an unlegislated and unjust tax, and its elimination will save licensees approximately $48 million annually. The elimination of the gallonage fee is the hospitality industry’s equivalent to the farmers’ transition fund. In fact, in its 2005 provincial budget the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced the elimination of its equivalent fee for licensees to support the industry as it too faces a province-wide smoking ban."
And effective Jan. 16, 2006 the province removed the gallonage fee.
Diane wrote:
"I need to echo Lynda and everyone else and ask you to please post your so called proof that smokers are harming children's health. Lynda claims 3 generations to prove you wrong. I can give you 4 generations."
The scientific evidence is at:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet2.html
And for more details, see: to http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/li...econdhandsmoke/
Interestingly, at last week's hearing before the PA legislature on the Smoke Free PA Act, Amy Christie of the PA Tavern Association
(in advocating a cigarette industry protection law that exempts bars, clubs and slot casinos, and that preempts more protective local ordinances), testified that the 2006 Surgeon General's Report shouldn't be relied upon because Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University claimed that the report was scientifically wrong.
Although Mike has limited his criticism of that report to several statements about cardiovascular risks of short term exposure to smoke, Ms. Christie publicly misrepresented Mike's criticism of the report by implying that Mike doesn't think tobacco smoke pollution is a workplace health hazard.
Further details on the reception at the EU meeting
http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/
Bill,
I followed your links. I found sound bites but no evidence. Did you post the wrong links? or is there no evidence?
Godshall, - "Ms. Christie publicly misrepresented Mike's criticism of the report by implying that Mike doesn't think tobacco smoke pollution is a workplace health hazard."
And?.....
Thankyou Bill. I have to add that maybe Ms Christie is only half wrong. Dr. Siegel may not have said all that, but she is right when it comes to the dangers of secondhand smoke. There are none. Good Lord man, if there was, you wouldn't be here having this conversation with me! How is that for proof that you make things up as you go along? Any plans on meeting me at a few nursing homes, Vet's hospitals and children's hospitals? I need to make my travel arraignments so keep me posted on your schedule.
Oh yeah Bill, we all know that the Surgeon General did not do that report, never did a study either, but was paid dearly for it. Instead, he relied on cherry picked studies that you, the good Doctor and the rest in tobacco control put together for him. I can still see him at his press conference and he admitted that right up front. That tells it all as to how accurate that report was, so in my opinion, smoke and secondhand smoke is not dangerous to anyone, except the people who wants to see it banned completely. There, the debate is finally over.
Surgeon General Carmona excluded the Enstrom/Kabat study but included Asian studies with results twice as strong as American and European studies. That helped!
"Especially considering that this has been repeatedly asked and answered."
Actually, quite the opposite. This is one of the questions that Dr. Siegel steadfastly refuses to answer.
"This is also exactly what anti-smokers want to discount as they attempt to promote smoking bans in cars and homes, citing the very argument you make that since bar workers are protected in many states, why aren't our kids."
Again, the point I have made is the exact opposite of what you take it to be.
If our kids don't need protecting, why do the bartenders?
If demostrating Dr. Siegel's hypocrisy and inconsistencies makes me an anti-tobacco lunatic along the lines of Cathy Bell, then you must be a prohibitionist in full support of workplace smoking bans.
Right, Walt? Do you need a Kleenex to wipe your tears over the 220 imaginary bartenders? Of course you do, because you're Dr. Siegel's champion. If he's not a hypocrite, then his unpulished 220 study must be the gospel truth.
Every word Dr. Siegel utters, even if it appears to preserve the rights of smokers, is an anti-tobacco message.
The foster policy is stupid and wrong. Dr. Siegel paid some lip service to it in a blog. When it comes to furthering his own agenda, he takes action. He offers testimony. On some thing like this, he blogs.
The only reason he says such things is to preserve the power of his movement.
Personally, I think the anti-smokers should be allowed to go crazy. Let them spew all the garbage they want, because the backlash will come that much sooner. They will destroy themselves, just like the alcohol prohibitionists. It's already started.
All Dr. Siegel is doing is try slow down their ineveitable collapse. That he has convinced you otherwise is a testament to his propaganda.
I'm against the anti-tobacco movement, as long as they try and legislate my morality. Dr. Siegel, in his own words, is as anti-tobacco as can be.
A typical Cathy Bell argument.
He's on record as saying he supports indoor smoking bans based on the effects of daily exposure to secondhand smoke. Simultaneously he administers a Web site on which he (seemingly) criticizes every effort towards smoke-free air laws at every opportunity. So go figure.
All I can say is, these posts by people saying they don't believe the health hazards of second-hand smoke seem pretty ironic given the stated position of this site's host.
Cathy Bell | 01.31.07 - 2:59 pm | http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4298487/
#105344
A typical Siegel Reply
Cathy suggests that I'm diverting attention from the real issue - but in fact, I think the REAL issue with regard to car smoking bans is whether or not it is appropriate for the government to intrude into the private car and home and interfere with parental autonomy merely in order to address a health risk. That's not a diversion - it's actually the critical question that anti-smoking groups must answer convincingly. So far, I've not only failed to hear a convincing or compelling answer, I've failed to hear it addressed at all. In fact, the only response I've heard is similar to Cathy's - this is just a diversion. http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4298487/
#105262
Another typical Siegel Reply
If you read my commentaries, you'll see that I repeatedly remind my readers that I have been, and remain, a strong proponent of indoor smoking bans. In fact, while virtually the rest of the movement was caving in to the political pressure of the casino industry, I was one of the few (if not only) tobacco control advocate speaking out publicly against the exclusion for casino workers in New Jersey. One of the most wierd experiences I had was speaking at a conference in which I made Stan Glantz look like a moderate - he had no problem with the casino exemption; I argued that it violated basic public health principles. Perhaps the only time I've been more "radical" than Stan.
There's no question where I stand on various types of smoking bans. The question, instead, is what tactics are acceptable to promote smoking bans. Is deceiving the public about the true health effects of secondhand smoke acceptable to justify the ends of workplace smoking bans (which I support)?
I would argue NO - it is unethical to deceive the public about the health effects, no matter what our ultimate purpose. In my view, a noble purpose does not justify unethical techniques of deception.
Most of the tobacco control movement seems to disagree with me and to feel that this behavior is acceptable because the ultimate end is a good one, but that's a difference that I'll have to live with because I won't compromise ethical principles that I think we should have as public health practitioners.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 02.11.07 - 2:10 pm | #
Yawn, do you have any more dead horses which need flogging? Cathy "Cow" Bell
Godshall, - "Surgeon General Carmona excluded the Enstrom/Kabat study but included Asian studies with results twice as strong as American and European studies."
You continue to miss the point, as usual. Mixing what passes for science today with the barage of neverending lies simply confuses the public, ..but that IS the goal isn't it?
How 'bout some "science" from sources that aren't funded by either Tobacco, nor Pharma. Someone that doesn't have a horse in this race, ..that would be refreshing wouldn't it?. Oh wait, we already tried that through the Congressional Research Service, but since TC didn't agree, they simply ignored the findingings. The demonstrated arrogance is eventually gonna come back to bite 'cha.
"I would argue NO - it is unethical to deceive the public about the health effects, no matter what our ultimate purpose. In my view, a noble purpose does not justify unethical techniques of deception.
Most of the tobacco control movement seems to disagree with me and to feel that this behavior is acceptable because the ultimate end is a good one, but that's a difference that I'll have to live with because I won't compromise ethical principles that I think we should have as public health practitioners."
Yet we have the 220, and we have his restaurant study, along with the rest of his peer-reviewed junk science.
How do you reconcile that, Walt?
If our kids don't need protecting, why do the bartenders?
DING DONG What do you think the push ban smoking in cars is about? What do you think the push to keep smokers from being foster parents is all about? There are more places with smoking bans then not. When you raise such questions, on a blog about protecting foster children from smoking prospective foster parents, people are naturally going to ask the obvious. Why not protect our kids?. As an anti in drag which ignores Siegel's views on parental autonomy, you can kill two birds with one stone. Discredit Siegel, and put in a good plug for expanding bans into homes and cars, and the smokers rights folks and give you a pass. Quite clever.
Interesting diatribe. I notice you haven't actually answered, and neither has Dr. Siegel. Good thing I'm not holding my toxin- (or is it "poison"?) laden breath.
You have once again ascribed the exact opposite meaning to the question. If the kids don't need protecting, neither do the bartenders.
The adults are the ones who can actually read the Doc's tracts, and they are also the ones who are exposed voluntarily.
You have also ignored the essence of Dr. Siegel's hypocrisy:
How do you, personally, Walt H, reconcile Dr. Siegel's impassioned monologue about "scientific integrity" with his own restaurant study, his 220 study, etc.?
Direct question.
This is one of the questions that Dr. Siegel steadfastly refuses to answer.
This is an outright lie. It's been asked and answered ad nausium.
Another example of Siegel's replies on this subject
Cathy-
I don't think you understand my argument. I am arguing that it is inappropriate to interfere with parental autonomy to make decisions regarding health risks to which they expose their children. The only exception would be for truly life-threatening risks, such as the risk of a fatal car accident (thus, I support the required use of car restraints). So whether it would protect children or not to ban smoking in cars, I oppose the laws because they are an intrusion into parental privacy and autonomy.
It appears that the only criterion with which you judge an issue is whether it will protect children or not. Maybe that's not the case, but to find out, what is your answer to this question:
Would you support a law to ban smoking during pregnancy?
After you answer that, then we can discuss the weighing of parental autonomy vs. health benefits.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 09.25.07 - 4:39 pm | # http://www.haloscan.com/comments...38639402537273/
Since you were present in this forum you should be aware of his repeatedly stated position on this subject.
However you, like Cathy Bell refuse to accept his answer.
The adults are the ones who can actually read the Doc's tracts, and they are also the ones who are exposed voluntarily.
Still building the case for why children need protecting, by ignoring the issue of parental autonomy.
Subtle you are!
Bill,
Is that the same SG report (of course it is) that when you actually look at the conclusions at the end of each chapter you end up with about 85% of the conclusions SHOWING THE SURGEON GENERAL LIED because they don't support the press release? Yes Bill, I actually went through the 727 pages and read all the conclusions. Did you? Even with my high school education, I understood that "the evidence is insufficiant to infer causal" in most of the conclusions meant the surgeon general committed perjury...............or would that be FRAUD? Guess that's why he retired so quickly and quietly eh?
Is that the best you can do for proof? Come on, WE at least can produce real live living bodies. You actually think YOUR paper trumps real and living?
Excuse me while I go pop an excederin.....I think Bill just managed to give me a migraine. Can we ban the Bills since they are an obvious health hazard? LOL
This is an outright lie. It's been asked and answered ad nausium. [sic]
Great answer, but to another question entirely. Banging on about parental autonomy says nothing about why adults in a free society cannot make their own choices about what risks they are willing to assume. Dr. Siegel has never answered this question in regard to ETS.
Still building the case for why children need protecting, by ignoring the issue of parental autonomy.
Wrong again. I'm destroying the case that bartenders need protecting.
I can puff away in my kid's face all day, but when I go to work, I'm placing those around me in "extreme danger" so I need laws to prevent me from doing that? That seems inconsistent to me.
