I remember posting many months ago about an Australian Anti stating that she wanted smokers banned from the walking paths as the very site of them was of concern to her.
Again, for the 1000000th time, Enough will NEVER be Enough for these folks.
.
It will lead down the road to discrimination and intolerance.
And it hasn't already?
And in this particular case, one would need to make the case that a ban on smoking in all indoor areas, outdoor areas near buildings, and outdoor areas which are crowded or where people congregate is not enough to protect nonsmokers from significant secondhand smoke exposure.
Do all non-smokers ask for this 'ptotection'? Many non-smokers freely join people who smoke outside a venue, why do non-smokers choose to do that?
Apart from that the future is interesting, how will these kids rebel I wonder?
west
----
When ALA spokesman Ray Narconis tested the Lambert Field smoking lounges and reported to airport authorities that they presented no threat to public health, he suggested that the clear walls of the lounges be painted so that nonsmoking travelers would not have psychosomatic reactions to the sight of smokers.
Casino officials don't believe James Repace and Kathy Drea could have gotten their air testing machines past casino security. Nor do these officials believe the use of such machines could escape the notice of casino surveillance cameras. More and more people are going to realize that the air of the Casino Queen and the Pennsylvania casinos never got tested.
The North Dakota Collage of..........Science? Must be a School of Politically Correct Science or maybe a School of Junk Science.
To suggest otherwise is not only foolish; it is also dangerous. We do not want society to start making moral judgments based on people's lawful health behavior decisions. It will lead down the road to discrimination and intolerance.
Too Late. That road is already well traveled and it is too narrow for a U turn.
As far as making students more marketable to enter the workforce, I would ask: "How does whether a person smokes outdoors on campus affect his or her employability?"
Did you really write that? Did you not just state recently about ASH advocating the sacking of all smokers? Is there not at least 6000 employers in the USA that refuse to hire smokers?
Gee Doc, can you still not join the dots?
GreatScot
Here we go in England, hot off the press
http://www.peoplemanagement.co.u...rk&
type=section
Doc,
You are intelligent man, you know fine well this Tobacco Control Advocate was alluding to Non-smokers are more marketable than smokers which is one small step from "smokers are unmarketable"
I think your time for pretending you don't understand is nearing an end.
GreatScot
"'I'm almost positive you'll see a less burden to your student health service,' Bergstrand said."
Yeah, the hypochondriacs will have one less excuse to use: "I walked near a cloud of SHS and now I think I have malaria."
The groupthink psychosis continues.
The typical Anti-Tobacco "advocate" mentality here is repeated yet again; "other states and colleges are doing it, ...we should too"
They don't want to be left out of the discrimination club, or left behind in the wake of such an easy assault on liberty. They should change their name to; "The North Dakota College of Indoctrinary Science"
Welcome to the club boys and girls.
Today you will learn the proper way to discriminate against anyone, and anything that you personally find offensive, regardless of whether or not it's justified in any way whatsoever, or even legal. We will teach you the government and faculty approved way to hate without reason, to scorn without conscience, and assault without physical contact.
Be sure to turn in your term papers on the "Benefits of Smoking Bans in WWII Germany" by the end of class,
and don't forget about the new campus policy regarding excommunication for anyone suspected of thinking without being told to. It's strictly prohibited.
You don't want to find yourself on the business end of a Marlboro.
Later in the year we'll teach you to twist any "scientific' data into many funny animal shapes that will support your position every single time.
For the final exam this year we're asking all students to disregard every shred of common sense that may have ever been instilled into them by their parents and sign a petition exhalting the virtues of a smokefree universe. That's right, we want it illegal EVERYWHERE.
Just Sign it, and you get an A.
Sign it twice using a different name, and we'll throw in a grant for the epidemiological study of your choice.
Lets make it a learning year!
(I'm smoking while I type this, so don't touch your monitor,....cooties!)
West2: Do all non-smokers ask for this 'ptotection'? Many non-smokers freely join people who smoke outside a venue, why do non-smokers choose to do that?
No, they don’t, but the rAnti’s don’t let that stop them from saying that EVERYONE wants to be protected. The reason the non-smokers join us outside is, according to the Doc, because they are not properly informed to make an truly informed decision about the “dangers of SHS”.
Rose: Here we go in England, hot off the press
You know, WHEN employers were allowed to set aside a place for smokers to smoke, there was very little problem with anyone smoking in un-designated areas (at least that I saw and was aware of). But now that bans are basically TOTAL, of course it’s going to be an issue. They couldn’t just leave well enough alone, they instead have to push further and then don’t understand the problem. This is common sense 101 and apparently far too many people either flunked it OR just skipped it totally.
Lynda F; "This is common sense 101 and apparently far too many people either flunked it OR just skipped it totally."
I don't think they offer that course at the indroctinary science academy.
It's not required if your majoring in Pseudo Science.
From the article: "Bergstrand said the NDSCS administration would like to see students or faculty present the issue."
So,...here's what we want to do, but we don't want to be accused of being the indroctination center for practicing goverment approved discrimination that we are, so it has to appear to come from the student body, or a well paid member of the faculty in order to downplay our role in malforming, ..er, ..I mean shaping youing minds.
Dr. Siegal concluded: " Which I guess is all the more reason to rely upon exaggerating the science beyond recognition, calling on intrusive paternalism, and making the anti-smoking movement into an all-out moral crusade."
It is and always has been a "moral" crusade that has used and abused scientists and medical professionals to defend their moral cause with science that has been more political science than medical science. This is true for both first hand and second hand smoke studies and reports. Only recently have the crusaders, emboldened by their successes at denormalizing smoking, begun to abandon their reliance on science. And as you've noticed their moral stances on vice, sloth and gluttony are showing.
Upon passage of the 18th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibiting the production and consumption of alcohol, Billy Sunday, the evangelist, declared that "tobacco was next." Prohibition, as we all know, was a failure and it would take many generations before tobacco could be "prohibited" without a constitutional amendment. It might take just one or two more generations.
"Gimme that old time religion."
E=MC^2
GreatScot - Sorry I was not clear. Of course the advocate is referring to the fact that many employers will not hire smokers. But the point I was trying to make is that whether smokers smoke in designated outdoor areas on campus or not at all on campus, they will still be unwelcome to such employers.
The question you are asked when you apply for a job at these places is: Do you use tobacco products?
It doesn't say: "Do you smoke only in your own home, or do you also smoke in public?"
Mike wrote:
"If quoted correctly, what this anti-smoking advocate appears to be saying is that it doesn't reflect well on a community for people to be driving by and to see smokers."
Wrong. Once again, Mike is misrepresenting what somebody else stated in a pathetic attempt to personalize the issue of smoking.
