Seems to me this judge opens the door to "anything goes" when his criterion has devolved to "potential" harm. Almost everything on earth can be "potentially" harmful. Even one day at the beach. Even flu vaccinations. Even mandatory air bags.
And again I dispute that smoke can initiate asthma. It may, in some cases, initiate an attack in a kid who already has it, but it can't "cause" asthma. So sayeth, in this case, the preponderance of the science. (Geez, I really wish you'd take a good look at the science.)
:
Sorry OT,
What qualifications do you need to work in American politics?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
atlan...1ate.OaXngE1vAI
"The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap,"
Back on Topic,
How long before the first lawsuit by children? What chance a fair trial when judges are bigoted and public with their prejudices?
GreatScot
At the bottom of the linked op-ed, I followed a link from 8.14.07
http://www.silive.com/columnists...1580.xml&
coll=1
I find it odd that the Judge seems to be aware of REAL child abuse, he is willing in the current Op-Ed to accuse smoker of such. Take a look at who he thinks would be better at raising smokers children.
`snip`
'During my years on the Family Court bench, I repeatedly and publicly spoke out about the disgraceful performance of the agency designed to protect this city's most vulnerable children.'
`snip`
'
On a daily basis, I dealt with caseworkers who failed to appear in court; forgot to bring their files when they did appear; conducted investigations that were so superficial and incomplete that they were worthless; failed on many occasions to conduct any investigation at all even though specifically ordered to do so; and ignored directions to monitor parents' compliance with referrals for remedial services'
Yet this is what he would propose the children of smokers be exposed to---simply because their parents smoke?
BTW Doctor, have you written to this Judge? At least an email with a link to this blog?
.
Regarding the following... Though it's a letter rather than an Op-Ed, it's placement in the NY Sun beats out the Staten Island Advance, and it's a doctor with impressive credentials (we've heard from him before) instead of a lawyer (yeah, ok, judge), and we can say that there's some sustained form of balance going on:
Letters to the Editor
August 23, 2007
http://www.nysun.com/article/61101
Councilman James Gennaro is introducing a bill to ban smoking in automobiles if a minor is present [New York, "Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars,"August15,2007].
His efforts are not new, dating back to his days as adviser to Council speaker, Peter Vallone.
What is new is the depth and intrusiveness of his efforts to "denormalize smoking."
Clearly this man speaks to bigotry, grasping at every straw to justify sumptuary legislation. He wants to control everyone's behavior. And he can't; he can only try.
These efforts are based on data, both old and new, on the effects of secondhand smoke. This data is scientifically weak and controversial, as well as probably flawed.
The most recent example of this is found in the 2006 Surgeon General's report on the effects of secondhand smoke.
And yet the data is presented with hubris as protecting the common good. Now come the children. Who will protect them? Will it be parents and guardians or councilpersons enacting laws?
Every such initiative, and there will be more, bite more deeply into freedom and liberty. That's a concern that should be balanced against shaky science.
Robert Madden, M.D.
Former President
New York Cancer Society
Bronxville, N.Y.
****
Then in today's (8/24) NY Sun is this OpEd:
The Health Police Cometh
http://www.nysun.com/article/61229
*
"Children are not parental chattel, a fact clearly recognized by this state's child-protective laws. Gennaro's bill should be enacted into law because it furthers children's legitimate right to an environment that safeguards their health and promotes their wellbeing"
~Judge Leddy
***
"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.'"
~ Adolf Hitler
I know some don't like the comparison---Please, 'splain the difference to me in simple english.
.
Kudos (only) will go to anyone who can name the source of this quote that seems strangely appropriate:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
And slightly off-topic. Doc, what do you make of this?:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
smokin...2151931,00.html
Rufus T.
Adolf Hitler
Do I get a cigar?
.
From Rufus T's link:
~snip~
"More insidious is the notion that people can be forced to be good. If you are a puritan, you can believe we would be a happier society if cigarettes and alcohol had never been invented. If you can close your eyes and sink into the daydreams that there is no need to protest about climate change or that sexist, racist and homophobic preachers are the invention of the media, you will be happier still.
Any assault on freedom becomes justifiable if it will help lead us to a clean-living, conflict-free, multicultural Utopia. The shrieking from the flowerbeds is only going to get louder."
Thanks for the post.
From GreatScot link:
'They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap'
Perhaps this will wake the 'healthism' joggers up????
Unbelievable.
.
Yeah Sunz, it's the guy with the dodgy 'tash. Have a virtual cigar, just be careful not to smoke it indoors.
Just found another interesting and OT fact, while tobacco smoke is clearly so hazardous that there can be no safe level, I've just found a hazard report for hydrogen fluoride (about the single nastiest gas you can get without specifically looking for chemwarfare materials). The American Industrial Hygiene Association have an ERPG-2 (maximum airborne concentration to which nearly all individuals could be
exposed for up to one hour without experiencing or developing irreversible adverse or serious health effects which could seriously impair an individual’s ability to take protective action) concentration of 20 ppm.
Does kinda make the no safe exposure level bit on tobacco smoke seem a bit daft, doesn't it
Daft indeed Rufus.
Question: Is there any 'safe level' of all this intrusion into our lives?
****
---Virtual cigars are wonderful!
.
OT-From Forces:
Ban People
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=188
Be sure to link onto the 'original story' at the bottom of the commentary.
Enjoy.
.
Dear America,
A few hundred years ago, we rounded up our Puritans, loaded them all on a boat, and sent them your way.
Our instructions were clear: Do NOT allow this species to breed.
Judge Leddy is clearly linked directly to this species and leads us to believe that someone was asleep at the switch. You have allowed them to mate and now they have reproduced in vast numbers. In short, it is a clusterflub. We are now witnessing cross-contamination at a global level. We didnt ask the New World for much, in fact, we even sent tea and sticky buns to alleviate boredom whilst this species was allowed to leave the gene pool, but no, you kept the sticky buns and created an international incident over the tea. Tut tut.
We, the residents of the Mongrel Nation are not vindictive, but we are going to need the names and phone numbers of those tasked with overseeing the Puritans. A spanking, followed by a period on the naughty step is in order.
We are jolly upset.
With respect,
The United Kingdom.
Dr. Siegel writes:
"These include the following behaviors, each of which represents a failure on the part of parents to protect their children from exposures which significantly increase the risk of potentially serious adverse health consequences:
repeatedly feeding your child high-fat, high trans-fat, fast foods and sweetened juices and soda;
allowing your child to watch hours and hours of television every day, get no exercise, and take part in no physical activities;
allowing your child to play hockey;
allowing your child to drink alcohol; and
allowing your child to drive in a car late at night. "
Do not forget sending you child to elementary school where they play germ tag.
Sunz wrote: "BTW Doctor, have you written to this Judge? At least an email with a link to this blog?"
I do not know about the good doctor, but I certainly did.
From the Judge's article:
""According to a study published by the New England Journal of Medicine, the chances of being involved in an accident is four times greater when a motorist uses a hand-held cell phone. The report even equated the risk to that posed by a drunk driver.""
Shouldn't he (according to his statement) be more concerned about parents using cell phones than parents smoking in cars?
Cell phone users should definitely be stripped of parental rights, right?
Instead of his next paragraph where he said "Children are not parental chattel" I believe he meant "Children are not parental chatter"/sarc
it is not true that healthy children exposed to secondhand smoke necessarily suffer protracted impairment of their lung function. It is certainly a risk of exposing a child to secondhand smoke, but exposure does not necessarily translate into harm. It translates into an increased risk of adverse effects on lung function.
Yet you don't think free thinking ADULTS are capable of making a decision about where to eat/drink/work. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't think free thinking adults should HAVE to make such a decision.
You constantly talk about the "serious health hazard" of SHS in ADULTS who have a choice of where to go and work; but you don't consider it anything more than an "increased risk" in children who have no choice and spend more time in the company of their parents INDOORS than adults patronizing or working in bars and restaurants.
Your logic here is totally contradictory. You cannot have it both ways, Doc. It either is nothing more than an "increased risk" OR it IS the "serious health hazard" you claim.
Make up your mind.
In fact, it seems that if one truly believes that smoking around children is child abuse and that privacy concerns do not withstand scrutiny, then it becomes unconscionable that the New York City Council would fail to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke in the home.
Give them time Doc. They know damned well that if they go straight for the home there will be such an uproar from the masses, even the non-smokers who applaud the bans would side with smokers on that one. They need to slowly inch their way in enough to get the foot there to prevent the door to the home being closed. IF they can get the car bans passed.............they'll have little trouble barging into our homes next.
I can't even begin to tell you what a nightmare this is for me, and I don't have any children at home, let alone any small children.
You helped this along for over 20 years Doc, not sure why you're so surprised. Guess you were wearing those rose-colored glasses that prevent you from actually seeing the whole picture when you decide to try and steal other people's free will.
OT
Infectious diseases spreading faster than ever:
http://www.reuters.com/article/w...&rpc=22&
sp=true
~snip~
It warned global efforts to control infectious diseases had been "seriously jeopardized" by widespread drug resistance, a consequence of poor medical treatment and misuse of antibiotics.
I might add, by acting and the worlds busybodies!!
Dr Siegel, I agree with Lynda F. Why do insist on it being a 'serious health hazzard' when arguing for work place bans yet only an increased risk if talking about children in cars?
(aside: possible ear infections - how many bar tenders get ear infections as a result of SHS?)
The argument you have put forward about parental autonomy is irrelevant until there is some consistancy.
If it is an increased risk then we have both parental and audult autonomy involved and many of your arguements viz-a-viz workplace bans fail.
If there is a 'serious health risk' then you can not argue autonomy in one case and not the other, can you?
I do agree with you that Risk is not harm and this is where the judge misunderstands.
If it were a person who had harmed the child in the past, then the judge would probably prevent that person from seeing the child in the future. So if ETS/SHS has been shown to harm children then this may be the way he is thinking.
So why are people of the 50s/60s/70s who were most exposed as children, living longer?
west
----
Leddy said, - "people's right to privacy does not extend to force-feeding children cigarettes when they are in a car."
His choice of wording here is interesting, "force-feeding".
Ya' think the judge has an axe ot two to grind, or is he simply living up to promises made to campaign donors.
Leddy, - "parents who subject their children to secondhand smoke are guilty of neglect and, in some instances, even abuse."
So,...does this mean the "state" will file charges against our smoking parents for the "abuse" inflicted upon an entire generation up to this point?
Leddy, - "The Mayo Clinic concludes that a child who spends just one hour a day in a smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he smoked 10 or more cigarettes"
This has already proven to be flat out, completely erroneous to many times to even count. The equivalent number of cigarettes inhaled via ETS over a specified time seems to fluctuate WILDLY depending entirely on who is telling this particular lie, to whom, and for what ultimate goal they're trying to achieve.
Leddy, - "In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed secondhand cigarette smoke in its highest category of cancer-causing agents."
Ummm, he forgot to mention that this was done over the objection of those doing the testing, as most TC lackeys do when they mistakenly reference this bit of trivia.
Leddy, - "Former U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona warned last year that the dangers of secondhand smoke are even more pervasive than originally believed. He reported that it has now been linked to sudden infant death syndrome and stated that even short-term exposure to its toxicity is extremely dangerous."
Why bother to continue to refute this particular bit of science fiction?, Since the SG said it, it must be so right?
And I hate to go here again, but DOC, c'mon, you keep practicing the same double standard you chide TC about in every posting to this blog.
DOC, - "I think it would be a grave mistake to consider smoking around children to be a form of child abuse."
But as Lynda has already been pointed out "Your logic here is totally contradictory. You cannot have it both ways, Doc. It either is nothing more than an "increased risk" OR it IS the "serious health hazard" you claim.
Your concern that calling it abuse for children in cars completely ignores the larger issue of increased exposure in the home.
This seems more like a plea to TC from you to forget about the cars,(that's strictly small change) and concentrate on the home, not because you don't care about the car exposure, but because you really, ....not so secretly WANT the invasion into the home environment.
DOC, - "In fact, it seems that if one truly believes that smoking around children is child abuse and that privacy concerns do not withstand scrutiny, then it becomes unconscionable that the New York City Council would fail to protect children from exposure to secondhand smoke in the home."
Seems like a plea to "get on with it already" and BAN it in the home.
Am I right? Are you a closet "Home Ban" proponent as well?
I can understand why you wouldn't come right out and say that, it would ruin your image of being an "outsider', or the "voice of moderation" in an otherwise out of control power grabbing movement to destroy democracy.
Additionally, as you have stated yourself, calling this child abuse diminishes the definition REAL child abuse and even the Freedom hating TC movement wouldn't want that.
If the intent is to ban tobacco, and it certainly, clearly is the intent, but in the longest, roundabout and most surreptitious way possible so as not to alarm the population with any overt and dramatic large scale recision of civil liberty, rights and freedom in general, then lets get on with it.
There are fortunes to be made when it finally, mercifully happens.
This endless charade is simply delaying the inevitable spectacular growth of the Black market.
BUT!, it will result in one good thing though, it will provide a reason for increasing law enforcement budgets nationwide so we can do battle in the war on tobacco, drugs, alcohol, obesity, poverty, pornography, litter, bigotry, and racism.
If you're a TC advocate, simply ad your personal dislike to this list and I'm sure someone will eventually get around to outlawing that as well.
In the meantime, you might want to take stock of the things that other people don't like about YOU and are lining up to outlaw right now.
Your day will be coming, and probably sooner than you think.
OT
The top four professions with highest mortality from alcohol related deaths -- measured by the proportional mortality ratio, using the number 100 as average -- were bar staff, 223; merchant sailors, 216; publicans, 202; and civil service bosses, 189.
Perhaps someone could suggest how those alcohol related deaths for bar staff might enter into the discussion with an eye to misclassification as to cause. The figures are from new Government research here in England.
Would it be useful to calculate how many children would die if they were in smoky cars 40 hours a week for 40 years? And would it be responsible to report that death toll?
Yeah. I know it's pretty clear that most kids aren't in cars 40/40. But, er... neither are bartenders. And the doctor used the 40/40 analysis to back-up that ban.
I am a little confused. The doctor's point here is that kids aren't really in cars that much. But the same holds true of those bartenders. Yet when HE was spinning out information to support HIS position, that sort of calculation didn't matter much. The doctor just went ahead and based his prognostications on the notion that bartenders are exposed 40/40. Despite the fact that everyone knows that to be laughable.
So would the doctor object to someone supporting THIS legislation by calculating how many kids would die if they were exposed to SHS in cars for 100 hours a week? Would that be a good basis for the study? Or would that number be pretty useless since it is based on false assumptions obviously ginned up to cook the books?
Just asking.
"Children are not parental chattel, a fact clearly recognized by this state's child-protective laws."
So Judge Leddy advocates turning children into chattel of the state if they are around repeat offenders. Or he says that parents are chattel of the state, having to avoid any activities that might cause their kids danger.
I can tell you I've been around adults that smoked as a kid and around adults that've told me I was stupid or wrong for believing X or Y. The second caused much more short- to mid- term damage(discouraging me from doing other stuff) than the first ever did. Judge Leddy seems to advocate the second as a way of eliminating the first. Without addressing the disturbing nonsequitur about how the bill seeks to denormalize smoking wherever possible.
As for the Hitler comparisons, I'm surprised nobody ever mentioned(or I haven't noticed) the fact that we ought to be well ahead of Hitler so that there is no need even for comparisons. I think Sen Dick Durbin said this about torture at Guantanamo, but I doubt he would apply the same reasoning to tobacco "denormalization" (ie leave the unvarnished nastiness to people who buy into your propaganda.)
Another Hitler quote I remember puts things in a different perspective. I don't have it on me but it is from TH White's Sword in the Stone. Merlin, who lives from the future to the past, comments on an Austrian chap who thought he knew all that was good and could get people around to his views by force and how it got out of control.
The point of this was of course not to be sympathetic to Hitler but to show that people do wrongly become more forceful if unchecked, and they get away from actually doing good.
LightningBoy wrote:
"Leddy said, - "people's right to privacy does not extend to force-feeding children cigarettes when they are in a car."
His choice of wording here is interesting, "force-feeding".
----------------------
It sounds like he's been corresponding with Bill Godshall.
