"We will be in serious trouble when we start outlawing health behaviors in public merely because they set a bad example." Dr Siegel IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING.So how about confronting the issue head on ?
"If Goldberg and other legislators want to argue that smoking needs to be banned on all county property because it represents a substantial threat to the public's health, then they are free to make that argument and I have no problem with it."
So now you are in favor of outdoor bans?
When are you going to 'give' me your pellet stove?
Smoke is Smoke.
"However, to argue that smoking needs to be banned on all county property because we need to protect kids from seeing this morally inappropriate behavior is no longer a public health argument. It is a public morality argument and it has no place in this debate."
Earlier in your post, you wrote that restrictions on public displays of drinking alcohol, along with public nudity and sex, are justified on the grounds of public morality. I'm having a difficult time reconciling the two statements. All four things are public morality arguments.
Someone send Goldberg a ticket to the Museum of Tolerance.
As I see it, smoking is not a moral issue. It is a health issue. And that's all.
Except for the minority of overly ill people, you have yet to prove ANY health issue regarding smoking. Seriously, according to TC smoking will only kill 50% of the smokers.........and since life itself is a gamble, everyone basically has a 50/50 chance of dying from some disease or of being murdered. 100% of the people WILL DIE regardless. This is why your "health issue" can't hold water. You cannot guarantee that no one will die, therefore you cannot tell anyone how or when they should die. That is NOT for you or any of us to decide.
Prohibiting certain behaviors in public places - such as drinking alcohol, public nudity, public sex, etc. - is justified on the grounds of public morals.
And even THIS is a weak argument. Drinking IS allowed in public places..........think of all the community block parties where drinking is done openly; all the community fairs, picnics, where drinking is allowed. Then let's not forget sporting events, the teams and stadiums make a fortune selling beer (which is still "drinking") which is consumed opening in the stands. While parks and beaches may post signs that alcohol is prohibited, lets face reality here...........drinkers still bring alcohol and consume it. And we won't even touch on the fact that this will then allow them to go for full blown prohibition again.....after all, if not being drunk in public, the people are now drinking more in the home and the precious little brats are still exposed. They are doing it with smoking and will once again do it with alcohol. Only this time, the masses are so bloody drugged up they will be stupid enough to buy into the BS.
As for sex and nudity, that is just the puritanical brainwashing that religious factions have been promoting since they seized control of the masses, that the human body is ugly and that sex is dirty. For all our 'protections' around sex and nudity, this country has the most rapes and child molestations than other countries where sex and nudity is not treated as disgusting. I also believe we have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy. So much for moralistic laws making sense.
There are certain behaviors which in the collective wisdom of society are viewed to violate public morality, particularly as they relate to being viewed by children.
"collective wisdom of society" my azz! It is NOT the collective wisdom of anyone. It IS nothing more than insecure religious leaders (all male I might add) who are afraid of free-thinking people, and terrified of females that convinced others, usually through bloodshed and force, that they were the voice of whatever God they were promoting.
What you should be more concerned about is all the violence children are exposed to. The movies, the games, etc. It's no wonder we are so crime ridden when crime is 'glamorized'.....even if the bad guy doesn't always win.
However, to argue that smoking needs to be banned on all county property because we need to protect kids from seeing this morally inappropriate behavior is no longer a public health argument.
Which is exactly what moralists do to convince the stupid people they are right. How do you think all those pathetic 'laws' that are on the books got there? Granted many are no longer enforced, but they haven't been removed either, leaving the moralists free to start demanding that they be enforced. And they do keep it a 'health' argument with their statements that IF the kids don't see smoking, they won't start. And you have a lot to do with THAT mentality with YOUR promotion of back door prohibition.
"Goldberg, D-Wappinger, said the county's parks are intended to be a 'family place' and the presence of smokers is not only harmful to those forced to breathe second-hand smoke, but it sets a bad example for children."
Dr. Siegel: "Good luck to them in trying to garner evidence to support the contention that smoking in parking lots at county parks or county buildings is a serious public health problem, but they are free to attempt to do so."
Maybe she took a clue from you, doctor, in your wish to ban smoking in stadia and outdoor patios.
Are you still s-l-o-w-l-y rethinking?
.