"Bergstrand said more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,'"
If somebody saw people drinking alcohol in front of college buildings, and said the same thing (except used the term "drinking" instead of "smoking"), I strongly doubt that Mike would similarly misrepresent and personalize that person's statement as "seeing drinkers".
If Mike stuck to the facts (instead of misrepresenting what other people think or say), he'd be more credible.
If somebody saw people drinking alcohol in front of college buildings, and said the same thing (except used the term "drinking" instead of "smoking"), I strongly doubt that Mike would similarly misrepresent and personalize that person's statement as "seeing drinkers".
Gee Bill, you mean like at the saturday night frat party? Yup, these drinkers are just disgusting and employers would never want to hire someone who drinks because advocates do such a wonderful job of misrepresenting facts about drinking workers, and the world health organization is leading the way to bring us alcohol prohibition by denormalizing these "drinkers."
Mike wrote:
"Interestingly, protecting people from secondhand smoke was the last of the benefits listed by the anti-smoking advocate supporting this policy. However, it really is the only benefit that would justify the policy."
I strongly disagree with that assertion by Mike.
Perhaps Mike can explain why he believes that protecting people from secondhand smoke "is the only benefit that would justify the policy".
Simple Bill. As I explained in my post, I think it is paternalistic to tell smokers where they can and cannot smoke for the simple reason of trying to make it difficult for them and to force them to quit. If we want to regulate where they smoke because we want to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, that's fine and as you know, I have strongly supported that for 21 years. However, I have NEVER supported the idea of trying to force smokers to quit by restricting the places where they can smoke, even if they are not exposing other people to the smoke. To me, that is an undue intrusion upon personal liberty. That degree of paternalism is not justified, in my opinion.
If, Bill, you are willing to support this type of intrusion into personal liberties, then why would you not support a law that simply restricted smoking to people's private homes. That would do a hell of a lot more to reduce smoking rates than simply banning smoking on college campuses.
Bill: "Bergstrand said more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,'"
Doc: "If quoted correctly, what this anti-smoking advocate appears to be saying is that it doesn't reflect well on a community for people to be driving by and to see smokers."
Hmmmm let me see here:
Bills, “more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,”
versus:
Doc’s “it doesn't reflect well on a community for people to be driving by and to see smokers.”
Bill, they say the same thing. Just yours if wordier and tries to soften the message. The message however IS the same. People standing around outside smoking does NOT reflect well on the community to others who are driving by. WHAT part of this isn’t clear to you?
Learn to comprehend better. As the biggest pot around, you need to be more careful regarding the kettle.
Bill,
I think the onus is on you to state what you believe is ample justification of this policy other then protecting people from secondhand smoke.
Let me remind you of your remark... "I strongly disagree with that assertion by Mike.
"
If, Bill, you are willing to support this type of intrusion into personal liberties, then why would you not support a law that simply restricted smoking to people's private homes. That would do a hell of a lot more to reduce smoking rates than simply banning smoking on college campuses.
Excuse me? WHAT makes you think that reducing smoking to people’s private homes would do anything to reduce smoking rates? You haven’t done that yet (based on the proliferation of black markets for cigs these days).
And I ask yet again, WHAT business is it of yours what legal products other people use? What business is it of yours if I smoke? I don’t recall ever asking anyone to “help me to quit”.
So what makes you think you CAN FORCE anyone into submitting to your wishes?
Oh Bill, please do admit that for years tobacco control has lied and hid behind the justification that smoking bans being for only for the protection of non-smokers when it has been about the systematic removal of all the places where someone could smoke. A defacto prohibition.
For years I've believed that many (if not most... Sorry Dr. Siegel present company not inclusive) have promoted smoking bans as a method to achieve the systematic removal of anyplace someone could smoke. In essence to coerce and compel smokers to quit. When these bans moved to the great out-of-doors, and beaches where the health implications to bystanders became all but non-existent, the battle cry changed to yea, it's the litter problem, even though this is as simple as enforcing existing laws punishing those that actually commit a crime, rather than preemptively punishing law abiding citizens. But still, there were those who persisted in "stretching science" and attempted to put forth the illogical premise that 30 minutes of outdoor smoke exposure is equivalent to years of smoking as an attempt to justify the health angle.
Now Mr. Bill all but admits this has been to compel though coercive legislation, smokers to quit.
Now I ask, wouldn't it be easier to just declare the manufacture of cigarettes illegal? To be honest with the American smokers that smoking is really harmful to their heath, and companies should not sell such a dangerous product? Instead of the message that Government is the real big tobacco, and needs smokers to fund health care for the rest of the nation, and smoking is really not that dangerous as the government really needs the money.
My other long standing belief is that many in tobacco control doesn't really want to eliminate smoking, but rather their careers are dependant on people smoking, to justify their addiction to controlling the behavior of others, and pay their mortgage.
Should read
... to justify existance and satify their addiction to controlling the behavior of others, and lets not forget, to pay their mortgage.
Bill Godshall and a typical bad analogy:
"If somebody saw people drinking alcohol in front of college buildings..."
Nannyism up close and personal...
~snip~
Ultimately, my goal is to make Cleveland Clinic the healthiest workforce in the world, which will benefit our patients, the community and most of all, you. Toby Cosgrove CEO
A Healthy Debate
by Toby Cosgrove
I want to thank everyone who commented on my blog about our new hiring policy. I have read every comment, and I greatly appreciate the feedback. While we may not always see eye-to-eye it is good to hear your opinions on topics that are important to this situation.
As I said on my blog, I know the new hiring policy is somewhat controversial, but I do believe it is the right way to go. There are many bloggers on the Internet who also have commented about our hiring policy. Many are in favor of it. The ones who are not say pretty much the same thing that others I have spoken to are saying: if you are really concerned about health, you would be targeting obese people who are costing this country more in healthcare dollars than smokers. First of all, we are not "targeting" anyone with our new policy. We are taking a stand against an insidious toxin--tobacco--that is a chief cause of disease and death in our country. As the CEO of a major healthcare provider, I see this as part of our mission. As a person, husband and father of two daughters I see it as the humanitarian thing to do.
Obesity, of course, also is a significant health problem, both in this country and around the world. According to the World Health Organization, "obesity has reached epidemic proportions globally, with more than 1 billion adults overweight - at least 300 million of them clinically obese - and is a major contributor to the global burden of chronic disease and disability."
Because obesity is clearly a major health issue, we are addressing it on many fronts. We have banned trans-fats from our cafeteria and patient menus; and Michael Roizen M.D. our new Chief Wellness Officer and author of several best sellers on healthy living, is leading the effort to develop new programs to help employees get more exercise and live healthier lifestyles. Additionally, our Bariatric and Metabolic Institute recently hosted a national meeting on obesity that brought together physicians from across the country with industry leaders to engage in a dialogue on how to defeat this epidemic.
