I'm prepared with defense counsel's counter-argument to ear infections.
Gleaned from Berkeley Parents Network site for evidenciary purposes:
"Dairy products such as cow's milk are well-known to cause ear infections and colds in children. A health book which discusses this convincing and with common sense is Fit for Life by the Diamonds (a husband and wife team). According to the Diamonds, a child with an extended history of ear infections will either cease to have them or will develop infections much less frequently once dairy products are eliminated from the diet."
Would plaintiff please tell us how much milk he was given!
Start the Sue Parents for Having Got Milk legal foundation!
By the way, very good piece by Gary Nolan.
Let's see...
Siegel in the NY Times, Gori in the Washington Post, Nolan in the NY Times.
All contradicting the dogma.
All papers that normally overwhelmingly carry the anti-smoking crusaders' torch to the usual exclusion of any conflicting opinion.
All considered left-leaning papers. Point being here that Bill and Glantz and the rest of their movement have all said at one time or another recently that "now that the Democrats are back in power on state and national levels our agenda will get back on track and many things will pass."
I bet you this unusual uptaking by these papers are disturbing them greatly. Losing your grip on your best depended on mouthpieces, Bill?
Well it's for the children .This brings a whole new meaning to the spiel.Err who is going to fund these legal cases,why the public are aren't they,until the legal deadbeats can get a win.Somebody has been watching too much children's TV,an identical scenario occured in Rugrats.Of course this doesn't prove there is hatred towards smokers,and how far these people will go towards their ultimate goal.Bet you not one anti group will speak out against this BLACKMAIL.Laws covering extremism that would place people like this in prison,exist for most things,but is totally acceptable for the lowest of the low,amongst us AKA the smoker.I think if i became a radical muslim,who threatened terrorism,i would be held in higher esteem than a smoker.The next step will be a jihad against smokers,that is the direction these nazis wish to proceed.The propaganda is reaching the point where the public are being indoctrinated to despise and hate the smoker,and they don't rely on scientific fact to do so anymore.Fabrication is the next stage of the process.
Moreover, with this reasoning, kids should also be allowed to sue their parents ... for letting them ride a bicycle or letting them roller skate.
There was a time when a parent could just give their child a certain look and the child would know that they were in deep trouble. Some parents went as far as to threaten their child with a spanking or time out in the corner. This was deemed as extreme punishment so a group of people decided they needed to intervene and Social Services was created. With that office alone, parents began to shudder and with just a warning of "I will call Social Services and have your child taken away", parents began to let their children have the run of the home, as this would be heartbreaking to some and an embarrassment to others. My parents brought up 6 kids and all my father ever had to do was threaten us with a size 9 1/2 up our butts and we knew enough to tow the line. Not once did he ever have to punish us, we just knew what the treat meant. So learning from my parents, if I was ever treatened with Social Services, I knew exactly what I would do. I would dial the number and report it myself. My children knew the limits and they knew it was not beneath me to make that call. They knew I gave them life and they knew that I protected them, fed them and loved them. So now, if a child wants to threaten a law suit against a parent for having the audacity to smoke in front of them, then that parent should demand to dial the officials and report it themselves. That will show them exactly how afraid the parents are. Don't back down. Hillary may think that it takes a neighborhood to raise a child, but what it really needs is 2 parents who are not afraid of tough love. With that, this movement will never get off the ground. As for Hillary's book, how the hell does she know what it takes to raise a child? I'm betting that a nanny had more to do with raising her child than she ever did.
Another side note Doctor. Your last paragraph said that your parents smoked. Is that why you are so adamant to have bans in place? Did you feel that if they didn't smoke, there would be more money for them to spend on you or was it that you seen your parents enjoy life and you weren't part of that enjoyment?
Si, it's actually the dastardly combination of the two greatest emotional blackmails known to keep mankind in check by the self-appointed keepers. Yes, first there's "For the Children."
But then... First I will quote Dr. Siegel:
The ultimate irony is that this proposal is being advanced to address the problem that car and home smoking bans are unenforceable.
Ironic? Or really devilishly calculating?! Recognizing that enforcement is difficult how else to address that problem but with a THREAT!
If you want to manage adults then hold The Children over their heads and for good measure the Threat of the possible (will they or won't they sue me later) consequences.
What makes me run out to shovel my own sidewalk as soon as I can? The Threat that if anyone falls and does hurt themself in front of my house I could be sued.
I couldn't agree more with your analogy about the snowy sidewalk and the difference between risk and actual harm and no way to sue or be proof alone for a successful suit over the former.
But what this doctor Bryan really has in mind is not the actual suit but the THREAT of one to get everyone to behave by blackmailing consciences.
