So here we are yet again. Ad nauseum.
If you can't convince parents not to smoke in their cars with their children in them on the strength of your argument - then coerce them.
Parents still smoke around their children because they are living, breathing proof that the arguments used to push these measures are a pack of lies.
I will quit smoking around my kids the minute someone convinces me otherwise - I've been waiting.........
My problem with this article, still tends to run more along the lines of consistency from the doc.
On one hand you say, very clearly, that adults are incapable of decidng for themselves whether they should decide to choose the risk of working in an establishment that allows smoking, yet you balk when told they shouldn't be able to make that decision for their own children?
I really don't understand your position on this doc, if adults cannot make the decision for themselves, how is it you have no problem with them making it for their children?
Can we say hypocracy?
Dr. Siegal
A long time ago - we discused SIDS and you promised to "look again" at sids research and the so-called connection to SHS.
Have you forgotten?
Michelle
Jerry-
It's not that I think adults aren't capable of making decisions regarding workplace health hazards. It's that I don't think they should have to. I believe it is the employer's duty to protect workers from significant, yet preventable hazards on the job. I would certainly hope that my employer does that for me. I shouldn't be placed in a position where I have to choose between making a living but facing preventable, severe hazards and being safe but unemployed.
Michelle-
I did look at the evidence. I think it's pretty clear that tobacco smoke is strongly related to SIDS risk. However, I don't think the mechanism of effect is a direct one. In other words, tobacco smoke doesn't somehow trigger SIDS. What I believe the evidence shows is that tobacco smoke exposure is related to some sort of brain impairment such that it cannot respond appropriately in the face of hypoxia, such as when an infant might not be breathing properly due to being smothered in a blanket or something like that. It takes that 2nd stimulus to cause the hypoxia, but the tobacco smoke exposure contributes by impairing the ability to respond appropriately.
The other thing that does not appear to be clear is whether it is just exposure in utero that causes the impairment, or whether it is actual exposure that occurs outside of the womb. This is an important issue, because if it is the former, then reducing ETS exposure in the home will not prevent SIDS if an infant has already been affected by smoking during pregnancy.
But clearly, the uniform message of putting infants to sleep on their backs is the primary one that needs to be spread.
" Boo-hoo. You can't subject kids to 43 carcinogens and 250 poisonous chemicals and claim privacy. Get over it. Their right to privacy doesn't extend so far as to poisoning kids.”"
I would like to hear the assessment of how those poisons in the quantities they exist compare to the much more immediately dangerous poisons inhaled while utilizing public transit, and who would be at higher short term risk on the commute to work. The councilman is entirely selective in his reasoning while the public has never been properly informed about their choices in the risks associated with the PC transportation recomendation.
How much childhood morbidity is being promoted at train and bus stations. while ticketing working mothers who have enough on their plate as it is. Having that time in the car to have a smoke may well be the only time available for hours. Having mothers agitated by the hypocrisies of smoking prohibitions applied on private property. The ban may well lead to increased road rage, it certainly doesn't provide a calming atmosphere which is safer for anyone on the road.
Politicians have a lot of nerve in applying a wide brushing to parents simply because they smoke. With the number of smokers out there a significant number of voters will now have little trouble identifying the brain dead lemmings in office for future reference and believe me this type of thing sticks in your mind, well beyond the ability of spin doctors to repair the damage done.
The car smoking ban takes a large step towards creating significant opposition, it agitates many people to no end just talking about it. That will have a significant effect as well considering these parents are doing precisely what their parents did before them the wide brushing is insulting to their parents as well.
Self examination is all which is required to understand the irresponsible prophesies of devastation, are poorly supported among the group most exposed and healthier than ever.
Dr. Siegal
I stand before you, a woman publicly accused of murdering an infant, of abusing children. I have waited in hell and grief for 38 years to find out why Robbie died.
And you give me bullshit in response???
Hypoxia (death due to lack of oxygen (suffocation)) IS NOT SIDS. Hypoxia does not cause the powerful clamping of the throat muscles, resulting in increased pressure within the lungs as evidenced by the presence of peticia.
Examine this study done in Colorado:
Note: of the 598 diagnosis of SIDS. Of these - The MAJORITY were deaths that occurred in NON-SMOKING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Of the 172 deaths that occurred where the mother was a smoker - the researchers decided that 59 % of the deaths occured due to tobacco.
Pray tell Dr. - exactly how and on what basis did these researchers decide that 59 % of the deaths were associated with tobacco????
What showed up in the autopsy reports that made those deaths tobacco related?
Why do the majority of SIDS victims die in non-smoking homes to non-smoking mothers.
Did you examine or consider the "killer mattress" theory with death being caused by the release of heavier than air poison gas as the result of interaction between fire retardant chemicals and ordinary household fungus as i requested?
Here Dr. Siegal is a link to a news story about a TC activist who is absolutely convinced that he killed his infant son because he was a smoker.
http://www.fergusfallsjournal.co...bacco-activist/
How facile your answer is - how unaccountable to its accusation is the medical community and the anti-tobacco crusade. How indifferent to the grief and pain you have all caused and how casually you inflict pain and grief!
Perhaps I should be impressed by all the research but when one researcher casually decides that every infant who died in a car accident was the child of a smoker because "everyone knows that smokers have more car accidents" - somehow I just don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling of certainty I am supposed to get. (refer to studies listed in the California Air Resources Board report to find what I am referring to here.
But at the end of the day Dr. Siegal - Hypoxia is not SIDS!
Michelle
" I think it's pretty clear that tobacco smoke is strongly related to SIDS risk."
Just to clarify Michael you wrote "related" and not associated was that intended?
