Ironically, I think that it severely weakens our case for workplace smoking bans. For when the opponents get up and suggest that this is just the first step to eventual elimination of smoking everywhere, we can no longer rise and say that they are exaggerating and misreading our true intent.
What I'm amazed at is the fact that you are so surprised at this. How do you explain US knowing all along what the real goal and intent was, and you couldn't? With your education and intelligence you should have at least been able to see the possible outcomes, even IF you chose not to believe it.
Allow me to be the first: WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!
We've known all along that the TC goal was prohibition (back-door and sneaky prohibition at that). And you all still spout how smokers are from the lower classes with lower education? Hell, WE saw through the BS years ago, the minute they said "all we want are flights under 2 hours to be smoke free". Didn't take them long to demand flights under 6 hours, and the rest is unfortunately, now history.
Bill still calls us delusional (with your blessing apparently as you never seem to censor his words) with conspiratorial theories, and yet your movement proves us right every step of the way.
Welcome to the real world Doc. Doesn't look so bright and rosy all of a sudden, does it? Brace yourself, all this is just the beginning, for it will NOT stop with smoking.
Lynda F - We've known all along that the TC goal was prohibition (back-door and sneaky prohibition at that). And you all still spout how smokers are from the lower classes with lower education? Hell, WE saw through the BS years ago, the minute they said "all we want are flights under 2 hours to be smoke free". Didn't take them long to demand flights under 6 hours, and the rest is unfortunately, now history.
........
The backdoor has been "protect the children" and "protect employees."
Most of who post here realize this is not a health issue. It's a political issue. Down into the snake pit of Social Engineering versus freedom.
With those two "health" mandates, the power of the state is limitless. There is nothing it cannot do and nowhere it cannot go.
I fear Michael, that you still miss the point. I'll do my best to explain once again, although there are others here who have expressed these ideas better.
"opponents get up and suggest that this is just the first step to eventual elimination of smoking everywhere"
No, what I suggest is that these are the first steps toward the gradual elimination of *smokers* everywhere. Your comment is like describing the Holocaust as the elimination of Judaism, when, in fact, it was the elimination of Jews.
The parallel as I see it, is that the world stands by as one group of people are "denormalized"; first described as "unhealthy", "stinking", "callous", "child abusers", "murderers" (any of this sound familiar?). Later segregated, ostracized, penalized. And there are no signs of the trend stopping or reversing.
The biggest mistake, I suggest, is thinking that smoking is something that some people just *happen* to do. That it's not really personal. That Jews could not simply stop being Jews, but that smokers can simply stop being smokers. And perhaps for some that is true. Smoking is surely not a religious faith or ethnic heritage. And I would never try to make that claim or draw that parallel.
But still, for many of us, smoking is a part of, or symbolic of, our philosophies and attitudes toward life. A symbol of our love of freedom, liberty, pleasure, choice, autonomy... To give up this thing that we do, in response to coercion, denies all that we are, and all that we hold important. And I submit that this really is a campaign directed against us as the people we are, and the culture we represent.
Again, please try to recognize what so many of us see so clearly, even now. It's not the smoke. It really is the "smoker".
"Editorial Uses the Power of Suggestion to Advocate The Outlawing All Outdoor Smoking."
A little more accurate.
"...we can no longer rise and say that they are exaggerating and misreading our true intent."
You never could. You were wrong. You were wrong 10 years ago when you said it was all about worker safety. And you were wrong when you said it yesterday.
You can't just go testify for smoking bans without also supporting the entire movement that is pushing them. Just like I couldn't go support a politician like David Duke on the grounds that I agree with him about taxes, without also owning up to the rest of his agenda.
A total ban on tobacco is part and parcel with everything your movement has ever been about. You were told time and again that you were wrong, and you ignored it. The question is what you will do about it now.
An apology will not help. And badgering your former colleagues to be more honest will not work, either. They don't care about honesty. They are staying on message and pushing for a total ban in whatever way they can get it.
The honest thing to do is to view "workplace bans" in their totality. For better or worse, in addition to bringing in cleaner air for bartenders, mandating 100 percent workplace bans also opens the door to a tremendous amount of abuse. You have seen that now. You know it. And there is no way to avoid it.
So you either need to stop advocating for bans and choose less intrusive measures in their place, relying on the linear relationship between exposure and damage to reduce harm...
Or you have to accept what you have wrought.
Time to choose, doctor.
Smoking Bans have nothing to do with public health concern. It may have twenty years ago, but now it's solely about social engineering. It's about unelected health authorities working diligently to further the agendas of extremely wealthy Non-Profit organizations that are funded in no small way by a Pharmaceutical Industry that is allowed to dictate public policy designed to be solely in the interest of the bottom line, and not the interest of public health at all. Instead of using the power granted to them to regulate and prevent infectious diseases, their mission has been perverted to using that power to effect societal change through media scare tactics, and forced government intervention. By ignoring opposing points of view, dismissing all opposition as selfish or uninformed, and allowing their self-perceived nobility of cause to over-rule sound judgment in an effort to achieve the desired result is nothing more than paternalistic, moralizing self indulgence. It is readily apparent that these organizations, regardless of how well intentioned, are willing to sacrifice sound public policy and more importantly to abandon strict scientific standards without discretion in their effort to have the end justify the means while maintaining the lucrative revenue stream of MSA payments, Grants, and other highly questionable sources of Anti-tobacco profit.
It's about MONEY.
Straightforward calls for prohibition would wreck the gravy train, and that simply won't do. TC advocates would then have to go get real jobs, and since they don't know how to do anything other than tell everyone else how they should live, they'll NEVER get real jobs. They'll just move on to whatever the next Ban target may be....
Smoking is not a good idea, but no one has said burning diesel or petrol is bad for your health - well maybe they have but how many walk or cycle to work. I don't smoke but I worry about 'those in charge' that say stop smoking then maybe we'll operate on you or cure you.
I think it's time we said enough
Will anybody else join me in setting up a fighting fund against those that think that they know better
PS I have a good friend that says ' I'll give up smoking when the US of A give up growing tobacco'
Which State has given up growing tobacco?
"TC advocates would then have to go get real jobs, and since they don't know how to do anything other than tell everyone else how they should live, they'll NEVER get real jobs." -- LightningBoy
Sir, stop abusing Bill Godshall!
.
Just as towns throughout America have progressively restricted and/or banned other leading causes of air, water, ground and noise pollution, tobacco smoke pollution is simply another (and the leading) unnecessary pollutant that faces increasing restrictions.
The result is that the air, water and land is far less polluted now, and will become even less polluted in the future. That's called progress.
In the past, polluters similarly complained against municipal restrictions and bans on the omnipresent sewage (from humans, horses and farm animals), industrial wastes and open fires.
Why should anyone have to continue getting nausia or sickness by having to breathe tobacco smoke pollution near building entrances, at outdoor eateries, on public sidewalks, at bus stops, etc.?
Certainly not because some selfish folks want to continue engaging in the deadliest drug addiction in public areas where it affects and can harm others.
But I think the vast majority of smokers would agree that these reasonable restrictions on smoking at public locations is preferable to tobacco product prohibition, which would make it illegsl to possess or use tobacco products anywhere and everywhere.
Stick a sock in it Godshall. More sickness causing pollution emits from you everytime you open your mouth than you will find in the smokiest of bars any day.
That you continue to deceive yourself day in and day out is a sad state of affairs, but you too will one day wake up and smell the smoke. The lies of you and your fellow cultists will come back to haunt you and the rest of us will be sitting here waiting to laugh at you.
PS I have a good friend that says ' I'll give up smoking when the US of A give up growing tobacco'
Cute. I told a new doctor when I moved here when asked about smoking and quitting that I would quit the day I die and not a moment sooner. She hasn't asked me again....hehehehe
Gabz wrote:
"Stick a sock in it"
Now there's an alternative to cigarettes for smokers who habitually put malodorous things in their mouths.
Why should anyone have to continue getting nausia or sickness by having to breathe tobacco smoke pollution near building entrances, at outdoor eateries, on public sidewalks, at bus stops, etc.?
And why should I have to continue getting nauseous and sick every day while having to wait for my bus just because the majority find their cars more convenient? And YES, I get home every night feeling ill because I've had NO choice but to wait for a bus and my wait is a miniumum of 20 minutes............and sometimes over an hour because the bus I'm there for broke down and the next isn't for an hour (this isn't NYC here).
You at a bus stop can avoid cigarette smoke by changing where you stand. When I get to the bus stop IF someone else is already there, I simply stand several feet back from the bus stop (behind it if you will) in case that person doesn't smoke, so as not to deliberately inflict my smoke on them. However, IF I am the first one there, and I'm smoking, I make sure they notice that before they choose to sit next to me.
