Dr. Siegel wrote:
"Atherosclerosis takes many years to develop. Even in active smokers, it takes no less than about 20 years of exposure before heart disease develops. So how could heart disease be an immediate effect of secondhand smoke exposure?"
SUNDAY, Nov. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Children with heart disease risk factors -- obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol -- already show indications of fatty build-up in their arteries that could cause heart attacks when they're adults, Canadian researchers report.
In many cases, children with heart disease risk factors showed early signs of atherosclerosis.
http://www.healthcentral.com/die...s-22787-
31.html
Damn. I forgot my question. Well, any comments? LOL
The American Cancer Society has been repeatedly warned by Dr. Siegel and other authorities concerning the misinformation the ACS is still providing to both lawmakers and the voting public as to the real hazards of secondhand smoke. Is this not a real basis for a class action lawsuit on behalf of businesses injured by this misinformation?
Interesting. Some of these groups are the very ones the doctor mentions in proving that there is a "consensus" regarding the mountain of dead bartenders and waitresses that has been piling up lo these many years because of all those nasty, dirty, callous smokers.
Does the fact that these organizations have (again?) proven themselves incapable of honest communication call that consensus into question? Is it perhaps time to stop using data from these organizations when trying to accurately measure how high the mountain of dead bodies is in a given state, or across the nation?
Michael;
Similarly to your being ignored; You have ignored the number of times I have suggested, integrity would recognize the science indicates promotion of "Moderation" would save a lot more lives than a hate campaign.
Why do you not respond to this, as a workable solution which could be protective of the smokers TC claims to care about.
The no safe level exists basically nullified all tobacco filler regulation, allowing the industry to sell pretty much what they please, because if it is all dangerous increasing carcinogen levels deliberately with cheap imported tobacco is perfectly fine.
A consistent linear understanding by the general public would suit everyone much more than the off the cuff comments invented by the smoker haters drawn to the TC campaign for self serving reasons.
Doc, everyone above, again, is correct.
You are a whistle-blower that still works for the establishment...you now have an office next to the boiler room in the basement, but no one will listen to you unless you make your stand, which includes serious re-think of your 220 stance.
I'm reminded of the movie "Office Space"
with the lackey clutching his Swingline stapler.
Ummm, Yeah
Just think of the millions of dollars being wasted by these organizations,which could have been much more wisely spent elsewhere,to the benefit of all.Research stopped and money has been pumped in to reach the end product of what you Dr Siegel,clearly see as being scientifically based garbage,for use in the Jihad against tobacco and it's users.The attempted quick fix solution to the perceived dangers of smoking,is not working.More crap studies are not going to provide the panacea.If scientific integrity is really sought,then returning to the basics of SHS would be a good starting point.It may finally lead us to discovering those missing 220 bodies.
Once the public eventually understands they have been duped [and they will]
What will be the value of scientific opinion or credibility.
Anyone ever calculated a risk factor for that reality?
Once the public eventually understands they have been duped [and they will]
Anyone ever calculated a risk factor for that reality?
Kevin | 08.27.07 - 8:25 am | #
***************************
ACSH did:
http://www.acsh.org/publications.../
pub_detail.asp
The Alar Scare
Bartenders won't die if you get rid of the hazard:
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/d...ments/cm-
12.pdf
Pollution + genetic disposition = asthma. From a Californian University. No ETS to blame now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6957139.stm
Dr. Siegel,
Secondhand Smoke has never been about the science because "science" has never been able to definitely establish a "cause and effect" for serious harm.
As is widely known, "the poison is in the dose."
Lifetime pack-a-day smokers usually die three to five years sooner than non-smokers. Even this "fact" cannot be firmly established because of multiple confounding factors.
As has been stated many times, humans have been heavily exposed to the smoke of wood, peat, and coal fire for over 100,000 years. How plausible is it that the relatively tiny exposure to SHS has serious harmful effects?
Even today, adults and children are exposed frequently to BBQ and fireplace smoke. The brush fires that occur on a regular basis in many parts of the US create dense and lingering "fogs," exposures that far exceed anything SHS could produce.
The war on SHS is based on ideology, not science. It is an invented creed, supported by manufactured evidence.
There is a river of money available to sustain and propagate the SHS Church. It's very lucrative for the priests and attracts the usual percentage of the faithful that want to "do good" for the helpless children and workers.
That would be bad enough, but the anti-SHS religion has paved the way for the re-emergence of Eugenics and other filthy Socialistic practices.
You are just now becoming aware and alarmed. We are astonished that it has taken you so long to recognize that government control of one's body and their children's bodies in the name of health and safety is far more deadly than the perils cited to justify intervention.
Freedom to choose has a price...and it's a great bargain.
Doc,
I certainly identify with the pain you feel because antismoking groups will not retract the scientifically flawed claim that 20 min== a permanantly compromised circulatory system.
But from our prospective, the difference between the 20 min claim and the "it happens after 20 years" claim is not as great as it appears from your point of view.
Most of us who post here do not believe the 20 min claim anymore than we believe the 20 year claim.
And you ignore us, just like the acs, anr and tobaccoscam ignore you.
So, at the very least please understand you are doing the same thing to us as those 3 groups are doing to you.
Personally, i would sympathize with your feelings more if you were also not doing the same thing to us.
dave K
FYI
This article was in Slate Magazine.
http://www.slate.com/id/2172230/...2230/pagenum/2/
I aksed Mr. Saletan to take an objective look at SHS. We'll see?
Dave K writes:
"But from our prospective, the difference between the 20 min claim and the 'it happens after 20 years' claim is not as great as it appears from your point of view."
Right. Except that is not even the whole truth. Here, the doctor lays claim to integrity by admitting that 'it happens after 20 years.' Great. But in assessing the risk to ALL bartenders, he wilfully ignored the fact that very, very few of them actually work in the industry for that long. Much less the 40 years he used as the basis of his calculations.
Nor did he take into account that even if some of the bartenders DO work that long, many of them work part-time. And of the few who do work full time for the full 40 years, almost NONE of them worked in environments full of heavy smoke for the full shift, every shift.
Oh. And 40 percent of bartenders are active smokers anyway.
Clearly, he exaggerated the number of people who would die and he exaggerated the risk. And now, he's criticizing TC for... get this... exaggerating the risk.
Chickens? Roosting.
Look, doctor. You are arguing against a ban on SHS in cars with children because the children don't get that much exposure there. They just aren't in the car long enough. Well fine. Great. Agreed.