Can you name some of the more conclusive studies we could take a look at?
I apologise. I did not include the link to the Colorado SIDS study I was referring to.
Here it is:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/174...5/3/4/abstract/
Again - please note that the majority of infants that died of SIDS were not associated with pre-natal smoking or SHS.
As a matter of fact - only 172 out of 598 sids cases occurred in smoke exposed infants (that is only 28.7 %)
Dr. Siegal - exactly what mathematics were used here to decide that smoke-exposed infants were 1.9 times more likely to die of SIDS!
Please explain this to me - I don't understand this at all.
Michelle
Doctor Siegel,
How harmful is it for a campfire girl to sit next to a campfire roasting marshmallows? Should child attendance at such fires be outlawed due to possible smoke exposure?
Help I've fallen into an echo-chamber and I can't get out.
.
Councilman Gennaro is one of the ultimate nannies. People like him are dangerous and should be watched closely. His granstanding on this isuus is hypocritical. If he cared so much about the children of NYC then why not ban diesel engines. He is forcing the children of NYC to grow up in an atmosphere ripe for lung disease. I believe asthma has been linked to a greater rick for lung cancer.
Councilman Gennaro is trying put a forest fire out with a squirt gun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/2...&
pagewanted=all
The answer, I believe, is that a home smoking ban would not be politically popular. Far easier it is to take the politically expedient route and ban smoking in cars so that you can claim you are doing something when in fact, you are neglecting the bulk of the very problem you claim to be addressing.
You only have it half right Doc. I believe this is just a toe in the water test. IF they can successfully ban smoking in your car when kids are present, without too much uproar................then it'll be a piece of cake to then ban it in your home.
This is just a baby step toward their real goal.............controlling your personal life and personal space. AND they are going to use YOUR reasoning for it too "What good does it do for a parent to avoid smoking around their children in the car, but to smoke around them all day long in the home?"
Trust me Doc, they are not as dumb as you are trying to convince us they are. If they went straight to the home there would be an uproar like you wouldn't believe, even from TC sympathizers. Doing this way, gives them a foot in the door AND the reasoning to take that final step with NO argument from the masses.
And yes, I really do believe this is the goal. The only question in my mind is how long before they finally go after something that personally affects YOUR liberty, before you see what we have been telling you all along.
You're right Lynda F----it's all being done in a neat orderly fashion---in increments.
Love to see the look on these do-gooders (doc included) when the invasion enters their homes.
.
rrgabe23---"Councilman Gennaro is trying put a forest fire out with a squirt gun.'
________________
Perahps that's all he has.
BTW Doctor, In reading the article I didn't see any quotes from you on this. This is so important an issue for you ----don't tell me you didn't attend this event. You were clearly invited by Ms Landor. Why did you miss this oppurtunity to inform these folks.
.
Last sentence in Post:
""And that would take us to a place that I assure you we do not want to go.""
My Lord, and you didn't see THAT when you took your first step down the slippery slope of Public Health Enforcement?
Your Hands are Stained- Look at Them!
This is NOT just about Smoking...
There is no question that the government has an interest in protecting children from secondhand smoke exposure.
And of course, government is full of caring, responsible parents, whereas the parents among the footfolk are idiots who need to tied down by government.
Oh, by the way, what about the over 18 year old "children" diing in Iraq, not for the noble cause of public health but allegedly for our freedom. Which freedom? Who needs terrorists if you are governed by them?
A child who spends one hour in a very smoky room is inhaling as many dangerous chemicals as if he or she smoked 10 or more cigarettes
Why is it they always have to ressort to worst case scenarios?
How many children are sitting in a car with the equivalent of 10 cigarettes ore more? Not even a smoking parent would sit in this car.
But of course, based on this fictuous case, all parents have to be punished, no matter how much and how long they smoke.
But again, parents are idiots, they don't care about their children at all, they don't even know what's good for them, they giva a damn about them as long as they can have their cigarette (I can already see Lynda F, Diane, Michelle, and Jalestra jumping up from their chairs)?
From an observational study (nothing to do with children):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site...l=pubmed_docsum
"A 4.1% point prevalence of smoking in cars was observed (95% confidence interval."
How much would that be with children? 0.1%? Is government even able to reduce the crime rate to that point?
correction: diing should be dying
On a slight aside, can you imagine how much the NYPD are cursing Gennaro for coming up with something as unenforcable as this, which they will have to try to cope with.
Of course it'll be them rather than the councilmember who'll catch merry hell when it proves to be unmanageable.
Gilster,
Funny he's worried about that, now. How many have tried to tell him this?
Gilster is right THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT SMOKING.
Pity really. Maybe the thickness of his skull is why he remains convinced that no one can possibly be properly informed of risk.
This is really disgusting. But mostly it is sad.
.
benpal-----"Oh, by the way, what about the over 18 year old "children" diing in Iraq, not for the noble cause of public health but allegedly for our freedom. Which freedom? Who needs terrorists if you are governed by them?"
And not only in Iraq but in wars of past. There are actual body counts for those dead folks. And the reason/cause=----fighting for freedom.
.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "It's not that I think adults aren't capable of making decisions regarding workplace health hazards. It's that I don't think they should have to. I believe it is the employer's duty to protect workers from significant, yet preventable hazards on the job. I would certainly hope that my employer does that for me. I shouldn't be placed in a position where I have to choose between making a living but facing preventable, severe hazards and being safe but unemployed."
At the bars that I go to, mostly redneck bars, more then 70 percent of the people smoke and all bar tenders smoke. They do not need protecting. Based on your statement above it does not make sense that you would not support banning smoking in cars and home where small children are present. They need more protection then adult workers since they have no say in the matter.
