get a clue doc
the evidence is overwhelming
shs is even more deadly than primary smoking
i hear you can look it up anywhere
how can you defend it in any circumstances?
i swear - people are willing to overlook the absolutely ludicrous arguments of tc just because they've been conditioned to hate the smell of smoke or the sight of a smoker
i've said it before
beam me up scotty
the overwhelming evidence seems to prove to me that millions of people all over the world survived and thrived in a world where people smoked cigarettes freely - but we ignore what is before us plain as day in favor of dubious research results
I, personally, was most disturbed to read Dr. Siegel's statement: "First, it could be that anti-smoking groups are just disturbed by the exposure of kids to smoke in cars (which they should be) and want to get rid of it, but they have no intention of promoting banning smoking in homes.".
Exactly why should they be concerned?
You have stated that the transitory nature of exposure in a vehicle poses no threat(And this is a presumed sealed car, which by no means exists anywhere but in a museum bearing Howard Hugh's modified car), so why should they be concerned?
Secondly, it sounds more everyday like you are in favor of intruding into the home for these measures, and still, based on unproven risks, not even a true causal problem, but an insignificant risk, less than standard drinking water, as you yourself have stated.
How is ANY of this justified good Dr.?
One other thing, I remember reading, many times, about the study, the largest done to date, I believe, that found a 22% less risk factor for children of smokers to contract "smoking related" diseases, who is abusing these children now Dr?
Taking away a possibly beneficial exposure for what? Hate's sake?
"For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee"
10 points to whoever names the source of the quote LOL.
And no, it's not Bill, or Carl, but I have heard similar phrasing from them
Dr. Siegel,
Let's face it, that is their goal. Anti-smokers pretty much fall into two groups, the ones who want to see tobacco became part of the extremely successful War on Drugs and those who want tobacco to be slightly less regulated than Plutonium. That is pretty much it.
I understand why you have to be cautious with most of your statements. You have personal and professional reasons to do so, but quit acting so shocked. They did not care about civil liberties or private property in the first place.
Shocked. I'm shocked I tell ya.
*sigh*
Shocked. I'm shocked I tell ya.
*sigh*
I can't wait for the first lawsuit to happen- imagine a kid who grows up to get cancer- realizes that laws were made to prevent exposure in the car, but not at home... obviously the city knew the hazards, and stated they had an obligation to protect him... so they should have also protected him at home, right? Wonder how much the kid may get from the right jury...
Second- I think any kid who can show that the behavior of his parents had an equal risk to that of SHS exposure could also sue such a law making body- after all, they said it was important to protect the kids from SHS exposure with xxx risk over xxx exposure... therefore they should also do so for every other equal-risk behavior, right? I mean, they knew that the other behaviors also carried the same risks, didn't they?
After all, it's for the Childreeeennn.... we should do *ANYTHING* at all to protect our children from all things of this risk level (especially/only from SHS for some weird reason), right?!?!
Jerry-was it a Shakespeare quote? just guessing here.
a11en:
wait til "the children" will sue the parents/govt/public health for even "allowing them to be born" because of the inherent "risk" of being born means someday you die???
How much longer are we gonna put up with these nazis? Huh? Huh?
"For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee"
Kahn said it to Kirk in the movie "Star Trek The Wrath of Kahn"...
Tyranny; it's "FOR THE CHILLRUNS"
Anyone who thinks this is even a remotely good idea, would do well to remember this quote, and the source of it:
"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
- Adolph Hitler
Tobacco Control Advocates should celebrate. They have been able to secure the political will of the public to protect children from parents who in their homes abuse children with the deadly fumes of their addiction. Are these parents any different than nazis who attempted to exterminate jews in gas chambers?
The only difference is that the Germans were not killing their own children!
Well they may as well just lock me up and throw away the key now.........after I throw another log into the woodstove 
Not to mention the oil lamps and candles we have to use for light when the power goes out.....oh and that's right I occassionally cook on that woodstove.
Of course that would be ignoring the fact that apparently my home is well enough ventilated that none of my smoke or CO detectors been set off by the woodstove or cigarette smoke or even the more voluminous smoke from my husband's occassional cigar. The smoke detectors going off from me cooking habanero chile peppers is a whole other topic
I truly think the so-called tobacco control movement is doomed because of this assinine nonsense. Even the idiots of tobacco control, and they are ALL idiots, actually do understand the absolute unconstitutionality of such ludicrousy, even though they will not admit. The proof of this knowlege is in the language of various laws and ordinances banning smoking in "public" places. In order to get around such pesky things as private property rights, new definitions for words such as "public" and "private" had to be written. If you look at them closely, most (if not all) clearly state the bans are not on "private" residences, unless used for a business purpose, or a "private" vehicle unless used for a business.
Y'all never had a legit reason to use government force to ban smoking in private businesses (bars and restaurants or offices) and have NO call to do such in homes or cars, and probably don't have a legal leg to stand on in your attempts.
In the late 1990s, Webster Groves, Missouri considered a ban on smoking in private homes, when children are present, but rejected it.
But let's consider that approximately 10% more smokers are asthmatics than the general adult population, so it is more likely that children of smokers have inherited genes which predispose them to develop asthma. Now, that we have identified many of the genes related to developing asthma, we should test for the markers in children used in studies which conclude SHS causes asthma, to be sure that the effect is not really due to the gentic predisposition, and not the smoke. The same for the allegation SHS causes poorer lung function in children.
Second, adult smoking rates in inner cities are about 30% higher than overall, therefore children of smokers are 30% more likely to be inner city residents. It needs to be ruled out that the inner city residency is not the real reason why SHS studies of children find more asthma. again, lung function too.
Third, smokers tend to be of lower educational level, and may not realize the importance of cleanliness as it relates to dust mites, etc, which excerbacate asthma.
Fourth, smokers tend to be of lower economic status, and are more likely uninsured and therefore, their children may not be getting proper medical attention to treat asthma.
The SIDS argumemnt is stupid. First, SIDS by definition is any unexplained death of an infant. Most SIDS deaths occur in hospitals, where smoking has not been allowed for more than 20 years. Infants do not have developed immune systems and therefore do not manifest symptoms when they get an infection.SIDS researcher, Dr Goldwater, found that among all cases of SIDS he examined, e.coli infections were the real culprit, not SHS.
More cases of ashtma, lower respiratiry infection, ear infections, occur in todays children than decades ago when many more kids were exposed to smoke. If SHS were the culprit, these conditions would be declining in children. Time-trend studies in children are even more meaningful, than in adults, because children cannot have latent effects from exposure decades ago.
I agree that kids exposed to smoke get more of these conditions, this, however, does not mean that the smoke caused the condition. Common simultaneous circumstances of smoke and real (and known) risk factors for these conditions in kids exist.