But you have to apply that same logic to the bartenders. Yeah, I am sure if you looked hard enough you could find me a few bartenders who actually worked through the full 40/40 scourge. But I am equally sure I could find you some kid somewhere who spends an inordinate amount of time in the car. In extreme cases, I bet I could dig up an example of some kid who spent scores of hours a week in the car with a smoking parent. Maybe the parent spent a lot of time driving cross country, I don't know.
But it would be disingenuous of me to isolate that extreme example and use it as the basis of my risk assessment. Why? Because we KNOW that child would not be representative. because we KNOW that's not the risk most children face with regard to SHS in cars.
It makes no sense to use unrepresentative examples as the basis of legislation. The HONEST way forward is to define the typical risk as accurately as possible and go from there.
Maybe TC isn't doing that in this case. BUT NEITHER DID YOU, at least when it was your precious agenda up for a vote. Anything to get the ban passed, I guess.
All I am saying is, your standards for integrity seem rather flexible. When it suits you.
Doctor Siegel said: "I was wrong."
Would you mind very much if the posters here remind you of this from time to time with the typical "Told you so" attached?
And Dave K is right, stop ignoring us.
Our collective "consensus of opinion" at this point is much more legitimate than anything you're going to get from your "colleagues",....ever!
At least we've been up front about our disdain of TC, and more importantly, we've been telling you WHY in tremendously tedious detail.
You have refused to believe that this is in fact a CRUSADE OF HATE, and have been clinging to the quaint notition that this was a societal intervention of some kind in "the interest of public health"
You were WRONG on both counts.
It hasn't been about health for too long to recount, and the only interest remaining here is in the revenue generated by keeping the Crusade alive.
Now is your chance to do something truly helpful to end this masquerade of "helpfulness" that TC is promoting as benneficial to society as a whole while they ignore all the collateral damage caused along the way.
If ANY Civil Liberty is lost as a result of implementing a course of HATRED against a specific segment of our society and then promoted as necessary to achieve what's BEST for "HEALTH"
Then something is clearly wrong, and
if you don't see this DOCTOR, then this country is truly screwed.
HOW CAN HATE, IN ANY FORM, FOR ANY REASON POSSIBLY BE "BEST" FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE PROMOTING IT?
When did HATE become a legitimate quantitative reason for promoting ANYTHING in scientific study?
Smokers don't hate non-smokers.
But we're painfully aware of TC and their effort to educate non-smokers to hate us. Because through the misinformation, shoddy science, and omission of facts, that's what they're led to believe is "best".
It's just sad that this has been allowed to fester into the open wound it has become for no other reason than the continued success of the revenue stream to TC, FUNDED BY SMOKERS.
IT IS PURE, UGLY, UNREFINED GREED.
Now I realize my flaw all along was that I made a false assumption. I assumed that these groups had scientific integrity and truly cared about it.
Where do you go from here?
What needs to be done and how can this misleading information be exposed to the public in a credible way?
(Once back at Work, will this reverse as reprogramming kicks in again by Friday - apologies for the cynicism)
west
----
Re: Delaware beach smoking ban...
Not only a misrepresentation of science (as if science even matters anymore) -- but a real incitement of separatism and hatred (perhaps violence) -- not to mention the possible increase of REAL risks from drowning. It doesn't take much to get people to hate and fear each other. Silly me -- I thought public health was dedicated to the opposite effect.
Although the lifeguards do the best they can -- about half a dozen people actually drown (as in, you know -- dead) each year 'round here. Glad they want to give the lifeguards something else to do. If I had children on the beach, I'd be REALLY happy that the lifeguards were spending their time worrying about smoke.
"The next step, Fields said, would be to rely on the public for enforcement. Fields and other CORC members said if someone were to light up, their neighbors on the beach would speak up and tell them that smoking is not allowed.
Any problems after that would be handled by lifeguards who could act as a link to police..."
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/.../708250319/
1002
Insanity.
From GreatScot's link "People with asthma tell us that traffic fumes make their asthma worse " YET ACCORDING TO DR SIEGEL IT'S ALWAYS SHS,that's why he deemed us callous,since we disagreed with him.If i remember correctly,he also used benzopyrene as his MAGIC figure to help promote his bans that he sought.Yet i understand benzopyrene can be removed with ammonia,but is deemed by the anti movement to be added in order to free up as much nicotine as possible.Which is it then Dr Siegel ? Did you not suggest bar workers inhaled the equivalent of a pack and one half per day courtesy of your benzopyrene methodology.
Bill Hannegan, if you want to remove the stuff that kills bartenders with a ventilation system, it must be powerful enough to suck up all the bottles of alcoholic beverages in the bars. This has the added bonus of the public being able to spot a bar at a fair distance. It's the place where a fountain of bottles spout up in the air.
Another thing I really believe is that many of these antismoking crusaders will live long enough to experience a backlash and exposure of their false claims.
I think one of the reasons why the early smoking restrictions were allowed to fester is because they really were a somewhat minor inconvenience to smokers, for the most part.
For example, durig the 1980s, smokers were increasingly asked to leave their workspace and go to a lounge to smoke, and told they could not smoke on flights 2 hours or less, but could smoke freely in airports. really, not that big a deal.... although I wish to add, there was no justification for that either.
But most smokers learned to live with those early restrictions.and most nonsmokers really did not see these as much of a problem for smokers..and to some extent they were right.
The difference now, is that smokers are no longer merely inconvenienced, but actually being hunted down by antismoking vigilanties, and forced to make drastic changes in how they live their lives. They are getting fired, invasions of personal property, like cars are taking hold, and to end it all, now there is not even any fake science to support these interventions.
and the easily convinced smokers have now all quit, leqving only hard core smokers who at some point will either flagently violate these laws, or join more groups like the smokers club, start contributing money to us, and organize to the point where we can impact politics.
and nonsmokers, who thought all this was reasonable back in the 1980s, are beginning to realize they need to come to the support of smokers too. I actually get lots of help from nonsmokers. When donald trump speaks out against the NJ ban, ( and Donald Trump hates smoking ) something has changed that eveyone from godshell to glantz, had better recoginze that the political climate is beginning to shift.
and as Dr Siegel rightly points out, and states it as his main concern, antismoking is losing credibility because it is actually getting to the point where people like me have an easier time disproving these false claims.