I believe, base on your passed posts that I understand why. You use the argument that you want to protect parent autonomy. Also it would open a can of worms to other nanny regulations for other parental behavior that much more risky to a child’s health. You would be opening your castle to more and more government intrusion.
But why would you think that. The only reason that I can think of is that this is to harsh for health risks that have a WEAK link to heart disease, cancer, stoke, etc. The link is too weak (you only have a consensus) to warrant government regulation. This argument fails however, because you suggest the link of SHS to health risks is strong enough to trump the property rights business owners and the right of adults to make up their mind which risks to take in employment. If the health risks of SHS is so strong as to justify government intervention is the property rights of others, then surely it is strong enough to justify smoking bans in the car and home where small children are present. If the link is so weak that it does not justify banning smoking when children are present in vehicles or homes (property rights), then surely it is not strong enough to ban smoking at workplaces, especially places of adult entertainment (bars).
Basically you can not have it both ways. I believe you oppose bans in cars and homes which small children because it will open Pandora’s Box to all kinds of intrusion in people's private lives including yours. You stand on SHS being a critical health problem, based on consensus (not science), has already opened the box with the call for government regulation of private business. I content the risk is so small that it amounts to people worrying about getting hit by lightning and the government regulating the behavior of people such as forcing all outdoor activity to stop at even a hint of a storm.
Thus you have painted yourself in a corner. You cannot say that SHS in a car and home is such a minimum risk that it does not bear regulating, because then there would be no justification for smoking bans in adult establishments. And you cannot say that the risk is so great that government intervention is required without giving justification to bans in cars and homes for the least protected citizens (children). Thus to get out of the corner you use a parental autonomy argument, however, that just does not fly. SHS smoking is a severe health risk or not. If yes it needs to be banned everywhere except outside and even outside if a consensus on the risk can be achieved. Proof and reason are not necessary.
This is exactly what it appears to be.
Another small step toward the bigger push for acceptance of government intrusion into the home, and it goes way beyond the rather simplistic invasion of privacy. It should be called exactly waht it is; the continuing assault on the constitution, BUT!, ..since "it's for the children", and "for our own good" all bets are off, right?
And what is this; "It's not that I think adults aren't capable of making decisions regarding workplace health hazards. It's that I don't think they should have to."
OF COURSE THEY SHOULD!.
Come down from the ivory tower for just a minute or two and look around.
Now you're advocating that people shouldn't take into consideration the possible dangers involved or alledged in some of the unavoidably hazardous occupations in which they are seeking employment.
This includes the alledged dangers of SHS if you are considering making a personal CHOICE and accepting a job in a business that respects the civil liberties of smokers, doesn't believe in the Public Health mantra and allows smoking on the premises.
You can't take a job as a highrise window washer without considering your fear of height...but it certainly pays well.
You cant take a job as a NASCAR driver whithout considering your only driving experience is on a go-cart when you were twelve....but the adulation of the race fans must be incredible.
You can't take a job in a BAR or Restaurant that allows smoking without considering the fact that YOU DON"T SMOKE. Why on earth would you accept ANY position without some minimal consideration?
YOU have to think about it, you have to consider the benefits as well as the possible dangers of the position you may be considering. If you don't think about it, you could get hurt, sick, or die dependent on the occupation you have chosen.
Unless it's a job in TC, in which minimal thought is required and you don't get sick, hurt or die, you get to whine and get wealthy.
I AM trying to get a grip on the TC double-standards employed, but geeeze Doc, you're not helpng.
Actually, if you are going to go there, it makes more sense to ban smoking in homes and cars than in restaurants and bars. And I again, I emphasize that I don't think we need bans in any of these places.
But Doc has said dozens of times that he does not support outdoor bans because there, it is easy to get away from a smoker.
The family at home, or in a car has less opportunity to get away from a smoker, who is also a family member than any other group of people exposed to shs. Outdoors, we are all in agreement, smoking should not be banned, the next easiest place to avoid smoke is in a bar or rest simply by leaving the place, and never patronizing the establishmant again.
But how does a child aviod exposure if he/she wants to? They can't; and here, Dr Siegel does not support a ban? Seems to me this is backwards.
Dave K
Michelle-
You are right. SIDS is not as simple as just hypoxia. My only point was that in SIDS, there appears to be a problem with the response to hypoxia that could otherwise prevent an infant from remaining in the condition that leads to the more complicated issues that you mention. And some research suggests that smoke exposure might be one of the factors that impairs this response.
You are absolutely right. SIDS occurs often in infants of nonsmokers, and smoking is not required for SIDS to occur. And most cases do indeed occur in infants who are not exposed to smoke.
Smoke exposure is simply one risk factor. Its presence is neither required for SIDS to occur, nor is it sufficient for SIDS to occur. A more complex set of circumstances must occur.
Finally, with all of this said, it is not possible in any given case, to be certain that it was the smoke exposure that was a causative factor. Thus, I don't believe there is any reason for a parent who has gone through this tragedy to feel guilt that they contributed to it, and there is equally no reason for anti-smoking groups to make parents of infants who have died from SIDS to feel guilty.
Since SIDS can occur without smoke exposure, it is entirely possible that any particular infant who dies of SIDS would have died anyway - that their death was due to non-smoke-related causes and that the smoke exposure was not a contributing factor.
In saying that SIDS is a risk factor for SIDS, it is critical that people understand that I am not implying ANY guilt on the parent of ANY parent who has suffered such a tragic loss.
If I have in any way implied anything to the contrary, then I sincerely apologize.