So when smoking is banned in cars, that is not scientifically defensable, same for homes. Dave K
I went to the Echelon Mall in Voorhees, NJ, around 1PM today. New Jersey is thinking about the same kind of law for cars in which "children" are riding. To make a long story short, There were about 8 or 10 "children" (I guess 14 - 16 years old) standing outside the mall entrance. Yes, they were smoking. These laws are becomming laughable. It is not "for the children". It is for control and greed with some hatred thrown in. The "children" are mocking our laws, and we knew it would come to this, as it is the law of human nature for the "children" to rebel.
There are also racial discrepencies in the profile of likelhood of chlidren geting these conditions, irrespective of smoking status of parents.
Since smoking is more common among some races than others, then kids exposure to smoke and the racial risk factors need to be isolated, and characteized before any conclusions about SHS can be drawn. Dave K
Dr Siegel,you are wasting your breath suggesting they follow the same idealism regarding,alcohol,obesity,you name it.It refers to smoking and that is all they want to subdue and dominate.So where do you stand ?What is going to be your arguement BEFORE they attempt to kick in someones front door to save the poor,pathetic creatures called children,even decrepit 17 y.olds.Well it's just fine that science is just totally ignored and the rule of the loonies and their demands are just met.My real thoughts about Tobacco Control cannot be printed and i'm not going to give you the opportunity to zap them.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"That would open the door to regulating all kinds of risks to which parents expose their children."
Trampolines. Thank God someone is finally going to do something about trampolines (and dozens of other things).
Trampoline Injury Facts
According to the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), 246,875 medically treated trampoline injuries occur annually in the U.S. Of this total, 186,405 of these injuries occurred among children aged 14 or younger.
http://www.fscip.org/tramp.html
Dave K, you said:
I agree that kids exposed to smoke get more of these conditions, this, however, does not mean that the smoke caused the condition.
While I agree with your contention that there is no correlation about smoke being the cause, I don't agree with you that kids exposed get more of the conditions, primarily because of an earlier statement of yours about the smoking rates being higher in inner city areas, along with the economic and educational levels being lower in smokers than non.
I grew up in NYC, and asthma, bronchitis, ear infections, and the rest of the list of illness supposed caused by SHS exposure were practically non-existent. And I grew up in a typical blue collar neighborhood of cops and firemen, etc, and most of the parents did smoke.
Now I live in a rural community, which is pretty low on the scale when it comes to economic and educational levels, and very few of the parents of young kids I know smoke....yet they are all the ones that seem to forever be sick.
The above comment to Dave K. is from me - I don't know why my name didn't appear 
BAN TRAMPOLINES
Slightly off topic, but I heard today that California is thinking of making spanking your children illegal. I am not big on spanking, though I know a few who needs a good swat, as I think that someone should have slapped the likes of the Bills and Carls up against a wall once or twice and maybe we wouldn't be hearing from them so often. Now I dreaming. So, after hearing that I have decided that it has come time to either sterilize all women or else we just hand our newborns over to the health police and let them raise them until the kids becomes legal age. I am just thinking of the children and I want to protect them from any risk or harm. Should we start a petition and send it to Congress? I bet that Ted Kennedy would jump on the bandwagon as he is a person that we should all emulate.
Just don't let him drive over any bridges.
"Thankful kids, when they reach voting age, might recall the lungs-saving kindness"
Only if by then people are permitted to even think!
Interesting observation, RevLee. Perhaps the government should pass laws that prohibit children from smoking at home, to protect their parents from second hand smoke!
Hmmm. Suppose we have a little family of mother, father and son. Mama and papa are smoking. One day they get worried that their son may tell them off for smoking. What idea might they come up with?
Before I go off topic with an Enstrom/Research Funding update that's important, I remembered that I have other recent comments by Banzhaf on the topic of coming into our homes (courtesy of the same reporter who recently spotlighted Dr. Siegel):
Secondhand smoke: a public nuisance?
Some cities move to curb smoking at home
Inside Bay Area - October 23, 2006
By Suzanne Bohan
http://www.insidebayarea.com/san...news/
ci_4535322
While many have come to accept and even welcome smoke-free public places like restaurants and bars, anti-smoking laws reaching into the home enter new territory. Editorials on anti-smoking initiatives have decried a "nanny state" taking hold in the country.
But Banzhaf, the attorney, said such concerns ignore existing restrictions on home life.
"They are making an assumption that if you do something in your home, it's protected from the rule of law," he said. In fact, laws prohibit a range of activities, he said, such as walking around disrobed inside one's home but within view of neighbors, or storing explosives. Nor could a neighbor spew asbestos-laden dust or emit plumes of benzene vapors, a highly toxic chemical known to cause cancer, while cleaning machinery in a home garage.
Furthermore, courts have consistently ruled that citizens have no privileged right to smoke. "The idea of there being some right to smoke just doesn't ring true," Banzhaf said. Nor do pleas that the home front provides the last refuge to smoke in peace sway him.
"The mere fact that I enjoy it, that it's relaxing, is irrelevant," Banzhaf said.
-------------
Aside from everything else one can point out as wrong here, note how Banzhaf gets "privilege" and "right" in there in one breath. He's got the defined words of privileges and rights all neatly wrapped up there and claims to own both.
Nevertheless, we don't get our natural rights from other men who appoint themselves the job. And of course he and any others who like to mangle the Constitution do so by trying to argue that if it's not enumerated then we don't have this right or that one. Meanwhile, the lack of enumeration means the exact opposite as intended by our Founding Fathers. To follow Banzhaf's logic then ALL that exists -- chewing gum, listening to certain kinds of music, wearing baseball hats!, and on and on -- have to be listed in a federal document and a determination made on each.
Gabz wrote:
"BAN TRAMPOLINES"
I totally agree, but we have to protect children from schools abusing them too. Sports. And football's first:
Pediatrics for Parents, Sept, 1991
1990 was a special season for high school football. For the first time in 60 years there were no deaths directly related to the game...There were three indirect football deaths, down from nine in 1989.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar...ept/
ai_11600070
August 24, 2005
The Arizona Brain Injury Association has just issued the following press release in which it states that they expect 10% of the state's high school football players to suffer a concussion this season.
http://www.braininjurylawblog.co...ing-
season.html
Each year, more than 448,000 football-related injuries to youths under age 15 are treated in hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics, ambulatory surgery centers and hospital emergency rooms.
http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/fact/
t...category=Sports
Any kid with a football helmet is an abused child. Period.
Here's the Enstrom/Research Funding info of late:
Heretic or Martyr?
Epidemiologist Still Scorned for Questioning Passive Smoking's Harm
Advance Magazine (Dec. '06)
Vol. 19 •Issue 26 • Page 12
http://respiratory-care.advancew...l&AD=12-11-
2006
[Opening two paragraphs]
Judging whether James Enstrom, PhD, MPH, is more sinned against than sinning might come down to whether you smoke or not, agree with smoking bans or not, have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or not, or treat COPD-ravaged lungs for a living or not.