The economics of bans are another example where enough data are now available to prove the antis are lying. and enough nonsmokers have witnessed these negative economic impacts to realize the antis are not scientifically credible.
and once ya establish an antismoking group is lying about one thing, the public will next ask if they are lying about everything.
But I have always noticed, that Dr Siegel says, his main concern is the risk the antismoking movement is taking by making these false claims, and not that he is concerned that the claims are being made against us, although more recently he may be ahving a change of heart here.
and I am seeing more and more nonsmokers even posting here in support of us and more and more talented and intelligent nonsmokers starting their own websites, and blogs against antismoking efforts. if this reaches some kind of 'critical mass" and I think it will, all these leaders in the antismoking movement will be hunted down like the Nazies after WW2 and I think there are a lot of lawyers who have not even been born yet, who will get rich prosecuting them.
This is why i ask Dr. Seigel to defend his science in the same manner any scientist in a different branch of scinece would. dave K
"insanity"-GDF
Probably the most succinct comment I have heard recently. What say you Doc? Public health or ......insanity?
GreatScot
Is the antismoking movement fostering hate???? you be the judge, this is an email I recieved from a city counselor in decatur IL
Mr. Kuneman,
I don't care to join you in a debate. There was no lambasting involved. I have grown extremely tired of the smoking rhetoric as I have been sent all of this information on multiple occasions previously.
We disagree and will continue to do so.
Our city government has made a decision and we are perfectly capable of making assessments and critiquing own actions without the "smoke is OK" propaganda from those outside our city.
Yours speak from an extremely biased point of view. To suggest that cigarette smoke is harmless is an ignorant statement not even worthy of response.
Welcome to my 'spam' list.
Ronny Russell
PS and I had never contacted roddey russell before in my life.
Yet this city counselor is about as much an imbecile as many anti smokers,vote catching anti supporters or the myriad of morons who believe they CONTROL society,rather than supposedly representing them.As i said previously,how can you argue when they don't even bother to offer anything in support of their rabid decisions,other than HATE and LOATHING of smokers.It's called a CONSENSUS OF OPINION,but what opinion is it based on and who is the "consensus" They are about as visible as those 220 bar workers and fk where they are .
I just do not believe this ******* site.
A consensus of biased medical opinion does not constitute fact.
"The concensus is that ETS is harmful"
How come nobody ever calls you guys out on this statement?
Your consensus is a collective agreement that a supposition of predetermined outcome will be correct. It has nothing to do with actual science or proof of fact.
A much more accurate description of the ETS consensus is FRAUD.
Doctor Siegel, .....?
I just do not believe this ******* site.
Si, haloscan does not always save your name there, and I've just gotten used to always looking there first, and typing in my name.
On the other hand...........the blog is the property of a TC person, so you should expect a little harassment.........hehehehehehe
No offense meant Doc, just couldn't resist the irony......LOL
Dave K: I received a similar, but much longer, rant from a politician in Switzerland. My question consisted only of 3 lines, in essence: "Do you think it is ethical when our Public Health Service and our government claims that science has proven that 30 minutes of SHS weakens the heart?"
In the response I was given names such as tobacco lackey and tobacco whore. And the conclusion was along the line: "Finally, I don't care, because we will introduce the bans anyway."
Actually, I programmed haloscan to always record si as "Anonymous" with the thought that this would preclude anyone from hiding under the Anonymous name. Didn't work.
Actually si - the trick is that you need to enable cookies in order to have haloscan save your name and email/URL if you provide them. If you end up deleting the cookie, you need to re-type your name each time. If your cookies are deleted automatically when you exit your browser, that will delete your name from haloscan as well.
sorry about this!
Dave K;
"something has changed that everyone from godshell to glantz, had better recoginze that the political climate is beginning to shift."
Dave something has happened in the Borg collective. I have noticed a growing trend in responses, I am recieving from editors and Jounalists when in the past I received very few.
The responses are on average much more positive and supportive. Perhaps those who have been picking up the tab are not paying as well as they used to, or the editorial world just needs fresh meat because this health scare nonsense is getting so old even the kids music is calling them to ridicule.
I actually heard a new rock song yesterday and have been trying to find out who wrote it, the lyrics "You smell like sex, because you smoke"
That is an indication the bad boy image which first appeared during the past prohibition is starting to rise again
Thanks a heap TC.
Actually si - the trick is that you need to enable cookies in order to have haloscan save your name and email/URL if you provide them. If you end up deleting the cookie, you need to re-type your name each time. If your cookies are deleted automatically when you exit your browser, that will delete your name from haloscan as well.
Well, even that doesn't work all the time Doc. I have my cookies enabled with no automatic deletion, and sometimes I need type my name, even in the same thread that I just posted to.......come on, you can admit it........I was right.......hehehehe 
Si [AKA Anon];
lol
" It's called a CONSENSUS OF OPINION,but what opinion is it based on and who is the "consensus" They are about as visible as those 220 bar workers and fk where they are ."
Instead of accepting the "consensus" self important claim, always correct it, the truthful description has always been "standardized conjecture" They won't like the idea of looking at honesty in the face, but really what have they done for you lately?
"PS and I had never contacted roddey russell before in my life."
Dave K.
Councilman Russell heard from me first. I sent him, the mayor and the rest of the Decatur City Council my standard e-mail that had links to Enstrom/Kabat, Roger Jenkins, OSHA, Dr. Whelan, Dr. Gori and Dr. Michael Siegel. He did not respond to me, but that e-mail might have shaken the consensus on the council for a moment. Further e-mail from our side may not have been welcome.
Also the ACS, ALA or AHA can lobby the council for a ban all day with no problems. But anyone who knows the dissenting ETS science and smoking ban economics from our side like Dave K. or Michael McFadden will be an unwelcome outsider resented for telling a city council in another state what to do. I doubt that Decatur even has a bar or restaurant association that can act as an advocate before the Council.
Lynda,i've also got my settings to accept cookies,and i've not made any amendments to my settings recently either.I reckon you must be right LOL.
OR they're like the MARIE CELESTE and those 220 souls haha.
"My mistake all along has been thinking that the tobacco control movement and its organizations actually care about their scientific integrity."
"I was wrong."
A good part of all scientific progress is the discovery and elimination of false assumptions. I'd like to congratulate you Doc, the path to enlightenment is a long and winding one, but dumping the assumption that TC actually care about the science is a step very much in the right direction.
Ah another day and another Billion dollar wonder drug.