This doesn't change the fact that the car exhaust I am FORCED to breathe every single night, that we all are forced to breathe daily actually, leaves me ill when stuck at a bus stop.
Cigarette smoke is really the least of anyone's concern when it comes to poisoning the lungs.
Give up your car yet, by the way?
To Mr Progressive Himself:
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...calls_hims.html
~snip~
So what kind of person has to label himself "Progressive?" Obviously somebody who believes he (or she) understands real progress better than the rest of us. Because if you are a Progressive it implies that everybody else, let's face it, is a Regressive, or maybe just a Stagnant. It's a smirky, self-flattering way of saying you're a lot better than the rest
"The word Progressive first became popular in the late 19th century, but has now been adopted as a popular synonym for "socialism." Americans tend not to like socialism, associating it with the Soviet Union and other bad characters. But "Progressivism" sounds fine. So it is a euphemism for something people fear; a cover-up label."
Those short bits, and the remainder of this article describe you to a
T(C).
.
But I think the vast majority of smokers would agree that these reasonable restrictions on smoking at public locations is preferable to tobacco product prohibition, which would make it illegsl to possess or use tobacco products anywhere and everywhere.
Damn, Bill............what drugs are you on? Can I have some? Reasonable restrictions? Total bans are reasonable restrictions? Totally separate venues would be considered a reasonable restriction, not a total ban.
And you know as well as we do, that the final goal IS prohibition..........go about it any way you want, disguise it any way you want.........the bottom line is that it IS STILL prohibition.
Look up the word.
"When Belmont proposed to ban all smoking outdoors, including at the homes of members of the public – a move which would certainly increase children’s exposure to secondhand smoke (since their parents would be forced to smoke indoors instead of outside) – I was again the only anti to publicly oppose this measure."
Yes, doctor, and the bans on smoking in bars also increased children's exposure to secondhand smoke, as many bar patrons began staying home.
May I suggest that in protecting bartenders from this lethal product you also have to factor in the children? (And in light of what you’ve previously written, I do understand that we’re talking here about acute and not chronic effects.) Nevertheless, when you talk of “a move which would certainly increase children’s exposure to secondhand smoke (since their parents would be forced to smoke indoors ...),” you’re obviously playing into many antis’ long-time wish, an invasion of home turf. So you seem to have helped setting it up. Or don’t you agree?
.
WOW Godshall........I'm impressed you even know the word for what comes out of your mouth, let alone spell it correctly.
Oh well, I'm off to work. I'd invite you to be my guest for a drink, Godshall, but all of my Tuesday night regulars are smokers and I wouldn't want your delicate sensibilities offended.
Bill G; "But I think the vast majority of smokers would agree that these reasonable restrictions on smoking at public locations is preferable to tobacco product prohibition,....."
You've already been banned from the restaurant, so you won't have to worry about it if, and or when this lunacy is ever reversed.
You can simply go somewhere that specifically wants to cater to non-smokers like yourself. OH, WAIT!,..you already had that option and didn't use it. You and your TC COMRADES thought it was a better idea to solicit the government to force business and private property owners to surrender their property rights and cater to your personal preference rather than excercise a little decision making skill of your own.
Sorry, I forgot.
Tell me what's it like to accept no personal responsibility for your own actions regardless of how much damage that may cause?
Is it a feeling of God-like omnipotence, or child-like stupidity?
Either way, you're banned as a potential trouble maker for my legitimate guests that (unlike yourself) actually pick up the check for themselves.
"Stick a sock in it
"Now there's an alternative to cigarettes for smokers who habitually put malodorous things in their mouths." -- Godshall
Not as malodorous as your contributions to this blog, buddy boy.
By the way, I don't see your name on the list of those willing to help pay for Mr Nutall's operation. Is it an oversight, or is it part of your philosophy of 'tough love' towards all smokers?
.
A frequent theme at this blog is that tobacco control supporters often use unethical tactics.
Dr. Siegel, I'd like to know if you would consider it unethical of me to have written the following to the president of Rhodes College last week:
I want to make you aware of the tobacco promotion achievements of international studies assistant professor David Romano, which are curiously absent from his curriculum vitae.
www.geocities.com/corporate_opposition
Among other things, Professor Romano and his corporate-funded group have promoted tobacco among young people on campus while he was a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University. I believe he will follow the same pattern of activities wherever he goes.
Was that wrong of me? I would surely value your opinion, since medical doctors are very moral people who act in the interests of public health.
Incidentally, anyone who wants to show their support for David Romano can write to the president of Rhodes college, William E. Troutt.
trouttw AT rhodes.edu
I'd invite you to be my guest for a drink, Godshall, but all of my Tuesday night regulars are smokers and I wouldn't want your delicate sensibilities offended.
Gabz,
Don't you mean that you don't want to offend your regulars with what comes out of his mouth? hehehehehe
tobaccoscamalysis; "Was that wrong of me?
Is your chosen profession to malign people that you don't like, or don't agree with?
So in this instance you're just doing your job.
You can always feel bad about it when you're finally prosecuted.
A few tears might help, but don't count on it.
Of course, there have been many people throughout history that were condemed anyway after using that particularly feeble excuse to justify their evil before being exposed as the enemy they are.
Hell is probably not really all that hot anyway. I'm sure you'll be fine.
Cathy,
Seems to me that college students are OVER the age of 18, therefore, legally considered adults. AS such they have an inalienable right to make any decision for themselves, AND are allowed to see "adult" advertising/reading material/movies/etc.
You really need to get that butt out of your butt and come down to earth, your nose is bleeding again.
No Cathy, I think it's completely consistent of you to want to purge academia of anyone who supports the freedom of citizens to make independent decisions. Who's next on the hit list?
I think this is great. One more time for the sane people left in the world to roll their eyes, ask what's next? and when will they come for me? Those people would be the nonsmoker who hasn't fallen for this nonsense or been paid to promote it, and are worried about which choice will be taken from them.
Then again, Bill wants to rid the world of all polluants so maybe after smoking, it will be the exhaust from all Prius vehicles. Sorry Bill, you do pollute my air with that disgusting whimpy car. Imagine what that airplane does when it takes off too Bill. Good Lord, you just can't get away from it all, can you? Will your work ever end? And to think, you don't even get paid for any of this either do you?
Scam---(sorry for posting this again).
In case any of the regulars missed this first time I posted it. This person takes Ms Bell's website apart.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...nt_Encroachment
.
This site is quite left leaning and THEY get what old sugar butt is up to!!!
Doctor---"Ironically, I think that it severely weakens our case for workplace smoking bans. For when the opponents get up and suggest that this is just the first step to eventual elimination of smoking everywhere, we can no longer rise and say that they are exaggerating and misreading our true intent"
Weakens our case, we can no longe rise, they are misreading our true ....
Forgive me if I'm dense, but wasn't the doctor just wishing that he would be considered separetly from these people?
Please correct me if I misread.
Thanks
Forgive me if I'm dense, but wasn't the doctor just wishing that he would be considered separetly from these people?
Please correct me if I misread.
Nope, you didn't misread anything Sunz, he did in fact post that he didn't wish to be considered one of them.
That'll be easier for me when he stops using typical TC speak and misusing words that he knows the general public will take as defined in the dictionary, rather than reading his mind to know he ONLY means increased risk.
Cathy Bell - Was that wrong of me? I would surely value your opinion, since medical doctors are very moral people who act in the interests of public health.
Incidentally, anyone who wants to show their support for David Romano can write to the president of Rhodes college, William E. Troutt.
trouttw AT rhodes.edu
tobaccoscamalysis
......
Yes, "Medical Doctors" are supposed to be very "moral." However, Cathy Bell, your definition of "public health" is extremely immoral and unethical and eventually leads to slavery. NAZI Germany's doctors and Stalin's Russian doctors were supposed to be moral, also. Public Health was a big concern for Hitler, and Mental Health for Stalin.
Where do you fit in, Cathy Bell? You still refuse to answer the many questions I have repeatedly posed to you. Why is that? Would it reveal your true goal?
Bill;
""Stick a sock in it"
Now there's an alternative to cigarettes for smokers who habitually put malodorous things in their mouths."
Whats worse than finding a maggot in your chewing tobacco?
Half a maggot.
Back to you Billy.
Certainly not because some selfish folks want to continue engaging in the deadliest drug addiction
Bill, that's a simple question on statistics. Once smoking is completely eliminated, chewing tobacco will be next on the list of deadly drug addictions.
