Two words really jumped out for me today. They are force and controlling. Obviously, there has to be more nannies raising kids today rather than parents, and nannies in the case of a babysitter! As a daughter and a mother I can tell you that force and controlling is the worst you could do for a child. I am assuming that you as a parent, a Doctor and just an ordinary citizen craves and demands respect, and that is how it should be. Children are no different. Try respecting them too and I guarantee, they will show you the same as a parent or a Doctor or a citizen.
With that said, go ahead and eliminate all smoking in movies or place that R rating on each films. If you continue to force and control, with no exposure to smoking, there will still be 390,000 new kids smoking each year. It is easy to sit around a room and come up with the next vilification or the next reason why so many kids starts to smoke, but unless you actually take the time to respect that child he or she will or might that cigarette. Respect is what they crave, not force or control or even that one cigarette!
Lastly, I am so tired of hearing or reading about the handful of parents who testifies before Congress on my behalf. They are the people with the babysitters caring for their kids not the parents who actually stay home and bring their own child up. I don't want them speaking for me, they do not represent me nor do they respect me and respect is one thing I have earned over the years!
I find it amazing that this level of flagrant hypocracy comes as a surprise to you.
You've already established (repeatedly) that the anti-smoking industry (and lets face it, it is an industry) are more than willing to distort or outright fiddle their figures while condemning anyone who dares query them as either a stooge for the tobacco companies or as a traitor to their glorious cause.
If they are that willing to play fast and loose with statistics that anyone who wants to can check, is it hardly surprising that they'll "jump into bed" with anyone who pays well enough? What might be more interesting is Time Warners reaction as the hand that feeds them suddenly develops bite marks.
All of the criticisms you mention here apply equally well to the studies about smoking in the workplace.
How do we control for the people who smoke outside of work? How do we KNOW that they are accurately reporting all confounding data? How do we KNOW that they are accurately reporting their status as current or former smokers? How do we KNOW that exposure at work is CAUSING the disease? We don't. Any more than we know that movie exposure is causing kids to smoke.
So who to believe? When asked for evidence to back HIS claims, the doctor says that reputable groups like the American Heart Association agree with him. Well, I am sure these Legacy folks would say the same thing.
The winner's platform at the awards ceremony is going to get a little crowded, I think.
Fifty years ago they MIGHT have a leg to stand on with this nonsense, as smoking was everywhere and every movie had at least one smoker in it.
There's been so little smoking in the movies over that past 10 years, and hardly any at all lately that I'm aware of. So I fail to see why or how they can even blame movies for this. AND if it even remotely true, then you have to ask what kinds of movies parents are letting kids see. These concerned parents should only be allowing their children to watch disney movies and family oriented movies anyway.
So once again, a bunch of parents can't be bothered BEING parents and expect the rest of the world to do their job for them using THEIR own values?
Excuse me while I go and spew my guts up............this is getting so digusting it makes me ill.......literally.
"The rest of the story is that the American Legacy Foundation's testimony amounts to an unsupported and implausible scientific assertion."
Likewise yours in "global bans"
"In my expert opinion, Legacy is grossly overestimating the impact of smoking in movies."
In my common opinion--You are guilty of same with your SHS nonsense.
"More importantly, Legacy is drawing unsound scientific conclusions."
So what's new about this? Shock agian?
"This is, in my view, an example of the shoddy science that has begun to surface in the tobacco control movement"
The shoddy science is nothing new. Doctor, you have been sleeping through too many wake-up calls. Check your alarm. Perhaps you muted it.
And your Anti-Smoking Hypocrisy Award please include a self-adressed stamped envelope when you drop those puppies in the mail this year.
Excuse me while I join Lynda.
.
A WELSH COMEDIAN (i didn't know they had any)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5396938.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales...les/
5396938.stm
600,000 SMOKERS TO QUIT HAHAHAHAHA http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po...ics/
6196910.stm
From Si's article...."Dr Brian Gibbons said smokers and non-smokers alike preferred smoke-free places and were spending more in cafes, which were already smoke-free."
What a genius comment.
So why the need for bans?
These people are beyond blinded by their agenda
"The news was welcomed by health campaigners. Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said: "This is a victory for all those of us who have campaigned so vigorously to improve public health."
And another win for public fascism!!! AKA public health.
Of fradulent science and rising sea levels (global warming)
Same story different issue:
http://
www.associatedcontent.com...fraudulent.html
.
To Si's a links today, check this freedom lover out:
http://
www.banburyguardian.co.uk...ticleid=2980653
~snip~
"He added that he had found diners more likely to stay on after their meal for a coffee or digestif. "A survey in our restaurants showed that smokers spend 18% more than non-smokers."
Wonder if the anits have/will figure out who will be paying this 18% shortfall.
~snip~
"These new modern puritans demonise our behaviour and preach illiberalism. We are constantly hectored about how anti-social smoking is, but the real social killjoys are those who don't trust adults to make decisions on their own."
.
I notice they all avoid the obvious. Which is: IF EVERYONE WANTED SMOKE-FREE VENUES, WHY DO YOU NEED LAWS BANNING SMOKING, THE MARKET WOULD DEMAND IT AND THEY WOULD GO SMOKE-FREE ON THEIR OWN.
Seriously, IF smoke-free is so bloody desirable to so many, why have more places NOT gone smoke-free on their own at a faster rate? The answer is obvious. 1. they'd lose their smoking clientele; 2. there are obviously MORE non-smokers who don't care and are not bothered by the smoke who would follow the smokers; 3. therefore we need bans so the antis can go anywhere and not have to think for themselves.
What the hell has been put into everyone's water that so many are so feable of mind and body?
I think I'll sue BT since their product hasn't killed me yet and probably won't until the anti-anything-brigade has me suffocating with their "health rules".