It's why I move faster to shovel. It's why parents who fall for the lies that they're harming their children might "move" too. This monster has to be killed at the root of its propaganda -- that there is nothing to prove that mom's cigarette smoke is harming her child.
I totally agree JTF,this needs to suffer infanticide NOW.
Diane, I agree 100%. And this is the major reason I would not ever vote for Hilary Clinton. It's a shame that our one real chance at a woman president has to be her.
California has a law that I think is still in the discussion phase to ban spanking children in California. Parental autonomy is fallign further by the wayside. Who knew Hilary's village to raise a child is headed by the village idiot?
http://www.freestateproject.org/
I swatted my son once, on his well padded (through his clothes) backside, as he had just pushed my buttons all day until he pushed me over the edge. He then "threatened me" with the "I'm calling the police to report your child abuse" (spanking was already being considered abusive back in the 80's). So I passed him phone, and told him to go ahead and try. Then I added, that IF he was going to do that, he HAD to tell the WHOLE story, AND truthfully. Needless to say, he didn't make that call.
I then punished him for a week for having the audacity to try to threaten me with arrest for doing my parental job (he was pissed at not getting his own way that day). I explained to him also, that one swat, with a bare hand and little force behind it, did NOT constitute a spanking OR abuse.
That boy never again threatened me. He then tried daring me, until I nipped that in the bud right away.
My son learned early on who was in charge in our home, though he still occasionally tried to push the boundaries, he learned that I said what I meant and meant what I said, and that to try to manipulate me in anyway only resulted in his being more miserable.
He basically tried every tactic, ONCE......and then learned how useless it was to try manipulation, blackmail, threats, etc.
In all that time, I always talked with him about his actions and the whys and wherefores of mine. He learned after each incident that it was far more pleasant AND productive to talk to me about things.
The day some jerkweed tries to tell me how to raise my child is the day they better be passing me 100 million dollars to support us in the style I would like to be supported, because until then, it's......MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
Then these are the same people who wonder why I don't want to have kids. Who's to say (if things keep going) I will have any authority over my children. This is already happening at schools (see below).
Don't these people realize there is real abuse? Are we now comparing smoking to killing your foster child, as is making news this morning on the CBC. The boy had so much head trauma that they had so much trauma they had to cut open his head (normally just drill a small hole) to relieve pressure.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonto...er-
reports.html
Second Hand Smoke Alarm
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3239
Health Specialist Laura DiBattista finds the ultimate weapon in the battle against smoking may be readily ap-parent.
Smokers know the drill. Health officials who have been trying to get them to quit their nasty habit for years have shown them black lungs, emaciated patients and even wrinkled skin in an effort to get them to stop once and for all.
But now the Lung Association is trying a new tactic, and this one may be the most effective of all – turn their own kids against them.
I love this one quote "It proved successful for a girl named Natalie when she confronted her mother. “I told her that it would affect me, and I would start smoking,” she remembers. “I kind of threatened her. So she stopped.”"
OH, I forgot to add that back in the late 80's they were already starting the "anti-smoking education" in his schools. He came home one day and "ordered" his father and I to quit smoking. I told him that he best have a good paying job to support us IF he felt he had the right to "order" us to do anything.
He then explained about what they said at the school about how bad smoking was. I asked him if either his father or I looked ill? I asked him if he was ill, and if he realized that his father and I never took sick days and got few colds. He admitted that we appeared to be healthy and that he did notice his friends who had non-smoking parents were sick more than he was. I then told him to ignore those messages he was being fed and that his school had NO right to use him to try to get me to change MY lifestyle or habits.
lynda, that link about the smoking boy..did anyone else notice the "agony of quitting smoking"? He obviously knows nothing. There's no agony involved! That's an outright lie...I've quit smoking before, I've known a few people who have quit, there have been no reports of agony..or even pain!
Well, I no longer have to concern myself with what the schools teach my children as they won't be attending. My 11 year old is up for her shots soon and TX has mandated Gardisil. She cannot enter the 6th grade without getting that shot,so she will not be entering the 6th grade. I'm sorry, but unlike some idiots, I require more in the effort of a clinical trial before I risk my child, and by a company not already known to have rushed one drug through and screwed up (Vioxx).
“I told her that it would affect me, and I would start smoking,”
Again, no INCREASED RISK of starting smoking, but she'd start smoking.
Now, we should note this isn't a Lung Association person who is saying this, but surely they'd understand the RISK of kids garbling their message is pretty high? That it would lead to blackmail?
But I think the real danger to car/home bans is that smokers who may want to have kids will be less likely to, just by the intimidation factor. Let's face it, finding a mate is a largely emotional process. People ask "Am I ready," etc. If there's a law in place about smoking in the home, they're less likely to date etc., or ANYTHING until they quit smoking. IF people want to lower the rate of others who smoke and want to give it up, fine. But they have no right to use it as a bottleneck.