"Leddy, - "parents who subject their children to secondhand smoke are guilty of neglect and, in some instances, even abuse.""
Well, if you believe that, then every parent in air polluted Los Angeles is also guilty. And Fresno-Madera,CA, Bakersfield,CA, Pittsburgh-New Castle,PA......
Which brings up a question. Many of you have heard of:
"For each increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter(µg/m3) of fine particles in the neighborhood's air, the risk of death from any cause rose by 11 to 17 percent."
If this is true, then why aren't those exposed to such extremely outrageously high RSP levels from SHS, apparently largely immune?
The RR for lung cancer in bartenders wouldn't be a could be/may be/in part 50%, but more like a certain 1,800%, give or take a few hundred.
So why are people of the 50s/60s/70s who were most exposed as children, living longer? west
West, I keep asking the same question basically, and am still waiting for an answer, other than, “I don’t know”.
Truth is that WE smokers are the living, breathing, walking truth flying in the face of their propaganda, hence the need to denormalize smoking and demonize us.
Sam,
how many bar tenders are exposed to noise?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
scienc...encenews.uknews
Excerpt
"Coronary heart disease caused 101,000 deaths in the UK in 2006, and the study suggests that 3,030 of these are caused by chronic noise exposure, including to daytime traffic."
GreatScot
We all know that I'm not a fan of the Hitler remarks, but this is really unsettling and there is a clear violation of privacy, parental rights, private property, and it opens the door for home smoking bans.
Maybe Hitler isn't the right comparison, but something wicked this way comes...
Harley---"but something wicked this way comes..."
Once again coming from the one with the elite education and position in life.
.
So why are people of the 50s/60s/70s who were most exposed as children, living longer? west
West, I keep asking the same question basically, and am still waiting for an answer, other than, “I don’t know”.
[grim mode]
Could we be in for an epidemic of death as these people get to the end of their natural lives albeit a little later than expected?
If for some reason these deaths were just 'defered' then will things catch up? Will tobacco still be blamed?
[/off]
[Even grimmer mode]
Perhaps we will have an increase in suicides as some people are isolated and abused by the majority.
[/off]
Is all the harm being done by 'tobacco control' worth it? Couldn't they think of other ways than to demonise people? We are only here for such a short time anyways.
[Cheery mode]
At least you keep asking the question Lynda F, one day we will get an answer, you never know scientists might just find tobacco is protective for a lot of things. The scientific community will do a U turn just as they have done on other things, and still maintain they are the experts
west
----
Truth is that WE smokers are the living, breathing, walking truth flying in the face of their propaganda, hence the need to denormalize smoking and demonize us.
Excellent point, LyndaF. As to your repeated question and lack of an answer, another I have heard in response is "well, there are exceptions to every rule." Which of course is a laugh, when as you say smokers are the living proof of the lies of TC.
The good Doctor is finding himself between a rock and a hard place with his stance on the car ban vis a vis his stance on bar bans.......as was said upthread, he can't have it both ways, no matter how much he wishes it to be so. He is going to have to break down and change his stance on one or the other in order to maintain any credibility.
As for this Judge, me thinkst he is just looking for ink in a forwarding looking shot at running for higher office........
West said, - "The scientific community will do a U turn just as they have done on other things, and still maintain they are the experts"
This is one of those things that annoys the hell outta me.
Experts?, by virtue of what?
Simply because you received a degree?
There are plenty of intelligent idiots in Tobacco Control, in fact there seems to be a surplus.
Without practical REALWORLD experience however in an area or subject for which they are highly overpaid to critique, there are NO experts, only observers.
Even if you have read every piece of information and report ever printed about smoking, if you don't smoke, won't smoke, can't smoke, or never smoked, you'll never be an expert on smoking. You gain no real experience from your observations alone.
Unless you've experienced smoking from the filtered end of a cigarette, you are not fully qualified to render an opinion on the qualities and effects of smoking.
The problem of course is that those with REALWORLD experience (the real smoking experts) are discounted out of hand as uneducated or uninformed, otherwise, why would they smoke?,....sound about right Doc?
First of all, I think Dr. Siegel understands that smoking a foot away from a child in a small enclosed space is more egregious than most smoking that would take place in the home. If not, then say so.
What's really disturbing here is Dr. Siegel continues to bring up other issues to distract from the reality of smoking: an easily preventable cause of sickness and death with no redeeming qualities. That's why he richly deserves the label of smoking defender.
Every activity he uses to compare with parental smoking either provides a meaningful benefit to the child or does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does (or both). Now tell me, what benefit is had by parents smoking in close proximity to their children? I mean, for anyone except tobacco companies.
It's very sad to watch a medical doctor defend smoking.
You really should just post as "scammer spammer" Cathy Bell, because that is exactly what you are doing.
......does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does
EXACTLY WHAT harm are you talking about, you didn't say?
Since you believe the United States should follow Canada's lead in banning tobacco advertising, I think all tobacco control freak advertising should also be banned. If you haven't noticed, after falling for years the number of young people smoking has either been remaining flat or increasing since you people started your screeching against smokers.
This is proof positive that the tobacco control freak movement actually ENCOURAGES people to smoke. There is a direct causal relationship between increases in smoking rates and increases in the screeching of your propaganda. You've all lied so much, and each lie becomes so much more unbelievable that people actually aren't paying you any mind. The more outrageous your lies become, the less people are wiling to believe ANYTHING you say.
,i>Unless you've experienced smoking from the filtered end of a cigarette, you are not fully qualified to render an opinion on the qualities and effects of smoking.
The problem of course is that those with REALWORLD experience (the real smoking experts) are discounted out of hand as uneducated or uninformed, otherwise, why would they smoke?,....sound about right Doc?
AWESOME, LighteningBoy. Just great.
And you have just disproved the scammer spammer's premise of no redeeming qualites to smoking.........she doesn't smoke, therefor she can make to such comment as SHE DOESN'T KNOW.
I see 3 flaws with the Judge. The 2 that Doctor Siegel mentions and the 3rd being thatthe Judge is not a Doctor or in any Science field whatsoever, so he basically only knows what the junk someone wants him to believe.
This clown - tobaccoscamalysis said;
"What's really disturbing here is Dr. Siegel continues to bring up other issues to distract from the reality of smoking: an easily preventable cause of sickness and death with no redeeming qualities. That's why he richly deserves the label of smoking defender."
"easily preventable"
Sadly, you're correct, it has become all too easy to rescind the rights and civil liberties of those you disagree with.
"no redeeming qualities"
This is clearly a matter of experience and opinion wouldn't you say?
Oh, wait, ...I forgot, you're an expert.
tobaccoscamalysis writes:
"What's really disturbing here is Dr. Siegel continues to bring up other issues to distract from the reality of smoking: an easily preventable cause of sickness and death with no redeeming qualities."
Everyone will get sick and die and it is not like smoking has no redeeming qualities. Some include calming the nerves, increasing ability to concentrate, etc.
"Every activity he uses to compare with parental smoking either provides a meaningful benefit to the child or does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does (or both). Now tell me, what benefit is had by parents smoking in close proximity to their children? I mean, for anyone except tobacco companies."
I believe the harms of SHS smoke to children are trivial. Claims of increased ear infections, etc. Where I noticed increased sickness in my child and my wife and I was when he started attending grade school. Germ city. It was not uncommon for won kid to get sick and then half the class being sick. Not only that but causing the parents to get sick. While only anecdotal, when I grew up as a military brat, that I knew parents smoked along with all my aunt and uncles. As far as I know, no one suffered any adverse effects from it. This is a trivial issue that does not deserve another intrusive government intervention is peoples lives. By the way the federal government through the military is responsible for getting many to smoke including myself. They included cigarettes in field meals called C-rations. If you served in the military you would get a 5 minute smoking break every hour. If you did not smoke, you did not get a break.
You would be better served if you advocated parental education not to smoke around children. Bringing in the government is not necessary. I do not believe there is no health risk to children, but from experience the health risks are getting sending children to school playing germ tag and sharing with it with their families. Do you also advocate banning sending children to school?
Every activity he uses to compare with parental smoking either provides a meaningful benefit to the child or does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does (or both).
Huh? Many of the activities have immediate harm/risk of harm associated. EG allowing your kid to drink alcohol is much more likely to make him vomit(among other things) than exposing him to smoke.
So how do you feel about loud or profane music in a car with kids? Putting aside whether it does not bother people outside.
I think this is pretty bad, and it provides no real tangible benefits and has a clear "yuck" factor(swearing doesn't REALLY improve quality of life, etc.) but I don't think it should be illegal.
I'm sure there are many more such examples. You know, I felt this blog post of Dr Siegel's was repetitive--I'd read the reasoning before. I've read your responses before, but I can't precisely say I've read the reasoning. It's the sort of emoting that people will let others get away with a few times.
Cathy-- "Every activity he uses to compare with parental smoking either provides a meaningful benefit to the child or does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does (or both)."
Are you for real?
Let's review the Dr.'s list:
* repeatedly feeding your child high-fat, high trans-fat, fast foods and sweetened juices and soda;
* allowing your child to watch hours and hours of television every day, get no exercise, and take part in no physical activities;
* allowing your child to play hockey;
* allowing your child to drink alcohol; and
* allowing your child to drive in a car late at night.
I'm sorry, but I'm just trying to get this straight. In your view, so long as I don't smoke, it is either beneficial, not too harmful, or BOTH if I load the pantry with junk food, park my kids in front of the TV all day, and then give them a few beers to drink? Would that be before after they drive to the hockey game that night?
You either need to start actually reading the arguments you're trying to rebut - or you need psychiatric help.
tobaccoscamalysis or Cathy or whatever you wish to call yourself. I curious what it is that you are after? You seem to hate smokers and smoking why? If it were up to you to make all laws with regard to smoking, what would those laws be? Prohibition? What are you after? As a smoker, I recently tried to quit but it did not work out, I wonder about these things. Up until last year, I rarely if ever went to bars after I got married, until a fellow coworker started asking me out for a drink after work. While we are both scientists, he worked with Wernher von Braun early in his career, he likes to go to working class bars. More fun I guess. In these bars almost everyone, at least more the 50% smoke. Are you saying that the only reason, you do not go is that smoking is allowed? If not, why should you care? My guess is since they are not Yuppie bars, that these will all go out of business. The people that hang in them would not go anymore. The bar owners would have to find a whole new clientel. Why would this not bother you? Are you seeking prohibition? That is my feeling. You would be turning 15-20% of people including myself into criminals. If you met me, probably, the only thing you would not like is that fact that I smoke, unless of course you have issues with alcohol also. Then this would be a good way to put many bars out of business. I hope you respond so at least we know what it is you want. Once the smoking ban here in Maryland goes in effect, my coworker and I will probably just invite each other over to our houses for a drink. The only ones hurt will be the bars owners who clientel are predominantly smokers. Thanks
Hi TobaccoScam!
I'm here to help you. It sounds like you are one of the agenda afflicted angry kids who are now all grown up. I'm one too! I've learned to deal with it in a positive way and I can help you.
First of all, I think Dr. Siegel understands that smoking a foot away from a child in a small enclosed space is more egregious than most smoking that would take place in the home. If not, then say so.
My name is Dr. Feel, and I am a fully trained psychologist specializing in Nanny State Behavior Syndrome. Please answer the followinq questionaire and give your insurance card to my medical assistant. I'll be right with you....
I discriminate against smokers because:
A. The smell of smoke is icky and yucky, it makes my hair and clothes stink and I hate walking into a bar/restaurant where people are smoking. So rather than take advantage of the free market and go somewhere that is voluntarily smoke free, I would rather use the power of the state to impose my personal preference on my fellow citizens.
A1. My __________ (choose one: Dad, Mom, Uncle, Aunt, babysitter) abused me by smoking ________(choose one: Marlboro, Merit, Kool, crack, Camel, Kent, marijuana) while I was a kid
B. My beloved ___________ (choose one: husband, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, maid, dog, cat, goldfish, gay lover) died from _________(choose one: cancer, heart disease, emphysema, car crash, train wreck, terrorist attack, sting ray) because of their smoking.
C. I smoked for _____ (years) and now I am ________ (choose one: missing it, sick, dead, born again, enlightened, ashamed of myself, if I can't do it, nobody can) and want to share my experience with others.
D. The Big Tobacco companies are lying scumbags and must pay! (you're not coming down off the mountain with the tablets there)
E. I represent Big Pharmaceutical interests that benefit from the anti-smoking movement because it increases the sales of our Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) products.
F. I am a deeply caring individual in the mold of Mother Theresa and I am speaking out due to my benevolent, philanthropic, altruistic concern about the health of my fellow man.
G. I am a research scientist and grant junky, and if I don't tow the party line my grant money will disappear.
H. I'm just a garden variety Fascist and Totalitarian and get a ______ (choose one: cheap thrill, natural high, erection, orgasm) by imposing my will on other people.
I. I am a retard who believes in bogus studies, junk science, the Easter Bunny and the Toothfairy. I fear that because I walked into a bar on Spring Break in 1987, and was exposed to Second Hand Smoke I now suffer from ______(choose one: AIDS, Herpes, Athletes Foot, Jock Itch, male pattern baldness, or genital warts)
J. I am a disgruntled, prissy and angry employee of a ______(choose one: bar, restaurant, club, casino) who can't leave the job because I am a _______(choose one: slave, indentured servant, sweatshop laborer, illegal immigrant) and had no idea there was smoking going on in the place before I took the job.
K. An elected public serpent, serving as a _____ (choose one: State Assemblywoman, Senator, Freeholder, city councilman, mayor) and I have failed miserably in my job and trying to tackle really tough problems like _____ (choose one: gang violence, income taxes, property taxes, crime, corruption), so I will support a smoking ban based on the talking points and literature that "M" has given me and claim that I have actually accomplished something to help my constituents.
L. A Socialist liberal Democrat who is desperate for Universal Healthcare so the proletariet will continue to keep me in power. But if I don't do something about the "demand side" health care costs caused by such global health menaces as _________ (choose one: Marlboro, Merit, Kool, Big Macs, Whoppers, Chicken McNuggets, Budweiser, Coors, Jack Daniels) my health care entitlement program will go ________ (choose your adjective: broke, belly up, bankrupt, insolvent).
M. A professional anti-tobacco activist who makes $450,000 per year. MY GOAL IS TO REDUCE SMOKING RATES FROM 25% TO BELOW 10%. KICKING THEM OUT OF THEIR FAVORITE BAR AND RESTAURANT IS JUST A SMALL STEP TO COERCE THEM TO QUIT. I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE SHS NONSENSE MYSELF! Don't you dare try to ban cigarettes, if you do I will have to go back to my previous job ______(choose one: prostitute, drug dealer, pimp, state assemblyman, mayor) where I won't make nearly as much money and the bank will foreclose on my seaside villa and repo my _______(choose one: Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Hummer, Infiniti, Acura,Jaguar, Volvo, Bentley). I take advantage of the prejudices of categories A-L above to accomplish my goal.
N. I don't fit any of the above categories, I just like to argue with people.
Let's all take a wild guess here. TobaccoScam (and the whole thing is a scam) is definitely an A1.
What is particularly disturbing to me...
I sincerly believe that exposing children to reasonable amounts of cold weather, pets, alcohol, tobacco smoke, candy, bad language, religion, video games... (what other "bad" things can I think of?) -- and all sorts of other things that *might* be harmful in large amounts, is physically and psychologically healthful. Yes, I said healthful. I DO NOT believe that sheltering children is good parenting.
I was raising PEOPLE who would live in the world, not delicate orchids. Still, my 4 children NEVER suffered an ear infection, nor have they ever needed an antibiotic (lucky, I guess). They are all now healthy individuals, and educated and accomplished citizens. I would raise them exactly the same way if I had it to do again. (Try and stop me.)
The idea that these a%%hats believe that they know better how to raise children... That they have the monopoly on the knowledge of what is health promoting... That reasonable parents cannot disagree about how to raise their children...
Oh dear. What can I possibly say? What insanity.
Eric -- priceless.
Of course Judge Leddy is correct.
For the past fifteen years, I've argued that forcing tobacco smoke pollution into the lungs (and other body parts) of children is a form of child abuse.
Smokers can harm themselves as much as they desire. But harming other people, especially innocent children, is unacceptable behavior in civilized society.