Interesting that in many fields of study, especially the social sciences, practice is rarely informed by science and vice versa. Tobacco control has the opposite problem in that practice jumps on the science even when its premature.
Smoking in the movies is not a good thing. If a simple change in ratings means 16% fewer youth are exposed to "glamorous" smoking images in the movies, then that's a worthwhile public health intervention.
hrj01,
You're just making a speech; there is nothing of substance in your post.
HRJ01 You just watch old movies !
If a simple change in ratings means 16% fewer youth are exposed to "glamorous" smoking images in the movies, then that's a worthwhile public health intervention.
Someone obviously hasn't seen a new movie in decades.
hrj01-
I wouldn't necessarily be taking issue with the American Legacy Foundation if they simply stated that exposure to smoking in the movies could be reduced by giving all movies which depict smoking an R-rating and that they support this simple measure because it would reduce youth exposure to smoking in movies. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that policy, but I don't see anything wrong with taking a principled stand and supporting it.
However, that's not what Legacy is doing. What they are doing is:
1. Claiming that smoking in movies causes 390,000 kids to start smoking each year, when there is little evidence to support such an assertion. They are making a shoddy scientific claim.
2. Claiming that putting an R-rating on movies that depict smoking would save 60,000 lives a year, when the evidence shows that 84% of kids watch R movies anyway, and without demonstrating that such an intervention would not change parents' behavior with regards to letting their kids see R movies, or kids' behavior with regards to watching R movies.
3. Making an exception for historically correct depiction of smoking. Why should that matter? If the problem is that kids are exposed to smoking, then there is no reason to exempt historically correct smoking. After all, if 25% of people in movies are shown to be smoking, that would be "historically" correct. Does that excuse it? According to Legacy's so-called "principled" stand, this is killing people. What does it matter if smoking is historically correct if people are being killed. Not such a principled stand I guess.
4. Teaming up with Time Warner, the chief culprit, for what appears to me to be financial reasons, while bemoaning the behavior of Time Warner and accusing them of being killers out of the other side of their mouth.
What bothers me most is not that I don't support the R-rating policy. What bothers me is the shoddy science, the inconsistency, the lack of principle, and the hypocrisy.
Wonder if the anits have/will figure out who will be paying this 18% shortfall.
I've heard this spun as x% more rapid turnover, offering new business opportunities.
No mention that smokers do tend to, well, SPEND for their extra time, of course.
As for the main subject, I think if we REALLY want to affect kids, I say get to the books, especially assigned high school reading. I've seen more uncondemned smoking in a scholarly book than in a more modern movie these days.
We can start by altering the smoking out of 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. I mean, we won't remove any of the content, and we won't be censoring. Just mentioning. The English teacher can just--do this--before we start to read the book. We're not stopping them from teaching it of course!
This is all that's being asked, a small thing, well until teen smoking rates don't plummet by x% as projected and we need to make a little more progress, anyway.
The government predicts about 600,000 people will give up smoking as a result of the law change.
HOW do they figure this? Did prohibition stop people from drinking alcohol? HELL NO!
They really do believe people are so stupid that they'll just quit smoking because they can't smoke in a bar or restaurant? They honestly believe that smokers are too stupid to choose to eat and drink more at home where they can smoke?
On the same track, they also think we are stupid enough to quit just because they raise the tax. And with the tobacco tax, we are really talking about "taxation without representation" which I believe was a major factor in the American revolution which freed the colonists here from British rule.
They obviously need a lesson in people 101...............people tend to rebel when force is used.
What is really disgusting is how people accustomed to the freedom to choose and live as we want, are just lying down and allowing this steamroller to try to flatten them.
It's definitely time for another "tea party", only this time on a global scale.
"Claiming that smoking in movies causes 390,000 kids to start smoking each year, when there is little evidence to support such an assertion."
What kind of evidence would you expect to see in this regard? What would it take to convince you?
What if they did a study that assumed that each and every child exposed to smoking in movies views those movies for 40 hours per week, for a period of 40 years.
If we three well-regarded institutions made that assumption and extrapolated the 390,000 number from it, would you accept it as solid evidence?
hrj01 wrote:
"If a simple change in ratings means 16% fewer youth are exposed to "glamorous" smoking images in the movies, then that's a worthwhile public health intervention."
Prohibiting boys and men in real life from using the phrase "I love you" would result in fewer unplanned pregnancies. You up for that as a public health intervention too?
Prohibiting boys and men in real life from using the phrase "I love you" would result in fewer unplanned pregnancies.
AND the phrase: "IF you really loved me".
Just think not only could we prevent many unplanned pregnancies BUT lower the spread of STD's (kids in the throws of hormones are NOT considering safety)...........maybe even some cancer as they've linked oral sex to that too.
Good plan James A, I agree. 
"What if they did a study that assumed that each and every child exposed to smoking in movies views those movies for 40 hours per week, for a period of 40 years"
Be just as if they'd smoked 2 1/2 packs a day, right. s/
Sorry about the thread jack, but: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/
st...2108878,00.html Sometimes I don't know if I'm reading a real newspaper or The Onion. What. a. self-important. ass. LOL!
the more coersive the anti-smoking loonies get, the more kids will smoke. simply stated, we all hate to be told what to do. the more we are told exactly how to behave, we will do the opposite. hasn't anyone learned this yet?
In a previous comment you said, "First, I think that despite all this scientific work being for a great cause, it ultimately hurts the science base for tobacco control in general to have specific claims being made from studies that do not support those claims."
I don't think you believe that the science itself is "shoddy," (read your previous comment on the study above) but that some groups "overinterpret" or selectively interpret the science to bolster a position. I agree with you that Tobacco Control advocacy groups should more carefully report the science. But the science, by itself stands well on its own.
hrj01 If a simple change in ratings means 16% fewer youth are exposed to "glamorous" smoking images in the movies, then that's a worthwhile public health intervention.