Ultimately, my goal is to make Cleveland Clinic the healthiest workforce in the world, which will benefit our patients, the community and most of all, you.
posted Oct. 02, 2007 with 5 comments
filed under: smoking, policy, obesity
http:intranet.ccf.org/blogs/blogs/toby/
default.aspx
scarry stuff...I'm losing my mind over this!!!(and probably my job)Apolonia~RN
There's more..
Silencing a Silent Killer
by Toby Cosgrove
As a cardiac surgeon, I gained a unique perspective of the human body and saw firsthand the awful effects disease can have on a person and a family. To see a damaged heart valve, calcified to the point where it almost seemed it would crumble, or a heart that had mushroomed to 3 times its normal size and was on the brink of failure, was never easy. But of all th surgeries I performed, the most memorable are the ones where the disease was caused by smoking. It is difficult to describe what it is like to hold in your hands the blackened remains of what once was healthy lung tissue, or watch a loved one suffer with emphysema, like my father. It is not something you can easily forget. Worst of all, the damage was totally preventable.
SMOKING KILLS MORE PEOPLE EACH YEAR THAN THE ENITRE POPULATION OF CLEVELAND. Even people who smoke know the harm they are causing their bodies; yet, many are unable to quit. As a healthcare institution devoted to the health and well-being
of our patients and employees, it is our responsibility to do something to help those who suffer from this terrible addiction.
And we are.
In January, we collaborated with the City of Cleveland, Cuyahoga County and the Ohio Tobacco Quit Line on a 3-month program to provide Cuyahoga County residents with free smoking cessation resources. Through this program, we offered free nicotine replacement therapy to all Cuyahoga County residents who have no insurance or employer coverage, as well as access to our Web-based smoking cessation program. We also provided computers to community recreation centers that allow free access to our quit smoking program. Because this trial program showed good initial success - it generated 4,039 calls to the Quit line and more than 4,600 nicotine patch kits were distributed to Cuyahoga County residents--we extended our support for an additional three months.
Recently the results for the program were released and I am very pleased at the impact it is having. From January through June, we helped an estimated 3,300 people quit smoking. It is projected that half of these people will remain smoke free for the rest of their lives. Here's a number I find most impressive: in just these first six months, we will have added 15,277 years of life for those who quit smoking. These numbers don't even include the additional years of life others will gain from not inhaling second-hand smoke.
These numbers are very encouraging, and I can only hope that we can improve on them and continue to help even more people quit in the future. I am committed to ensuring Cleveland Clinic's continued support of this important program, and I encourage all of you who know a smoker to have him or her call the state's Quit Line and receive help. Smoking is the most preventable cause of death in society today. There can be no more worthwhile pursuit than eradicating this silent killer forever.
* * *
While we are on the topic of smoking, I understand that there are differences of opinion about our recently announced policy to stop hiring smokers as of September 1st. Many people have told me that they totally agree with the idea. I have also seen and heard comments that what we are doing is discriminatory. Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, let me explain why I think it is important and what it means for you and me as employees of Cleveland Clinic.
Cleveland Clinic has been a leader in wellness and prevention. Our campus went smoke-free in 2005, we banned trans-fats from the food we serve, and we supported the successful SmokeFreeOhio ballot initiatives. We also committed to taking a lead role in shifting the national focus from "sick" care to "health" care. As a true "health care" provider, we must create a culture of wellness that permeates the entire institution, from the care we provide, to our physical environment, to the food we offer, and yes, even to our employees. If we are to be advocates of healthy living and disease prevention, we need to be role models for our patients, our communities and each other. In other words, if we are to "talk the talk", we need to "walk the walk."
Some have questioned the wisdom of our new policy. I have no problem with that, and I understand the concerns it might generate. But we are not the first organization to implement such a policy. The World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and more than 6,000 companies across the country have adopted similar policies in an effort to promote a healthy workplace. It's a growing trend; one that will likely keep gaining momentum.
Some also have claimed that our new policy is not really about health, but about saving money. Let me answer that in 2 ways. First, with our new policy, any applicant who fails the nicotine screening will be referred to a free tobacco cessation program that we pay for.
Those who are successful in quitting will be encouraged to reapply after 90 days. The fact that we offer this free program shows how serious we are about helping people quit, and I am hopeful that it will encourage many more people to kick this awful habit and join our organization.
Secondly, no one can deny the staggering cost smoking places on society. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that smoking costs more than $75 billion annually in direct and indirect medical costs, and that businesses lose approximately $3,400 each year for every employee who uses tobacco because of increases in health costs and decreases in productivity related to smoking breaks. I firmly believe that we have an obligation to help reduce these costs, and the best and most effective way to do this is through policies and programs that promote wellness and prevention. We need to help make Cleveland employers more competitive to preserve jobs for our area.
Finally let me add this: While current employees will not be tested, I encourage any employee who smokes to please consider enrolling in a tobacco-cessation class. I know it is difficult to quit, but the good you will be doing yourself and your family is immeasurable. Just know that we are here to help.
In the end, our new hiring policy is good for our employees, our patients and the community. I believe it sends a strong statement about the type of healthcare organization we want to be.
Posted: Sep 04 2007 by Toby Cosgrove 12 comments
filed under: smoking policy
http://intranet.ccf.org/blogs/bl...by/
default.aspx
Happy Halloween...screeeeeeeaaam, help!!??
"Bergstrand said more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,'"
if bergstrand doesn't like to see smokers smoking outside maybe he oughta let them smoke inside instead.
If somebody saw people drinking alcohol in front of college buildings, and said the same thing ...
Bill, maybe you should step out of your backyard and go see the world where real people live. I don't know of any place in central Europe where drinking alcohol in public is prohibited. Why's that? Because people have learned to enjoy and to manage their lives. People can drink without getting drunk, wouldn't you know that. In fact in some families even children may get an occasional glass of red wine or champagne when they are at home.
I used to live on a farm for some years. Every cow, after giving birth, was entitled to an egg-nog consisting of a bottle of red wine and a few eggs.
If we want to regulate where they smoke because we want to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, that's fine and as you know, I have strongly supported that for 21 years
Why hasn't it ever been about where non-smokers are allowed to go?
Since you view it as impossible to respect the autonomy of both smokers and non-smokers (or business owners to choose which group to serve), you had to decide which group's freedoms were restricted.
You could just as easily worked toward having the non-smokers prohibited from entering smoking establishments.
Non-smokers exposure has always been voluntary, therefore they were the ones making the poor health choices. It stands to reason that their behavior was that which needed regulating.
