That's what happens when you go around screaming that "SHS is a severe health hazard". That's what you promote when you insist that laws have to be passed to "protect" workers, rather than allowing the market to make the choice or even the private business owner.
Why are you so shocked? You do the same thing. I'm sure you don't think you do, but we do.
To call this paternalizm is far to self serving. There is no indication of compasion or empathy in exclusion. This is a measure of how we can inspire unbridled hatred and mean spirited focus on others.
It is an indication of more how low society has been driven by those allowed the power to separate communities and turn the majority against others who have no voice.
It is a reflection of our leadership and exactly the moral values or lack thereof exposed in what we call leaders, who are in fact self serving followers with no courage to stand for what is right, being bullied by fear mongering gangs of organized criminals who will profit from the campaign.
HIA health interventions are no more valid than the organization of any other terrorist organization and should be seen for exactly what they are. No more impressive than a pack of snarling rabid dogs who roam in packs and get what they want through intimidation and imposition. A pack which will eat each other when the profit streams grow thin or when the rest of us stop giving in to the fear, the day they loose the power of intimidation.
Doctor----'They are basically saying that smokers are not welcome. If I were a smoker, I certainly would not care to attend one of these colleges. It might result in a slightly healthier student body, but it is also going to cleanse the student body of 20% of the population.'
Gee this 'cleansing' sounds exactly like the effect smoking bans in bars and restaurants have had.
That cleansing didn't (doesn't) seem to bother you at all.
Hummmmmm.
.
Locally I was afforded a laughable experience exhibiting the true expertise of those running the William Osler chain of hospitals.
When driving into a hospital parking lot 2000 feet from any buildings the signs were posted this is a smoke free facility smoking anywhere on hospital grounds is strictly prohibited. The excessive parking fees charged to visit loved ones was a second indication of the mindset in play.
When I entered the main building I was surprised to immediately notice the smell of Tim Horton's coffee wafting around the reception area, indicating health protection in this place is a matter of self service to those in charge and had little to do with common sense or integrity.
A gift shop which used to sell cigarettes for stressed out fathers or those waiting for the results of a surgery had been converted to a donut shop. The new improved facility now sold coffee and donuts in place of cigarettes and stuffed toys, how telling is that?
This facility is well known for torturing their patients as a political move to entice more government funding from our "universal" health care system.
The emergency room is a work slowdown zone where it takes as much as 3 hours just to get through triage registration and assess who is urgent and who can wait longer even with as little as 10 people to serve.
Traditionally people go to emergency because there is a medical emergency???
You are given the feeling you could bleed to death sitting right in front of the staff and they would react by complaining about the mess you left on the floor.
The CMA recently stated an 8 hour wait is acceptable, 12 to 14 is an average. If one were to compare our situation to treatment in hospitals in the third world personal experience has shown the third world could teach our hospitals a lot in regards to emergency room procedures, the level of human kindness is surely much more evident.
Progress is always a controversial descriptor, depending on who you ask.
Kevin---"You are given the feeling you could bleed to death sitting right in front of the staff and they would react by complaining about the mess you left on the floor.'
L O L!!! So true Kevin.
And then making YOU clean it up, while they enjoyed the coffee and donuts and pretended to be busy.
.
Here is a sobering reality for Michael; If you really want to serve humanity consider the following, and how meager the request compared to the hundreds of millions you promoted we waste creating unfounded fear and exclusive attitudes. Punishing others for an addiction while growing the profits of the tobacco industry.
"Tragedy and human carnage" as described by TC promotions takes center stage while we can allow ourselves to ignore the real thing. Isn't the power of advertising wonderful? Compared to other trades Hospitality is right up there with one of our most dangerous occupations apparently, there certainly was some need to take their plight so high on our priorities list.
The focus of the top down attitudes of UN agencies promoting smoking bans and micro managing communities with little understanding of what a community really is, are a little off the mark wouldn't you agree?
Excerpt from a recent email;
"For almost four years the Arab dominated Government of Sudan has been engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing of the African-Sudanese population of the western province of Darfur. Over two million have been displaced; some 300,000 people have been slaughtered; 500,000 children are near death from starvation and tens of thousands of women have been raped. It is the new Rwanda.
The Sudanese government has emptied hundreds of towns and villages of their inhabitants and forced them to flee as refugees to Chad. In the withering heat of the Chadian desert these people await their fate. Each day brings new devastation whether from the flaming rays of the sun, or from the fiery retort of a government rifle.
Human vocabulary itself is insufficient to describe the horrors. Make no mistake about what this is. Though none dare say its name this is race war. Genocide. This crisis commands an urgent call on our conscience and on our character.
We all want to do something to help. These people, as full members of a universal humanity, have a right to dignity. But sometimes it’s hard to know where to start. To that end on Thursday, August 16, 2007, The Institute for Public Affairs of Montreal in conjunction with The Suburban newspapers will be holding its 11th Policy Conference. It will be called DARFUR: THE MONTREAL CONFERENCE and will be held at the Delta Downtown at 777 University in Regency Hall C. It will run from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm and will be followed by a very special concert by former Miss World Canada Nazanin Afshin-Jam from 4.30 – 6.00.
The Conference has a two-fold purpose. First, to heighten public awareness of this tragedy and consider what greater role Canada can play from the military, legal, diplomatic and civil society aspects. Second, to raise funding for Save Darfur Canada. It is the umbrella organization that has brought together all Darfur advocacy groups in the country. SDC reports directly to the international Save Darfur organization in Washington, D.C. run by David Rubinstein. The executive director in Canada is Tara Tavender who will be one of the speakers. It desperately needs $30,000 to get matching funds for the next six months."
Kevin: It desperately needs $30,000 to get matching funds for the next six months.
Wow, that would just be an out-of-pocket payment from the WHO or RWJF.
The WHO has a budget of over $100 Mio set aside for their FCTC between 2000 and 2008, 22% of which for "Capacity Building and Training" and 15% for "Planning and Management".
http://www.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/i..._IGWG2_3-
en.pdf
Note: they indicate that all amounts are in US$ thousands (which would translate the total amount to $100 Bio, not very credible).
But Kevin, please understand, Darfur is not OUR children, it's theirs. We have to save OUR children and barkeepers first.
Same is true for the malaria disaster created by the WHO.
Am I living in the wrong world? Can I get off?
The WHO might well achieve a smoke-free Darfur (no smoking around the water holes) but once the population is eradicated, who wants to smoke anyway?
The entire Health scare community should hang their heads in shame for the sanctimonious bastards they really are. Million dollar dinner parties and multi faceted strategy session organization, to take the spotlight of our moral concern away from real tragedy. That which is deemed tragedy by most, is promoted by your group as a necessary evil to support the economies of your industry partners.