It has been ascertained that Alcohol is of far greater social concern (#5 as opposed to #9 in scoial harm, as mentioned in a recent UK report). By applying the Pareto maxim (tackle the most hramful 1st) we should in fact rate all movies with alcohol as R before doing so with tobacco. Given your logic surely you would support that?
In addition, since health is the issue then of course anyone could start a similar campaign for their particular unhealthy activity and you would go along with that?.
Ultimately it would undermine the ratings system. Since R (18 ) movies are considered by young people as the movie to get to watch then a most mundance movie would include a quick scene with a ciggy to increase the rating and thus the appeal.
Of course these 'simple' changes are never simple.
west
----
it's not like kids will be seeing REAL people smoking outside bars and restaurants to wonder what all the fuss and 'glamour' is about. stupid, stupid people the anti-smoking zealots are to pretend that smoking does not exist in the REAL world. heck, some 50 million smokers in the US alone and somehow R-rated smoking movies will prevent kids from smoking. it's all so silly i just shake my head in wonderment.
Maybe we ought to give an R-rating to movies that depict sand castles in a positive light. A British doctor has done some studies and determined that sand castles KILL:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/
st...2108878,00.html
I am not kidding. People are running around banning sand castles.
But hey, doctor. Banning them would not grind the economy to a halt. The risk is significant. (Doctors say so!) And the risk is preventable, obviously.
What say you?
Well, what else can you say? As a fan of consistency, you are limited to one simple phrase: "Ban. Sand. Castles."
I am sure I mean this to be snarky. But the more I see, the less clear that becomes. Especially since consistency remains such a central element of the discussion.
If the standard for a ban is significance of the risk, preventability of the risk, and some assurance that such a ban will not destroy the economy... And if it is clear that a moral judgment on the risk in question has no impact, and that we are going to apply these standards equally, across the board...
Movies are the least of our concerns.
Children of all ages--you dirty, filthy castle addicts--put down your shovels. Safety first!
And hey, this guy did a study. Which means... evidence.
Sam,
I love it when you talk dirty........love your snarkiness.....reminds me of me......hehehe
I agree with Sam. Any movie that depicts children digging a hole in the sand greater than 1 foot deep should receive an automatic R rating.
UNLESS, of course, it:
1) Is a historically correct depiction; if those children represent kids who actually did dig a 1 foot or greater hole in the sand, then it's OK to depict in a movie; or
2) clearly shows the negative health effects of digging deep in the sand; the movie would have to show the sand caving in and the kid being covered in sand.
How about a little honesty Doc?
The main perpetrators of the hate mongering attacks on smoking and smokers are no longer even pretending what their agenda is.
eg
From Liam Donaldson
"Britain's most senior doctor, pledged that there would be a further sustained crackdown on smoking after the ban comes into force in England next Sunday."
Hundreds of more quotes and future policy statements on request.
ETS was never about non-smokers health and you know it. From Sir George Godber in 1975 through George Bush's project assist 1992 to the all out attack on smoking and smokers by any number of organisations (and individuals) now, this is about denormalising smoking and if that means marginalising smokers so be it.
You have given license to unstable, sick individuals to unleash hate and violence (verbal or physical)on an unprotected underclass. These people would have once been held in check by the common laws of society based on respect,decency and tolerance.
Of course, it's a price worth paying.
Here are a few home truths for you to ponder upon:-
You (the collective you) have facilitated murder, torture, physical and mental assault. You are responsible for many unintended deaths and injuries. You have driven a wedge between segments of society, encouraging ever greater animosity and abuse, friends and family have been torn apart. Smokers being denied life changing operations, smokers being forcibly discharged from hospitals. Children being denied the chance to have adopted or foster parents. People have lost their jobs, homes, possessions and business's, they are even denied the oportunity to apply for work. The old and infirm are denied the minimal human basics of shelter and heat, even thrown outside from nursing homes, if they wish to smoke. Peoples mental wellbeing is being adversely affected.
I could go on and on but I am sure you get the picture.
You have caused immeasurable harm to peoples lives and livelihoods. You are playing at GOD and you have no right.
A price worth paying? Maybe in your world but assuredly not mine.
GreatScot
Lying to Congress is a criminal offense.
Bravo, Great Scot. Bravo.
The anti-smoker cartel is a criminal entity, the short list you provide is just the evidence needed to back up my statement. Every person who considers themselves a member of said cartl is a criminal co-conspirator and equally as guilty as every other member.
Sorry for the rant Doc.
It is no excuse but I have been verbally abused, not once but 3 times today in 2 countries. I am seriously pissed and don't know how much more I can take.
Delete my posts if you like.
GreatScot
GreatScot 'A price worth paying? Maybe in your world but assuredly not mine'
I, like you GreatScot are fed-up with paying this price---every time I venture from my home or off the ranch.
You are not alone in your feeling or your rants---some of mine have been deleted.
.
I have been verbally abused, not once but 3 times today in 2 countries.
The even more disgusting thing about this is that those same people who verbally abused you, would all probably look the other way and/or do nothing if they saw a woman being raped or a child being beaten.
You see now what your agenda has created Doc? It is perfectly acceptable AND condoned to harrass and abuse (verbally, physically, mentally and emotionally) smokers.
You all still want to try to tell us it's NOT about smokers? Where's Ma Bell? She keeps asking for proof that anti-smoking promotes hatred of smokERs. Well, dear, here is your proof.
You should all be very proud of yourselves, and god help us all with what you are teaching your own children.
But Lynda,
You're forgetting, these good folks are so very comfortable in their own little (jam packed bars???) Utopia. They are not longer violated by the vile, filthy smoker, so none of it matters----and business well it's just booming.