And of course the other end of this argument was an eye-opening analysis by Soren Hojbjerg. What does this mean to the nonsmokers? It would be morally wrong for them to find a smoking mate they might eventually have kids with. The law isn't as direct as this ad, but even that it is brought up can make people think twice.
It's pretty ironic that the loudest of the Tobacco Control people talk about reducing risk to zero, but at the same time they are running such a risky campaign(and it feels like the sort of campaign where people say it's risky and shush down anyone who points out WHY it's risky.) At least I hope it is risky, and that it does not just run everyone over.
Sidetrack on Hillary--when I read about Hillary talking about how to raise her child, Chelsea seems to be a very decent human being. She even had the courage to stand up to Hillary for the comment about how work is a four-letter word to twenty-somethings.
Of course, when Hillary was on the campaign trail with her husband, there was a lot of for-the-children stuff. Those twenty-somethings were children back then. Hmph. This sort of double talk that is apparently for my own good took a while to raise a red flag for me.
"Moreover, with this reasoning, kids should also be allowed to sue their parents for feeding them high-fat foods, taking them out frequently to Burger King and McDonalds, failing to make them exercise adequately, and allowing them to watch too much television or play too many video games."
Absolutely. And in the UK, they can file their suits right after they settle into their new foster homes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
pages...e#StartComments
It's just amazing how the definition of "child abuse" is changing these days.
Lynda F--I think you overlooked something else that can happen. I had a parent pull the "I never smoked around you" gambit back in the early 80s.
Diane--
Another side note Doctor. Your last paragraph said that your parents smoked. Is that why you are so adamant to have bans in place? Did you feel that if they didn't smoke, there would be more money for them to spend on you or was it that you seen your parents enjoy life and you weren't part of that enjoyment?
I don't think this is necessarily fair. If Dr Siegel followed his career path because he would have liked a parent to stay around longer, then
The more vociferous antismokers extrapolate enough about us and I don't think it's fair to do so to Dr. Siegel when he has stood up to them.
On the other hand I don't like being held hostage by someone saying "My parent died X years ago of [smoking related disease,] and so what if it's past the grieving period, anybody who defends their habit I don't like has to agree with even my wildest assertions or they're being selfish. And even after some of my legislative demands are met, you need to be kept on the back heel." This is the sort of thing that needs to be ruthlessly questioned.
For instance, the mayor of Belmont mentioned her father smoked for 58 years, and she compared tobacco to heroin--taking tobacco away was just like taking heroin away.
A full comparison is invalid as heroin addicts don't live for 58 years, PERIOD, and they certainly don't function. But that's the impression people come away with, and that is what at the very least needs to be stopped.
Addendum to the "I never smoked around you" gambit. My parents didn't smoke, but looking back I know that that was usually used to cover up some unfairness. I also know that after reading about how smoking parents correlate to smoking kids, and if I started smoking then boy would that be bad to do to my parents!
While I had a more guilt ridden childhood than most, and the details are silly and perfunctory, again--the RISK of psychological damage is there for guilt inclined children/adults!
So I think the potential for blackmail goes BOTH ways and that is a bad bad thing. I'm not sure if there are studies to show blackmail is bad for quality of life, but I suspect even one dose of it is more harmful than multiple exposures to SHS.
OK, we're only discussing a risk of blackmail, but like Dr Siegel I can have a good laugh extrapolating that risk into a certainty to expose the absurdity of the argument.
Andrew, I asked that question out of curosity. I tend to study people and try to determine why someone does something one way or another, why they think one way or another, etc. Normally, I can look someone in the eye and know what makes them tick. Seeing that I am not standing face to face with the good Doctor or any of you for that matter, I have to ask the questions that I have never seen raised here It gives me a better understanding of people and at times I am able to shrug off something completely stupid that they said/did. On the whole, I like giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I need to know if they deserve that benefit. Sorry if you didn't like the question, but life isn't apple pie and you have to take the good with the bad.
Andrew, both myself and my (now ex) husband smoked in the house and car AND right in front of our son. Hence my questions to him about HIS health at that time. Once I showed him how to think logically and use his own common sense AND very real experiences, he ceased with bring home that particular type of drivel.
Kids aren't quite as gullible as many want to believe. However, the parents who allow their kids to guilt trip them are the ones who confirm that the lies must be true. People like Diane and myself, and others here, who talk to our kids and teach them to use their own brains are the ones who raise children to become "free-thinking" adults instead of robots who allow others to choose their paths.