Thus, I don't believe there is any reason for a parent who has gone through this tragedy to feel guilt that they contributed to it
This statement is certainly very considerate. But that's not what we are led to believe. In the contrary, TC desperately wants us to believe that whenever it happens to smoking parents, it's their fault.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "Since SIDS can occur without smoke exposure, it is entirely possible that any particular infant who dies of SIDS would have died anyway - that their death was due to non-smoke-related causes and that the smoke exposure was not a contributing factor.
In saying that SIDS is a risk factor for SIDS, it is critical that people understand that I am not implying ANY guilt on the parent of ANY parent who has suffered such a tragic loss."
He could have just as easily said:
Since (heart disease, cancer, stroke, fill in the blank) can occur without smoke exposure, it is entirely possible that any particular person who dies of (fill in the blank) would have died anyway - that their death was due to non-smoke-related causes and that the smoke exposure was not a contributing factor.
In saying that (SHS) is a risk factor for (fill in the blank), it is critical that people understand that I am not implying ANY (cassation) on the (part of smokers) of ANY (illnesses) suffered by those exposed to SHS.
Doc,
everybody has to consider risks before entering or continuing employment.
Those poor miners currently trapped underground all knew and accepted the risk of cave-ins.
In my Engineering career I have worked in many risky environments.To name a few, asbestos, chemicals, heights, confined spaces, I even spent a couple of years working in a live nuclear reactor compartment. I assessed each risk before and during working there and decided whether to accept the risk or not.
Your argument that no worker should have to decide for themselves is weak beyond belief.
Sam,
my spider sense predicts an "ETS is not inherent" retort coming.
GreatScot
benpal, I'm not jumping up and down. The people who yell the loudest "for the children" generally aren't parents, either in that they have no children or that the ones they have they don't actually take care of themselves. You can tell these people know squat about kids, they're "knowledge" is all theoretical..proven by the way obesity is decided in kids.
Jalestra, we all know that "for the children" is a convenient excuse. If you told them that driving around with children in a car or even living close to busy streets represents a risk, they wouldn't want to believe you. As soon as it restricts their own convenience, they opt out.
Michelle,
I don't think anyone knows what causes SIDS and as the Doctor has said, smoking is not the cause of it. I do think there has been alot of finger pointing and a rush to calm grieving parents or soon to be parents who will stay awake all night so to watch their precious newborn. Agree or not, I still have a hardtime accepting the sleeping on you back/front cause too. For hundreds of years, it was common practice to lay the newborn on their stomach and SIDS was unheard of. As for someone who has spent alot of time around newborns and who loves to sit and hold or watch them, marvel at the miracle, I know firsthand that one of the first muscles a baby gains is in the arms and then the knees. They use these muscles to push themselves over when they finally each the age of rolling over. My theory has always been that tummy sleeping is better as if a child starts to choke during the night on something as simple as some their nighttime feeding buildup, their first reaction will be to push up on their arms and possibly clear the passageway for clearer breathing. They are unable to do that while sleeping on their backs. I could be wrong, but so could the so called experts, afterall, I spend hours with a baby, they spend all of 10 minutes during an examination with them. So all in all, no one knows what causes SIDS, so I prefer to believe that God has a bigger and better plan for them.
BenPal,
No I didn't jump out of my chair, but I did pound my head against the wall. I am off now. Need to go buy some spackling so to fix the cracks!
Councilmember Gennaro explained the reasoning behind the bill as follows: “I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids. I've lost family members to lung cancer and I've seen what happens.”
..................
Mr. Gennaro is a Fearocrat. Fearocrat vocabulary:
Denormalize = Dehumanize = Abnornal = Subhuman.
If smoking is abnormal behavior, then it follows that the person smoking is abnormal/subhuman. How does the state deal with the abnormal?
The present political labels no longer apply - Democrat or Republican. It doesn't matter what party a politician identifies with. It is what a politician does or attempts to do.
"Fearocrat" is just another name for NAZI. It it talks like a NAZI (denormalize, parents poisoning their children, no private rights), acts like a NAZI (coerce behavior by the police power of the state), then it must be a NAZI (Fearocrat).
One of Michael Crichton's characters in State of Fear:
"...the universities transformed themselves in the 1980s. Formerly bastions of intellectual freedom in a world of Babbittry, formerly the locus of sexual freedom and experimentation, they now became the most restrictive environments in modern society. Because they had a new role to play. They became the creators of new fears for the PLM [Politico-Legal-Media comples]. Universities today are factories of fear. They invent all the new terrors and all the new social anxieties, dangers, and social terrors to be used by politicians, lawyers, and reporters. Foods that are bad for you. Behaviors that are unacceptable. Can't smoke, can't swear, can't screw, can't think. These institutions have been stood on their heads in a generation. It is really quite extraordinary.
Very good description: "Factories of Fear."
Instead of the Halls of Academia, we now have the Halls of Epidemia.
The Nanny State’s Road to Serfdom
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0705f.asp
~snip~
'If any behavior needs to be reined in, it should be the propensity of people to use the political system to take other people’s money'
And
"As Tocqueville warned us, the problem with democracy is that eventually the majority learns that it can use the vote to get other people’s stuff. And, as Jefferson said, “The natural tendency of things is for liberty to yield and for government to gain ground.”
.
Mike Siegel's defense of forcing children to breathe extremely concentrated levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars is indefensible in a civilized society.
Society has an even greater duty (based upon public health, child welfare and human rights) to protect children from the same hazards that society protects adults from (at workplaces).
Does Mike similarly defend the practice of adults molesting or beating children, as long as they do so in the privacy of an adult's car or home?