The entirety of all the advocacy groups in Canada are doing their best to organize 400 people to attend a meeting in hopes of raising 30K just to stay in operation for the next six months?
While our leaders are standing on soap boxes declaring they will save 30 or 40 thousand statistical people, who can not possibly be saved even if their claims are accurate. The effects of lifestyles in the past are reflective of mortalities today.
The actual much reduced risk we experience today will not be reflected for generations by your own words. How many are dying in the Sudan today, and what is their mortality risk by comparison? Do you need six months to do the epidemiology research? Take your time they can wait, Its already been years.
The real community needs to hold you and your kind to task and ask how much each of you, having gleaned billions from your campaign have given back to the small part of the international community who represent real charity and compassion.
I see no indication your cowardly gang has relinquished enough to even claim you care about others. You have no right to claim the position you attempt occupy in ethical leadership or moral division.
OT Article:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.d.../708070333/
1070
Writer:
CLIFFORD DOUGLAS is a consulting attorney for the Smoke-Free Environments Law Project in Ann Arbor, and teaches a course on tobacco and health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Quote in question:
"Secondhand tobacco smoke is the third-leading cause of death in the United States, after direct cigarette smoking and alcohol abuse. It kills as many as 65,000 nonsmokers -- including 2,400 in Michigan -- every year."
How can anyone get away with statements like this?
Benpal;
In the past four years at three levels of government they have spent over one billion dollars to promote smoking bans. The expenditures of the top charities are likely close to the same.
By comparison the groups who speak against genocide and human rights abuses have barely been able to stay in business with little or no help from the lot of them.
American charity foundations hold in liquid assets over 5 trillion dollars, the bulk of which is spent keeping their corporate brands palatable to the rest of us and manipulating stock markets to keep "the right people" at the top.
Some times you just can't ignore the disgusting way we treat each other.
I can remember a few years ago, while college shopping with our daughter, I overheard another father questioning the smoking policy on campus. He asked what it was and was very disgusted that it was taking place on a campus that his daughter was adamant in attending. He was told in no uncertain terms that once a child reaches college age, they are considered adults and should beable to determine where they walked and who they associated with. Looks like 13 years later, those young adults have turned into bumbling fools who can't follow a foot path and needs big nanny to make their decisions for them. I am so glad I no longer have to pay tuition and fear that my child will no longer beable to think for themselves! Gosh, back in my days we smoked in the classrooms and my classmates are still here healthy and can still attend class reunions. I do fear for the next generation and just think about it Doctor, some of these young adults who can't think for themselves will end up in your classroom. What with all the brain dead students, you will be grading on a very large curve.
I expect nothing less from the Socialist Republic of Minnesota. Remember, these are the same guys who fixed their MSA trial. The judge would allow no evidence that might have harmed their case. Only in America?
The ban on smokeless tobacco has always exposed the real agenda.
As stated earlier, these guys are a bunch of hypocrits who are addicted to power. They lust for the ability to control anothers life. They all could care less about "our children" or your exposure to anything (what about diesel exhaust?).
We can go on and on, Darfur, Somalia, Rwanda. Oh, not to mention over 1 Million abortions per year in the US alone.
A women has the right to choose to end the life of an unborn child, yet you have no right to decide to use tobacco outside. Who says these guys own the air?
I have about had enough. Our ancestors must be turning in their graves. All the lives that have been freely given in order for us to live free and with a minimum of government intrusion. Daily we give away more and more. We need to wake up and demand an end to this intrusion! It won't be long until there will be no voice of opposition.
I wonder how we would have funded the revolution without tobacco? Just think, how different would the world have been without a free America. Maybe the axis wins WW2? It would all be mute then.
Kevin---'The real community needs to hold you and your kind to task and ask how much each of you, having gleaned billions from your campaign have given back to the small part of the international community who represent real charity and compassion.
I see no indication your cowardly gang has relinquished enough to even claim you care about others. You have no right to claim the position you attempt occupy in ethical leadership or moral division.'
Thank you Kevin---that needed saying--you did it so well.
.
Dianne;
Wouldn't it be great if even a small number of educators were allowed to speak without the absolutes we see in the criticisms of their peers, outside of the support for a return to best babies contests and tambourine banging, so that a child could receive a balanced view and make their own choices.
Educators used to leave personal politics at the door as a professional ethic. Today they only see minds which can be molded to suit personal whims and focused agendas.
How much productivity is lost in a shortened childhood, and what are the costs to community when none of them learn how to grow up?
You just gotta laugh
Doctor---"
While I'm not aware that anti-smoking groups are behind these policies, I'm also not aware that any have spoken out in opposition to them. Unfortunately, that is the only way to make it clear to the public that the purpose of smoking bans is to protect people from secondhand smoke, not to express intolerance for a large segment of the population.'
He is the author of this bit of concern and compassion.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/conten...tract/129/2/
128
`snip~
'Mass media antismoking campaigns are a promising tool for health promotion, but only if sustained funding can be guaranteed and the development of the advertisements can be protected from intrusion by political forces.'
And if your Darfur groups could only have a fraction of the funding guarantees these folks do.
.
Times do change...
Support for Public health was grown with hollow words like empowerment and inclusive attitudes.
Now the top down structure is empowered with words like.
"A public command-and-control regulatory framework to reduce deaths due to secondhand tobacco smoke."
It appears Michael has learned the lesson in his exclusion, so many who are still standing in support are too afraid to face; the fine Liberal attitudes of the past which gave this movement it's power are now powerless to stop the immense steam rolling juggernaut they created.
An avalanche of power promotion, which no longer respects the values which initially gave it life.
Here is a five year old hint at why governance via genomics is failing and the failures have grown substantially in the ignorance of this and many other similar warnings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site..._RVAbstractPlus
" Existing scholarship on population genomics has only superficially addressed issues of power and political process. Accordingly, questions of politics and governance pervade the analysis of three population genomics case studies that follow: the Human Genome Diversity Project, Iceland's Health Sector Database, and "Clinical Genomics" as defined by the Beth Israel-Ardais collaboration. An examination of these case studies reveals that the common law, U.S. regulatory law, and international law have not developed the political sophistication to make the traditional promises of biomedical ethics--respect for autonomy, justice, and beneficence--come to fruition. Further, comparisons of these projects illuminate three areas ripe for reframing--informed consent, expert ethical oversight, and commercial benefits. Four avenues of reform are suggested."
These are principles and guidance never considered in ad agencies who promote the fear which is developing those communities, when they carelessly abuse the rest of us with the social modification propaganda they create.
If it sounds controversial Public health is [unanimously] in, with both feet flying forward, the cash continues to flow and everyone is stating they are so proud of what they have "accomplished" so far?