Smokers can simply use smokeless tobacco products, nicotine gum, lozenges or inhalers to get their nicotine fixes when indoors (or in cars) with other people, especially children.
In the future, abusive smokers will be viewed (and held accountable) by society similar to the way drunk drivers are now viewed (and held accountable).
Its about time for justice to be served.
Bill Godshall wrote: "In the future, abusive smokers will be viewed (and held accountable) by society similar to the way drunk drivers are now viewed (and held accountable)."
Pardon my French.
OK BILL,PAY YOUR DUES FIRST,60 FAGS A DAY FOR ? LONG.
Thank You Dan! Yes, that's the appropriate response when someone presumes to tell you how to live your life, raise your children, use your property, etc... It's the only possible response. My life is not up for debate.
Bill, are you completely unaware of how offensive your remarks are? And why they would provoke such a response?
Comparing smoking around kids to drunk driving is a disgrace and an insult to anyone who has ever suffered a death of a family member due to drunk driving.
I certainly understand the vigorous reaction to that comment.
To compare the high probability of killing someone instantaneously with the chance that a kid might get an ear infection??????
I see little alternative other than to join FORCES as members,pump in as much funding as people can afford and wait for FORCES to take a legal case forward.The US is breeding a sick society of hypocritical intolerants ,masquerading as Public Health do-gooders,and Politicians who seek to line their own nest.This is being exported to willing societies worldwide.Dr Siegel you helped build the monster,you helped feed it.It doesn't need you anymore,so your efforts are too little,too late.This is a witch hunt ,there's no integrity involved,WAS THERE EVER ?
Bill,
Society will take care of you, just don't you worry about that. We are coming.
Thankyou Dr. Siegel for the remark about comparing drunk driving to smoking in a car or anywhere near kids. My brother was killed by a drunk driver and I know the pain, yet you will never see or hear me defend alcohol prohibition. Funny thing is, neither would my brother have.
Eric, Loved the questionaire. It was priceless!
As I sign off, my signature will come up as anomymous, but this is Diane. I had to make a quick trip for probably a 2 month stay with my daughter and family. Pregnacy has taken a complicated turn and gramma is taking care of the family while mommy stays in bed and her computer isn't letting me sign my name. Having fun catching up with you all though.
I want to apologize if I offended anyone (except Bill G.). I am relatively new to blogging and mostly lurk. To be clear, I am a smoker, and have quit before three time twice for for 1 year and once for 4 years.
I do not deny the health risk associated with smoking, nor do I deny that I am addicted to smoking. I do not deny that under certain circumstances, the SHS can be a health risk. How many of you smokers have had to sit in an unventilated room to smoke at an Airport? Even for most smokers’ that is too much. While I do not deny the science that shows smoking is a health risk, I believe it has to be put into perspective. Here is what we are dealing without me offering proof:
1. The risk to your child’s becoming ill from smoking is less then the risks of sending your child to school.
2. The risk of SHS causing harm to your child is about the same as letting your child play outside without sunscreen.
3. The risk of SHS is probably about the same as letting your go outside without mosquito spray (West Nile Virus).
Are we going to advocate government intervention for parents that fail to protect against these risks. If the real dangers of SHS were put in a context everyone could understand, I believe that most people would ask what the big deal is. Yes, it is possible that SHS smoke can CAUSE heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc. But the odds of it doing so are very slim. More likely then not, given a person never exposed to smoke, they would die of the same things, especially heart disease. The science cannot prove anyone who died of any smoke related illness was due to smoking or exposure to SHS. This is simply not possible in science. It is possible to say that if someone was a heavy smoker that the likely cause of the illness (smoking related) was due to smoking. Smoking does NOT kill. Smoking leads to disease (heart, cancer, etc) that can kill. Saying smoking kills is no different then saying guns kill. No they can be used by someone to kill, but unless human interaction is involved, they do not kill at all. So far science has demonstrated that there is a weak like between SHS and certain illnesses. Based on early research, I have not read to research papers and am just saying what I read in the news, we can assume that the risk associated with SHS are no different then eating a burger at McDonalds or drinking one soda a day. If these findings pan out, and I do not believe they will, this is the kind of risk we are talking about. Where are the cries for government intervention to ban burgers, loud music, soda, candy, etc. As the good doctor would say, I believe smoking is a severe health risk. I take this risk because of certain benefits it provides. Equating the risks of an active smoker to be anywhere close to that of a passive smoker is pure and simple BS. However, that is exactly what tobacco control wants everyone to believe, because without that, there would be no bans. Everyone would be asking “what is the big deal?”
Finally this weekend I experienced for the first time the hatred of an anti. While I am a courteous smoker (I do not litter, blow smoke in others faces, etc) while walking in a park last weekend two old ladies walked by on a large path with wind blowing away from them towards me, and after they pasted one said out loud so I could hear, DAMN cigarettes. Believe me, no smoke got near her. I felt like walking back up to her, calling her a damn bitch, and blowing smoke in her face. BITCH!! I remained civil and said nothing. But it was the first time anyone ever complained about my smoking. Outdoors no less. Sorry for the rant.
Bill Godshall,...you're pathetic.
Your comparrison between SHS and drunk driving is rediculous, but not at all unexpected from an AntiTobacco zealot. It's one of the rules your team is required to follow.
You must not deviate from the plan.
This is all you have. Extreme worse case scenarios and examples of the worst potential outcome.
Like the Doc's dead bartenders, your thought process on this topic is not based on real world application.
If it were, a conversation with you might be tollerable, but you clearly don't want to talk, you clearly want to dictate.
Pardon my French.
Dan
Exactly!!
Bill, are you completely unaware of how offensive your remarks are? And why they would provoke such a response?
GDF
Of course not. He knows exactly what he's saying. He just doesn’t care because he likens us to rapists (yes bill that is exactly what you implied), child abusers, murderers………..lower than all that actually. Then whines about us name calling him when we react to him (which we shouldn't do just to piss him off as he likes it when we do that).
I’m just surprised he hasn’t tried to call us pedophiles too since he implies we force substances (smoke) into other body parts (what else could that possibly mean?). He also refuses to understand, or rather chooses to forget, that it is NOT the nicotine alone we crave.......it IS the smoke itself. He hates himself for having quit and wants us to be as miserable as he is.
But that’s alright, billy boy is racking up karma I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy (remember bill, everything you put out there comes back at you three-fold).
Your comparrison between SHS and drunk driving is rediculous
Even better is when you tell antis that all alcohol should be banned, they say there is NO comparison between drinking and smoking.
Amazing how good or bad something is depending on the insult you are trying to throw, isn't it?
Eric, I was wondering when you'd get around to posting your Q's here on this blog. I've seen it posted elsewhere by you and always get a great kick out of it.
My best guess-
Bill G--- C & H (w/strong M tendencies.
T-rama-scama-Ding-Dong- A, A-1, H & F*.
*in light of the revelation today about Mother Teresa and her 'crisis of faith' that would explain the conflicted (twisted) thoughts of T-rama-Ding-Dong.
IMHO
Thanks for the laugh.
Lynda and Lightning Boy:
In Bill's defense, he is at least intellectually honest. He is an equal opportunity Fun Cop.
He hates the idea that somewhere, somebody is having a good time drinking beer, smoking cigars or cigarettes and listening to loud music.
He is a perfect example to illustrate why the looney social engineering and Communist left wing Democrats who attack smoking in order to reduce the cost of their health care entitlement programs and the "Republican" religious right who go after alcohol because they think Jesus told them to (even though Jesus drank wine himself), are both pimples on the ass of freedom and the U.S. Constitution.
Sunz, are you on FR too?
I think Bill might be the only human being alive who fits into every single category.
He won't tell me or anyone else.
Just lurk on FR way too many COC's there for me. I just get a huge laugh out of your treatment of Wheeeee,(and several others) reminds me alot of old Bill.
Sunz, you've made my week. I'm glad somebody is paying attention out there and I'm not talking to myself.
PS: I hope there are more people out there like you.
Gratuitous plug for a homepage that is not for profit below. I'm not looking to hock my wares or convince anyone to buy anything.
Click on homepage below, than click "in forum". If you hate my guts, set up an account there and tell me why Capitalism and Free Markets are no good while Socialism and Gubmint control are the answer.
Or if you're as lazy as I am, forget those instructions and just tell me here.
Nice to see Dr. Madden mentioned again.
I had read some of his things a couple of years back.
Perhaps, you Dr. Siegel and Dr. Madden can join forces.
I cannot tell you how nice it is to read of medical doctors who see the real motivations behind these draconian policies.
"Sunz, you've made my week."
Well more than once you, along with elkfersupper and Madame Dufarge have made my day.
Keep up the good work, it is appreciated way more than you realize.
'Its about time for justice to be served.'
What exactly are you talking about here? Are you planning to have us shot on site.
I sure would hate to be caught up in your karmic nightmare. What a twisted individual you are.
.
The really sick disgusting thing is the Cathys and Bills come ranting about how horrible smoking is...yet they refuse to support illegalization. Actually, Bill I get, he doesn't want his pet tobacco banned. Unfortunately, considering how that crap just ferments in those bottles they carry around, and have a bigger relationship with mouth cancer than smoking does with lung cancer, and well, just the ew factor alone (c'mon SPITTING??? *shudders*)..it's gotta go too.
However, they come here spewing out how we're murderers and child abusers, but the only thing they seem to be able to do about it is cry like babies. Either illegalize it or shut up. If smoking is really so murderous, then you two are accomplices for not doing your part to illegalize it. No matter what the reasoning is. Bill, you should be willing to give up your tobacco if it takes out the supposed greater evil of smoking. Except your selfish, you care more for your desires than the supposed toxicity of this oh so dangerous product. Cathy, you should be willing to do everything it takes to get rid of that nasty, murderous substance. Yet all you two do is whine and cry like children...If I'm a murderer, you are too. It's funny how quick you are to call someone extreme names and not see yourself as accomplices for your own decision to not push the envelope. You LET me smoke. You're convinced it's so wrong, but you LET me smoke...according to you anti's I could at least hide behind the excuse that "I'm addicted". What's your excuse? You're not doing everything you can to keep me from poisoning others, you just like to tell yourself that so you can feel good.
Colin--
Please do copy that post of yours, just as it is, and send it To the Editor @ the Staten Island Advance. So hot am I for this that I went to the whole 4 minutes of trouble to get you the address. Unhappily it has to be done through a form that you'll easily find at:
http://www.silive.com/letters/advance/
And for anyone who wants to talk dirty to the judge: judge.leddy@si.rr.com
"Moving right along" to bra straps and navels... (re somebody's link) it's interesting to note that in the late 19-teens and early 1920s when American Puritans were frothing about whiskey, they were also making laws about-- actually criminalizing-- womens' clothes. Laws about how many inches below the neck, or above the ankle, a street dress could be, and in some cases banning the very sale of such indecency w/i city limits. There's nothing like The Disapprovers on a tear because they disapprove of everything. (Give em an inch and they'll immediately add it to a lady's decolletage.)
Say what you will about Marx and his buddies but Hegel was right about historical dialectics. We live, it turns out, on the pendulum of a clock, and whatever doesn't get you on the backswing the first time will get you on the second. It's all variations on the same f'ing theme.
:
Here was Bill acting the role of all nicey-nicey "look at me I'm so reasonable" as he tries to suddenly "join" the lunch table conversation as if he's just another one of the gang and being agreeable with the gang's sentiments:
While some smokefree advocates have exaggerated the health risks of short term exposure to tobacco smoke pollution, ...
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 08.22.07 - 11:49 am | #
Except "some" Bill is YOURSELF:
"For the past fifteen years, I've argued that forcing tobacco smoke pollution into the lungs (and other body parts) of children is a form of child abuse."
I said it that other day to myself... Take your lunch and go sit the hell somewhere else. You will never belong at our -- the in-crowd -- table.
Perhaps Bill can explain why he uses the word "children" with the attribute "innocent"? Looks like he is trying to emotionalize the debate.
Bill is someone we should really ignore until he learns these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cat...gical_fallacies
The doctor says:
"Comparing smoking around kids to drunk driving is a disgrace and an insult to anyone who has ever suffered a death of a family member due to drunk driving."
Well, that's certainly indignant. But it's also pretty selective. And once again, the doctor refuses to apply his own criticisms to his own position.
Not long ago, the doctor argued that SHS "is killing" all those bartenders in Massachussets. And he tarred a regular reader here as "callous" for not being sufficiently broken up about that death toll.
In other comments, the docotr has used words like "deadly" and "dangerous" and "severe health threat" to describe SHS exposure.
Well, doctor, to borrow your own argument regarding Bill G, I can assure you that the wife of many a coal miner and logger think that it is a disgrace when you go on an on and on about describing SHS exposure as one of the most significant workplace exposures in all of human history. Thousands upon thousands (40,00 a year! Or is it 53,000!) of dead bodies every year! No, we can't produce one. Of course not. But it's DEADLY!
You know what's deadly? Getting crushed by a freaking tree. The families of workers who have gotten killed that way know that.
Maybe their could expres THEIR indignation with a borrowed phrase:
"To compare the high probability of killing someone instantaneously with the chance that a worker might get an ear infection??????"
Mr Walt,
The mission, she is accomplished.
Can you let me know if it is published? I am off on my travels again on Monday but I will be able to keep an eye on things.
(Betcha they edit "Clusterflub"....)
Well Sam that statement is fair. One is proven the other one is fantasy of the antismokers. I dont recall Dr Mike saying that though he might have done so he doesnt anymore- too bad however the ban is in place!
As for Eric like your description though im not sure there's any of those categories Bill doesnt fit in.
Cathy Bell, I remember you attacking CAGE Canada a few months ago using the usual antismoking method- of course no evidence there(just personal attacks and accusations as thats all you can do- as no one has ever been proven to be killed by "deadly" SHS. Sam M. perfectly sums up your mental capacity.
"How long before the first lawsuit by children? "
How long before the defense attorneys start to question the harsh sentences afforded other child abusers demanding sentences be consistent.
Will they start giving heavier sentences to smokers than the fines for smoking in cars? sentences more in line with the norms we rexpect of such crimes, of life in jail and classifications as dangerous offenders with their futures monitored so they will not reoffend, to level the playing field so to speak, or will those who deserved severe punishments be given a slap on the wrist because society can't clearly define what constitutes abuse.
Why are smokers who are said to be killing thousands of non smokers not being arrested? Should they be turning themselves in, to pay for their crimes?
Is the current campaign by TC and their minions not abusive to both smokers and their families? Could we have them arrested, for at minimum harassment charges.
I can think of millions of law abiding citizens who would agree; the victims of health scare, the patients they are treating with the so called tough love strategies demanding abuse.
One has to ask, where is the love?
Where is the Love?
A nice Roberta Flack/Donny Hathaway tune.
Parental smoking is not "a failure on the part of parents to protect their children from exposures which significantly increase the risk of potentially serious adverse health consequences", as Dr. Siegel spins it. Parental smoking is the act of imposing that exposure on their children for the sake of satisfying their drug habit.
Here is another spin: "it is not true that healthy children exposed to secondhand smoke necessarily suffer protracted impairment of their lung function."
Not so according to the surgeon general: "Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems."
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet6.html
In the case of disagreement, I'd be more inclined to believe the surgeon general. But let's leave that aside and suppose for a moment that parental smoking is "merely" a health risk.
So here is the deal with parental smoking indoors, be it in planes, trains, automobiles, restaurants or private homes:
1. It poses a danger of illnesses and even death in infants and children, who lack the ability to protect themselves.
2. It provides no benefit to the child.
3. It's easily preventable. All that's required to eliminate this serious health problem is for parents to smoke outside or wait until there are no children in the car or home (or set a better example for the kids and don't smoke at all).
All of the activities Dr. Siegel has mentioned – playing hockey, eating junk food, and so on – either provide a benefit to the child, represent a much smaller health problem than parental smoking, are not easily preventable, or all three. (Also note that unlike parental smoking, these are mostly activities the child chooses.) Dr. Siegel ignores these important distinctions and attempts to mix parental smoking with other issues. That's why Michael Siegel is a spin doctor, and sadly, a defender of smoking and parental smoking.
But this is what tobacco promoters do. The same tactics get used to oppose other tobacco control measures, such as public and workplace smoking bans. See chapter one of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Claim smoking is a fundamental right, introduce other issues as a diversion."