I do not separate my parental autonomy from my personal autonomy.
Deciding for me what I can expose myself to violates my autonomy, period.
It's odd, Walt, I didn't think you had such passionate support for smoking bans.
I also knew you were going to ignore my question. There it sits, unanswered. You've learned a lot from your hero.
In case you forgot:
How do you, personally, Walt H, reconcile Dr. Siegel's impassioned monologue about "scientific integrity" with his own restaurant study, his 220 study, etc.?
Direct question.
Geez, I wish you guys would stop fighting; I don't see the point of it. However, may we note that Dr. Siegel himself has perpetually introduced this slippery-slope-in-reverse-- every time he says that he's against bans in cars because home exposure is WORSE and that the car ban proponents are, therefore, hypocrites. We keep on telling him he's simply providing fodder for the home-ban crowd, but he never stops to listen.
Similarly, too, he often prefigures The Next Frontier when he calls out the colleges that righteously ban smoking for their not also banning all the foods that are labeled Bad, or not banning fat folks from lurking in plain sight (and lo! we had that wonderful proposal in Mississippi (?) for actually banning fat folks from ever eating out).
In other words, Walt H., while your argument has some merits, it's a sword with a double edge. So I wonder why you only want to pounce on Cowbell?
Changing the topic:
Anonymous and Great Scot have turned up a plum. I do, indeed, believe that by destroying and/or controlling the Public Square (and/or barring dissenters from darkening public doors) the Managerial Governments are slowly and certainly destroying the arenas for the free flow of ideas between the members of the public (the basis, I believe, for that 1st Amendment right of the freedom of assembly). The less people pollenate and hear other's ideas--or their own views repeated from other people's mouths-- in other words, the less affirmation their thinking gets-- the more isolated and vulnerable to statist manipulation.
Again, I commend to everybody in sight, Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda." Originally written about the Soviet Union -- or using it as a paradigm-- he lets you know how it works. And the way it works is cumulative. The less freedom you have, the less freedom you'll have. And so the Mass Man is created from warm flesh.
:
Bill Godshall.
“Although Mike has limited his criticism of that report to several statements about cardiovascular risks of short term exposure to smoke, Ms. Christie publicly misrepresented Mike's criticism of the report by implying that Mike doesn't think tobacco smoke pollution is a workplace health hazard.”
Fraud is indiscriminate Bill. I see no less wrong in Ms Christie statement (if true) then I do in its fraudulent roots which YOU cite, and Dr Siegel reported upon.
The SG report and subsequent press release is a fabrication and not evidence.
Also testifying before PA legislature:
State Health Secretary Calvin B. Johnson, Dr. Walter Tsou of the SmokeFree Philly Coalition, the ALA and ACS and Bill Godshall.
I’m sure all of the speakers above were very concerned about the public being informed in regard to “inaccurate health claims, misleading the public, discrimination, and going to far”(“Mike's criticism”) as it relates to smoking, second hand smoke; fallacies, falsehoods, and fairytales purported and pronounced by some of the very same imposters of truth currently infecting society.
"Geez, I wish you guys would stop fighting;"
Hey Walt,
I'm not fighting. I'm stating an opinion and watching Walt H. go ballistic. It's fun to tweak zealots. If I can get him to call me a few more names, Sig will make me some cinnamon rolls.
Walt - We keep on telling him he's simply providing fodder for the home-ban crowd, but he never stops to listen.
Sorry to disagree Walt, but your sentence has two too many words.
Reworded
We keep on telling him he's simply providing fodder for the home-ban crowd, but he never stops.
Dr Siegel is a Professor in Behavioral Science, he knows exactly what he is doing and the most likely consequence of his words.
GreatScot
Right on cue
Women targeted in drink campaign
Death , disaster and horrible illnesses, one glass is too much, no safe level etc etc.
£10 million campaign by the government and so on and so forth.
"The Alcohol Health Alliance ( complete with former members of ASH ), which is made up of medical groups, wants a rise in tax on alcohol, a ban on advertising and restrictions on sales"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...2/
ndrink122.xml
Note the contempt and derision in the comments, no one seems to be fooled anymore.
However, shortly the activists will get busy denormalizing the moderate drinkers and its onto Phase 2 of -
Lifestyle, health, and health promotion in Nazi Germany http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/329/7480/
1424
"Dr Siegel is a Professor in Behavioral Science, he knows exactly what he is doing and the most likely consequence of his words."
I agree with that assessment.
Rose,
It heartens me to see comments like that.
The comments on this article are interesting.
"Lighting up has become the most serious social gaffe for visitors, a new poll finds."
http://news.scotsman.com/scotlan...-
the.3905081.jp
I don't know how common courtesy works in Scotland, but who lights up in someone else's home without permission? I was raised to regard that violation of manners to be as serious as opening someone's fridge or arriving empty-handed. Not done!
"Do you mind if I smoke?" is asked, even if you know your host smokes.
I wonder what the wording of the poll was. "Smoking in the house" is one thing, but "smoking in the house without permission" is another story.
Cowbell
As you know,if your host smokes, they generally offer you coffee and then a cigarette to go with it.If your host doesn't smoke they may suggest you both take your coffee into the garden.
Just more making a mountain out of a molehill, I should expect that we have had a form of good manners to deal with smoking in social situations for as long as people have smoked.Its part of making a guest welcome.
I don't drink, but I do have a selection of wines and spirits on hand so that I can offer them to those that do.
Dr Siegel is a Professor in Behavioral Science, he knows exactly what he is doing and the most likely consequence of his words.
GreatScot
GreatScot | 03.22.08 - 5:37 am | # QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. There you have it,why waste time on disingenuous argument when Dr Siegel does not really involve himself in discussion,and still seeks the majority of demands the TC movement want.He only distances himself from the modus operandi.HE IS NO DIFFERENT,HOWEVER YOU MAY WISH TO DRESS HIM UP.
Rose,
I agree with you on the comments in the Telegraph. Those folks obviously all enjoy a pint or two on a regular basis and don't want their habitual enjoyment curtailed. However, I'll bet you anything that the majority of those same commentors all agree that smoking should be banned in all public places. They refuse to see the connection.
Cowbell,
You are right. Even when smoking was everywhere, you never went to someone else's home and lit up without asking permission, even if they were close smoking buddy or smoking family. It was just bad manners.
My mother neither smokes nor drinks, but she has more ashtrays than any smoker I know and will always offer one to her smoking guests. She only requests that you not chain smoke as that will bother her in time. She also tries to keep, or used to anyway, a small variety of alcoholic beverages in the house to offer guests also.
These are normal social manners and customs that most people, even today practice.
I'm betting such manners also exist in Scotland, and the poll was worded deliberately to elicit that kind of result.
Lynda F
I think most of them do see the connection, I think most people were shocked that a government would act in such a draconian fashion and have been waiting for it to be their turn ever since.
They knew it was coming and the overweight know that they will be next.
If anyone was ever in doubt,a law that sends old soldiers out to stand outside the British Legion without adequate shelter, tells you all you need to know.
In other news
"In large-scale field trials, scientists from North Carolina State University have shown that silencing a specific gene in burley tobacco plants significantly reduces harmful carcinogens in cured tobacco leaves"
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...cles/
101077.php
Dr. Siegal, in light of the latest study on smoking in cars comparing it to the same level as a smoky bar, has your opinion in anyway changed?
http://news.therecord.com/News/L.../article/
326075
Toxins in smokers' cars surprise even researchers
Even with the most ventilation possible -- all the windows open in a moving car -- the level of second-hand smoke was very high, close to what would be found in a smoky bar.
Crack the window halfway. Open all the windows, all the way. It doesn't matter. No precaution when smoking in a car is enough to cut the health hazard, especially to young children riding along.
"Ways we think would reduce the harm don't work well enough," said Geoffrey Fong, a psychology professor at the University of Waterloo and a renowned tobacco-control researcher.
No matter the amount of ventilation, the level of air pollution -- measured as fine particles easily inhaled deeply into the lungs -- was above the daily standard of exposure set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for air pollution.
"It's just the magnitude of it that's so alarming," Fong said. "Ventilation does matter, but it doesn't matter enough."
With no ventilation, the levels are more than 100 times the air pollution standard. Moderate ventilation still produced significantly high levels of pollution. And tobacco smoke is far more hazardous than air pollution, Fong said.
He supports a provincial plan to ban smoking in cars with children. "This is a controllable risk," he said.
Banging on about parental autonomy says nothing about why adults in a free society cannot make their own choices about what risks they are willing to assume. Dr. Siegel has never answered this question in regard to ETS.
Parental autonomy is adults in a free society deciding how they will raise their children, and the personal choices they make for them, and what risks they are willing to assume.
Personal autonomy is adults in a free society making choices about what risks they are willing to assume for themselves.
Occupational Health and Safety laws are about what employers risks employers are permitted to subject their employees to.
So perhaps we can coin a new phrase, employer autonomy as to the freedom they have in the choices they make for their employees with regards to the hazards they subject their employees too.
Since it's obvious that Dr. Siegel believes childhood exposure to ETS is a hazard, and since he has already explained that while he believes parents should not expose their kids to ETS, he feel lawmakers should not intrude to into parental autonomy to attempt to prevent this.
However in the above quoted remark you acknowledge that parental autonomy is not the same as personal autonomy, then attempting to make a comparison as to any disparity in the degree of each is moot.
However when you talk about bar tenders, this encompasses two factors the autonomy of the employer, and the autonomy of the employee.
Personal autonomy is better demonstrated by the point of view that patrons don't need to be protected from ETS as they can make a choice as to which venues they patronize. Smoking bans for the sake of the patrons has not been the central point of his arguments.
Since Siegel's belief in bans primarily focused on the workplace, and has not strongly beat the drum of protecting patrons, one can conclude he believes employers do not have as much rights to autonomy.
You seem to be arguing that employers should have as much or more autonomy then a parent.
This is like saying you feel it's unjust that employers are subjected to minimum wage laws when parents aren't forced to have minimum allowance laws.
I vehemently oppose stripping parents of their autonomy to the point of that of an employer, which appears to basis of your argument; Employers are subjected to more restrictions then parents.
Walt H:Still building the case for why children need protecting, by ignoring the issue of parental autonomy.
Cowbell: Wrong again. I'm destroying the case that bartenders need protecting.
In doing so, you are building a better case of why children need to be protected, and are using essentially the same arguments that other anti's have used to justify progressing bans into cars and homes. If you aren't an anti, you are oblivious to the obvious point you are making on their behalf. Perhaps you are just blinded by your need to discredit Siegel.
I can puff away in my kid's face all day, but when I go to work, I'm placing those around me in "extreme danger" so I need laws to prevent me from doing that?
There are many laws that apply to employers, that do not apply to parents. Since society has adopted occupational safety laws for the benefit of employees, your argument seems to say these need to be extended to children.
I do not separate my parental autonomy from my personal autonomy.
And this is exactly the fallacy of your argument. They are not the same.
Deciding for me what I can expose myself to violates my autonomy, period.
By definition this is personal autonomy. Deciding what risks you expose your child to is parental autonomy. And an employer deciding what risks they expose their employees to is employer autonomy.