There are some towns, villages and cities in upstate New York that is passing laws such as "social host law" and establishing curfews for the kids. For those of you who do not know what a social host law is: If an underage child hosts a party at their parents home and alcohol is served, the parents are arrested, given a fine and jail time. Naturally, it is assumed that the parents bought the alcohol and from the few arrests I have heard about, no consideration has taken place to the fact that maybe the kids brought the alcohol in themselves. The curfew laws are saying that anyone under the age of 18 must be home by 11PM, unless they are with their parents or guardians.
Maybe these laws are good, but I do have problems with them. One being that laws are being written and passed that basically is telling you how to raise your child. I do feel that parents should be responsible enough to know that alcohol should NOT be served at their teenagers parties and they should beable to determine themselves what time their child returns home at night and they themselves should be the one to enforce it. Why should there be a need for a law that a parent should be doing in the first place? My other problem with it is, these laws are being written by people who drank alcohol at parties when they were underage and who had children who also drank alcohol when they were underage. They also either broke curfew or ignored it all together. I know this to be true in many of the cases as the people who are passing these laws are people I partied with when I was a teenager! Now that their own children are all grown up and they are no longer in any danger of being arrested for the same thing they did, they decide to crack down and tell others how to be a parent.
This all leads to no smoking on county property. These people who wants to pass moral laws are the same people who has at one time broke a few misdemeaner rules of their own. Perhaps it was a rule their parents passed down and they thought it was unfair. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that we are all responsible people who does not need to be dictated to. We are mostly all taxpaying, hard working people who enjoys a cigarette, whether inside our own home, in a bar or in a county park. If you are so afraid to have your child see a person smoking, then leave them home. If you are so afraid that your child will see a smoker and afraid they will want to become one, then use the occasion to point out how disgusting smokers looks. Hopefully by the time a child becomes an adult, if these so good doers have done their job as a parent, their children will not want to smoke, drink or participate in any illegal activity. Take care of your own house and stay out of mine, especially if your house happens to be make of glass.
What a crock of Bravo Sierra -- both the proposal and Dr. Siegel's arguments against it.
THERE IS NO HEALTH THREAT to otherwise healthy people exposed to smoking indoors, let alone outdoors.
However, unlike bars and restaurants county parks and parking lots ARE public property. So, it is within the perogative of the county to restrict activities on county owned property. HOWEVER, I seriously doubt the county is willing to give up the tax dollars it accepts from the activity they now wish to ban on their property. In FACT, I know they would not.
Hypocrites, one and all.
Douglas,
I don't think that smoking falls into the same category as an affront to the public morals as public nudity, public sex, public defecation, or public drunkenness. But Goldberg is treating public smoking exactly the same way. That's what I am arguing is wrong. Smoking is a health issue. Public nudity is a moral issue.
"As I see it, smoking is not a moral issue. It is a health issue. And that's all."
Michael could you define "Denormalization"?
Explain to me how it might be interpreted as a "health issue" and not a moral crusade.
Which definitions can we expect are legitimate?
Further, could you explain the difference between forcing autonomous decisions, as opposed to helping someone decide by education?
In light of smoking bans in cars homes and outdoors it seems, non smokers and politicians are largely reacting as bigots, based in that "education" process.
Perhaps traditional medical interventions, always held as private between the patient and the physician had a legitimate foundation and for good reason. All the press releases as part of the grand experiment, might seem to depreciate that wisdom.
Would you agree?
Mike wrote:
"Prohibiting certain behaviors in public places - such as drinking alcohol, public nudity, public sex, etc. - is justified on the grounds of public morals."
and
"As I see it, smoking is not a moral issue. It is a health issue. And that's all."
Perhaps Mike can explain why he believes drinking alcohol is a moral issue, but smoking cigarettes is not.
Smokers should be able to avoid paying their share of property taxes that go to pay for the parks and parking lots.
BTW, in most parks reasonable consumption of alcoholic beverages is allowed. So, yet another of Bill's arguments goes "caput"
Doc--
Tell that to HER and her co-legislators, through letters to them AND to the newspaper that printed this as news ( thereby legitimizing the proposal to the public). If you're serious, that is. Complaining about it here accomplishes nothing, unless your goal is , in fact, to accomplish nothing while seeming to sound incensed.
Gabz, you say: However.... county parks and parking lots ARE public property. So, it is within the perogative of the county to restrict activities on county owned property.
Sounds like a county-owned slippery slope more than just a park. Or to put that another way: who is "the county"? In actuality, it's a small group of people-- like Ms Goldberg above-- to whom you're assigning absolute authority thus absolute censorship of any "activities" (or any anthing) they personally don't like.