But I think the vast majority of smokers would agree that these reasonable restrictions on smoking at public locations is preferable to tobacco product prohibition
1. we wouldn't agree the restrictions are REASONABLE. Sneaky, sneaky. You do try to slip those in!
2. for preferable to, please substitute "less heinous than," as you use the same reasoning when explaining how--dear me--there just aren't enough no smoking signs in the world.
3. Just curious, to level the playing field--would you be willing to put a sock in your mouth for 1 hour instead of putting up with a smoky room for 1 hour?
...30 minutes? 20? ...1 minute? Etc.
We can bargain on the stinkiness of it if you like.
Cathy asked whether I view it as ethical or not for her to write the president of Rhodes College to warn against the hiring of Professor Romano because while at McGill, he promoted tobacco to young people on campus.
That depends on whether Dr. Romano did or did not promote tobacco to young people at McGill.
If he didn't, then this is clearly an unethical smear campaign.
So what is your evidence that he did?
I read your whole website, and I don't see anything related to Dr, Romano's promotion of tobacco among young people on campus.
"Incidentally, anyone who wants to show their support for David Romano can write to the president of Rhodes college"
Anyone who wants to help Cathy, can ask her drug dealer, to refuse her service.
This paper shows that casinos thru ventilation and filtration can now make their indoor air cleaner than the air outdoors. Tests done at the Bellagio Casino found that RSP concentrations ranged between 12 to 58 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m3). Less than half of this RSP was found to be ETS-related. This puts the Belagio Casino air well within the ETS-related RSP range the 1986 World Health Organization guidelines said would be of "limited or no concern".
http://www.americangaming.org/as...APER_7-7-
06.pdf
An oldie but goodie. From Docs days with underfuhrer Glantz. Doc, sounds like that marathon has been a long hall both in time and space. LB and Sam M will like this read.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...v26/
ai_13242552
This from back in the day BT would at least want to debate the science.
Don't you mean that you don't want to offend your regulars with what comes out of his mouth? hehehehehe
Lynda F | 09.18.07 - 4:34 pm | #
That too, Lynda!!!!!
Because of something someone said, I happened to mention that comment of mine. Everyone thought it washilarious, and then one guy got real serious. He's not one of my Tuesday regulars, but he is a regular and a NON smoker. His attitude is that we need these antis to be invited to places that cater to everyone to show them how out of touch with reality they actually are.
Doc, seeing that you evaluated others research for resturaunt workers. Could the TC group now go after you for plagerism? I am sure you must have tenure at Boston U but maybe they will use the same formula that worked to get rid of you the same way those folks in Colorado got rid of Churchill. After all look what they tried to do to Enstrom.
This comment, coming out of an anti-smoker cultist of the likes of Cathy Bell has me laughing so hard that I'm practically crying:
Though I never expected this to sit well with CAGE, free speech isn't just for those who are able to access the mainstream media. Or at least it shouldn't be.
The anit-smoker cartel cultists (like Cathy Bell) have all the access tot he main stream media they wish and the rest of us have been shut out of it BY THEM.
One of these days, Bell, your words and the rest of those of your cult, WILL come back to haunt you.
All hail public health our saviors.
Premature mortality is entirely preventable we need to live as long as possible because its so good to be alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9...h?
v=98HS2XPkc2k
It's for the children after all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G...5R_YKQi_N4&
NR=1
Um, Doc: how can you claim surprise/ alarm/ disdain of increasing outdoor bans when you yourself have defended such 100% bans on restaurant patios and even whole ballparks?
And can you not see that by advocating these, and postulating "serious" health effects, yet, from a temporary, passing whiff in a ballpark that you aid and abet the very zealots whose actions you pretend to deplore? And scrub a little harder at the public brain?
Your argument that innocents "can't get away" from a smoking section in either falls apart on its face. And your contention of harm falls apart with your acknowledgment (belated, but welcome) of dose/ response.
As for your regretful and ambivalent (still) departure from AT, aside from the old "I'll believe it when I see it," it's hard to feel too much pity for your plight, at least while you're still ambivalent and regretful. Sort of like feeling sorry for a guy who's thinking about maybe quitting the Gestapo.
And while all of us appreciate your stumbling efforts to reach for the light-- I'm sincere about that-- the only thing to do about your links to the Party is renounce it and them and in untempered terms. As someone suggested, it's also past time to re-evaluate your--and their-- "science." If you collaborated with them in being fooled to the obvious extent that you were about their methods and agendas, you'd also have to open your mind to the possibility that your "science" was merely faith, your faith merely credulity, and part of a great groupy-soupy kind of think.
Re-appraise your own work with a skeptic's (which is to say, scientist's) eye; reappraise the work of your cohorts (Glantz, Repace, Wells) and the work of your opponents whose numbers are legion, and then tell us-- and yourself-- where you really are.
As for "progessives" they live with the illusion that "progress" is defined as "whatever comes later," instead of whatever's better or truer or more humane. Hitler came after Weimar. And then, on another tack, Castro came after Batista, and Lenin came after the Tzars.
Progress or just chronology ?
:
Item in Tuesday's New York Times has it that nearly half of the smokers interviewed in New York City said they had bought illegal cigarettes within the year, since, at $4 a pack (all untaxed), they're as much as $3.50 cheaper than those sold legally.
Moreover, since many are knockoffs of popular American brands smuggled into the United States (they even counterfeit the tax stamps!), there are health concerns: "Contraband cigarettes have been shown in studies to contain higher levels of toxic metals, like lead, than legitimate brands do." Since it's logical to assume that those buying bootlegged fags are largely poorer citizens, isn't that just a wonderful consequence of tax greed and social engineering?
Aside from the health concerns (which should surely exercise the interest of Dr. Siegel), there's the question of how all of this might enter into the smoking statistics, if the statistics are based largely on legitimate sales. I don't know; maybe someone has some idea; but when you have a figure like 'nearly half' of smokers at some time buying illegal cigarettes you have to wonder.
Just another predictable 'unintended consequence' of sky-high prices and onerous taxes.
.
“Just as towns throughout America have progressively restricted and/or banned other leading causes of air, water, ground and noise pollution, tobacco smoke pollution is simply another (and the leading) unnecessary pollutant that faces increasing restrictions.”
So… smoke-free agenda driven advocates have been given express authority to determine what is “necessary”. The most counter productive group on the planet will make this determination.
“The result is that the air, water and land is far less polluted now, and will become even less polluted in the future. That's called progress.”
Progress is meet with the expectation that others will not have to ever face the horrific backwards ideals of AT.
“In the past, polluters similarly complained against municipal restrictions and bans on the omnipresent sewage (from humans, horses and farm animals), industrial wastes and open fires.”
In the past many people were working their butts off and did not recognize the damaging and destructive measures that a small group of small minded individuals we’re mounting against the freedoms and liberties we all love. Those days are over as more and more people are beginning to take notice.
“Why should anyone have to continue getting nausia or sickness by having to breathe tobacco smoke pollution near building entrances, at outdoor eateries, on public sidewalks, at bus stops, etc.?”
Nearly every person on the plant may walk through a thick cloud of smoke to enter a building or pass by on a sidewalk and not suffer nausea or sickness as a result. Same goes for outdoor eateries. There is no outdoor mortality or sickness rate that can be reviewed with any seriousness regarding outdoor eateries, passing through building entrances or sidewalks, bus stops etc.. were smoking is taking place.
“Certainly not because some selfish folks want to continue engaging in the deadliest drug addiction in public areas where it affects and can harm others.”
Agenda standard language with no regards to truth. Mush from the unaccountable. No names, no places, no date of occurrence= no harm. Get your strict proof helmet on Bill.
“But I think the vast majority of smokers would agree that these reasonable restrictions on smoking at public locations is preferable to tobacco product prohibition, which would make it illegsl to possess or use tobacco products anywhere and everywhere.”
Normally when smoke free advocates think. Society in part then gets: family crushing taxes on the poor and middle class, business closing regulations, less freedom, less liberty, less jobs, expensive or no health or life insurance, legislators acting on false misrepresentations, forced to breath polluted outdoor air when high tech indoor ventilation/filtration is available, the list goes on….. So please Bill don’t imagine what others might agree to… enough damage has been done by the thoughtlessness of people who have convince themselves they can do no wrong and then refuse to except responsibility when things do go horribly wrong.
Aren't Dr. Siegel's 220 dead bartenders a lot like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? Government experts have assured a trusting American public that both exist and in both cases hurtful wars have been unleashed due to the testimony of experts. Isn't it time for the American public to wake up and stop trusting our experts.