If only the mythical 220 had taken statens they may well be with us today and despite their average age, sharp witted as ever.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/backgroun...gs/
statins.html
Immediately one has to wonder about conflicts behind this ad campaign which are not discussed. Even the numbers giving rise to their conclusions are never mentioned in the various news venues which carried the story.
Social marketing to sway the opinions of the masses is in full economic play.
Thanks a bunch TC
"My mistake all along has been thinking that the tobacco control movement and its organizations actually care about their scientific integrity."
"I was wrong."
Perhaps the example set by medical experts in their willingness to equate the terms "Risk Factor" and "Risk" allowed the current campaign the legitimacy they needed to continue with the public misconception strategy, fully believing science would have to be speaking from a hypocritical stance in criticizing the more recent twisted political science iterations.
Thank yourself first Michael and accept responsibility publicly, otherwise the junk science brigade will only distort the public perceptions even further. Someone needs to admit mistakes were made or no one will really listen will they?
Central to administering control of a population is keeping other judgment balances out of the game. If you want things to change you need to seize the moment and state in front of a news camera deliberate attempts to mislead the public were utilized, that the current industry example of TC is no longer representative of it's founding innitiatives. That will get the public talking and the legislators doing damage control.
Perhaps a return to moderation strategies might be a saving grace which would again find you some allies, while everyone else is making excuses and pointing fingers.
Just imagine...
IMHO - Statins Kill, any drug that can break down muscles can't be useful.
Check out the reduction in 'healthy' levels of cholesterol, along with other reductions in levels of other 'conditions'
http://easydiagnosis.com/
secondo...wsletter17.html
High (Total) Cholesterol:
Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
People under old definition: 49.5 million
New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
People added under new definition: 42.6 million
Percent increase: 86%
The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
Mike's posting once again (for about the one hundredth time) criticizes health organizations over rather small interpretational differences of the scientific evidence on the cardiovascular impact of inhaling tobacco smoke pollution.
If Mike was truly interested in dispelling misinformation about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, he would criticize the blatantly inaccurate misinformation that is spewed by FORCES and the dozen or so FORCES members who continuously repeat their misinformation on this blog.
And if Mike was truly dedicated to dispelling misinformation about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, he would post criticism of FORCES and its members far more often one this blog than he posts criticisms of health organizations.
Kevin,
and yes, that is also something else i am noticing. I started speaking out about 4 years ago, with any degree of regularity, ( although I did write letters to the editor in the 1990s)
For the first 2 years, the media ignored me and my constant appeals to get out the other side of the story. Sometimes, the media were downright hostile to me.
These last 2 years, I have found them much more cooperative.
I never have any problems with cookies unless, i post, and after clicking publish, I do not allow sufficient time for haloscan to accpet the post before doing anything else.
also, sometimes if i just try to enter haloscan from the history on my browser I have problems, so i saved "the rest of the story" in my favorites, and always access it through there, and get a fresh copy.
Dave K
Gilster - The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.
.....
Glister,
When an agency is invested with the power to arbitrarily define (and redefine) the standards used to deploy police power to enforce its mandate, then it is no different than a dictatorship.
You want an Obesity Epidemic? Change the definition of obesity (lower the bar).
An Illegal Drug use epidemic? Lower the "quantity in possession" to qualify for felony-reporting status.
Increase in smoking-related deaths? Add a question to the mandated Death Certificate requiring zero knowledge about tobacco use by the decedent.
The biggie, of course, is to arbitrarily declare a substance as having "no safe level of exposure."
Junkfood Science
August 27, 2007
Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. 
Lead in:
One reader wrote in with a terrific comment, explaining why he doesn’t use his real name on those grocery store discount cards. He said he's just waiting for the insurance folks to figure out a way to access our food purchase records to make sure we’re “eating healthy.”
“I’m sure co-pays, deductibles and premiums will be adjusted accordingly. And most people will think it’s okay, as long as its ‘for the children,’” he wrote.
He was a lot closer to reality than he realized....
The News & Observer recently reported on a new tracking system that the government, drug and insurance industries are sure to pee their pants over:
Wireless tracking system would monitor patients
URL: http://tinyurl.com/33cwfd
Bill, perhaps if you pointed out the actual inaccuracies they could be addressed. Of course, that is if they aren't all in your head...
"If Mike was truly interested in dispelling misinformation about the health hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, he would criticize the blatantly inaccurate misinformation that is spewed by FORCES and the dozen or so FORCES members who continuously repeat their misinformation on this blog."
Please, tell us about the misinformation that is blatantly spewed by FORCES.
FORCES appears to be much more accurate than CTFK, ACS,TobaccoScam and The Americans for Non-Smokers Rights.
Bill characterizes the inaccurate claims of TobaccoScam, the ACS, and ANR as "rather small interpretational differences of the scientific evidence on the cardiovascular impact of inhaling tobacco smoke pollution."
However, the inaccurate claims I am referring to are the assertion that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure can cause heart disease!
If that's a rather small interpretational difference, then I'd hate to see what a major difference in the science looks like.
More importantly, if we are willing to write off our own scientific inaccuracies as being rather small interpretational differences, then the tobacco companies could just as easily write off their own scientifically fraudulent statements of the past as being minor differences in opinion.
Until we end the double standard for holding tobacco companies accountable for their scientific statements but not holding ourselves accountable, we will not have credibility.
And the reality is: the statements that the tobacco companies have made are, in some ways, much LESS inaccurate than the statements these anti-smoking groups are making.
While the tobacco companies made misleading statements or implications, they refrained, for the most part, from material misrepresentations of the scientific facts. In this case, it is hard to argue that the health groups are refraining from a material misrepresentation of the facts, since they are arguing that one can get hardening of the arteries in 30 minutes. I would view it as a scientific fact that one cannot get hardening of the arteries in 30 minutes.
A rather small interpretational difference?....don't even.
"Mike's posting once again (for about the one hundredth time) criticizes health organizations over rather small interpretational differences of the scientific evidence on the cardiovascular impact of inhaling tobacco smoke pollution."
This ought to look pretty familiar. Because it is the same kind of defense that the doctor offers when we criticize his positions.
See how it works? Saying that 220 bartenders are going to die isn't INACCURATE. It's all a matter of INTERPRETATION. And since the doctor opened this obviously false statement by stating his absurd assumption about ALL bartenders working 40/40, well, it's OK. Because it's valuable and "useful" to know things that aren't ever going to happen. And see, people are all so smart and so knowledgable about the issues and the methods of communicating about them that they can connect these vague little dots and know that when the doctor says 220 bartenders will end up six-feet under, what he really means to say is, they won't.