Here here to Lynda. Jalestra, I understand how you feel about the Govenor mandating that vaccine to all 11 year olds or they can't go to school. If I had a daughter that was school age, you can bet that I would be homeschooling. That drug is to new to know what the side effects could be or what could happen in years to come. Government and pharmacuticals needs to stay out of our lives! You might enjoy knowing that on the View this morning, Rosie was talking about it and wasn't to happy about it either. Someone, probably a producer hushed her real quick. Rosie isn't one to be hushed so one can only question what was/is behind that.
Diane, don't even get me started on that mandatory shot in Texas thing.....and I don't even have a daughter, let alone a school aged one.........hehehehehe
Let's just say, my child would no longer be in school AND I'd be pulling my son out also. THEN I'd stop paying school taxes since they are not schooling my children.
Yep, I'd make a real stink over that.
It seems there are many more inconsistencies than consistencies in what people are being told and not just about smoking but it comes across as a huge target.
Although not many answered my question do you smoke because of discomfort consistent with addiction or as a stimulant to keep yourself sharp which aligns more with my personal experience.
We hear of this terrible withdrawal when in fact it never occurs, smokers do get the urge to smoke for years after they quit but more because they enjoy the invigoration of a sharp mind and analysis tool to get them through many of life’s complicated days. The thought smokers get nothing from their habit is also demonstrated as false.
If TC really believes quitting is a torturous event why do we hear quit or be punished? In fact the torturer now has a face. Punishing smokers even if you call it helping them quit is not exactly the way you treat other addictions it sounds quite cruel in fact doesn’t it?
450,00 die every year from smoking?
I noticed the inaccuracy with a rising population and a stable smoking number we did not see a decline in smoking related disease as you would well expect regardless of how long these diseases took to formulate 50 years exhibits a stable number and should exhibit a stable effect, but a rise along with population numbers. Proving the 450,000 number is a little high by my calculation perhaps, by about 90%
Projected backward if 450,000 occur every year today in 1960 we should see the same number which would demonstrate a much higher percentage of total mortality than we see today more than half. or with respect to population prevalence calculations closer to 1.35 million more than all.
The normally vocal Carl, Bill and Michael as well, have been surprisingly silent in explaining why this does not demonstrate a false belief;
smoking has as large an impact as TC claims it does.
Anti smoking groups take credit constantly for smoker prevalence declines when in fact population increase had more to do with those declines than any other factor.
Giving credit where it is due the numbers have been held in check but did in fact remain stable.
The expression universally of smoker prevalence is a deliberate attempt to deceive the public which needs to be recognized so the focus on what is killing people can finally be addressed. . Does TC care so much about it's own ambitions, they will allow hundreds of thousands to die as a consequence of the distracted focus they promoted?
I attempted to challenge a number of articles at the BMJ with this contradiction in terms and again I was stonewalled although all due respect was shown in my submissions.
So Michael care to take a shot at clearing this up? Or do we just assume I am right and leave it at that?
I have broad shoulders Michael, explain to me why I am wrong, so I can offer apologies for my ignorance and be done with the matter.
On Smoking Cessation Larry Bryan says
Pharmacological treatment of and counselling for nicotine addiction – develop a program of reimbursement
for agents shown effective (nicotine delivery systems, bupropion)
Effective?
On general risk he says...
Low risk behaviour, defined by non smoking, body mass index and exercise patterns, leads to longer
life.
He suggests a BMI>=27 can cuase serious problems, yet Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R.
School of Physical and Health Education, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Conclude in 2005 in older adults higher BMI is associated with lower mortality rates.
In fairness Larry Bryan seems to have written his position paper in 2000 and most of the data used comes from 1998/9. The paper is consistent with the WHO frameworks - interesting.
On the Harm issue. Dr Siegel wrote
This would treat secondhand smoke exposure in a way completely different from most any other health or safety hazard. Normally, in order to have a valid negligence tort, one has to show that the alleged breach of duty caused harm. Breaching a duty is not sufficient.
However, there are problems.
If a district determines that ETS exposure to minors is a de facto offense then there is strict liability when it occurs as in the recent ETS is a neighbour nuisence case. A suit would then be based on this, no harm would need to be shown, only that the act occurred and ipso facto a breach of duty occurred. Since Larry Bryan is suggesting that a person already 'harmed' would bring the civil actions, damages could be awarded. (Including punitive). Harm in this instance could be psychological as well/in addition to physical.
Of course this is predicated on a law that established the offence. To do this the question may arise: is there a scientific basis for this law? Well that is not always needed. The law could be framed as a moral issue. If you subscribe to this view then the act is immoral and deserves a legal remedy.
This of course goes against the libertarian priciple of 'do what you like as long as it does not affect others' under which principle the science question does arise.
Unfortunately your stance on workplace bans comprimises your stance on this issue.