Question for Bill Godshall:
The smell of coffee makes me nauseous, principally because I can't stand the stuff. At what level of control would I be entitled to expect working to your standards?
Forcing all coffee drinkers to practice their vile ("you drink that? Bleugh!") habit away from me and anyone else who might not like coffee?
Banning the consumption of coffee on flights under 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hours?
Endless screaming messages pointing out the at-least 14 carcinogens that are in it (coincidentally, half of them are also found in cigarette smoke, in far lower amounts)?
Possibly graphic health warnings for people to collect and trade? Withdrawing medical treatment for coffee drinkers?
Or just simply declaring a pogrom on Starbucks and all they stand for?
Rufus,
Be careful, these guys aren't done.
Remember in the early 90's we spoke of fast food and other things being next. Well we weren't surprised. You 've got to remember this is how these people make a living. They don't have real jobs, they seed fear and then feed off it. They have to have a cause, if not real then fabricated.
"Among other things, Professor Romano and his corporate-funded group have promoted tobacco among young people on campus while he was a post-doctoral fellow at McGill University. I believe he will follow the same pattern of activities wherever he goes."
Did this statement come from 1930's Germany? McCarthyist???
I went to the geocities site to see for myself. Well what I saw was a front for the anti-movement. It appears to come straight from the Anti-Manifesto.
In any case I see no evidence that he accepted money from BT and promoted underage smoking. This man should have the right (as you should) articulate a point of view without ad-homonym attacks.
Ms.Bell, someday you and other like you who plant seeds of fear in the public will be exposed. Enjoy it while you can.
Shrinking cigarette taxes burn hole in budget
By Victoria Wallack
State House News Service
(partial quote)
"If the federal government raises its taxes on a pack to fund expanded health care for children, Maine will lose even more sales. The state is projecting that raising the federal tax from 39 cents to $1 will cost Maine about $5.5 million.
Health-care advocates say they would like to tax smoking out of existence, but that also would leave a $160 million hole in the budget – the amount currently budgeted for one year’s worth of cigarette taxes."
http://www.keepmecurrent.com/Gov...m?
storyID=43101
What comes of the flood of propaganda in the media is the belief the entire med community are a one trick pony with little capacity to deal with more than one situation at a time.
Treating addictions as a disease and workplace respiration in the hands of a health department which has no capacity to monitor or regulate are confirmation of a poor management structure and cult like followings replacing the systems which used to offer protections and confidence.
Recently it was discovered thousands of children were playing with lead laden toys, not by the regulators but by the distributors. This demonstrates a lack of focus and derailed systems which need to be reviewed, putting priorities and responsibilities back in the hands of proper methods and appropriation, by putting the now popular theology approach aside.
nemo31,- " An oldie but goodie. From Docs days with underfuhrer Glantz. Doc, sounds like that marathon has been a long hall both in time and space. LB and Sam M will like this read.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...v26/ ai_13242552"
I didn't own the restaurant back in '92, but after reading this, I'm even more pissed now because the good Doctor has in no small way contributed to the loss of my rights as a private property owner today.
So you've given up your career, is that right Doc?
Excuse me while I shed a tear,.....
Walt said it perfectly in a previous post; "As for your regretful and ambivalent (still) departure from AT, aside from the old "I'll believe it when I see it," it's hard to feel too much pity for your plight, at least while you're still ambivalent and regretful. Sort of like feeling sorry for a guy who's thinking about maybe quitting the Gestapo."
Your consistent claims of not realizing the "true agenda" during your tenure as one of the TC stormtroopers rings hollow.... at best.
I noticed your 1st post over at FORCES today, ....I'm sure you'll understand my skepticism of your motive, but to your credit, and unlike the rest of the TC Gestapo, you are at least willing to engage in conversation (not necessarily debate), but even that is tempered by your years of building layer upon layer of misinformation that has brought us to where we are today.
To quote Walt yet again; "Re-appraise your own work with a skeptic's (which is to say, scientist's) eye; reappraise the work of your cohorts (Glantz, Repace, Wells) and the work of your opponents whose numbers are legion, and then tell us-- and yourself-- where you really are."
Otherwise you're just looking at being discredited by your "peers", and treated with skepticism (as noted above) by those you now claim to want to help, and prevent from being victimized by your former masters.
Michael;
If you contend TC had no pre-designed intent to create a back door prohibition, perhaps you would like to explain why it was a necessary part of the campaign to redefine the term "Public Places" If this was a worker safety issue alone why would that move be necessary when workplace safety standards were already in place?
The redefinition was necessary to take the property rights away from the owners of that property. To promote bans under the fear [also invented] of casual exposures. Not long term but casual exposures, directing the actions of patrons to fear each other irregardless of the owners wishes or scientific credibility.
Smoking sections initially existed only to consider the wishes of people who did not like the smell of smoke. Fear was not a predominant motivator at that time.
Lowering "Casual exposures" in a linear perspective, would not improve health effect or decrease, to even a minor degree, [Demonstrated in your own 4040 statements] the level of diseases or mortality associated with the so called smoking related diseases.
Moderation would be the message which would have found beneficial effect, "no safe level" opens us up to a whole new set of hazardous effects.
It doesn't take a lot of education or intelligence to understand that; if there was a genuine will to improve the lot of others more predominant than the will to improve the lot of the self important stakeholders.
That link to the '92 study is interesting. It shows the doctor speaking publicly about his study. But critics of that study charge that it had not been peer reviewed. Is that true, doctor? If so, why were you speaking to the press about it? Was that "science by press release"?
If you were speaking prior to peer-review, I guess you might defend that by arguing that you were still "brainwashed" at the time. But let's get this out in the open: When did you stop being brainwashed? When was the exact moment?
Seeing that you undertook so many misguided efforts when you were so afflicted, does it makes sense for people to consider any work you did prior to that time as tainted? Or do you contend that you managed to do perfectly sound science despite being out of your mind with TC propoganda? If you could pull that off, why, then, were you so powerless to control other aspects of your professional actions?
Have you undergone a systematic review of all of your previous work to purge it of the brainwash goo? or do you simply accept all your studies as unassailabe in terms of bias?
GDF
Interesting "If the federal government raises its taxes on a pack to fund expanded health care for children, Maine will lose even more sales. The state is projecting that raising the federal tax from 39 cents to $1 will cost Maine about $5.5 million."
Didn't Mr Godshall argue with me that this would not be the case?
Mr Godshall will you be letting Main budget setters know that this will not happen?
west
----
West;
Bill will likely send them a pleasant note, informing them these projections were likely sponsored by stooges of big tobacco.
Then he will call for the firing of the obviously insensitive number crunchers who obviously don't know Jack.
The note will likely accompany a box of free samples, and a discount coupon for a new personal spittoon.
In 2003, shortly after we moved to Virginia, Delaware doubled its cigarette tax to $5 a carton and we began seeing an increased number of cars with Delaware tags in the cigarette outlet parking lots near the Md/VA line.........which is only an hour drive from the MD/DE line.
That same summer there was also a tremendous increase of tourists who used to vacation at DE beaches driving just a bit further south the MD and VA because that was the first summer of DEs smoker ban.
In 2004, VA raised its cigarette tax to $3 a carton and some of the DE traffic for cig purchases slowed down. I've been wondering why the DE traffic once again increased this past summer, and is still up, until I discovered that DE once again doubled it's cig tax in July and it is now $10 per carton.
When the tax goes up, revenue to state coffers also does, but sales decline which hurts local businesses. This phenomena is perfectly explemplified by a small state such as Delaware. There is no where in Delaware from where it takes more than an hour to get to a different state.
Doctor,
(And Lightningboy),
Here is Reason magazine giving Stanton Glantz a much deserved stomping with regard to the impact smoking bans have on bars and restaurants.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/
122581.html
And doctor, a while back you seemed pretty clearly in favor of people sticking to their areas of expertise. Bartenders, you said, had no business assessing the dangers of SHS. Even for themselves.
Well... in your mind, does Stanton Glantz have any business talking about the bar business? Or is an inability to grasp professional nuances a one-way street that always favors smoking bans?
That is, does Glantz have any business at all commenting on business issues? If so, doesn't it seem likely that a bartender could understand what an RR means?
Thank you Sam, excellent article.
Aside from the demonstrated obvious lack of understanding by Glantz, he speaks in generic terms of what is supposed to be, what might happen, and what he thinks should happen as a result. All without actually speaking with anyone directly involved in the long term, daily operations of such businesses. A study based soley on Sale Price of the business as an indicator that bans are good for the bottom line? Puhleeeeze.
You suppose (cough) Dr. Glantz (cough) has a Real Estate license too?