But bartenders? There is no way they can interpret the voluminous communications dedicated to the issues because... well, people just aren't smart enough and don't have time to connect all those vague little dots. Besides, there's a consensus. Except when there's not. And a warning will work in place of a ban. Except it won't. And I'll support a ban on NASCAR. Unless you think I really mean it.
Got it?
The science is not all that complicated. Maybe to do it. Sure. But not to read the studies and come to some conclusions. So in the end, despite what the doctor says, this is more about overarching agendas and aesthetic sensibilities. Which means it comes down to a political and rhetorical battle.
Sure, TC plays fast and loose. That drives Doctor Siegel crazy. But the fact of the matter is, he's been doing the same thing for years and years. And he continues to do so.
Let's consider the E/K study for a minute,
If antis were truly concerned about the welefare of nonsmokers, the E/K study would ahve been welcomed by them as great news. In fact, I would think, if the antis motivations were pure, they would listen to us carefully and hapilly engage us in debate if shs is a hazard at all.
If I were an astronomer, and thought I located a 10 mile wide comet which will crash into the earth in 2050, and someone proved me wrong, I'd be glad.
But for reasons, which unfortunately are clear to me, antis attack any statement that shs may not be a hazard.
If they are truly concerned about public healht, such assertions that shs is safe would be welcomed by them, but if they are really just trying to legislate smoking out of existence, then assertions that shs is safe would be vigorously fought by them.
The same with the 20 min claim. if antis were truely concerned that 20 min can harm a nonsmoker, and Dr Siegel gave them assurances that this is not true, then if the antis motivations were pure, they would welcome Dr. Siegel's assertions. They would gleefully announce to the public that they were wrong, and all a nonsmoker has to do is avoid heavy shs doses over a lifetime, but if a nonsmoker wanted to go play a game of pool in a smokey bar, that would be OK.
If on the other hand, the only true motivation is to legislate smoking out of existence, then they would attack Dr. Siegel, accuse him of not understanding modern vascular biology, and otherwise continue to make the false claims.
So, I think we can all agree that the motivation is to legislate smoking out of existence, and Dr. Siegel, I hope yu are onboard with us here. And I ask you that without asking you to make any statements about shs hazzards itself..I only ask you to tell us if you beleive ONE of the motivations is to legislate smoking out of existance....not to answer if you think it is the ONLY motivation.
If we can establish that it is ONE of the motivations, The next question is: merely,... to what extent will antismokers go to legislate smoking out of existence?
The answer is in the main theme of this blog since I joined in the comments...THEY WILL SAY ANYTHING. and harness anyone stupid enough to beleive their trash to advance their cause.
from Helena, to the 20 min claim, to the connoley study done with the windows up, and the ventilation off, to the 16 cigs/8 hour shift, to no amount of ventilation works, ...you name it,
All-in-all, I really do not think the antismokers care about workers in hospitality venues, children, or anyone but themselves. Here's what I think they care about;
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....s-
lobbyist.html
If you don't bother to open this link, the answer is about 200 million dollars. and it leads to another link where the ultimate goal is to eliminate nicotine in cigs, so that the ONLY consumer source of nicotine will be NRT.
This is the only thing the antis care about. They definitely do not care about the truth. Dave K
Bill, I can't believe you are saying this again. you recently made this same statement and when asked for specifics produced ONE article which you had deliberately misinterpreted OR just flat out didn't comprehend, and several of us, myself included, pointed out to you exactly what that article said.
Care to try again? Give us some specific articles.
Talk about being a glutton for punishment.
Happy Birthday Winne Langley
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...in_page_id=1770
.
My suggestion for Bill G would be he directly challenge FORCES, forget his wuss suggestion the the doctor do his dirty work.
I double dare you to take on FORCES and we will see who ends up standing at the end. (Or perhaps who will be running)
.
Looks like Hillary has never forgiven Bill for his novel cigar habit.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0828...al_cig_curb.htm
GreatScot
Michael Siegel wrote:
"And the reality is: the statements that the tobacco companies have made are, in some ways, much LESS inaccurate than the statements these anti-smoking groups are making."
You name the amount. I'll bet you Cathy is furiously scribbling this down.
Dave K is correct. When people attack good news the way supposed public health groups attack, there's something else going on.
Remember when obesity briefly took the #1 spot as preventable killer? Glantz was furious. You'd think all his years fighting tobacco as the #1 killer had finally shown results, but no, he was furious.
Lynda F,
I was going to say that about Bill G's FORCES rant, but you beat me to it. Damn you. LOL
GDF --- Thanks for the link about the proposed smoker ban on some Delaware Beaches. I don't know how I missed it. I read that site everyday because those are my local papers.
If I remember correctly, I do believe a good portion of those beaches are private, at I think so for South Bethany........or at least there is limited public access.
Happy Birthday Winne Langley
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ pages...in_page_id=1770
.
Sunz
-----------
"Despite the numerous health warnings, Mrs Langley insists she's never suffered because of the habit as she "has never inhaled"."
I guess she never heard of SHS. She should be dead.
Sunz wrote:
"My suggestion for Bill G would be he directly challenge FORCES, forget his wuss suggestion the the doctor do his dirty work."
Mike is the one who claims to be very concerned about misrepresentations of scientific evidence on the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution.
But Mike's actions demonstrate that he's obsessed with criticizing health organizations instead of criticizing those who most blatantly misrepresent scientific evidence.
Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution caused by selfish smokers who are not only in denial about the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, but who are also in denial about their own deadly drug addiction.
Bill,
How about (for the Nth time) some specifics? Surely, you can do that.
But Mike's actions demonstrate that he's obsessed with criticizing health organizations instead of criticizing those who most blatantly misrepresent scientific evidence
And the misrepresentations you speak of are......?
Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution
Personally, I find your rantings on this blog a perfect example of one who has severe personal conflict with his past smoking habit. Rather than dealing with that issue with a priest or therapist----you and your kind have chosen to savage the rest of humanity. You do not have the guts to take a business risk and restrict smoking in your own establishment. You and yours demand that the gun of the goverment be used to enforce personal preference on someone elses property.
I could go on but then the doctor would only delete any further comments I have.
Excuse my French!!!
.