It is likely that TC will frame this in moral rather than scientific terms.
west
----
I thought it was interesting this morning watching the Fox morning program. They commented on this story, and all of the hosts (who are normally supportive of anti-smoker legislation) were of the opinion that this idea was absurd. Maybe the press will begin to notice the ridiculous agenda of the anti-smokers and we'll start hearing a little more truth...or at least some skepticism as opposed to taking everything the antis say at face value.
Dr. Siegel is absolutely right that the movement is losing credibility. If they would have stayed focused on education, and if they would have proposed (as opposed to forced) solutions other than total bans (like separately ventilated smoking areas, for example), they would have had just about as many non-smoking venues as we have now...and much LESS animosity and hatred. Their (the anti-smokers') increasing need for power leads them to more and more irrational legislation. At some point, even the most apathetic people will realize the absurdity of the movement, as it is today.
Oh boy, oh boy - there is just SOOOOOOO much here.
I'll address the child abuse/smoking aspects later, for now here, I would like to address Jalestra's issue about the mandatory Gardasil vaccine.
As the mother of an 8 year old daughter, I am completely and totally with you, as they are discussing it here in Virginia. I have no problem with it being available, none at all. But I do have a problem with mandating it, as well as how quickly it seems to be being rushed without any longterm study. But my biggest problem is with the marketing of it. It is not a cancer vaccine, it is a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease.
Yes, 2 of the 4 strains of the STD HPV are the likely culprit in some 70% of all cervical cancers, but this vaccine does not protect against ALL strains of HPV, which make up nearly all the balance of cause of cervical cancer. While it is not pleasant, annual pap smears remain the most effective means of protecting against cervical cancer, they are also far safer, and infinitely less expensive.
And what does any of this have to do with smoking, you are all probably asking? Actually a great deal, and it comes right back to the continual lies utilized by the anti-smokers. It has been common knowlege for many years that the primary cause (90-98% depending upon source) of cervical cancer is caused by HPV, yet according to the anti-smoker cartel, smoking causes cervical cancer. When confronted with this little fact that cervical cancer is caused by a sexually transmitted disease not smoking, a typical response from an anti-smoker is that well, smokers are known to be promiscuous.........so now are they trying to say that smoking leads to promiscuity?
Why will these people not just say they were wrong? What are they so afraid of?
My final 2 questions are not rhetorical, as I have a very good idea of exactly the reason behind their unwillingness to admit when they are wrong, and that idea has only been reinforced by Dr. Siegel's commentary on the refusal by the antis to correct ANYTHING.
Andrew states: "On the other hand I don't like being held hostage by someone saying "My parent died X years ago ..."
I agree Andrew. I feel sad for their loss, but why the rest of the world must live our lives as their grief or loss dictates is nutty.
Exactly Sunz. Let's say you lost a loved one to a car accident. Do you give up driving and force others to take the train?
west2: It is likely that TC will frame this in moral rather than scientific terms.
Hmm, now there's a thought that hadn't occurred to me before. You're probably right that TC would go that route.
I wonder how far you would get arguing against it based on the fact that the "community standard" is a direct result of 30 years of inundation (and what amounts to brain-washing in schools) by the very same groups/individuals that profit by it.
Should be easy enough to prove, just a question of whether it would make any difference on a legal level.
Kevin-----To answer your question about quitting. After smoking 10.5 yrs. I quit. Cold Turkey. Other than keeping a bit more active, I did not find it difficult. For 4.5 yrs I was regularly around other smokers and never once felt the 'need'. Cannot tell you why I went back, but I know I wasn't tempted by a smoker; I remember being alone. Just enjoy it very much and refuse to feel guilty.
Diane---Makes no sense to me at all. But then thinking emotionally is how alot of these laws are passing.
Kevin-
I understand what you are saying in terms of why mortality numbers weren't much higher many decades ago if smoking prevalence has declined since then. But I think the answer has to do with the lag time between changes in smoking prevalence and the resulting declines in disease. Unlike the conclusions of the Helena and Pueblo studies (and unlike what many anti-smoking advocates would have us believe), declines in mortality after decreases in smoking prevalence are not immediate. It does not take 30 minutes to develop heart disease, unlike what many of the anti-smoking groups are saying. Instead, it takes 20-30 years, or more. Thus, even if smoking prevalence drops immediately, we will not see a decline in mortality for 20-30 years from now, or longer. In fact, we have just recently reached the point where lung cancer mortality rates have peaked and are now declining. Cardiovascular deaths are falling too, although only some of that is attributable to reduced smoking prevalence - much is attributable to more effective treatments.
Michael the point I am making has nothing to do with the effect it has to do with the numbers
If you have 10 per 1000 you should have 20 per 2000 and so on only If smokers remained at 60 % of the population as population rose.