Michael;
Isn't it time for the "Public Health" community to face the facts. Personal economy and a higher standard of living is by far the most significant factor in health promotion or deficits. promoting poor personal economies promotes; hunger, disease, smoking, drug abuse, Crime and violence all as symptoms of a much larger problem.
We have seen that standard of living decline significantly over the past 50 years as the size of governments grow and the cycle of placing more guns on the street to protect us from the increased effects, only grows in a process to essentially accomplish nothing, but to criminalizing and punish a large segemnt of our population unnecessarily. Criminalized for reacting to their environment, with few other choices available.
We have to be able to recognize the cruelty found in promotions of monetary restraints, which affect the poor to a much larger extent than the rich. What is created is an endless cycle which self promotes only the depreciation of personal economies and freedom and grows the proportion of poverty.
Lobby promotions of higher taxation and fines especially when focussed on the poor are careless and entirely regressive actions.
The most significant demographic of smokers are always found in the poorest communities who self medicate to ward off both hunger pains and the effects of depression, similarly alcohol and drug abuse is consistent with self medication. The need to pay more for products with artificially increased "value" only increases the determination of those who seek to purchase them and increases the availability of profits to criminal markets.
You only stand to promote a guidance to the "right" drugs and the "right minded" enslavement of society in ever increasing degrees by supporting your current agenda.
As all of our rights are bartered away to international globalist agencies far too cheaply, your all knowing crowd increases the mortality risk you share with the rest of us by promoting abuse and poverty.
With all the knowledge of the planet focussed as reactionaries to prophetical fear, who is left to form proactive guidance to solve the problems in the real world?
Y'know, it's you talking about the funding of that charity that made me think. As long as charities and such are barely scraping by, we tend to get more positive (and honest) results from them. The minute we start handing over money to provide more help to people is also the minute those people actually get less help. I bet if we keep charities and scientists on the razor edge of starvation they will be more honest...apparently now they get too much money to actually help people and well, do their job.
Jalestra;
"I bet if we keep charities and scientists on the razor edge of starvation they will be more honest."
Those industries which control philanthropy and decide who's research gets funded, have kept the research community enslaved for the past hundred years, using exactly that plan.
Dementia epidemic set to cost us lots, already cost much more than smoking related idsease.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6929482.stm
Baby Milk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6933188.stm
Excerpt
A coalition of charities is demanding baby milk be treated like tobacco and subjected to a total advertising ban.
oops nearly missed one for all those women that don't conform to the perfect size.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6934263.stm
Obesity and child defects.
Heap on the guilt.
Kevin hit right on the head. This is big business.
"Those industries which control philanthropy and decide who's research gets funded, have kept the research community enslaved for the past hundred years, using exactly that plan."
They also decide who are good guys and who are the bad guys. If a study was funded by a bad guy, then the science is flawed(Engstrom). If by a good guy it's valid. And of course the media is in cahoots so they may be seen as another protector of the dummies.
The groups begging for these handouts will say or do anything to get funding. Hence, our bogus SHS studies and so on.
I am going to think twice about giving money to charities. Uncle Sugar can give them my share via these unfair taxes.
Imagine, hundreds of thousands of generation thrived and succeed with out public health authorities and Big Daddy Gov running things
http://thenewpundit.com/2007/08/...state-politics/
~snip~
'There are way too many adults that need to grow up and realize that if they are going to achieve any type of personal, financial, or business success, they need to do it themselves. I can think of no successful person throughout history that has ever had to stop and thank the government for making them a success. Government programs always start out with the best of intentions, but always end up costing way more than predicted and never truly solving the problem they were “designed” to solve.'
.
I would expect more in the health care industry to be railing against this SCHIP proposal. It appears to be an attempt at back-door socilaized medicine. From what I've read, rather than covering children without coverage, it will allow companies that already insure middle classer to drop to this coverage. In any case all should look at http://www.nocigtax.com and read teh press releases.
Wake up Docs. it appears they are after you now.
It's the American way;
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Economics can't find a better way to control populations, outside of freedom and mutual respect which of course is not highly profitable when business is forced to demonstrate the same principles. Top down is simply more efficient than bottom up community standards, in an ability to promote higher profits with lowered investments.
Today fewer of the rich are in control of more of the world economy than the proportions prior to the great depression.
One slip, one miscalculation...
rrgabe23----'Wake up Docs. it appears they are after you now'
Until a ballpean hammer hits them in the temple while on seminar or on the golf course---this will not occur to them.
.
Hm, can't see them banning beer. I think Dr Siegel already mentioned this.
No banning beer t-shirts either. Even campuses that nominally ban beer(eg Purdue,) we'll see a lot of the second. And of course there are always newspaper articles on where to go to drink.
Not that I think we should even start to go down this censorship/prohibition road, but the disconnect and the relative attention paid to two different drugs, one of which causes a LOT more immediate deaths, is shocking.
More denormalization, this time part of the "smoking is stupid" campaign. At first, it's stupid for kids to smoke because it'll make college that much more inconvenient for you. After a while, smoking rates in college will be so much lower, it's pretty clear only stupid people smoke.
I've found more militant nonsmokers increasingly willing to condescend to smokers about their nasty habit.
And it only takes one person indulging in this filthy habit to make it annoying for everyone.
Here is a Phoenix area surgeon (Hey Lynda) that gets it!!!
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0704f.asp
~snip~
'Others call it the “nanny state.” Whatever name we give it, the fact remains that people are not free when their choices are proscribed by committees of busybodies, even well-intentioned ones, who are, after all, no more omniscient than the people they choose to control. '
.
This one got me wondering just how many rAnti----suffering from ASDS are, in fact, closet smokers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,292397,00.html
"While I'm not aware that anti-smoking groups are behind these policies, I'm also not aware that any have spoken out in opposition to them. Unfortunately, that is the only way to make it clear to the public that the purpose of smoking bans is to protect people from secondhand smoke, not to express intolerance for a large segment of the population."
This is specifically about promoting the expression of intolerance for a large segment of the population.
If it promotes the continued alienation of smokers it mst be good, right? That's the only litmus test neeed or applied by TC. If it furthers the propaganda, you will not hear any objection. If it cuts into their budget, or threatens the money pipeline in any way, now that's another story.
Doc, seriously, you should re-read these posts occasionally.
Sunz
We can't ignore the effects of NSPP either
Posted previously;
Thun of the ACS exhibits Interesting and unmistakable effects of narrowed scope projection Psychosis [NSPP; Note be careful how you pronounce that...]
A pandemic rampant among Public health advocates it is thought to be a metabolite of HIA, the process which brings together conflicted funds to speak from a mutually financed voice, raising the volume above the voices of all others.
