What should be blatantly obvious is the opportunistic use of children to drive a radical agenda. The same way in Ottawa they made use of a dying woman in the only case in Canadian History before or since, a waitress was awarded workers compensation, because of lung cancer reported to have been caused by second hand smoke.. Heather Crowe went on a world tour before her death, like a freak in a cage on display to callously stroke the emotions of the public while selling their wares. A public deceived by no less than a traveling snake oil show.
Her story was supported by her doctor, a timid soul who has not been named, likely because his identity could bring his right to practice medicine under scrutiny, considering the obvious unethical use of that license, If he has a process it would be selfish not to share with his colleagues who have no such advantages at their disposal. A fraud who claimed before a financial benefit hearing, he had a process which could determine the specific cause of a cancer, eliminating all other possibilities. Quite the feat before a board who is famous for the cold hearted way they routinely rent Doctors to provide favorable reports with which to deny a large number of claims leaving an injured worker a ling arduous path of appeals and assessments in order to be compensated for even the most obvious injuries.
The Doctor convinced her ETS had killed her, as she stated in the campaign on the BMJ website attacking the character pf Enstrom and Kobat. All confounders had been eliminated. A woman who was in her 50s had worked in a city for a number of years in a restaurant ripe with carcinogens, from the kitchen to the floors and tables which she cleaned numerous times a day. Only smoke could be the cause?
These brave city councilors should be commended for their willingness to take the gift of freedom so cavalierly, throwing away not only their own liberties, but those of all others including the rights of those outside of the suburb of ignorance.
They dishonor the memories of those who came before, and died so those same liberties could be protected.
TC fanatics walk on dangerous ground claiming a right to throw away the liberties of others. A right or proxy they never had any claim to and if this continues they will be taught that lesson in short order. Was America not the product of revolt against imposition grown from the Boston Tea party? Was that simply an error in America’s past, which Health Care advocates in protection of the children seek to correct? They seem to forget the rights of the parents with bad habits today, a quarter of the population slandered without end by our self important saviors, will be the first to fight for the rights they leave to their children tomorrow.
How many politicians will be willing to be so cavalier in not protecting the future of their own children, from terrorists both foreign and domestic.
As for the overwhelming science The WHO study seems to demonstrate a crack in the invincible truth, also conveniently forgotten in the creation of political facts.
It isn't "really crap," doctor, if the ultimate aim of an outfit like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is to have laws passed prohibiting smoking around kids, period, and that prohibiting smoking in cars is only a first step towards prohibiting smoking in the home. And isn't the writing on the wall already: "... which is why I've advocated for smokefree workplace laws, smokefree homes and cars when children are present" -- Godshall?
Are you really trying to tell us that the juggernaut THAT YOU YOURSELF HAVE FED is going to stop short of some ultimate, fanatical goal, where all the birds in the trees can sing without coughing their poor little smoke-filled lungs out?
only antis imagine kids choking in a car full of smoke with the windows sealed shut.
i don't know anyone who doesn't open the window when they smoke, even if no one else is in the car
my answer to this campaign will never vary
produce the dead and/or injured children or shut up already
sorry for the poor typing - broke my wrist
and of course my discharge paper made sure to warn me not to smoke or i won't heal properly!
This really stinks of eugenics. It seems that the purpose is to encourage smokers NOT to breed.
Doc says "Obviously, I am not arguing here that smoking should be banned in homes with children. It shouldn't. What I am pointing out is that the arguments being used to support car smoking bans to protect children's health are faulty. It is a lot of rhetoric, but very little substance".
Glad you cleared that up, and in what? Only the 13th paragraph?
The first twelve sure sounded an awful lot like you were/are supporting banning smoking in the home.
I agree that the arguments supporting smoking bans (all smoking bans, not just some) are faulty, with a lot of rhetoric and very little substance.
This can't be argued from a car vs home smoke exposure position because we all know that our homes WILL be next. There's no safety net there, Dr. Siegel. They're laughing and saying "just wait."
The car vs home must be put in terms of private property and parental autonomy (with the lack of evidence that even 30 years of exposure is unproven coming in third). It's not about smoking at all anymore.
So let's start to look at it this way:
By virtue of leaving the confines of your private home and taking your kid into the confines of your private car that is driven along PUBLIC roads, the state is saying they now have jurisdiction over your kid and can keep you from exercising your parental authority and smoke in the car with your kids. Oversight of your child is now in their hands.
If obesity is the crisis they say it is and is "about to overtake" smoking as the "number one preventable cause of death" then no anti (listening Bill?) can object to the argument that a parent feeding/allowing their kid too much "junk" food (even juice has been thrown in that category and so will whole milk) is "abusing" or "murdering" their child.
So once you leave the confines of your private home and take your child in public then the state can put down rules on what and how much you can feed your child. If you're observed buying/feeding a child one cookie over the limit then you will be fined. Or, sticking to the car -- if you're seen going through Mickey D's drive-thru.
It's no different in terms than "likened the initiative to measures that protect children against physical abuse at the hands of their parents. 'This isn’t about civil liberties at all,' she said. 'It’s about protecting children’s health.'"
So we work at this from the most extreme end and ask people who would even invite the health police into their homes over smoke (because that IS what they are trying to do which is why Dr. Siegel's chosen defense fails) if they'd allow the state to ban them from having "junk" (as further defined by the state) food in their home if they have children. Maybe NYC Health Commissioner Frieden will want to send in his cops to make sure you don't have a can of Crisco in the house.
And what if you protest that you don't even feed that stuff to your kids? It's for adult use only? Well then, Bill comes in and says we're corrupting their morals.
So the lunacy of it can only resonate with the smoke brainwashed public if it's put in terms of government intruding into your private places and parental authority FIRST. Then you add "furthermore" the exposure in cars don't make for a risky dose. That way we might stop them at the car instead of taunting them to come into the house where they plan to come in anyway.
I'm glad to see that you are all finally getting the "big" picture and see what is in store for not just us smokers, but for every parent/person who dares do something that "big health" doesn't approve of. Now I ask you, are you ready to fight them? Can we and will we ban together to fight these people? Which ones of us can and will form the first convention that bring us all together to fight and expose these people and bring them all down. Name the meeting place and I will be the first to purchase my plane ticket. Looking forward to meeting you all.