Tangentially, all these restrictive rules for "the children" are adding to the trend of keeping them "children" instead of allowing them the room to mature, make decisions,set limits, and take responsibility for themselves. Again: a 17 year old boy has to be home by 11 PM the night before he joins the army, or the cops, or gets married? And he's still too young for a legal beer? This society is so f'd up,
Also, everything anonymous said about public drinking.
:
Dr. Siegel
Did you send your thoughts about this issue to the county leaders? It does nothing to express outrage but do nothing about it. I contact legislators regularly to express my outrage, but I am just an ordinary citizen. Outrage from you, Dr. Siegel, would possibly mean something. How about doing that Dateline show or perhaps 20/20 again?
off topic, but if any of you finds yourself with a few extra bucks and in need of a vacation, let me recommend Las Vegas. I just returned from a week there and sure, Nevada has a smoking ban, wink, wink!! People were smoking everywhere! People with kids didn't mind or say a word. No hand waving or coughing either. People standing in front of no smoking signs, smoking. Security standing just a few feet away. No one was told to put them out. Everyone was friendly. It was fantastic, even though I wasn't really looking forward to going. When I questioned all the smoking all I got was a nasty head shake. Not many in favor of it. On top of that, I truly believe I found all 45 million of the US smokers plus some from Canada and Australia. Do consider this little place called heaven when you think of vacations again.
"Mike wrote:
"Prohibiting certain behaviors in public places - such as drinking alcohol, public nudity, public sex, etc. - is justified on the grounds of public morals."
and
"As I see it, smoking is not a moral issue. It is a health issue. And that's all."
Perhaps Mike can explain why he believes drinking alcohol is a moral issue, but smoking cigarettes is not.
Bill Godshall | 07.14.08 - 3:57 pm | # "
You know, for once, (I know, I'm just as shocked as anyone that I'm even listening to what Bill is saying), I want to hear the answer to the question Bill asked.
How DO you explain that difference? Especially in light of the FACT that we can PROVE deaths directly from alcohol consumption but NOT tobacco?
I can name three people who died as a DIRECT result of alcohol use, still waiting for ANYONE to name three people that it can be proven their death was a result of tobacco use.
Bill wrote: "Perhaps Mike can explain why he believes drinking alcohol is a moral issue, but smoking cigarettes is not."
Bill - I don't. What I should have said was public intoxication.
an affront to the public morals as public nudity, - Michael Siegel
Like Nude climber craze tipped to take over Britain?
Blue laws which are nothing but "moralizing" (i.e. no alcohol on Sunday, need be addressed as well. I guess the slippery slope has already started back in the 30's when these laws were put on the books, pretty soon walking funny will be illegal.
Dutchess County has a terrific Park System with many different activities including concerts and baseball games at their ballfield.
http://www.co.dutchess.ny.us/Cou...rks/
PPIndex.htm
Sidebar: the Law is how a society codifies and enforces its morality.
It shouldn't be a hardship to enforce a no smoking policy at venues that draw tightly packed crowds while accomodating smokers in other places in the parks at other times.
But it's nice to see the anti-smoker cartel abandon science and prove that it is, and has always been, about morality. No science needed.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
We've already had this debate.
Nothing has changed.
Step up to the microphone Doctor.
No one is interested in anything a smoker has to say, no matter how correct it may be. No matter how well reasoned, no matter how balanced the point of view.
The smoke has somehow contaminated our though processes and we simply aren't being rational unless we agree to ban ourselves from sight.
The spotlight is on you.
Get off the fence.
LB;
"The spotlight is on you.
Get off the fence."
Like Monty Pythons Parrot, his feet are nailed to the perch.
He's not dead, he is just resting...
LB;
"The spotlight is on you.
Get off the fence."
After a year of reading these blogs, I have come to the conclusion that the "DOK" has no intention of leaving the fence; or any conclusive evidence that he is even on the fence. All dissertations from "DOK" in the mass media, are nothing but kowtowing to TC. Has anyone ever seen in MSM print any words from "DOK" with even an occasional, highly diluted scold?
"DOK" has a game plan. I'm not exactly sure what the game plan is, but there is an inkling that in some way, some form, some underhanded scheme; we, the smokers, are being used. Beware of those that "talk out of both sides of their mouth".