Deciding how much you get paid, and how many hours they can work you is employer autonomy. Deciding how many hours you want to work, and how much you want to be paid is employee autonomy. Frequently the government will step in and proscribe too little money, or too many hours for the protection of the employee, and in violation of their and their employers autonomy. This isn't unprecedented.
I also knew you were going to ignore my question. There it sits, unanswered. You've learned a lot from your hero.
Since we have obviously not finished this discussion on why children aren't protected, and bartenders are, it is pointless to move on to another topic.
Walt,
In other words, Walt H., while your argument has some merits, it's a sword with a double edge. So I wonder why you only want to pounce on Cowbell?
Because this is essentially the same argument I pounced on Cathy Bell for making. What is even a more of a double edged sword is the argument about the disparity of employer vs parents regulation. I do not see the tactical advantage of ignoring parental autonomy as this is exactly what smoking ban proponents want as they attempt to move bans from the workplace into the home.
If Cowbell wants to argue the lack of merit in workplace smoking bans, she should be arguing why she believes the risk is overstated, and not concentrating on pointing out the next obvious target of oppression saying.... "you haven't banned smoking in the home" as this is not the question you want to be begging unless of course you are actually trying to promote this incursions.
Comrade Walt H.,
First hand smoke is perfectly safe for healthy people. All arguements to the contrary involve nothing more than innuendo and circumstantial evidence of dubious statistal reliability.
But enough about me. Here's Richard Doll in the 1964 SG's Report. (Again for those who missed the last 4 or 5 times I posted this.)
"In carrying out our studies through the use of this epidemiological method, many factors, variables, and results of investigation must be considered to determine first whether an association actually exists between an attribute or agent and a disease. Judgement on this point is based upon indirect and direct measures of the suggested association. If it be shown that an association exists, then the question is asked: "Does the association have a causal significance?"
Statistical methods cannot establish proof of a causal relationship in an association. The causal significance of an association is a matter of judgement which goes beyond any statement of statistical probability. To judge or evalute the causal significance of the association between the attribute or agent and the disease, or effect upon health, a number of criteria must be utilized, no one of which is an all sufficient basis for judgement. These criteria include:
a) The consistancy of the association
b) The strength of the association
c) The specificity of the association
d) The temporal relationship of the association
e) The coherence of the association
These criteria were utilized in various sections of this report. The most extensive and illuminating account of their utilization is to be found in Chapter 9 in the section entitled "Evaluation of the Association Between Smoking and Lung Cancer"."
On the next page:
"4. It should be said at once, however, that no member of this committee used the word "cause" an an absolute sense in the area of this study."
Second hand smoke is just as safe as first hand smoke. Neither has been shown to "cause" anything.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Walt, it just sounds ridiculous and if that makes a case for the anti's so be it. Idiocy is idiocy.
Cigarette smoke is supposedly so very deadly that grown adults cannot be trusted to decide for themselves. However, it's NOT so poisonous that those same, obviously mentally deficient (I won't say handicapped, because I've seen mentally handicapped people decide where to eat and yes, smoking came up), adults can decide to expose their children to it. Last I heard, supposed toxins themselves did not differentiate between whether you were making the decision for yourself or your children so I fail to see when it suddenly becomes so much less poisonous because of parental autonomy. Personal or parental autonomy, that should not affect the level of the toxicity in the slightest. So, to keep it based on facts alone, if it's so poisonous we're not allowed to choose to expose OURSELVES, then how is it less poisonous in regards to children? It's a small risk if you relate it to parental autonomy, but a large deadly murderous rampage to personal autonomy??? And yet, if something is toxic to adults, then it's TWICE as toxic to children. Not less toxic based on your view of personal rights...simply more toxic.
And I think...I could be wrong...that this is Cowbell's point. Of course, I see from the idiocy side. It's stupid and means that Doc is simply practicing sophistry. There seems to be one thing he holds higher than telling us where we can smoke, and that's not wanting OTHER people telling us how to raise our kids (which brings up a whole 'other question I'm not getting into).
So either its deadly toxic or it's not. If it's deadly toxic, then autonomy has NOTHING to do with it. If it's not toxic to children, but it is to adults, someone is full of shit somewhere. You can't have it both ways, one way to protect rights you feel are more important and another to violate rights you feel are less important.
Disclaimer: 'You' is used in this case in the general sense, not to target a specific person.
Off topic but.....Nymox by releasing its studies to promote its product to catch those evil smokers have exposed the faultiness of all tobacco studies used by the TC thugs. The peer reviewed study states that 8% of people in these studies are not telling the truth of their smoking histories. So out of 10,000 claiming to be never smokers exposed th ETS 800 actually are or have been smokers. This is a large mis-classification. When factored in the RRs of 1.19 or 1.3 fall below the 1.0. This alone would produce a no risk or better. Take into account that older people(theones that get sick) show 25% reporting as not smokers and that really throw things into a tizzy. What about it Doc?
http://www.nymox.com/docs/Nymox_...ox_02-19-
08.pdf
"Since we have obviously not finished this discussion on why children aren't protected, and bartenders are, it is pointless to move on to another topic."
The question is ducked once again, as you hide behind an impressive pile of straw men.
"If Cowbell wants to argue the lack of merit in workplace smoking bans, she should be arguing why she believes the risk is overstated, and not concentrating on pointing out the next obvious target of oppression saying.... "you haven't banned smoking in the home" as this is not the question you want to be begging unless of course you are actually trying to promote this incursions."
Uh...sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Dr. Siegel does. That's HIS argument, not mine. Now go ahead and castigate him for it.
If he's calling people hypocrites for it, than I'm calling him king of the hypocrites.
"If Cowbell wants to argue the lack of merit in workplace smoking bans, she should be arguing why she believes the risk is overstated, and not concentrating on pointing out the next obvious target of oppression saying.... "you haven't banned smoking in the home" as this is not the question you want to be begging unless of course you are actually trying to promote this incursions."
But Walt, Cowbell did not bring that up. The doctor did.
His entire point is that the people he criticizes are entiorely off base and deranged because their policies demand an end to SHS in cars but not the home. He says this cannot stand because only an idiot or a liar would demand to prohibit one risk while allowing another to remain.
All Cowbell is asking the doctor to do is apply this logic to his own policies.
You might not think this is important. But it is. One of the doctor's great failings over the years is that he has failed to see the obvious logical and political ramifications of the proposals he has rammed through. Time and again, he has insisted that the logic of workplace smoking bans stops with the bartender.
He was wrong about that. And a bajillion other things. He unleashed forces that he could not control. And cannot.
A ban on SHS in cars MUST extend to a ban on SHS in the home. The doctor does not like that politically. So he can either just make that case, or he can... stumble around and harangue his ooponents for being hypocritical, occasionally even unveiling silly little games like the "hypocrite of the year award."
I think there is actually some value in the latter. Not the least of which is because it's true. THose people are hypocrites. And someone ought to tell them as much.
Similarly, Cowbell can just argue the science of workplace smoking bans designed to protect workers, or she can continure to harangue Doctor Siegel for being a hypocrite. Which he surely is, by his own measure. If Godshall is a hypocrite for refusing to end all SHS exposure everywhere immediately, then Doctor Siegel is surely a hypocrite for refusing to propose a ban on all workplace health hazards.
I guess you can take Cowbell to task for being too thorough. For protesting too much. But come on. Doctor Siege has made a cottage industry out of constantly lambasting Godshall and company for their inconsistencies. Not a week goes by without him drudging up the same charge 50 time, and each time coming to the same conclusion: "Gosh, Wally. I sure guess it's hard to have faith in the gosh darn TC movement any more." The only thing missing is a dire sound track and a sad, sour look from Ward and June.
He continues to make the same charge against them. And Cowbell continues to make the same charge against him. And they both happen to be right about those charges.
The doctor does not get a free pass. Nor should he.
Walt H.: "Since it's obvious that Dr. Siegel believes childhood exposure to ETS is a hazard ..."
What kind and how much of a hazard? Spell it out.
"Smoking bans for the sake of the patrons has not been the central point of his arguments."
What do you mean exactly by "central point"? Does that mean, then, that smoking bans for the sake of the patrons has been SOME KIND OF A POINT of his arguments?
"Since Siegel's belief in bans primarily focused on the workplace, and has not strongly beat the drum of protecting patrons ..."
Not "strongly." Then, again, protecting patrons has been SOME PART of his argument. If that's what you're saying, then I agree. So pffft to the autonomy of grown-ups (aka bar patrons). But it's exactly at that point where an honest charge of an arrogant totalitarian mindset enters in. (Or let's be nice and call it an arrogant PATERNALISTIC mindset.)
Unless, of course, he tries to slither out of it by using the same shyster argument he used with bartenders: that there's no possible way they can be informed of the true dangers of secondhand smoke and so must be protected by the jackboot of government. Why stop with bartenders who are morons when there are also patrons who are morons who can't possibly be taught about the dangers of secondhand smoke and who need protection from their own ignorance and stupidity?
Brave new world.
.
The doctor does not get a free pass. Nor should he.
Anonymous | 03.22.08 - 2:28 pm | # X220 IF YOU PLEASE.
If Cowbell wants to argue the lack of merit in workplace smoking bans, she should be arguing why she believes the risk is overstated, and not concentrating on pointing out the next obvious target of oppression saying.... "you haven't banned smoking in the home" as this is not the question you want to be begging unless of course you are actually trying to promote this incursions.
Walt H. | 03.22.08 - 12:37 pm | # iSN'T THIS PRECISELY WHAT DR SIEGEL IS DOING ? He may SAY he is opposed to the removal of parental autonomy BUT EVEN HE ARGUES that SHS in a car is LESS OF A PROBLEM than being in a house with smoking parents.Why do you persist in semantic arguements Walt H.,WHEN THE WHOLE SHENANIGANS IA A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.
Walt: "However, may we note that Dr. Siegel himself has perpetually introduced this slippery-slope-in-reverse-- every time he says that he's against bans in cars because home exposure is WORSE and that the car ban proponents are, therefore, hypocrites. We keep on telling him he's simply providing fodder for the home-ban crowd, but he never stops to listen."
Exactly! Siegel only argues that smoking in cars with children is not as bad as smoking in homes with children, simply because SIEGEL wants it banned EVERYWHERE with children; including YOUR home.
SIEGEL is as dumb as a fox; or as sly as one?
Are all of you that post regularly on this site so unaware of the fact that Siegel is using you to promote his style of "prohibition"? That he really doesn't care if TC embellishes, or just plain outright lies about tobacco "facts"? Did you even read what he said about the FDA controlling tobacco?
Siegel is not a sheep. He is the wolf in disquise, and smoking is Little Red Riding Hood.
Jalestra,
"Cigarette smoke is supposedly so very deadly that grown adults cannot be trusted to decide for themselves."
That is not what I understand the Dr's position to be, and is instead your own interpretation of it. Perhaps you could provide the direct quote from where you summarized this statement from. Where has the doctor has said that he felt people should not be allowed to expose themselves to second hand smoke. This is not the same as employers must provide employees a smoke free environment within the confines of their workplace.
"Last I heard, supposed toxins themselves did not differentiate between whether you were making the decision for yourself or your children so I fail to see when it suddenly becomes so much less poisonous because of parental autonomy." This also wasn't said.