He and his COMRADES refuse to grasp the notion that a patron has the right to decide whether or not they enter, remain, or leave an establishment if they don't like the environment.
Further, the author is right.
It's MY business to do with as I please. If a "Smoking Permitted" policy is bad for business, that's my decision to make, and Glantz and his COMRADES are STILL under no obligation to enter the business.
If I want to run the place into the ground, that's my exclusive right as owner to do so.
Level Playing Field?,..Puhleeeze. There is No Such Thing in a Free Market Economy. ESPECIALLY, and specifically in the restaurant business. If I offer a product that you don't, can't or won't, TUFF! Good for me, Bad for you, I win, you suffer. That's business!
Non-smokers that feel that strongly about it can drive right on by to the McDonalds down the road. I swear, I'll get over it.
I and my smoking patrons don't want, don't need, and never asked for anyones help in resolving the non-existent danger of ETS within my business.
If it were really as ultra dangerous as these clowns say it is, I would be out of business already as all my smoking customers AND THEIR NON-SMOKING FRIENDS THAT THEY BRING WITH THEM would be deceased by now.
It couldn't be any easier to understand.
IF YOU DON'T SMOKE, DON'T LIKE SMOKE, DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND IT FOR WHaTEVER REASON YOU CHOOSE, .....DON'T COME IN.
SIMPLE.
This will all be moot however if Shrillary is elected President and I am forced to provide healthcare on top of prohibiting smoking. It will kill the business.
I'm curious Doctor, if My property rights (which you and TC have stolen from me) were restored; Would the words "SMOKING PERMITTED INSIDE" in 2ft tall flashing neon letters on the front of the building be sufficient warning to the "public" that if they were to enter the premises, they would likely be exposed to the aledged dangers of ETS within?
Of course this is based on the premiss that militant non-smokers can actually read. -OR-
Would I have to spell it out in the language of "Anti-speak" using circles and arrows, and graphs and charts and glossy photographs, and cite the CDC, ACS, ASH, ALA, AHA all at least 3 times each, and end with a statemnet from yourself exalting the virtues of how only a Doctor could possibly understand, and therefore no one outside the medical profession could ever really, fully understand or appreciate the aledged risks? -OR-
Is sufficient warning something in between?
If it is, what would that be?
Thanks soooooooo much for your help.
I believe government officials have to strike a balance between the competing goods of personal freedom, property rights and public health. St. Louis, one the big cities that so far has not considered it necessary for the sake of public health to impose any ban on public smoking, was notoriously strict in restricting personal freedoms and property rights when the 1918 flu epidemic hit. Many lives were saved compared to Philadelphia which imposed fewer restrictions on businesses and public gatherings. St. Louis officials were right to act in 1918 and are right to refrain now. It's funny that back in 1918, even St. Louis left the bars alone.
http://www.associatedcontent.com...ead.html?
page=4
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday...5C?
OpenDocument
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...ticle667068.ece
http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/
Star...kloffReport.pdf
Bill H. -- The current anti movement (anti-smoking, anti-food freedom, etc..) is not and never has been about public health.
GDF, in St. Louis the smoking ban councilman tried to pigeonhole his opposition as libertarians. Smoking ban opponents who really aren't true libertarians play into his dismissal when they speak as if property rights are absolute. We should admit right up front that if the Spanish flu comes back, officials can close every place down including churches till the danger passes. But ETS isn't the 1918 flu.
As usual, Cathy seems to have disappeared after throwing out her accusation that Professor Romano promoted tobacco to young people at McGill without backing it up.
Quite right Bill. Property rights are not absolute. Clearly, in the simplest form, I can't actually kill someone on my property. But as I've stated before, in a free country, when faced with an issue, government strives for the least restrictive solution, rather than the most restrictive. But my point was that (I believe) restrictions *supposedly* about ETS were never about public health anyway.
Witness Oakland's new prohibition os smoking on golf courses.
Bill and GDF,
Seems the argument gets expressed in these extreme terms all the time. People who want bans say that anyone opposed would do away with any and all workplace safety regulations
People opposed to bans charge that a ban on smoking in airplanes will lead to a ban on smoking in bars and, eventually, a ban on all sorts of stuff like fatty foods.
It just so happens that one of these groups was correct. Much to the doctor's increasing horror.
But he's not quite horrified enough yet. I guess it will take someone banning something he enjoys. Or destroying his business.
Remember, doctor: People who own corner bars don't have tenure. When they say their career is destroyed, they mean destroyed. Skid row. No shoes. Hungry kids.
I wonder how many people will commit suicide or drink themselves to death due to ban loss?
“I wonder how many people will commit suicide or drink themselves to death due to ban loss?”…… Bill H.
Even I could guess that one: exactly 220 per state, I think. (I hope none)
Is there anyone assigned to the job of keeping an eye on such things? Its almost like a free for all; no accountability.
And as LB suggests, an owner could even choose to make less of a profit in exchange for something else that he personally values more. (That's the kick in being the owner.) So perhaps he could earn more from serving lunches as well as dinners, but it's time vs money and he values his afternoons He also might enjoy the brilliant company of his smokers and the atmosphere they create, let alone his own freedom to smoke in his own bar. ( Even economics isn't only about money.) None of which is to say that I agree with Glantz's blather about bans as a real boon. I once posted numbers from a Washington Post article that puts the baby to bed.
Mayor ("Mike") Bloomberg of New York City is also apparently an expert on bars as he revealed to the city council when he first pushed his ban. I looked up his quote in a magazine article I'd written at the time (2003) so here it is in context:
"This is not a government of Mike, by Mike and for Mike," said a furious Jim McBratney, representing the Staten Island Bar and Restaurant Association at the roisterous public hearing where he characterized the move as "a Prohibitionist attack." Another enraged barkeep said the mayor might undoubtedly be a brilliant businessman but he didn't know diddly about the business of running bars, a point the mayor was quick to prove.
"Why, if I owned a bar, I would love this legislation," said the mayor into the mike. Why? "I'd be making money based on how many drinks are consumed, and if people are not smoking they'll be drinking a lot more."
Welcome to New York City, where the mayor can drive you to drink.
His line, btw, got a standing Bronx cheer from the bartenders present.
:
"But my point was that (I believe) restrictions *supposedly* about ETS were never about public health anyway.
"Witness Oakland's new prohibition of smoking on golf courses." -- GDF
Yes, and Dr. Siegel's desire to prohibit smoking on patios but allow it in stadia SO LONG AS NO STRAY WHIFF OF SMOKE WAFTS OVER INTO THE NON-SMOKING SECTIONS.
Here's what he wrote at the time the question of smoking on patios came up:
"Michelle asked 'If smoking on a public sidewalk is a non-significant health risk - then why do you consider banning smoking on an outdoor patio reasonable?'
"A very good and fair question.
"The reason is that people sit and work in outdoor patios of restaurants or bars for prolonged periods of time. But on a sidewalk, any nonsmoker can simply move away and avoid substantial exposure to the smoke." -- 03-15-07.
First, the "A very good and fair question." Let's hope Dr. Siegel has, since he wrote that in March, learned to shuck off the patronizing manner, and address us as though we were grownups and not a classroom of green kids. If we can get him to do that much we'll at least have accomplished something.
Next, about those people who 'sit' in the outdoor patios of restaurants for "prolonged periods of time." He's here VERY CLEARLY talking about PATRONS who CHOOSE FREELY to expose themselves to secondhand smoke. People should note this, since he'd be damn hard-pressed to justify a ban on those grounds for the reasons that 1. it’s just plain silly, 2. it’s interference without an adequate reason in the free choices of ordinary citizens, and 3. it’s at variance with his determining argument (or so he’s said) that the issue is about the hazard of years-long exposure to substantial amounts of secondhand smoke to BARTENDERS, WAITERS AND WAITRESSES.
What’s left, then, are the “substantial exposure to the smoke” (in an outdoor setting no less!), and those who “work” in the outdoor patios of restaurants. Check back, and you’ll see what crap this was shown to be by the posters. ‘Substantial exposure’ to smoke for the wait staff? In the open air? When most of the time they’re inside and only for a few minutes out of an hour taking orders from the customers?
I’m sure that after 6 months we’d all like to know if he still stands by this obvious foolishness. Is it too much to ask, then, that, at least in this case, your reply was not thought out, doctor? Could you give us at least that? Or are you going to continue hunkering down in that cozy hole you’ve dug for yourself?
.
"And as LB suggests, an owner could even choose to make less of a profit in exchange for something else that he personally values more. (That's the kick in being the owner.)"