If there was a road on which the traffic may kill you (if you stood in the middle for 40 hours a week for 40 years), you wouldn't ban driving, you'd ban standing in the road.
Bill,
When I lived in Pittsburgh in the late 90's and early 2000's, I use to see quite a few smokers on the streets, in their yards, etc. So, should I assume that because people dare smoke in Pittsburgh, the city is nothing more than a dirty, disgusting hell hole? May I also add that I think you just might be smoking something more than tobacco? Crack perhaps?
With this kind of thinking, campus life will never be the same. The future will see freshmen in apartments off campus and more and more taking their classes via correspondence and the internet. This could be good for the parents, as it will save them a bundle of money and not waste it for dorms and cafeteria food. For some colleges,this could be a savings of up to $10,000 for some campuses. Though it might not be so beneficial for the administration and Professors.
Godshall, how on earth can you say the Dr "misrepresented" what Bergstrand said?
Any intelligent, or even half-way intelligent person "reads" that statement exactly as the Dr. said: SMOKERS don't reflect very well on a community.
This is personal, very personal. Antis have gone way beyond educating and helping people quit smoking and are attacking every venue possible to get smokers out of their site. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" at this state, it's personal. I guess smokers are just smarter than non-smokers as we don't need someone to spell it out for us, we can understand words all by ourselves.
Why do you even post here? You've said you were done with this site, yet you keep adding your two-cents in the most unbelievable ways. The biggest problem with your posts is that they just don't make sense - you argue the dumbest things and it doesn't help your credibility.
So many bones to pick, so little time.
From the NDak doc:
"In addition, the campus would more then [sic] likely see improved student health with increased class attendance and better academic comprehension by the students.
Three unfounded statements in one sentence(which is not even a record for the AT gang).
Students don't get sick on account of their smoking. Whatever kind of damage smoking may do, it doesn't do it at that age. Been there, done it. So unless he's implying that smokers in general are categorical truants, smoking has zero to do with class attendance. In fact, banning smoking anywhere on the campus could lead to cutting classes cuz you just want to have a smoke and you now have to leave the whole campus to do it.
I can back that one up with my own experience teaching. When the school (on a city street) went suddenly smoker-free, a lot of students would leave the 3 hour class for 10 minutes to go out on the street and smoke. When I broke the class up, giving 2 10 minute breaks, the problem disappeared. And that's when I learned that fully half of the students smoked.
His final contention-- that smoking affects the students' "academic comprehension" (smokers are dumber)-- is just rank propaganda. If anything, virtually all psychological studies, many of which I've linked to, show that smokers-who've-just-smoked are better focused than nonsmokers and can learn and retain more. This is not anecdotal. This is both biologically and psychologically proven. And again, you're more likely to cause smokers to lose a beat by depriving them of a smoke,.
Finally, on his "making our students more marketable," I think what he's saying is "we'll force them to quit" so that later, as nonsmokers, they might get a job.
;
Now to you, Doc.
Somewhere within your post you say, with a touch of sarcasm, that apparently "restricting smokers to certain designated outdoor locations that are away from buildings and crowded areas" still isn't good enough to pacify the guy.
But, by that, you imply that in order to "protect" your very precious nonsmokers, that smokers do indeed have to be quarantined-- even outdoors!-- to segregated areas far away from buildings and any place that's "crowded.".
Please tell us why?
Are you now trying to tell us that passing by smokers who are standing in front of a building or walking around the quad is an immanent threat to health? Or are you willing to appease this lunatic from Dakota by tossing him a few more bones from a smoker's spine?
LB--
As usual, a really terrific screed.
:
Dr - please respond to Walt's 10:56 post. Your comment ticked me off too. While I do commend you for trying to point out how whacked up the anti's garbage is becoming (which we, as smokers and people, then analyze and come up with our own conclusions), I'm really getting tired of you speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
Bill Haneggan inquired:
"Can anyone explain the contradictory Repace Pennsylvania air quality test results?"
Yes. I informed Repace that the 1771 projected deaths appeared way too high (per my knowledge of tobacco smoke pollution mortality risks), which prompted him to recheck the calculations and to correct the error.
In contrast to assertions in many comments posted on this blog, the overwhelming majority of researchers and public health advocates correct their mistakes.
Bill Godshall | 10.30.07 - 5:48 pm | #
A response from a Pennsylvania casino official:
"Anyone coming into any commercial casino in the United States would be
stopped by security if they had devices with wires, etc...as you know, casinos have comprehensive surveillance and any such movements such as Repace claims to have done at the Queen would be very noticeable."
Casino officials believe neither James Repace nor Kathy Drea of the ALA could have gotten their air testing machines past casino security. Nor do these officials believe the use of such machines could escape the notice of casino surveillance cameras. More and more people are going to realize that the air of the Casino Queen and the Pennsylvania casinos never got tested.
"the air of the Casino Queen and the Pennsylvania casinos never got tested."
Bill H., You underestimate Repace's sensory ability to detect SHS levels and measure wind speeds.
I was just reading a letter from a pub chain director to a bar trade paper, in the ASH political bulletin 2004, in which they are urged to support the ban to protect their members from being prosecuted.
"The only ultimate provision and safety for us will be a smoking ban.We all need to be forewarned that the next growth area for the legal system will be prosecutions of publicans for not protecting staff from the dangers of ETS. Since April 27 cases have been taken on - this is the start of a tidal wave- in my view"
The paper is now pro ban
You have to hand it to them, reinvent a hazard then frighten all the employers into conforming. They may not believe it either but they can't take that risk.
Tell me , did this tidal wave of prosecutions for exposure to ETS ever take place?
Well Rose,Dr Siegel did start appearing as an EXPERT WITNESS didn't he ? As to frequency i have no idea,but since he refrains from commenting on ANY OF THE STUDIES THAT ALLOWED TO FORMULATE HIS OPINION ON THE "PERILS" OF SHS,THIS TSUNAMI KEEPS ON ROLLING AROUND THE OCEANS.
In WW2 Germany, seeing jews around didn't reflect very well on the community as a whole.
Calous Cowbell; "Non-smokers exposure has always been voluntary, therefore they were the ones making the poor health choices. It stands to reason that their behavior was that which needed regulating.
If there was a road on which the traffic may kill you (if you stood in the middle for 40 hours a week for 40 years), you wouldn't ban driving, you'd ban standing in the road."
EXCELLENT ANALOGY.
It would seem that restricting the liberty of citizens that smoke was simply the easier choice, since they are the minority. With the propaganda machine already in overdrive, it's a simple matter of playing on the emotions and incredibly short attention span of the majority.
The only messsage required is "smoking kills" and sheeple eat it up.