The exposure to the sound wave created seems to have a brainwashing effect, once smitten the addictive qualities become impossible to resist. This addiction is much more potent than the top ten addictions known to man in fact those addictions become a focal point for the telling symptom; the continual incoherent babbling which forms the vocalizations of obvious projections; accusing others of their own most serious flaws.
This affliction should not be confused with hypocrisies or bigotry which although entirely similar are differentiated by choice. NSPP sufferers can not help themselves they are victims of biological disorder not of preference.
This disease has been deceptively hidden from the public to protect the huge profits benefiting financial interests of corrupted UN organization participants and large corporate dictators in American Industry for far too long.
Contribute to; the save the children from NSPP fund, and free our children from the devastating and lasting effects of a shortened childhood longevity.
Look for the distinctive logo depicting cherubim in a fountain with water rushing from their backsides.
Yet you say that there is no advocating of a ban in universities? This page is dedicated to a "smoke free society", notice its not trying to cut down smokers anymore (but to not allow smoking advertising tobacco anywhere)?
This is about the largest extremist yet, The grandson of the namesake for a tobacco company Patrick Reynolds. This guy believes what he preaches, smoking shouldn't be seen by any youth, it shouldn't be allowed anywhere, afterall according to his figures just possiblly seeing smoking in movies causes the smoking rate to increase. It can't be the over regualtion, the constant reminders of "bad" to a rebelious age group; Oh NO! It must be what they term as "3rd hand smoke" (they now have it up to 5th hand smoke); the action of actually seeing anyone smoking thats causing any one to start. Of course they never mention that surveys don't even ask about this movie, advertising, etc as a reason to start; if they did their funding need would dry up. Now aren't smokers glad your MSA money is being spent "for your benefit"? Yet you want smokers to think that its great use and theres a "need" for millions a year spent on this, and smokers should agree that he uses resources this way.
FOR UNIVERSITIES
Patrick Reynolds' University talk empowers students at all levels to defend themselves against the onslaught of tobacco advertising and social pressures to smoke.
This program generally runs 90 minutes — 45 minutes of lecture, and 45 minutes of Q & A. Following the Q & A program, Mr. Reynolds likes to invite those interested to join him for an informal reception so he can meet them personally, and so interested community members can meet and exchange cards. Often there is an informal dinner afterward with members of the student government or conference.
He opens students' eyes to the facts — how for decades, multi-billion dollar cigarette ad campaigns targeted women, teens, blacks and other minority populations, and continue to target poor, uneducated peoples in the Third World.
He explains the importance of the laws limiting second hand smoke. At Universities, he informs audiences about the powerful tobacco lobby, and the need to go beyond recent regulations, and bring about still stronger regulation of tobacco products. And Mr. Reynolds speaks about the prerequisite for this, campaign finance reform.
He discusses further limits on cigarette advertising, a higher Federal tobacco tax, OSHA's proposed national workplace smoking ban (tabled for now), and stronger youth access laws. Patrick Reynolds discusses the Supreme Court ruling in early 2000 that Congress, not the FDA, must regulate tobacco. He talks about the imperative to provide sting operations to enforce existing over-the-counter sales-to-minors laws, as our children can still obtain cigarettes too easily much of the time. And he expresses his anger about the export and marketing of U.S. brands in the Third World and Asia, to poor, uneducated peoples who are often ignorant of the hazards of tobacco use.
Mr. Reynolds closes with an inspirational promise — a moving vision of the coming smokefree society in the 21st century.
University students, faculty and community members, as well as Health conference attendees, are fascinated by Mr. Reynolds' powerful and dynamic keynotes and lectures.
http://www.tobaccofree.org/univ.htm
Now tell me that a "smoke free society" advocate actually has to publicly support the issue, for it to get done? Plant the seeds, and let them grow into wonderful growing trees.
Thanks Sunz. Busy here today so I'll read it tonight. I may have to contact this guy and have a sit down with him.................at least it's a starting point for me..........I think.....
Kevin, I don't see that, what I see is organizations with a lot of money causing all the trouble; ACS, WHO, ALA, CTFK. They were pretty quiet for a while, and then someone found a cause, started passing out money for such and such results, next thing you know they have more money to spend deciding policy. Meanwhile, what are the cancer victims getting? Probably squat. Anyone I've met with cancer hasn't benefited from these organizations in the slightest.
RRgabe, I don't give any money to charities and haven't for some time. I don't buy things that benefit charities, I don't give blood, and I've removed my status as an organ donor. I WILL however drop some money into a jar when a family is sitting outside a grocery store trying to drum up some cash for a local person. I KNOW that person has actually been harmed,and locals would literally lynch anyone sitting out there gathering money fraudulently.
Jalestra;
If you do a search at the WHO website you will find the organizational plan. They call it HIA health interventions it explains how to connect any human activity to health outcomes.
The planned strategy is in recruiting all interested parties who could profit from the campaign including especially media and corporate sponsors. The plan is one of corruption in dominance of all discussions with implementation well in advance of real discussions Setting limits in who will be allowed opposing opinions, by flooding the agenda with parrots of your own strategy or opinion.
When we hear the words conflicted interests coming from these hypocrites you can't help but note the sheer cheek in making such an accusation against anyone else, when the predominance of their voice is dependant on the success of finding others who seek to profit by their conspiracy.
How difficult would it be for you to find a media ear; when ever and where ever it is convenient? When you consider how long it takes for these productions to be created no one seems to notice the opportune timing in connecting the broadcasts. Coincidentally tied to real events which, by any slight connection may be used to sell their wares.
These are purchased ad campaigns focussed and dedicated to promote the interests of the investors.
The media has sold their claim to community connectivity or credibility in presenting the trial balloons we see every day, as real news or editorials, presented deceptively by hiding the true content description; purchased promotions to sway your opinions, nothing more.
"It might be, if these universities were dictating a range of unhealthy behaviors that were not to be tolerated on campus. If the universities decided that they would simply not allow people to engage in unhealthy behavior on campus, then it might be reasonable to include tobacco use among those behaviors. But none of these colleges are doing that. They are singling out tobacco use, and leaving all other unhealthy behaviors -- such as excessive alcohol use, eating unhealthy foods, eating too much, not consuming enough antioxidants or fiber, consuming trans-fats, eating too much fat, or failing to get enough exercise -- alone."
As always, this same exact critique applies to the fact that you want to ban SHS as a workplace hazard, but not equally dangerous workplace hazards such as oval racing.
Etc.
It is not with a lot of surprise we see the largest corporations on the planet swinging from the coat tails of the WHO
A truer analogy of late is the tail wagging the dog demanding obedience.
The term "The World Health organization predicts by the year..."
Is obviously a phrase devised to promote fear.