My uncle opened this place as his flagship restaurant in honor of his father and my grandfather. I think my family sunk more into Hannegan's than the bottom line could ever justify. It was really about family pride rather than money. In the same way, a bar owner could want to allow smoking just because a real bar has smoke in the air and all his pals smoke. Profitability could be really secondary.
http://www.hannegans.admitonevip...ip.com/
home.php
The second sentence from the Hannegan's website seems especially appropriate for this blog:
"Hannegan's is named for one of Missouri's leading New Deal politicians, St. Louis' "big boss" Robert E. Hannegan. Each table or booth displays a plaque inscribed with the name of a senator who voted to repeal Prohibition."
http://www.hannegans.admitonevip...ip.com/
home.php
GDF: Quite right Bill. Property rights are not absolute. Clearly, in the simplest form, I can't actually kill someone on my property.
Not quite right, simply because killing somebody has nothing to do with property nor with business in general. Not even serving contaminated food is related to the property itself. We are not allowed to harm to other persons and to infringe on THEIR rights.
Patrons have the right not to patronize, but they have no right to impose their desire on what the venue should look like, what it has to serve and who it wants to accept.
To demonstrate how twisted this "property" law is: If you smoke in a public bus or a plane, who is going to be fined? The city or company owning the bus, the airline company?
The law in fact should say: "YOU are not allowed to smoke in publicly accessible premises. And not: you are not allowed to allow smoking in your bar. The responsibility should be with the patron, not the owner. The owner has no executive power his/her patrons, the power monopoly is with the government.
Bill H. says: ""Hannegan's is named for one of Missouri's leading New Deal politicians, St. Louis' "big boss" Robert E. Hannegan. Each table or booth displays a plaque inscribed with the name of a senator who voted to repeal Prohibition.""
What you do not say is whether smoking is permitted, I do not know Missouri's laws with regard to smoking. If not, I would never go there. Here in Maryland our smoking ban goes in effect next year. I plan to make it clear to owners that I will no longer be a customer when smoking is not allowed. I should say that there is a hardship waver, but currently it is not clean how that applies.
"GDF: Quite right Bill. Property rights are not absolute. Clearly, in the simplest form, I can't actually kill someone on my property."
I'll say it again: What the question comes down to is whether or not it should be illegal for patrons to pay for an activity or environment that endangers workers.
If not, fine. But consistency would then demand that we ban window-washers from working for restaurants housed in skyscrapers. Because washing windows on a skyscraper is clearly a dangerous profession. People will die. And since there are so many restaurants on the ground level, we can PROVE that nice, clear views are not inherent in the restaurant business.
Consistency would also demand that we ban side-by-side racing at 200 mph. That is clearly a danger. People die. Proportionally far, far more than the percentage of bartenders who die. (And remember, what the doctor is really interested in is lifetime career risk as expressed in terms of 40/40.) Moreover, the risks associated with oval-racing and high speeds have been addressed by other acing circuits, so ovals and 200 mph are clearly not inherent to racing.
So you ban supporters either have to embrace the fact that they are not being consistent, and that they are treating the dangers of SHS as a special case. Or they have to begin advocating for a ban on activities such as window-washing and racing.
And blitzing in the NFL. And circuses that feature trapese artists. And acrobatic skydiving. And movies that require death-defying stunts.
I mean, come on. The stunts are known as "death-defying."
You can't have it both ways, doctor.
benpal, -"Patrons have the right not to patronize, but they have no right to impose their desire on what the venue should look like, what it has to serve and who it wants to accept."
Absolutely correct.
A patron is a guest of the property owner and nothing more.
They are free to decline the open invitation to be a guest and are under no obligation whatsoever to EVER be a guest at all.
If the environment, including service, food, and general ambience is not to their approval, then they are free to frequent any business that meets their personal preference for such things.
Employees, and potential employees are also under no obligation to continue to work in, nor ever accept an offer of employment in a job that they believe will put them at risk.
Since smoke friendly establishments are in the minority, there is no reason such an employee or potential employee couldn't find suitable employment in a non-smoking establishment that would require the very same skill set they would be using in a Smoke friendly environment.
A Waitress is a Waitress, and a Bartender is a Bartender regardless of whether smoking is permitted or not.
Establishing the type of environment within the business that you wish to make available as enticement for potential patrons to enter is a RIGHT of the business/property owner.
In Ohio, that right has been stripped away by an extremely well funded, and extremely vocal minority based on fraud, deception, deflection, and omission of information that clearly demonstrates the "conclusive studies have shown" BS is exactly that, ..BS!
Is this the BMJ's endorsement of that mysterious 20% drop in Scottish AMI's?
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2007/09...h-trish-groves/
Perhaps some you wiser folks would care to pop in a comment or two?
I agree with everyone (thank you for clarifying, benpal). Anon - I agree but I would add an "even IF you believe that the so-called ETS consensus is valid...". (but then, I must be uninformed).
When the Kansas City council was considering a smoking ban last year and held a public hearing, I took my 3 minutes at the microphone to present the Enstrom/Kabat UCLA study as one reason for the council to forbear on a smoking ban. I called the E/K study the "longest-running, highest-quality secondhand smoke study ever done."
An official from the Department of Health and Human Services also spoke and gave every one in the room a copy of the Surgeon General's Executive Summary. In her talk, she threatened to pull all DHHS business away from KC if the councilmen did not pass a ban.
After the meeting, this official asked to see the E/K study and she read it while we stood there. She said the research looked properly done. She then said that too much had been made of ETS life risk as a justification for smoking bans and that the true and sufficient justification was the protection of respiratory health. A further purpose, she said, was the elimination of active smoking. So apparently the 220 dead bartenders don't have to have died in order that bans be justified. But I doubt that most Midwestern city councils would impose bans if ETS were just an irritant and did not have a death toll.
Still more science through Press release.
According to the article: 'Michael Siler, a spokesman for the American Cancer Society in Utah and chairman of the Utah Cancer Action Network, said the U.S. Surgeon General has "really left no question that secondhand smoke is a dangerous poison."
Oh really?,...no question?
Sorry, I forgot, "The Debate is over."
(at least among the prohibitionist)
" Children who inhale it are at increased risk for complications ranging from sudden infant death syndrome to respiratory infections, severe asthma and delayed lung development, he said."
Will the BS ever stop!
BUT,...maybe there's hope;
"What a slippery slope we are starting down when we start mandating behavior in private places," said Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem. Rather than the state regulating smoking in cars, "we need to get back to personal responsibility."
There's that phrase again; "Personal Responsibility" Isn't that something that used to be relatively prevalant in America?,...you know,...before Tobacco Control became an incredibly lucrative industry unto itself?
Doc said; "If we're really talking about parents exposing their kids to a poisonous and deadly gas, then does it really matter what the perpetrator's intentions are? How does the fact that the person wants to quit smoking affect whether or not they committed an offense which warrants punishment?"
Here's a better question Doc;
How does the fact that the person DOES NOT WANT, AND HAS NO INTENTION OF EVER quitting smoking affect whether or not they committed an offense which warrants punishment?"
Is the fact they they are thumbing their nose at TC warrant the extraction of the children from the home simply because they don't buy into the TC propaganda?
Simply because they believe they have the right to smoke in THEIR car with THEIR children present?
(1) exposing a child to tobacco smoke is essentially holding them captive and forcing them to inhale a deadly gas;
(2) holding a child captive and forcing them to inhale a deadly gas is unacceptable and must be outlawed by the government; AND
(3) we must allow parents to continue to hold their children captive and force them to be exposed to the same deadly gas, only for far greater lengths of time, in the home.
#1, - BS!, open any window 1 inch.
#2, - BS!, back off and raise your own kids to be weak and feeble Anti-freedom jerks in your own image.
At least my kids would know the difference between minding your own business and forcing your point of view (no matter how warped or correct it may be) on other people.
#3, - ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, only the reality is that this is not the impenatrable cloud of smoke in the home that it is routinely portrayed to be. You know it, and so does everyone here.
Until you step up to the plate Doc, and explain in excruciating detail to anyone that might still listen to you, that this is not the gas chamber on some death row prison block this Anti-American, treacherous lunacy will only continue to escalate.
"I read your whole website, and I don't see anything related to Dr, Romano's promotion of tobacco among young people on campus."
First off you have to understand that CAGE is all about defending/promoting tobacco, despite their cynical attempt to dress it up as opposition to government encroachment in general.