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=5&cnt=1&
t=a
It's sad and disturbing to see a medical doctor work so hard to defend the "parental autonomy" to expose children to unnecessary and pointless health risks (Dr. Siegel has stated that he opposes car and home smoking regulations in principle, not just the car smoking ban proposed in New York), particularly when the remedy is so simple and easy. The only real downside to parental indoor smoking restrictions is for tobacco companies, as parents would smoke less and be more likely to quit.
Note that Dr. Siegel frequently makes a big deal out of the prospect of children being taken away from their parents who smoke around them, even though no one has seriously proposed this as a remedy. I see this as a deliberate attempt to promote fear and anger in smokers, and very much in keeping with many of Dr. Siegel's writings on this blog in which he frequently claims that non-smokers hate smokers and wish to punish them. Well if he thinks that's bad, then what about the children who lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses? If confronting smokers on their drug habit makes it more likely they will quit, that's another good reason for Dr. Siegel to support indoor smoking restrictions (all of them), as a medical doctor that is.
One can only hope that at some point Michael Siegel's conscience may get the better of him, and he will reexamine his activities in campaigning against measures to improve health conditions for children.
So here is the deal with parental smoking indoors, be it in planes, trains, automobiles, restaurants or private homes:
1. It poses a danger of illnesses and even death in infants and children, who lack the ability to protect themselves.
Then you need to tell that to the millions of babies born in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's who were far more exposed at greater levels than any one person today is, who have the sheer audacity to not only be alive BUT healthy as well.
2. It provides no benefit to the child.
Actually, according the World Health Organization's own 1998 (or there abouts) report, it DOES provide a benefit in that the report states that children exposed to SHS have a 22% LESS chance of ever developing lung cancer later in life. Guess that's why they buried the report?
3. It's easily preventable.
Yes it is. BAN CHILDREN.
Cathy, IF you are even slightly correct in all this crap, then kindly explain HOW BABY BOOMERS CAME TO EXIST IN GOOD HEALTH?
Answer me that.
Seriously, do you even READ what you write? Based on what you wrote, not a single baby boomer should be alive today to bankrupt social security and have corporations in a tizzy over pension payouts and replacement of their retiring workforce.
You really prefer to trust the word of a man who conveniently "retired" less than a month after his public statements that the report he put out doesn't even support?
You show your true character more and more.
I'll confront my "drug habit" when you confront yours. Do you drink caffeine? Alcohol? Have any prescription medications?
Oh, and how should we address my OTHER drug habit? Reading. I have a library of over 3000 books (of various kinds). If I'm deprived of a new book (something new to read) I react worse than if I'm deprived of a cigarette (according to the husband). I buy, on average, 4 books a week and it's very difficult to not buy more. My husband exerts control by setting limits, that I admit, I have difficulty staying within (I really do LOVE to read). I've even been known to buy an extra book behind his back (I do tell him later, and though I'm not HARMING someone, I'm pretty certain these are signs of an addict). If we are to classify every sign of "addictive" behavior, one would suggest I should probably get some kind of counseling. However, it's BOOKS, so it's ok. Is reading my other "drug habit"? And sometimes the books I read benefit NO ONE, I just LIKE them (I'm huge on science fiction and fantasy, though I do own more than my fair share of textbooks). One could say (and many have) that such books (fantasy and sf) are a waste of time and contribute nothing to anyone except my personal enjoyment (like smoking!!). However, while I may not shoot you for confiscating my cigarettes, I will do war for my books. Obviously those evil books have a bigger hold on me than smoking. And thanks to the sheer amount of books in our house, my children are deprived of valuable play area...the house is kind of cluttered as it's small and we have many bookshelves, so it's not the neatest place in the world. And y'know, books even cause lung cancer! Who knew??
We clean everything carefully in the house except books. The study shows that, long time exposure to books dust can create many illnesses like lung cancer, heart attack, allergy, asthma, skin problem, depression etc.
http://www.library-dust.com/
Wow, sounds as bad as cigarettes...
It's easy to label someone as an addict and deride them, but not all "addictions" are bad, or even really addictions. Just an extremely loved past time. I guess I really am a filthy addict, what with my addiction to books, but I'm probably a lot better educated than yourself, and much more interesting to talk to.
T-scam states 'deal' on indoor smoking:
danger of illnesses and even death
no benefit to the child
easily preventable
Funny this is the same dangers we all face when we read your posts, TinkerBell.
But rant on. Knock yourself out.
Me, I'm gonna go take a nap.
.
This is a sad story but I think it belongs here.
It's been very hot in St. louis lately, and this past wed it was 104 and 2 parents who both work together, forgot thier 7 month old baby was in the back seat, and parked the car in the sun and went inside to work.
and a few hours later, a passer by noticed the baby, and broke out a window, and attempted to rescue the baby, and called the police, but it was too late.
So, guess who the parents are? The mother is a pedetrician ( that's right an MD!!!! ) at the washington university School of Medicine, and the father is a researcher at the same facility. These are not stupid people.
So, why am I posting this? There is a great deal of debate right now on whether or not to bring charges against the parents. The parents, say they both assumed the child had been taken inside by the other parent.
Also in the public debate on this issue, is the fault may lie with the law that baby seats must be installed in the back seat of a car unless it is impossible to do so (pick-up trucks).
Laws do have unintended consequences. Obviously if those parents had the baby seat installed in the front seat area, one of them would ahve noticed the other did not bring the baby inside with them. Laws protecting babys or adults often have unintended consequences. In this case, a law passed to protect a child may have contributed to the death of that child. Another example, may be that the child should be in the front seat incase the child chokes on something, or just plain because the child does not feel as neglected by the parent, having closer social contact with the parent if the child is in the front seat.
So, laws like those prohibiting smoking in a car may also have unintended consequences.
Don't get me wrong, I think childeren should be in special car seats because they are more likely to survive a crash, but that law took away the parents choice of where to place the safety seat. That law goes too far. It interferes with parantal choice. A parent should have the choice to get the front seat passenger airbag disconected and place the seat there, or whatever.
So, if smoking is banned in cars, some parents will probably decide on occasion, to leave the child at home while running quick errands, or whatever. and that could ahve negative consequences. Or eventually when laws get passed banning smoking in homes with kids, the parent is more likely to leave the kids at home while driving about cause it's the last place they can smoke.
So, Cathy and Bill are wrong, because both cannot see the whole issue. Dr Siegel is right, because although he and I disagree on whether and health effects actually exist, at least most of us sane people here agree that laws banning smoking in cars can have other unintended consequences up to and including loss of parental contact with their kids due to the state prosecuting the parent/s or removing the child from the home, or the parents willingly spending less time with a child because they need time to smoke.
Those who support these draconean measures, are actually abusing children more than the parents who smoke around their kids because the consequences of their actions are more likely to harm the child than the smoke. Dave K
Dr Blair,
when i clicked on your webpage, AOL said it could not find your website, and redirected me to www.smokersdatelink.com
So, anyway, bambi and I hit it right off and if ya all don't hear from me for a few weeks, i just wanted to say "thanks"
HOT OF THE PRESS: New study shows sex is worse the SHS (sarcasm).
A new study by the New England Journal of Medicine has determined the having SEX is worse the second hand smoke (SHS) and possibly smoking. Among the finding are:
1. The sex increases the heart beat to astronomical levels. A recent study has shown that those must likely to be at risk of heart attack, stroke, etc are still having sex into their60’s and 70’s or above. While these people are putting themselves at a high risk, the city of New York is considering banning sex for those over 50. Queens Democrat James Gennaro in a new conference said he will introduce a new law. “Not only is it disgusting that people my age may still have sex particularly because I am obese. Just the thought of other people having sex makes me what to gag. Just think of how the children will feel with this visual imagery!”
2. It has been shown that sex at any age, is riskier then SHS. The Surgeon General has warned that there is no safe level of sex. Not only does it cause venereal disease, AIDS, etc, but it also causes increased heart beat increased risk of stroke etc. President Bush in a news conference, taking a cue for President Clinton, said “I never had sex and I believe using tobacco for it is a severe health risk”. It is not known whether President Clinton used a Cuban or not.
3. It was determine that Monica Lewinsky developed virginal cancer as a direct result of using cigars for you know what. A new law suite against former President Clinton is pending. Current Senator Clinton has stated: “I have had cigars in my p*ssy for as long as I have know my husband, and I am in good heath.” She contests the research finding claiming that of all the people her husband slept with only one developed virginal cancer. Scientists are calling her a denialist.
4. Immediate increase in blood pressure causes heart attack and stroke. In addition it has been found even without sex, masturbation causes the same effect. Several masturbation bans are pending. The state of California (californification) is leading the way.
In the mean time the city Council of New York is considering new legislation to ban all sex, unless both partners have a physical checkup and a permission slip from their doctor. In order to enforce these provisions cameras will be installed in all possible sex locations including private bed rooms. New York Queens Democrat James Gennaro has said, “We are doing this for the children. As long as the standards for having sex are set very high, there will be no children to protect. Once there are no children I think a smoking ban would be meaningless.” He farther stated that there will be an outright ban on cigars as these could be used to skirt the law.
tobaccoscumalysis wrote:
"In the case of disagreement, I'd be more inclined to believe the surgeon general."
That would be the same SG who testified that:
"There is no significant scientific evidence that suggests smokeless tobacco is a safer alternative to cigarettes."
Birds of a feather...
Jalestra,
You sound like me with the books, though I admit, I don't keep that many around, just a couple of bookcases. Eventually I just take the books I no longer want or will read again and donate them to the library, or take them to some other "book drop" so others can enjoy them.
As a child I preferred reading to going out to play and used to slip a book under my clothes to sit outside and read when my mother would threaten me with bodily harm if I didn't go out to play......hehehehehe
Right now I'm reading Thom Hartmann's "Screwed the Undeclared War Against the Middle Class". Good reading, and scary as all get out too.
The other book I'm going to read is the Christ Conspiracy........actually I started it, but put it down to read Thom H's book, another book that seems to stating what I've felt for my whole life.
I've got Jack Cafferty's "It's Getting Ugly Out There" on pre-order through Amazon.com as it's not due out until Sept. 10th or so. And I'm going to get Lou Dobb's book also, which also deals with the "war on the middle class".
Just a few more for you in case you haven't read them and want to expand your library more.
Robert Ludlum is my all time favorite though. Love his "Bourne" books. Next to him, I love the "Conversations with God" trilogy............those really resounded in me, and are NOT religious books at all. Just quite mind bending and eye opening if you've ever had any doubts or questions (as I have since childhood).
Dan,
LOL, love it!!!! Too funny. Or rather it would be if it weren't so close to the truth............because I do things going there IF the religious moral majority ever get their way.
Scummy-analysissy in response to this quote of yours:
"One can only hope that at some point Michael Siegel's conscience may get the better of him, and he will reexamine his activities in campaigning against measures to improve health conditions for children."
He already has let his conscience speak concerning the tactics of anti-tobacco fanatics, such as yourself. That is the reason for this blog.
That went right over your little anti head, now didn't it?
Bringing in "for the children" in your quote, how very "old hat".
Go pee in a swimming pool, the chlorine will kill it. If it doesn't, there's lots of CHILDREN who swim in these pools full of urine and I haven't seen a ban on that ..yet....BUT I have read some studies that explain what kinds of damage excessive chlorine inhalation can do to a person.
Perhaps the lifeguards should band together to ban swimming pools......I am sure the "second hand chlorine" reaches up to there chairs with the umbrellas.....there no "25 ft. law" concerning that kind of thing, now is there?
Dave K - just be careful. I heard that oral sex may be linked with throat and mouth cancer due to the HP virus. Makes more sense than these being CAUSED by smoking like my cigarette pack says. Better to stick with the cigars like Bill.
Tobacco-scum-analist denies any benefit from smoking because that is a central anti tenet. If they were to admit the benefits then their whole position becomes untenable. Not that it had any merit anyway.
Actually there are lots of benefits or people would not put up with the taxes and harassment.
Love the books too ladies.
Helena banned sex and had another 40% drop in heart attacks.
Ya are right, and since no one needs sex, except to procreate, it should be banned.
Dr. siegel, does sex kill 222 bartenders each year?
Sex should definitely be banned in cars when children are present though.
and on all college campuses!
AND ON ALL COLLEGE CAMPUSES!
I reiterateeee oon alll college campusesssssss.
maybe bill and cathy can do something useful for a change.
dave K
Dan---LOL!
Funny thing is I could just imagine the media with the
"BREAKING NEWS" "This just crossing the wires" and all the rest.
.
Mike wrote:
"Comparing smoking around kids to drunk driving is a disgrace and an insult to anyone who has ever suffered a death of a family member due to drunk driving."
Wrong. Both are examples of selfish actions by drug addicts/abusers that harm innocent bystanders, and both are examples of people who are in denial that their drug addiction/abuse harms innocent bystanders.
GDF wrote:
"Bill, are you completely unaware of how offensive your remarks are?"
GDF, are you completely unaware of how harmful and offensive tobacco smoke pollution is?
I ask this question of Bill G. in all sincerity: I notice that you said point out how harmful and offensive "tobacco smoke pollution" is. I am sure you have discussed this elsewhere, but: Is it really just tobacco smoke that's harmful and offensive? I mean, it's one plant. There are a lot of plants people burn. Is tobacco uniquely noxious?
I ask because I live up the street from Tessaro's in the Bloomfield section of Pittsburgh. It's famous for it's hamburgers, cooked on an open wood fire.
Smokey? You bet. I mean, it's not just the inside of the place, either. The whole neighborhood smells like a campfire on days with little wind. You can see the haze from blocks and blocks away. And you know if someone has been there. Because they smell like it.
Are you saying that a worker at Lou's Little Corner Bar just down the street--where there might be one or smoking smoking patrons most of the time--is in more danger than the bartender at Tessaro's, where they must burn through five cords of wood everyday?
As a matter of fact, I have been in Lou's quite a few times when nobody was smoking. Because I was the only one there, or because none of my barmates smoked.
If it were really a matter of health, where would you rather work?
(No fair saying you would work at Lou's after a ban is enacted. I am talking about right now.)
If Tessaro's is dangerous, would you support a ban on open wood fires?
Just wondering.
here it is again: that their drug addiction/abuse harms innocent bystanders.
How innocent can a bystander be when he/she stands by a smoker or patronizes a smoker's venue?
“Note that Dr. Siegel frequently makes a big deal out of the prospect of children being taken away from their parents who smoke around them, even though no one has seriously proposed this as a remedy. I see this as a deliberate attempt to promote fear and anger in smokers,………..tobaccoscamalysis
"promote fear and anger"?
surly:
NOTE also that not one SHS study that I know of has ever made specific reference to the hundreds upon hundreds of billions (and then some) of people who have been exposed to SHS and HAVE NOT died from or suffered any adverse effects what so ever from the same. Curiously (or not) the good judge here left out this important fact from his Op-ed.
I think its always important to keep this in mind.
Excuse me Bill, you have neglected to complete the Federally Mandated questionaire posted by the good Dr Blair above.
You will not be permited to continue posting here unless that is completed.
I would also like to remind you that we do have a $5.00 fine for whining.
Your whining account balance is now $62,489.23 and is overdue as well.
.
Bill, are you completely unaware of how addictive and offensive smokeless tobacco is?
Jales==='Bill, are you completely unaware of how addictive and offensive smokeless tobacco is?'
He also seems to be unaware how addicted he is to the funding he receives for all of his 'volunteer' efforts for TC.
GDF, are you completely unaware of how harmful and offensive tobacco smoke pollution is?
We're all quite aware of how offensive/harmful people can just claim a wisp of smoke to be and get away with it. That's what we're trying to fight, that this sort of thing is made the basis for legislation. And since it's okay to answer a question with a question--
Bill, are you aware of how addictive making insulting statements is? It seems you've been increasing the dosage and the intensity lately, too. Just lookin' out for you, kid.
And are you aware of how offensive exaggerations and name-calling can be, especially when cloaked in the excuse that it is for these people's own good(or for the good of people who are better than they are?)
Speaking of Lawmakers:
***Warning Graphic Language
http://www.theguyfromboston.com/
...5_Employees.wmv
These are the folks running our live!!