There is no question that the government has an interest in protecting children from secondhand smoke exposure.
Au contraire - I have a ton of questions.
What makes SHS so special that it requires such intense scrutiny?
Are ER's filled with choking children?
Are the morgues filled with dead bodies?
Are smoked damaged children sucking the resources of our health systems?
You keep telling me my children are at "risk" for harm - yet surely after 10-13 years of exposure they should have suffered at least one adverse event - no?
If a child can get an ear infection whether they are exposed to SHS or not - how does one determine that it was the SHS exposure that caused it and not some other factor?
There's been a dramatic decrease in SHS exposure of children in the past 20 years - is there a corresponding decrease in so-called SHS related disease? Has anyone been able to discern that any decrease actually occurs among non-exposed kids and not all kids?
What other "risks" can you name where you think there is "no question" the government has a compelling interest in reducing and why?
Can't you think of anything more compelling that the government ought to work on rather than the enormous resources it's been devoting to a non-problem? Millions of children that had a much greater exposure to SHS than the children of smokers today get in their cars and their homes grew up to be perfectly healthy adults. Can you deny that? Then what are you TC folks in a tizzy about?
Bill G-----'Does Mike similarly defend the practice of adults molesting or beating children, as long as they do so in the privacy of an adult's car or home?'
From the person the doctor tells us he respects. The person we are not permitted to personally attack.
Yet he is permitted at every oppurtunity to hurl vicious accusations. Many of which he himself has 'committed' in his 3-pack a day piggery of smoking for 30 + years!!!!
.
Benpal: they giva a damn about them as long as they can have their cigarette
Because we were free to smoke, and did smoke, is the reason our children are healthy and productive members of society. They even have the audacity to be able to think for themselves also. We didn’t raise them to be afraid of their own shadow and every itty bitty wittle germ out there. My son once commented on how 3 of his cousins were always sick (they were sisters). I told him it was because their parents didn’t smoke….hehehehehe
Dan: If the health risks of SHS is so strong as to justify government intervention is the property rights of others, then surely it is strong enough to justify smoking bans in the car and home where small children are present. If the link is so weak that it does not justify banning smoking when children are present in vehicles or homes (property rights), then surely it is not strong enough to ban smoking at workplaces, especially places of adult entertainment (bars).
I made the same argument to the Doc yesterday, and am still waiting for an answer to that one. Don’t hold your breath expecting a response here. We both know the response, no matter which way he goes, will reveal his true agenda, and he’s not quite ready to do that yet.
Truth is, he is ONLY against intruding on parental autonomy because he knows that will guarantee someone coming after his parental rights next. Amazingly he doesn’t realize that this is happening already and it is only a matter of time until they barge down his front door.
Sunz,
Perhaps Bill atones for his past by all that voluntary campaigning he does at his own cost. Maybe even a little flagellation as penance.
He will, off course also be pushing for back taxes to be imposed on ex-smokers in the interest of fairness, for all those cheap smokes he inflicted on the innocent.
At least he is being more open about his agenda. BTW Bill, punishing current smokers will never make you feel better. Your personal misery is for ever.
GreatScot
Bill G: Society has an even greater duty (based upon public health, child welfare and human rights) to protect children from the same hazards that society protects adults from (at workplaces).
But we don't want to PROHIBIT smoking, we only want those less than 2 hour domestic flights to be smoke free. We would NEVER dream of intruding into anyone's home and invading their private space and trampling over the constitution.
Hypocrite.
Great Scot---'He will, off course also be pushing for back taxes to be imposed on ex-smokers in the interest of fairness, for all those cheap smokes he inflicted on the innocent.'
That would only happen in a just society----we don't have that any longer.
.
Bill, as you promote smokeless tobacco, I wouldn't talk crap. You spit filth on the ground. Bad enough it's spit, but it's filthy spit. And if you don't spit it on the ground, you carry this bottle around just oozing spit and phlegm and tobacco. It's the most disgusting thing I've seen...but it's sooo much better than cigarettes? I once dipped too back in high school, that is DISGUSTING. Then there's all that residue left in your teeth, even after brushing it was in your teeth. Not even going into the wad of crap in your mouth that makes you look like a Neanderthal. Shut up, Bill. You spit disease into the air constantly, in fermenting tobacco in spit, don't talk to me about SHS.
I'm sorry, I have some major issues with spit *shudders*..but dirty spit is the worst.
Mike Siegel's defense of forcing children to breathe extremely concentrated levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars is indefensible in a civilized society.
Society has an even greater duty (based upon public health, child welfare and human rights) to protect children from the same hazards that society protects adults from (at workplaces).
Thus speaketh God(almighty)shall.
Society has a far more important duty to protect EVERYONE from charlatans such as yourself and the rest of the control freaks you consort with. And that duty is based upon far more than just what you list, because such duty is required to protect ALL from insanity, which is apparently contagious in the anti-smoker control freak movement.
Is it short tobacco deprived memories, or simply TC selective memory that causes Anti-tobacco zealots to forget every instance of ever being in a car with a smoker and watching that smoke being siphoned out that ONE INCH CRACK at the top of the window while your cruising down the street?
Do they not recall what happens to the smoke from a lit cigarette when just one window is half way down, or better still, ...completely down?
When all the windows are down?
This is akin to that other completely absurd and idiotic TC claim that it takes hurricane force winds to evacuate SHS from a Bar or Restaurant.
It takes only the smallest of openings in a car window to evacuate the smoke from a lit cigarette.
If an adequate (not the best) ventillation systen can replace the total volume of air in an automotive paint shop 5 times an hour.