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=5&cnt=1&
t=a
David Romano did many things to promote tobacco on the campus of McGill University while he was employed there as a post-doctoral fellow (researcher). First he formed a university club called CAGE McGill using the student status of his wife Lucy Brown, who was at that time his research assistant. CAGE then used that university club to hold debates on campus, one of which consisted of David and Daniel Romano "debating" each other for anyone who cared to listen. All this was in opposition to proposed tobacco laws which, among other things, banned smoking in public places and prohibited tobacco sales on campus -- a practice which allowed campus stores to receive lucrative display fees from tobacco companies such as Benson&Hedges and Imperial.
And in the midst of all this, CAGE was organizing "monthly parties are aimed at the university aged crowd...alternating venues among the various nightclubs that have agreed to support CAGE’s efforts" in order to "popularize the name and mission of CAGE...and to remind every one of how much fun it is to simply, 'have fun'."
The only thing missing was Joe Camel saying, "Hey kids, smoking is fun!"
To put all this in its proper context, future tobacco sales (the number one cause of preventable deaths) depend on enticing teens and young adults to start smoking, since older adults rarely take up the habit having developed the common sense not to. So to have a professor or researcher at the university and his brother (who apparently also works there) organizing parties "aimed at the university aged crowd" to promote CAGE's mission is, in my view, cause for concern.
Add to all this the fact that David Romano has in letters to the editor opposed government initiatives to curb teen smoking, opposed the elimination of cigarette vending machines (which can be misused by minors to obtain cigarettes), minimized the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke, extolled the virtues of a "fun"-loving lifestyle at the expense of a shorter lifespan, and argued against "sin taxes" (which are known to reduce smoking rates among young people who have a harder time affording cigarettes), and I submit that a distinct pattern emerges.
I say these things add up to promoting tobacco. Of course we're free to disagree, I'm just making people aware of the situation.
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=8&cnt=1&
t=a
Hey kids, smoking is fun!
Cathy,
I examined that web page and all of the links, but I still don't see any evidence that Professor Romano was promoting tobacco use. He appears to have been vigorously defending the right to smoke and to purchase tobacco and fighting against any government intrusion into tobacco use. But that doesn't equate to promoting tobacco.
A person can be against the regulation of tobacco but not be promoting tobacco use.
For example, I have many friends who are against the ban on marijuana use. However, I wouldn't consider them to be drug promoters.
A number of my closest friends are opposed to workplace smoking bans. They are certainly not promoting tobacco use.
I apologize, but I just don't follow your reasoning here.
Sure, he's not encouraging students to smoke, he just wants to make it easy for them to buy cigarettes and for tobacco companies to display their logos at campus stores. A real free marketeer. Of course, this goes to the heart of how tobacco is being defended today: it's not about smoking, it's about freedom and choice.
I'd say you're being intentionally disingenuous and giving David Romano the extreme benefit of the doubt -- just as I would expect from someone who opposes pretty much every tobacco control measure out there (indoor smoking bans excepted), and using many of the same tactics.
It's not necessary to come right out and say "Smoking is fun" or "It's okay to smoke". There are lots of ways to convey that.
As I said, David Romano's activities for me add up to defending/promoting tobacco. We'll just have to disagree.
And I think if you asked most people they would say university profs and researchers shouldn't be organizing parties for students at nightclubs to promote their pro-tobacco agenda.
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=8&cnt=1&
t=a
Cathy,
I have also looked at your web page and links. I understand and agree with all of Mr. Romano's points. In fact, if I were a more eloquent communicator, those could be MY comments...
...AND...not only am I completely un-associated with the tobacco industry (I am a financial analyst for an oil company), I also do not personally smoke.
I don't understand how you can label every person who defends the rights of a smoker, or who defends the rights of a property owner to set his/her own smoking rules, as a tobacco stooge. You are either incredibly closed-minded or brainwashed beyond belief.
west2 wrote:
"Interesting "If the federal government raises its taxes on a pack to fund expanded health care for children, Maine will lose even more sales. The state is projecting that raising the federal tax from 39 cents to $1 will cost Maine about $5.5 million."
Didn't Mr Godshall argue with me that this would not be the case?"
No. Of course an increase in the federal cigarette tax will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption, which will reduce cigarette excise tax revenue in all states, as well as tobacco settlement revenue to all states.
But states can continue to receive a similar (or even greater) amount of revenue by simply increasing state cigarette excise tax rates.
"an increase in the federal cigarette tax will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption"
Ain't that good news for you Bill? More customers for your smokeless business.
"But states can continue to receive a similar (or even greater) amount of revenue by simply increasing state cigarette excise tax rates.
Bill Godshall | 09.20.07 - 6:42 pm "
See how simple life is for this fascist!|
“But states can continue to receive a similar (or even greater) amount of revenue by simply increasing state cigarette excise tax rates.”
I never did care for state stamped cigarettes. I hear there addictive. In a greek ole fascist
way that is. Agreed.
Bill -- I believe the point of the orginal article was that Maine was losing money when they raised their state tax (and it went on to describe the (costly and didn't sound so sucessful) measures they were trying to take to cope with black market and out of state sales...). So, I don't think the states can make up for lost tax revenue due to fed tax increases by further raising their own state taxes. I think the point was that the total tax bite has reached the futility point.
Cathy -- Let's get real. I'll say it. Smoking can be fun, and it IS okay for adults to smoke. Further, if I had a cause in which I was involved (such as civil rights, or in your own case that could be anti-smoking) I wouldn't hesitate to organize events that adult students might attend. Or is it only in the case of tobacco, that Dr. Romano forfeits his own right to speak freely?
I fail to see what is inappropriate about a university professor opposing smoking bans and forming an organization to oppose these policies. While I vigorously disagree with this opinion, I support the academic freedom of university faculty to take whatever position they want to on public policy issues. Neither do I see anything wrong with a professor forming or being a part of an organization, even if that organization happens to be at odds with my own opinions. It the professor were being funded by Big Tobacco, this would be a completely different story. But Cathy has yet to provide a shred of evidence that this is the case. Unless and until Cathy can provide evidence that Professor Romano and/or CAGE is funded by Big Tobacco, I don't believe she has a leg to stand on.
Michael -- if the professor was funded by Big Pharma -- and formed an organization to *promote* smoking bans -- would that be a different story?
I nominate for the Inanity of the Month Award:
No. Of course an increase in the federal cigarette tax will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption, which will reduce cigarette excise tax revenue in all states, as well as tobacco settlement revenue to all states.
But states can continue to receive a similar (or even greater) amount of revenue by simply increasing state cigarette excise tax rates.
Bill Godshall
So let me get this straight.
¶ A pack of cigarettes costs 7 bucks in New York, where a recent Times article shows that 50% of smokers buy their smoke "illegally" on account of the price.
¶ Raising the price to $7.60 will, Mr. Bill opines, cut nationwide consumption -- including in NY (which is part of the nation.)
¶ But if, on top of the $7.60, the state and the city impose even more taxes, it won't depress sales. Presumably, I guess, the 10 suckers left who still doggedly buy "legal" will be willing to pay about 30 bucks a pack to bail out the state.
Where did you study economics, Mr. Bill? (And where did you study history?)
:
"Of course an increase in the federal cigarette tax will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption, which will reduce cigarette excise tax revenue in all states, as well as tobacco settlement revenue to all states.
"But states can continue to receive a similar (or even greater) amount of revenue by simply increasing state cigarette excise tax rates." --
Bill Godshall
That statement is so imbecilic as to beggar belief! Hey, Bill, raise the excise tax to $100 a pack and see what revenue you get from that!
Unbelievable!
.
When the Cathys and Bills don't subscribe to -- cannot even comprehend the concept of -- an indirect democracy (a republic) then of course free speech and the free market are of no value in their logic and the answers it produces. And they don't even understand why. They operate under the banner of socialism, fascism, etc. Take your pick. That's where their conclusions make sense.
Harry,
Great to have you back BTW.
Re: your obesity link, here from the Land of Enchantment (New Mexico) where the smokers have been legislated to second-class citizens, the drinkers in the state capital of Santa Fe get FREE rides to and fro the bars we get this from the D-Presidental candidate (a yo-yo dieter) Govenor:
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=321
Affirmative Action for the weighty amoung us!
BTW Harry---the above is also the state where the 1" candy story occured!
.
Bill G. I agree with what Walt said regarding what happens when states raise taxes. I personally know people who avoid buying cigarettes in state. First they ordered from the Virgin Island (cigarettesvi.com now out of business), then from yessmoke.ch (until the siezure in NY), then from the Indian Nations, or from neighboring states that are cheaper. I get mine tax free, by having military or retired buy them on a military installation. Mine have no tax sticker on them. From the states point of view, it looks like people quit smoking, when in fact they are just buying elsewhere. Higher taxes only hurts those that do not have the means to get them elsewhere.