Here is another example of what Dr. Siegel actually stated under a topic you participated in.
"I oppose home smoking bans simply because I feel that we need to preserve the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding health risks to which their children are exposed and because I think we need to preserve privacy rights in the home. There are justifications for intrusion into the home, but these are limited to situations where physical or emotional harm are taking place, such as child abuse. I view cars as an extension of the home -- if we can ban smoking in cars, then we should also ban it in homes.
This - and not any lack of health effects - is why I oppose home and car smoking bans." http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4298487/
#105826
Personal or parental autonomy, that should not affect the level of the toxicity in the slightest. And I'm accused of building strawmen? Wow
"So, to keep it based on facts alone, if it's so poisonous we're not allowed to choose to expose OURSELVES, then how is it less poisonous in regards to children? Based on facts alone, you first need to show that Dr Siegel has directly feels you can not ever exposure yourself to second hand smoke. This is not the same as your employer not being able to expose you to second hand smoke. You as an employee can expose yourself to second hand smoke all you want, but not inside your employers workplace.
"There seems to be one thing he holds higher than telling us where we can smoke, and that's not wanting OTHER people telling us how to raise our kids (which brings up a whole 'other question I'm not getting into)."
Bingo, and this is exactly why he has repeatedly discounted smoking bans in the home. It has nothing to do with being "less poisonous" because of autonomy. And in order to justify the case for being a hypocrite, you have to ignore that "whole other question".
"Walt, it just sounds ridiculous and if that makes a case for the anti's so be it. Idiocy is idiocy.
Listen to what the anti's are saying when they propose a car or home smoking ban. This is their argument. Because someone you believe is a smokers rights activist is repeating it, you believe they should have a free pass? When Cathy Bell was making this very argument she was ostracized repeatedly. I guess it merely depends on which side you claim to be on.
Cowbell, The question is ducked once again, as you hide behind an impressive pile of straw men. LOL, as you attempt to change the subject.
Uh...sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Dr. Siegel does. That's HIS argument, not mine. Now go ahead and castigate him for it.
You are the one drawing question as to why there is an inequity between workplace and home smoking bans. Dr. Siegel has stated that this is not based on his belief of harm, but on some respect for parental autonomy.
Evidently you are still unwilling to accept this answer that the reason why is not based on harm or lack there of, but rather on privacy and parental autonomy.
Anonymous, His entire point is that the people he criticizes are entiorely off base and deranged because their policies demand an end to SHS in cars but not the home. He says this cannot stand because only an idiot or a liar would demand to prohibit one risk while allowing another to remain.
So he should stop criticizing other anti-tobacco groups? Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that prohibiting people from smoking in their car because this is different then smoking around them at home? That the time we spend with our children is less at home then with them in the car? That you agree people should be banned from smoking in their cars with kids present?
All Cowbell is asking the doctor to do is apply this logic to his own policies.
The fallacy with this is assuming the Dr. believes there is no risk to children, and if he applies this logic to bar tenders he will change his mind.
My next question is what are people smoking with their tobacco, as this kind of hallucinations are not caused by tobacco.
No, the more likely response is, Cowbell is not who she claims to be, and is trying to stop Siegel from criticizing others in tobacco control.
Who in their right mind would pose this kind of question knowing how the doctor believes in occupational environments, has stated that he feels children should also be protected, however feels stronger that parental autonomy is more important. Just what answer is expected? Oh jee, I've been wrong about the workplace all this time? Or jee, mitigating circumstances aside yes, we should ban smoking in the home. Or maybe it's I'm sorry I'm a hypocrite because people won't accept my justifications, and I think I'll just clam up and quit voicing my opinion, saying all those bad things about other tobacco control groups.
Come on folks, let's get real.
Harry,
What kind and how much of a hazard? Spell it out.
This is not my position, rather what he has stated. Perhaps you should address this to him. Having grown up with two smoking parents, I find it hard to relate to any harm at all. Further, the I knew very few asthmatic children, and the few I did know, did not have a smoking parent. I did know one boy that had many congenial issues and did need tubes in his ears that was in a smoking family, but none of the other birth defects are generally attributed to smoking parents.
What do you mean exactly by "central point"?
Most people build an argument around an issue. Siegel's argument for workplace smoking bans have dealt with the employee rather then the patron. Some anti's argue that it is for the protection of the patron, however a patron with autonomy can go someplace else.
I believe what Siegel has stated and I'll attempt to paraphrased it Someone needing a job may be forced to take on employment in a smoking environment out of need and not choice. and as such, the employers autonomy is being sacrificed.
Does that mean, then, that smoking bans for the sake of the patrons has been SOME KIND OF A POINT of his arguments?
I have not found him making that argument, however he has written much, and I haven't read it all. But as best as I can tell his argument for a smoking ban usually only encompasses the employee, and he has acknowledged patrons can go somewhere else and don't need protecting.
There seems to be a growing concensus that both smokers rights and the Cathy Bell's and Godshall's seem to believe Siegel should stop criticizing others in tobacco control.
There also seems to be a concensus that believes if you can't smoke at the pub then you shouldn't be able to smoke at home, and we should invite the government into our homes and give our children the same protections society has given bartenders.
Truly amazing.
Congradulations Cathy Bell, your work may finally be done.
Actually Walt, I was just trying to help show you the other viewpoint as it seemed there was some developing hostility between the two of you. You see an arguement justifying home bans while we see an arguement justifying elimination of all bans.
Look, WE aren't the ones saying ok, you can't give adults the choice to take tylenol, but hey, those same adults too stupid to take tylenol can feel free to give their kids 8 or 9. I mean, does any idiot out there REALLY think that we as smokers are abusing our children and our employees, but we're getting government sanctioned to abuse our kids because of politics (since they have banned smoking in so many public places but not in the home)??? If the anti's really believe it's so damn toxic, they should have protected the kids first. Car bans should have been FIRST. I mean, hell, if you can't prove a KID is being harmed from, how the hell can you prove an adult is? And if it's not so deadly for kids, then obviously it's not so deadly we need government enforcement on ADULTS who can CHOOSE their job. Fine, so the arguement is made for anti's. I'm sorry, just because it may help the other side doesn't mean it should not be pointed out. Should we not discuss protecting our country from bombs because "we're giving the terrorists ideas"?
Show the rest of the world how stupid this really is. It's so toxic, so deadly, that we're going after ADULTS, who can CHOOSE to stay in a job or not, leave a room or not, and protect THEM. Kids are the last on our list of people to be protected. YEARS after laws put in place to protect adult employees from it, NOW they protect kids. And if you can get them to see that, perhaps you can start unraveling the lies. If they've left children in it for so long, if they are so ok with leaving kids in it for this long instead of protecting them first, maybe they AREN'T what they claim to be. Maybe they aren't as concerned about health as they claim, and that means they are pursuing some other agenda. Which means they've been lying about that, so what else have they been lying about?
Cathy Bell is just another fanatic with a need to create a hateful environment, between smokers and non smokers.
She is likely drawing a paycheck highly dependent on protecting the tobacco industry, while promoting the hatred of smokers.
My response to the myth of second hand smoke, explains how the public are being victimized by a multi-trillion dollar fraud. A conspiracy like this planet has never seen with the heads of science and medicine profiting, along with their partners in the tobacco industry; Selling hatred.
"With all the billions of dollars handed to these medical charities, you would think after all this time "looking for cures" they would have something more optimistic to say. Now it comes down to blaming everyone else for their failures. Managing diseases is obviously much more profitable, and in a long term perspective entirely protective of those six and seven figure salaries, our donations and concern for others provides.
Too bad they moved away from attacking a floundering industry and decided to rally around the myth of second hand smoke, shifting the blame to the little guy, who obviously would have much less of an ability to defend against institutional slander. A clearer head who looks past the hate mongering, would recognize how the tobacco industry punishment known as the MSA settlement, was doubled and handed on to the consumers. Netting companies like Philip Morris 150 billion unearned dollars over the next 25 years. A total of 700 billion dollars between the partners in the Tobacco industry and Public Health, government taxation of an addiction aside, will assure smoking will be with us, for a long long time.
Always follow the money, if you want to get to the truth."
"Congradulations [sic] Cathy Bell, your work may finally be done."
"Second, these groups' stance is hypocritical because the primary and overwhelming dominant source of morbidity among children due to their parents' smoking is secondhand smoke exposure in the home, not the car. "
Cathy Bell strikes again!
Oh, wait...that was Dr. Siegel.
"I also have to admit that anti-smoking advocates who support such a policy are acting in a more consistent and less hypocritical manner than those who merely support a ban on smoking in cars."
Cathy? Nope. Mike again.
Dr. Siegel has set a standard for others that he doesn't apply to himself. What's the word for that again?
Dr. Siegel's statement which "Bell" has offered as somehow being hypocritical ""Second, these groups' stance is hypocritical because the primary and overwhelming dominant source of morbidity among children due to their parents' smoking is secondhand smoke exposure in the home, not the car. "
Of course you must consider all the people who have argued that there are things out there worse then ETS that haven't been banned must also be hypocrites, as this what it seems you are arguing now. Right?
The other statement "Bell" offered up as proof of hypocrisy.
"I also have to admit that anti-smoking advocates who support such a policy are acting in a more consistent and less hypocritical manner than those who merely support a ban on smoking in cars.
Please do explain why you believe it is not hypocritical to ban smoking in a car with children present, and not propose the same thing for the home, Cathy?
Yes, this was also one of Cathy's arguments. Cowbell = Cathy, I'm convinced.
It must really bug the crap out of you to have Siegel criticize his bretheren and you can't stop him.
Optimist versus pessimist...
"Second hand smoke kills 53,000 non smokers annually"
Versus?
According to the Surgeon General "exposures today are reduced by 75%, to what they were not so long ago" when second hand smoke had to have killed 212,000 non smokers annually.
Progress or Regress in science?
"Smoking Kills 450,000 annually"
Versus?
Smoking rates have been reduced by more than half. From time in 1960 when smoking must have killed over 900,000 people, within a group with less than one half of the current population.
They say Tobacco money shouldn't be influencing children?
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/...ey/hockeyville/
Kraft is who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Foods
You gotta love these pathetic anti smoker dimwits, who moved the anti industry public, into a deflected hatred of their neighbors.
Can you say; misplaced belief system?
Jalestra, I think that your angle is too simple. It leaves out another complex factor that can't be ignored as an inclusion in your equation and which has a strong influence on the one factor you raised. It cannot be as simple as ADULT vs KIDS when there's the perceived "public" (which we all know is really private) vs private place. The antis surely had to weigh that and conclude that, though it may take longer, with patience they'll have greater success at reaching the KIDS if they appeal to society's stupidity by getting them to agree that a bar is a public place they deserve protection in. If the antis started with the KIDS even they were smart enough to know that society was not ready for that kind of intrusion. The public might be stupid enough to eventually go along once they've been primed (brainwashed) but to start out from that position was the path of most resistance. And that's no way to get their crusade off the ground.