Mr. Godshall.......it is your side of this issue who are so incredibly selfish and in denial of of the hazards of your controlling nature that is spreading like wild fire across this once free country. It is you and your colleagues who who are posing hazards to the health and livelihoods of people you do not know as well as people who do not appreciate your interference in their lives and property.
It is you and your colleagues who are in denial of the damage and irreparable harm you have caused through your uncontrollable addiction to controlling the lives of others.
Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution caused by selfish smokers who are not only in denial about the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, but who are also in denial about their own deadly drug addiction.
Bill Godshall | 08.28.07 - 1:03
Bill....who told you to say that?
dave K
Ah the tried and tested TC tactic.
Bill casts vague accusations about FORCES and Doc Siegel, a twofor.
FORCES lie, Doc's a sympathiser. Challenged to substantiate his accusations he reiterates his rhetoric but as expected provides no evidence.
Bill, like Snus, FORCES obviously gets up your nose. Challenge them yourself.
From the weak and 1 dimensional arguments you exhibit here, my money is on a very quick knockout. (men against boys spring to mind)
Go on Bill prove me wrong, step up and take a swing.
GreatScot
Bill You're hilarious.
Now we have used your own data to back up our statements, yet you tell us that according to an extremist's study (that doesn't tell the people how many smokers there was, if there was any confounders to the air test (fog machine, food serving, local construction, etc) based on (probably the busiest hours) four hours. Come on Bill the Irish Pub "study" that didn't have any publication , just was released in a press kit on March 16, 2006 for irish pubs.
Lets look at confounders shall we?
"There are limitations to this study. Convenience samples of Irish pubs and locations were used and thus, findings may not be representative of all Irish pubs. SHS is not the only source of indoor levels of PM2.5 and other sources such as ambient particle concentrations, cooking, and migration of tobacco smoke pollution from outside could contribute to overall levels of indoor air pollution. We would expect, however, that other sources would be present in both smoke-free and smoking-permitted pubs and thus, differences in average PM2.5 are largely attributable to SHS." -What they don't tell is what the people count is after/before a smoking ban. Which would influence the total particulate amounts. Another thing they don't tell people is that this is Total particulates, there is no actual readings for outdoor pollution that may leak in, stage productions, etc. Oh I can't forget this little gem of a confounder "the sonic measure to calculate room dimensions was not possible, room measurements were made through estimation."; yet they were discreet!
TSk, tsk using a "study" that isn't even peer reviewed or even truly reliable sue to estimation, not all information, and lack of mention on the controls for the mechanical placement of the TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor (would read different if on a stick at ceiling then it would if at people's head height, even though they do say that "Sampling was discreet in order not to disturb the occupants’ normal behavior"), so its actually a report from Harvard, not a "study" that should be used to enact legislation; but you do it anyways. How convenient, and typical for anti smoking groups, estimate, assume, twist.
Doc, I'm surprised you didn't even realize (or mention) how much horse end renderings this guy can put out. I guess thats why he gets paid for his work.
Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution caused by selfish smokers who are not only in denial about the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, but who are also in denial about their own deadly drug addiction.
I actually find you to be an excellent example of what is wrong with the anti-smoking movement. Lies, insults, personal attacks, exaggerations, paranoia, intolerance of dissent or disagreement, and self-righteousness. Every post you make helps reinforce my belief that you guys will slip up some day and will bring about your destruction (figurative destruction, just you don't spin that into a threat).
Mr Godshall wrote....
Mike is the one who claims to be very concerned about misrepresentations of scientific evidence on the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution.
And the rest of the story as I understand it is his concern about TCs misrepresentations of scientific and therefore its credibility, not anyone elses.
Then Mr Goodshall wrote..
But Mike's actions demonstrate that he's obsessed with criticizing health organizations instead of criticizing those who most blatantly misrepresent scientific evidence.
Since the blog is about the credibility of TC/Health organisations then it is only proper and correct that he critiques them rather than others isn't it?
Your remarks are misplaced here. Anyways correct me if I am wrong in my understanding Dr Siegel.
west
----
Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution caused by selfish smokers who are not only in denial about the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, but who are also in denial about their own deadly drug addiction.
Bill Godshall
That’s funny Bill because that is exactly how I feel about you and every other driver out there. You ARE polluting ALL my air, and the air of everyone else. Automobiles are the biggest contributing factor to the general air pollution, not to mention the CAUSE of asthma AND a major trigger for asthma attacks.
As far as I’m concerned, necessity does NOT make your poison acceptable.
Give up your car, Bill, and maybe, just maybe, I can take something you say seriously. After all Bill, it's "for the children" and their health.
Until then, you are just a hypocrite. OH, and even more selfish than you consistently claim we are. You see, we CAN be avoided and we CAN keep to ourselves.........your car exhausts affect everyone. What was that you said about forcing and body parts last week?
Bill G. said; "Personally, I find the FORCES website and postings by its members on this blog to be excellent examples of why legislation and litigation are necessary to protect public health from tobacco smoke pollution caused by selfish smokers who are not only in denial about the hazards of tobacco smoke pollution, but who are also in denial about their own deadly drug addiction."
Seriously Mr. G. you should seek some therapy of some kind. Your attacks on opposing points of view are not only an obvious attempt to distract the discussion (a common TC tactic), but you offer no specifics of the "misrepresentations" (another common TC tactic) you accuse anyone of making.
And just a personal FYI, I find your use of the word "selfish" to be rather selfish in and of itself.
Take a look around at the businesses that are FORCED BY LAW to exclude citizens that smoke because of the rather "selfish' TC movement that wants to go anywhere they like, at any time without having to make a personal choice in keeping with their personal preference of a "smoke Free" environment. It appears to be much easier to solicit government intervention to FORCE the exclusion of smoking citizens because you and your buddies are so selfish as to want every venue all to yourselves.
For any business to succeed, it has to be able to make its customers happy.
Anti-Tobacco extremists make the incredibly small minded claim that any effort to make customers happy and earn a living is purely a “selfish” endeavor. Fighting for the retention of one's PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY BY THE MAJORITY might indeed be selfish, but It’s certainly not misrepresenting anything.
The obvious selfishness of the "Public Health" juggernaut is clearly, and abundantly represented by you and your buddies.