This was passed as a primary offense.
This will allow police to pull over all people who are smoking in cars to check if there is anyone under 18 in the car.
It will open up another avenue to Profile citizens.
Remind me never to visit Bangor, ME.
And I don't have children...
If you advocate legislated (ie: the public's regulation through government enforcement) prohibition of smoking in so-called "public places" and "workplaces" that are privately owned, then your arguments in opposition to the same in any other privately-owned property are null and void. Likewise, if you advocate the former (which allege to "protect" adults from the presence of ETS), you cannot oppose the latter that claim to protect children from the same.
Given this rational basis on principle, Doc, your continuing "position" in favour of smoking bans in privately owned workplaces and public places (while attempting to oppose bans in privately owned cars and homes) is totally irrational. You are effectively trying to argue that protecting adults from an alleged health danger is justifiable but not for children. You are essentially arguing that the danger posed by ETS is dependent on its location. Your arguments will fly the same time as pigs.
In remaining consistent with the claims of harming a child while smoking in a car.
Considering carcinogens and toxins by volume.
Toasting marshmallows while camping with your child should in all fairness bring charges of attempted murder.
What say the TC cheerleaders should we all start writing the legislators?
Or have even one of you the guts to admit the exaggeration found in the child abuse claims?
Dianne’s call to arms should be taken very seriously
In Canada we are advanced in the forward going process as we see by Provincial governments implementing greenbelts the taking away without compensation of rights to farmlands. The farmers were immediately notified by their banks the value of the property had dropped and would no longer sustain equity for existing mortgages.
A glimpse of the future, When the communist part took over in China they through similar process of gradually taking property rights they devalued the property before finally taking away what property remained in private hands to level the playing field so to speak.
Looking ahead once property rights are minimized your real value of property you own will plummet. For renters your rights will be depreciated as well. The forward going strategies using the terms coined by the communists are the efforts of a slow moving cogged wheel progressing a step at a time. Which without uprising allowed all rights to property to be taken by the state.
If anyone has a place to host it I have a pretty large detailed piece of writing I received recently from an un named source. The chronology demonstrating the history of what occurred. Redefinition of public spaces internationally should have been a warning sign. Looking at the current efforts of Public Health right down to the terminology exactly what has been progressing today also happened then.
The effect of devaluing property is the banks are seizing what many view as their pension income. Currently the legal advertised reverse mortgage schemes developed to tempt seniors to take equity out of their homes, will accelerate what is eventually going to happen. Many consider their retirement plan to be tied up in their homes which can be sold to survive after retirement.
Where are all these unfortunate seniors going to be left when the nest egg is gone?
and here is my double dog dare again-
make ALL tobacco/nicotine/cotinine producing products ILLEGAL. (and that is ONE darn long list, isn't it?)
I am DARING you TC "folks" to MAKE ME A CRIMINAL.
Albeit, I already am a criminal in your eyes.
So, go for it...and let the games begin.
and before Mr Godshall gets his tuppence in:
I Triple Dog Dare YOU!
The smoking ban in cars is a necessary step for the antismoking movement to take before it addresses exposure of children to tobacco smoke in the home.
Proponents of the car ban hope to persuade the state to consider home exposure child abuse and to take remedial steps.
To acheive the necessary political will their plan must be carried out incrementally.
not to derail, but is this really newsworthy? the left meets the right again.
http://mediamatters.org/items/20...ms/
200701180010
Brandz;
Your link demonstrates efforts against the industry as claimed have absolutely been proven as discriminatory acts against a defined group.
The media question says it all "would you vote for a smoker as president?"
Common sense would take us to; what would that matter? The opposition is obviously playing on the developed hatred which has been endorsed by governments around the planet.
I think Kevin is correct: children are being used here for political purposes. If the policy makers really were concerned about the health of kids, and were willing to intrude upon civil liberties and parental autonomy to protect them (which they are in Bangor, as we saw this week), then there is no excuse for them not to ban smoking in homes when children are present.
It is totally rhetoric, and I agree - children are being misused for political purposes.
I do wonder whether Stephen is correct, and this is just a prelude to banning smoking in homes with children. But so far, I haven't seen any group come out in favor of that (other than foster parents).
As far as Anonymous' comment that my support for workplace smoking bans is inconsistent with my opposition to car ahd home smoking bans because workplaces, like homes and cars, are private places, I disagree. The reason is that once you open up your establishment for business with the public, you are no longer a private place - you are now a public place, and therefore you have certain responsiblities to the public that you don't have in your own car and your own home.
re ban in cars with children
"overwhelming evidence
(you can look it up anywhere) that shs is as deadly as primary smoking"
direct quote from Dr Alvarez on fox news just this minute
so i'm a gimp right now, can't type
who wants to ask him to produce the dead and harmed children? surely the "overwhelming evidence" should be able to produce someone that's proven to be harmed by parental smoking
show me the children
They choose the car because we have never allowed vehicles the constitutional protections presumed for other private property. The corrupt postwar legal profession has not yet interpreted away the right to be secure in our homes, except when the Other Drug War is involved.
Give them time.
The government subsidy of schooling (our modern schools truly educate individuals only by accident) is an awesome engine of tyranny.
A Fox News Live anchorwoman was just interviewing Dr. Manny and she asked him how he felt about the ban on smoking in cars with children present and here is his word-for-word response: "I think it's a good idea for the car ban, I've seen those, uh, you know, people exactly smoke with the windows rolled up with the children in the backseat, and you know, we have over, this overwhelming evidence, you can look it up anywhere, that second hand smoke is as deadly as primary smoking. And if you have a little kid, you know, everything, you know, it takes time for this, uh, these, uh, cancer effects on people so you don't really want to do that."
A few states/territories have this law-- Arkansas, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, maybe more.
I just read that only 3 tickets have been issued in one state since the law went into effect.
This is just a virtually unenforceable, feel-good law.
I don't doubt some city-- Belmont, Calif., maybe-- will one day try to pass a smoking ban in single-family homes, but that will be even less enforceable. Can police get a warrant while the cigarette butt is still smoldering?
ha ha Margaret beat me to it! I thought his name was Dr. Manny 'cause the banner at the bottom of the screen said "Ask Dr. Manny". Maybe Alvarez is filling in??