Bill - drinking in public becomes a moral issue when the person becomes drunk and does, possibly, "immoral" things. When I smoke I do NOT feel like taking off my clothes, whizzing in the trees or talking stupid. That is where the "moral" difference comes from. Drinking in parks occurs all the time - it's getting DRUNK in parks that is "immoral." And scary.
This woman really pisses me off. How DARE she try to say I am in anyway immoral or need to be hidden away so that "children" don't see me! Damn her. I am a taxpaying, college-educated, mother of 4, hardworking MORAL person and to think a town can even propose such a bunch of BS really gets to me. What the hell? How do these people get by with this?
"the Law is how a society codifies and enforces its morality."
The Law is how a society codifies and enforces its civility. These are very different things.
Thomas Paine said government would be unnecessary but for mankind's fundamental inability (or unwillingness) to do the right thing.
For example, we wouldn't need the welfare program if society looked after its poor. We don't, so it comes out of your paycheck.
Dr. Siegel's "health" issue is a moral issue, even though he doesn't see it that way.
Even though intelligent adults are willing to expose themselves to smoke, he believes it is wrong for them to do so.
This is why he twists himself into logical knots trying to defend his position, but the slightest whiff of reason brings his house down.
I don't think that smoking falls into the same category as an affront to the public morals as public nudity, public sex, public defecation, or public drunkenness.
Get a grip Doc. The first 2 are moral issues, the 2nd 2 are well KNOWN public health and public safety issues that can and do cause immediate harm.
Smoking in public falls into NEITHER category, no matter what you or Bill Godshall believes.
Facts are facts, and the facts are NOT on your side in regard to any harm from exposure to the smoke from anyone else.
A friend of mine left here earlier with her 2 girls and my daughter. Those 4, along with my husband and I, were at more health risk from the mosquitoes we seem to breed here on the Eastern Shore than they were from the SHS generated by me and my husband.
The minute I came to "Prohibiting certain behaviors in public places - such as drinking alcohol, public nudity, public sex, etc. - is justified on the grounds of public morals. There are certain behaviors which in the collective wisdom of society are viewed to violate public morality..." I knew what problem would arise from that. (And boy oh boy I deserve a cigar for predicting that would bring Bill out of the woodwork).
THAT is a risky comparative position to take because individual perceptions of what falls under the heading of "Moral" naturally (not based on right or wrong but nature/nurture) differs. And here comes Bill (who most here with a similar value system would call "wrong") to prove my point.
So while my value system has me wholeheartedly agreeing with Dr. Siegel that it's NOT a moral issue, I cringe when part of the defense is to make such comparisons because there ARE people out there that would not agree that all those comparisons are morally objectionable.
My point being that a defense is jeopardized when someone stakes a claim as Arbiter -- "knowwwwing" what constitutes a public morals offense. "Collective wisdom of society" doesn't cut it.
Putting aside the other debate of whether it's also a public health issue, I can at least say I agree with Dr. Siegel's part about smoking in front of others not being a public morals offense. But I'd leave out the comparative part of the rebutal. It just muddies the waters (whether rightly or wrongly).
Walt,
Per your 4:15pm comment to me. I stand by my statement, however in the context of my entire post you are wrong.
The point of my post is that unless the county stops accepting tax revenue from smokers, they are out of line prohibitting such use on puclic (paid for by taxpayers, including smokers) property.
It could be me that caused the misunderstanding, as I have been at this for so damged many years I've started speaking in shorthand.
“We will be in serious trouble when we start outlawing health behaviors in public merely because they set a bad example…….”
Keep pounding that “health behaviors” theme Dr. Siegel, and someone will eventually ban the parks, and start building Colosseums.
Even public drunkeness, per se, isn't a health or safety issue. There are plenty of happy drunks, walking down the street singing, laughing, harming no one. Yet they ARE drunk and they ARE "in public." Most of them have spilled out of bars or house parties but what does it matter WHERE they got drunk as long as they're harmless? And who decides the differnce between high and drunk and who decides who's potentially a health or safety threat?
A few yrs ago there was a story in the NY papers about a couple of middle aged professors, man and wife, who drove to the spot in some park or (whatever) where he'd first proposed to her and planned to celebrate their 25th anniversary by drinking champagne there, in their car. They wound up busted-- taken to jail on their anniversary-- for breaking the law against 'public drinking."