Bill G. wrote: "Wrong. Both are examples of selfish actions by drug addicts/abusers that harm innocent bystanders, and both are examples of people who are in denial that their drug addiction/abuse harms innocent bystanders."
That would include you or not? You do use tobacco? Drug addict, drug addict, bad you. Spitting should be outlawed it is disgusting. Bad you, bad you.
The above is me. Darn am a becoming like Si.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"GDF, are you completely unaware of how harmful and offensive tobacco smoke pollution is?"
Good to see(?) you've given up driving the Prius.
Btw, feel free to drive that earth-raping machine to the hospital when you break something playing volleyball.
Of course you'll have to hobble home first to get it.
GDF, are you completely unaware of how harmful and offensive tobacco smoke pollution is?
Bill Godshall | 08.25.07 - 7:08 pm | #
Godshall, are you completely unaware of how harmful and offensive your posting pollution is to the RIGHTS of others?
You like your smokeless tobacco, that's cool -- but guess what? Your spitting of the pollution of it is FAR more harmful to the general public than any bit of SHS exposure will EVER be to anyone that is not already health impaired. Your expelling of your pollution is far more likely to be spreading communicable diseases than a bit of smoke.
You are the polluter promoter here, Godshall, no one else.
The lies of the tobacco-cntrol freaks is an entirely different type of pollution, but I won't address that at this time.
Dave K. Best of luck to you and Bambi.
Can you ask her give Bill G a lapdance?
Bill -- I'll quote my oldest daughter in response. "If humans were not adapted to a good bit of smoke in their environments, there would be no humans left"
She also points out that on her favorite fragrance website - the most frequent fragrance "note" (element of a fragrance mixture) is "smoke". So, many others must find the scent of smoke pleasing as well.
Who hasn't enjoyed the smell of a nice campfire? I suggest you would react the same to the scent of burning tobacco, if you were not conditioned already to fear it. No Bill, I do not consider the scent of burning leaves "harmful".
Obviously humans have used fire (both indoors and out) to cook food and to warm themselves for a long, long time. No Bill, I also don't find being around reasonable amounts of organic smoke offensive in the least. Nor would I ever class it as "pollution".
As for Cathy, I repeat -- how I live my life or raise my children is not your business and is NOT up to you. Please spend your time raising your own children. We are quickly reaching the point where you and your kind had better come armed if you think you're going to make those decisions for me. I hope it's worth it to you... for the children.
Cathy-
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.
Just to remind everyone, Cathy wrote: "What's really needed is a law requiring tobacco companies to publicly disclose all their spending. ... Then we would see fewer smokers' rights websites and blogs, or at least we would know where this stuff is coming from so we can give it the credibility it deserves."
I asked Cathy - Which smokers' rights websites and blogs are you then accusing of being funded by the tobacco companies? Can you please be specific if you are going to make an accusation like that without backing it up.
With all due respect to Bill, the issue here isn't whether or not tobacco smoke is offensive. The issue is whether smoking is child abuse. The issue is whether we want to treat smoking around your kids in the same way that we treat beating your kids or sexually assaulting them.
GDF--- 'We are quickly reaching the point where you and your kind had better come armed if you think you're going to make those decisions for me. I hope it's worth it to you... for the children.'
This is probably why I spend time at target practice these days.
I don't think the likes of Cathy, Bill or the Judge realize how very protective we are of our children. They live under the delusion that only they have this capability.
to quote Bill himself---'Wrong'
.
I've noticed something, most people who are so sure about how we OUGHT to be raising our children, have no children (or have someone else taking care of them). I have 4 with one more on the way, I think I know how to take care of them by now, without the "help" of someone who has no idea what they are like a regular basis. If they're unhappy, they generally let me know.
Believe it or not, children are perfectly capable of telling you if something is bothering them.
We are quickly reaching the point where you and your kind had better come armed if you think you're going to make those decisions for me. I hope it's worth it to you... for the children.
The problem with that, GDF, is these are also the same people seeking to strip us of our guns. They have absolutely no concept of the meaning of the word "rights" as is meant in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment is anethma to them.
A couple I know was paid a visit by someone from social services because one of their children had missed more than the permissible days allowed for missing school. The child was on the honor roll, but had missed school because of being ill and also a family emergency that took the family out of town.
Unfortunately the mom made the mistake of allowing the "case worker" into the home. Nearly 2 years later they are still battling this nonsense.
Word to the wise, especially those with school age children, UNLESS they have a signed warrant and a law enforcement officer present DO NOT allow anyone from Social Services, Child Protection, or whatever they call themselves in your state into your home. Even if they have a warrant and an LEO, make them wait until you speak with an attorney.
BTW, this couple are non-smokers.
Sunz -- I'm so glad you understand. Until this year, I was a person who would never have even considered having a firearm in my home. But my spouse and I are now in the process of obtaining one. Not to guard against intruders -- but to provide for the possibility that we will someday have to fight to preserve our freedoms, especially with regard to our children or grandchildren (I can't even believe I'm typing this -- me, a college professor, a Scout leader, a soccer and T-ball coach...). I hope it never happens, but if it does, I want to be ready.
I don't know if Bill, Michael, or Cathy (or Judge Leddy) understand that this isn't an academic exercise -- for them perhaps, but not for me. THIS issue, this is the discussion of real interference with the way we (I!) raise our (my!) children. Without being able to pass our culture and values to our children, we have nothing.
Comparing smoke to child abuse is ludicrous. But if they can even suggest that dear old Grandpa is abusing the kids by lighting his hand-carved pipe in their presence. And that doesn't provoke a public outrage... And if we open that door so that every thing that someone can consider a risk (regardless of individual circumstances and parental judgement) could somehow be called "abuse" -- then I'm afraid for this country.
I know I'm not the only parent who feels this way. We need to start bluntly calling this insanity what it is -- insanity!
'Zactly Gabz. I realized that by the time you realize you NEED the firearm -- it will be too late to get it. (And again, I cannot believe I've reached this point...)
Ah, Cathy, alas, the only thing "sad and desperate" is you, with your pitiful, one-track and totally misplaced jibes against Seigel and your overblown bilge about secondhand smoke. You want to talk about dangerous smoke? My nephew's about to ship out to Iraq. My cousin lives next to the WTC and was blanketed in smoke on 9/11. Christ, what a whingeing little Nellie you are, and that goes for Bill too.
1. It poses a danger of illnesses and even death..
I could provide you with a long (long) list of things that do. Getting a vaccination; eating food at a street fair; swimming in a lake...
2. It provides no benefit to the child.
And would "providing a benefit" (like the kid enjoys swimming and it's "healthy exercise" )justify the perils of letting him swim in a lake? How about the kid who enjoys climbing trees? Would the "benefit" counter the tragedy of a drowning or the wreck of a cracked spine? Physically? Ethically? Existentially?
And to go at another angle, I'll betcha many a kid has been spared from a solid thrashing-- physical or verbal-- after Magic Marking the couch, because mommy or daddy sat down and had a smoke. Instead. I'd count that as a benefit to the kid from his parents' smoking.
And finally, there's Lynda's sharp-witted point about its prophylactic benefits.
3. It's easily preventable.
If parents themselves are set to become infantilized the moment they have a kid, I wonder how many will just opt out. The procedure in question decidedly causes death and is really of no benefit to the child who himself is preventable. So which would you prefer: abortion or exposure to secondhand smoke. Keep messing in here and that'll be the choice.
:
Michael;
Slightly off topic,
!!!Health warning!!!
In bill's case, if he reads this a definite possibility exists he may suffer endothelial "dysfunction" in dealing with the stress. A condition more properly described as endothelial "interruption" if we are not talking to the cameras.
The warning on the door has been properly posted and he goes forward at his own risk. Cathy? her work here is done so she should experience no immediate dangers.
Having reduced comprehension skills as consistent with the personality types attracted to hate promotion campaigns, her limited cognitive abilities may offer some protection in any event.
In epidemiology if you consider the "correlation factor" which is the product of averages as opposed to the squares method, the product of squares will always be non zero and positive, whereas the product of averages can find a zero result. How do you eliminate small products such as we see in ETS theory as not simply a limitation the researcher places on the calculation, in use of product squares which can never find a negative or zero result.
Consensus could be more properly described as "standard conjecture" in this case.
If we consider going just a little further astray of topic.
The Hockey stick theory could have another perspective which makes a lot of sense beyond theory.
The current shortened proximity of Mars [the red planet] in respect to the earth, if we consider the conal emissions of Infra red and the reduced cone focusing more intense heat emissions we receive by decreasing the distance from the Earth. Wouldn't we have to expect the effect of that radiation would increase the temperature of the earth with no assistance from man? Could we also state consensus in the hockey stick theory is actually "standardized conjecture" in the case of global warming.
What is the effect of using the term "consensus" as opposed to "standard conjecture" in media spin efficiencies? Would ethics demand accuracy in health relevant information? or are there undeclared exceptions to the rule?
Just like the increased effects of standard conjecture describing ETS as being a deadly risk by a determined few, or by standard conjecture as a risk factor by others admitting ethically; no definitive physical proof is known.
Used in another example;
Despite the standard conjecture promoting a belief there could be life on Mars; If there is or was life on Mars, we still haven't found it.
GDF,
Never considered arms in the home myself. Then I moved to the middle of nowhere. Any law enforcement is at least 35 miles away. So for my own safety, I got 2 guns--a shotgun and a pistol. For personal security. Never did I think I'd need it for what is beginning to become a reality in this country. Invasion by the state into the home. I really is a shame.
.
Kevin---"Would ethics demand accuracy in health relevant information? or are there undeclared exceptions to the rule?"
Ethics? Exceptions?
Nah, could never be. s/
TO: Dr. Siegel
RE: Cathy and her ilk
Just to remind everyone, Cathy wrote: "What's really needed is a law requiring tobacco companies to publicly disclose all their spending. ... Then we would see fewer smokers' rights websites and blogs, or at least we would know where this stuff is coming from so we can give it the credibility it deserves."
I asked Cathy - Which smokers' rights websites and blogs are you then accusing of being funded by the tobacco companies? Can you please be specific if you are going to make an accusation like that without backing it up.
Dr. Siegel, I'm starting slowly to understand the mind of the agenda afflicted here. This is really a fascinating Sociological study. (the students and professors at the BU Behavioral Science dept. would learn a lot by studying anti-smoking folks like Cathy and Bill)
In their minds, "smokers" are just "victims" of an evil Big Corporation. They can't think for themselves because they are addicted. They need the social engineering programs like smoking bans and high taxes that elitist left wing progressives put in place in order to coerce them to quit for their own good.
The tobacco companies lied, so if they are going to take them down, they have to lie right back. The ends justify the means.
Cathy is completely flabbergasted and bewildered and can't possibly begin to understand that adults CHOOSE to smoke despite their skull and crossbone warnings.
Anybody who opposes her "brilliant" elitists social engineering experiment JUST HAS TO BE a Big Tobacco stooge. It's for the greater good and the chilruns after all. Who would dare oppose that?
The idea of freedom, libertarianism and personal responsibility are so foreign to her that she can't even begin to grasp it.
I'm right, aren't I Cathy?
JTF
Another letter (may have been posted before) from Dr. Madden.
From Marcus' site:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-
smoking.html
~snip~
" Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda"
Uh huh, was posted before But glad you got to see it now too and it doesn't hurt one bit for it to be repeated.
But also, on Saturday the NY Post printed the same letter of Dr. Madden's that was printed in the NY Sun. He must have sent it to both. Except the Post did not print his credentials, just his name. Not even "M.D." I find that part of it a disappointing choice on the part of the Post.
Eric Blair is right about antismokers like Cathy. She really can't begin to understand that ordinary citizens like David Kuneman and I, who both enjoy an occasional smoke in the St. Louis bars, would take it upon ourselves to review the ETS science and fight for our FREEDOM! Somehow Dave and I must really be instruments BIG TOBACCO.
As for Cathy's rants and the common stooge of big tobacco rumors being promoted to extinguish the voice of oposition.
It would be so east for smokers rights groups to kill her rumor mill.
The Funders of TC invest in exchange for TC pushing their product as an alternative to smoking. The tobacco companies in kind would not enjoy a decrease in sales. Both play with market share in their monetary battle, while the consumers are caught in the middle, forced to pay for their games.
If the medical institutions refuse to recognize the only consistent reality found in their own research they deserve a generous share of embarrassment as well.
Start promoting to smokers at every opportunity moderation [meaning cutting down] will reduce their risk. The ETS creation attempts to sell the no safe level to hide the fact if smokers cut down they will see less risk and less effect. ETS is a linear risk and if any risk exists at all it is certainly decreased with exposures although as a measured factored risk in proper perspective I do not believe it sustains the smell test to require bans be imposed. Certainly not in cars when the children being forced to inhale the smoke, as they say, are apparently unable to communicate to their parents when they are made to feel uncomfortable, perhaps what is being promoted is; the other physical abuses leave a child too afraid to complain when the smoke becomes uncomfortable, in their permanent prison.
Smoking 3 packs a day is demonstrated consistently in research has a much more profound effect than smoking a single pack.
The media sell the stained fingers and the ever popular hacking up a lung to point as a universal ill, which only truly exists in the 3 pack a day world. The stained teeth and the nicotine on the fingers are symptomatic of the fact you smoke too much, cutting down allows the symptoms to subside.
If you smoke less consumption drops and the chances of quiting, if you really want to, are increased tremendously.
As for the alternatives there are enough proofs seen in links in this blog alone to demonstrate them to be ineffective and only allow the so called addictive nicotine market to grow.
If all interested parties were to start telling the media in unison the alternatives are a waste of money, the funders of TC and the other hate groups would quickly dry up. Corporate number crunchers will assess the controversy created, in a topic kept in the news too long. They would have to understand continued association with the promotional groups would decrease their market share and may well eliminate their products entirely from a a market which could grow to hate them for a change.
Start looking where they don't want the world to look and take away they potential for profit on both sides of the fence It is a no brainer to predict how quickly the protections and promotions will end.
Moderation is the ticket to throw it all back in all their faces get on topic and stay there, and you will see a lot of embarrassment and retreating of the so called experts along with destroying all credibility in a good portion of what they have been saying in self promotion.
In order to shut them down, take away the profit potential, and watch how quickly we return to a community which respects integrity. The Journalist in order to rebuild trust in their trade could have a ball and create superstars in their field, taking a bite out of the prophets of fear in medicine and philanthropy.
Although there are many arguments in relation to poison being in the dose science has consistently relied on cherry picked research to establish what that dosage might be.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...e=1&
end_page=27
In order to sustain risk in second hand smoke[ETS]they had to destroy the reality of a linear dose response relationship, less smoking has less effect, minuscule exposures found in ETS should logically be harmless;in order to create credibility; fear had to rely on destroying the perspective if you quit smoking you will have less lifetime risk or eventually the risk could be completely mitigated.
In order to do this they created an unspoken reality second hand smoke was more dangerous than primary smoking despite the fact smokers were more exposed to second hand smoke than anyone ergo they would find no benefit from quiting.
The promotion of the fear of ETS is in fact increasing a universal smoking risk, because few who weigh the information provided will see any advantage of either cutting down or quiting. The movement from cigarettes to alternatives is almost always followed by a return to smoking, those who use the alternatives having never smoked will follow the logical path and switch to smoking as well. All which is accomplished is an increased total market, benefiting all industry players. Is it any wonder PM and Tobacco free kids have so much in common while selling FDA regulation of which the alternatives will continue to be immune?
TC actually increased the risks associated with smoking by deliberately promoting the wrong message in support of their conflicted funds.
Jalestra wrote: "I've noticed something, most people who are so sure about how we OUGHT to be raising our children, have no children (or have someone else taking care of them). I have 4 with one more on the way, I think I know how to take care of them by now, without the "help" of someone who has no idea what they are like a regular basis. If they're unhappy, they generally let me know."
Congratulations on your your fifth child!!
Thank you, Dan. It will be a welcome addition to the family for all that it was a tremendous surprise to us all. LOL
I can certianly understand how low-self esteem people could be attracted to something like the antitobacco movement. It's like deciding who to root for after the 4th game of the World Series., These people must feel a need to win at something in life.