As ADVANCE readers do the latter, they may already know about Enstrom. They may agree with critics who consider him, at best, a lone voice in the wilderness, at worst, an infuriating heretic. To his supporters in academia though, Enstrom is an objective scientist attacked because he presents research findings that happen to run counter to mainstream ideology.
--------
And here, Glantz -- whose arrogantly presumptive headline last week was "UC Regents to Vote to Decline Tobacco Money" -- gets a booty kicking
UC regents delay decision on tobacco ban
Contra Costa Times - January 18, 2007
http://www.contracostatimes.com/...ws/
16490510.htm
[Excerpts]
University of California leaders today delayed a decision on whether UC researchers can continue to accept money from tobacco companies.
After a spirited discussion, a Board of Regents committee postponed its vote until May so faculty members could have more time to come to a consensus. The issue has divided faculty across the state.
But regents' concerns over limiting academic freedom appeared to turn sentiment against Glantz and Regent John Moores, who proposed the ban.
JustTheFacts wrote:
"To follow Banzhaf's logic then ALL that exists -- chewing gum, listening to certain kinds of music, wearing baseball hats!, and on and on -- have to be listed in a federal document and a determination made on each."
Does anyone know Banzhaf's home phone number? I want to make a bologna sandwich, but I want to check first to see if it's okay.
I mentioned on another board before that our state AG made a statement in regards to hunting and fishing that we residents had the implied right to hunt and fish because we could before our state became a state.
That means the use of tobacco is an implied right too.
Once we start intruding into the private home to protect children from merely the increased risk of illness, we have crossed a line that should not be crossed.
Sorry Doc, you crossed that line with the first workplace ban. Adults in an office actually have more choice to stay there than do children in the home.
This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, we've been telling you all along this is where it was going.
What the Journal News does not appear to understand - and this is critical - is that secondhand smoke is not akin to child abuse because it usually does not involve harm; it merely involves increased risk of illness.
Can you please then explain to me why you still support some bans, given that even for adults there is NO harm, but only increased risk?
Doc, I hate to point this out to you, but these last couple of postings of yours have shown your own contradictions, and to me at least, your fighting desperately to hold on to what you have believed for 20+ years.
Someone pointed out earlier how the obvious in your face proof (us baby boomers) is totally ignored while you all spout and push your so-called science (which you continually debunk yourself). Personally I think the reason you all overlook the obvious is because you do know where the real causes are and to go after those would mean everyone, including yourselves, having to change the way they do things and live..........something none of you care to do. So instead you go after what the minority of the population enjoy, and pat yourselves on the back with your "protecting the health" and "for the children" rhetoric.
I for one, am fed up with all this "holier than thou" crap, and I will NOT go down quietly.
Lynda -
These positions aren't actually inconsistent. The intrusion into the home is not justified, in my opinion, unless there is direct, immediate, and severe harm to the child. Thus, I oppose smoking bans in the home.
However, for workplace safety regulations, I believe that government intrusion IS justified to reduce risks of ilness and injury, not necessarily only when there is immediate harm.
It is a patriotic duty to maim un statutory de facto law.
The most disrespected and defacto law was the 1975 national 55 MPH speed limit. in my lifetime was the only time that I wittnessed the nation at war with a de facto law.
Today the national speed limit is what the interstate system was designed for in 1956............
I am looking for a smoke kop detector. any on the market yet?
Dr Siegel :
"However, for workplace safety regulations, I believe that government intrusion IS justified to reduce risks of ilness and injury, not necessarily only when there is immediate harm."
In my opinion there's the rub to your being a supporter of workplace bans.
Can you please clarify for me what "immediate harm" means. Afterall you state that the only way to get damage from SHS is long term, and high exposure. Yet I don't hear you mentioning quantities, or time in the workplace (just immediate harm).
Why mention chronic long term exposure in some areas, then say the workplace is an immediate problem? I'm Confused
LOL James re the bologna sandwich and for helping to make my point.
Dr. Siegel, perhaps you should consider submitting a paper here:
http://www.healthpromotionethics.eu/
Conference 2007
Welcome to the official website of the 2007 conference on the ethics of health promotion: SETTING AN ETHICAL AGENDA FOR HEALTH PROMOTION, hosted by the Institute for Law, Ethics & Society (In Rem) at Ghent University and co-organized by the departments of Public Health at Ghent University and at the Free University of Brussels and by the Flemish Insitute for Healht Promotion (VIG). The conference is supported by the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE).
http://www.allconferences.com/co...20061002045008/
Despite the moral motivations the domain of health promotion practice is littered with ethical pitfalls.
...Another domain where ethical analysis is required has to do with the numerous adverse and perverse side effects health promotion interventions can generate, viz. victim blaming, stigmatization, medicalization etcetera.
This conference attempts to bring together scholars from both the fields of ethics and health promotion in order to identify and to examine the ethical issues that are at stake within the context of health promotion.
The organising committee of the conference invites papers for oral presentation on the following topics:
- the moral necessity of tackling health inequalities
- the use of coercion in public health interventions
- the role of health literacy in avoiding paternalism in health promotion
- empowerment versus repression in health promotion
- health promotion as enemy or ally of individual autonomy
- health promotion and imposing conceptions of ‘the good life’
- health promotion and paternalism
- the role of health promotion with regard to ‘medicalization’ and ‘healthism’
- health promotion and individual responsibility
- the use of marketing strategies in health campaigns
- the applicability of the achievements of biomedical ethics within the context of health promotion
- individual interests versus the common good
- any other topic that deals with the ethical aspects of health promotion
Abstracts of no more than 500 words should be emailed as a Word-document to Hans Donckers at hans.donckers@ugent.be Deadline for submission is March 1, 2007.
I think Dr Siegel that both the comments of Lynda F and Lynda D,encapsulate the points i was attmpting to make on my earlier comment.You have said that by banning smoking in cars containing children,it will increase exposure to those children in the home.This will be taken as a green card by those unethical antis that succeeding in banning smoking in cars MUST be followed with a ban in the home,since that it was you have said.Your words may have read increased risk,they will read it and twist it so that it means increased harm.It is on the cards.Surely you now realise that they read into things what they want.You have never really stated that the risk is MINIMAL and inconsequential in 99.9% of circumstances.I'm sure that if i wished to ,i could promulgate an article clearly showing you to be in favor of these bans by simply taking many of your comments out of context.Many other people on this blog i believe,are saying the same thing.By using an arguement based on privacy to oppose bans in cars and homes,both of which are under siege,and suggesting an increase in exposure, is tantamount a red flag to a bull.Perhaps fully explaining the difference between work place bans and bans in the home,based on risk/exposure may be advantageous.
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around no smoking in the car with a child under the age of 18 and was once again thinking about it. Then a thought came to mind. In most States, a person can drive a car at the age of 16 or 17. Let's say that child, as he/she is under 18, smokes and does so while driving. What will their fine be or how will the law pertain to a minor who is driving and smoking at the same time? In the real world, children under age 18 has friends or relatives over the legal age to purchase cigarettes and those people will purchase them for them. I know I had friends who would have bought them for me at that age.
i suggest we start to regularly use the word EXTREMISTS to descibe the anti-smoker/anti-smoking crusaders. let's label them for what they really are, use the word over and over again. language is very powerful in today's media driven world.