Google= .21 seconds to find 1.9 million hits, think about it.
Jalestra----'Anyone I've met with cancer hasn't benefited from these organizations in the slightest.'
I don't either. Although when my sister died of cancer, they swoop in to be certain in the obit you mention to give to them 'in lieu of flowers'. I send a card to the family and the charity leeches can simply go to hell.
.
Maybe they did a study and assumed that campuses that do not have an outright ban see lightning strikes, bus crashes and bloody coup attempts increase by 7,000 percent. And therefore, an outright ban would save lives.
Maybe those are really crappy assumptions to make. I mean, just by taking a look at campuses that have not put an outright ban in place, we can see that those assumptions are false.
But I hear some people think it is OK to base studies on obviously false assumptions.
Your gonna love this one;
The World Health Organization predicts... From the top ten predictions
How many weather reports have been accurate in your area in say the past year? Do you believe we now have the power to change the weather? Have remote sensors really changed things all that much that we can actually prevent disease epidemics as well?
Snake oil for ignorant masses.
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=ca...lient=firefox-
a
"Knowledge of the interactions between climate and health date back to the time of Aristotle, but
our understanding of this subject has recently progressed rapidly as technology has become more
advanced. At the same time the ability to forecast weather (in terms of both accuracy and lead-
times) has greatly improved in recent years, especially with the use of remote sensing. The
increased accuracy of climate predictions, and improving understanding of interactions between
weather and infectious disease, has motivated attempts to develop models which predict changes
in the incidence of epidemic-prone infectious diseases. Such models are designed to provide early
warning of impending epidemics which, if accurate, would be invaluable for epidemic
preparedness and prevention. "
Cut and paste techniques make these do it yourself reports although easy to predict the wording so much easier to prepare.
For a cut and paste panic package send a self addressed envelope along with with shipping and handing charges and proof of significant sponsorship of any approved charity/media affiliation or the bar code from our stakeholder sponsors products to;
© World Health Organization 2004
All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from Marketing
and Dissemination, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
(tel: +41 22 791 2476; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: bookorders@who.int). Requests for
permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial
distribution – should be addressed to Publications, at the above address (fax: +41 22 791 4806;
email: permissions@who.int).
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the
legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
of its frontiers or boundaries.
The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they
are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a
similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary
products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication
is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use.
LOL----'For a cut and paste panic package send a self addressed...'
OT (but not really)
We have said for years fat was next, followed by glucose, and other "chronic" ailments.
Here is yet another "health" employer chomping at the bit of totalitarian control.
snip ~ For employees at Clarian Health, feeling the burn of trying to lose weight will take on new meaning.
In late June, the Indianapolis-based hospital system announced that starting in 2009, it will fine employees $10 per paycheck if their body mass index (BMI, a ratio of height to weight that measures body fat) is over 30. If their cholesterol, blood pressure, and glucose levels are too high, they'll be charged $5 for each standard they don't meet. Ditto if they smoke: Starting next year, they'll be charged another $5 in each check.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/07080...1&
.pf=insurance
Kevin- "It will be called DARFUR: THE MONTREAL CONFERENCE and will be held at the Delta Downtown at 777 University in Regency Hall C. It will run from 1.00 pm to 4.00 pm and will be followed by a very special concert by former Miss World Canada Nazanin Afshin-Jam from 4.30 – 6.00.
Sounds like a movie premier.
"DARFUR, THE MOTION PICTURE"
Premiering at Regency Hall
Run-time 2 hours. Rated PG13"S"
(for frank discussions about smoking, starvation, and stupidity)
Jerry;
I am sure the subservient slaves who remain at this company, will make their masters proud.
Anyone with an ounce of dignity regardless of their physical condition would seek realistic employment immediately, before all the paycheck's start to bounce.
LightningBoy;
I wish I could post the accompanying pictures, you would see by comparison smoking bans with such little meaning in real effect, are little more than a cruel joke.
Kevin, - "by comparison smoking bans with such little meaning in real effect, are little more than a cruel joke."
I absolutely agree.
The posters here need a "realtime" forum to compile all this stuff and exchange ideas, information and EVIDENCE.
It's wasted on the TC "advocates" that lurk here.
Colleges (and other organizations) that prohibit smoking or even all tobacco use on their property are simply exercising their autonomy and promoting the health and welfare of their students, faculty and staff.
The only paternalism I see on this issue is being displayed by Mike Siegel in criticizing those schools for not implementing tobacco policies that he favors to allow and encourage tobacco use.
Regarding alcohol free policies on college campuses, Mike is incorrect, as many colleges have implemented policies that either severely restrict or prohibit alcohol consumption.
"EVIDENCE.
It's wasted on the TC "advocates" that lurk here."
And proof of this has just arrived. It is International Clown Week BTW!
.
criticizing those schools for not implementing tobacco policies that he favors to allow and encourage tobacco use.-Bill Godshall
Has the Doc fell out of favour again? Or are we being "played" by a double act??
GreatScot
Ah, yes. It's good to see that Bill "I oppose tobacco prohibition" Godshall is back.
Another preventable death??
http://
www.thisisderbyshire.co.u...tentPK=18029941
Excerpts
Frantic rescue attempts failed to save a clubber who fell through a hedge and into the River Derwent.
One local businesswoman said that since the smoking ban had been introduced, clubbers had started to congregate in the car park and on the path at the back of the club when they needed to light up.
GreatScot
BTW Bill how come pubs and restaurants
can't " exercise their autonomy" to allow smoking??
"Colleges (and other organizations) that prohibit smoking or even all tobacco use on their property are simply exercising their autonomy and promoting the health and welfare of their students, faculty and staff."
A bit hypocritical, no???
GreatScot
Mr. Godshall and Dr. Siegel do seem to share at least one notion: that the goal of public health should be to reduce the number of people who smoke. There only appears to be a difference in some of the strategies and rhetorical devices they would employ.
Well, if only to lighten the mood: Has anyone considered what smokers do when they finally stop smoking? Do they spend that time doing push-ups? Do they spend the money on wholesome food for starving children? Not always.
http://www.theamericanscene.com/...07/8/7/
caffiene
Heh.
OK. I will begin darkening the mood again as soon as possible.
Kevin: RE: the Darfur issue and the waste in TC and along with various other do-gooders:
“One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how dangerous it is to trust them” Thomas Sowell.
.
Too bad the same logic and rules aren’t applied where tobacco and smoking are concerned eh?