So they attach themselves to some movement which appears to ahve a high likelyhood of success, perhaps global warming, anti war activities, or antitobacco. And they hope that if these movements "win" that it will enhance their own sense of self worth, and accomplishment, in the face of an otherwise hostile world, where, these people feel deep down inside that they are "nobodies"
and that's why I think bill and cathy are so compelled to spew forth this senseless, thoughtless garbage.
Dr. Blair, actually bambi moved out of PA to get away from bill.
and by the way, I got an angry phone call from Ted Kennedy last night opposing any of my attempts to get sex in cars banned. Dave K
Has anyone noticed that every time Cathy makes an accusation and we ask her to clarify it, she disappears and does not do so?
Although she has apparently not been indoctrinated by the tobacco control movement like I was, it is interesting that she follows the playbook on her own. There is no room for disagreement with the thinking of the movement. If you oppose any tobacco control measure, you are automatically some sort of tobacco shill - you are a defender of tobacco and smoking.
Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, try to discredit the individual dissenter by attacking his character (i.e., you are a bad physician - how could a physician make such statements - you don't have a conscience). Also, make accusations without documentation. Don't come out directly and be specific or you could get called on it. But make an insinuation, for example, that the blog is a smokers' rights site and its purpose is to support the tobacco companies and smoking. But when called on that, disappear.
More importantly, Congratulations Jalestra!
From Cathy's drunken rant above in support of conjecture;
"Every activity he uses to compare with parental smoking either provides a meaningful benefit to the child or does not cause anywhere near the damage parental smoking does (or both). Now tell me, what benefit is had by parents smoking in close proximity to their children? I mean, for anyone except tobacco companies."
An alternate opinion from what she would find an excellent source of reliable conjectures; By the year 2020 The WHO predicts...
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c...hort/90/19/
1440
"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure."
Of course[ the WHO, it could be argued is not only in the business of reducing physical risk are they? They also wish to oversee what you may think as well, in an effort to promote the highest possible state of "Health".
Unfortunately it becomes entirely difficult if not impossible to distinguish in this sense between the words health and subservience.
BTW in a discussion of benefits of smoking; the same research demonstrates children exposed could be the one group who could benefit the most, that, assuming benefits are equal in assessments to risks when the weighting is delivered to the conclusions.
"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer
(odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96).
The OR for ever exposure to spousal
ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44).
No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure.
The OR for ever exposure to workplace
ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45),
with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure "
And let's not forget that smoking may also decrease one's risk for Parkinson's disease (and maybe Alzheimer's as well?).
GDF - I'll quote my oldest daughter in response. "If humans were not adapted to a good bit of smoke in their environments, there would be no humans left"
......
GDF,
I have been trying to make this point for months without ever receiving a definitive answer from the "scientists" on this question.
And, according to "scientists," wood smoke is every bit as harmful, containing many of the same carcinogens as SHS - in an even more concentrated form.
Scientists do not seem to want to address this question.
Micheal Siegel wrote:"Has anyone noticed that every time Cathy makes an accusation and we ask her to clarify it, she disappears and does not do so?"
Yes I have noticed. But her and Bill G. do not seem to be reasonable people.
Kevin wrote:
"RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated....spousal ETS...No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure....workplace ETS...with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure "
Let me answer for Cathy:
"This is simply not sound science. The only place we have seen this kind of garbage is from the tobacco industry."
(David Sweanor, Ottawa-based lawyer for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association.)
"Propaganda, not science."
(James Repace)
"This was certainly nothing done in my office."
(Neil Collishaw, World Health Association)
Yeah Rod -- they'll answer it. But the answer will be to ban woodstoves, fireplaces and campfires.
For some reason, society's growing fear of the natural world, and resentment of those who enjoy it, remind me of the sadness I felt as a teen when I read the Bradbury story "All Summer in a Day".
Dan..... Perhaps we need antismokersdatelink.com for Bill and Cathy .. a marriage made in hell?
Lynda... I think it's pretty obvious from these posts that smoking does protect from Alzheimer's
dave K
I don't know about protecting against Alzheimer's but it speaks volumes for euthanasia.
Dave K and Bill H:
Maybe if they kicked you out of those St. Louis bars you would be coerced to quit smoking for your own good. You know better than I that is the part of the agenda to put the tobacco companies out of business and save socialist health care dollars.
Before that happens, send me an email and let me know next time you are there and I'll meet you for a few beers.
Dr. Siegel loves it when anyone suggests anything related to involvement with the tobacco industry because it means he doesn't have to respond to the substance of the arguments against him vis a vis parental smoking laws. He can just harp on how he's been so hard done by instead.
If you want to know about tobacco front groups, read my website on Mychoice.ca (known tobacco front group) and Citizens Against Government Encroachment (likely tobacco front group).
Anonymous wrote:
"Dr. Siegel loves it when anyone suggests anything related to involvement with the tobacco industry because it means he doesn't have to respond to the substance of the arguments..."
I don't know why you'd miss it when nobody else has a problem seeing it. He's been taken to task by Sam M and others on the apparent contradiction of protecting adult workers, but not itty bitty children.
Dr. Siegel's responses have been always the same, dealing with parental autonomy and a home invasion sort of thing.
PS "Anonymous" is already taken by Si. LOL
It's at http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Dave K and Bill H:
Maybe if they kicked you out of those St. Louis bars you would be coerced to quit smoking for your own good. You know better than I that is the part of the agenda to put the tobacco companies out of business and save socialist health care dollars.
Before that happens, send me an email and let me know next time you are there and I'll meet you for a few beers.
Dr. Eric A. Blair, MD, PhD
Smoking at home is not half as much fun as smoking in the right bar. For years I only smoked once a week at little shows or concerts local bands held in bars. I very ritualistically looked forward to my cold beer and American Spirits. I would only smoke half a pack or less during an evening. I gave what I had left to a homeless guy outside who very much appreciated that I like menthol. I still go to hear this band at a perfect local smoky bar. Do you mind really loud Grateful Dead music? Let Dave and I know when you are in town!
http://www.theschwag.com/
Cathy, we did not ask you for what groups you THOUGHT were tobacco front groups, we asked you for PROOF that most smokers' rights groups are paid by tobacco companies AS YOU ACCUSED.
Now, produce the specific proof we asked for based on YOUR ACCUSATIONS, or cease and desist with your mental ramblings.
Cathy-
What in the world does "likely" tobacco front group mean? Are you, or are you not, accusing CAGE of being a front group?
Please understand that this is a serious accusation. If you cannot back it up, then I certainly can't allow you to make such accusations on my blog, for my own liability.
So please - either you need to support the accusations that you are making, or else you have no place making them.
The same goes for my blog. Are you, or are you not, accusing this blog of being funded by tobacco companies?
T-Scam writes...'If you want to know about tobacco front groups,...'
Actually, I'd much rather read about run-a-way nutjobs sites you find comfort reading.
James is correct, Si has anonomyous taken. We email him to get permission before we would ever consider using it.
.
JMJ + (Jesus Mary and Joseph)
Living her life must be like being a goose. You wake up in a whole new world everyday!!
.
NOTE
OT----W W Jales, many many blessings!
.
Yes Doctor, I have noticed that about Cathy, but I have also noticed it about Bill and all the others too. For instance, I have asked for at least 3 death certificates caused by secondhand smoke and am still waiting for them. Now Bill claims smoking is child abuse and smokers should be punished much like a drunk driver who caused a death in a car accident. I sure would like to see some of the names of who was abused and told exactly how they were abused. I know there will be no response though, but I expect that from the people who makes claims they know nothing about.
Diane
Way OT but a good read.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/
news...0,2828435.story
~snip~
'So literature, history, math and science gave students plenty of facts, theorems, people and dates to draw on. Then training in logic, language and philosophy provided the tools to use and express that accumulated wisdom. Teachers usually did not care where all that training led their students politically - only that their pupils' ideas and views were supported with facts and argued rationally.'
.
Too true Sunz,nowadays it has NOTHING to do with FACTS and REASONED argument only about political correctness .Makes it virtually impossible to argue with.Same logic as proving a double negative or "finding" those 220 bodies missing in MA.
And, Si, they can tell you how they 'feel' about any number of subjects. Subjects they know nothing about.
In a short time this is the 'new world' we find ourselves.
;(
.
"Mychoice.ca (known tobacco front group)"
Front group? How so?
My choice has always declared openly they are financed by the tobacco industry however the industry or it's representatives have remained at strict arms length. Nancy speaks clearly in telling anyone who will listen smoking is dangerous despite repetitive complaints of the members.
I have met and discussed this issue with Nancy Daigneux and believe her personal sense of integrity would not allow her to be involved without strict non interference. Nancy is an award winning Journalist who speaks against violence and impunity to others. She has young children and is a lifetime non smoker who is sold on the dangers of ETS, who simply is opposed to intrusions into personal rights.
I have been to a couple of bar nights they sponsored and never once saw any tobacco reps selling their wares or influencing participants. They simply have a discussion group which is left to evolve as it will.
My only complaint was she or the organization never afforded the discussions any leadership.
From the discussion groups a couple of rights groups were formed which I know were not financed by the tobacco industry, simply motivated individuals who felt they were being ignored by the media and government officials.
If that is is the type of group you believe should be attacked simply because you have a different opinion; grow up or move to China where you will be well served with your single mindedness and collectivist attitudes.
Democracy is in the debate, eliminating counter arguments is something completely different.
BTW;
Nancy was threatened with physical violence at her office by someone similar to Cathy, who can't defend their position in a civil manner so they resort to dog pack mentality and abuse to win their arguments.
Unfortunately I and others observe it daily; threats and slander is the TC way, deny it if you like and ignore it if you will, I can make that statement openly and without fear of consequence because there is plenty of evidence to back it up.
Cathy on the other hand has no such evidence at her disposal, just a host of delusional rants.
Sam inquired:
"would you support a ban on open wood fires?"
I'm not aware of any air quality measurements/studies of open wood fires in restaurants, but if the particulate matters (PM 10 or PM 2.5) routinely exceeded 40 uq/m3, I'd support that type of ban as well.
Regarding outdoor air quality, wood burning stoves emit far greater levels of air pollution than do coal, gas or oil burning stoves, and I beleive that some municipalities have banned the use of wood burning stoves in homes for that reason.
Dan stated:
"Spitting should be outlawed it is disgusting."
Spitting on someone else is already considered assault. But I'm not aware that smokeless tobacco users spit on other people.
GDF wrote:
"Who hasn't enjoyed the smell of a nice campfire? . . . I do not consider the scent of burning leaves "harmful"."
The burning of wood, tobacco or other dried leaves emits air pollution, and the harm to humans from air pollution tends to increase as the levels of pollution increase.
The EPA's Air Quality Index at
http://www.ccairquality.org/
caut...utionPM25C.html catagorizes air pollution levels, and the EPA has proposed reducing the Good category down to (I believe to 35 uq/m3). While that Index was designed for outdoor air, they are appropriate for indoor air quality as well.
The vast majority of restaurants and bars that still allow smoking have levels of particulate matter exceeding 150 uq/m3 (with some exceeding 1000 uq/m3).
Besides, burning campfires and burning leaves are already banned in many (if not most) municipalities.
Dave K. wrote:
"So, if smoking is banned in cars, some parents will probably decide on occasion, to leave the child at home while running quick errands, or whatever. and that could ahve negative consequences. . . So, Cathy and Bill are wrong, because both cannot see the whole issue."
Most parents who smoke have enough concern for the child's health that they would smoke a cigarette before or after they ran a quick errand.
But if a law is enacted to ban smoking in a car when a child is present, even the vast majority of parents who don't care about their child's health will simply wait until they are outside their car to smoke a cigarette.
Parents who cannot wait ten or fifteen minutes to get their nicotine fix from a cigarette can substitute nicotine gum or lozenge or smokeless tobacco products.
"I'm not aware of any air quality measurements/studies of open wood fires in restaurants, but if the particulate matters (PM 10 or PM 2.5) routinely exceeded 40 uq/m3, I'd support that type of ban as well."
So does the legislation you are supporting in PA seek a ban on "particulate matters (PM 10 or PM 2.5)" that "routinely exceeded 40 uq/m3"?
Or does the legislation ban tobacco smoke specifically? Why single out that specific pollutant? Tobacco is clearly no the only thing that burns in restaurants and bars. There are candles. Cajun food. Etc. Would you support a change that would ban any and all PMs over that limit?
Doctor Siegel, same question.
Gosh Bill, I feel so sorry for you. I guess you'd want to ban plants too if you could? I understand they emit pollen particles...
Michael Siegel wrote: "Please understand that this is a serious accusation. If you cannot back it up, then I certainly can't allow you to make such accusations on my blog, for my own liability."
You will not be held liable. You do not even own a domain, just a blog. Cathy could be held liable. But in order for that to happen they would have to find her true identity (if not already known) or go after your blog site provider. My identity is known from the link thatI provide. But anyone that clicks on it gives me their IP because I own the site. Yes I can see if you click. I can tell that you came from this blog and I have your full IP. Not only do I have it but so does my ISP. This is normal for any site you visit. If you have a dynamic IP then I cannot tell. I only see who your ISP is and that can give you away to as time and hit is given too. If your believe you are anonymous, you are so wrong.
It seems from Cathy's link her impression of Dan Romano is poorly conceived. It appears as she demonstrates; in his predictions of things which will come to pass, his predictions were right on the money. Cathy demonstrates Dan Romano to be more in tune with current events than the so called experts in Public health, a visionary who should demand a lot more attention obviously.
Cathy's view;
"In his first letter to the Montreal Mirror, David Romano demonstrated that, like most smoke-free air opponents, he would rather talk about anything else besides health. The main thrust of this letter was to cynically exploit Quebecers' desire for liberty and distinctness: "Do we really want Quebec to become more like Ontario?...And now Mr. Couillard wants to copy Ontario’s anti-smoking crusade. Whatever we think about smoking, freedom-loving Quebecers should oppose the Ontario approach to this issue...Before we even know it, Quebec will have become a sterilized, conformist, francophone version of Ottawa and Toronto. Thanks, Mr. Couillard!" He compares Quebec's indoor smoking ban to laws regulating outdoor drinking and mandatory safety helmets for cyclists, and goes on to say: "Once we accept that government should coerce us to protect us from ourselves, there's no end to it. More restrictions on alcohol, a tax on junk food, mandatory helmets for everyone, orders on how to raise our children..."
Diane---'I sure would like to see some of the names of who was abused and told exactly how they were abused.'
So would I Diane. But I think much of Bills problem is his guilt and self-hate for the 30+ years of smoking three packs a day.
I wonder, is there a statute of limitations on child abuse?
Bill may be called to account for his past sins. How will you answer those accusations, Mr. smartpants?
.
Considering Bill's claimed belief; the effects of ETS are irreversible and lead to such extreme consequences perhaps the fear of his impending death actually is motivating his campaign, then again maybe not.
The mitigation of the effects of smoking after cessation over time are now seemingly a lie. Bill was simply wasting his time quiting smoking. If we believe what Bill is telling us there is no point switching to new foreign products, you may as well keep enjoying you product of choice.
You can't increase your risk above what you have already accepted.
In accordance with Bills words of wisdom "smoke em if you've got em"
"Mychoice.ca - a non-profit organization funded by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council - is a membership-driven association."
- Mychoice.ca public web page.
I'd have to say that as far as cloak-and-dagger conspiracies go, it's right up there with some of the attempts to assassinate Castro. You know, the ones that could have been written by the Marx Brothers.
It does seem to be a depressingly familiar TC tactic, if someone disagrees with the sacred cow of the month then they must be a big tobacco front. The minor points of actually being able to prove what they say is completely skipped over. It might be an interesting study examining the relative accuracy of the TC claims about other peoples funding, and applying their standard of "proof" to SHS studies
Jalestra: Congratulations!
Rufus;
Marcus has tracked the actions of just one of the funders RWJF, who alone can demonstrate the lack of credibility of the entire TC lobby, The sponsors origins of what they are directed to repeat until your ears bleed, constitutes an indictment by the sheer volume of parroting created with conflicted funds.
Add in the Insurance companies, research groups, philanthropy groups, not to mention the taxes collected, funding partisan pet projects unrelated to smoking a host of quiting methods along with many other interested profiting parties, and you start to understand, the great health scare scam is all about the creation of wealth and has little to do with the Health and welfare of the public they swear to be protecting.