I have a question: Is there a legal age for smoking in the US and particularly Maine ? I know you can't purchase cigarettes if you're under a certain age, but can a teen be intercepted for the act of smoking itself? I know that in Quebec (and probably elsewhere in Canada) police can't and won't do a thing if they see a 12 or 13 year old smoke except perhaps lecture them.
Lynda D - I'm not arguing that secondhand smoke in the workplace causes immediate harm. What I'm saying is that secondhand smoke exposure increases health risks, and that this is a sufficient reason to regulate smoking in the workplace, but not in the home.
" Trampoline Injury Facts
According to the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), 246,875 medically treated trampoline injuries occur annually in the U.S. Of this total, 186,405 of these injuries occurred among children aged 14 or younger.
http://www.fscip.org/tramp.html "
To get to the really shocking facts, we have to create a ratio of how many injuries in relation to how many trampolines are in use. The risk factor would be millions of times higher than primary smoking and trillions of times higher yet than the risk of ETS
I wonder how the media reports would define the percentage of increased risk to hide the inappropriate nature of a 30% increased risk?
In WI, this past year, the Governor passed legislation increasing fines, levels (up to Misd. levels) and $$ up to the hundreds for under 18 year olds purchasing/possessing cigarettes.
Also, passing the 8 yr old booster seat law-for easier visibility of police is my guess-for this very "smoking in one's car".
Also, pushing for the booster seat law for up to 18, if you are under 4 ft. so many inches and a certain weight. Again, for "visibility" for police into your vehicle.
We have a state Supreme Court Justice who is under the height/weight limit-who will now be required by law to be in a booster seat when SHE is driving her vehicle....
Ahh, the absurdity of all of this. Boggles the logic. Always "the next logical step" of theirs-spiraling down the 7 levels of hell.
OK DR SIEGEL so what is the difference between workplace bans and home, regarding risk ?
In other words we should ban people from enclosed swimming pools, mining of asbestos (still happens in canada), etc.
I realize that just geeting out of bed could be harmful, if the right situations, etc occur. I also realize that water can kill (intoxification) if in great quanties. I also realize that the carcinogens coming off the bacon and eggs your waitrss bring over, is harmful.
Should we now legislate that serving bacon and eggs is outlawed due to the increased risk coming off the food? Afterall having full exposure (waitresses hold plates by face) for many hours, greatly increases risk, and danger too.
What I am trying to say is that there's increased risk, to everything we work at (automotive paint booth). Should we be able to just say any exposure (due to not enough research on total constituents of substance, therefore no safe exposure) is outlawed, and ventilation doesn't work?
Shouldn't we have to justify regulations that inhibit busness just based on risk, not demonstrated harm?
OK, Dr. Siegel, then why total bans at work, why NOT separate rooms for smoking? WHY push all smokers into basements or on the street? We are ONLY talking of POSSIBLE increased risk for some individuals, as many here have shown that the increased risk is NOT guaranteed in ALL individuals.
So, please explain to me the acceptance of these discriminatory bans. Logically...without your personal bias IF possible.
Gabz, but if you whent back to your old NYC neighboorhood today, you would probably find even more of the ear infections, ashtma etc, than in your curent rural are.
This city and asthma kids thing is smoething researchers have noticed only over the last 20 years or so.
One explanation , which is given by researchers is that the switch to radial tires has caused this big asthma jump in cities. Radials use much more latex rubber than the older bias belted tires.
The relationship between latex and alleriges is stunning.
Dave K
Bucknell University has done a lot of this asthma radial tire research
I think I may be able to shed some light on the distinction between justifying invasion into the home regarding parental smoking, vs other kinds of low level behavir which dr siegel says are in the same category.
Saturday morning, the Mayor of Bangor was on NBC and said, first, that he is a smoker and was agianst the proposed car ban. however, when he heard testimony about just how dangerous SHS was to a child, he changed his mind and supported it.
The problem with Dr Siegel comparing parental smoking in cars and homes with giving a kid french fries or not getting enough excersize and watching too much TV, etc. , is that our lawmakers ahve become convinced parental smoking is much worse.
From what I got watching the mayor's inteview, it looks like he thinks a kid exposed to smoke WILL ALWAYS have more ear infections, asthma, infections, and other serious health risks. To me, it looks like the mayor came to believe smoking around a child is the same as beating a child, starving a child, sexually abusing a child, etc. and I suppose he was spaeking for the Bangor City council too.
I'll bet if you whent into the Bangor website and looked at testimony given by those who spoke when the ban was bieng considered, Dr. seigel would be amazed that probably even respected members of the bangor health community do not understand what these studies actualy concluded, and actually mean.
Dave K
si - I don't see a qualitative distinction between the health risks of secondhand smoke in the home versus the workplace. The difference in my opinions regarding the appropriateness of reguating one hazard but not the other is based on the differences between government intrusion in a public place/workplace and a private home.
But a workplace is still someone's private property. It's no different from me telling you if you come to visit, "I smoke here and allow smoking here, if you have a problem with it don't come in". Those are private properties inviting certain people to work there. People that share the same way of working or don't mind that others work in that manner (whatever that manner is). You Doc, have set this in motion. You destroyed the concept of private property. You said "Oh, you let people work there, it's not private anymore, it's time to regulate it". And now the anti's say "Oh, you have kids, it's not private anymore, it's time to regulate it".
Sorry Doc, I hate being a jerk to you, but you started this mess.
I think we have established that SHS does kill some number of babies annually through SIDS and can and does also kill some number of children through severe acute asthma attacks.
So, Dr. Siegel, if one of your patients smokes in the house and her baby dies of SHS induced SIDS, how do you differentiate risk vs. harm for that parent?
Or how about the parent who's child dies from a severe asthma attack, is that just another unlucky day of risk roulette?
Risk is harm distrubuted over a sample of people.
If you know SHS causes SIDS, doeesn't it border on negligence to allow a parent to continue with an unnecessary behavior that could kill their child?