Dr. Siegel, allowing the "public" to patronize a business does NOT make that business "public property", it is still owned by someone, other than the "public", a "public" building is a building built, maintained, and held in trust for the publics use, examples would include Public Libraries, courthouses, police stations, publicly funded clinics and hospitals, city and county offices, street department garages, etc, etc.
A busines, on the other hand, has an owner, who pays for the taxation, upkeep, and maintenance of siad property, has the legal right to seel said property, to open whatever business (within legal limits) s/he/they choose to operate. Every business I have been into has their little discretionary disclaimer that they "reserve the right to refuse service" to anyone they so choose. How in the world do you imagine that privately owned business's are "public property"?
They have the right to choose to entice whatever clientele they so choose. Yes there are laws to regulate that business, to protect the "public" from unseen danger, define how tobacco smoke exposure, for even 8 hours, can be considered a "danger", then define how said tobacco smoke goes unseen, or can be listed or described as a "hidden" danger?
Dr Alvarez obviously promotes the idea asking smokers to quit is simply a waste of time. They are all doomed as the most exposed population sector ETS has killed them all and their offspring. Because of their freebasing habit they just haven't the sense left to fall down.
How did so many survive the dirty habits of our past? When more than half the population smoked, the pandemic of dead babies must have been shocking to see.
Curious you never read about that in the press.
Quacks like a duck is no longer a duck, now we call them Doctors and health scare professionals.
Jerry Thomas;
Prior to rallying the political will to impose smoking bans it is always a prerequisite to redefine the term “public spaces” as anywhere the public is allowed to go.. Look it up, everywhere there is a smoking ban, adjustments without explanation preceded the glad handing of media interventions and public hearings with the seats primarily filled with the same asses who participate in the ongoing promotion. The same asses who are showing up to defend the rights of local communities, given awards and accolades for their brave stand, protecting what is perceived to be their own communities.. The traveling snake oil salesmen show up when needed to cry the same parroted tunes of indignity armed with testimonials all strangely citing World Health Organization estimates designed to shock and disturb their participating victims. Government officials picking up the tab with the public purse in most cases, to be read the riot act in a public forum. being duty bound by the public good they sheepishly comply with the predetermined policy demands.
I saw the esteemed Dr. "Manny" Alvarez, also, and heard his ridiculous comments. We need to email Fox News Channel and ask where the "fair and balanced" was on that story.
It seems to me the car ban may be the first crack that would allow a good lawsuit, on both the science and government intrusion. Since no study has ever been done on the "hazards" of secondhand smoke in a car with the windows open - or closed, for that matter - what is the scientific basis for these bans? What gives the government the authority to control private property and private behavior when nothing has been proven to be "hazardous" under those conditions?
I hope someone who gets a ticket challenges this law to the hilt.
The first to step forward to defeat the car bans would be anyone who drives a convertable being broad brushed by an unknown and as yet undefined safety concern.
Neither the type of cigarette smoked or the quantities where it becomes more than a nusance, nor in what quantity of air the danger may exist. None have been explained by anyone but unskilled politicians exagerating each others overblown rumors.
I can just imagine the case being presented in a court where heresay is controlled to it's source. Who will be brave enough to face the questioning of a well informed lawyer. Possibly preparing for the eventual huge class action waiting to happen.
Citing the same source as a potential defendant charged with proving the claims they throw around in the media every day.
Mike wrote:
"It is totally rhetoric, and I agree - children are being misused for political purposes."
It's clear to me that it is Mike, and not health advocates, who is misusing children for his own political purposes of promoting a right-to-smoke and perpetuating abuse against children.
Since 2007 began, all of Mike's blog postings have opposed reasonable public health policies that protect people from tobacco smoke pollution and/or that reduce smoking.
Jerry Thomas is correct when he explains to you the difference between private and public. When I hear that you stopped by your favorite restaurant and dropped off a check to pay their taxes, that will be the day that I will admit that restaurant had finally become public. Never in my life have I ever smoked a cigarette in line at the Post Office, nor in a grocery store, even though that grocery store is usually owned by a franchise of some kind, yet a mom and pop restaurant or bar is owned by a private person, the same as your home that you live in. My in-laws owns a restaurant/bar in upstate New York. For over 20 years, it was a vibrant business and a must go to place in the area. Now I dread the months of January through April, when all I hear is "How am I going to pay my taxes?" You did this to them so accept the blame. New Year's Eve use to be wall to wall people and the waitstaff use to beg to work that night. This past New Year's, they only needed 2 waitresses as they only had reservations for 45 people. Shame on you, but in a way, I and my husband are thankful as you see, my in-laws are 83 years old and they still manage to stay healthy and work 14 to 16 hour days at their privately owned public business and we would like to see them retire. I wonder though if you and the rest of the TC movement will have the stamina to work those hours at the age of 83 or will you be basking on some remote island comparing your stories as to how you invested your income from us smokers so to make your lifestyle be nothing less than comfort. I pray that a day comes when your guilt eats at your soul and your children has to listen to endlesss stories about your corruption and lies. Oh yeah, I would also like to remind you that the air is for us all, not just for the so called Politically correct and when you go to a restaurant and order a steak dinner or to a stadium and pay for a fixed seat and should I come to the same restaurant and order the same meal as you or pay for a fixed seat at a stadium right next to you, then the chances are I am paying the same amount of money as you and I should be granted the same air space and rights as you seem to think should be granted to just you. Once again, shame on you all. We are all created equal and by the way, my workhorse 83 year old in-laws also smokes and have worked in so called smokefilled businesses all their adult life and like the enerizing bunny, they keep going and going and going.
Bill, if you are going to continue to be a public speaker on issues that you are not an expert in, would you please take a refresher course in English. Your grammar is horrific!
Bill's coined term "reasonable" is truly in the eye of the beholder.
A discussion requires two participants imposition only requires one.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Since 2007 began, all of Mike's blog postings have opposed reasonable public health policies that protect people from tobacco smoke pollution and/or that reduce smoking."
You've said banning smoking on sidewalks is not unreasonable.
Sidewalks, those concrete walking paths right next to roadways.
Roadways: Those asphalt/concrete paths that you orally rape pedestrians from with your Prius exhaust. You can rape people with your Prius, but smokers can't? That's not reasonable.