Doctor, have you ever visited the Holocost Memorial in Boston----the one in the center of the street. It's one of the most moving pieces of public art I have ever seen. Walk through the glass towers and at all of the (approz) 6 million serial number etched in the glass.
With your campaign, you have treated 40 of your fellow (US) citizens in a close enough manner that the likeness is frightening.
Anyone interested in seeing this?
http://www.northendboston.com/vi...sting-
sites.htm
.
40 of your fellow===should have read 40 million of your fellow...
GreatScot just remember the words of Terminator FYA.YOUR RANTS ARE TOTALLY JUST,it is the rantis who have the social problem,they are the ones who WANT to believe you,I,and every other smoker wishes to kill them,THEY HAVE GOT THE SCREW LOOSE,SCIENCE PROVES IT,UNLESS YOUR NAME IS DR SIEGEL AND YOU HAVE A VESTED INTEREST.
I moved back to Florida last week. (Still unpacking.) My hubby and I chose to unwind by watching a movie the other night. I opted for one entitled "Congo". The leader of the expedition into the wild lit one of those cigarillos thingies on the plane as they were exiting the airport that was currently being overrun by revolutionaries. The trained gorilla, Amy, sniffed the R-rated tobacco product and the leader handed it to her. (He then lit another for himself.) The gorilla's trainer said to her, "Amy don't inhale." By golly, she looked like she was inhaling to me. I pointed to the screen and said, "That makes this R-rated." My hubby and I laughed.
Do modern antismokers realize how their behavior has turned them into laughingstocks?
My two cents ==> Yes, the antismoking "cartel"--PhRMA, charities acting as lobbying arms, politicians bought by drug-pushers, scientific frauds, etc..--has engaged in crinimal activity. The harm done to humanity in terms of faith in science, charity and each other is overwhelming. FWIW, I still have hope.
GreatScot, I am very sorry that you've had to endure abuse from others--from multiple countries at that! Although some such people are simply disturbed from the outset, most are merely pawns and puppets of drug lords. I suppose we could find a word for people who perform and get paid by drug pushers...but, rather than take shots at those who are so misguided, I prefer to remind you that you are valuable. If you were not valuable and making strides, then such people would not feel the need to attack you. If you were inconsequential, then you would be simply ignored.
Brantz,
That is exactly what I was trying to say. All this bull starts 390,000 more kids a day to smoke! Show them respect and they will in turn respect you and your wishes. Dumb them down and they will rebel and what better way to piss you off but to smoke!
GreatScot,
Let it all roll off you. People like that aren't smart enough to have anything positive to say. My guess is, they never even heard or read the definition of respect.
GreatScot-
No need to delete. People need to see what is happening, especially those anti-smoking groups and advocates which read this blog.
I do agree with Lynda - it has become all about smokers, not merely the smoke.
And I do apologize for my part in this, although I view myself as someone who is trying to stem the tide of what has turned into a crusade, not someone who is going along with it. In fact, I'm enduring quite a bit of viciousness and ostracism from many of my colleagues for that.
And I do apologize for my part in this, although I view myself as someone who is trying to stem the tide of what has turned into a crusade BUT WHY WILL YOU NEVER DEBATE HOW/WHY YOU MANIPULATED THE DATA IN YOUR EARLIER STUDIES ? These are NOT my words but those of other knowledgeable people.
Doc: And I do apologize for my part in this, although I view myself as someone who is trying to stem the tide of what has turned into a crusade, not someone who is going along with it. In fact, I'm enduring quite a bit of viciousness and ostracism from many of my colleagues for that.
Do you think that you have been used by people/organizations that have a not-so-healthy agenda? Your experience with cancer patients who smoked and your educational background made you a prime candidate for those who wanted to exagerate and manupulate for profiteering purposes. Clearly, some of us have very different experience with disease(s) and smoking--but that wouldn't have done J&J any good, would it. (No question mark.)
Hi, guys.
I often wonder how much virulent anti bile Dr. Siegel clears off to avoid his blog turning into the textbook hate circuses so many smoking-related sites become.
Is there some degree of restraint exercised out of respect (apart from those whose work is never done) or is he simply on the ball to that degree?
Personally, I think the antis want to obliterate all appearance and evidence of smoking so that people aren't reminded of basic facts, and don't ask uncomfortable questions about how it is that people and society survived all that smoking while disease supposedly associated with tobacco smoke rose in such an unrelated manner as use and exposure fell.
After all, if everyone shrivelled up and dropped dead back in the 1920s when smoking became popular with both sexes in so many areas, nobody would be here now.
Except, of course, in the areas where smoking in public and even in cars was made illegal during that period, where exploding sickness and mortality rates wouldn't have kicked in until later.
Perhaps antis simply wish to spare children the spectacle of watching great-grand dad dying in infancy of tobacco, wood and candle smoke particles and preventing their own births from ever occurring?
Dear GreatScott - everybody is so right.
The high probability is that the most vindictive anti attacks indicate that you're on the right track and present a threat to the agenda.
They are typically trained to respond with kindergarten spite, not reason, as they must work with what's there.
Be proud, as so many of us are of you and the others all fighting for equal rights, respect for truth and civilized behaviour.
And at least we do have Dr. Siegal providing a forum where civilized discussion and self-expression is possible, even if we may each believe the other side however sadly mistaken.
And I would like to say thanks for that, as something felt but not usually expressed.
It usually wouldn't go well with outrage.
P.S. - if smoking, drinking and sex are all linked with cancer and premature death, I'd rather die happy than live miserably.
Beside, hack, cough, it's too late for me, I've had oral sex.
You naughty girl !
to sum it all up, the anti-smoker fanatics DENY REALITY. how convenient.
"And I do apologize for my part in this, although I view myself as someone who is trying to stem the tide of what has turned into a crusade"
Maybe my history is wrong, but I think it was a crusade long before it was anything else. The "scientific" case against tobacco is pretty recent. An ambitious surgeon general here, some British doctors there. Am I right about that?