Dr Siegel are you suggesting that there is no difference in the effects of SHS on children compared to adults ? Workplace staff can change,unlike children and parents,as Lynda says,what about designated smoking areas ?In the home a smoker can frequent another area of the house.You have stated that the health effects of SHS are due to the chronic long term exposure.Now i can't see long term exposure in the home equating to the workplace.In the workplace there may not be the avoidance of exposure,if you sit at a desk all day for example.In the home,children are not going to be in the same room on a constant basis,going out to play,bathtime,earlier bedtime etc etc.But since you equate the health risks as being broadly similar,intrusion into the home is being given a green light,you are providing the ammunition and letting someone else pull the trigger.A car is an extension of a person,but already the rights of the person inside have gone to the dogs.Intrusion into the home will happen because you have said there is no difference between workplace and home exposure.It is irrelevant that you say intrusion into the home shouldn't happen due to privacy.It is the american gungho mentality that will prevail,big brother,we know best,you cannot hide behind closed doors.You have argued tooth and nail that exposure to SHS does not lead to immediate health problems for the large majority,you have watched the critical time reduce from 30 minutes to 10 minutes,you say the health effects from shs are from chronic exposure over many years,yet you are pro workplace bans,without suggesting smoking provision ,state shs in the home is not a form of abuse but carries the same risk as in an unregulated workplace.Your dividing line can be measured only by the use of a micrometer.I'm sorry but i think you are trying to justify intrusion into the home should not occur but secretly in terms of goodhealth,it needs to be.You can't have it both ways in todays atmosphere of allowing smokers to be seen as the root of all evil.If Mein Fuhrer Von Mcain has his way and regulates blogs ,similar to big brother in China,then it's going to be pretty interesting to argue anything which goes against the extremist antis and their stooges in your illustrious Government.Frankly i am amazed that Bill has not jumped into this discussion to "discuss" the vagaries of your position.Sorry but i rather think you have (unwittingly ? )led us up the garden path regarding SHS ,since the term chronic can now simply apply AFTER 30 minutes,not the numerous YEARS you seemed to have implied in previous posts.
You've described other "risks" that you feel also cannot and should not be regulated. But there is a difference between these risks and SHS.
First, parents can easily avoid exposing their children to SHS by smoking outside and not in the car. So unlike many of the other things you mentioned, this risk is easily avoidable.
Second, some of the "risk" items you mention ARE considered child abuse and dealt with as such.
For example, its one thing to allow a child to get a mild sunburn. But parents who have allowed their children to get severe sunburns have been prosecuted. http://www.findarticles.com/p/ar...22/
ai_n12639005
A parent who takes their child to McDonalds once for a dose of trans-fat isn't risking the health of their child, but if they did it every day KNOWING their child was morbidly obese, that is abusive.
In addition, your own set of examples shows that laws that intrude into the home for "risk" behaviors already exist. Serving alcohol to children is illegal whether you are in your own home or not.
So I don't think it is really that hard to differentiate normal risks of living (riding heelies, wood stoves) with unnecessary risks that are easily avoided as SHS is.
I originally was opposed to a laws that would ban smoking in the home when children are present. But after reading your post and thinking about it, I am much more convinced now that it may be an appropriate question for lawmakers to raise at some point in the future.
Carl wrote:
"If you know SHS causes SIDS, doeesn't it border on negligence to allow a parent to continue with an unnecessary behavior that could kill their child?"
There's a claim that 90% of skin cancer cases are from exposure to the sun. They also say that early childhood exposure is the greatest danger.
Are you saying, Carl, that all parents are negligent who allow their kids outdoors?
It's a fact that every time a parent puts their kids in the car to go to a movie or a smoke-free restaurant there's a risk of serious injury or death, not to mention vehicular exhaust emission inhalation. Are movies and eating out necessary? Of course not. I'll bet you're not willing to call that bordering on negligence though.
You appear to either be hung up on or grasping at straws with your argument that smoking around kids is an unnecessary risk. There are many "unnecessary" risks we put our kids through. School sports is just one of many.
BTW, from everything I've read, which I'm sure is more than you've ever read, there is less reason today to think of SHS causing SIDS deaths than ever before.
James, taking kids outdoors is essential. Smoking in the house with your kids present is not. Further, there a many ways to protect kids from UV rays - sunscreen, baseball hats they wear when they are on the field, and so on.
You are entitled to your flat earth opinion that SHS doesn't cause SIDS, I just don't agree with you.
Again, the LEADING CENTER FOR SIDS research has CLEARLY stated that they do not know what causes SIDS and they don't want to be associated with claims that smoking causes SIDS.
to Sleep" campaigns in reducing the SIDS death rate (placing the baby on its back rather than on its stomach) and linking smoking and other environmental factors to an increased "risk" for SIDS seem to underplay or leave out entirely the most fundamental point about the status of SIDS research efforts:
Researchers don't know what causes this leading killer of babies between two weeks and one year. Because the underlying causes of SIDS remain unknown, all newborn infants are potentially at risk for SIDS.
Babies placed on their backs to sleep still die of SIDS. Babies not exposed to cigarette smoke still die of SIDS. Babies who are breast fed, who have had wonderful prenatal care, who were full term and of normal birth weight, who have parents who have not abused drugs, in short, who have no known risk factors, still die from SIDS.
As the result of the way these research studies are presented, the public may come to view SIDS as somehow "preventable" if we simply alter the child's environment. Of even greater concern to me is the effect of these reports on families who have lost a child to SIDS, and they still number around 500 a year in California, and between 4,500 and 5,000 nationally.
The last thing we need to do to parents who suffer this tragedy is stigmatize or marginalize them. The simple truth is that SIDS can, and does, claim any baby, in spite of parents doing "everything right."
Barry S. Brokaw
SIDS Alliance Board of Directors
Sacramento, CA
Carl - 12,10,9 a little late to worry about SIDS.
So what's your compelling reason to interfere in my personal life now that my kids beat your odds?
asthma? nope
URI's? nope
OM? nope, not that either
face it - the vast majority of us kids that grew up around SHS are surviving just fine without your interference
oh and my money is on vaccines causing more sids than shs ever will but i don't expect experts to ever admit it
don't know why i come up anon every so often
Carl, I'm not sure where you get the idea it's illegal to serve your child alcohol in your own home. It's perfectly legal to let your child have a small amount of alcohol. Many people allow children wine at dinner. Or on special occasions.
Severe sunburns aren't a "risk", they are severe sunburns, immediately harmful. A hugely obese child is not an increased "risk". That is a child that is having health issues due to their obesity. "Risk" is BEFORE they get sick, not after. A minor sunburn is an increased risk. A meal at McDonald's is an increased risk. Salt in their food is an increased risk. Serving them chicken is an increased risk. Giving them their first peanut is an increased risk. Those all open a door to allow a childto be harmed due to parents behavior and allowances. Having a swimming pool increases the risk ofa child drowning. All these are unnecessary risks. They need none ofthese things tolive. Do you support marking it as child abuse to own any of these things?
Anon, check the laws on driking in Connecticut. It is illegal to serve children alcohol in your home in Connecticut. Looks like maybe the slippery slope you're worried about isn't so slippery after all.
I agree with everything you posted on SIDS. We don't know the cause or why it happens. What is very clear is that it happens MORE often in homes where children are exposed to SHS.
Carl
"What is very clear is that it happens MORE often in homes where children are exposed to SHS."
Could you provide a link that shows this? I would be interested in reading it.
Carl wrote:
"James, taking kids outdoors is essential."
After I just got done telling you that's where almost all skin cancer comes from? What, skin cancer is essential? For what?
"Smoking in the house with your kids present is not."
It is to some.