Jalestra,
I understand what you are saying, however there has been billions of dollars spent trying to convey the message that secondhand smoke is not harmless. My state (georgia) passed a law exempting adult only venues from the smoking ban. Obviously legislators have some concern that children are at risk. To draw attention to the disparity between protecting workers, and protecting children at home. I'm afraid unless there is some overriding reason, legislators will more then likely side with protecting children rather then exempting workers. I think the only reason it has not progressed this far before is legislators concerns for parental autonomy. In my opinion, a child is more at risk from their diet, then posed by ETS, and there have been several attempts to make this incurrsion based on obesity. I think legislators are somewhat more afraid of opening that door, but there are strong pushes for the "village" to raise the children.
With the major push attempting to drive the bans into the cars, and then the homes, I don't think pointing out the disparity between work and home is a wise argument to make.
Trying to give Siegel a black eye by calling him a hypocrite does little to stem this incurrsion into the homes, expecially when you have to resort to the anti's argument that children aren't protected but workers are, in a environment which has been highly endoctinated with the mantra that ETS = harm, and will only lead to calls for further bans in order to protect the children.
How can I explain those statements, Walt H.? They're not mine. What you've done there is demonstrate that Michael Siegel is Cathy Bell.
My own statement, which is the one which made you hysterical in the first place, is that a hypocrite has no business calling anyone else a hypocrite.
Dr. Siegel absolutely must continue badgering other anti-smokers. He's tearing his movement apart from within, to my great delight.
Every message he posts is in the hope of preserving the anti-tobacco movement. Dr. Siegel is still calling for smoking bans. Eventually, someone in his own movement, pissed off at being call a hypocrite, is going to point out that Dr. Siegel's own "science" is fraudulent as well.
Won't that be sweet? Then he can retreat back into academia, where he belongs, and crank out anti-tobacco educational tracts until he's old and gray, as is his right in this great country.
JTF, I see what you're saying and that IS the fail I see in this. The fact that incursion into the homes couldn't be a first step. On the other hand, the fact that they didn't have a strong enough argument to move to protect kids first seems a great counter. However, you're probably right and I'm being too simplistic. I haven't had near enough sleep since the baby was born LOL
Now that I agree with Walt: "legislators will more then likely side with protecting children rather then exempting workers". The argument could be legitimately used by both sides, however, anti's DO have all our money, so we can't bribe the politicians to listen to US. Really though, as a mother, this seems like sophistry. Believe me, I would be the first in line to intrude on the home if there was something really HARMING my kids. Then again though, I tend to investigate things thoroughly and have more than a passing acquaintance with sense. If I was to ever decide to intrude, you can bet your ass that I'd have reams and reams of proof and real bodies and my kids would be number one on my list. I would hope other parents would feel the same and be suspicious of anyone else who DIDN'T. Too much to hope for I know.
"but there are strong pushes for the "village" to raise the children.
bah, hit the wrong keyboard button...anyhow
"but there are strong pushes for the "village" to raise the children."
And that's why Hillary Clinton scares the HELL out of me.
Walt H.: “His entire point is that the people he criticizes are entirely off base and deranged because their policies demand an end to SHS in cars but not the home.”
I don’t know that Dr. Siegel’s criticism can be characterized as calling these people ‘deranged.,’ although off base might do.
“He says this cannot stand because only an idiot or a liar would demand to prohibit one risk while allowing another to remain.”
If ‘idiot’ or ‘liar’ is how Dr. Siegel characterizes these people in this one instance (and I’m not sure that’s accurate), then in my opinion he’s talking foolishness. If your plan is to enact bans incrementally, first cars and then homes, then ‘idiot’ doesn’t apply, and ‘liar’ is a stretch.
“So he should stop criticizing other anti-tobacco groups?”
Under any formula (if I understand you right), why would anyone here (other than riffraff like Godshall) be asking him to stop doing what Honesty applauds him for doing? They wouldn’t and they don’t.
“I have not found him making that argument [that smoking bans for the sake of the patrons has been some kind of a point of his arguments].”
Then you’re telling us that when he gives us the middle finger he’s not making an argument? But the non-verbal middle-finger argument is exactly the argument he made when he came out for a ban on smoking on patios (not to mention stadia). Because, how are waiters and waitresses on patios in any kind of long-range danger from secondhand smoke? You know, the 30 or 40 years of intense exposure that he’s held up time and time again as representing a significant danger to bartenders for lung cancer or heart disease? There’s no damn danger worth the name on patios, as anybody but a fool knows all too well.
As for the hazards to children of ETS in the home, Dr. Siegel has already told us that there’s no convincing evidence that even chronic childhood exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer. (Think as well in terms of the patio staff, above, in this connection.) That leaves only the acute dangers; and I suppose if anyone is so inclined he can make a mountain of that so high that he won’t rest until there’s a total ban on smoking in the home.
But no mea culpas from the good doctor on the juggernaut he set in motion and which he in great measure backs proudly to this day.
.
Jalestra's point is seen in a parallel to what Hitler said "Your politics are not important I have your children"
Children who have never experienced freedom and respect won't expect it.
If you put them at odds with the intelligence of their parents and praise them constantly for demonstrating how their parents are in error, you gain their trust and you can build any kind of society you like.
Politics in the school used to be condemned, today it's just a day to day reality.
If you really want to protect children you have to allow them to be children only that respect will allow them to grow into the discussions with confidence.
Apparently people with confidence is something to be feared, by the kind of governments who promote world governance [or dominance]by the UN.
Totally agree with you Harry.I never really understood Walt H's position when i was bombarded with his list of disagreements for my temerity in using capital letters in my fit of pique at Dr Siegel's prevarication.No one in TC can be reasoned with,not even Dr Siegel himself.His modus operandi may differ but medically speaking ,you simply cannot demand that barstaff do not come into contact with SHS,state children suffer more SHS in the home than in a car and not WANT a ban in homes.That defies logic.Historically speaking Dr Siegel commented on the banning of smokers in cars when children were present BEFORE this asinine law really took off.We have now witnessed this encroachment,why believe encroachment into the home will not occur,unless the sheeple take umbridge and get off their fat arses and do something about it.To infer that Dr Siegel is some sort of rational anti is pissing in the wind.TC are perverse and should be treated as such,at every occasion.
Walt H, and others...........you are all forgetting one of the reasons the Doc has stated, MANY times that he is opposed to intruding on parental autonomy. AND it's something I have jumped all over him on many times, and he's never answered me on.
The Doc has stated, many times when this topic comes up, that he is opposed to intruding on Parental Autonomy because exposing children to SHS ONLY "slightly increases their risk of ear infections, etc" (and not all children either mind you).
Yet the Doc continues to call SHS in the workplace, populated mostly by ADULTS as a "serious health threat".
I have called Doc a hypocrite for this stand alone. How is it ONLY a "slight increase in risk" for children, yet a deadly toxin that poses a "serious health threat" to adults?
THAT is, I think, Cowbells whole point. My question to the Doc on this has always been the same.........IF it is such a serious health threat that adults are not allowed their autonomy, employers are not allowed to run their business within the OSHA parameters for safety, why is not a serious health threat to children who aren't allowed their autonomy yet?
Depending on the situation, the doc is either claiming SHS kills OR claiming its a mild irritant.
THAT is the hypocrisy.
"Bell": " How can I explain those statements, Walt H.? They're not mine. What you've done there is demonstrate that Michael Siegel is Cathy Bell.
You presented them as if they were in some way hypocritical. Now you say they demonstrate Michael Siegel is Cathy Bell. At least left field is in the ballpark, but this line of reasoning is outta here.
I believe you are Cathy Bell, because you have concentrated your effort on proving Siegel a hypocrite at all costs.
You / She have argued he was inconsistent when he supported workplace bans, and home bans.
He has responded that while he believed there may be grounds for such bans in the home, he believed parental autonomy to be an overriding factor.
Since he has provided a sound reasoning for this inconsistency in his position. I do not find this to be hypocritical. However, the Cathy Bell's and the Cowbell's refuse to acknowledge, accept or refute this explanation and simply insist he is a hypocrite. You have both accused the doctor of not explaining this inconsistency, when he has done so repeatedly. Cathy Bell was a strong proponent of car bans. You use the same argument she used to attempt to prove Siegel a hypocrite, namely the disparity between workplace and children smoking bans. By arguing such, and dismissing the very stated reason Siegel gave, you give reason to advancing smoking bans into the home. This is a win win argument from the anti's point of view. You can a) deceptively prove Siegel a hypocrite, and b) you can advance the case for car smoking bans. When this line failed, she then moved on and attempted to justify why it wasn't hypocritical to propose only car bans, but ultimately failed to point out the obvious. The home ban is just the next target after car bans, as in typical anti style, they are afraid to disclose their ultimate goal.
In my book, once you legislate a car ban, the home ban is a slam dunk, and taking kids from parents is the next step. Granted this is a slippery slope argument, but to date this battlefield looks like California in the rainy season.
"My own statement, which is the one which made you hysterical in the first place, is that a hypocrite has no business calling anyone else a hypocrite."
I guess you would apply that rule to yourself too? But, since proving you a hypocrite does little to the overall cause, and because I don't believe you to be who you say you are, to spend time to do so is an exercise in futility. The arguments you present are typically weak, and easily dismissed from the anti-tobacco point of view, and frequently are obviously flawed to accentuate and strengthen the anti-tobacco position. For example: the disparity between workers and children.
"Dr. Siegel absolutely must continue badgering other anti-smokers. He's tearing his movement apart from within, to my great delight."
This is the same reason, Cathy Bell argues Siegel a hypocrite to try and stop him from doing so. Interesting that you would assist her.
"Every message he posts is in the hope of preserving the anti-tobacco movement. Dr. Siegel is still calling for smoking bans. Eventually, someone in his own movement, pissed off at being call a hypocrite, is going to point out that Dr. Siegel's own "science" is fraudulent as well.
This looks alot like what you've been doing under the guise of being a smokers rights advocate. Again, another reason why I believe you to be the other "Bell". If you call him a hypocrite enough, maybe he'll shut up and retire and quit throwing stones at his fellow brethren. If one of his compadres actually did slice and dice his studies, don't you think that would carry much more credibility then some smokers rights activist calling his work "junk science". And you want to preempt this why? Because doing as as a smokers rights activist wouldn't hurt the anti-tobacco cause as much as if someone like say Glantz were to do so?
No, If I was someone like Glantz, I'd pretend to be a smokers rights activist, and pick at him exactly like you have, as a means to minimize the harm to the cause, and get him to shut his trap and get with the program.
"Won't that be sweet? Then he can retreat back into academia, where he belongs, and crank out anti-tobacco educational tracts until he's old and gray, as is his right in this great country."
And this is exactly where Bill and his buddies want him, as they don't like him poking holes in their argument. Solidarity right?
Plain and simple, I don't believe who you say you are, and your arguments appear to be for the advancement of tobacco control by gagging Siegel.
That is not what I understand the Dr's position to be, and is instead your own interpretation of it. Perhaps you could provide the direct quote from where you summarized this statement from. Where has the doctor has said that he felt people should not be allowed to expose themselves to second hand smoke.
Walt H,
Go back to the thread on July 5, 2007. Remember that one? It was a doozy and it was the one where the Doc really showed his true colors.
You really need to read the post again and all the comments, but specific to you question is this:
Lynda F wrote:
"WHAT is the problem with allowing a few bars, restaurants, clubs to be smoking permitted to cater to the smoking clientele, and that all the employees would also be smokers?"
