I can only hope that this man takes us up on the offer, sails through surgery and recovers quite nicely in spite of his smoking status.
Thanks for the update Doctor.
.
Smoking bans stand as absolute proof of the ineptitudes of Government agencies laying claim to any control whatsoever in the field of national security.
We witness how easily one nepotistic and corrupt UN agency has the power to co-opt the entire scientific medical community voice and dictate the opinions of the popular media throughout the free world.
The power as demonstrated by news releases daily and the political leaders on the same day, over and over for months on end, act as ventriloquist dummies voicing the common verse. Which demonstrates "if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth."
Preceding every smoking ban implemented throughout the free world were seen similar parroting of common verse, irrespective of knowledgeable sources which adamantly refuted the scientific credibility of what was being supported.
Any doubt as to the existence of a small common source of the verbiage, we have all been incited with, is found in the news papers across the nations of the world with common language declaring "cigarette smoke" alone of all the chemicals and Toxins we know stands alone, with no safe level of exposures possible.
Corruption rules, and undermines elected authority and proof is found in the common sucesses which will be eventually absolute as every politician, Clinician or Journalist who stands in the way of UN policy domination, will be attacked by his peers who find common profits from these campaigns. The fat pandemic, The bird flu pandemic, Global warming and a host of other initiatives all call for our moral opinions to support language driven by fear, in the process of turning us upon ourselves.
The absence of discussion seen in the installation of these grand plans to protect us from ourselves should be their indictment.
The sum result is seen in the poll watching design of centrist politics, promoting what ever it takes to find popular support in the competitors camp, regardless of political history or party obligations.
The improprieties are explained in converting right and left leaning parties, into in what they term as "forward going" or "progressive" in the common description of a political cult known not as right or left but the third way[Reich]
The same paternalisms gave Hitler his power to "protect" us against the Jews and other so deemed inferior races who still suffer the results of those Bigotries and prejudices today.
A government dedicated to protecting it's citizens is the opposite of a government dedicated to protection of it's citizen's personal rights.
We will have to decide soon which is more important or the existence of choice will be gone for ever.
We have nothing after all to fear but fear itself.
Get involved!!!
Governments claim a right to protect "Public Health". Not the citizens or their rights, "Public health!" as an organizational scheme.
The dictators who install themselves into our communities no longer call themselves public health practitioners. they now display their arrogance openly in calling themselves
"Public Health Authorities"
with absolutely no apparent mandate to rule, other than the authority they heap upon themselves. The new religion of international paternalism as a theological governing authority.
Really good news! 
FYI: I just put these two at the FORCES Tavern. I know *everybody* wants to know the status!
Seriously. Good news on many levels. Cheers to both the Doc and FORCES International.
Thank you Michael Siegel for your action on this matter.
One for you Lynda F.
Headline
Centenarians reach a record high
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7017856.stm
Excerpt
The rapid increase in the number of very elderly people began in the 1950s
Doc,
How can this be?
Centenarians in 2007 were 50 years old in 1957, the majority of people were active smokers and everybody was constantly exposed to vast amounts of ETS in every situation. Their exposure to unregulated ETS would continue into the 1980's.
How dare these people continue to live! After 75 plus years of constant exposure to the "deadliest toxin known to man" (coptwrite ASH)you would think they would have the decency to die as instructed by anti-smokers organisations.
GreatScot
I need to offer my thankyou to the good Doctor here for bringing this story to our attention and for getting the ball rolling. As I wait for more information on where and when to send my check, my thoughts wander to the question of "Will or can this make national attention"? I sure would like to see this on my local news, possibly stuck in between a couple of health scare topics and a couple of new diets to try. Also would be nice if shows like Good Morning America, Today and possibly 60 Minutes did a segment on it too. This is an important story that needs to be told to every household, over and over. People are disgusted with what is called Public Health, now they need to get so disgusted they finally start to take action too! By all of us who promised a donation, we are taking the first steps to bringing Public Health to their true light.