Gabz--
I usually agree with you so it could be that if we hashed this out, to our own and others' infinite boredom, we'd find the semantic point where we agree. What I'm inveighing against is this handful of elected Yahoos setting "community standards" based on their own prejudices and taste. This is the kind of thing that led to barring blacks from public swimming pools and it's insufficient, in terms of civil liberties, to just say, " okay, then reduce their taxes." Again, tho, I'm sure there's a point in this muddle on which we agree.
:
Fun wow!!!
http://www.register-herald.com/
l..._195223502.html
"Although a nonsmoker, Perry says he can understand why smoking inmates think the policy is one-sided, since they are denied access to nicotine but correctional officers and other employees may continue to smoke on the job.
“My feel is that it (policy) needs to be reasonably applied and take into consideration both constituencies, or both parties — smokers and nonsmokers,” he said.
“Should a smoker impose his values on a smoker and should a nonsmoker impose his values on a smoker? I think that things need to be written and facilitated so as to identify both populations.”"
More?
http://www.carrollspaper.com/mai...330&
TM=2604.681
""I would think they probably would want to take a look at the golf course, the park issue," Bruner said.
The Iowa law bans smoking in all indoor places, with some exceptions for casino gaming areas, the veterans home, hotel rooms and limited areas.
Smoking is prohibited in many outdoor public areas, particularly those places that are publicly owned.
While the statewide law would supercede any local action, there is some room for decisions in the council chambers, Bruner said."
Lets sum it up.
Half of smokers will die of smoking related diseases. Premature mortality can not in all fairness, occur beyond the average age of death in total population.
If the TC claims are true 21% of the population smokes, one half would be 10.5%. 80% of smoking related mortalities occur beyond the age of 70 therefore only 2% of the total population is at risk due to smoking.
The ETS numbers by the most extreme estimates among 79% of the population [the non smokers] limited to 10% of the total of smokers risk.
In real numbers less than .2% of total non smokers in the total population or .16% of the population is at risk of smoking related diseases, if and only if, the total population is expossed at maximum levels imaginable and for 80% of them they would be affected only after they reach the average age of death.
According to SAMMEC the risk is non existent prior to the age of 35, so protecting the kids has a reality all it's own.
So how did anyone get so upset about the insignificant health risk seen in second hand smoke?
Cult belief systems are the only possible explanation.
Dr. Siegel: “We will be in serious trouble when we start outlawing health behaviors in public merely because they set a bad example”.
If I read the article correctly, Ms. Goldberg said, “the presence of smokers is not only harmful to those forced to breathe second-hand smoke, but it sets a bad example for children”. She’s simply alleging that secondhand smoke is harmful.
Or, is she claiming that the presence of smokers is harmful? Maybe she’s saying that the presence of smokers is only harmful if someone is forced to breathe secondhand smoke. Is secondhand smoke less hazardous if you breathe it willingly?
In addition, of course, she’s pointing out that seeing people smoke sets a bad example for children and inferring that a mere glimpse of someone smoking a cigarette will lead the kids into a life of depraved nicotine addiction.
Here in Ontario, they forced convenience store owners to hide their cigarettes based on a similar premise. They were concerned that kids looking at a pack of smokes might throw an instant nicotine fit or impulsively buy a pack and take up the habit. Even though selling cigarettes to anyone under 19 is illegal.
Given that evidence supportive of any significant risk from exposure to SHS is still the subject of considerable debate, it will be very difficult to defend outdoor smoking bans on the need to protect public health. Thus, there has to be some kind of threat to the children to reinforce Ms. Goldberg’s position or the public might not buy into the propaganda.
But, then again, here in Ontario they banned smoking in cars carrying passengers under sixteen, partly on the basis that the OMA says children are exposed to up to 23 times the toxins when they're in enclosed spaces like a car. I’ve been meaning to write the OMA about that. Were they really saying that the toxins in a cigarette increase 23 times if combustion takes place in a car?
And just why in hell would they include convertibles, with the roof down, in the ban? Can those little wisps of secondhand smoke really accelerate at 35, 60 or 100 kilometres per hour?
In some cases, Doc, smoking and secondhand smoke are neither moral nor health issues. They’re a joke.
Just heard on the BBC TV news this morning. The topic was IVF. Apparently in Wales, (where I had already posted about smokers being denied treatment as a blanket policy), the ban includes "if either of the couple smokes". Clinical or moralistic judgment? or perhaps plain cynical saving of money?