Judges Say Ads Don't Cause Bad Behavior
Chalk up a much-needed win for the forces of reason in the debate over food and beverage advertisements aimed at kids. Late last month a federal appeals court dismissed two suits brought against alcohol companies by a cohort of angry parents -- plus their activist handlers and parasitic trial lawyer buddies -- claiming that ad campaigns were inducing minors to illegally purchase adult beverages. Fortunately, bluster and moral panic don’t count as evidence in the courtroom: The suit was thrown out because the plaintiffs never established a causal link between advertisements and kids' behavior.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/n...m/headline/
3423
From Lyndas link:
~snip~
'Of course, that doesn’t mean activists will give up their crusade to sue food companies into oblivion. And there will always be pliable moms and dads who are all too willing to play the victim and foist the blame for their parental weakness on someone else.'
But there seems to be a rather obvious "casual link" between advertisement and a loss of liberty.
Go figure..
GreatScott said: BTW Bill how come pubs and restaurants
can't " exercise their autonomy" to allow smoking??"
TC only considers it autonomy if it's in agreement with thier definition of autonomy.
I'm not sure what that is, but I am sure it includes an "adequate warning"
Really Bill? Haven't been on a college campus lately, have you? You should make it to the next reunion and talk with the kids about how much fun they had last weekend on the pub crawl. You know, they start at one pub,have a drink and go on to the next. At the end of the night, they are actually crawling in. Funny thing about it is the drinking age is 21 but freshmen are what? 18? Then walk down the halls of a dorm and smell the aroma of that joint being smoked in every other room. Wait, what is that? A hot plate in your room? That is a big no no on campus. Have all the unprotected sex you want, but don't you dare smoke a legal cigarette. You are deranged!
GS inquired:
"BTW Bill how come pubs and restaurants can't "exercise their autonomy" to allow smoking??"
Because many local, state and national governments have enacted smokefree indoor laws (and some have enacted smokefree outdoor dining laws) to protect workers and patrons from tobacco smoke pollution.
But most pubs and restaurants can and still exercise their autonomy by allowing smoking outdoors at their facilities.
Kevin wrote: "Isn't it time for the "Public Health" community to face the facts. Personal economy and a higher standard of living is by far the most significant factor in health promotion or deficits. promoting poor personal economies promotes; hunger, disease, smoking, drug abuse, Crime and violence all as symptoms of a much larger problem."
Kevin - I think you are absolutely right. These remarks are insightful and important. I won't comment further, but will simply let them stand on their own. And by the way, this is exactly what I teach my students in my classes.
It was only 7 years ago I was in college (seems a lot longer), I was the only student in my group of friends that lived off campus. Also, my husband's best friend was a coach at that same college up until 2 years ago, and he also was the monitor of one of the dorms (little apartment in the dorm where he and his wife lived while keeping an eye on the students). His dorm was actually the cleanest one on campus as far as alcohol and drugs, he actually performed room checks. At the rest of the dorms alcohol was constantly in the rooms and drugs (the college was well known, probably still is, as a great place to pick up dope). The problem is, even for my husband's friend, if you busted them, there's not much you could do about it. While there was an alcohol prohibition on campus, you're talking about the players, the ones who were "gonna win the championship". Coach might take your beer, and even make you run laps on a hangover, but you're basically ok. Yeah, that alcohol prohibition is really effectively in place. When you sit around with your group of sports buddies (and my husband, the jock, does) these stories abound. Different colleges all over, same story. And don't worry about coming in a little blitzed from the pub crawl,sleep it off, tomorrow a couple of laps and you're free to go.
Michael - you should also teach them that when government (or "public health") tries to tackle these issues individually, without a broader perspective on what they are approaching, they generally make the situation worse. For example, alcohol prohibition increased crime... Helmet laws decrease bike riding... Social programs promote a welfare state. Please point out to your students that there are always many negative unintended consequences of even the most *right* sounding do-gooder-ness.
And then talk about smoking bans...
I wonder how far Bill's puritanical outlook on life,from a previous thread he wants to tax anything that has a pleasure element attached, is mirrored by fanatical Islamic terrorists ? They both seem to view western decadence as something of an evil entity.
Because many local, state and national governments have enacted smokefree indoor laws (and some have enacted smokefree outdoor dining laws) to protect workers and patrons from tobacco smoke pollution.
Hence removing everyone's "autonomy", while at the same time still allowing you to poison all of us with YOUR personal "car's emissions" pollution.
WE rest our case. And you're still a hypocrite.
Puritanical SIN taxes (and that is what they are) are pretty much shared across the bored by fundamentals, be they Islamic or American. It's amusing how much the American fundamentalists do mirror the Islamic fundamentalists in their insistence on a pure life...but yet claim to be so different.
geez, when i went to college we would gather every friday at noon and openly smoke pot on the quad. we called it 'high noon'. hundreds would show up and partake. nobody gave a rats a**, least of all the cops. boy, have times changed for the worse.
brandz, you could still probably get away with "high noon", after all it'
s specifically tobacco they are banning. lol
God, not much has changed...
Dr. Siegel says: It might be, if these universities were dictating a range of unhealthy behaviors that were not to be tolerated on campus. If the universities decided that they would simply not allow people to engage in unhealthy behavior on campus, then it might be reasonable to include tobacco use among those behaviors.
No, Doctor, universities have no right to "dictate" anything to adults regarding legal activities, regardless how "unhealthy" they are made out to be. It's none of the college administration's or any do-gooder student group's damn business. An free adult's body does not belong to employers, government, colleges, etc. We are not free people any longer.
And, enough about smoking bans protecting workers. There were plenty of workers who worked at bars, cafes, diners, etc. partly because they could smoke there. You see them now outside. They never asked for "protection" and if it were really a worker's rights issue they could just wear gas masks just like any other jobs involving airborne pollutants that are far more dangerous. But it's all part of the same propaganda - smokers cannot be "workers" - only no good bums who want to poison their families.
That's it for a long while ... back to message boards I can read about things I like without being aggravated ... too much stress can kill ... go ahead and pass a law against stress too while you're at it.
" Kevin - I think you are absolutely right. These remarks are insightful and important. I won't comment further, but will simply let them stand on their own. And by the way, this is exactly what I teach my students in my classes."
Michael;
If we can find agreement on this small point. How can you persist in supporting the small minded corruption of "public health" with a focus almost exclusively in creating increased poverty, using TC as an example of how to grow profits from the tragedies of others. Poverty will increase as a predictable response of the same demographics you will damage the most, those who wont give in to the fear.
Is the heel of globalist power so determined they will not allow a crumb of dignity to remain, among those they are determined to torment without restraint.
very well stated, cj
The universities will simply see a drop in students living on the campus, taking a good chunk out of the money paid to the college.
cj,
Nice to hear your right on comments. I miss your voice here though.
.
If those anti smoking Nazi's were as concerned about soul pollution as they are about health pollution the campuses and America would be in much better shape.