Thanks, Doc, for demonstrating that your field is not (and should never be) entirely devoid of genuine compassion & devotion to Hippocratian ethics.
I remain very concerned about the probability that Public Health and Health Promotion practitioners will soon be openly promoting "refusal of service" on a massive scale - targeting an expanding list of 'denormalized' scapegoats with refusal of routine medical services, treatments and drug therapies.
There seems to be an explosion of interest in the ethical and legal ramifications for practitioners, of expending medical resources selectively rather than universally or on a "first come first served" basis. This suggests to me, very strongly, that people in Public Health and Health Promotion are preparing an ethical and legal framework for using refusal of medical services/resources as a means of punishing people who fail to follow their directives for "healthy living" and for extorting compliance through the threat of being refused access to medical resources.
I'm particularly concerned by the recent emergence of lobbying efforts aimed at the development of laws which would shield public health and medical personnel from suffering any legal consequences as a result of decisions or actions they might make in the name of "professional duty".
http://tinyurl.com/24k98m
A resolution that: "The CMA develop a policy to protect physicians from reprisals and retaliation for speaking out as advocates for their patients and their communities"
That they are seeking extraordinary "protections", over & above those they already enjoy, suggests that they intend to abuse the privileges & powers of their offices in the near future...
From Robins link:
"Newfoundland doctor Lydia Hatcher said doctors have an excellent opportunity to voice their concerns as politicians from all political parties are paying attention to the issue and will likely continue to do so leading up to the next federal election."
I thought the first duty of a doctor is to do no harm. Seems their first duty is to lobby politicians (or be politicians themselves) Hmmmm, guess I never got that memo.
.
.
Robin, I haven't been appalled for a couple of days. I thought maybe my appalled meter was wearing out. But the article you linked brought it right back.
In addition from protecting themselves from "reprisal", the final two resolutions noted as passed by the Canadian Medical Association:
- Revenues collected by government through tobacco taxes be spent on health care.
- Doctors oppose any involvement of tobacco companies in education or research at post-secondary institutions.
That wraps it all up nicely doesn't it? As I read it, it means
1)any tax money raised from folks who continue to use this product that we demonize comes right back to us -- thus, the more you try to ignore or disobey us, the richer and more powerful we get.
and,
2)the folks most likely to have the money and interest to fund scientific study that could contradict our dogma will be effectively barred from doing so."
Well there ya' go. The debate is "over", and so is liberty.
Diane, I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has mentioned our efforts on his show yet.
Credit where credit is due. From Walts post on 09.17.07 - 2:26 am
Here's, I hope, a constructive idea:
Someone in England should get in touch with Forest. Forrest, in turn, should set up a fund to pay for Mr Nutall's operation in private practice. (I think there's still a private practice in England ?, and if not, then elsewhere.) And then make a huge media deal about it, too.
Maybe by showing that smokers are united in defending their interests (and ultimately, the interests of the next victims in line-- clearly the obese) and by publicizing our outrage and helping this poor sod, we'll accomplish something solid. And, if nothing else, help him.
If you Brits can start this, I'm in for 50 bucks.
How bout you, Doc? Money and mouth?
:
Walt | 09.17.07 - 2:26 am |
Granted the doc facilitatated some necessary connections, thanks to Walt for a simple thought shared.
.
GDF - "The debate is "over", and so is liberty."
In Canada, that is literally true.
Our supreme court recently endorsed legislation that not only bans tobacco industry advertising of their products, (a ban that has been in effect for at least a decade already), but also makes it a criminal offence for tobacco company personnel to publicly contradict or disagree with anything the Health Promotion industry says about "the characteristics, health effects or health hazard of the tobacco product or its emissions"
as you can see in our analysis of the court's ruling:
http://tinyurl.com/35tx7z
The penalty for expression of dissenting opinions, by tobacco company execs or employees, will be "a fine not exceeding $300,000" or "imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both".