Lynda, I have a few problems with this.
What if more than a few bars/restaurants (and other businesses for that matter) want to allow smoking? Who decides who gets these few smoking permits?
What if a nonsmoker wants or likes to work in that kind of environment?
The market has to decide these things. Not Dr. Siegel, not you or me.
James Austin | 07.06.07 - 11:55 am
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8868062/
#126729
To which the Doc replied:
Lynda-
I agree with James. That's exactly the problem I have with allowing a few smoky bars where only smokers would be allowed to be employed. He stated it better than I could.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.06.07 - 12:05 pm
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8868062/
#126733
And then there was this, the other shoe dropping which proved the ‘zero tolerance’ stand and pretty much spelled out that no worker should have to choose:
My support for smoke-free establishments is not due to any desire to provide smoke-free places where people can go to dine. It is, instead, to protect the workers. So it's not an issue, to me, of how many smoke-free places would be enough. I don't believe any worker should have to be exposed to secondhand smoke on the job. I fail to understand what is so difficult to understand about that position. While you may not agree with it, it really isn't that difficult a concept to understand.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.06.07 - 5:29 pm
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8868062/
#126784
He then went on to say:
I am also trying to dispel the idea that because people have a choice about where to work, they do not deserve protection from workplace hazards.
If we can agree that the bulk of the difference in the way we view the issue is a difference in our opinion on the scientific evidence of secondhand smoke health effects, then I think we can proceed somewhere with the discussion.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.06.07 - 10:52 pm
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8868062/
#126846
And remember Walt H, the discussion where the Doc actually stated a study showed that 40% of the people did NOT agree with him that SHS was a “serious health hazard”, therefore he felt there was NO way to adequately inform them that it was. He claimed that they obviously didn’t understand what he was saying, so bans were needed to prevent them from choosing against HIS warning.
Lynda,
I don't completely agree with your summation of Siegel's position.
For example:
Cathy Bell wrote this:
"If you do agree that SHS poses serious health hazards to kids in homes and cars, then you would have to modify at least one of those statements. Do you have some other reason for opposing smoking bans in private homes and cars beyond health issues?" http://www.haloscan.com/comments...4298487/
#105795
Siegel's reply:
Cathy-
I oppose home smoking bans simply because I feel that we need to preserve the autonomy of parents to make decisions regarding health risks to which their children are exposed and because I think we need to preserve privacy rights in the home. There are justifications for intrusion into the home, but these are limited to situations where physical or emotional harm are taking place, such as child abuse. I view cars as an extension of the home -- if we can ban smoking in cars, then we should also ban it in homes.
This - and not any lack of health effects - is why I oppose home and car smoking bans.
Lynda is exactly right about my opinion - I believe taht we need to have respect for people's privacy and autonomy within teh confines of their own private enclosures (cars and homes).
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 5:37 pm | #
Here, Siegel has not disputed and indirectly acknowleged Bell's position on being a serious health threat.
Clearly the basis of his position was not built on this premise of one being any more or less serious then the other, but rather one of parental autonomy.
The only way you can make this argument truly work is to ignore his basis of parental autonomy, and insist his argument was built on relative risks.
If you will also notice, the key phrase "serious health hazard" was used by Cathy to attempt to semantically pin an allogation of hypocrisy on the doctor, but serious is a relative term and is open for debate. Clearly the spirit of Siegel's opposition lay on the issue of parental autonomy, but the goal is to prove Siegel a hypocrite at any cost.
Looks like it's not just smokers who are unfit to be parents.
"Lose weight or we'll take all six of your children away:"
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/
pa...in_page_id=1770
GreatScot
Lynda,
My take on Siegels comments you listed support what I was saying earlier to Harry. The focus of his "protection" is not for the protection of the patron. Which demonstrates some degree of belief in personal autonomy.
While the grammatical construction on the last message is hard to understand, I do agree he makes a "for your own good you will be protected". I think his intent was to discount the whole "choice" issue.
Thank you for taking the time to find that.
I believe if you were to rank them in order from strongest to weakest, Siegels views on autonomy would run from parent, to personal, with little or no employer autonomy. And as I said before these are all different, and can not be used interchangeable as some would like to argue, and therefore to have different degrees of support in each is not hypocritical.
From the upcoming anti-smoker conference in Seattle.
http://www.accessconference.org/program/
Creating Access to Smoke-Free Living
This topic area covers evidence for proven strategies or promising practices to protect people from exposure to secondhand smoke. Examples of topics in this track:
* Eliminating exposure in multi-unit housing
* Implementing smoking bans
* Developing smoke-free community master plans
* Eliminating exposure in automobiles
Eliminating exposure! No mention of children anywhere.
Is Seattle on a fault line?
GreatScot
Walt H.,
I understand your point. However, the doc himself repeatedly uses the phrase "serious health hazard" for which I consistently got all over him about.
Yes, the doc does not believe in intruding on parental autonomy....that would leave the door open for them to come after him one day for something else....however, his argument as ALSO been because the SHS exposure of children in cars and homes only poses a "slight increase of risk".
Seriously, go back through the archives and you will find he has said these things.
I have noticed his own hypocrisy and have pointed it out to him as well.
Children living with smoking parents are exposed 24/7/365 in the home for a good 5 years before they start school. After that, they are exposed a good 12/day for the next 13 years at least.
IF SHS only poses a "slight increase of risk" to children, WHY is it a "serious health threat" to adults? It's a simple question that he has yet to provide a decent answer to.
We've all seen it, why haven't you? And if you think for one moment that the doc isn't pushing for bans in the home, look at how he words these posts. He practically dares them to do it.
It's amazing and amusing that the blog of self-proclaimed public health advocate (who claims to oppose junk science) contains thousands of scientifically fraudulant statements about the health risks of tobacco smoke.
Perhaps even more amazing and amusing is that while Mike has been quick to criticize any health agency, organization or advocate for making even a minor misrepresentation of scientific evidence, Mike has repeatedly choosen to ignore thousands of totally bogus claims about scientific evidence on his own blog.
On this thread alone, the following false claims were posted regarding the health risks of tobacco smoke pollution and the 2006 Surgeon General.
GreatScot wrote:
"I followed your links. I found sound bites but no evidence."
Diane wrote:
"when it comes to the dangers of secondhand smoke. There are none."
LightningBoy wrote:
"Mixing what passes for science today with the barage of neverending lies simply confuses the public"
Callous Lynda F wrote:
"Even with my high school education, I understood that "the evidence is insufficiant to infer causal" in most of the conclusions meant the surgeon general committed perjury...............or would that be FRAUD?"
smokenreader wrote:
"The SG report and subsequent press release is a fabrication and not evidence."
EinsteinSmoked wrote:
"Second hand smoke is just as safe as first hand smoke. Neither has been shown to "cause" anything."
From GreatScot's link:
Controlling Access to Tobacco
This topic area covers research into and experience with social norm changes, policy developments, and education programs that make it difficult for people to obtain and use tobacco. Examples of topics in this track:
* Reducing youth access to tobacco
* Controlling the supply of tobacco
* Reducing demand for tobacco
* Changing perceptions about tobacco products and their use
Assuring Access to Cessation
This topic area covers research and programs that identify methods to provide cessation treatment, or identify social and environmental interventions that support cessation. Eliminating disparities in access to cessation is a special emphasis of this track. Examples of topics in this track:
* Supporting cessation for high-prevalence populations
* Expanding knowledge of pharmacotherapy for cessation
* Assessing environments for support of cessation
* Understanding nicotine addiction and recovery
however did millions of smokers ever manage to quit with no problem before now?
This is some scary shit.
Where the hell did my America go? THIS isn't it!
Bill,
I love it when you talk dirty. 
Obviously you haven't a logical or solid argument to come back with eh?
Thanks for making my day! 
The SG report and subsequent press release is a fabrication and not evidence.
Bill, I can assure you that none of us here are morons, addicts or frauds. Each of us here uses plenty of restraint when wanting to hit the keyboard, punching out those letters when describing you and your ideas, theories and just plain junk. All you have are theories and dreams, which you try to parlay into fact. I am sorry to tell you again that writing down dreams and making up numbers are NOT scientific facts. Walking, breathing, living are proof. You can't trump that, no matter how hard you try! I have offered to take you on, one on one, even offering to make the trip to your home to do it. Instead, you rely on name calling. Do you not wonder why I am not afraid of you?
As for the rest of the posts the last couple of days. Let's face it, none of us who comes here to read the latest has any clue as to who is really a tobacco control activist, playing devil's advocate. I just don't understand the bickering here if you are really determined to be a peoples right activist and not a tobacco control activist. Do we really need to argue if we are on the same side? Should I ask that we all kiss and makeup or should I ask that the real tobacco activist please stand up?
Happy Easter to all you celebrate this Christian Holiday.
"addicts, morons and/or frauds"
Speak for yourself Bill, The list you produced only represents people not convinced by some pretty pathetic propaganda, that your level of hypochondria is necessary or a significant driving force in the way someone will guide their decisions or live their own lives.
ETS is only a significant heath risk for those who choose to make it significant.
Anything more, remains an unproven theoretical position, with little support in time line or biological observations.
Something which does meet with biological and time line observation?
Say for instance someone chose to use chew tobacco, after a number of years the feeling in their jaws and lips is severely diminished. Many are seen drooling and dripping yellow brown slime, a fact which is oblivious to others, who can only try to pretend they didn't see it.
This only compounds the embarrassment of the individual who only believes he escaped detection.
And if nothing else, can we please cut the unsupportable accusation that Cowbell is Cathy, either really or metaphorically. That bit of hyperbole goes way over the line.
The question at play here is unresolvable because it deals with 2 completely separate sets of issues. "Health" on the one hand (is secondhand smoke a threat? if so, how serious? to whom under what conditions? at what point should government interfere on the grounds of health?) and philosophical questions of "Rights" and "Autonomy."
Siegel, who believes ETS is a threat-- a "serious" threat, on any and all occasions to any and all people, of such magnitude that government should certainly intervene to the trumping of most rights-- occasionally switches lanes, and declares that under some (and increasingly few) circumstances "Rights" and "Automony" (which is sometimes only defined as "Parental Autonomy") nevertheless should trump "health."
And he seems to change lanes w/o so much as a signal or a flash or a beep.
Further, when traveling in the "Rights/Autonomy" lane, he occasionally dismisses the "seriousness" of the "threat" to the statistically-negligible risk of an additional ear-ache, which in any case, can never be actually (biologically) pinned to a smoker's smoke. When he's traveling in the "Health" lane, the smoke causes serious Death and Destruction.
This is not so much hypocrisy, I think, as rationalization. Cringing at the prospect of Health Police in the home (and, in fairness, in the car) he needs to justify his cringe by determining that the risks of exposure to ETS (which concept has served as the basis of his career) isn't really that bad as to warrant interference. In the Health lane, however, it warrants interference into the rights and autonomy of consenting adults in all private places-- which, for rationalization's sake, are deemed to be "public."
Further, the children in your home are your own business and the law should butt out, but the strangers down the hall provide a reason to intervene. Mind you: it's the same smoke and the same smoker and, in fact, the same home, but the grounds for interference keep changing before our eyes.