Bill---'Parents who cannot wait ten or fifteen minutes to get their nicotine fix from a cigarette...blah, blah, blah.
And, Bill in your 30+ years smoking 3 packs a day, you always waited the ten or fifteen minutes? They must have had 30 hour days back then, in order for you to complete your 60 sticks. each day.
I like the names and contact information for those folks (or invite them to post here) so we can hear their version of your past.
.
Sam inquired:
"So does the legislation you are supporting in PA seek a ban on "particulate matters (PM 10 or PM 2.5)" that "routinely exceeded 40 uq/m3"?
Or does the legislation ban tobacco smoke specifically? Why single out that specific pollutant? Tobacco is clearly no the only thing that burns in restaurants and bars. There are candles. Cajun food. Etc."
The legislation recently approved by the PA House and the PA Senate bans the burning of any tobacco product in all restaurants and the overwhelming majority (i.e. 97%-99%) of other workplaces (outside of the home).
Air sample measurements conducted before and after smokefree laws were enacted consistently find that tobacco smoke accounts for about 90% of air pollution in restaurants, bars and other indoor places where smoking occurrs/occurred.
No I wouldn't support a law that established a 40 ug/m3 maximum for particulate matter indoors, as it would be far too expensive to enforce and it would be routinely violated.
Since the burning of just one cigarette in a large room emits particular matter at levels above 40 ug/m3, prohibiting the burning of all tobacco products more effectively achieves that same goal.
Sunz;
I really hope Bill has developed some sense of self control in the interim and is not spitting on someone's carpet.
Air sample measurements conducted before and after smokefree laws were enacted consistently find that tobacco smoke accounts for about 90% of air pollution in restaurants, bars and other indoor places where smoking occurrs/occurred.
Not according to James Repace or PM
As I posted above 90% might be a lot of exaggerated hooey 35% seems to be closer to "consensus" opinions.
Get with the program Bill TC needs to speak as one voice, remember?
Although there are many arguments in relation to poison being in the dose science has consistently relied on cherry picked research to establish what that dosage might be.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...e=1& end_page=27
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Parents who cannot wait...can substitute nicotine gum or lozenge or smokeless tobacco products."
Some new sponsors? LOL
Btw, I suggest parents who can't wait...crack their windows.
Wow James -- what a simple, yet brilliant idea. Problem solved.
Bill;
More creative writing gone wrong.
Since the burning of just one cigarette in a large room emits particular matter at levels above 40 ug/m3, prohibiting the burning of all tobacco products more effectively achieves that same goal.
"Particulate" matter as I assume you are attempting to describe does not emit from the cigarette directly, the gas phase attaches some of the contents of the smoke to existing particulate in the room, as the story goes. Cigarette smoke is gaseous particulate matter is solid.
BTW what particular matter are you talking about?
I forgot this one:
Bill wrote:
"Besides, burning campfires and burning leaves are already banned in many (if not most) municipalities."
The councilman in our city who tried taking the most credit for getting the smoking ban passed in our city's restaurants was cited for having an illegal campfire in his backyard. He proposed and got passed an ordinance allowing backyard campfires. That's what I call one selfish bastard.
I wonder if he's out of prison yet for illegally receiving workman's comp and for intimidating and harassing his tenants?
Btw, We already could burn leaves. I started burning mine the year the ban passed. You wouldn't believe the smoke 12 lawn bag's worth of leaves produce. It's enough to get people to shout obscenities as they drive by.
**** 'em. It's the law. LMAO
For the perspectives file; What is the danger we are so fearful of in real measurements?
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...e=1&
end_page=27
" One recent investigation reported that average levels of RSP in 330 offices in which smoking was permitted was 46 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), compared with an average of 20 ug/m' reported for 254 nonsmoking offices;ls • Four studies on the measurement of RSP from ETS in the workplace were reviewed by scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) in their 1992 monograph on the chemistry and measurement of ETS.13 The four, studies reported average RSP concentrations from ETS of: 27 ug/m' for 131 offices; 32 ug/m' for 22 offices; 28 ug/m' for 194 offices and 44 ug/m' for 31 offices; • Auttiors of a 1988 survey of 31 offices in Ottawa, Canada, cited by Repace and Lowrey (Reference No. 70), noted that: "based on the results of this survey, the average office worker.was exposed to 0.0039 cigarette equivalent per hour (using nicotine as a marker), 0.0010 cigarette equivalent per hour [for ETS-related RSP]"
Lynda----'Now, produce the specific proof we asked for based on YOUR ACCUSATIONS,'
Vanished again. How shocking.
..
"No I wouldn't support a law that established a 40 ug/m3 maximum for particulate matter indoors, as it would be far too expensive to enforce and it would be routinely violated. "
But what about the workers at Tessaro's in Bloomfield? I told you. There is an enormous cloud of smoke, not just inside the restaurant, but hanging over the entire neighborhood.
I can see it and smell it from my house. I think it smells pretty good. Although I am sure others find it revolting.
But that's neither here nor there. What I am getting at is, you say you are interested in protecting workers from particulate matter above a certain level. And it seems pretty clear that it's smoke, not just tobacco smoke, that causes the much ballyhooed health problems.
Well, the smokiest place in all of Pittsburgh is not some corner bar where the owner lets people smoke cigars. It's a restaurant that sells wood-cooked hamburgers.
My question is, shouldn't a law designed to protect workers from smoke... protect these workers from all this smoke?
Seriously. If what you are really concerned about is worker health, and if smoke kills workers, Tessaro's ought to be the first place you take to task.
I suspect that it isn't because going after burger eaters is not politically feasible. That is, you could never pass a bill that banned a certain level of smoke concentration, regardless of source. Too many burger fans out there. Plus, I have a suspicion that you don;t care much about burger smoke. Or, more directly, that your designs with regard to tobacco smoke are more ambitious that protecting a few bartenders.
But consistency would seem to demand equal protection for burger workers. There is no real REASON to cook those burgers on open fires. Hundreds of other restaurants survive by grilling burgers.
Should the aesthetic preference of a few diners be allowed to endanger workers?
Sigh.
Sam, I suppose that we can include those "chestnuts roasting over an open fire" and kids roasting marshmellows at camp. Especially those Girl Scouts that sell second hand obesity.
While we are at that Christmas song about the chestnuts no doubt needs an R rating.
Just went to a Roman Catholic service in which the incense made the cathedral like a smoky bar. Is this legal in towns with smoking bans?
Kevin wrote:
The stained teeth and the nicotine on the fingers are symptomatic of the fact you smoke too much, cutting down allows the symptoms to subside.
I beg to differ in an agreeable manner, Kevin. These two claims are holdovers from pre-filter days. Show me ONE person who smokes filtered cigarettes (the vast majority) that has nicotine stained fingers. Basically the same goes for the stained teeth. Mostly was due to non-filters but of course the way they put it they still exaggerate, for emotional effect, that even smokers of filtered cigarettes suffer "horrible" staining. Right. In fact, if so, it's on par with coffee. But no one is going "Ewwww, look at those nasty ugly coffee stains on your teeth" as a tactic for some anti-coffee crusade.
In defense of smokeless tobacco versus a cigarette Bill wrote:
Spitting on someone else is already considered assault. But I'm not aware that smokeless tobacco users spit on other people.
Hmmm, just like nobody tosses their discarded cigarette butts directly at someone but to hear you antis talk, once it's on the ground it's a hazard for all those kiddies who pick it up and put it in their mouths! What? Kiddies will pick up old butts but won't touch interesting brown spit? Or get it on their shoe and drag it around? Spit -- that is a PROVEN harborer of all manner of contagious disease.
The difference between you and I Bill is that I don't fall for such baseless claims -- that more than a few dumb kids will put anything they find on the ground in their mouth. Not cigarette butts and not your spit.
Consistency = credibility.
Bill = pick and choose for convenience = no credibility
The vast majority of restaurants and bars that still allow smoking have levels of particulate matter exceeding 150 uq/m3 (with some exceeding 1000 uq/m3).
BS detector hits 130 dB.
Once upon a time, I actually extracted a link from Mr Bill when I asked about his source for this questionable assertion. Too bad I don't know how to search thru the archives but I know I was instantly able to deconstruct it , within its own terms. At which point, naturally, Mr. Bill disappeared.
Perhaps, Dr. Siegel has the keys to that particular vault in the basement. If not, maybe Sam would like to try for a second round...
:
JTF;
" I beg to differ in an agreeable manner, Kevin. These two claims are holdovers from pre-filter days. Show me ONE person who smokes filtered cigarettes (the vast majority) that has nicotine stained fingers. Basically the same goes for the stained teeth. Mostly was due to non-filters but of course the way they put it they still exaggerate"
What I was demonstrating was if you smoke too much you will see these effects a 3 pack a day smoker is rare, in Canadian terms a pack contains 25 cigarettes and I can assure you anyone who smokes at this level will have deposits primarily on the two fingers they use to hold the cigarette and the teeth do get stained after years of over indulgence. For most average a pack a day who brush their teeth and clean their hands regularly this will never happen.
I might note the same way rats were painted with tobacco smoke extracts many who had the stained fingers who researchers failed to recognize, did not demonstrate cancerous fingers how strange is that?
Walt If you look at Repace's prediction model which many TC fans hold as a model to create lobby rhetoric. Even he claims a level around 250ug/M3 can be predicted consistently in a smoky casino with as many as 90% chain smoking patrons.
The number is of course 10 times what was actually measured. Repace also invented his own measurement methodology which was originally rejected however over time they adapted it in order to suit the cause.
1000ug/M3? That is a new one on me and I have read a lot of these research papers. It would be interesting to hear where Bill found that tidbit of info I certainly could not associate such a level to any source I have seen so far.
His assertion indoor air should be at the same standard as outdoor air is totally self serving.
He should be aware the air indoors comes from outdoors and if outdoor air were even half as concentrated as indoor air we would no longer be on this planet. Irregardless of smoke. Indoor air will always be dirtier than outdoor air because a building acts like a vacuum cleaner trapping outdoor air particulate in addition the deterioration of wall and floor coverings as they age which produces dust. The human body produces dust the smoke from candles incense and fire logs all produce more dust it takes time to trap and dispose of the dust not to mention many gases which would be in a building for similar reasons which do not adhere to the dust or particulate.
I was in a Levis Jean factory once where you almost had to wear breathing apparatus, there was a denim fog inside the plant. That would be close to Bill's 1000UG/M3 level You wouldn't want to smoke in there, lighting a match would be fatal.
Usually to freshen the air people simply open windows in the case of tobacco smoke however it is actually believed; by highly educated people no less, "you need huricane force winds" to drive it out.
The levels in many buildings would exceed the 40ug/M3 yet no one seems to mind as long as it does not smell like cigarettes.
The truth is the smell was associated with harm deliberately to rally those who just don't like the smell of smoke and for no other reason which would be consistent with harms or risks we experience from other sources ever single day.
Dr Blair, I hope you, bill (hannegan that is) and I do get together sometime in St. Louis for a few beers.
Q; does anyone know if cathy is actually a real person? could she just be someone else , like bill, perhaps who is just posting under a pseudonym to make it look like more people oppose dr. siegel and us smokers rights people?
What I've noticed, is that godshell is usually posting, but cathy, carl, and there were a few others seem to appear sporatically, and never simultaneiously. Perhaps godshell is really carl and cathy too/ and when he nees to say something particularly offensive, he just posts it under carl or cathy's names? Dave K
Q; does anyone know if cathy is actually a real person? could she just be someone else , like bill, perhaps who is just posting under a pseudonym to make it look like more people oppose dr. siegel and us smokers rights people?
I've often wondered the same thing myself, Dave K. Especially given the M.O. they all have.......hit and run so to speak. Most especially Cathy, hit with a ranting, insulting others, accusing everyone, and the minute proof of such is demanded, run away.
Lynda,
and I have met real antismoking activists. Mostly in the St. Louis area, and these people don't behave like the ones who post here.
incidently, I think a lot of these antismokers are really phoney identies, just a few people with many email addresses, pasting precut rteorhic into emails sent to lawmakers, or posted on blogs like this one. A strastegy like this would make their numbers appear to be much higher than they actually are.
For example, in Il, lawmakers reported reciveing huge volumes of emails in support of the state ban.
yet when you go to public places in IL, if there really were such huge numbers of antismokers, you'd think us smokers would notice. Even while carrying a lit cig, I get nothing but rspect from everyone, everywhere I go including IL. noone ever asks me to step away, or whatever, or acts like they are afraid of my smoke.
So, I gotta wonder just how many of these antis actually exist.
I suppose if someone gave me a huge sum of money, i could create lots a fake identies and load them into a big computer, and generate lots of emails and letters to the editor, etc, in opposition to bans.
ya gotta wonder if that is actually what is happening. Dave K
Sounds about right Dave.
Some of the antis I have met on forums are ones who can't get an audience with the big guys. but like to be the forum heroes.
They are quite comical as they do act like the couple mentioned here.
Give them something to chew on and they get really scared as they have no answers.
Then again the big boys don't have any answers either.
Here in Ohio we have dealt with the Charleta Tavares, Tracy Sabetta, Stu Kerr, and Robert Crane types.
Asking them a reasonable question is unthinkable and the one asking the question is made to look like an idiot.
However, that is all well and good as there are many quiet observers taking notes concerning their conduct which in general is total disrespect for anyone asking a legitimate question.
I see Dr. Siegel has even had dealings with some of these people and probably has experienced what I have mentioned....even with his medical credentials.
Me, I am just a musician. Who cares about us?
No one. We're just a bunch of dope addled layabouts, of course to people like this.
If I was a member of a VFW concerning Sabetta, I would take steps to have her deported to some place where she would be more comfortable, like Singapore and if that place is too loose for her, North Korea.
Dave, I can't say I've had the same experiences as you. I also can't say I've met any real anti-smoking activists. I can tell you though that all the non-smokers I know, now act like I have some highly contagious disease when I light up.........they back away from me, even when I've stepped aside AND downwind from them.
While my non-smoking co-workers (which is all of them) are decent to me, they've all let me know how disgusting they think smoking is and strangely enough they are ALL "sensitive" to cigarette smoke (amazing nothing else bothers them).
My mother is one of a very small handful of non-smokers who doesn't mind it, as long as there's ventilation of some kind and the room isn't choked with smoke.
Your mother is stating her preference. Your coworkers drank the Kool Aid.
Dave k wrote:
"Perhaps godshell is really carl and cathy too/ and when he nees to say something particularly offensive, he just posts it under carl or cathy's names?"
Not that I know Bill G., but (IMO) he is who he says he is and he's no one else.
Bill has an ego that would forbid him from giving any pseudonym credit for something he thought up. And he certainly doesn't need a "Cathy" or a "Carl" to do his name-calling. He's the king of name-calling here.
Musician,
My mother is the only non-smoker I know who actually owns more ashtrays than any smoker I know, myself included. To this day, she has all these ashtrays, and never hesitates to pull one or two out for any guest of hers that she knows smokes.
It's because of her consideration for us that I have no problem controlling how much I smoke in her home, and always do so by an open window. Times when I'm just a chimney, I'll step outside before smoking her out.
My sister, on the other hand, is one of the original anti's I think, she didn't drink the kool-aid, she helped mix it........hehehehehehe And what a hypocrite she is too, as she'll allow you to smoke pot in her home, anytime, but never a cigarette. There's a hurricane outside? Too bad, no smoking in her home. Unless it's her favorite weed.
Kevin: in Canadian terms a pack contains 25 cigarettes and I can assure you anyone who smokes at this level will have deposits primarily on the two fingers they use to hold the cigarette
And I can equally assure you that I see no such "stains" on anyone's fingers, including my own, after 40+ cigarettes a day.
It's an old effect that the antis carry over as a tool in their propaganda arsenal to paint the "smokers are ugly and dirty" picture. It's bad enough when they do it and can't be stopped from repeating it but it grates on my nerves to see any of us repeating what has turned into a lie to use against us.
Lynda,
Pot smoking antis are the biggest trip ever, and the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth.
I know a few of those who claim to be "musicians". They do well to get their guitar in tune before playing the two chords they know which are usually not played in the right places in the song.
I think many hippie kids I know have been convinced that as long as they don't smoke cigarettes, pot won't give them lung cancer or heart disease. One such girl said to me at the bar, "In Oregon, we smoke pot indoors and cigarettes outside."