That did not happen, due to a static number of smokers not tripling with the population, contributing a state level of effect we should see 1/3 the effect in the current population because the effects you are waiting to subside never actually happened how could they?
The decrease we should have seen would be immediate and irrespective of the timing of those diseases and how long they take to develop.
What I am showing you is the number of ever smokers could not be as high as 60% today.
When the highest number of smokers did not exceed 55% of 100 million or in total only 55 million. As a percentage of 300 million less than 20%?
How can they produce mortality numbers which exceed their total?
Smokers at any point could not possibly demonstrate 60% prevalence in a 300 Million population today.
Rather 1/3 of that amount if no one died along the way, is the maximum number of ever smokers you could possibly have.
How can they have increased the related diseases by 3 times what we saw in 1960?
Knowing smoking did not start in 1960 it doesn't exactly pass the smell test does it?
In respect to how many smoking related diseases as a percentage of population we see today.
Smoking could not possibly account for 20% of total mortalities if all smokers died of smoking related diseases.
You are the guy who teaches the numbers, do I have to go on?
In a way of simplifying this if we go back to 1960 and apply the current 20% of total mortality with all the new associatons included believed to be caused by smoking.
Of 750,000 total mortalities The amount is 150,000. If we say 1/2 of smokers will die of their habit the number is 27.5 million.
Today 20% of total mortality or 2.3 million equals approx 460,000 and half of smokers believed to die of their habit remains at 27.5 million
The risk has trippled by ratio which if you consider medical advancements does not make a lot of sense.
300,000 could not be due to smoking but to other causes. Does that make sense?
It is oxymoronic for a public health advocate to argue that smokers should be allowed to harm children (or anyone else) with tobacco smoke pollution, and to critize public health advocates who are working to protect children from harm.
If adults are deserving of smokefree workplaces, children are certainly deserving of smokefree air in cars.
It is oxymoronic for a public health advocate to argue that smokers should be allowed to harm children ...
What harm, Bill?
Where are you Bill?
In Ohio, where you can claim to have smoke free air?
Ah yes the clean pungent air smell in Dayton I remember it well., If you know nothing else, it could be described as clean I suppose, although the point could be argued cigarettes smell a lot more pleasant.
A harm? How many children will be harmed by claims; smoking causes all heart and lung diseases and no one is working on that clean air smell in Dayton.
Why change the subject?
Don't you have an explanation of the numbers I described above?
Bill Godshall wrote:
"It is oxymoronic for a public health advocate to argue that smokers should be allowed to harm children (or anyone else) with tobacco smoke pollution, and to critize public health advocates who are working to protect children from harm."
For some reason studies have been unable to provide evidence that the first 18 years of exposure to SHS causes lung cancer or heart attacks. Maybe that's why Dr. Siegel only worries about adults: He claims studies show adults are at risk.
"If adults are deserving of smokefree workplaces, children are certainly deserving of smokefree air in cars."
I think children and adults are deserving of Prius free car exhaust. How many gallons do you burn up a year in fuel so you can go rant to people about clean air? Please include airplane fuel.
if the government can mandate an HPV vaccine for school-aged girls, you can bet they will mandate an anti-smoking vaccine whenever that should come to market. it's all very frightening, these government mandate things.
If Bill is right and it is oxymoronic for a public health advocate not to support every policy that would protect children from harm, then it must also be oxymoronic not to support banning parents from taking their kids to Burger King and McDonalds, banning parents from letting their kids ride a bike, heelies, or scooters, banning parents from letting their kids ride skateboards, banning parents from letting their kids eat tater tots and cream puffs, and banning the use of wood stoves.
Fortunately, public health isn't as simple (or as black and white) as Bill makes it out to be. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for people like me to teach it to students, and I'd be out of a job.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/
2...suit051202.html
Kids don't launch lawsuits without "help". It isn't usually their original idea, either. It's about the money, honey.
Yeah, because she was totally at fault for not intuiting there was black ice there. Whoever come up with this idea ought to sue his mother for making him retarded.
Gabz, that is exactly my reasoning. I talk to my daughter and told her I'd really like to wait a few years and see what comes up with it. Apparently by letting the government mandate it, we can't hold Merck (the company that made it) responsible if the drug causes harm to ourselves or our children. Thanks Rick Perry for selling us all out.
And why would these law suits be limited to teens?
What about all those 40 year olds who bear simmering grudges for past injustices and insufficient love? If they're diagnosed with heart disease somwhere in their 40s, and if smoke , after all, inevitably caused it, why not sue mom? How delicious to bankrupt your elderly parents and put them out on the street. Wouldn't that just "show them" ?