Then, too, even IF the threat of home-smoke is "serious" (to children or other plant life sequestered within the home) nonetheless a line should be drawn here in favor of "Autonomy," -- a line which can't be drawn when it comes to a private bar or the patio of the bar or a bar or a patio reserved for smokers-only.
Thus, logic is whiplashed by the rapid change of direction. Seems to me we're not really having a debate but a dangerous game of wack-a-mole.
:
And if you think for one moment that the doc isn't pushing for bans in the home, look at how he words these posts. He practically dares them to do it. ~ Lynda F
I agree with you there, Lynda. His entire post the other day on the Ontario car smoking ban is a perfect example.
Cowbell;
"I agree with you there, Lynda. His entire post the other day on the Ontario car smoking ban is a perfect example."
This might just reflect, he is an American who hates Canadians and not just Canadians who smoke.
Wood chip stove calculation of the day:
1. Wood smoke contains many of the same constituent chemicals as tobacco smoke. e.g. carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, acrolein, acetaldehyde, benzene, toluene, acetic acid, formic acid, nitrogen oxides (NO,NO2), naphthalene, substituted naphthalenes, phenol, catechol, fluorene, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, benzofluoranthenes, benzo(a)pyrene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)pyrene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, chromium, nickel, lead. Wood smoke is therefore as much a health hazard as tobacco smoke.
2. A typical wood burning stove has a combustion chamber about 0.5 m square and 0.5 m high, with volume 0.125 cubic metres. A typical wood density is about 500 kg per cubic m. Assuming 50% air space around the wood in the stove, that means the weight of wood in a fully loaded stove will be about 30 kg. A stove can burn this amount of wood in a single day, all of which combustion products are released into the local environment.
3. A typical cigarette weighs about 1 gram. So the the complete combustion of the wood in a wood-burning stove will produce the second hand smoke equivalent to smoking 30,000 cigarettes.
4. Michael Siegel owns a wood burning stove. Yet while he's busy all day working to ban smoking by 10-a-day tobacco smokers, he's apparently not in the least bothered by his own 30,000-a-day smoking habit. Is Michael Siegel a hyprocrite? And is he a bad neighbour?
Few could argue the Canadian Governmnet has stood silent in creating the fear of tobacco smoke.
A prime minister who was a contradiction in terms, from the outset. An industrialist and former finance minister who purchased the leadership of the world's most ardent; live and let live, flower power, inclusiveness, Liberal party.
One of his most significant problems after decades of Liberal governmnet over spending while buying votes, was how will he be able to finance an aging populations health costs, and maintain credibility.
Anyone who knows business knows the value of product branding. PM stocks were trading at 24 dollars down from 54. If the hatred of tobacco companies were to shift, the value of those known to be, under priced stocks would skyrocket.
ETS and the promotion of the Tobacco Industry went hand in hand. The predictable effect of 500 million dollars from the public purse in proping up a huge struggling industry could almost be considered insider trading and stock manipulation.
Remember Martha Stewart?
http://www.smoke-free.ca/lifesav...dmail-
aug18.pdf
Too easy to prosecute, is only offset in this case because it is too hard to get them lay the charges.
Blaming "smokers" by creating "ETS risk perspectives" likely made a lot of the advocates a lot richer in many ways.
The MSA agreement netted PM, 154 of 300 billion unearned dollars over the next 25 years with an equal share to the anti smoker governments, medical institutions and charity foundations who all played along. Taxation of "addiction?" only increases the profits for all of them .
Regulation by the EPA will only assure they stay in business long enough to guarantee that everyone gets paid.
Polluting Industries are lining up behind Global Warming, demanding to be punished as well.
How much will the next MSA deal or the valuation of carbon, take out of all our pockets?
Eight short years of anti smoker hate campaigns, took PM stock from 24 to 76 dollars a share. The other tobacco industry players, all saw similar or larger fluctuations.
J&J stocks were not the only smart money investments behind Tobacco Industry promotions and "protections" by public Health stakeholders.
Share values normally only climb when they are in high demand. Following the money, could find a lot of personal reasons, much more convincing than the insignificant level of actual ETS risk, behind many politicians accepted the incredible fable of second hand smoke.
They were simply taking their stock brokers advice.
Lynda F: IF SHS only poses a "slight increase of risk" to children, WHY is it a "serious health threat" to adults? It's a simple question that he has yet to provide a decent answer to.
If I may (and far be it from me to defend Dr Siegel), his ETS statements are actually consistent within his belief structure.
IF you believe that ETS is harmful, and we can agree that the dose makes the poison, then his statements are quite logical in that a child in a home may potentially be exposed on a frequent level, but it isn't constant, nor to the same sort of level that would occur in say, a bar containing numerous smokers chain-smoking their way through an evening of drinking.
Not that I agree with him, mind you, nor do I believe he doesn't have motives other than stated....but he is actually being consistent.
Walt H: I understand that you believe cowbell and Bell are one and the same, but I'm afraid I don't agree. The statements by cowbell are far less rambling and shrill than dear Cathy ever was.
Unless Cathy has been taking Anti-sponsored writing and logic courses, it ain't her.....much as I wish it were, as I did so enjoy tearing strips out of her.
I must say it's amusing to see that Godshall is still dodging the questions to his utmost I see.
Anonymous, maybe you're not aware of the history behind the Canadian Tobacco war.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...ai_9191215/
pg_1
NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTTS, Canada showed how to beat the tobacco lobby. American antismoking groups, take note
On the morning of January 25, 1988, an extraordinary advertisement filled page three of Canada's most influential newspaper, The Globe and Mail. The ad featured two friends who weren't anxious to have their friendship advertised: Brian Mulroney, the prime minister, and William H. Neville, the newly appointed president of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.
The headline was big and black: HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF CANADIANS WILL DIE FROM TOBACCO INDUSTRY PRODUCTS MAY BE IN THE HANDS OF THESE TWO MEN. Below the headline were photos of Mulroney and Neville, the best-connected lobbyist in Ottawa. Neville had been in charge of setting up Mulroney's office when he became prime minister. He'd also been a major strategist for Mulroney's Conservative party and chief of staff for a former Conservative prime minister.
The ad ran only hours before a House of Commons committee dominated by Mulroney's Conservatives, would begin to mark up a bill that would revolutionize Canada's system for warning about tobacco hazards, while setting stunning global precedents (see "It's the Law," p. 35, for the key provisions). For example, the Tobacco Products Control Act would outlaw cigarette advertising and promotion in new newspapers and magazines, starting on January 1, 1989.
The Mulroney ad had been created in 36 hours by C. Garfield Mahood, executive director of the Non-smokers' Rights Association (NSRA), and was known as his "master stroke." The NSRA and the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS), which had become the NSRA's closest ally, published it two days after Mahood finished it. It was the perfect moment. The ad devastated Neville's influence by personalizing the tobacco lobby and making whatever success it might have politically damaging to Mulroney. It "made that lobbyist so famous [that] the government could not be seen giving in to him," says Ottawa lawyer David H. Hill, past national vice-president of the CCS. In all but destroying Neville's credibility, the ad also all but destroyed the industry's hopes. The committee approved the draft of the Tobacco Products Control Act the same day. Six months later Parliament passed both bills.
Walt H: No, If I was someone like Glantz, I'd pretend to be a smokers rights activist, and pick at him exactly like you have, as a means to minimize the harm to the cause, and get him to shut his trap and get with the program.
Quite agreed that someone like Glantz would be likely to do such a thing, but Cathy was nowhere near that bright....or subtle.
Ann W;
"Anonymous, maybe you're not aware of the history behind the Canadian Tobacco war."
I am well aware of the history in fact I believe The little guy from Shenanigans in between was actually sincere in his promotions of anti industry, in following everything Mulroney did before him. Trudeau had already died by then and Mulroney was the closest thing Cretin had as a role model perspective in governance.
Free trade, the GST, Airport Privatization, and a host of other strategies, he complained about when in opposition, all became untouchable platform initiatives once he was elected.
Martin was another kind of opportunist animal who never met a dollar he didn't love. Anti smoker was a natural for a guy with a single perspective in life. Arms length took on a whole new meaning under Paul Martin's corrupt regime.
"If I may (and far be it from me to defend Dr Siegel), his ETS statements are actually consistent within his belief structure."
I'm sure that's true. His belief structure in one of the most convoluted and rigidly compartmentalized I've ever seen. It has to be, so he can make it all work inside his head.
The Cargo Cults of Vanuatu also have a belief structure that works for them, too. Looks a bit crazy from the outside, though.
He's spoken about "slight elevated risks" and the "dangers of childhood exposure to second-hand smoke," and he shifts between the two smoother than the transmission in my old Pontiac Tempest.
The point you make above is lucid. I don't remember Dr. Siegel ever saying it. (Please do correct me if I am wrong.) He sticks with the autonomy issue when it comes to children, carefully separating "personal" from "parental." If he actually did say it, one might think he'd leave out the "danger" argument.
You and I agree that the dose makes the poison, but if Dr. Siegel did, he couldn't support his "severe health hazard" anymore, as the dose simply isn't there.
From where I sit, the beliefs of the Cargo Cults make more sense.
Godshall -- EVERYTHING you say is fraudulent, so I suggest you keep your mouth shut and stay the hell away from the keyboard.
Diane stated: Bill, I can assure you that none of us here are morons, addicts or frauds.
I beg to differ with you, my friend.
While there may be a few in the anti-smoker cartel who are not morons, the vast majority of them fit all 3 categories you listed.
Some people here confuse personal autonomy with employer autonomy. For it is not the employee that is fined if smoking occurs on the premise, it is the employer. It is the employer which is typically restricted from operating a smoking venue.
However, nobody seems to think twice about laws restricting truck drivers from working more then 60 hours in 7 days, to where the driver not the employer is fined for working too much. This is clearly a case of impugning personal autonomy in the name of public safety.
If you want to talk about things that diminish personal autonomy try seatbelt and helmet laws. Siegel supports these. But we know this isn't really the issue, and is nothing more than ruse to attempt to castigate Siegel and label him a hypocrite to silence him.
Even more ludicrous is the assertion that parental autonomy is somehow comparable to employer autonomy. But this is the level of desperation that one must sink to in order to prove a point.
If you want to beat Siegel up for inconsistency, there is my personal favorite; his stance on patio bar smoking bans. But the case built around children is a loser, and is a extreme stretch. Since you don't seem to want to let this die, I guess we'll continue to banter this about.
No one here even mentioned employer autonomy, other than that a business owner alone should have the right to determine whether smoking is allowed on his premises. I'm pretty sure everyone here believes no employee is forced to work anywhere, and if they don't like the policy, they are free to leave. I see the issue as property rights rather than "autonomy."
Dr. Siegel thinks the best way to prevent employees from exposure to smoke is to prohibit everyone, employees and patrons alike, from smoking.
His argument was that no one can be adequately informed. In doing that, he's stripped both employer and employee of their choice. The patrons still have a choice, but Dr. Siegel changed its nature.
The point you and I disagree on, Walt H, is the separation of parental and personal autonomy.
You see them as different, and I don't. As long as I make the choices for my son, his judgment is mine. Either way, we're talking about my judgment.
It just doesn't make any sense that I have the right to choose what I can expose my child to, but not myself.