But the wild--even frantic--case to stop people from burning a weed and inhaling the smoke started long, long before that. In colonial times. And the case was always made, at least in part, in terms of "vice." In terms of "evil." In terms of "wickedness." Much like sex, booze and anything else that's any fun at all.
You need to come to terms with it, doctor: This was always a crusade. One dressed up as public health matter. It just so happens that you got conned into sewing the cape and suspenders.
They used you. Sure, they paid the bills and made you a hero, but in the end, you were doing their bidding. Doesn't it seem that way? How do they treat you now that you are asking a few really, really basic questions and asking for just a tiny little bit of integrity? Not so good.
Not like a colleague whose research does not jive anymore. Not like a man with differing opinions. LIKE A HERETIC. See? The religious overtones are incredbily powerful, if you are just willing to look a little closer.
Just imagine if someone came up with a new, really credible study that said SHS really isn't all that bad in the doses workers get. And it was so compelling that even you had to accept it. Would Godshall and Co. accept it? back off the idea of bans? Of course not. You know that, deep down. Because deep down, you know it's not about science.
Which is why you can actually twist yourself in knots wondering whether or not you should consider banning window washing. Whether Mike Tyson, worker, needs your benevolence and protection.
OF COURSE NOT. From time to time, you need to step back and see if you are saying something ridiculous. And if you are, you need to reasses your basice premises.
As a young libertarian, I went through this (like so many of us do) when my likeminded friends started getting in pissing matches to see who was more dedicated to the cause. "Oh yeah? Well I'M for allowing people to shoot anyone who shines a flashlight on his property. Property rights are absolute!" And, "I think it should be legal to sell black tar heroin out of a vending maching across the street from a kindergarten!" It went on and on. And I determined these were serious people with serious ideas, but people who had no real interest in humanity. In reality. In real justice. They were zealots.
And if you seriously think that it is a crucial mission of public health to arrest old ladies for smoking in BINGO parlors, despite the fact that all of them smoke, then you are equally cuckoo. If you think that having 90 percent of businesses go smoke free does not give non-smokers enough employment options, you are not thinking clearly. And if you think that Smoky Joe's five employees are going to die because they wait tables at his place for four years while going to college, you need to do some more research. Honest research. And if you think it is fair to measure risk by assuming that all bar and restaurant workers toil eight hours a week for 40 years, despite the fact that it is obvious that the VAST majority of workers in the field work far less than that, then your definition of fairness needs amended.
And if you are going working stridently to ban smoking while allowing workers to experience equally and even more serious threats, then you are not a scientist. You are not consistent. And you are not accidentally part of some crusade you wish would learn to control itself.
You are willfully aiding and abetting that crusade, and should stand ready to be held responsible for all its ramifications. Including the denormalization and marginalization of 25 percent of the population.
It's a crusade. It just is. And you are not only part if it, you are an integral part of it.
Tell them to go to hell. That does NOT require telling people to smoke. Or arguing that SHS is not a danger. But it does allow working a little bit of tolerance and a little bit of common sense into your worldview.
Seriously. If you could even advocate for allowing smoking in a percentage of bars equal to the percentage of smokers... Or half that... or a tenth of that... I could deal with that. I would be willing to compromise. Even though I would be terribly disappointed in having to do so. But hey, we all have to get along.
For heaven's sake. Be reasonable. Look at the people on your team. And stop being like them.
Thanks to all for your kind words.
From the UK Health Minister
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.u...&
pNodeId=133951
Excerpts
Ms Hewitt, who said she had always loathed smoke-filled rooms, said non-smokers had long favoured the ban, and even many smokers now supported it.
She said the next challenge was for people to stop smoking at home to protect their children.
"We want to go as quickly as possible to a position where smoke-free is the norm and where it's really unusual for people to want to take up smoking," she said.
She said the Government is already introducing "terrifying" pictures of damage caused by smoking on to the sides of packs.
And more action is on the way.
GreatScot
Just imagine if someone came up with a new, really credible study that said SHS really isn't all that bad in the doses workers get.
They've already come up with loads of them, Sam. Published. Peer reviewed. I've posted excerpts and links to a sizeable number of them here. Doesn't penetrate. Like showing fossils and carbon dating to a Biblical literalist. 6000 years ago, it was made in 7 days. End of discussion.
On the subject of crusades, here's a nice shot from Russell Baker, back in the early 90s, before it had fully entered Phase 3:
"What we have here is a crusade in its second phase. Crusades typically start by being admirable, proceed to being foolish and end by being dangerous. The crusade against smoking is now clearly into the second stage where foolishness abounds.. But now something very sinister is developing. This...crusade is entering its dangerous stage. [T]he true crusader doesn’t stop at burning the village, killing the women and children and making off with the cattle if that’s what it takes to purify the world
Even the WSJ thinks it's all a moral crusade. When the WHO report came out, this is what they said:
..But .the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one. It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the health risk of secondhand smoke...
Michael Kelly (RIP) had another take on it-- political as opposed to religious:
It’s been called The Nanny State but that’s far too kind a term. It’s too cold, too cruel, too implacable, too illiberal to be a nanny. It’s the Nurse Ratched State.... It turns out this new model is as devoted to spectacular schemes of social engineering as the old one-- and it has added the awful idea that these schemes might be achieved... through a creative and brutal system of mandated behaviorism in which the state uses its immense powers to force targeted citizens to “voluntarily” accept a violation of their rights and an encroachment of their liberties...
“The two principal methods by which the Nurse Ratched state achieves its aims are both rooted in that power which the Framers most wanted to limit: the power to criminalize and to punish, to deprive a citizen who violates the state’s wishes of his liberty and his property. The two methods, which overlap in practice, are the expansion of the definition of actions as illegal behavior and the exploitation of this power to win submission through extortion.