"Further, there a many ways to protect kids from UV rays - sunscreen, baseball hats they wear when they are on the field, and so on."
Are you daft? One theory for all the skin cancer cases is precisely because of the use of sun block.
And baseball hats? That's not even close to 100% protection.
What's the matter with you? All of a sudden you don't give one crap about kids so don't use them next time you want smoking banned somewhere. You're just a phony.
"You are entitled to your flat earth opinion that SHS doesn't cause SIDS, I just don't agree with you."
Who's the flat earther? You obviously haven't done any reading on the subject. You don't even seem to know the difference between link and causation.
Carl wrote:
"Anon, check the laws on driking in Connecticut. It is illegal to serve children alcohol in your home in Connecticut."
Who gives a damn about CT. In my state (WI) I can give my kids beer or booze at home and it's legal. Legal for them to smoke too.
"Looks like maybe the slippery slope you're worried about isn't so slippery after all."
Nice try at covering up you didn't know what you were talking about.
I can even take my kids to bars in my state, can you do that Carl? I'm pretty sure they can drink in them too. I sat on a jury where an underage drinker's defense was he had been drinking with his dad in a bar and not at the party he was busted at.
You're going to have to hire a publicist, Dr. Siegel. Here's a quote from an Associated Press article by Bassem Mroue in the New Hampshire Sunday News of Jan. 21: "Susan Burgess, the mayor pro tem of Charlotte, N.C. said what's fueling the push [to ban smoking] is a U.S. Surgeon General's report released last June that found just a few minutes inhaling someone else's smoke harms nonsmokers, and separate smoking sections don't offer enough protection."
You should contact this dame and straighten her out, doctor. Pleeease!
James, in my state you can too. And yes, here if you take your child in to a bar, you can give them alcohol, but you MUST be the parent or guardian. Also, if you are married and your spouse is over the legal drinking age and you're not you can drink as well. Buddy of mine was 16..perfectly legal.
Which means in my state, if you are 14 years old and either with a parent or married you are permitted to get as drunk as you like. However, if you do it regularly with a parent it's child abuse...what is it if you do it regularly with a spouse? Hmm...
Oops, sorry to go off topic lol
Correction:
Sorry, the Associated Press article was written by Martin Griffith, not Bassem Mroue.
Another quote from the article: "In Columbia, Mo., one business owner displayed his displeasure at a new local ordinance banning smoking with a sign: 'Smoking allowed until Jan. 9, City Council banning beer next, and hopefully, karaoke!'"
But there's a punch line!
Susan Burgess also is quoted as saying that "when people are given accurate information about the dangers of secondhand smoke, it's almost a no-brainer" they'll support smoking controls. Can't get much more farcical than that.
(Burgess, incidentally, is the founder of the anti-smoking group Smokefree Charlotte. Making Godshall proud.)
The problem today is too many so called political leaders, health scare professional and bandwagon riders simply don't understand the issue and a lot of them are making it up as they go. The problem comes when no one in the medical community defends their own credibility by offering correction and guidance
The bulk of smoking research clearly indicates, smoking in the home will have little or no adverse effects to children. As for Carl's suggestion he is convinced smoking causes SIDS deaths sorry Carl, not one to date. There is a long way between a slight theoretic possibility and assumption of an actual cause.
If we were to take the numbers at face value as the theoretic proof goes the 400,000 Americans who die of smoking related diseases to extend that to “are caused by smoking” is a flagrant lie. For that theory to survive you would have to deny all the confounders eliminated in the calculation of risk had no mortality effect.
What about it Carl are you going to tell us Asbestos and coal shoveled into furnaces in the 60s had no effect?
How about leaded fuels and dioxins harmless?
Over eating and no exercise no effect?
Further the mortality figures we are seeing today are primarily of the elderly who were exposed to all those effects in younger years. Toxins children today only read about in the history books. I personally was exposed to thousands of toxins in my working lifetime. Many I found out later were carcinogenic and by rights through the exposure levels I should be dead, Hell I don't even have a smokers cough yet. SIDS if caused by smoking would presumably show some autopsy evidence and as for asthmatics many when puffers are not available will seek a smoke to alleviate the condition. The amount of people who are affected would in the majority not be affected by a wisp of smoke on the street but more often from a Bingo hall experience, which if the condition was present one knowing they had such a condition would not have a hard time avoiding it. Although for such a person being in a Harvey's restaurant or a supper club with a fireplace the same reaction would also occur.
Parents who have an asthmatic child would not [unless they exhibit sociopath personalities] expose their children to smoke of any kind, let alone riding with the windows up in a car. My wife does not like the smell of the smoke however opening the window a crack while on a trip suits her just fine and believe me; if she was bothered she would be the first one to speak up. Children strangely enough seem to have the same tendency if they are in a Smokey room or car they let you know about it and are just as satisfied by the opening of a window.
Getting back to relative risk; What was, is no more, if smoking has been reduce by more than half so too has the risk been halved.
Mortality today is a reflection of the past and the numbers relative to today can no longer be sustained. The Surgeon general himself stated the exposure to ETS has been reduced by 70% from the time 54% of us smoked, how can smoking be sustained at the risk levels growing by the day, which now indicate ETS to be far more dangerous than smoking despite the fact no one is more exposed than the smokers them selves.
If Doll had any credibility at all he demonstrated; a doctor who smokes his entire life without quitting will loose on average 10 years of his life dying at 75 instead of 85 to some that is a concern, to a lot of us it really isn't If only 50% of smokers die of smoking related disease and no other cause can be possible, we still see smokers smoking from 14 to 30 and having no adverse health effect or lost years. Just how many of these kids are planning to live in their mothers basement past 30?
The risk in the home or the car will not have the same effect as a workplace obviously because your body will purge any tobacco specific toxins over time. A lot faster when you are younger The effects of a sunburn are cumulative and irreversible I have seen no evidence after cessation where any product of smoking has the same permanent effect.
Doc. I am going to put you on the spot here; and ask In your opinion does smoking alone kill 400,000 American's every year based on the calculations alone, and does the same risk exist today if all things remain as they are today, smoking will continue to kill 400,000 Americans every year despite the huge reductions in prevalence.
What do you numbers tell you?
Considering Dolls claims of advantages to smokers if you quit, which contradict current logic.
In your opinion is ETS more dangerous than smoking or has the rumor mill simply gone way beyond what can be credibly sustained.
Let's face it,it has become so fashionable to slate tobacco and smokers,the rabid extremists are falling over themselves to make an ever more vocal impact with their threat of risks associated with it.When no in-depth research is being conducted into these hyperthetical links ,science is being used to rubberstamp legislation.The USA has a long history of puritanical purges and active discrimination,tobacco has merely become one of them.With all of its resources available it still finds allowing these purges to continue is the preferred option.Calls demanding the evidence of SHS are totally ignored and ridiculed by those who have a vested interest in continuing this scam.Dr Siegel,why not start by commenting upon your own research that led to the start of this puritanical fatwah against smokers.Show us how and why you conclude that chronic exposure to SHS causes heart disease etc.There are those amongst us who are highly skilled in interepreting such data you will obviously refer to ( i am certainly not one of them) but let us debate YOUR POSITION ON SHS,OPENLY IN ORDER TO KICKSTART THE BALL ROLLING.