BTW, a resaonable approach to reduce smoking is not through punishment: Higher taxes, no smoking allowed anywhere, etc.
Reasonable would be education and/or offering smoking cessation classes. It's just their tough luck if nobody listens to them.
Guys, we can fight this for the next 5-10 years, the whole time being robbed blind by our government and the TC. OR we can push to make smoking completely illegal. If we all do that, we will pick up a majority of the sheep that think smoking is so bad. With those we will have the numbers to demand that our national congress completely criminalizes the manufacturing, sale, and use of ALL tobacco products. Within 2 years of this (and us keeping OUR money instead of the being robbed), every single state will be so desperate for funds they'll do anyting we want. I am definitely up to making the sacrifice for 2 years to watch them fall. At this point they are so dependant on the money in taxes we pay that we can cripple them all in one fell swoop if we as a nation move fast enough. And with the fanatics we would definitely have the numbers to scream the criminalization of it all in place. Use the fantatics energy against them, let's stir them up!
Because at this point guys, it's either use their energy against them or all of us move to one state and fortify it. The fight for freedom has never ever been bloodless.
I still find it highly amusing to deem 18 y.olds as children.Babies do have a smaller lung capacity but an almost full grown CHILD ?It will be most interesting to see if a large city follows this course of action,or whether it is these little places that want to promote themselves that decide that the rights of smokers be eliminated under the tacky guise of it's for the children and infantile politicians who are in such desperate need of publicity.A lot of comments already refer to the lack of research etc,but when has this ever concerned the bigots of anti- tobacco ?Even Bill promotes a item that he has only ever read about,if we are to beilieve that he doesn't get his nicotine fix from smokeless tobacco.Well i suppose it must look good on paper,or he is a stooge,either way i find it strange that if he is so concerned about smoking tobacco,he advocates something that as a replacement he hasn't the faintest about.Methinks he is a man who wishes to believe what he reads,and having read believes it must be gospel.
The above is mine,Si.
Totally agreed.
They want to protect children from SHS when they're in cars, for perhaps half an hour per day, but they don't want to protect children from SHS when they're home with their parents, for several hours per day. So what kind of children protection is that?!?
Of course the "it's for the children" excuse is just... an excuse. A way to fool people into approving what is essentially a political-driven agenda.
Incidentally... wasn't the "it's for the children" mantra one of the favourite tool of propaganda used in Nazi Germany? Weren't the Nazi the first to argue that if you convince the public that you do it "for the children" then the public will allow you to do almost whatever you want?
Ah, such a post couldn't miss the n-th absurd, illogical ad-hominem attack from Mr. Godshall... but i'll refrain from commenting it, since i don't believe there's still someone, in this blog, that takes this person seriously 
Dr Siegel: I do wonder whether Stephen is correct, and this is just a prelude to banning smoking in homes with children.
I don't wonder at all. While there may or may not be a group currently mouthing rhetoric promoting an in-home ban, there certainly are such comments being made by individual members of the groups.
The car issue is currently being attacked from two different angles....the smoking around children issue is one, but I'm also seeing a reasonable amount of hype about the "driving distraction" issue.
There have been no less than 5 newspaper articles/editorials decrying cell phone/personal hygiene while driving in the past month here in Vancouver.
What I've found interesting is the articles generally have been talking about text messaging, applying make-up, shaving, eating, etc (yes, major distractions) while driving but somehow all of them have, at the very end, included smoking as if it were a distraction on the same level.
There is also a major radio campaign currently being run by the federal gov warning about the "hazards" of in-car smoking with children present......something that is generally a good sign that legislation is on the way.
And this is on top of a two year long federal tv/radio/print campaign on smoking in the home.
The in-home smoking issue is likely going to be a two part attack as well, and one part we're already seeing....the "people shouldn't be exposed to SHS coming from neighbour's apartments" argument.
Almost guaranteed that, once the car issue is passed, the "save the children" rhetoric will go into overdrive, combine with the "neighbour" rhetoric and be used to cram through a Belmont-style in-home ban.
I'd go even further (especially since the children seem to get used for more than one goal at a time) and suggest that, by the point of in-home ban arguments, we'll be seeing calls for a "public" smoking ban.
Wouldn't want children to get the idea that smoking is normal from seeing someone actually do it, right?
Here's the line I suggest we'll probably see over the next few years:
1/ concerted push for in-car with children present....ramp-up of in-home and distraction "discussion"
2/ in-car (with children) ban passes....concerted push for general in-car ban.....ramp-up of in-home (with children) and "monkey-see" discussion
3/general in-car ban passes....concerted push for in-home (with children) ban....ramp-up of monkey-see and neighbour discussion
4/ in-home (with children) ban passes...concerted push for in-public (monkey-see) ban....ramp-up of neighbor and sales ban
5/ anywhere in public ban passes...concerted push for neighbour ban....extreme ramp-up of sales ban discussion
6/ full Belmont-style ban passes...concerted push for ban on all tobacco sales
7/ tobacco prohibition, complete with "War on Drugs" style punishments
It's almost guaranteed the we'll see denial of the agenda along the way, but so far every figurehead of the TC community has outright lied when questioned about future intentions....and that dates right back to the "smoking on planes" days.
We'll also see a lot of peripheral issues along the way ie denial of medical treatment, denial of employment, denial of housing, and, at a guess, legislation specifically allowing treatment of smokers as full second-class citizens....all of which will used to further the goals and used as justification.
I'd be inclined to think we'll see a full smoking/eugenics (after all, smoking damages your genes and smokers endanger their children's health, so why should they be allowed to have children, right?) discussion somewhere along the line as well, but I'm not sure at what point we'll see it.
Si;
Consider the smaller lung capacity argument for a few seconds. Your allowing them to have their cake and eat it too.
Smaller capacity requires smaller amounts of the same level of concentration all of us breathe.
In effect due to the smaller capacity less is inhaled resulting in levels proportionately the same as an adult.
The Zealots claim children breathe more as they are more active however they also expel a lot more, only a portion of what is inhaled remains within the body,
Colds and the flu are actually although not a lot of fun cleansing to respiratory systems. The cure for the common cold if found may actually cause more diseasse than it cures.