Memory Lane: I once spent a week at the Paris apartment of a girl I'd known here who'd picked up a hash habit in Amsterdam somewhere on the road between Hollywood and Paris. She chain-smoked pipes in the sealed apartment (you'd really get a contact high on the stairs) but as soon as I lit a Marlboro, every f'ing window in the place got opened. Amazing what people can convice themselves of.
And let it be noted: Mr Bill hasn't re-provided those links about the RSPs or answered my Q about government or other NGO funding. JFTR.
:
JTF;
Your comments are interesting, perhaps our difference in experience may be found in what we smoke.
It is quite common to see heavy smokers and [I am not protecting a lie here]with stained fingers however it has always been an indication of someone smoking too much for too long.
In Canada the politicians are operating under a constitution written by a fascist who demonstrated in support of Hitler during the war, so they are much less fearful of the people. The installation of fire safe cigarettes without notice or debate was without doubt an act of human experimentation, adding a lot of nasty ingredients to the supposed additive free mix.
It was pretty obvious a few years back how the filler had changed, instead of the almost uniform granues you found if you took the tobacco out of the paper we were starting to notice chunks and roots which made the cigarette split sometimes or go out because you couldn't draw air through it.
I noticed as well a marked increase in tar and nicotine levels listed on the package. I had always chalked this up to fear mongering however now I have to wonder.
The Gov and the manufacturers made a deal with the tobacco farmers here to help finance flue curring processes to remove histomines. The farmers spent the money and the Gov reneged on their promise, instead joining the "no safe level" Jihad which allowed the manufacturers through newly adjusted trade barriers to bring in cheaper tobacco to compete with a heavily regulated local market. 90% of the farms producing among the safest product on the planet [in terms of nitrate and PAH levels] were deliberately and forcefully put out of business.
Today I have to wonder what they are selling us and how much more toxic it has become, perhaps in search of a reality to match the propaganda.
It might well be the med community in order to build their own stature are willing to kill off a large number of smokers to make their campaign appear to be more successful and increase the risk numbers to sell their wares at the same time.
Health Canada has no ability to test or monitor and all the information they have including all testing is provided by the manufacturers.
A strange situation to be in considering all the claims they make. The fact the head scientist is a political science professor may shed a lot of light on the situation.
Sunz wrote:
"But I think much of Bills problem is his guilt and self-hate for the 30+ years of smoking three packs a day."
In fact, I actively smoked cigarettes from age 12 to age 21, and I only smoked 3 packs/day the year following high school gradulation.
As an involuntary smoker all of my life, however, I've been exposed to incrementally less smoke pollution during the past 25 years after I began advocating smokefree policies and laws.
But considering the massive amount of misrepresentations of fact posted on this blog by selfish smokers, the inaccurate statement (and personal attack) by the pathetic person hiding behind the alias of Sunz appears as a rather insignificant misrepresention.
In fact...I don't believe a word you say.
That you chide me for hiding behind a name is quite funny as, one only needs visit your site and the Fort Knox security in force.
You are a control freak who has no control over yourself.
Pity.
What a small small life you must have. Little man.
.
Mr. Godshall, if you kept you nose out of other people's lives and private businesses your exposure to tobacco smoke would be ZERO.
But considering the massive amount of misrepresentations of fact posted on this blog by selfish smokers, the inaccurate statement (and personal attack) by the pathetic person hiding behind the alias of Sunz appears as a rather insignificant misrepresention.
Pot meet kettle. You are in no position to talk about personal attacks, considering what you have called many posters on this blog.......
Ahhhh Gabz, you beat me to it. Now James won't feel so bad that I beat him to it on the other thread.....hehehehe
Really, Bill, considering your insults and name calling AND overt implications towards us, you are in NO position to be making such remarks.
Remind me again Bill, are you the pot or the kettle? I can never remember.
BTW Bill,
Funny how you saw and commented on my 'attack', and completely missed this from Walt(a far more considerable foe than I):
"And let it be noted: Mr Bill hasn't re-provided those links about the RSPs or answered my Q about government or other NGO funding. JFTR."
:
Walt
For the record Bill we are waiting for this response.
.
Dr. Siegel says: "If you oppose any tobacco control measure, you are automatically some sort of tobacco shill - you are a defender of tobacco and smoking.
Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, try to discredit the individual dissenter by attacking his character"
Any tobacco control measure? How about all of them, with the exception of indoor public smoking bans, which Dr. Siegel championed before his magical transformation to tobacco defender/promoter. At least that's what I think he is, and I said why. Either you believe in free speech or you don't, do you decide.
Notice here how Dr. Siegel would rather talk about anything else besides the truth about parental smoking, which I outlined in my comment Saturday. I did address the substance of the argument in great detail. And that's the problem. His arguments opposing parental smoking restrictions don't hold water, and he knows it.
Note that nowhere in my comment to this post which I made on Saturday do I make any claim about tobacco industry involvement in this site or any other. I find it rather lame that Dr. Siegel is dredging up something I said from another topic because he doesn't want to address this.
My position on CAGE is crystal clear on the website. Since Dr. Siegel demands answers I would ask that he first go into the arquives and answer every question asked of him. And within 24 hours, thanks, or I'll accuse him of running away as he has done to me (note this blog isn't my life, it may be days before I check back).
Again, from my comment on Saturday:
Parental smoking is not "a failure on the part of parents to protect their children from exposures which significantly increase the risk of potentially serious adverse health consequences", as Dr. Siegel spins it. Parental smoking is the act of imposing that exposure on their children for the sake of satisfying their drug habit.
Here is another spin: "it is not true that healthy children exposed to secondhand smoke necessarily suffer protracted impairment of their lung function."
Not so according to the surgeon general: "Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems."
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
li...factsheet6.html
In the case of disagreement, I'd be more inclined to believe the surgeon general. But let's leave that aside and suppose for a moment that parental smoking is "merely" a health risk.
So here is the deal with parental smoking indoors, be it in planes, trains, automobiles, restaurants or private homes:
1. It poses a danger of illnesses and even death in infants and children, who lack the ability to protect themselves.
2. It provides no benefit to the child.
3. It's easily preventable. All that's required to eliminate this serious health problem is for parents to smoke outside or wait until there are no children in the car or home (or set a better example for the kids and don't smoke at all).
All of the activities Dr. Siegel has mentioned – playing hockey, eating junk food, and so on – either provide a benefit to the child, represent a much smaller health problem than parental smoking, are not easily preventable, or all three. (Also note that unlike parental smoking, these are mostly activities the child chooses.) Dr. Siegel ignores these important distinctions and attempts to mix parental smoking with other issues. That's why Michael Siegel is a spin doctor, and sadly, a defender of smoking and parental smoking.
But this is what tobacco promoters do. The same tactics get used to oppose other tobacco control measures, such as public and workplace smoking bans. See chapter one of the tobacco promotion playbook, "Claim smoking is a fundamental right, introduce other issues as a diversion."
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=5&cnt=1&
t=a
It's sad and disturbing to see a medical doctor work so hard to defend the "parental autonomy" to expose children to unnecessary and pointless health risks (Dr. Siegel has stated that he opposes car and home smoking regulations in principle, not just the car smoking ban proposed in New York), particularly when the remedy is so simple and easy. The only real downside to parental indoor smoking restrictions is for tobacco companies, as parents would smoke less and be more likely to quit.
Note that Dr. Siegel frequently makes a big deal out of the prospect of children being taken away from their parents who smoke around them, even though no one has seriously proposed this as a remedy. I see this as a deliberate attempt to promote fear and anger in smokers, and very much in keeping with many of Dr. Siegel's writings on this blog in which he frequently claims that non-smokers hate smokers and wish to punish them. Well if he thinks that's bad, then what about the children who lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses? If confronting smokers on their drug habit makes it more likely they will quit, that's another good reason for Dr. Siegel to support indoor smoking restrictions (all of them), as a medical doctor that is.
One can only hope that at some point Michael Siegel's conscience may get the better of him, and he will reexamine his activities in campaigning against measures to improve health conditions for children.
It's all for the kiddies isn't it?
Justify anything and everything as long as you can tack on "it's for the children" to the end of any outrageous claim, or over the top emotional proclamation of your faux altruistic intent.
ETS has killed ,..?what?,... Millions and millions right?
Sorta like McDonalds, except cigarettes taste better.
My position on Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) is crystal clear on the website:
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Pay particular attention to section 2, Financing and Section 4, Conclusion
However, I believe this post was about smoking around children and car smoking bans, so I wonder if Dr. Siegel would care to address that at some point or if he is going to continue to change the subject. If he wants to discuss CAGE he can always do so at the website.
Cheeseburgers provide a meaningful benefit: people need calories and protein to live. Moreover, cheeseburgers don't cause sickness and death in non-cheeseburger eaters.
Cheeseburgers provide a meaningful benefit: people need calories and protein to live. Moreover, cheeseburgers don't cause sickness and death in non-cheeseburger eaters.
ETS does not cause sickness and death in children. Show me one corpse.
From your earlier notes:
Well if he thinks that's bad, then what about the children who lose their parents to smoking-related illnesses?
Well, arguments already mentioned aside, since you bring losing parents into the equation, then yes, parents eating cheeseburgers--or eating excessively--should be considered in the same light as smoking--by your own logic. You can't pick and choose when your logic applies.
You can get protein and calories from healthier food. Therefore, cheeseburgers are not necessary.
Too many cheeseburgers can lead to losing your adoption rights, though. A childbeating anti who is a hard body is the "perfect parent", eh?
Sounds too much like Banzhaf is hard at work behind the scenes here.....
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2.../
ap4053518.html
Cathy, In response to your many words on the subject, I have only a few.
MY children are none of your damned business.
Scama-rama-"(note this blog isn't my life, it may be days before I check back)."
Well, we will await your arrival on your chariot, oh goddess of darkness.
So then you can hit and run again. BTW who wins the race back to the barn, you or Bill?
.
Bill: As an involuntary smoker all of my life, however, I've been exposed to incrementally less smoke pollution during the past 25 years after I began advocating smokefree policies and laws.
I bolded the "I" for the psychological observation I've made and commented on about Bill recently.
In the vast majority of his posts it's all about what "I" did and how people thank "me."
Seems to me his activism has much to do with filling some personal need. Some hole that exists within himself. Did whoever raised you give you enough attention, Bill? When you were little and doing something really nifty and shouted, "Mom, look!" (as many little kids do when looking for approval and feel they're showing off), were you ignored?
Cathy,
It sounds like you feel bad for having accused me (this blog) of taking tobacco money to support tobacco industry positions.
Do you care to retract that accusation and apologize?
I am ready to forgive, and then we can move on to the important business of having a meaningful and respectful discussion of the issues.
Dr. Siegel
I have yet seen the person formerly known as Cathy, who hides behind a fake name so that she won't have to go to court. You see Dr. she is filled with hate, and has actually not just atken her accusations (such as whats on her blog) to try to kill Mr. Romano's career by sending letters to his professors, and deans, anyone in the university system.
Yet you think that she can be "Nice"??? She is the worst kind of extremist, she is the one who hides behind a mask. This is like the guy who won't reveal his real name that wears the reaper costume to the negotiations on the tobacco farmers crop reduction meetings; yet wondered why the farmers were angry with him (mind you it was also the same day that hearings were being held -in another building- for provincial smoke free ban). You would think that a person who is motivated by the tobacco issue would actually know all aspects that were happening in tobacco,I highly doubt this was an error since this guy has been wearing the costume since the 1980's (seems funny how the guy continually follows Bob Broughton though)lol.
Yet this is suppose to be from people who care about the whole tobacco issue not the smell of tobacco smoke. Would you like another example of the callousness of them? How about the hearings about the federal tobacco legislation in the 90's; where a tobacco spokesperson was stopped by a maintenance person and given a crumpled up piece of paper. On the piece of paper was a death threat toward her. Want a more recent example of hate for smokers in Canada?
"Patio smoker files lawsuit against neighbour suing her" -notice the 2nd floor resident isn't complaining or mentioned, and the complainers are on the 3rd floor? Yet this is really about tobacco smoke, and she complains about the burning of ceremonial sage for her beliefs. Yet according to the court this isn't a human rights case about ability to practise beliefs.
http://www.canada.com/vancouvers...e1-
9678ffe883a5
I am ready to forgive, and then we can move on to the important business of having a meaningful and respectful discussion of the issues.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 08.29.07 - 9:34 am | #
You floor me, Doc, you just floor me. A meaningful and polite discussion is an oxymoronic phrase when talking about a discussion with fanatical cultists. And TC is a fanatical cult as evinced by some of the posters on your blog, who actually represent the attitudes of the vast majority of TC cultists toward smokers.
As GDF so properly stated to scamer spammer upthread: Our children are none of her damned business. In fact our children are not the business of any of the busybody cultists of TC. In fact I do believe the brainwashing attempts imposed upon our children by TC are borderline child abuse. Most especially the moves to undo parental teaching of such things as manners and respect for your elders.
Calling a homosexual or an overeight person a deragortory name would get most children a sharp word or wwat on the butt, or a demerit in school. However disrecpting someone who is smoking is openly encouraged, and in fact is taught in schools by the TC cultist curriculum.
I'm sure you are so very proud of what you help start...........
Gabz, anything that teaches our children that there is no discussion, to close their minds IS child abuse. It is neglect, it diseases their minds. You only have to look at children raised as racists to see the damage done to children when you teach a child to hate, and when you teach them only ONE way is the right way. And when society wises up, as in racism, you turn your children into outcasts. THAT is damaging. Not a risk, but damaging. You only have to look at children raised to be racists (intentionally) to see the damage done to them, to hear the hate that no child should feel, to know the damage done to these children.
Yet you don't see me running a campaign to ban teachings of racism and religion to children...
I have known of very young children who have walked up to smokers and called them names.
Reminds me of a 60 minutes clip I saw years ago about the KKK. One little kid who probably was old enough to still be in diapers was using all kinds of racial slurs describing people "he didn't like".
Also some of the clips I have seen from that "Jesus Camp" movies has been one of the most scary things I have seen in a LONG time.
Dr. Siegel, have you gone through the arquives and answered all the questions to which you gave evasive answers or ignored outright? Cause I'm ready to forgive you.
I can't understand why you continue to insist that I answer your loaded questions. You already asked me which websites I thought may be supported by the tobacco industry, and I told you, whereupon you proceeded to chastise me for doing the very thing you yourself demanded of me. Moreover, I stated in a comment not too long ago that "I have no idea why Dr. Siegel is behaving in this way", making your latest question redundant.
I can only conclude that you were in no mood to respond to my comment on parental smoking restrictions and decided to change the discussion instead.
In other words, you won't answer the question. That's fine, but you could have said as much in one sentence.
I'll be more than happy to answer any questions you have. Just re-state them for me in one place, and I'll answer all of them.
Dr. Siegel, have you gone through the arquives and answered all the questions to which you gave evasive answers or ignored outright? Cause I'm ready to forgive you.
Ummm Cathy, have you gone through the archives and answered all the questions that were asked of you that you totally and completely ignored? Until you do, you are in NO position to make demands from anyone to answer you.
I can't understand why you continue to insist that I answer your loaded questions.
Because you never answer direct questions. They aren't loaded questions he's asking you, they are simple, direct questions. My guess is that you refuse to answer them because you cannot answer them honestly and any other way will just produce us easily punching holes in them.
You already asked me which websites I thought may be supported by the tobacco industry, and I told you,
You did? I didn't see that. I was looking for it too as I also asked you what sites and what proof you had that they were tobacco company fronts. I haven't seen you produce that information. Your own site's rants don't count. We want real sites with the backup to prove your point. If you can't provide that, just say so and admit that you were lying.
"Calling a homosexual or an overeight person a deragortory name would get most children a sharp word or wwat on the butt, or a demerit in school. However disrecpting someone who is smoking is openly encouraged, and in fact is taught in schools by the TC cultist curriculum."
Gabz
In classical times, children were encouraged to throw mud at those drunk in the middle of the day as a way of preventing those children from becoming drunks themselves. I think this is partly what is going on with smokers and smoking.
Sounds like the Beatles record burnings, Bill H.
just waiting for the book burnings myself.
Commenting by HaloScan