Carl not all smokers are as negligent as you would have us believe.Since we regularly use such dangerous items as matches and lighters,the latter requiring the neccessity of dealing with liquefied butane or good old petrol,not to mention the burning tip of a cigarette,if we were,you would be lucky to have a home that hasn't been burnt down,due to a carelessly discarded butt end,or be able to get into Accident &Emergency due to the numerous children filling it with second degree burns.Talking percentages almost makes the most menial figures suddenly have a new burst of life UNLESS actual numbers are discussed.SHS is still one of the only commodities that attract such perversion when the risk ratio is less HALF OF THE MAGICAL No 3.Epidemiology has been hijacked and perverted,when this occurs,it is WORTHLESS.Would you let your kids swim in the sea ? There are numerous risks,REAL RISKS,associated in doing so.But do you feel the need to intervene ?
Jalestra-
It wasn't me who said that workplaces are in a sense public places and need to be regulated in order to protect employees. It was the social reformers of the early 20th century who were concerned about the terrible working conditions in factories brought on by the industrial revolution. They were really the ones who initiated what is now a system of government regulation of occupational health hazards. I don't think I can take credit for that. All I'm saying is that secondhand smoke should be treated as an occupational health hazard just as any other occupational health hazard. I guess I have a hard time understanding why it should be distinguished from other occupational risks, in a class of its own.
Carl-
I agree that pediatricians have a responsibility to warn the parents of their patients about potential health risks to their children, but I'm not sure how it would be negligent for a physician to "allow" a "parent to continue with an unnecessary behavior that could kill their child?"
It is not under the physician's control. I don't understand how the physician can force a patient to do anything. The best we can do is inform and advise.
Ok Doc - give it your best shot.
I smoke in the presence of 3 children, 12, 10, 9. They are healthy and happy after lifetime exposure. How have I harmed them and why should I stop?
The above comment is interesting;
"Of even greater concern to me is the effect of these reports on families who have lost a child to SIDS, and they still number around 500 a year in California, and between 4,500 and 5,000 nationally.
The last thing we need to do to parents who suffer this tragedy is stigmatize or marginalize them. The simple truth is that SIDS can, and does, claim any baby, in spite of parents doing "everything right."
Barry S. Brokaw
SIDS Alliance Board of Directors
Sacramento, CA
Jalestra | 01.21.07 - 11:43 pm | #"
CA has about 10% of our population, and about 10% of our SIDS cases.
Yet CA has a significantly lower porportion of adult smokers (15%), and fewer CA home owners allow indoor smoking than any other state. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/...hs/10/
m10_2.pdf
And CA kids have more asthma: http://www.chis.ucla.edu/
asthma0...thma052002.html
So, if these conditions are related to SHS exposure, then why aren't CA kids healthier?
Dr Siegel says "All I'm saying is that secondhand smoke should be treated as an occupational health hazard just as any other occupational health hazard. I guess I have a hard time understanding why it should be distinguished from other occupational risks, in a class of its own."
Lots of jobs have hazards associated with them which are not done away with. Others have posted this point many times. The National Institute of occupational safety and Health has a huge database on lung cancer risk and occupation. Medical Office workers get more lung cancer than bar and rest workers. We don't ban that occupation because we need medical office workers.
It is also an occupation to serve smokers in bars and rest, those workers support themselves doing that. Dr Siegel does not see the need to serve smokers while smoking as necessary, because he does not acknowlege that bans cause business loss.
Yet Dr Siegel defended me regarding the economic study i wrote with Mcfadden. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....claim-
that.html
The study says where our data came from. That source was the US Dept of Commerce. Dr Siegel could check out that source, and see for himself that bans do hurt business.
Dr siegel has even said smoking in cigar bars should be expempt from bans because it is necessary to allow smoking there to have a job.
Therefore it becomes necessary for workers to serve smokers while smoking to protect their income. Just like auto racing, iron working, chemical plant workers accept job related risk which cannot be entirely done away with.
The point is while we do take measures to protect workers, we do not eliminate their jobs to protect them. Bans fit into that same catogry.
A measure to protect workers while serving smoking smokers would to to require good ventilation, and minimize any supposed risk. This fact is recognized in the Chicago ban.
Dr Siegel has no data to show that modern ventilation does not provide sufficient protection to ahve eliminated the problem.
Dr Siegel has not acknowleged my point that bars and rest tend to be located near busy roads where risks of lung cancer and heart disease are higher due to traffic pollution. This could explain all the excess risk Dr Siegel has found in his studies.
In addition cooking has been associated with about a 5-fold increase in lung cancer in China.
Wang, cooking fumes do cause lung cancer in nonsmokers http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...bstract/26/1/
24 and
http://152.1.118.33/Files/Mutati...)%20157-
161.pdf
Bar and rest workers are exposed to cooking fumes all day long at work, this could be why they have more LC than Dr. siegel's controls.
It is true bar and rest workers have more Lc and heart disease, than what would be overall expected, what we do not know if it is becasue of SHS, or work location, or stress due to hours worked, or cooking fumes, etc. or even if we have already eliminated enough smoke to fix the suposed problem.
Dave K
You know, I suppose if Bangor had prohibited smoking in a car carrying a child who has a medical history of severe asthma attacks, ear infections, or lower resp tract infections, but allowed smoking in a car carrying a child who had no medical history of conditions blamed to some extent on SHS, i could see that. That;'s just common sense. Dave K
Actually that was regulating things that were KNOWN to CAUSE HARM...not "risks" or unproven harm. The only occupational "hazard" that's been proved by employees is that it's annoying and makes their clothes smell. There's been no definitive science identifying tobacco smoke alone as the cause of problems that are associated with outside factors that cannot be controlled, or refuse to be controlled due to their convenience. We have yet to see a single health problem attributed to tobacco smoke alone. I'm sorry, but comparing the extreme pollutions by factories in the 1900's to cigarette smoke is not going to wash with me.
Now, I propose a reenactment of the Boston tea party, but with cigarettes. I can't seem to get much action out of people on what I perceive are good ideas. If they aren't good ideas, well, I'd at least like you to poke holes in them. However, I think a reenactment of the Boston Tea Party with cigarettes is definitely appropriate.
Jalestra,
I've been proposing another Boston Tea Party since last year myself. Might make these stupid lawmakers finally remember what exactly started the revolution and how this country came into being.
Margaret-Smoker,
I'm with you also. I'd like the good Doc to explain how I managed to raise a healthy 26 year old, with fewer colds, viruses, etc (and he never had bronchitis) than all his little friends and their "healthy non-smoking" parents. My son grew up with 2 smoking parents and we both smoked everywhere in the house AND in the car. Yet, he has survived and not suffered any of these so called problems.