Why is SHS such a problem in Bars & Restaurants?
Gee, I wonder which weighs more?
The unquestionable toxic fumes of atomized automotive spraypaint?, ..or
nearly invisible SHS?
Who's at greater risk, the Bartender, or the painter?
The "For the sake of the children" ploy is simply a matter of convenience. It's an easy, emotional way to justify further intrusion into the lives of the population in general. It's just more "feel-good" legislation adopted to distract attention and to mask the continued chipping away at the constitution.
Gabz---Since you have been gone this ailment:
'protect ALL from insanity, which is apparently contagious in the anti-smoker control freak movement"
Has been named: ASDS
It began as
AntiSmokers Derangement Syndrome.
(I prefer this myself)
But most use the milder form:
Anti Smoker Dsyfunction Syndrom.
welcome back
LB,
This is akin to that other completely absurd and idiotic TC claim that it takes hurricane force winds to evacuate SHS from a Bar or Restaurant.
Here in Scotland they declared bars free of ETS residue within 3 weeks of the smoking ban. Strange as we did not have any hurricanes. mmmmm?
It takes only the smallest of openings in a car window to evacuate the smoke from a lit cigarette.
It's called eduction, and any mediocre novice engineer can explain the principles. Perhaps Glantz would post a discription.
GreatScot
Mike Siegel's defense of forcing children to breathe extremely concentrated levels of tobacco smoke pollution in cars is indefensible in a civilized society.
Bill in a new master twist of wordings.
Yes, in fact, we use the turbos in our car engines to compress the smoke before we blow it back into the car. And then we stand outside watching as the children scratch the closed windows with bloody fingernails until they let out their last sigh ...
Bill do you have children? No, you can't have, we all know what 3 packs a day do to your reproductive power.
Why don't you care about your life and let others live theirs? Unless you want to pay all the cost for the bringing up and education of my children, I will take charge. And I'll act as a responsible parent, with all my care, love, and even my life.
Do you really think that a fine of $200 would even get close to the worth of the lives of my children? Spare us with your silly, ridiculous negative incentives decided upon by some nannies.
I can't explain the principle, but I've seen this in my car. The smoke is drawn out my cracked window. However, if my husband cracks his window the smoke congregates in the car (in addition to my cracked window). The kids never complain when my window is cracked, but do complain when daddy cracks his too.
Believe it or not, I actually listen to my kids. They'll tell me if my smoke is bothering them, I taught them to.
Say, Doc here has been featured on Reason
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/
...4.html#comments
GreatScot, be careful what you say about Stanton Glantz:
Professor Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco, to Receive The American Legacy Foundation
Distinguished Professorship in Tobacco Control
http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv...ntz-l/
0684.html
Congratulations, Prof. Glantz!
Bill G. wrote: "Does Mike similarly defend the practice of adults molesting or beating children, as long as they do so in the privacy of an adult's car or home?"
Dr. Siegel has already answered that question. He has stated that government intervention is needed only in cases of child abuse or when there is an immediate threat of harm to a child. He has said the smoking around a child is NOT child abuse. He has stated that the harm to a child from SHS in not significant enough to warrage government intrusion.
benpal,
The Glanz link is an unbelievable ego stroking for the master of deception himself.
WLC----In case you missed the post from the genius here it is from the article on Spontaneous Quit Study:
"Free will is overrated. Kids wear the clothes/sneakers and smoke the cigarettes that are most heavily advertised. I doubt anyone would ever choose to quit smoking had it not been for the 1964 Surgeon Generals report and all the public health and TC work done since.
hrj01 | 08.15.07 - 11:20 am |"
Very good, Jales!!!
.
OT. More from the TC playbook.
Overeating in pregnancy could lead to child obesity
http://news.independent.co.uk/
he...icle2864210.ece
"Pregnant mothers-to-be who "eat for two" by increasing their intake of fatty and sugary food could unwittingly be putting their children at risk of obesity, according to new research. "
Now if your obese, you can blame your mother. Bad, Bad, Bad mommy.
Sunz,
I saw it--I just couldn't believe he, or anyone for that matter, wrote it (maybe I'm confusing him with Reason.com's favorite troll Dan T.). Some things just leave me speechless.
Jalestra,
Well, my comment to hrj01 wasn't that civilized
Bill asked: "Does Mike similarly defend the practice of adults molesting or beating children, as long as they do so in the privacy of an adult's car or home?"
Bill - if you read my post, you'll see that the answer is no. I spell it out quite clearly in presenting my argument, and I specifically note the criteria I use to distinguish the difference between the two.
GreatScot,
"It's called eduction, and any mediocre novice engineer can explain the principles."
Thanks,
I knew this would be educational. 
Dan, JunkFood Science covered that here http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....abies-
safe.html
There is no evidence to support that pregnancy weight gain is to blame for the obesity epidemic. In fact, this notion of restricting pregnancy weight gain has been tried before, by U.S. public health officials in the 1950s, but medical professionals quickly recognized that this advice was endangering babies. Among mothers following their weight gain restrictions, their babies had poorer chances for survival and more health problems. That finally led to a reversal in the 1970s and the guidelines we have today. The research has continued to show these recommendations help to ensure a safe pregnancy, optimal fetal growth and healthy babies.
Only they can risk children...
Anyone else notice the disappearance of the extremely mild 'civilized' conversation, or has my smoking finally resulted in blindness?
Pfffft---gone Jales!
This always seems to occur. It's never explained.
See you are not blind
.