In a child contaminants are expelled much more quickly with higher metabolisms. Smoking related disease by far are seen in the elderly who are no linger able to dispell toxins or heal as fast as they once did.
As research shows consistently the effects of smoke are far lower among children although the fear mongers would convince you another reality exists.
We are experiencing the health effects of an aging population allowing the opportunists to take advantage of the numbers that aging will create.
Step away from the bias they pontificate and think about it. How many children are actually affected proportionate with respect to their specific age groups compared to how many are affected in later years?
The significant numbers belong solely to the older group meaning smoking related diseases are more a circumstance of aging than anything smoking produced.
As RWJF instructed at so called medical conventions they also financed; children are only props to sell the message.
RWJF wants that message to be promoted for abundantly obvious reasons. The Billions they made in selling addictive nicotine more than paid for the feel good conditioning sessions, collecting medical community dupes.
Mike;
You missed the subtle message the pot grow houses being posted on the internet as unfit for human habitation or being sold well below market value with no evidence specifically any harm exists beyond the rhetoric. Declaring a home of this description will have to be torn down and rebuilt.
This also generates acceptance for the destroying a home with smoke campaign we hear rising. Allowing anyone to smoke in a rented home may make that home unfit for human habitation.
Did you see the comercials with the smoky fingers clutching a child's teddy bear and the crafted narative suggesting some unexplained harm exists in sediment as well?
Motor vehicles are not air tight. If I am to beleieve that this Draconian measure is to protect the children. Then this needs to be taken to the next step. Ban transporting children in a motor vehicles when any other traffic is on the road.Of course we can grant an exemption if the vehicle in question has a self contained breathing apparatus for the child. Lets face it any of us that has driven behind a bus or other type of vehicle that burns diesel fuel know full well the fumes enter our cars. The gasoline engines fumes also enter just can't smell it. So lets go all out to protect the children. Ban transporting tham in traffic. I am starting to believe the results of open air atomic bomb testing is of years ago is having an affect. People in TC and those that listen to them have lost their minds.
Kevin,IF,there is anything in their arguement,babies would be it.My point is using the term children is ridiculous,i would certainly not wish to be deemed a child,if i were a teenager.It is so easy to say,BUT,it hasn't been thought through.I personally would feel uncomfortable in smoking in front of a baby in an enclosed space,because of the unknown factor.Is it causing a disproportionate health problem or not.I don't know,but i would feel compelled to err on the side of caution,even moreso than someone who has a pre-existing condition aggrevated by possibly smoking.Let them provide evidence for their blanket decision,if it doesn't hold sway for babies,their whole arguement will go out of the window.I again stress this is my personal feeling.
I would like to clarify that by babies,i refer to up to 6 month olds.I also fully agree with nemo31 regarding fumes of the vehicles in front being drawn through the ventilation system.Perhaps it would be safer to refrain from transporting babies in cars wherever possible.
There goes Bill with the postwarrior's favorite strategy: apply an approving adjective ("progressive," "reasonable") to one's own wishes and suddenly transform tyranny into gold.
Most social activists are too dim-witted to distinguish between reality and their own rhetoric; that's why free people should not be ruled by them, no matter how benign the intentions, or even the results.
Dr. Siegel writes:
I do wonder whether Stephen is correct, and this is just a prelude to banning smoking in homes with children. But so far, I haven't seen any group come out in favor of that (other than foster parents).
Maybe I'm missing some subtle difference in what a smoking ban in homes consist of that you see, but if not, how can you possibly say that?!
Just one year ago you yourself were blasting ASH on doing just that -- promoting banning smoking in homes!
Let me refresh your memory. Banzhaf has said, "Here we are literally reaching into the last frontier -- right into the home. No longer can your argue, 'My home is my castle. I've got the right to smoke'."
He didn't say it was just for foster parent cases. It would be a determining factor in custody cases too. And look, you must know by now that those excuses are just a way to get a foot in the door. Banzhaf certainly means that banning smoking in homes to "protect the children" means no matter what the circumstances. The only ingredient needed for the final recipe is The Children. When he calls it "child abuse" how can you possibly give him the benefit of the doubt of how far he means to take it?? By their very own logic "child abuse" is "child abuse" whether it's by foster parents or biological parents, divorce need not be a condition of putting the case into play.
And I'll have more scary hard proof on extending it to homes below.
The first peep in the oncoming call to enter our homes:
A plan to give kids a smoke-free ride should go statewide
Editorial
The Journal News - January 19, 2007
http://www.nyjournalnews.com/app.../701190323/
1151
[Excerpt]
(NY) Second-hand smoke exposure precipitously raises kids' risk of diseases such as bronchitis, pneumonia and asthma. In children, these can kill - making second-hand smoke akin to child abuse. According to the Mayo Clinic, a child exposed to one hour of smoke in a car inhales as many dangerous chemicals as if she smoked 10 or more cigarettes. The confined space, no doubt, only heightens the danger, making a vehicle different from, say, a living room. At least we suppose. While the home has always enjoyed special protection from government intrusion - police can't enter without a warrant or exigent circumstances - we see little justification for making the family room a sanctuary for those thoughtless enough to poison their kids with tobacco smoke.
In any case, the family car is a fitting start.
*
Doctor Siegel,
Sorry off topic, but I would like to ask you a question.
Last Saturday I spent 9 hours in my local Hospital. My ma (80 years old) was admitted with a suspected minor stroke or TIA (whatever that is). It transpires her blood sugar level was over 40.
The admission process went like this:-
Senior Nurse (to a confused and frighted old woman) "Do you smoke?"
Response "No"
Senior Nurse "Have you ever smoked?"
Response "Yes"
Senior Nurse "How long did you smoke for?"
Response "2 years"
Senior Nurse "How many cigarettes did you smoke per day?"
Response "about 2 or 3 a day, it was during my National Service"
Senior Nurse "When did you stop smoking?"
Response "1947"
Senior Nurse "You have been smoke free for 60 years?"
Response "Yes"
The Nurse then filled in the admission form and categorised my Ma as "Ex-Smoker"
This could have been achieved with 2 questions. Do you currently smoke followed by have you ever smoked. My Ma was confused and having speaking difficulties. It was painful to watch this interrogation.
Question
Why would the Hospital need this information to treat a stroke or high blood sugar?