Speaking of campuses Ohio State had Bill Clinton as their commencement speaker this year. Now there's a fine example for the youths of America;-(
Who cares? It's not my ox being gored.
I had a great time in college. Smoked everywhere and anywhere. Bars, dorm room, fraternity house, bathroom stall, shower, restaurants, hospital, police station.
Why should I care about other people's rights?
Yeah, I know...
"It's for the chilruns."
Is it just me, or is everyone else here sick of the "it's for the chilrun" garbage?
I care about my own children. That's it. I really don't give a rat's ass about everyone else's chilruns.
PS: Don't get me wrong. I sincerely wish every child a lifetime of health, wealth and luck.
I think everyone gets my point. I have very little interest in the "greater good" of society. Just the families that I am personally responsible for. Sue me.
PSS: College kids are NOT chilruns. Just watch a commercial for "Girls Gone Wild: Spring Break" if you don't believe me.
This new authoritarianism causes me to worry more about my children's freedom than their health.
While I'm not aware that anti-smoking groups are behind these policies,...
Doc, you have to be PC and can't say it. I'm not saying that anti-tobacco social engineers are behind this either. I have exactly the same amount of proof that you do...0.
What I do know as a 100% fact is that progressive politicians and career bureaucrats in acadamia don't think for themselves.
They got the idea from someplace.
Leave the rest to the imagination of the "sheeple" who are too stupid to put 2+2 together. Everyone here gets it. Others don't. Story must have gotten lost. MSM wouldn't accidentally let anything get past them.
OK Michael;
If we can all see a problem with cigarette companies placing an FDA approved logo on cigarette packages. Why is there no problem with oil companies, drug companies and chemical companies as participating stakeholders also putting WHO logos on the gas pumps and product labels, declaring approval of the WHO? While competitors products with no such distinction are being attacked by the same companies lobbies in the press and in government offices. Is the UN an exclusive members only club now?
How about the stamp of approval for Al Gore's election campaign with the endorsement of all the large approved and loved corporations in conspiracy with the WHO, endorsing and financing him?
When we look at what is happening it is the formation of a conspired network which exists above the law and above governance, with the ability to tailor both, to suit it's needs. What chance is left for others to compete who are not part of the old boys network partnered with the UN.
Large industries and financial institutions are not compassionate entities no matter how they sell their corporate brands. They have an obligation by law to produce maximum profits. The HIA health intervention is the very reason the UN should operate independently. The process is self healing and through persistence can never really fail, because setbacks are analyzed and corrected before the next wave of advocacy begins.
The medical community is being deliberately used for their credentials alone, their opinions or values are not really important, the ad agencies will supply those.
Only the campaign goal is a priority. If any of them step out of line the rest have been programmed throughout their education and practice to always protect the process. Defense is found in use of credentials, they defame the dissenters in front of the only cameras available, while the outcast is left in silence with virtually no defense.
The UN partnering with industries is completely unethical and corrupt to the core. It infers to third world countries that the decisions the UN makes will be in support of their industry partners above all else.
If America is to represent freedom and democracy and outside of government the UN has troops supporting American industry interests how does the UN or America maintain any sense of credibility on the world stage? Hatred for the west grows in process among countries we traditionally knew as allies.
The claims by the terrorists of American interference in domestic matters actually appear to have a solid basis for complaint. 911 was an attack on a UN complex and on the American government however the mainstream press failed to acknowledge the implications in who the terrorists saw as their enemy or why.
When we know Africa will soon feed 25% of the American oil demand. At the same time we can see genocide and instability in the region as a result of incredible poverty, right under the U N's watchful gaze, we always have to wonder if the killing is a route preferred in creating a cost saving fast track to that oil.
The same blood diamonds reference can be observed at your local gas station oil companies with every right to climb over the hundreds of thousands dead, and sell the spoils as companies held in high regard because of UN affiliations.
Hi all, I follow this blog nearly daily. Please all, including our gracious host Dr. Segiel, watch this simple animation. A child can understand this when a thousand words fail.
http://isil.org/resources/
introd...ntroduction.swf
Karen;
Thanks for that, and you are quite right; so simple even a child can understand it. Yet the most educated among us seem to loose something in the translation, when invited to gala conferences designed to offer ample quantities of third hand smoke to stoke their egos.
Third hand is The kind of smoke they blow up your ass.
Leading us to consider another old saying;
Bullshit baffles brains.
Karen, That was Great and needs to be on YouTube and everywhere!!!
Glister;
Unfortunately the popular media treats Libertarians without explanation, like fascists. A political movement despite its strong ties to what we know is common sense and civil rights, are treated like lepers with no right to media voice.
As a community, we believe them to be a group of radical thinkers who's principles we can not even discuss.
Isn't it strange when we are all saying "it doesn't matter who you vote for they are really all the same", centrist politics the breeding ground for Fascism is all the rage among the popular poll sitters, yet we see another option in full view and collectively we convince ourselves it couldn't work.
Libertarians created the American Constitution and now they are the most feared political party in the country.
I don't get that, I likely never will.
Karen~
WOW>>>THANX!
~
Thanks Karen!
I have attended a number of smokers rights meetings in Canada and the only political party who is not afraid to stand beside a smoker, has been the Libertarians, who do attend these meetings and try to help people to understand, they do have rights despite what they are being told.
They too are the media outcasts so at least we all have something in common.
Can any of you imagine if smokers, clearly close to a quarter of the population, were rallied behind a single party and each convinced one other person to try another option at the polls, what would happen in the next election?
How long would there be smoking bans or cigarette taxes in place?
More important who would be the outcasts then?
I recieved this in an email today it had to be shared. LMAO
UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com Offers $100,000 Reward in you tube video for Proving Catastrophic Man made Climate Change
Washington, DC (August 7, 2007) - 'Can you save Al Gore?' is the title of a YouTube video released today announcing the $100,000 Ultimate Global Warming Challenge (UltimateGlobalWarmingChallenge.com).
According to the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge rules, the first person to prove - in a scientific manner and according to contest rules - that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic climate change will win $100,000 - and, perhaps most importantly, save Al Gore from his self-made, inconvenient iceberg - depicted on the YouTube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L...h?
v=LBCRStksqL0.
"Here's the opportunity for global warming alarmists to flaunt all the conclusive evidence that they say exists," said Steve Milloy, founder and publisher of JunkScience.com, the sponsor of the Ultimate Global Warming Challenge.
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-----------
International
Polluters financing global warming researches: Gore
Singapore, Aug. 7 (AP): Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the largest carbon polluters in the world, former US Vice President Al Gore said today.
"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $ 10 million (euro 7.2 million) a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at forum in Singapore.