He is a local story in the news today where a woman kills her mother over cigarette money.
http://wbal.com/news/story.asp?
a...articleid=63400
LighteningBoy: They are free to decline the open invitation to be a guest and are under no obligation whatsoever to EVER be a guest at all.
If the environment, including service, food, and general ambience is not to their approval, then they are free to frequent any business that meets their personal preference for such things.
Employees, and potential employees are also under no obligation to continue to work in, nor ever accept an offer of employment in a job that they believe will put them at risk.
I absolutely agree. I don’t go to bars, ever, because I don’t care for drunks or people even slightly inebriated. I also wouldn’t work in one for the same reason, even IF it were the only choice I had. I’d rather beg on the street first, such is my aversion to drunks. This is MY preference AND choice.
I make the same choice if I enter a restaurant or diner and find it dirtier than I think it should be, or just doesn’t “feel” right for me. I turn around and leave. It’s such a simple thing and I’m amazed that with all the voluntarily smoke-free establishments that have sprung up on their own over the past several years, that these nosey-bodies still needed to enact total bans just because they feel they should NOT have to make such choices (and yes, I’ve heard them actually say they have the right to NOT have to choose). How pathetic can you get, eh?
Thanks, Sunz.
I was wondering, couldn't the taking and dumping of the 1" square of candy be considered THEFT? I wonder if a suit could be brought against the teacher on that basis.
Incidentally, I've found it's sometimes hard to get a drink in New York City. The bartender is often not minding the store but is out on the sidewalk having a cigarette. Maybe in Massachusetts he'd be considered one of the phantom 220.
.
I was wondering, couldn't the taking and dumping of the 1" square of candy be considered THEFT? I wonder if a suit could be brought against the teacher on that basis.
I was thinking that a bill should be sent to the school for this. I would bill them for the cost of the candy and add $10 (no sense being ridiculous or greedy-just to make my point) for humiliating my child in public. MAYBE then they'd "get it" about how pathetic they are?
Great suggestions----much more civil than the suggestions I made to the family about the 1" sq of GD-candy!!
Tx
I hear where you're coming from Sunz. However, I think giving them back the same self-righteous smugness is much more effective than b**ch-slapping the teacher who did that (which was MY first reaction). I have to continually remind myself to never stoop down to their low levels.
Hell, I might go so far as to claim that the incident caused such trauma to my child that the school district would need to pay for his therapy.....hehehehehe
But no way would I just sit idly by and allow the school to dictate what I can put in my child's lunch box, let alone actually take any of it and throw and it out, just because some other kid can't eat what mine can.
Bloody pathetic is what this world is becoming.
"It [if] the professor were being funded by Big Tobacco, this would be a completely different story."
That's a wonderful Catch-22 they've got going, seeing as how they aren't obligated to disclose their specific funding sources, and tobacco companies don't have to disclose who they give money to. Therefore, no one can ever talk about the possibility that tobacco comapanies are funding groups that oppose tobacco control laws.
CAGE has stated that "it is on the corporate members that we depend the most for financing" (since this much could be ascertained under public disclosure laws) but doesn't specify who those corporate donors are.
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=3&cnt=1&
t=a
Meanwhile they use known tobacco industry tactics and arguments to lobby the media and government against a range of tobacco control laws, and raise funds to support legal actions against those laws (bar owners' legal challenge of smoking ban), and we're supposed to ignore the possible connection because the system is set up to hide any proof of tobacco industry involvement. That's a pretty sweet deal.
Sunz, I tell you, you think that piece of candy is bad, but boys aren't allowed to wear sweatpants at many of the schools here, because they might get erections. As if these boys are going to jump up and wave it around. I am much more concerned with the people that spent so much time staring at young men's crotches to come up with that. It's funny, when I was in school, I don't recall a whole lot of sweatpants erections, probably because the boys had creative ways of solving that problem when it did happen.
It goes as far as saying what colors they can't wear (in an area whose closest thing to a gang is the football team), how you are allowed to fix your hair (no highlights!), to how boys are allowed to grow their facial hair (no beards, its unfair to the boys who can't grow them yet). Apparently you give up your right to parent your children when you enroll them in school!
Meanwhile they use known tobacco industry tactics and arguments to lobby the media and government against a range of tobacco control laws, and raise funds to support legal actions against those laws (bar owners' legal challenge of smoking ban), and we're supposed to ignore the possible connection because the system is set up to hide any proof of tobacco industry involvement. That's a pretty sweet deal.
Well, since YOU use Hitler/Nazi tactics and arguments to impose smoking bans on privately owned businesses..........I fail to see what you problem is. What's good for the goose IS good for the gander too.
I wouldn't talk about hiding anything if I were you C.........you have yet to produce one piece of irrefutable proof to back up ANY of your accusations.
IF your side can take big pharma money to trash the constitution, then we can accept tobacco money to fight to retain it.
How uppity of you to think you can dictate WHERE contributions should come from. What arrogance.
tobaccoscamalysis do you ever have anything useful to say? All you really have is speculation and appeal to authority and attacking the good doctor for not supporting your views. Did it ever occur to you that doctors also smoke? You need to give up your religion and actually base you arguments on facts not speculation and ad hominem attacks. Get yourself laid or something, if you can find anyone willing. Then there would be no need to spout you venum.
Ding-a-ling: we're supposed to ignore the possible connection because the system is set up to hide any proof of tobacco industry involvement
So? Who gives a sh!t except you and your other dingy comrades?!? I wish the tobacco companies would pour more money into fighting you extremist freaks in BTC, then maybe all this would turn around faster and you antis would be sued, bankrupt, and behind bars where you belong.
.
"That's a pretty sweet deal."
So Cathy is again implying that CAGE is funded by Big Tobacco and hiding it.
Once again, I would ask Cathy: if you have the evidence to support your contention, then please provide it. Otherwise, you are going to have to stop accusing CAGE of being a tobacco front group. At least on my blog.
"That's a wonderful Catch-22 they've got going, seeing as how they aren't obligated to disclose their specific funding sources, and tobacco companies don't have to disclose who they give money to"
And where have YOU disclosed YOUR funding for you happy little hate campaign?
Please post that information. And I am one single concerned citizen bullsh*t doesn't count We've heard it all before and we don't believe you.
The other site got you nailed on what a fraud you are, so now your back here with your crap. Put up or shut up.
.
.
Ha, so much for free speech. No one can ever talk about the possibility that tobacco companies are funding groups that oppose tobacco control laws because the system is set up to hide any proof of tobacco industry involvement.
No Cathy - You can talk about the possibility that tobacco companies are funding groups that oppose tobacco control laws all that you want.
But what you can't do is accuse a particular group of being funded by Big Tobacco without having evidence to support your accusation.
Joe Camel said: "Hey kids, smoking is fun!"
Well I've always suspected that Joe Camel was a fan of this blog. Now there's indisputable proof.
Note Cathy has not disclosed funding, so we must assume, based on that and her heavy pushing for the anti-agenda that she is being well funded by the anti-tobacco groups and pharma companies. I have no real proof of that, but reading between the lines makes it likely she actually is a stooge for anti-tobacco and big pharma. I will offer further proof of my logic on my own website, which is the sole reference for all my unfounded accusations.
" Joe Camel said: "Hey kids, smoking is fun!"
Well I've always suspected that Joe Camel was a fan of this blog. Now there's indisputable proof.
tobaccoscamalysis | 09.22.07 - 11:42 am | "
ROFLMAO-----I hear the Twilight Zone song suddenly.
Ma Bell---" Ha, so much for free speech. "
And because of you, so much for living in a FREE SOCIETY.
.
Cathy's response to my asking for documentation that CAGE is funded by Big Tobacco:
"Joe Camel said: "Hey kids, smoking is fun!" Well I've always suspected that Joe Camel was a fan of this blog. Now there's indisputable proof."
Need I say anything more?
No Doctor, you don't. Not to her at least.
Okay, I got it. Cathy gets her facts from unimpeachable, indisputable dead cartoon arnimals. Cross examine them if you dare.
Next witness: Roger Rabbit.
:
Joe Camel, indisputable proof -- OMG, lighten up people. It was a joke, obviously.
Joe Camel, indisputable proof -- OMG, lighten up people. It was a joke, obviously.
So now we need to laugh at your jokes as well as believe everything you do?
How very like a stereotypical corporate overlord, Ms. Corporate Opposition!
I thought it was probably a joke, but you can't expect people you've insulted to turn around right away to laugh with you. Just as you can't expect the truth to turn around and agree with you on command.
Oops, Michael, Walla Walla is in Washington, not Oregon. Anyone else pointed this out?
Commenting by HaloScan