And doc, while I probably understand your reasons here, I'd like to know why you continually allow Bill to call us, or imply we are, rapists.........and then delete (yes I noticed it missing) MY implying he might be a masochist (which is NOT a sexual thing by the way - though it can be for some). As a matter of fact, the last time he implied we were rapists was in relation to children, which to me says he is implying we are no better than pedophiles.
Can we say totally insulting here?
Just curious.
Bill once said a single cigarette distributes quantities of particulate equal to 40 micro grams per cubic meter of air, in a large room yet. Physical testing demonstrated that level in most smoke allowed workplaces and Bars.
Lets assume his contention were true. the numbers indicate the level of inhalation at that rate equate to .001 cigarettes an hour now if we consider his gang's other speak, the smoke contains 4000 deadly ingredients. If we apportioned equal amounts of each because they are not providing proportions and we are generalizing here, we would then be talking about 10 picograms of each per hour exposed can anyone name a substance which would be harmfull at a level of 10 pico grams inhalation [billionths of a gram] per per hour?
Is second hand smoke really deadly when we haven't even gotten to the breakdown of;
How much risk would remain when moving from the end of a cigarette to a non smokers lungs
Is it really scientific to assume all ingredients would be permanently bound to each other and be distributed equally in a room or that anyone in the room would inhale it all before at least a proportion left via the ventilation system?
How much would solidify
How much would attach to particulate in the room?
How much would attach to other solid objects?
How much would others inhale?
How much would be exhaled?
How much would rise above the air or sink below it?
is it further within scientific credibility any part of that smoke would remain within the body for 20 years or that it could cause accumulation or immediately effect damage, which would not be corrected by the body's defense mechanisms within minutes?
Give us a break here Bill, the exaggerations are just getting pathetic and the public is just now starting to notice; ETS is by the wildest stretch of worst case scenario an insignificant "risk factor" not a direct health risk.
More accurately described as an irritant much like yourself.
Casual exposure is not even known to be a "risk factor" unless you have some credible research you would like to share. That would be research not funded with conflicted drug money.
The FORCES you talk about do they follow you in black limos and do you notice a lot of black helicopters around your neighborhood? Does your phone click a lot when you use it? Is someone reading your mail and are your neighbors looking at you funny lately?
Do you hear voices from the radio before you turn it on?
They have pills to cure that, and if you give up the ""addictive"" chewy stuff YOUR HOOKED ON [a risk factor as well] and agree to stop spitting everywhere, they may even agree to treat you, before your psychosis gets any worse.
Well it will be most interesting when FORCES decide the time is right to seek legal redress for all of the bullshit spouted by Bill and his cohorts.Of course he will never challenge Forces ,he hasn't got the "brazils" to do it,all mouth and nowt else.It would be most illuminating to even see him argue one point.How about it Bill,can you manage that,somehow i doubt it.
I'm still waiting for Bill to cite the garfinkel study from the 1980s he said found shs harmful and that was sometime last year.
But I'll bet i could find all the studies, including those few which do find a shs risk on Forces' website.
Bill...why would Forces list ALL the studies, including those which claim to find risk while you only selectively cite those few which do and ignore the ones which do not?
Who's really trying to furnish the public with all the info? who's lying and who's not????
dave K
and what's this fixation Bill has with forces?, there are plenty of other smoker's websites out there, not connected with forces.
Quick bill;
Name me the first 4000 chemicals which pop into your head which we could call "deadly" at a 10 pico grams inhalation rate per hour.
400?
40?
How about just 4?
You could always defend your statements and claim some ingredients would be in higher quantities, which of course would lessen the quantities of others, making them fall completely off the deadly ingredients list as they fall below detection levels.
These statements would seem to be valid only if we we are all being completely candid here.
Small exaggerations by the Public health groups, is all too kind Bill, they are a pack of out right liars and con men.
You hang with the dregs of society the con men and the opportunists who by the trust vested in them by the general public, take advantage for personal enrichment. We don't need a multi billion dollar ad campaign to denormalize those kind of people now do we?
Re; FORCES and access to ACTUAL RESULTS of Studies conducted.
(The good, the bad, AND the ugly)
Only 16% of these studies show an elevated risk of harm from exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
More than 70% show NO RISK at all, while 14% actually reflect a protective quality attributed to exposure of ETS.
Yet, somehow through a "consensus of opinion" the totality of the available evidence is "conclusive"
Such a wide margin in published study results hardly constitutes conclusive evidence of anything other than TC's willingness to deliberately ignore the facts.
"elevated risk of harm from exposure"
NOT elevated risk of INSTANT DEATH.
I wonder about Bill G's repeated use of the "selfish smoker" construction. Are you saying, Bill, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for someone to take a hard, honest look at the studies and conclude that SHS does not pose a serious health threat? That the facts are so clear, so obvious--and the case for the 53,000 dead is so rock solid--that only a nicotine-addled mind could remain skeptical?
If so, how do you explain the continued skepticism of the Gori's and Whelans? Are they just completely bought and sold by Big Tobacco?
How about Doctor Siegel, who agrees with you about some of the studies but not about all of the conclusions and/or appropriate remedies? Does he give them a good, honest look up to the point where he disagrees with you, and then falls victim to Big Money From Somewhere? Or is it possible that there are still some questions?
I ask because I don't get money from Big Tobacco. So I am hardly a shill. And I don't smoke. So I am hardly a selfish smoker.
So... Am I just dumb or something?
I know that's entirely possible. And my wife would have plenty to add. But really. Is it fair to say that any and all opponents of SHS bans have to be shills or smokers?
I don't know. I have strong feelings about a lot of issues. But I am not so sure of myself in any of them that I would conclude that my opponents, by definition, are stupid, ill-informed or on the take.
I think I would owe them more than that.
Anonymous,
I also do not smoke, and I am skeptical of the "science," and I don't agree with the bans. Most of my friends and family (non-smokers and smokers alike) feel the same way I do...and none of us are "tobacco shills." We simply feel that a majority of people are allowing a minority's rights to be taken away for no valid reason.
Folks, just remember it's all about the money. Follow the money. How does a person and/or organization get the money and keep the money flowing?
Here are the main sources of profit:
-- Children's health and safety
-- Uneducated employees health and safety
-- Everyone's health and safety (Obesity, trans fats, salt, diabetes, blood pressure, etc.)
-- Global Warming consequences
Today there exists a new way to exploit children and so-called "uneducated" workers for profit: Claim the right to protect them from "abusive" parents and evil employers.
The number of potential perils are endless and the perils, exposures, can be manufactured by using those who want a piece of the action.