By ruling that it is justifiable to criminalize "promotion that, while not literally false, misleading or deceptive in the traditional legal sense, conveys an erroneous impression about the effects of the tobacco product, in the sense of leading consumers to infer things that are not true", the court has effectively ruled that absolute truth with regard to "the characteristics, health effects or health hazard of the tobacco product or its emissions" is not only knowable but already known and therefore it is possible to ascertain with absolute certainty that an opinion which is not literally false, misleading or deceptive in the traditional legal sense will nevertheless create erroneous impressions in the minds of anyone who might be exposed to that opinion.
If Dr Siegel, for example, was a paid consultant to a tobacco company - he could be prosecuted in Canada for what he's been saying here about the immediate lethality of SHS exposure...
Gaining complete control over the funding of research on the topics of smoking & tobacco, by banning any sources of funding that are not under their control, ensures that no researchers will ever generate findings that might contradict what Health Promotion already knows to be "the absolute truth" - and the debate will indeed be over. Not because there will be nothing left unresolved or still to discover about smoking & tobacco, but because one side of the debate has been criminalized, prohibited and banned into silence.
GDF;
Freedom was over in Canada a long time ago people just haven't realized it or they are to afraid to admit it. The debate is long gone as the official oposition who we believe sit in leasdership doesn't really exist anymore. It is entirely true "it doesn't matter who you vote for" they really are exactly the same. Centrist politics guided by the pollsters is the new reality for Canada. The only issues we debate are the ones they tell us to.
From the high handed Lieberals who tell us they support a Social Justice Agenda because they know how much it would hurt them in the polls to call socialism by it's traditional name. They seem to want to create an image for the failed social experiment to promote it as though it were something new.
In my Lifetime I have watched as personal rights and freedom died a promotion at a time. Starting with Pierre Trudeau taking away our right to free and open Justice, at the expense of a shoeshine boy who left this world horrifically at the hands of four monsters, in one of the most shocking murder cases ever witnessed in Canada to that time. Emanuel Jacques will never see that Justice because of political interference. All in the name of what they refer to as Pride.
We saw a PM for the first time with the war measures act turning the armed forces against our own people in respose to protesters who had become violent. The same protesters we saw then as terrorists now sit proudly in government. The fruits of negotiating with terrorists who stand now as the boogy man in other regions of the country who are told to fear the breakup of a nation. A Nation which has been subdivided by region by multicultural heritage, And now with the removal of personal choice we move to divisions by genealogical markers.
When a State takes on the responsibility of choices by removing them from the individual, they take on the whines of the population needs or they simply recognize the wants of the party in power and ignore the citizenry in what seems to be the direction socialism is traveling today.
Fascism takes it strength from the whines and collects support from the Right wing as well enforcing morality and ethics of the past to defeat the remnants of it. Moving them forward as progressives in the third direction[Reich]. The Swastika is a spinning scythe drawing all support to the center in sustainable development they ratchet down the permanence of decisions made in support of minor details with major effect.
We saw with the implementation of the NEP, Freedom of speech and free trade in advertising a product was restricted for a gas station owner made an example of, who dared advertise measures in prices displayed in both the traditional imperial and a newly adapted metric system so his customers could understand how quickly the prices were rising.
A surplus of cash which had always existed in government coffers quickly disappeared and grew to a deficit we will never see the end of. When we witnessed the criminal act of a theft caught red handed, not one of the politicians responsible even resigned much less went to jail. Scapegoats were assigned an inquiry was called and the money stolen was not even returned. This should give the entire free world a hint as to the governance style in Canada. All the while the diversions of painting a picture the small 250 million was nothing. What the public didn't realize was at the same time other identical media deals in the billions of dollars were underway elsewhere, which likely led to similar brown envelopes being delivered in shopping carts. The restriction of firearms with a national gun registry and the smoking bans are just rear guard actions in search of more funding by media deal.