Walt and JM -
Sorry - I wasn't arguing that policies SHOULD restrict smoking to remote, isolated outposts. I was simply pointing out that this advocate doesn't even support such an extreme solution. He is only satisfied with a complete, all-out ban. By no means was I trying to argue that we need to restrict smoking to quarantined areas. In fact, I think that's a bad idea. I was just using this as an argument tool. Sorry for the confusion.
Terror in the streets
Panicking newsreaders "but we have always been told it was smoking that gave you cancer!"
"The direct link between increased weight and increased cancer risk was even stronger than those linking cigarettes with cancer, he suggested.
With smoking, we know that if you smoke you increase your risk, but most smokers in the end don't get cancer, so it's not a one-to-one relation," he said"
Never mind, I'm sure they will be back on message by teatime
see link on previous thread
"the air of the Casino Queen and the Pennsylvania casinos never got tested."
Bill H., You underestimate Repace's sensory ability to detect SHS levels and measure wind speeds.
benpal
Godshall may well have supervised Repace, "Jim, 1771 is way too high. Adjust the number way down." But have PACT and Repace publicly admitted to this correction?
People please think clearly about this. How did Repace and Drea carry a toaster size machine, about the size of a bomb, past casino security and then carry it around for hours taking measurements, not gambling, and escape the notice of casino security?
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday...73?
OpenDocument
Rose,
This supports your link:
~snip~
Dr Ken Denson, of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, says: "I simply do not know where they conjure up their statistics. The statistics for passive smoking, in particular, would not be published or even considered in any other scientific discipline. Deaths from smoking in general have been grossly exaggerated, particularly in relation to heart disease. " Dr Denson is a medical scientist. He has published peer-reviewed research in respected academic journals. He is not funded by tobacco companies.
And:
The willingness of militant anti-smokers to corrupt a good case has turned the smoking debate from a laudable campaign to improve public health into a bitterly resented attack on the minority who choose to risk smoking. One medical researcher says: "Statistically the evidence for the evils of smoking has been grossly distorted. For many people the ideal of a complete end to smoking has become a sort of Holy Grail with a limited basis in fact. More of us would say this, but it is politically unacceptable to speak the truth about these things." He suggests that rabid anti-smokers should look at the prevailing rates of smoking among young people born after the relationship between smoking and cancer was admitted by the tobacco industry - and remind themselves what happened to the boy who cried wolf.
http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/...uckhurst-
01.htm
Interesting. This guy is a dangerous goon for metioning the way smoking "looks." According to the doctor, health is the ONLY reason to ban SHS. Strange, then, that the doctor gave such an approving nod to Dr. Carl Phillips EP&I article a few posts back. Here's a snippet from that article:
"There is little doubt that inhaling smoke is unhealthy, but equally clear evidence shows that we can only demonstrate disease risk from ETS for those at the highest level of exposure. The evidence about health effects of smoke and the legitimate aesthetic objection to involuntary ETS exposure are quite sufficient to justify prohibiting indoor smoking in public places, though clearly insufficient to justify public policies that prohibit voluntary low-level ETS exposure."
I would note, again, that the vast majority of bar and restaurant workers never get the "highest level of exposure." Because people hardly ever work in that industry as a career.
But focus instead on the fact that Phillips includes the "legitimate aesthetic objection" in his justification of a ban. That is, smoke is stinky. People no-likey. For him, it appears, the health concern is not the entire ball of wax.
And nary a complaint from the doctor.
Bill H; "How did Repace and Drea carry a toaster size machine, about the size of a bomb, past casino security and then carry it around for hours taking measurements, not gambling, and escape the notice of casino security?"
*IF*, it happened at all, it's easy enough to reason that one or more Anti's are working in the security/surveilance office.
"IF* those security personnel allowed this to occur unchallenged and without interruption, or without informing the managers/owners, then they should be fired. *IF* it happened at all.
I wish "stupid" was the number one cause of death in the world...
I just heard the Professor say "there is no safe level for bacon" live on air. Unless its some kind of Hallowe'en joke running on all channels.
Mike wrote:
"I think it is paternalistic to tell smokers where they can and cannot smoke for the simple reason of trying to make it difficult for them and to force them to quit."
The primary reason why more than a thousand school districts (and several state legislatures) prohibited smoking outdoors on K-12 school campuses) was to reduce the likelihood that youth would experiment with and become addicted to cigarettes.
While Mike is free to advocate for the usage of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine or other drug on school campuses, Mike has inaccurately (and I think unethically) engaged in historical revisionism by intentionally misrepresenting the reason why many K-12 and colleges have adopted smokefree campus policies.
Whether Repace ever got his equipment inside a Pennsylvania casino or not, everyone can admit that something is terribly wrong with this Repace air quality study. At very least Repace should release it to the public for review. Further errors might very well be found.
I have to wonder if Repace is truly qualified to conduct and interpret such tests in the first place. The casinos would be smart at this point to have their air professionally tested.
"How did Repace and Drea carry a toaster size machine, about the size of a bomb, past casino security and then carry it around for hours taking measurements, not gambling, and escape the notice of casino security?"
Simple really, extract his head from his a*** and insert machine.
Bill G,
what is the average age of students on college campus?
GreatScot
The primary reason why more than a thousand school districts (and several state legislatures) prohibited smoking outdoors on K-12 school campuses) was to reduce the likelihood that youth would experiment with and become addicted to cigarettes.
Just out of interest, how well has this worked?
west
----
Regarding the bazillion "youths" that apparently die every day from the horrifying sight of a cigarette on screen;
(Are they keeling over dead as they exit the theatre?)
Doc; "I'll report back on Tuesday morning - hopefully, with the news that the organization has acknowledged and corrected the mistake and apologized for misleading the public."
Did I miss your follow up?
Sam M wrote:
"I would note, again, that the vast majority of bar and restaurant workers never get the "highest level of exposure." Because people hardly ever work in that industry as a career."
A friend of mine went to a retirement party for a bartender a few weeks ago. I asked him how old she is. He said 35. LOL
Bill Godshall blurted;
“The primary reason why more than a thousand school districts (and several state legislatures) prohibited smoking outdoors on K-12 school campuses) was to reduce the likelihood that youth would experiment with and become addicted to cigarettes.”
west2 asked,
“Just out of interest, how well has this worked?”
Today we need to ban smoking on Collage campuses, so antis like Bill can find glory in their failures and self gratification in knowing that smokers are a product of discrimination brought on by a small number of people who believe, not unlike Hitler; that one smoker is one to many.
Bill,
I really hate to be the one to burst your little balloon there (ok, I don't hate it at all); BUT, colleges are populated by LEGAL AGED ADULTS.
As a legal aged adult, an 18 year old IS allowed BY LAW to do adult type things.