The natural allies of the for-profit exploitation of children/employees are: the Legal Drug Cartel, RWJF (plus other front groups) and politicians and their appointees.
Thus, a multi-billion dollar industry, employing tens of thousands, is based on exploitation of the "helpless."
The book, "War on the Weak," revealed the filthy nature of Eugenics. Perhaps a new book, "Exploitation of the Weak for Profit," should be written to reveal the filthy money grubbing secrets of Big Tobacco Control and other Big "Whatever" Control groups.
"It's About the Money, Honey"
I'm hardly a shill for Tobacco.
I own a business and the property it resides in. And just in case I haven't made it clear, I SMOKE.
Reasonable restrictions on smoking are fine. Voluntary business choices to ban smoking are also fine. But government-mandated universal smoking bans and the social disruption attending them are most definitely not fine. They are not American, and they hurt our lives and our society far more than they help it.
My opposition to Smoking Bans is specifically related to the usurping of my rights as a Property Owner, and how that relates to the economic vitality of the business within.
My property rights have been STOLEN from me because of legislation approved by only 33% of registered voters in Ohio based on outright FRAUD and deception presented to them for consideration in making a decision on whether or not I'm **ALLOWED** to run the business in a way that is MOST profitable to ME.
The freedom to choose has driven our economy and the market system for well over 200 years. Why is it now suddenly NOT the answer to the smoking debate as well.
and what's this fixation Bill has with forces?, there are plenty of other smoker's websites out there, not connected with forces.
Well, in the same way political party X drags out political party Y's loudest or most virulent speaker as a bogey man, without looking at the substance of their arguments.
Equating a smoker who said "Gee, I didn't think charities would lie, I'd like to read more" with a group more apologetic--and easier to ostracise--is pretty easy.
If there's only one or two smokers, it's also "big deal, there's no opposition."
If there are many smokers, it's easy to make people fear the threat of 1000+ FORCES-like people forcing literature into your home.
Sort of like how smokers who just want to be able to smoke in bars "Are trying to get everywhere and release lethal gases into subway systems, and we wouldn't let -terrorists- do that."
Wake up, Bill. How many times do you have to be told? Dr. Siegel's worried of the harm that may be caused to TC, by TC, by saying stupid things that lowers their credibility.
If he got FORCES to correct any mistakes they make, he would, in fact, be helping them gain credibility.
If TC was already credible, he might just be doing what you want him to do. IOW, it's your fault he's not already doing that.
Wow. I've got to share this with you guys:
I begin this with a quick comment about the previous post regarding parents who smoke with their children in the car:
Since we all know that transporting your child in a motor vehicle in and of ITSELF carries a PROVEN and significantly HIGHER risk of injury or death than any smoke the child might be sujected to while riding in the vehicle, one can only assume the motivation on the part of TC to prevent this activity (smoking, not riding in a potentially dangerous automoblie) has nothing to do with the well-being of children. I could come up with a dozen analogies: Kids repeatedly drown at local public pool, (bummer) but let us be concerened about whether or not they are swimming in clean, non-chemically treated water..etc., etc..
Here's how I (and many others who visit this blog) see it: First, they accused us of murdering innocent pedestrians with the fleeting smoke from our cigarettes, and now they are lumping us in with pedophiles and child beaters by deeming any smoker who dares to light up in the vicinty of a minor a "child abuser".
This is not about protecting pedestrians or children, it is only about demonizing the smoker. Period.
And now we see the results..
Today, I was reading a thread on a celeb gossip blog about Britney Spears' bad parenting, and the subject of Brit repeatedly smoking around the kids came up. Here's what one poster had to say: "Smokers. A nasty bunch, you people, with your yellow teeth and rancid breath. You are ruining the world.
If I was in power, I would send anyone who smokes cigarettes to concentration camps, where they would be put to death. I would initiate the Smoker's Holocaust."
By anonymous, on August 27, 2007 19:28:28
Nice, huh? Way to go, TC! Your "movement" is more deceitful and vile than any I've witnessed in my 36 years of living. The Klan has more integrity as a group than you hate-mongers do. I am really, really p*ssed off right now.
Thanks for letting me vent, y'all...
btw, Doc, I have been visiting your blog daily for a little over a year now. I have witnessed great changes in you, and some major consessions on your part. You should know that I have seven children at home. I smoke indoors (with ventilation and/or an air purifier). All of my children are perfectly healthy, and I've got their medical records to prove it. I am no child abuser. I LIVE for my babies. Likewise, I am their whole world. The psychological damage that would be done to my children if they were taken from me is unfathomable. And I can totally see it happening.. It's time for you to step up, Doc, and REALLY help us smokers. We need protection from TC, not from ourselves, or from the big, bad tobacco companies. This sh*t is getting WAY out of hand!!!
This just in.
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/pass...s/39919-
17.html
apparently outdoor passive smoke is worse than indoor passive smoke.
"So next time you spot a smoker remember that passive smoking, indoors or outside, is unhealthy."
Keep bringing on the hate, you b*stards..
I feel sick.
Dawn, don't wait on the doctor to protect you. There is a lot you can do for all of us right away. E-mail the most effective studies and arguments against the ETS hoax and for freedom to state legislators, journalists, city councilmen and newspapers everywhere. These e-mail addresses are easily available online. If enough people like yourself do this, things will start to change.
The fool doth think he is wise (TC)
but the wise man knows himself a fool.
(doc~finally) ~Shakespeare
I bought my first pack of cigarettes
$5.10 (WOW) for a pack of Marlboro Lights (good choice?). Waiting for Sept.1 when the Cleveland Clinic's new hiring ban of smokers kicks in.
Let freedom riiiiiiiiiing!
ps nursing's still a killer
My primary descent is German.When I say I was raised by Nazi's I mean it in a literal sense.Across the country I read accounts of violent behavior by groups like Straight Edge and Skinheads and have seen them attack people a couple of times.To go back earlier in history for this is to take a tour of Germany under the Reich.Smokers were barred from participating in that society.Jewish people were put in concentration camps and/or forced into slavery.A group of forces from various countries allied with each other and eventually put a stop to this insanity and in 1945 in Germany there wasnt much of what could be called a society left.In other words,Natural Law intervened with Hitler and the Reich and it will intervene with this current group.It's not too late for each member of TC to stop and walk away from this crusade.Dr. Siegel I need to thank you for starting this line of communication.
Commenting by HaloScan