Yes, good Doctor, please explain to me the harm you believe I caused my son, and then go and tell him to his face that his parents abused him. And while you're at it, explain how us baby-boomers managed to survive and be healthy, and are still alive and kicking (though I know you can't for you've already admitted to this part that you can't explain it).
OK, I woke up to a sound bite today (I forgot what station, WABC maybe) from Ray Lesniak regarding the proposed NJ ban on smoking in cars with "the children." I'm paraphrasing from memory so it might not be 100 percent accurate:
We don't allow parents to punch their children in the mouth and break their jaw. We don't allow parents to throw their kids down the stairs and break their arm. Forcing them to breathe second hand smoke not only causes cancer and asthma but also causes spinal problems..
I guess you can thank the official SG propaganda, as well as the Don't Pass Gas campaign (Dr. Siegel, do you now see why I was so alarmed by this campaign?), and all the other relentless hate-mongering, for this type of thinnking. I am at a loss for words but I think we are heading for very dangerous times indeed.
Additionally, I noticed something. Almost every radio report I heard, as well as news article I read, ALL mentioned that this "dovetailed" with the growing movement to protect kids from second hand smoke. I found this most curious as they all used that same word. Are news editors actually writing their own copy, or are they just reproducing press releases put out by you know who?
I also notice that there are NO opposing quotes mentioned.
I do want to stress that the NJ provision would allow for jail time. So, you would essentially be removing the parent out of the child's life for 30 days (or more on the second offense). Who would care for the child?
Don't be surprised if this sails right through.
Margaret and Lynda -
The points you make are exactly why I emphasize that smoking around kids is merely a risk - it does not necessarily cause harm. It is possible for secondhand smoke not to result in asthma, ear infections, or upper respiratory infections among one's children. This is why, unlike ASH and some other anti-smoking groups and advocates (including our own Bill), I do NOT view smoking around children as a form of child abuse. And it is also why I do not believe that bans on smoking in cars and homes with children are justified.
I just wish that my fellow anti-smoking advocates and groups would understand your very simple and accurate point.
How the hell does smoking cause spinal problems? That's a new one on me.
Ok, if smoke isn't harmful enough to protect *children* from...then why is it so harmful to affect supposed adults old enough to choose to enter a place where the actual property owner has permitted smoking. You can't have it both ways. Either its so dangerous to adults that it's insane around children. or it's not all that dangerous to children and well, not all that dangerous to adults either.
That's it? I give you and Carl the perfect opportunity to convince me that I should voluntarily stop smoking around my children and you instead agree with me that I have no compelling reason to do what legislatures around the country are being cajolled into coercing me to do?
I rest my case.
You can't formulate a convincing enough argument to get me to voluntarily comply with "what everybody 'just knows' is bad for children" so now I need to be forced to comply?
I'm beginning to think that what really offends the TC folks is that I haven't been conditioned enough to stop thinking for myself.
"How dare you ask us to back up our decree with nasty little things like facts"? $50 fine to you!
Children in the U.S. have higher average nicotine blood levels (from tobacco smoke pollution) than do nonsmoking adults.
Public policies that protect children from tobaccco smoke pollution in cars are even more important public health measures that public policies that protect workers from tobacco smoke pollution in workplaces.
Similar bills will be introduced in many more states this year, and increasing more of those measures will be enacted.
requiring smokefree cars for kids is a no
Children in the U.S. have higher average nicotine blood levels (from tobacco smoke pollution) than do nonsmoking adults.
All children? Then it must be something they ate, dear Bill, since only about 20% of the total population still smokes and of that 20% I'd wager only half have children, therefore how can ALL children in the US have more nicotine in their blood levels?
Also, what about the children in high smoking rate countries like Japan, France, Greece......what are the nicotine levels of the children in those countries?
Oh, another thing Bill.......WHERE is your proof? Where are the studies showing this so we can read them? Specifically, the studies proving that those nicotine levels are ONLY from SHS inhalation.
Lynda,perhaps Bill is suggesting the kids are smoking ?
The thing i find hard to fully appreciate,is that if it is so imperative to protect kids from SHS,why did they start with workplace policies,and leave the kids until now ?Everything about Tobacco Control in the US sucks bigtime.
Actually the nicotine levels are from NRT products. It's illegal for children to buy *cigarettes*.
Actually the nicotine levels are from NRT products. It's illegal for children to buy *cigarettes*.
Is that you best argument Bill? That US children have higher blood nicotine levels than non-smokers? What exactly are these so-called "High-levels" and what harm do these levels cause my children?
I'm sure I have a hefty level of nicotine in my blood too, and I function very nicely TYVM. I work, I exercise, I play, I pay my taxes.
I heard that despicable "don't pass gas" ad today.
"Each year hundreds of children die that were exposed to SHS".
I'm sure that statement is true. I'm sure it's also true if I state.
"each year thousands of children that never had shs exposure die and only hundreds of those exposed have died".
Should I presume it's safer to expose a child?
Dave K wrote:
"It is true bar and rest workers have more Lc and heart disease, than what would be overall expected, what we do not know if it is becasue of SHS, or work location, or stress due to hours worked, or cooking fumes, etc. or even if we have already eliminated enough smoke to fix the suposed problem."
Another possible reason for increased heart disease amongst restaurant workers: They eat the restaurant food on their lunch/dinner breaks.
Those over-sized trans fat laden, high calorie foods we're all told is killing us, they may be eating it every working day.
Imagine eating a "Heart attack on a plate" meal every working day. That's what we did when I worked in a restaurant in high school.
It's not cooking fumes or SHS, it's the food! LOL
Bill wrote:
"Public policies that protect children from tobaccco smoke pollution in cars are even more important public health measures that public policies that protect workers from tobacco smoke pollution in workplaces."
Can you back that up with some studies? I'm quite sure most of the studies I've seen show no increased risk for kids. That's why anti-tobacco only screams about ear infections, upper resp. problems, and aggravating existing asthma conditions.
Workplace bans entail heart disease and lung cancer. Are you really trying to suggest an ear ache trumps lung cancer, Bill?
James inquired:
"Can you back that up with some studies?"
Numerous studies and reports (including the EPA report and several SG reports) concur that children face greater health risks from exposure to tobacco smoke pollution than are adults, and concur that levels of smoke are greater cars than in workplaces.
Cigarette companies haven't even challenged that research or recommendations that children shouldn't be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution.
Did you not say earlier Dr Siegel that there is a parity between exposure to children and adults ? So where is the greater harm shown ? Please note Bill the use of the question mark as i appreciate you completely failed to understand its significance when it suited you.Why should cigarette companies argue anything,you just ignore everything when it suits you.
concur that levels of smoke are greater cars than in workplaces - Bill
In which cars, compared to which workplaces? Are you talking about an average level? How is it determined? .
And what about other health hazards, such as benzene? Any studies that compare benzene levels in cars and workplaces?