GreatScot
I recall that a few years ago cops were indeed forceably barreling into homes in... Westchester? New Jersey? on suspicion that underage drinking was going on. Nor was this limited to the notable occasions of loud teenage parties. So yes, this stuff can be done. And apparently, will be.
Mr Bill of course will be pleased, but eventually these child abuse laws will be retroactive (no statute of limitations on murder in any state) and Mr Bill will be convicted for his previous murderous ways.
:
“According to the Mayo Clinic, a child exposed to one hour of smoke in a car inhales as many dangerous chemicals as if she smoked 10 or more cigarettes”
Take note no researcher was mentioned, or was any research cited.
The author is stating a personal opinion which does not have any credibility in the real world.
Lets say two smokers and no children were present on a six hour trip, smoking one each per hour would it be believable both smokers had smoked the equivalent of 120 cigarettes each?
First air flow reduces the smoke otherwise the air in the vehicle would quickly be used up killing them both long before they arrived at their destination.
Secondly if toxins were inhaled to collect within the body how much toxin would be left in the smoke which remains?
Even if you measure the total produced by 12 cigarettes which is much more than the total actually inhaled. It falls well below any level which would cause harm even after a life time exposure. Take a look at the 50 year study of doctors who smoke by Doll. Or the ingredients list which demonstrates levels of exposures among the most dangerous are all still within known safe levels even for a child. Known safe levels are called that for a reason, they are estimated in worst case scenarios and left a buffer of safety to be double sure.
The existence of tobacco specific carcinogens in urine testing demonstrates a decrease in levels as the body deals with them. How many of the so called experts even mention the effect. Doll did, and many studies backed him up. You could include the infamous WHO study for one. In stating those smokers who quit earlier demonstrated much less effect. A child exposed and being affected, fails the test of credibility if we also conclude quitting smoking before 30 will show little or no ill effects in later life.
Why don't we just put it to the diametrically conflicted researchers and let them decide the controversy. And decide among themselves who is lying.
Like I said, having their cake and eating it too
In June 2004 This paper was accepted at the BMJ;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/3...t/328/7455/
1519
According to Stanton Glanz, Thun and James Repace. The researchers presented a paper absolutely with no credibility and according to each of them; the paper in its findings may have contributed to the preventable deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of children who will without question die as a result.
If no safe level exists do we now unanimously agree; Doll and company are not to be believed. If that is so how do we form confidence Doll was not mistaken in his connection of smoking and cancer. According to many of the all knowing Doll should have realized second hand smoke was much more deadly than primary smoking making him a poor source of credible research.
Can they take back a knighthood from someone likely responsible for killing Billions world wide?
Kevin,this sort of crap is pathetic,and is manufactured to suit the intended purpose,perhaps there never will be true scientific research that is equitable and accurate,and there can only be one reason for that.The antis message will be thwarted,totally.GreatScot,perhaps it is time for us to stand up and demand ouir rights,that the NHS is not our superior,they are paid by us,for us.Don't take any shit from them.They do treat us like morons,their cushy little Government Patient Charter's should be rammed down their stupid little throats.
JustTheFacts - Point well taken. I stand corrected in stating that no anti-smoking group has called for smoking bans to move into the private home.
GreatScot - I can understand your irritation at the questioning about a remote history of smoking 60 years ago, but my sense is that the nurse wasn't really looking for remote smoking - she was probably more concerned about recent smoking - it is important to ask about smoking since that is a major risk factor for stroke.
The Journal News is apparently supporting the idea of banning smoking in homes. That is scary to me because it indicates that we are willing to intrude into people's homes merely to regulate the risks of health problems. That's scary.
I guess noone took me seriously. Why don't we just push for the total ban of manufacturing, selling, and use of all tobacco products? Make them quit living off our backs?
Jalestra;
I did take you seriously I am sending this to all federal and Provincial elected officials in Canada. I would promote similar messages need to be sent to officials internationally. We need to make the medical journals pay for the gross mortality risk they promoted with hundreds of junk science research studies given credibility in spite of the new research which determines smoking is a minor irritant compared to the much larger health risk of second hand smoke.
In June 2004 This paper was accepted at the BMJ;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/3...3...t/328/7455/
1519
preceded by this one
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/326/7398/
1057
And finally this one; which similarly should all be revealed to the public as purely junk science
http://www.obscurious.co.uk/
comp...smoking1440.pdf
According to Stanton Glanz, Robert Thun Of the American Cancer Society, Robert Coleslaw of Physicians for a Smoke free Canada, The World Health Organization, James Repace along with the American Surgeon General and Health care advocates world wide; smoking bans in our homes, cars and outdoors are necessary in protecting defenseless children from the known irreversible and deadly effects of second hand smoke.
The researchers presented papers with absolutely with no credibility and according to each of the experts named; the Doll paper specifically in its findings along with his earlier works Doll may have contributed significantly to the preventable deaths of hundreds of thousands of defenseless children who will without question die as a result.
If no safe level exists do we not now unanimously agree; Doll and company are not to be believed no benefit is credible even if smokers all quit immediately. Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS] can not be safe at any level, If that is so, how do we form confidence Doll was not mistaken in his connection of smoking and cancer, clearly the result of second hand smoke as he should have known. I would surmise; Doll was likely paid by the Tobacco companies to hide the truth, resulting in enormous loss of life. According to Health Care professionals; Doll should have realized second hand smoke was much more deadly than primary smoking. Making him a poor source of credible research. Smoking bans outdoors are justified, in opposition to the despicable findings of Sir Richard Doll. What could be the motivation for down playing such an enormous risk? Smokers should be told quitting smoking will offer no tangible benefits as, in effect they are already doomed. They might as well enjoy what time they have left, as long as they refrain from poisoning others in the process. Perhaps smoking rooms or non smoking rooms might be revisited for the protection of the rest of us.
Or perhaps a penal colony in the north may be in order for those not wishing to quit.
Not wishing to speak Ill of the dead but; can they take back a knighthood from someone likely responsible for killing Billions world wide?