Hilarioulsy, NYC's crazed mayor Bloomberg-- a former smoker and now multi-billionaire-- once made the same proposal: that kids should sue parents who smoked around them. He'd better stay on real good terms with his daughter. Talk about motive.
And while empowering cadres of Orwellian youth might seem glittering to the antis, in practice, a 9 yr old threatened with a foster home would probably chicken out. Tho meanwhile, parents might do well to hide their assets, make their wills revokable, increasingly home school, and consider the advantages of lifelong contraception. If children become merely state proxies within the home, why would one want to have them?
Oop. Occurred to me: 2 outstanding-- tho only in the sense of "unanswered"-- questions I posed to our host:
What would be the harm of a normally vented smoking lounge inside a nursing home? Who would it harm? How?
What would be the harm to nonsmokers at a bus stop? or an outdoor stadium, even if a little bit of smoke wafted by?
8 Questions for Dr. Siegel:
1. If SHS is as deadly as Sarin gas, how are you still here to write this blog?
In all honesty and sincerity you shared the fact that:
Come to think of it, my parents smoked around me when I was a kid. Perhaps I should be supporting Dr. Bryan's proposal.
That's 600 times as much frankness than the left wing fascists like Bill have ever shared.
I'll fast forward to #2
In regards to the 1993 ASSIST study which sought to lower smoking rates from 25% to below 10%;
http://www.forces.org/writers/kj.../pdf/
tfw222.pdf
2. Can you please tell everyone here what the hell "mandating clean indoor air" or "increasing the number of smoke free environments" has to do with reducing smoking prevalance?
Golly gee willikers, does it have anything at all to do with "REDUCING PUBLIC TOLERANCE FOR TOBACCO USE"?
I'm not going to beat around the bush here. Let me put the question in the proverbial microwave:
Do you agree with 90% of your readers and other members of the media like TCS, ACSH, CEI et al: The anti-tobacco movement is just a Big Government, grant junky, social engineering, behavior modification experiment designed to COERCE smokers to quit?
It's pretty obvious to everyone else. But you know what they say: "The _____ is always the last to know."
Check out this English study of American smoking bans. The study found that bar smoking bans raise the secondhand smoke exposure of children at home. Apparently when parents can't smoke in the bar, they bring the party home. But what good is a smoking ban if it causes kids to breathe more smoke? Outlaw smoking around kids, but not in a bar!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/
u...1670005,00.html
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
http://www.esrc.ac.uk/
ESRCInfoCe...rcePageId=13438
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/libra...rary/
smokingban
Terminally ill patients to be denied a smoke while they await the reaper!!
Makes me sick.
http://
www.scarboroughtoday.co.u...ticleID=2021233
Greatscot
Regarding the above news link: Thank goodness FOREST was at least able to get in their opinion which basically covered it from our point of view.
Dr. Siegel, I believe this was one time that it can't be argued that your punch didn't land right between Bill's (closed) eyes this time.
Michael;
I see from your answer I am obliged to appologise for my ignorance And I do sincerely.
The only possibility I can find is you are confirming you believe Bill and company are right, second hand smoke is much more dangerous than smoking.
150,000 anual smoker mortalities which can be seen in 1960 when the highest population prevalence of smoking occurred and 300,000 mortalities among the 200 million non smokers added to the mix which tripled the exposures.
This resulted in a distribution we see today 150,000 smokers and 300,000 non smokers comprise the 450,000 deaths caused by smoking. So smoking has a protective effect which cuts the mortality risk in half.
Is that about right Michael?
Oh dear, another moronic post from Bill Godshall. The "oxy" part comes from the NO2 which he's been inhaling too much of!
Funny how some things may change but others always stay the same
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/s..._1964/
sgr64.htm
Public disclosure of research has lost a lot in methodology and detail over the years.
Like everything else no one takes the time to do it right any more. A loss of respect for craftsmanship
Taking the easy route relying on computers and credibility should take care of the rest,
although now we see few can be trusted when political trends tie research to propaganda campaigns.
Numbers are always controversial when trying to prove a point.
Politics or science is the real evaluation we must make, as the two are entirely not related.
One discredits the other when establishing; job descriptions, the integrity of opinions and the character of any individual.
When politics is subsidized by industry to advantage Industry, we move into assessing criminal behavior
in a lack of integrity finding poor value for purchases from the public purse.
Time to hit back with catch phrases.
People who advocate this sort of policy are PRE-EMPTIVE AMBULANCE CHASERS.
I am not so sure the REAL point of this is for kids to sue parents--I'll try to draw a parallel with the article I linked to earlier. It's easy to link up ASH etc.'s call for smoking bans in the home(drifting smoke etc.) with these lawsuits and direct lawsuits away from something that would pit a family against each other and pit...a family against the smoker next door disrupting them!