And yes, he was talking specifically about smoke bans and taxes. Sorry to go so excessively OT, but I do dig those quotes.
:
Sam M and Walt: Your last postings are truly excellent.
Thanks very much.
Walt-----but I do dig those quotes.
So do I Walt, what a great post. (Any links to those quotes by chance?)
Sam---Once again out of the park!
Sam=
Walt=
.
House of Card beginning to collapse??
(by way of FORCES today--top story)
Lung Association closing local office
http://www.stcatharinesstandard....al+News&
classif
~snip~
Eight of 20 community offices are being shut down to help make up for a loss of $500,000 to $700,000 in donations.
.
Walt= Sam=
was me.
And from Billyland, seems since smoker are given some tiny exemptions, the "health brigade" is picking up their volleyball and going home:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dy...07-
1369103.html
They're really mad that the smokers will not be forced (by their mandate) to quit. Isn't that a darned shame?
http://news.independent.co.uk/
uk...icle2701056.ece
Anti smoking headcases reckon 4 MILLION smokers will try to quit.IT certainly confirms to my mind NUMBERS MEAN NOTHING TO THEM ,JUST SOMETHING TO GRAB THE HEADLINES.Just like the figures for SHS,UNLESS D r Siegel provides the goods from my above question ?
Anti-smoking campaigners claim four million smokers will use the ban to try to quit, but the Department of Health estimates that less than 10 per cent of England's 10 million smokers will give up. Each year, smoking causes more than 100,000 deaths in the UK and costs the NHS about £1.7bn.
THIS is really rich. 4 million smokers will use the ban to quit? Even the DoH estimates it at 1 million will quit? These people really do think us idiots.
OH and look at the latest and greatest in terms of smoking related deaths in England "100,000" They rake in how many billions in tobacco taxes and are whining about a 1.7 billion cost?
Someone just shoot me now and get it over with, I'm just soooo NOT into this form of torture.
Sunz:
"Lung Association closing local office
"
One quote at the end poked me in the eye... "1 in 5 Living with Lung Disease". My thoughts: Oh, F Off! Fer chissakes! Stop making things up! Stop it! No cookie for you!
I'm glad they are shutting down, as their usefullness is at an end.
(rant rant, pant pant, oh dear, I must have lung disease!)
Xylog---
I would add that 100% of them are delusional on their best days!
"Eight of 20 community offices are being shut down to help make up for a loss of $500,000 to $700,000 in donations."
Possibly a drop in popularity to quell the noise level. These so called charities take donated funds and immediately re-invest in commercials inciting hatred, increasing the noise level of repetitive programming. The reaction of the targeted audience if it is not having a desired effect is the viewer becomes aggravated by hearing it over and over again.
The only way to get them to stop is to stop encouraging them by supplying those donations. If their funding is shrinking it may well be in reaction to a loss of credibility directly related to noise and aggravation levels.
We can always hope they take a really good look at themselves to find the reasons for those reduced donations to the community plate; because when the number crunchers go to work they will undoubtedly find, the over done and poorly presented programming of the public health movement is entirely bad for your health, from any participating organization's financial perspective at very least. Partnered organizations who will eventually all be wide brushed by the public. Just like the politicians; when you all sing the same song, one gets to see you as all the same.
The movement with many connected channels operates in casually prodding over personal rights as if by an absolute entitlement. The operational model is lead of course by the anti smoker model. One which in reality despite the boastful claims has had little effect in actually reducing smoking or reducing any health effects, in any substantial way which could justify the huge expenditures to date.
The high priests of TC admit themselves smoking among the young is again on the rise for the first time in decades. 400,000 a year from watching movies alone? how many more due to peer pressure and how many just to oppose the system as kids will?
Too much of a good thing is bad? the Public health movement have become bloated gluttons and are finally being seen for what they are; self important tyrants who can tolerate no level of personal opinion or expression which does not support the incoherent views they officially sanction.
One has to wonder where the civil rights groups and the bleeding heart lieberals are hiding through all this, with all this talk of editing movies and book burnings floating about. Where are the crusaders for freedom of expression and creative license now?
So, doctor:
What has your work wrought? How about this editorial from today's Erie Times News, which lambastes legislators--and slanders them--for even considering a compromise on a proposed ban. Check it out:
"Pennsylvanians don't have to ask what side the Senate is on here. It's not your health and welfare. It's on the side of special interests, led by the tobacco industry. These are the voices the Senate listened to -- not yours."
Anyone opposed is a tobacco shill? Check.
"No state senator took to the chamber floor to challenge the medical or scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous and deadly. No senator dared challenge the U.S. surgeon general's landmark report released a year ago that closed the debate on secondhand smoke."
The debate is over? And anyone who asks questions is a liar? Check.
"That report stated: U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona found nonsmokers increase their risk of developing heart disease and lung cancer by 30 percent if exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work. Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause immediate harm."
Using reports and studies from "reputable sources" to close the debate, even though it's obvious that the reports in question are suspect? Check.
Your side is winning , doctor. But make no mistake: That's YOUR side. This editorial is the product of your efforts. Your team. This is what it means to advocate for bans without exemption or exceptions.
That's a shame. That's a real shame.
The whole editorial is here, although I think you need to register:
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs....0361/-1/
OPINION
I might add that this is a measured opinion compared to what the Post-Gazette is spewing in Pittsburgh.
Good people, doctor. Good journalists.
Taken in by the rhetoric that you invented.
Half-measures and apologies will not fix it.
Not even close.
One has to wonder where the civil rights groups and the bleeding heart lieberals are hiding through all this, with all this talk of editing movies and book burnings floating about. Where are the crusaders for freedom of expression and creative license now?