Gore likened the campaign to that of the millions of dollars spent by US tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of uncertainty and debate within the scientific community on the harmful effects of smoking cigarettes.
"This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science," Gore said "We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion."
After the release of a February report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of the world's top climate scientists, that warned that the cause of global warming is "very likely" man-made, "the deniers offered a bounty of $ 10,000 (euro7,250) for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere," Gore said.
"They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools," he said.
Karen, Great post!! Thanks!!
"Kevin - I think you are absolutely right. These remarks are insightful and important. I won't comment further, but will simply let them stand on their own. And by the way, this is exactly what I teach my students in my classes."
Doctor, why do you so often sound so damned PATRONIZING? You're not in one of your damn classrooms here, and we're not a bunch of kids. In fact, it's my opinion that there are a lot of damn smart posters here who have shown who the potter really is and who the pot.
So please, in the future, let's cut out such pat-on-the-back crap as, "These remarks are insightful and important." You just make us grind out teeth all the more (which with many of us are down to their nubs already).
Somebody should make you stand in the corner for at least half an hour.
.
"The point to emphasize is that these policies are an example of pure paternalism. We must dismiss outright the idea that these policies are necessary to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke."
"So is it justified?
"It might be, if these universities were dictating a range of unhealthy behaviors that were not to be tolerated on campus. If the universities decided that they would simply not allow people to engage in unhealthy behavior on campus, then it might be reasonable to include tobacco use among those behaviors. But none of these colleges are doing that. They are singling out tobacco use, and leaving all other unhealthy behaviors -- such as excessive alcohol use, eating unhealthy foods, eating too much, not consuming enough antioxidants or fiber, consuming trans-fats, eating too much fat, or failing to get enough exercise -- alone."
It's the "It might be" that catches the eye and makes the jaw drop. So IT MIGHT BE justified if all those other dictatorial measures were put in place?
What country do you live in, doctor? And how can you utter the word 'paternalism' with a straight face? Have you no damn shame?
.
"We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion."
Sort of like the examined and solved developments dealt with in HIA which preceded any public consultations, involvement, Opinions or any participation beyond being goaded by the propaganda driven solutions of hatred and exclusions in de-normalizing our neighbors.
http://enhealth.nphp.gov.au/
coun..._guidelines.pdf
"These Guidelines specifically address the use of HIA
when conducting Environmental Impact Assessment,
further developing the National Health and Medical
Research Council National Framework for Environmental
and Health Impact Assessment (1994)6 in
the light of experience in implementing HIA in
Australia and overseas. In this planning context the
outcomes of HIA provide the ideal starting point for
efforts to maximise positive health impacts and
prevent or minimise negative impacts. Rectifying
problems during planning is usually the preferred
approach; rather than having to deal with them once
a development is under construction or in place.
By ensuring that immediate and future human health
can be protected, the possibility of sustainable
development is strengthened by HIA."
"They're trying to manipulate opinion and they are taking us for fools," he said.
Kind of what we have grown to expect from these guys;
http://www.who.int/research/en/
http://www.who.int/about/en/
" WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends."
OT, but not really,
World Medical Association Declaration on the Rights of the Patient;
http://www.wma.net/e/policy/l4.htm
Interesting read. I may bring a copy with me the next time I am forced to visit a Doktor. 
Also this one:
World Medical Association International Code of Medical Ethics
http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c8.htm
Most Countries subscribe to thiese declarations. I think they may need a reminder.
Karen,
That was wonderful!!!! Please get it widely shown.. With your permission I will pass along.
Thanks so very much!!!
.
Kevin:
"Can any of you imagine if smokers, clearly close to a quarter of the population, were rallied behind a single party and each convinced one other person to try another option at the polls, what would happen in the next election?
How long would there be smoking bans or cigarette taxes in place?"
Kevin is right, look at the AARP or the NRA. Power is in numbers.
Privacy in America is under attack. It is obvious that the dems and repubs will do nothing.
If someone out there can organize this thing I'm all for it. Of course, smokers in general are "mind their own business types". It's hard to get them to come out and play. However, these repeated intrusions into personal behavior and being the whipping boys for all taxes may change that.
It could be the time if a dynamic enough leader were to step forward.
"BTW Bill how come pubs and restaurants can't "exercise their autonomy" to allow smoking??"
Because many local, state and national governments have enacted smokefree indoor laws (and some have enacted smokefree outdoor dining laws) to protect workers and patrons from tobacco smoke pollution.
But most pubs and restaurants can and still exercise their autonomy by allowing smoking outdoors at their facilities. - Bill Godshall
Ah Bill,
I am heartened to see you acknowledge that some property owners are still allowed to exercise their autonomy.
I am sure you will continue to actively campaign to remove that basic right if it furthers your agenda.
Your argument that "it's the law" seems rather weak considering that America would not even exist if people had simply accepted "the law". Your forefathers had vision, principles and courage.
GreatScot
BTW I am sill awaiting your new or should I say "novel" definition of the free market.
I assume you have studied Adam Smith's work and at least heard of the wonderful principles of your own founding fathers?
Your dissertation and rebuttal of their works should make fascinating reading. Please post soon.
GreatScot
Sunz "Karen,
That was wonderful!!!! Please get it widely shown.. With your permission I will pass along.
Thanks so very much!!!"
I think it's a great little piece myself Sunz! You don't need my permission, it's not my work, I just came across it this morning and I thought the same thing, it need to be widely shown!!
Also comes in languages:
English
Dutch
Spanish
Esperanto
French
Italian
Hungarian
Somali
Portuguese
Russian
Ukrainian
Romanian
Danish
Polish
Lithuanian
http://www.jonathangullible.com/
The Video is already on YouTube - just checked.
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=0
PUP-
In saying "It might be...," I was being facetious. I do not think it would be justified even if they did address all of these other behaviors as well.
Karen, you are totally wrong. It takes a village as Comrade Hillary says.
We need to replace the "on your own society" with the "we're in it together society".
In order to pay for it, she will "take the profits" from Big Oil, tobacco, alcohol, pharma and use it to create a Socialist Utopia.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
--Karl Marx
One thing that they seem to have overlooked in their implied emphasis on banning smoking for the students is the staff (both academic and non-academic). By doing this they've effectively excluded 20% of their potential workforce and visiting researcher list from scratch.
I would anticipate that the obvious retort would be to question the intelligence of smokers, however I can name at least 3 professors (usually at the research group head level) and at least as many senior postdocs who smoke. And that's just in one department of one university.
Unless they're inspecting everyone's mouth, how are they going to tell if someone is using snus? Idiots!
I suppose that the standard pot smoking fests that occur will be discreetly ignored, as usual.
(Note: nothing against marijuana, just the hypocrisy.)
Commenting by HaloScan