I find that especially perverse in light of all the other hazards he has no objection to. I am free to be a crab fisherman or a lumberjack, two of the most dangerous jobs on the planet.
But a bartender in a smoking establishment? No way. Too dangerous! And too complicated to explain.
It's odd, but when I worked in a cosmetics factory, they were perfectly able to explain the dangers of the acetone, alcohol, toluene, and all the other chemicals we used on a daily basis. Good thing the doc got the smoke out of the break room, though.
My credulity doesn't stretch that far.
"However, nobody seems to think twice about laws restricting truck drivers from working more then 60 hours in 7 days, to where the driver not the employer is fined for working too much. This is clearly a case of impugning personal autonomy in the name of public safety."
That's true. A truck driver who falls asleep at the wheel causes immediate and quantifiable harm.
There are actual bodies to count. Not a mythical 220 in forty years. Big difference.
And no one is trying to "silence" the doc (not that we could) nor, to his credit, is he trying to silence us.
The analogy to truck drivers is just as inapt as the aunt's clumsy analogy about serving tainted meat. Cowbell just nailed it. Everything has degrees. Throwing babies out with the bathwater is just illogical and keeping the baby in the tub for its whole life.
And, speaking of meat and employer autonomy, how bout when the government tells a restaurant owner/ employer that he mustn't serve any meat because meat causes all kinds of heart attacks and cancers, and the carcinogenic aerosols from cooking it kills the cooks?
How much leeway are you willing to give the government to protect us from ourselves over theoretical dangers-- and yes, a large number of those "us" are employees. Do people automatically cede their autonomy and turn over their brains as soon as they enter a workplace-- on either end of the job-- employer or employee?
Even Godshall seems to believe that employers have rights--like the right to either fire or refuse to hire smokers.
And speaking further of meat, the question that arises, Walt H-- is what's your beef? What's your overall point? Beyond the specifics-- what are you going for? what are you out to accomplish? And equally, why? What's your motivation? Perhaps a clear statement would moderate the heat and lead to greater understanding.
:
Mark W. Benjamin: Statewide smoking ban gave no thought to mental health
"Public health is more than physical health -- clean air and pink lungs. It is also about mental health -- keeping company and green wallets. People who drink and smoke alone, who lose their jobs and businesses do not live as well or as long. They need help, not ridicule. These people are socially isolated and financially stressed. Social and financial health deserves to be part of our public health discussion"
http://www.startribune.com/opini...y/
16912761.html
I disagree in part, I think whoever designed these laws had attempting to damage smokers mental health and sense of wellbeing very much in mind.It wasn't forgotten, its their whole campaign strategy.
Walt H is starting to sound a lot like the description of what Glamz would do, in order to create distention and defeat an opposing voice.
Turmoil from within, is a powerful weapon. Commensurate with gaining confidence and inspiring a following, which splinters any group solidarity.
For Glamz that would require stealth, as we know is afforded in this unique venue.
Cowbell=Cathy Bell?
Walt H = Glamz?
Which could be more believable?
Do actions speak louder than words?
I believe in this case, that would appear to be correct.
idlex: "Michael Siegel owns a wood burning stove. Yet while he's busy all day working to ban smoking by 10-a-day tobacco smokers, he's apparently not in the least bothered by his own 30,000-a-day smoking habit."
Good point. And above all, it shows that ventilation (and separation) does work. You can spend the whole Easter weekend next to 30'000-a-day smoker without getting a wisp of smoke in your face. Why shouldn't that be possible if the combustion chamber was larger (say the size of a room) and accomodating a few 10-a-day smokers?
Rose,
That's a great letter. I agree with your assessment of their motives as well. They've isolated the smokers. Soon they'll move on to the drinkers. The morality trumps the economics every time. After all, they're only bars.
Walt: " And no one is trying to "silence" the doc (not that we could) nor, to his credit, is he trying to silence us."
I beg to differ, and offer the below direct quote.
"You've missed the grandaddy of all of Dr. Siegel's hypocrisies. His study is bad science. He stands by his own bad science while decrying the use of bad science!
And he has the absolute gall to give out "awards"!? Good god, man!
Callous Cowbell | 03.15.08 - 8:21 pm | # "
Godshall has repeatedly urged the doctor to stop criticizing tobacco control advocates and criticize smokers rights.
Cathy called Siegel a hypocrite repeatedly in order to stop his criticism of others within tobacco control.
And this is to name just a few.
The analogy to truck drivers is just as inapt as the aunt's clumsy analogy about serving tainted meat. Cowbell just nailed it. Everything has degrees. Throwing babies out with the bathwater is just illogical and keeping the baby in the tub for its whole life.
This analogy was provided as an example of regulation of a worker, versus regulation of an employer. As this is what workplace smoking ban regulations are directed at the later.
I argue that an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace. However, I have been misinterpreted to say that I believe ETS rises above other risks commonly found in the workplace. This is not true, and this is where I disagree with Siegel. However, there is nothing hypocritical about what one believes the relative risks to be, and to what degree and how they are regulated.
I will tell you now, that there are very many hazards out there that are not regulated, and the degree to which they are regulated are frequently based on economic concern and the cost of mitigation. This is the argument you can win. It is not a binary world, black or white. You can not translate what you do in the workplace, to what you do in the home. This is a fallacious argument, it is a dangerous argument as it plays to emotion rather then logic, and Cowbell should not play to it if she really is a smokers rights advocate. This argument is being used as the basis for moving bans from the workplace to the home even if she tries to turn it around.
I see I got deleted again.
Once again I find myself having to apologise for injudicious comments.
To all addicts, fraudsters and morons out there, please accept my sincere apologies for associating you with Bill Godshall. You didn't deserve that level of insult.
Okay doc?
GreatScot
Industrial-strength crap from Walt H.: “I believe you are Cathy Bell, because you have concentrated your effort on proving Siegel a hypocrite at all costs.”
And:
“Plain and simple, I don’t believe who you say you are, and your arguments appear to be for the advancement of tobacco control by gagging Siegel.” (!)
Yeah, well I believe you’re Vidkun Quisling and a Fifth Columnist rolled into one. Whether or not Cowbell is right or wrong on this molehill issue you insist on making a mountain of, there’s no justification for the invective you’ve thrown her way, any more than there was any justification for the crap you threw all over Si a few weeks back. If there’s anyone here who’s trying to advance tobacco control, you’re the chief nominee, since you seem so intent on fracturing the cohesion of the group by belittling honest posters, their motives and sincerity, and all for piffling reasons.
Let me add here that I’m of the same mind as Walt: “the question arises, Walt H. – is what’s your beef? What’s your overall point? Beyond the specifics – what are your going for” what are you out to accomplish? And equally, why? What’s your motivation?” As far as I can see, you’re nothing but a shit disturber. You should be ashamed of yourself.
As far as Dr. Siegel’s hypocrisy (or lack of it) is concerned, I think he demonstrated that when he signed off on the 1993 EPA report while continually spouting off about how sacrosanct science is. I believe he’s never even taken up the subject of that report on this blog, although he’s been pressed to do so several times. Is it because he’s already signed off on the report and can’t now dismiss it without losing face? Or is it because he talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to the sanctity of science?
Now as far as your comparing Cowbell to Cathy, I suggest that a perhaps more accurate comparison would be Walt H. and Cathy. We all remember when, after Cathy said her work here was done, she kept popping up, again and again. Well, we also remember when you yourself said you would no longer post here, but here you are, stroking on, just like Cathy did. And I for one welcome most of your postings, because you give us valuable stuff. But this childish, vicious mean-spiritedness of yours isn’t part of that, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Just my biased opinion, of course.
.
Why Harry, I'd think it's rather obvious what my beef is.
I do not believe Siegel to be a hypocrite because he opposes smoking bans in the home or automobile on the basis of parental autonomy, and will defend him for something I do not find him guilty of.
While I do not agree with his policies, nor do I agree with all his findings. I find him to be an honorable, and respectable person.
He defended Martha's reputation at the risk of his career and reputation, and for that he has earned my respect. At the same risk of loss of his reputation he has defended smokers from many of the injustices being waged at them, but some people just can't give it a rest, and assailed his character with every weak argument they can muster, and nobody says a word.
This will enrage a few within your "cohesive group", but I would find myself to be a coward, and a hypocrite to not speak out against a what I consider a false and malicious claim made about someone I respect.
If it means severing the friendships I've made over the years being associated with some of you, so be it, but I will not remain silent just because I don't agree with someone's politics.
If it means severing the friendships I've made over the years being associated with some of you, so be it, but I will not remain silent just because I don't agree with someone's politics. - Walt H.
Walt, I have always tried to live by the principle that "wrong" is "wrong" regardless of which side it comes from.
Makes for a noble but lonely life. - lol.
"I do not believe Siegel to be a hypocrite because he opposes smoking bans in the home or automobile on the basis of parental autonomy."
Neither do I. I believe him to be a hypocrite for a lot of other reasons.
I have no opinion of Dr. Siegel as a human being, as I have no information to form one.
Dr. Siegel has not earned my respect as a defender of smokers.
He defends smokers only from the injustices he feels will damage the anti-tobacco crusade, not from the ones he doles out himself.
My opinions are mine alone. I don't post them here to change anyone else's opinion. Some people agree with me, and some don't. I am simply some schlub with a computer stating what I believe.
I fully understand and accept that you disagree with me.
You understand that I disagree with you, though it doesn't seem like you accept it.
I haven't found your arguments compelling enough to re-evaluate my opinion of Dr. Siegel. (Though Mike Walsh had some thoughtful insights on how Dr. Siegel may seem to be consistent to himself, which he presented without hysteria and name-calling.)
So, I still disagree. How you react to that is entirely up to you.
More great news from the world of "prevention." A story on the news just has that folic acid added to food and in prenatal supplements to prevent spina bifida are associated with a spike in colon cancer in women.
Some doctor said, "Our efforts to prevent one illness, could be causing another."
Way to go, Public Health!
Of course, the whole thing could be bullsh. It was the news, after all.
Well, IF it's true, I'll accept colon cancer in trade if I keep my kids healthy. Nothing is ever free.
As spina bifida is extremely rare, I'd probably choose that risk instead. (If there's any truth to the colon cancer thing.)
The story was probably crap, but it was nice to see public health made to look stupid.
I'm glad I had a good OB who was very mellow. The only things he specifically warned me way from was Campbell's soup and the litter box. It was nice to have a free pass on the cat poop.
Cowbell & Jaelstra,
My OB was cool too. He only asked, and I stress the word asked, that I try to smoke less than the two packs a day I was smoking back then. He was thrilled when I got it down to little more than a pack a day.
Fine that you have your own opinion Walt H,BUT we neither deserve nor want your use of a power press to crack a nut.
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=922 Perhaps this may be of interest to you Walt H and help explain the logic behind those of us who do not fall into line with your thoughts.
Lynda,
My conversation with my OB went like this:
"You smoke?"
"Yes. Around a pack a day."
"Cut down as much as you can. Okay?"
"Okay."
Not another word about it. His speech about the soup lasted around two full minutes.
I'm so glad my babymaking days are over. The onslaught of crap coming at new moms today must be overwhelming.
And what the heck is a "push present?"
Commenting by HaloScan