As far as I'm concerned, IF they are old enough to be drafted and trained to kill and sent off to die in wars, then they are old enough to see grown-up stuff, like nudity, smoking, dancing, even *gasp* sex.
Bill, can you kindly point us to the entry where Mike is advocating "for the usage of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine, or other drug"? Oh, and you forgot to mention that Mike is NOT advocating for the usage of smokeless. Is that your problem?
Shame on Bill for suggesting that I am "advocating for the usage of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine or other drug on school campuses."
Talk about misrepresenting someone's statements. This one takes the cake.
Unfortunately, it also borders on defamatory. It needs to be retracted.
Lightning Boy - Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is currently considering their response to my post about the 1170 youths dying each day. They indicated that the webmaster is currently away. I am in communication with them, and will report back as soon as this is resolved, one way or the other.
I believe that Bill is just dancing around the numbers that his old pal Repace used and his admission of telling him to lower it. How many years did you take tap dancing classes Bill?
It doesn't matter though as Katie Couric just made it official. Obesity now outranks smoking for causing cancer. Therefore, Bill and all others in TC, I am going to have to demand that you lay your fork down this instance. Get on you bike, jog or buy a treadmill. I also do not want to see you in a restaurant, as I may be weak and eat a desert and begin to look like you. Secondhand eating is dangerous to my health and I don't want it near me. Understand? I am thinking of starting a grassroots efforts to keep all obese people out of sight until they shape up and eat right.
Wahpeton North Dakota is the cultural center of the world. Known for it's progressive and public funded dabbling in moral and civic matters likes to take some public funds and pretend to create an actual debate by using the artistic and pathological example of the really big public funded anti smoking activists.
The last debate was not successful because the state has only three trees
Declaring the "telephone pole" as the state tree met opposition from bird watchers and lumberjacks who did not recognize a moral benefit.
Just love Bill's attempt to divert attention away from the REAL ISSUES here,BUT at least it does tie in with Ayatollah Glans's position concerning banning the sight of and perceived risk of viewing passive smoke at the cinema AND removing ALL SMOKERS FROM BEING SEEN.Perhaps this highly scientific approach ought to be tried in Iraq,it would certainly save lives,IF WE CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING THE ANTIS SAY NOWADAYS.They appear to be a sorry bunch of has-beens desperately grasping at ANYTHING TO PROMOTE THEIR CULTIST APPROACH,GREAT TO SEE Bill leading the way.
Diane; "I am thinking of starting a grassroots efforts to keep all obese people out of sight until they shape up and eat right."
I think you have the wrong approach here Diane.
If we use the TC playbook, Shouldn't it be a "grassroots" effort to close all restaurants (smoking permitted or not) as they are clearly contributing to the global epidemic of fat.
We must take every step possible in curtailing this terrible menace to society. No prepared food should be available anywhere outside the home.
If we level the playing field, ie, close all restaurants, then this will only benefit society.
Think of the children for god sake.
Bars can remain open (for now) so long as there is nothing beyond alcohol that is consumable on the premises.
No Food whatsoever, not a crumb.
Obese people may be prescribed Marlboro by a helpful government official to aid in there weight loss effort since it is clearly the lesser of the two evils and would do less harm.
They may smoke anywhere they like, but only until they reach perfection, then no more smoking either.
It really is a brave new world afterall. Isn't it?
Anecdotal story but I think it's one that represents the larger picture. One that laughs in Bill's face. Always a bonus.
Place: NYC
Happened to go into a place last week that's essentially a bar but with more of a club type layout (pretty large). They were having their Halloween party night so it was pretty crowded. I had asked the bartender if they turned a blind eye and allowed smoking. He answered no -- that I'd have go outside to smoke.
95% of the customers were in their early to mid 20s. And what I witnessed was one "kid" after another lighting up right inside -- not even holding it low (hiding it) but smoking it plainly as if the ban wasn't even contemplated. I asked one girl, "No one says anything about it?" She shrugged "no" in the way that said "why would that even be a question?" My first reaction was to think that the bartender lied to me. Understandable they don't want to admit it and just say nothing when it occurs. But that's not the case.
About 90 mins. had gone by and by then had gone through about three butts myself. That's when one of the staff turned up in a "making rounds" capacity and started wagging his finger at whoever was smoking and telling them they couldn't smoke inside. And the minute he moved on it's like he was never there. The same and other "kids" lit up again with indifference. When the staff guy eventually came around again (a large square that he patrolled) he admonished them again. And again they lit up when he passed.
The moral of this story:
1. The very youth Bill thinks he's affecting -- that the entire anti-smoking crusaders try to indoctrinate throughout school and with their Truth ads -- are saying "oh please" and ignorning them (and apparently the owners who intend to comply with the law) more completely than even adults! (adults sheepishly slink outside)
2. That they lit up without a thought in the first place is indicative that this is the practice they're used to. In other words, the clubs and bars they go to are non-compliant with smoking bans -- either by owner or customer choice.
Hey! Matter of fact, it was the "KIDS" who influenced me to light up when I saw THEY were doing it.
LOL Bill! Your movement consists of massaging each other's ego by convincing only yourselves that you're affecting change.
Diane wrote:
"Therefore, Bill and all others in TC, I am going to have to demand that you lay your fork down this instance. Get on you bike, jog or buy a treadmill."
Please. No. Bill gets hurts and costs society money playing a game which consists largely of just standing there: Volleyball. Can you imagine the cost society will bear if all of them tried doing something like jogging or riding a bike?
JustTheFacts wrote:
"Hey! Matter of fact, it was the "KIDS" who influenced me to light up when I saw THEY were doing it."
Maybe that's why they want to ban smoking at schools. The "kids" might get the professors and admin to start smoking. Dartmouth should do a study.
The good doctor sez:
"They indicated that the webmaster is currently away."
LOL - I happen to work in this field and let me tell you that any webmaster that has at least a vague idea of what his job is about can log in from remote and edit the web page in half a minute :D
Yep, Tricky. And, (of course this is just my opinion, but I take pride in my work), webmasters are easily contacted by email at any time to check in and make sure something crazy didn't happen. Such a simple change can be made in the time it takes for your spouse to use the bathroom and you'd still have time to change from your bathing suit to your dinner clothes.
I love remote log in, I can access my computer and server and everything on it from anywhere.
Jacob Sullum comments today on the Repace Pennsylvania Casino Study:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/
...cess=1#lastpost
Godshall - we're not talking about kids here - we're talking about college students. Adults. Your analogy, again, doesn't hold water.
Bill Godshall, will Repace or you be posting the PA casino study details on your websites? That press release raises a lot of questions that need to be answered.