I mean, if this does start, folks might take a step back and say, oh, the real intent of this lawsuit shouldn't be to break families up--let's see if there are any other ways to go about it.
And let's wash it down with some sarcasm:
As pointed out above, kids can't bring a lawsuit to court without a good lawyer. The best lawyer is probably one who has lobbied for smoking restrictions in the past! This isn't a conflict of interest, of course; that's for cynics. Sometimes, good things happen to good people, when the time is right.
Y'know, it's a very small step from "give me 10K cuz mommy tried to kill me by smoking" and "I killed them in self defense, your honor, they were smoking"...but maybe I'm exxagerating...
In Quebec we actually had anti smoker lobbyists foisting up a claim of a smoker with lung cancer, attempting to represent all smokers in a class action. The same groups who promote punishing tax levels, Denial of medical treatment, throwing smokers out of community venues, child abuse, killing of children accusations, along with smoking bans in cars and homes claim they represent smoker's best interests?
To add salt to the wound they actually ran an ad campaign asking for smokers who wanted to make a few bucks to sign on.
That’s how you do justice in TC terms.
Hopefully the judges in this country are not swallowing all they are being fed by the media.
It is oxymoronic for a public health advocate to argue that smokers should be allowed to harm children (or anyone else) with tobacco smoke pollution, and to critize public health advocates who are working to protect children from harm.
Nothing oxymoronic about your comment here Bill - it is just 100% moronic. there are no public health advocates working to protect children in this instance. It's a bunch of charlatans looking to line the pockets of ambulance chasing lawyers.
Mike wrote:
"If Bill is right and it is oxymoronic for a public health advocate not to support every policy that would protect children from harm, then it must also be oxymoronic not to support banning parents from taking their kids to Burger King and McDonalds, banning parents from letting their kids ride a bike, heelies, or scooters, banning parents from letting their kids ride skateboards, banning parents from letting their kids eat tater tots and cream puffs, and banning the use of wood stoves."
If Mike truly believed that secondhand smoke exposures pose very small risks (as the things he compares it to in the preceding list), he should at least be consistent and oppose smokefree workplace policies and laws.
Actually, it's not the severity of the hazard that marks the difference in my position on workplace vs. home smoking bans. Instead, it's my view that government should not intervene into parental autonomy in the home to regulate behaviors that merely put children at risk. In the workplace, we intervene to protect workers from exposures that put them at risk all the time. So there is no inconsistency.
But most importantly, Bill needs to at some point acknowledge that there is more to one's position on a public health policy than merely whether the policy will improve the public's health.
The problem with public health is that has become a relative risk of 98.9. Public health has made us all a bit ill.
Bearing in mind that we all (you too Dr. Siegel I believe?) agree there's a great divide between "risk" (that some time some thing might happen) and "direct harm" (A causes B) then it must be assumed that the "risk" is the same everywhere for everyone in indoor settings.
And Dr. Siegel you argue that the threat of what's merely a risk as we've narrowly defined that word to mean is not enough to supercede or intervene in parental autonomy and private homes and cars.
But you argue that the same risk holds a different meaning (can't possibly be a different effect or risk) for the workplace and is enough to intervene there.
So same risk, just two different settings.
So that leaves only one thing that seems to separate the two over interference. That's the defense for the workplace setting that it's just something we've always done THERE.
Sort of reminds me of the worker who resists changing over to a new system explaining to the new boss "well, we've always done it that way" as the best reason to keep doing it the old way.
Dr. Siegel, you're right when you say you're not being inconsistent but only because you're using a different ruler. You're being consistent in how your own ruler works to measure things. But after all that you've opined yourself your ruler is outdated.
If risk is risk then place is place. Not risk is risk and place is different just because in some places "that's how we've always done it."
Employees and children are synonymous here. Even more, employees are adults who can "decide."
We'll all give you your truly public places which are government-run offices open to the public (i.e. DMV) but private is private (retaurants,etc.), place is place, and risk is risk.
But until you can reconcile that with yourself we'll at least appreciate your line-drawing at our doorsteps and the great outdoors while we wait.
I thought you would like to know that there's an election coming in October, and the Premier of Ontario may be realizing that smokers vote!
He has said that the banning of smoking is a slippery slope issue, that could mean going into peoples home. While extremists say there is no rights issue at stake. (I guess smokers don't have private property right, now according to them?)
"While doctors and health organizations are urging the province for such a ban, arguing that no one has the right to "poison" their children, McGuinty said he's not interested.
"I'm just not prepared to go there," McGuinty said, adding it would start the province down a path that could lead to smoking bans in houses and apartment buildings.
"My preference is to provide as much information as we possibly can to people who may have children around them... they have to take responsibility for that.""
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/health/0702...07/
x02079A.html
8 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