Prospective daddy only smokes outdoors? not good enough. Prospective daddy has 1 cigar a week and only at the pub? not good enough. Prospective mummy and daddy don't smoke but all their friends and family do, the lodger is a chain smoker, all are welcome to smoke in their home? excellent you qualify for treatment.
Clinical or moralistic? Freaking scumbags, exploiting people to further an agenda.
GreatScot
Weighing the evidence?
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_9866501
"To have Butte County's blue summer sky blotted out by smoke day after day is certainly unprecedented.
Nevertheless, Dr. Mark Lundberg, the county health officer, said he doesn't think many people will suffer lasting damage to their health from breathing smoke from the wildfires.
In a phone interview Friday, Lundberg said people have asked him if exposure to the smoky air will increase their risk of getting lung cancer. He tells them any increase in risk would be "infinitesimally small."
"Our bodies are made to eliminate this," he said, explaining humans have natural mechanisms that clean their lungs.
Lots of people are feeling the smoke now — they get hoarse or cough and sneeze, or they feel some tightness in their chest and their eyes may smart, he said. But once the smoke finally disappears, so will the symptoms. Most people will bounce right back.
Lundberg said he does worry the smoke might trigger strokes or heart attacks in some people, and that it is affecting the emotional and social health of the community.
Studies show extended exposure to unhealthy air can set off strokes and heart attacks in people already prone to them, he said. He hasn't heard of any local cases but said he hopes to learn if there is an increase in these events linked to the smoky air.
Lundberg said he regrets so many community social events are having to be canceled. That's temporarily reducing people's sense of community. He said he thinks the smoky skies also tend to make people depressed. "
Matt: "children are exposed to up to 23 times the toxins"
Up to 23 of what? Typical TC speak, you can't nail them down because it's just utter nonsense.
Up to 23 of what?
Well so far I've found 18 essential and semi essential amino acids, 1 definate and 2 potential vitamins, one important coenzyme ( anti aging ), 3 neurotransmitters and one anti-inflammatory gas produced by the immune system.
The search continues
BTW
"Tar"
Angel H Roffo: the forgotten father of experimental tobacco carcinogenesis
"Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars"
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.p...&lng=en&
nrm=iso
Sorry, plant "tars" have not undergone anaerobic fermentation under a layer of wet mud,been crushed under tons of rock for millions of years until hard and then dug up and subjected to baking in an airless oven at temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees Celsius.
"The NPF states that coal tar contains approximately 10,000 different chemicals, of which only about 50% have been identified [3], and the composition of coal tar varies with its origin and type of coal (eg: lignite, bituminous or anthracite) used to make it."
Plant tars
"chewing gum has a long history stretching back at least 9,000 years, and tar-like materials were commonly chewed throughout much of northern Europe from at least the Early Mesolithic period".
"Examples of black lumps of tar with well defined human tooth impressions have been found at several waterlogged bog sites in northern Europe, notably in Germany and Scandinavia"
Now, in a research project at the University of Bradford, chewed tar from a number of sites has been analysed and found most probably to have come from destructively-heated birch bark.
The tar does not appear to have been mixed with any other materials, and chewing gums from different sites and periods were found to be remarkably similar in composition."
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba2...1/
ba21feat.html
Not quite the same
http://www.oma.org/health/tobacc.../
OMA_HSFOad.pdf
Research by Ontario’s doctors confirms that the car is the worst place you can smoke around children. Even if you
put the windows down, there’s no safe level of smoke, and your child has no choice but to inhale. So when you
smoke in the car, it’s like your child does too.
And here is what the OMA is calling their "research"
http://www.oma.org/Health/tobacc...o/
smoke2004.pdf
Based on the evidence that exposure to SHS in a vehicle is 23-times more toxic than in a house due to the smaller enclosed space, the state of Colorado drafted a bill that would impose fines on adults caught smoking in cars when a child is present.85
85. Sanko J. Bill targets smokers in cars: Boulder Senator says state should step in on behalf of children. Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado) 1998 Jan 10:6A.
A little off O/T.
It has been stated by many of the experts in TC that ETS does not follow the laws of physics (winds strong enough to knock down the building but the smoke remains, travel threw walls, bend corners and so on)
The only explanation I have been able to find is it that ETS must be part of the Quantum realm.
The university of Waterloo is beginning construction of the Mike and Ophelia Lazaridis (Research In Motion Fame) Quantum-Nano Centre. Here is what they say about it: "Quantum deals with the atomic and sub-atomic levels, where the usual laws of physics do not apply; things can, for instance, exist in two places at the same time."