Kevin
They're all in bed with the antis et al. Civil rights and freedom of expression and choice are ONLY for those who swear allegience to the Reich.
P.S. I have pictures too......hehehe
"...parents who allow their kids to go out and see the types of movies that contain a lot of smoking are quite different from the parents who are more restrictive about what they allow their kids to be exposed to. In addition, the kids who go out to movies often are different from those kids who choose not to go out to these types of movies very often. It is very difficult to control for these major differences between these populations, which could well explain why one group is more likely to smoke."
Does it not follow that in studies of secondhand smoke that the non-smoking spouses of smokers are going to have considerably different habits to the nonsmoking couples? Seems like apples and oranges again.
Lynda;
"One has to wonder where the civil rights groups and the bleeding heart lieberals are hiding through all this, with all this talk of editing movies and book burnings floating about. Where are the crusaders for freedom of expression and creative license now?
Kevin
They're all in bed with the antis et al. Civil rights and freedom of expression and choice are ONLY for those who swear allegiance to the Reich."
Would those be the same people defending child porn makers or pedophiles or by those defending the created hatred in the public health ideology, of forcing compliance by extortion.
The language is identical.
Sources:
Sorry these predate the days when I read almost everything online and saved addresses. I have the hard copies and they're probably googleable or in the archives of the publications
Kelly piece: The New Republic 7/14/97
Baker: NY Times, "The Danger Stage" 5/31/94
WSJ: "Smoking Out Bad Science," 3/19/98
Happy hunting.
:
Per Sam's comment about PA newspaper editorials criticizing the PA Senate for exempting casinos, some bars and nonprofit groups from the smokefree workplace legislation, and for preempting more protective local ordinances, I helped generate those editorials and much of the news coverage.
Yesterday, Governor Rendell joined us in criticizing the Senate approved amendments, and said that he'll veto the legislation if it comes to his desk in its present form.
The PA House is now considering comprehensive smokefree workplace legislation, and I strongly suspect that 95%-98% of workers in PA
will have smokefree workplaces before the end of the year.
Just like to add to Sam's comment,as i have already said Dr Siegel,the UK's Dept of Health are also reliant on the Surgeons General report in order to bolster the shite they are spouting.The very same report you panned,and the very same advertisement From the Dept of Health you panned.Obviously they do not give an iota as to using credible science.You seek the science to be reputable and accurate now,but i do not believe you were always of this persuasion.Things changed drastically when you presented your studies on SHS.yOU USED THE RESULTS FOR YOUR BAR BANS,THE WORLD IS USING THEM NOW FOR TOTAL BANS.It is no good sharing the concern,either your studies are kosher OR you've pulled a stunt greater than the Tobacco Companies you loathe so much.Which is it to be ?
Bollocks sell papers in PA don't they Bill ?
Wait a minute:
What does it mean that you "helped generate those editorials"?
Are the Erie Times-News and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette farming out their editorial positions to activists now?
Are the newspapers simply regurgitiating TC talking points?
Did you sit in on the meetings, or did you write them yourself?
Interesting.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Sam;
"Are the Erie Times-News and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette farming out their editorial positions to activists now?"
RE
Bill Godshall;
"about PA newspaper editorials criticizing the PA Senate for exempting casinos, some bars and nonprofit groups from the smokefree workplace legislation, and for preempting more protective local ordinances, I helped generate those editorials and much of the news coverage."
In light of Bill's admission here, perhaps the editor's employment needs to be challenged as hardly unbiased or entirely accurate in a community perspective. Suspicious reporting apparently knowingly authorized or in the alternative being reported in ignorance of the kind of science it represents?
Perhaps an appearance of impropriety needs to be examined here, bank acounts could be examined to find out who is feeding whom. I will have to ask the board in writing if they intend to investigate these claims by Godshall, and if they will continue to support the editors.
As for the politicians who support small minded fascism? they make their own beds time has a way of righting former wrongs, even with them.
TC is way past it's expiry date and is showing definite signs of decline. At a point they will be dealing with the awaiting revenge among those forced to comply, what goes around comes back around. These zealots have stood on a lot of toes and gotten away with it, for far too long to avoid consequences.
There might well be an innocent explanation. By "generate" he might just mean he called them and gave a heads up. Expressed his view. Fine by me.
Only when activists on the other side do the same and anyone agrees with them, those degenerates are "in the pocket" of "Big Tobacco." They are shills. On the take.
What's interesting to me is that he isn't just claiming to generate editorials. But news coverage. What does that mean? How does he impact the editors in charge? By having conferences? Distributing info? That's fine, I guess. But "generating" seems like a strong verb. Bill is a "news maker." Reporters would come to him anyway. What is the nature of his contact with them? How does he influence or otherwise generate their work?
Again, if any contact with anyone against the ban amounts to being on the take from Big Tobacco (a constant argument in the editorials he helped generate), why should contact with Godshall be any less incriminating?
Just asking.
How do we draw a line between selling chew or smoked tobacco? The term big tobacco shill still applies as far as I can tell.
In other words a promoter in the pocket of big tobacco, is claiming to be generating news coverage and editorials in an attempt to sell one tobacco company's tobacco product in place of another utilizing deceptive and entirely political language to do so.
Second hand smoke is nowhere near as offensive as second hand spit on the sidewalk in my book. Second hand spit will no doubt carry a lot of infectious health hazards far exceeding the dangers of the smoke. Hazards which can be measured and demonstrated to be of the immediately dangerous nature never seen in the smoke calculations.
What are the media thinking? or better stated why aren't they thinking?
Erie Times thats a joke of a newspaper. I have had to sit through the over 30 editorials and as many articles concerning second hand smoke. The editors in almost every case refer to Camorras report. The real problem is they only quote the press release. I am sure they read the actual report that does not really support Camorras claims but they choose not report on the actual report. Reporters have to go along to get along. The mostly unseen and unknown editorial board are quite the mystery. What we know of the identies of a few. They are anti smokers, Pro control and only pro choice when it is their choice involved.