LightningBoy states:
Bars can remain open (for now) so long as there is nothing beyond alcohol that is consumable on the premises.
not so fast, mister. it appears that just about everything causes cancer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562474/
Anyone who didn't see the John Stewart report tonight really should have.
Late night comedy has arrived on the war front. The skit involved a parody news report declaring a ban on cupcakes was the only way to protect the children.
In a "new research shows" parody the presenter declared cupcakes to be very similar to antifreeze, Both are colorful and taste good. One will cause death almost immediately while the other will take years perhaps decades. When left to their own devices 4 of 5 children tested consumed the cupcakes with only one preferring to drink the anti freeze.
When challenged on the issue the presenter pointed at his name plate and asked who is the doctor here? He then did a fine impression of Hitler.
The Health Scare movement and it's enthusiastic following have all outed themselves. Now the public has a new dragon, one they will love to hate. Time for the arts to be picking on the paternalist I hope the fad and the laughter lasts a good long time.
Mr Bill is not confused between K and college or tots and adults. Mr Bill does not acknowlege the existence of adults, in concept or actuality. With the possible exceptions of him and Repace, we're all just a bunch of irresponsible brats who need to be taken in hand.
It also has to be noted that his attacks on Siegel grow ever more scurrilous and ever more irrational. Just like his and his Movements attacks on smokers.
See a pattern there, Doc?
:
The latest research according to the International Obesity Task force and Dr. Phillip James in the news release today states; smoking is only an assisting confounder being overweight actually causes cancer. A month or so back they stated having fat friends makes you fat. He went on to say more than a couple drinks of alcohol can also cause a higher cancer risk than smoking. more than One drink for women and two for men will lead to cancer and obesity. Sorry ladies you get targeted again just like the smoking in cars with kids legislation mom needs to be mothered.
So barring fat people from attending in bars will have a duality; no one will get fat by associating with them and no one will be encouraged to be fat when all the people you see in public places are thin.
Once alcohol is barred from sale in the bars cancer will only be attainable in the black market where it presumably belongs. Once we are in the majority, unrepentant criminals, the presumption of innocence will suddenly loose it's luster and eventually it's legal standing, as with smokers before them the ghettoizing paternalisms of all non "entitled" communities will have a permanent legal foothold.
LighteningBoy,
I understand what you are saying, but that isn't what I meant. The last thing I want is more restaurants to be hit by this obesity epedemic. What I would like to see though is obese people being told in a so called public place (private business opened to the public) that they must lay that fork down, for their own good and for the health of the children who might see them enjoying a meal. I don't think it will take long for people to start shouting, "LET THEM SMOKE, JUST GIVE ME MY CHEESEBURGER" This could end up being the one true survey on just how the public feels with the intrusion of some into their lifestyles.
James Austin,
That is exactly what I meant about Bill and others jogging. When they pull their first muscle and run to the hospital, they should have to pay at least a $35 co-charge for having what we can call "lazy muscles" from inactivity. Why should I pay for their lifestyle? Afterall, very few calories are burned, driving from smoking ban to smoking ban! What goes around, comes around!
Doc Siegel said: "Seeing people using illicit drugs, having public sex, or walking around nude on campus would legitimately reflect poorly on the community..."
I disagree, somewhat. It's a matter of perspective, of course, but my reaction to witnessing such a sight on campus could well be..."there's hope for humanity after all!"
I'm old enough to remember seeing (but not being) pot-smokin' hip-pies making out half-naked on the grounds of our local university. I gather that was a not uncommon sight in many major cities of the US as well. Those people may have enraged the local Birchers, but at least they were trying to stop the slaughter of innocents & pointless waste of the lives of their own peers in a war over differing economic systems.
When Roy & I were involved in chaperoning gay and lesbian youth at rave parties in the 1990's, we often witnessed MDMA blissed-out young people engaged in physical expressions of caring feelings. That wasn't on the grounds of a campus - but what if it had been? These youths were devoted to Peace Love Unity and Respect (PLUR) - how does that reflect negatively on them or on their community?
I can tell you with certainty, those kids who openly shared experiences of bliss with each other will never strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves and a hundred innocents to tiny bits...
For anecdotal proof of that, check out the story of the Khadr family's "black sheep" - the smoking, drinking, pop-music loving young man who refused to become a suicide bomber:
http://surrealitytimes.blogspot....adian-
hero.html
I'm much more concerned about people in my community who have lived a life of self-induced dopamine deprivation and their potential to some day "go postal" around my friends and family members.
Public hedonism doesn't offend me, in fact it gives me hope for our future.
Diane, I understand what you meant, I was only exaggerating the lunacy, oh wait, ...is it legal for smokers to exaggerate like the Anti's do, or is free speech (regardless of how exaggerated) limited to the Nanny statists?
Anyway, ...it would be easier to simply close all the restaurants instead of forcing me to play the role of untrained, unpaid, non-deputized law enforcement for policing the idiotic smoking ordinance.
To have to play Cholesterol Cop as well is just too much.
Robin says---"I'm old enough to remember seeing (but not being) pot-smokin' hip-pies making out half-naked on the grounds of our local university. I gather that was a not uncommon sight in many major cities of the US as well."
Not uncommon at all Robin. Yet from the way I see it, it is those very people in their later years (and their offspring) seeking all of these restrictions and 'safety' measures. At least in the US and IMO.
.
Sunz; "Yet from the way I see it, it is those very people in their later years (and their offspring) seeking all of these restrictions and 'safety' measures."
I see it the same way Sunz. Hypocritical and embarrassing.
I'm with Sunz and LB. The very same ones protesting Viet Nam, Government, rules and regs in the 60's are the fools that suddenly feel the need to restrict everyone else's pleasures. I noticed this trend over 10 years ago.
I don't get it, but hypocritical and embarrassing is putting it mildly.
Diane,
I was just having fun using what you'd said.
But speaking of $35 co-charges, that can't nearly be enough. The doctor visit, the missed work, the lowered productivity at work until healed, ambulance, we're probably talking thousands/injury. My God, we need an economic study done NOW! LOL
James Austin,
My $35 co-charge was in lieu of what we get slapped with in taxes or so called fees. Let them pay the way for awhile and while they are at it, they can pay our health insurance too.
Mike wrote:
"Shame on Bill for suggesting that I am "advocating for the usage of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, heroin, cocaine or other drug on school campuses.""
By adamantly opposing smokefree outdoor policies for school campuses, Mike is advocating in support of cigarette smoking on school campuses.
While Mike is free to advocate in support of cigarette smoking on school campuses, he is incorrect in asserting that the only legitimate reason for such a policy is to protect people from secondhand smoke (as preventing youth smoking is an entirely legitimate reason, and in fact has been the primary reason these policies have been enacted).
"Youths," Mr. Godshall do not attend college in any significant numbers. College and University students are ADULTS.