It becomes obvious The British Medical journal and similar organizations world wide, casually distribute these and hundreds of similar research papers which can be seen as no less than enormously dangerous to public health. The language displayed at this link demonstrates the reality, these distributors of propaganda need to be shut down and made to pay for the harm they promote in our communities.
http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/
fu...fb51ee231739f0c
This one is scandalous
http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/fu...ent/full/9/1/
95
Our political leaders need to defend themselves rigorously against such loose language which affects the credibility and leadership of all current political parties, who need to improve the message The reality of second hand smoke; no safe level can exist. I would propose the authors of research which discredits our political leadership, need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and be held accountable for the Billions of non smokers they have killed already.
There is an opportunity for all of us to contribute to the benefit of all in our communities. We need to collect studies and quotes with time and dates along with any attributable evidence to prove ETS is much more dangerous than primary smoking and dispel the myth of preventable death.
We should all be contributing to RRs at the British medical Journal and Pub Med challenging hundreds of studies in supporting the known reality
ETS has no safe level and should be identified as much more deadly than primary smoking with the proof in hand to substantiate the reality which is now known.
Bill Could be our spokesman to drive home the message.
Smoke Free Ohio has direct links to legislators sign up and get to work.
GreatScot--
Even dentists interrogate their customers about smoking, let alone the physicians and "health-care workers."
It's a dodge. No matter how wise or clever a practicioner is, they will fail us all one way. It is clear the medical professions spend most of their time blaming that inevitable failure on their customers, I suppose so they can feel OK about continuing to take their money (but you greedy people should never be allowed to sell you own organs!)
Yeah, smoking history is relevant, but today's prevalent bigotry has transformed this exercise into a procedure for washing one's hands of any fellow feeling for the cusomer. They'll take his money, though.
Dr Siegel,GreatScott reported what i would perceive to be intrusive questioning as he highlighted.Sorry but i thought arterial damage was the leading factor in strokes.You have never answered why smoking is very prevalent in France ,(their cigarettes are also high in carbon monoxide) yet their incidence of heart disease is one of the lowest in Europe.Yet heart disease is linked as causal in your books,or a major factor,depending upon how you wish to state your position.The whole rabid movement has spent years in attempting to prove smoking causes everything,yet they have failed,at best an epidemiological possibility exists,but real conclusive evidence doesn't exist BECAUSE RESEARCHER'S ARE TOO SCARED TO LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
Personally, I just never answer those questions on smoking. No one is holding a gun to my head to answer them and it's my right to choose that question as a violation of "right to privacy." If the doctor is that interested in the answer and I don't answer then it's his right to say he can't see/treat me without it.
In the last few years I've had only two occasions where I saw a doctor (for the most minor of things). Both times I left that question blank on the intake form they give you. Neither time did anyone in the office (doctor included) say one word about it.
I believe also that at least half the reason that question is asked is at the direction of Public Health agencies who use it to gather statistics. I know for a fact that these kind of questionnaires are distributed to doctors by these agencies specifically to be used for gathering smoking-related stats.
Though I wouldn't give the answer to the doctor either I'm more driven not to answer as refusal to participate (help) in the stat gathering by the health police.
So I don't know why anyone bothers answering on paper or doesn't try to refuse answering when verbally asked.
As for GreatScot's story, I see no reason why they needed to know BEFORE they examined her what her medical problem was. The woman was having a problem. Just diagnose WHAT it is! Does it matter right then WHAT caused it?!? If she said she didn't smoke would they rule out the possibility of a stroke???? And that's exactly what the Lung Cancer Alliance complains about. That a nonsmoker presents with symptoms but are not checked for lung cancer because they do not smoke. It's not discovered until later.
The only time smoking or diet or exercise should be the topic of discussion should be AFTER the patient is stabilized, resting comfortably, when advice on how to avoid it NEXT TIME can be given.
JTF;
When you are offered the advice by a Doctor does it strike you as it does me, and I am sure a lot of others; like a fresh out of jail born again christian trying to convert you?
Well, I can't actually answer that from any personal experience. I think my disposition (or attitude?) permeates to a noticeable level. No doctor ever tried to talk "down to" me. And I've always felt they would but for how they read this particular person (me) standing in front of them. It's not like I scowl or speak in an angered person's tone or act defensive. I smile, I joke, I chat. But I don't behave in any way that puts them on a pedestal. They sense that and react accordingly. Sort of like an "I'm here on business and we can be friendly about it but don't give me any of your business."
"I hate to have to say this, but this is really crap."
My sentiments exactly, with regard to this Web site. My God, and he wonders why people speculate on whether he's working for the tobacco industry.
It's not necessary for a law to make everything perfect for that law to be a good thing. Keeping parents from smoking with their kids in a tiny space like a car, where they have no way of removing themselves or creating any distance, is obviously a good thing. Keeping parents from smoking in the home would also be a good thing but would be much more problematic. So, we do what we can.
Well, let's see now...
We know that the health hazards of secondhand smoke are particularly egregious for children and infants.
We know that children and infants have limited control over their environment, and none at all when they're inside a car.
And it has been reported that secondhand smoke is 23 times more toxic in a small enclosed space like a car compared to in a living room.
So given all of this, what would be the smart move here?
I'm sorry to say that to get to the real "rest of the story" we must ask ourselves: Why is Dr. Siegel doing everything in his power to distract attention from the real issues?
If you are own a business that services Rockland County, NY residents or other businesses, you can get listed here : www.RocklandBusinesses.com
You can ask them for a free Courtesy Listing if you want.
Hope that helps,
Thanks - RocklandBusinesses.com
Hi, guys.
My theory is that if tobacco smoke is so deadly, we're all dead and the antis have been sent to drag us to a PC smokeless, low-fat Hell.
I'm not going.
My last cat lived 18 years in a smoky environment, healthy until developing a bladder infection in her 17th year.
She died upon being moved into a smoke-free house.
That wasn't my choice, and I refuse to feel guilty over it - just sad.
Several of my friends have had kids - all healthy, all surrounded by smoke from infancy and now adult.
What will happen to them if they have to live in a smoke-free home?
I'll watch them for signs of bladder problems, but what can I do to save them?
A law has now been passed in one area (Calabasa?) where smokers have to keep the windows up if smoking in their car, if any passer-by might be bothered.
And I think that'll be used so that people can be accused of smoking with their windows up and poisoning the chill'un - present or not.
We all know tobacco smoke isn't a problem - but that many other things are.
And there is a campaign to distract from the real health issues worsening over the past few decades.