Nemo,
I wouldn't think they would need many editors. They have Bill to help generate editorials.
Or so I hear.
(Rimshot!)
Re; Godshall whatever....
Bill, So What.
What is there now about 500,000 states in the US where activists managed to pull off the 900 million dead body’s claim. Not sure if we should laugh or cry.
Really Bill, this is all just old hat. People are already standing outside having a good smoke. I love it. You love it. Governor Rendell loves it, Hell, I believe he even called it “tough love.” We love it Bill! We just do. The whole world loves it! Its rock sold Bill. You’re the man Bill! You did it!! You did it! Congratulations! Bill has been kind enough to give us a smoking ban! Great Job!!
Now Bill, what we are working on here, in part, is bring back democracy as we once new it. With any kind of luck we’ll learn something from your mistake.
Regards to the Governor, he’s actually a pretty good guy, just don’t agree with him on this issue.
I believe I fudged the numbers on that last post, Sorry about that. Perhaps Bill could help with the correct numbers.
Not only has refined his skill as the anti-clown god, he is a magician as well. Pffft gone. Shocking.
.
Walt---Thanks so much for the info.
Lynda--I hope you have recovered.
.
Si,
I found this of interest.
http://eursoc.com/news/
fullstory...wed_Legacy.html
~snip~
'Any minor civil servant, hospital worker, social worker, teacher or council worker has an array of weapons at their disposal in the form of health and safety laws and legislation to wield against anyone or any business that does not conform to the ideological doctrine handed down from their political masters'
This sounds very familiar. What has become of once great nations?
.
I think he's blowing a little hard, claiming to "generate" the stuff, but he can certainly feed editors a steady diet of press releases and get news stories written by cannily staging pseudo-events.
OTOH, some enterprising soul could attempt to do the same from the opposite point of view.
But OTO OH, the press almost everywhere seems to have an astounding bias towards Bill's agenda. Whatever the hell happened to those tough crime-fighting investigative journalists, hat cocked slightly backward on the head, cigarette dangling? (Well, at least they won't be censored out of the movies; they're "historically correct.")
Meanwhile, someone in the newspaper's area could c/p his boast here, question them about it, and demand "equal time." Even if it's not granted, the editors won't appreciate his essentially calling them his lap dogs and puppets and could even start to resent him , could even cut him off. (Thanks, but we'll "generate" our OWN bias, Bill.)
:
Spot on Sunz,they say that radical terrorists are more often home grown.I think both Blair and Bush have contributed significantly to todays problems,without even considering Iraq.The UK has become a country of moaners rather than just getting on with things,the con is that people have become empowered.I heard all this crap in the early 90's from management.It is very easy to get caught up in the rhetoric and believe in the ideal.Look at the conviction of many non smokers,not antis mind you,but ordinary people who wouldn't normally have said a word,all of a sudden feel compelled to DEMAND smokefree as the norm.The spin placed on things has won the day,people have literally been hypnotised.
Si....'people have literally been hypnotised.'
Yes Si, the rhetoric is our new opiate.
Yes Si, the rhetoric is our new opiate.
You see, this is why I was never tempted to use "opiates" or any other mind/mood altering drug.
Thank goddess I had the smarts to maintain my own mind.
Per Sam's comment about PA newspaper editorials criticizing the PA Senate for exempting casinos, some bars and nonprofit groups from the smokefree workplace legislation, and for preempting more protective local ordinances, I helped generate those editorials and much of the news coverage.
A smoking ban in a private, members only organization's building is up to the membership, not to two-bit busybodies like you nor the legislature. You have over stepped your bounds and need to have a rein thrown on you. You and your kind are absolute evil personified and do not deserve to be heard in the public square. Stay out of my life, stay out of my business and stay out of my private club --- you are NOT welcome anywhere.
Hmm, this comment of That Nice Mr. Godshall's would be good to forward to Pennsylvania legislators.
Perhaps they might not be so agreeable to someone who brags openly about being a bit of a puppetmaster, or thinking he is?
Hi, guys.
The following provides a good general history and explanation of the problem typified by self-interest control of the media and public information in general.
The article contains much of interest, although I suspect that, ironically, the author may have fallen prey to propaganda regarding the example of war in global defense against the initial sprouting of what later produced the encroaching Nazi regime, much as even those holding information disproving the tactic blame (as arranged) smokers and everything tobacco-related for corporate-created ills and ascribe corporate agendas to what is typically the poorest one quarter of a victimized population.
http://www.zmag.org/content/show...fm?
ItemID=11785
A lot depends on deluded supporters, believing themselves part of the great elite and pushing hard for political/corporate goal achievement over the lives and rights of others, failing to note history, character traits and what happens to those once but no longer useful to the top-level drivers as the machine grinds endlessly on in search of new fodder.
By then, of course, there's no-one remaining in any position to act in their defence.
It appears that by the end of WW2, 200,000 members of the 'Master Race' too sick or crippled to work had been eliminated as useless to the Fatherland.
Nazi references applied to current circumstance are not hyperbole, more's the pity.
A fascist by any other name still carries the same odour, and today's comrade is merely a target whose time is yet to come.
It'd be one thing if Bill ran in here to pump up the editorials supporting a ban in his state. Something like... "Even the all editors are for it." But no, he doesn't really come to do that. He comes to stroke his ego. To say (nevermind the subject) "Look what I did." To say "People have thanked me." We've seen it exhibited a number of times now.
As an armchair psychologist I would hazard to guess that a large part of what makes Bill tick -- what makes him take up a cause -- is what it does for Bill. How it gets him recognition, notice, and adoration (if not even worship).
There is a personal psychology at work here. And it's not a healthy one.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