Ah, we must have hurt someone's feelings, what callous, hateful,murderous abusers we are *sighs*
Ah, we must have hurt someone's feelings, what callous, hateful,murderous abusers we are *sighs*
Jalestra..........tsk, tsk, tsk....shame on you 
You know those poor souls are thin-skinned and overly sensitive. You have to be nice to them. They've been PC'd too long and don't know how to handle those of us who refuse to cowtow to the PC crowd. LOL
Yeah, they are why I don't have many friends. They really hate that whole blunt, honest thing. Which, oddly enough, makes me do it all the more...I think that's a sign of childishness on my part. But hey, if it is, well, they make laws out of their childishness, I'm just a jerk. At least they don't HAVE to deal with me.
Careful Jalestra,
They could always petition Public Health to Ban jerks!.
WAIT!,....Hey, ..if they did then there would be no Tobacco Control!!
Lets get this straight;
Bill would be stating here those who rape and beat children are no different than those who smoke around children? The idea of fining those who smoke around children "200.00!!!", this seems to indicate he would support similar minor penalties for all other abuses.
If children are being abused we should accept no less than long jail sentences as a proper response. Do you support that Bill? If not you are no longer supporting consensus, because the majority will not accept your opinion.
Bill get what you are proposing straight in your own head, before spewing nonsense. Your and others accusations of abuse are completely ignorant in the down grading of real abuse just to support your sound bites.
TC has no limits where they will go to get what they want.
Care and compassion is well out of your ability to claim any longer. "For the children" doesn't sell among the harpies with corrupted and perhaps criminal self enrichment demonstrated time after time as their true agenda.
They could always petition Public Health to Ban jerks!.
Promises, promises LB...we could only hope...
"It's not that I think adults aren't capable of making decisions regarding workplace health hazards. It's that I don't think they should have to."
This one sets me off in 2 directions--the second one perhaps not instantly apparent, but here goes anyway:
1.
Many years ago New York Magazine ran a lead article about overprotective parents. The cover photo showed an actual woman who toted her 10 yr old kid around in a wheelchair and also used a pull quote that came from the article:
"Yes, he can walk but thank God he doesn't have to."
2.
Doctor--as a doctor-- do you fully warn your patients of the possible side effects of the meds you prescribe so they can make informed risk-to- benefit decisions on the health hazards involved?
Or do you think they shouldn't "have to"?
Im talking about non life & death situations.
Since you believe in education and proper warnings about secondhand smoke (or occasionally do when it fits the argument) how about proper warnings for...say, statins which it seems to me are far too promiscuously prescribed and have a list of side effects as long as my arm and as threatening as a snake.
I;m trying to determine where you draw the line between reflexive paternalism and respect for individual decisions and autonomy
:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
he...icle2869688.ece The rabbit is pulled out of the hat when required,identical really to all of the junk science used by the anti movement.The USA apart from the native Americans consists of immigrants,many who saw a new life and were escaping from tyranny .Today it appears that history has caught up and those very same fore-fathers are watching their offspring bring tyranny and discrimination back big time.It seems strange to see so many pompous and self opinionated buffoons attempt to dominate a society that came into existence on the basis of freedom for all.The Jackboots are on and will effect everyone shortly.
Forgot again.
Here we go again - same thing happened in Bangor, Maine this past January. I am running for City Council this fall with a major part of my platform being to allow a people's vote on this issue in our city (I know it would go down "in flames" if people could decide in the privacy of the voting booth).
http://goprill.com/platform/bang...g-ban-petition/
Any words of support would be much appreciated.
Not for nothing, Aaron, but a vote isn't quite fair either. That's just passing the buck for the ban from government to mob rule.
Non-smokers outnumber smokers, this is no secret. The ballots are always carefully worded, so every non-smoker will in fact vote for it.
NOW, if you put a multi-choice question on the ballot you MIGHT actually get a more accurate vote. Multi-choice in that Do you allow a full outright ban, or do you allow business owners to decide for themselves especially now that they know there is such a high demand for "smoke-free" venues. Just for an idea.
Also the only advertising for it that should be allowed would be advertising bringing it to the voters' attention that it is on the ballot, and not allowing the typical ads where anything less than an outright ban is tantamount to attempted murder.
This is the classic argument employed by Big Tobacco: smoking bans won't make the world a perfect place, therefore we should do nothing.
But car smoking bans will make the world a better place because they will help educate parents as to the negative health effects of smoking around their kids. And besides, there's a difference between smoking in a separate room or preferably out on the patio, and smoking two feet away from a kid. It's unacceptable, and parents who smoke need to hear that.
Home smoking bans would be impractical and unenforcable, and perhaps even undesirable. The key is not to ban smoking in the home but to educate people, and at the same time provide some protection for kids from secondhand smoke in very close quarters.
"If we are willing to supersede parental autonomy when it comes to one health behavior that increases children’s risk of adverse health consequences, then we are going to be willing to do so for other health behaviors."
First of all, it's not just about increasing a risk. Secondhand smoke has immediate adverse health consequences, and you know it.
And other health behaviors offer benefits as well as risks. But allowing a parent to smoke two feet away from a child or infant offers no benefit to anyone except tobacco companies.
Which brings us to what this blog is really all about. Here is the completed tobacco promotion playbook, for anyone who still hasn't figured out what's really going on here:
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
While this particular version of the tobacco promotion playbook deals primarily with opposition to public and workplace smoking bans, the same principles are also used to argue against other tobacco control measures, nearly all of which Dr. Siegel apparently opposes.
With regard to this particular post, I would point to Chapter 3.1, Claim smoking is a fundamental right. This is the classic tobacco industry argument: "Which of our fundamental rights will they ban next?" This is what tobacco promoters do, introduce other issues as a distraction from the reality of smoking – an easily preventable cause of death and disease, with no redeeming qualities.