Please note:
'...In their 2002 publication, the CHS investigators showed that active children playing multiple team sports in high ozone communities were at three times greater risk of developing asthma. No other pollutants showed this relationship with the development of asthma....'
'...Therefore, a 20 percent decrement in lung function, the decrement seen in this study, means that an 18-year-old having grown up in a polluted area has the lung function of a person nearly 40 years old....'
'...Since the pollutants studied are the products of primary fuel combustion and since they are present at similar levels in many other areas, the results are believed to be applicable to children living outside of Southern California...'
' DR. BOWERS: Ozone exposure was associated with a substantial increase in school absenteeism from both upper and lower respiratory illnesses. We have estimated that reducing current ozone levels to meet the state One-Hour standard could prevent 3.3 million school absences annually throughout California.'
http://www.arb.ca.gov/board/mt/m...mt/
mt102904.txt 5
DR. BOWERS: Now let me discuss some of the study results. In 2000, the investigators reported that children in the communities with the highest levels of PM 10, nitrogen dioxide, and atmospheric acidity, as compared with those communities with the lowest levels, had reduced lung function growth about 1 percent lower growth per year.
In 2002, USC reported results from a second cohort of children which found similar results to those found in the first cohort. This second analysis also found that higher exposures to the elemental carbon component of PM 2.5, a parameter not available in the first analysis, in addition to the pollutants from the first study, were significantly associated with slower lung function growth. Confirmation of the reduced lung function growth in the second group significantly strengthens the evidence supporting the adverse effects of air pollution on lung function growth. The slower lung growth associated with high exposures to elemental carbon may indicate a specific respiratory effect of diesel particulate matter or other combustion exhaust.
DR. BOWERS: Due to the long-term nature of the Children's Health Study, the investigators have been able to recently publish findings on eight years of follow up of the children in the study. The investigators found a 7.9 percent risk of 20 percent or greater reduction in lung function growth between the ages of 10 and 18 in both boys and girls, as opposed to higher levels of a correlated set of pollutants that included nitrogen 11 dioxide, acid vapor, PM 2.5, and elemental carbon, but not ozone. The primary source of these pollutants in the South Coast basin is motor vehicles, especially diesel emissions.
DR. BOWERS: Children who were exposed to higher levels of the pollutants noted plus PM 10, but not ozone, had significantly lower values on lung function tests administered at the age of 18, an age when the lungs are nearly mature. Lung capacity is over-engineered in the sense that lung function deficits do not greatly affect daily life for most persons. However, sensitive person's reduced lung function in childhood or young adulthood may increase the risk of respiratory illness or increase the severity of symptoms and is a strong risk factor in respiratory complications and death during adulthood. After lung maturation, lung function naturally declines at a rate of about 1 percent per year. Therefore, a 20 percent decrement in lung function, the decrement seen in this study, means that an 18-year-old having grown up in a polluted area has the lung function of a person nearly 40 years old. So they are starting out their adult life at a respiratory disadvantage.
DR. BOWERS: This slide illustrates the generalized typical growth of a person's lung function during their life. Line A shows the normal lung function growth and later life decline. Line B shows the reduced lung function growth that may be attributed to air pollution exposure. Line B is projected into later life and assumes that later life declines are not exacerbated by continued exposure.
DR. BOWERS: There is a solution to these lung function results. In a paper published in 2001, the investigators found that lung function growth changed if the children in the study relocated to areas with different PM 10 levels. If children moved from a community with high PM 10 to an area with low PM 10, their lung function growth increased, although this increase may not make up for the adverse effects of their previous exposures.
DR. BOWERS: A number of affects were seen on asthmatic children in the study. While we have known for some time that air pollution can exacerbate existing cases of asthma, the Children's Health Study is the first to indicate a possible causal role of air pollution in asthma development. In their 2002 publication, the CHS investigators showed that active children playing multiple team sports in high ozone communities were at three times greater risk of developing asthma. No other pollutants showed this relationship with the development of asthma. These results emphasized the importance of ozone advisories to reduce exposure in children. In cross-sectional studies, PM 10 was significantly associated with bronchitis in asthmatics. There were also positive but weaker associations of PM 2.5, NO2, and acidic pollutants with bronchitis and significant associations of this suit of pollutants but not ozone with congestion or phlegm. These associations were not seen in non-asthmatics.
In analyses where local traffic was modeled, the investigators observed marginally significant associations between asthma and traffic-related pollutants at the home.
In these analyses, large increases in physician-diagnosed asthma reported by the parent were associated with the top 10 percent of exposure.
DR. BOWERS: Ozone exposure was associated with a substantial increase in school absenteeism from both upper and lower respiratory illnesses. We have estimated that reducing current ozone levels to meet the state One-Hour standard could prevent 3.3 million school absences annually throughout California.
DR. BOWERS: The results from the study suggest that boys in general are more susceptible to adverse respiratory systems and asthma outcomes than girls, while girls appear to have greater susceptibility for adverse effects on lung function development.
DR. BOWERS: In summary, air pollution has been found to affect the short- and long-term respiratory health of children. In addition to affecting their lung function development, air pollution has also been shown to be associated with the causation and exacerbation of asthma. These affects were seen to be alleviated by reduction of pollution exposure. However, by about age 18, lung development is largely complete, and the deficits in lung function development may be permanent and may impact life-long respiratory health.
Since the pollutants studied are the products of primary fuel combustion and since they are present at similar levels in many other areas, the results are believed to be applicable to children living outside of Southern California, for example, in the San Joaquin Valley where high levels of particulate matter and ozone also exist. Although the ARB's involvement will be less, a follow-up study referred to as CHS 2 will continue these investigations and continue to follow up the children into adulthood. ...
... I just wanted to emphasize to the other Board members that this ten-year-plus study is really a landmark study. It's landmark because not just what it told us, but also because it really looked at a relevant geographical and human population that's affected by chronic air pollution.
The other important thing is that there were many children involved, not just one or two or a dozen, but thousands.
And the other important aspect is that these children were studied over time. It wasn't just a snapshot at one particular point in their lives, but actually over years, which makes a very powerful message if you find something that's really revealing. ...'
And it also reveals that funding should be going to study and alleviate real health issues.
Commenting by HaloScan