Ann W.
Lets face it, its utter tripe.
The plant chemistry reminds me of nothing so much as a small child making wild botanical speculations as to why he shouldn't eat his sprouts.
"Mum, they're poisonous, I'll be sick and die!
I know. I still I hate sprouts.
From Ann's link; The real reason for smoking bans in cars and soon ion your home.
"The purpose of this document is to
outline the position of the OMA with
respect to the importance of protecting children from exposure to SHS.
This is not only relevant in homes
and vehicles, where children are
most commonly exposed,
but also
in situations where organizations
such as Children’s Aid Societies
(CAS)s, family court, and day cares
can regulate such exposure."
They needed a legal foundation [excuse], just as they did with spanking your own kids, to force parents to do as they are told, not as they believe, or loose their rights to be parents.
I am not sure what the Doctor means by "health behaviors"? That's a curiously odd term.
Dr. Siegel, will you please provide us with a definition of "health behaviors?"
Again, how about denormalizing tobacco control?
Dr. Siegel, it's not just a matter of dishonesty, and this story you tell is a further proof. It's more a matter of a certain rotten mindset that is common among the tc folks.
The standard TC activist basically feels itself above the others, it pretends to dictate what it is acceptable to do and what is not, on the sole basis of its own whims.
This, in my opinion, is an attitude that in a self-claiming civil society needs to be denormalized.
"Nevertheless, Dr. Mark Lundberg, the county health officer, said he doesn't think many people will suffer lasting damage to their health from breathing smoke from the wildfires."
But the same Lundberg has said this before:
“We also want fathers, friends, and relatives not to smoke around pregnant women,” Lundberg stated. “Studies have shown that second-hand smoke is harmful to both the mother and fetus."
But wildfire smoke is okay?
Wild fires
"Exposure to PAH's usually occurs by breathing air contaminated by wild fires or coal tar, or by eating foods that have been grilled. Other sources include industrial processes, transportation, energy production and use, smoking tobacco, and disposal activities such as open trash burning."
"The multi-ring Benzopyrene was one of the PAH's earliest identified as a carcinogen. It was found by extraction of TWO TONS(!!) of gas-works pitch, and is now recognised as the first industrially generated chemical carcinogen"
http://www.asu.edu/courses/chm33...332PAH/
PAH.html
Surely thats wrong,industrially generated?
I do wonder where they get these alleged components of tobacco smoke from, it seems that the healthscare of the day is added to the list.
Aniline was the German fabric dyes based on coal tar.
Benzopyrine seems to be suggested in the 50's
One toxin supposedly in American tobacco was from a fungicide only ever used in Germany.
The latest of course being Polonium 210.
Wilhelm C Hueper NCI
"However, even this estimate is heavily biased by the arbitrary assumption that the benzpyrene content present allegedly in cigarette smoke was about 12 times as effective in eliciting lung cancers as benzpryrene demonstrated in atmospheric air. Only when such a corrective, coefficient,is applied was it possible to obtain proportional correlations between the total exposure to benzyprene from both cigarette smoking and air pollutants and the relative incidence rates of lung oancer found in the Industrialized metropolitan Liverpool area, an intermediary, urban-rural, region, and the rural area of North Wales."
"I would like to have that on the record too"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...d&
start_page=91
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,801003,00.html
"With today's hindsight, Hueper's active skepticism seems suspect. In the current climate, his motives would be questioned, his bank books examined. Most likely, the public would speculate, he was being paid off by the powerful tobacco industry"
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/news..._98/
story01.htm
The starvation method to fight obesity http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ht-
obesity.html
Rose don't forget the about supposed "4,000" chemicals there is also every single flavoring! Could you imagine having a regular chocolate, cherry, mint, and any other flavouring out there cigarette??
Yet they keep saying there's 4,000 chemicals in every cigarette!
l. duguay
Simple answer, lets all buy organic additive free tobacco, that would send a message to the tobacco companies and screw up Anti-tobacco's 4,000 mysterious and unnamed chemicals.
From my researches, a tobacco leaf appears to be almost exactly the same as a potato leaf and has one less toxin as far as I can see.
The tuber of a potato plant has all the same plant chemicals as the leaves but in smaller amounts.
One additive I would accept, real menthol made from genuine mint.
Commenting by HaloScan