And with regard to the overall purpose of this blog, I believe the following fits here. From Appendix 8, Exploiting mentally vulnerable people: "Apparently it's not enough for tobacco companies to addict and kill their customers, but they also feel the need to rally them to promote their political agenda."
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...pg=21&cnt=1&
t=a
Despite the good he may have done in the past, Dr. Siegel today is more spin doctor than medical doctor. It's very sad to see a medical doctor spend his time defending smoking.
Cathy, WHERE were you when I had my son? That poor child grew up with TWO heavy smoking parents and not only did he have to the nerve to do so in good health, BUT he has the sheer audacity to be a fully functioning, very healthy young man of 27 today..............no allergies either. /s
Seriously, get a grip already.
I don't trust anyone, not willing to use their own name or show their face. Only liars and con artists have to change their identity and hide themselves.
And interesting article from 2037
If TobaccoScam doesn't realize it will get to this, one has to wonder when TS will stop with the elitist attitude towards citizens who smoke or don't exercise, for that matter.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum...s/graham/
070820
Cathy stated: "Secondhand smoke has immediate adverse health consequences, and you know it."
I would ask Cathy: What are those immediate adverse health consequences?
Before answering, I acknowledge that there are immediate adverse health consequences for children with asthma. However, these laws do not ban smoking in cars carrying children who have asthma. They ban smoking in cars with any child.
So for a child without asthma, I would ask Cathy: What are the immediate adverse health consequences that you are talking about?
Also, you talk a lot about my following some sort of Big Tobacco playbook (quite odd since I've testified 12 more times than you in cases against Big Tobacco). What exactly are you accusing me of? Taking Big Tobacco money? Collaborating with tobacco companies? Aiming to help the companies?
Please make yourself clear, because as I read it, you are making some very important and potentially damaging accusations here.
Gilster,
That story is downright depressing. 
If we're using real names here, would I be within my rights to address "Sunz" as Iro Cyr, and "si" as Joel Demers?
Here it is from the horse's mouth:
"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation...Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them."
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/
e...dhand_smoke.asp
Note how they still try to spin this even with all the evidence against secondhand smoke. Are we really to believe that secondhand smoke causes eye, throat and nasal irritation in adults, but not in children? And the same goes for lung cancer and heart disease, though these won't show up until later.
Of course, they no longer dare to campaign against smoke-free air laws directly because people would give them the credibility they deserve, which is none at all. That's why they set up bogus "grassroots" organizations like Citizens Against Government Encroachment (likely tobacco front group) and Mychoice.ca (known tobacco front group).
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
As I've said here before, it is manifestly clear that the tobacco industry's interests are being defended at this blog, and to suggest otherwise is basically an insult to one's intelligence. The tobacco promotion playbook has been used here extensively: dispute or minimize the dangers of secondhand smoke, introduce other issues as a diversion, claim non-smokers hate smokers and want to punish them or make them quit, and so on and on in numerous postings.
I have no idea why Dr. Siegel is behaving in this way. Who knows, maybe he is simply playing devil's advocate (and I do mean that literally). All I can say is it's very sad to see a medical doctor spend his time defending smoking.
And yes, when someone compares passive smoking to playing hockey, or smoking to eating poorly, they are defending smoking. Unlike other issues which Dr. Siegel has brought up in his posts, smoking is an easily preventable cause of sickness and death with no redeeming qualities.
And it goes on and on with each post. From this post: "If they can come into our car, then they can come into our home. And everybody should be afraid of this, not just because of smoking." Translation: this isn't really about smoking at all (so don't focus on the health effects of smoking), it's about protecting fundamental rights. The slippery slope, what will the health Nazis go after next? It's the toboacco industry's message in spades.
If we're using real names here, would I be within my rights to address "Sunz" as Iro Cyr, and "si" as Joel Demers?
Had you always used this TobaccoScamalysis name, it wouldn't be an issue, but you used to come on as Cathy Bell and NOW it appears you try to hide your identity. Therefore, MY accusation stands.
Dearest Scamalysis,
I really have never had the pleasure of meeting Iro Cyr, but I'm quite sure I would greatly enjoy his/her company!!
(I thought that's who-Iro Cyr- you once thought Si was---but appparently Si has morphed into Joel Demers) Does anyone know who's on first??????
But I consider it quite a compliment to be compared to Iro as you seem to have great disdain for him/her. Further the connection to Si I consider a high compliment indeed.
Fondly,
Scamalysis ----'As I've said here before, it is manifestly clear that the tobacco industry's interests are being defended at this blog, and to suggest otherwise is basically an insult to one's intelligence.'
If you have any intelligence, I guess you'll just have to settle for being insulted.
I asked you before, if you know where any money is being kept by BT for me please send that info ASAP---busybodiesalysis@buttout.com
.
Sunz-
Welcome to the club. Being falsely accused by Cathy. Like many of the anti-smoking groups, she appears willing to throw around accusations without proper evidence. I know Iro, and you're no Iro. I don't know Joel Demers, but I can tell you that si is no Joel Demers. I, too, would like to know where my Big Tobacco money is. If I were to advocate for their interests -- believe me -- I would demand being paid for it.
If we're using real names here, would I be within my rights to address "Sunz" as Iro Cyr, and "si" as Joel Demers?
Good God Cathy,
Si is Iro, Si is Joel, Sunz is Iro, Tnsmoker is Dr Romano, Tnsmoker is Lucy Romano- Get help, I fear not for your intelligence but I do fear for your sanity.
Get well soon.
GreatScot
In our town Bad Buchau is smoking no more allowed
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