In other words, Bill advocates forcing ADULTS to live by his rules.
I'll say it again... Bill was born in the wrong place and time in addition to being a legend in his own mind (see my story above, Bill. Those "youth" are rolling their eyes at you)
And certainly collecting "and in fact has been the primary reason these policies have been enacted" for the lawsuit.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"By adamantly opposing smokefree outdoor policies for school campuses, Mike is advocating in support of cigarette smoking on school campuses."
"So what Bergstrand is actually saying here is that he sees smoking in public not as a health issue, but as a moral issue. Smoking in public is a moral affront to the community."
(Michael Siegel)
That's what Siegel's opposing.
I'd think someone who sees smoking in public a disgrace to the community would be very much for prohibition. You just can't admit that in public, can you Bill? Afraid people will turn against you.
Let me guess extremists are ok with this too ?
Play hardball with patients with bad habits, doctors urged
Andrew Thomson, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Robert Cushman has been called a social engineer instead of a mere doctor, praised and pilloried for delving into smoking and pesticide bans, needle exchange programs, and bicycle helmet laws during his career in public service.
Now one of Eastern Ontario's top health care officials, he has another target: Canadians with unhealthy living habits who threaten to overwhelm the system as it prepares for an onslaught of baby boomers living longer and demanding costlier medical treatment.
The chief executive officer of the Champlain Local Health Integration Network wants doctors to get tougher with patients and wants employers to take more responsibility for the health of their workers.
Dr. Cushman said medical professionals need to place a higher premium on promoting individual responsibility and risk factors to their patients -- especially physical activity, weight, tobacco and alcohol.
"We need to get tougher on this," he said. "As a public health physician, you get accused of social engineering when you look at a few regulations, but education only goes so far. A lot of these things go backwards if you don't maintain pressure.
"Health professionals have been more timid on this than we have needed to be, because we don't like to play hardball. We're nurturing and caring."
read more here
http://www.canada.com/ottawaciti...97-
93405bfcfe48
I nominate Kevin's for the line of the month:
Once alcohol is barred from sale in the bars cancer will only be attainable in the black market
LB--
Like it or not, you'll eventually have to be a "Cholesterol Cop." It's the trend set in New York with its banning of transfat and with its soon-to-begin mandatory posting of calories, and it's contagious like all the others. Next will be calorie rationing per customer (waiter standing there with calculator in hand) and I'm not even sure I'm kidding.
And hell, even I"M collecting "This is the real reason for these policies" to eventually use in a lawsuit.
:
Jeez, I'm offline for a few days during moving and come back to find this crap in MY backyard.
"The North Dakota Collage of..........Science? Must be a School of Politically Correct Science or maybe a School of Junk Science.
nemo31 | 10.30.07 - 2:23 pm | # ".
Nemo, just because the current faculty and administration are gung ho on this Anti tobacco propaganda certainly does not mean the school itself is the problem.
I know, I speak from actual experience here, I am a graduate of NDSCS.
This is only a two year school, and it is in a very small community.
I know that they are only following the ND State Educational directives, which started at UND in Grand Forks ND, spread to NDSU in Fargo, and have covered the state since.
This is just another example of the front moving closer to where we all live, it is time and past time to fight back people, not sit here daily griping about what is happening, do something.
I myself have been demonstrating just accross the river in newly smoke free Minnesota, I have also been to many of the bars that were forced last month to go smoke free, the local Anti propaganda is screaming about how successful they have been and how all the dire warnings of "smokers rights" poisoner's aren't coming true and business is booming, not so according to the bars themselves, but the push is on to make ND "smokefree" as well, and they certainly don't want any opposition, and they have all the local media in their laps through the almighty advertising dollars, and a few well placed Anti's in public office and private business.
Go stake out your local congress/representative, and force them to listen to your/our side, force them to publicly explain the "science" they tout. Learn from the bikers who succesfully continue to beat back helmet laws, take the movement to their space.
Walt;
"I nominate Kevin's for the line of the month:
Once alcohol is barred from sale in the bars cancer will only be attainable in the black market "
I have to take second place to Docteur. Cushmen
"Health professionals have been more timid on this than we have needed to be, because we don't like to play hardball. We're nurturing and caring."
The so called nurturing of the entire population, treating them like mindless children, makes it sound like the Health scare community has been afforded some grotesque parental rights authority over their adult underlings and is absorbed in the thought; personal responsibility can only be promoted by taking away all personal choices.
Back in the day some kids had posters of chairman Mao and some had Castro Cushman likely had one of Joseph Mengele the Amgel of death hanging over his bed.
Cushman Bio
http://www.crimelibrary.com/seri...rs/
index_1.html
The kind of ignorance expressed by this individual being supported and praised by the public health movement speaks volumes as to the kind of theology they represent.
His diagnosis; of the problem of a surge in elderly patients coming into a need of the system they have been subsidizing for years, should be treated with cruelty and punishment for the crime of growing old, needs a second opinion.
Ontario is one of the few remaining places in the civilized world where castration of imbeciles is considered entirely acceptable medical practice. Eugenics is alive and well in Ontario. As they say "good things grow in Ontario". So be a good thing or as an irresponsible dehumanized thing you will be punished.
Kevin,
I think you will enjoy this in light of your last post:
http://www.newmediajournal.us/st...on/
11012007.htm
~snip~
"But, in the end, that is the road down which science must lead us if it is treated as an end in and of itself. As a creed, as a moral guide, science is insufficient. Science cannot be a moral force for good because it has no provision for considering man "special" enough to safeguard his life, it has no aspect that can make man's existence sacrosanct. Science, as a singular goal, lacks any kind of morality that religion tries to promote. Science is, in fact, amoral. It is not necessarily anti-human, of course, but it has no special care for humanity at all -- neither good nor bad."
.
Sunz;
"Cold and clinical" sums it up. We can view humanity as germs on the planet in scientific terms, the rust which deteriorates an ecosystem which continually repairs our effects, however consciousness and self awareness provides us with a claim to superiority as not just a competing force in the balancing act of nature.
Science as a theology; to set our moral compass, has never found anything but disastrous effects. The "new studies" crowd promote fear and fear will always promote hatred. Smokers although the public health ideology will deny it, are an identifiable group, identified with a single word, legally a societal class. As are the obese, drinkers, drug users, unfit parents, speeders, litterers, Jay walkers and carry the list anywhere you want to.
If we define people as different and incredibly as not [De normalization]normal, when they actually are quite normal active members of a diverse society, we promote a reason to hate them, nothing more.
So right Kevin as seen in the next thread up. The sight of smoker "does not reflect well on the community"
It really is disheartening. All the history at our disposal and we never want to learn.
.
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