With recent promotions of hate crime laws freedom of speech was taken entirely. Property rights which used to have some value under the British North America Act were left entirely out of the current constitution and recent thoughts we should add them were quickly attacked as a secret agenda.
We saw as shams supporting propaganda created health care reforms and the Romanov commission which was touted as the solution, was nothing more than a clearing house of political lobby groups dividing up the percentages of profits as the public trough was decimated.
Now we move into a Government giving all National interest and control to the protections of the UN a place they send politicians after the public has rejected them in high paid patronage positions, to join the league of fascists hiding under the UN banner.
The CMA distinguishes themselves for what they really support. They should make the coming out ceremony complete with, a Swastika adapted to signify their corporate brand to align with their actions and our reality.
You know what? Paying for the surgery isn't the issue. The issue is the extra after care he may need because he won't quit smoking.
That's great that you're offering to pay for his surgery. What about his care afterward if he doesn't heal? Dr. Siegel, you have aknowledged that Mr. Nutall is at greater risk for complications as a smoker.
Will take up a collection to pay his medical bills if he needs an amputation or coslty medical care for surgery follow up if he won't heal?
i absolutely applaud this effort. unfortunately the media is framing this as a 'pro-smoking' effort. nothing could be further from the truth. this is about fairness and equitability and compasion and choice and freedom.
and i challenge mr. piccun. what if the patient DOES heal? does that mean the doctors and public health were wrong? why throw a wrench into an honest and humane effort? why not explore every possible avenue to help this man as the failed institutions have abandoned him? i hope you eat crow as you are a vile human being.
I don't know Alan... Maybe someone else can pick up that tab. I might be tapped out paying for all of the Hispanics that may be next to be denied surgery...
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=aff...&
cpsidt=3693787
"Conclusions. We were unable to demonstrate an independent effect of antirheumatic therapy at the time of surgery on the occurrence of postoperative wound complications. Our study suggests that patients with RA of Hispanic ethnicity may be at increased risk of developing postoperative wound complications following orthopedic surgery. Further study is necessary to explain the mechanism of increased complications in this population."
Excuse me, I meant Hispanics who.. rather than Hispanics that..
Yes Alan, every smoker who's fractured an ankle has had his foot amputated.
We, of course, have to include on the "Do Not Operate" list every nonsmoking bartender who inhales a pack and a half of cigarettes a day.
Uh huh.
Will take up a collection to pay his medical bills if he needs an amputation or coslty medical care for surgery follow up if he won't heal?-Alan Piccun
Alan,
I am heartened to see that you do not stoop so low as to blow things out of proportion to sensationalise or emphasise your argument.
Of course no person that smokes has ever had a broken bone reset successfully, no person that smokes has ever had complication free surgery, at least in your eyes.
Let me remind you what his surgeon actually said. He would not operate unless Mr Nuttall quit smoking for 4 weeks prior to surgery. No mention of permanency or even post operation requirements.
Even if it is true that 5 non-smokers can be treated in the same time as 4 smokers (which is generalisation at it's worst), so what, Mr Nuttall has paid his dues and is entitled to treatment. Have you compared that theoretical extra 25% after care cost against 2 years of morphine treatment, 2 years benefit claims, 2 years lost tax and NI to the government, hardship incurred by wife and family?
Here is a suggestion for you, how about the NHS works out the anticipated recovery time and cost for every operation and charge or refund every patient smoker or not for any deviation.
Expanding on your post, do you believe that if a non-smoker has post-op complications it is just bad luck or a dirty hospital or whatever, but if a smoker has complications it is because they smoke?
You Sir appear to be blinkered or perhaps bigoted.
GreatScot
Of course Alan doesn't consider the negative consequences of failing to correct the condition or long term use of morphine and other pain killers.
I seriously doubt the British people considered they would have their lifestyles dictated by autocrats when they abdicated their financial responsibility to their own health care. Americans should be cautious of what they wish for this election cycle.
Walt,
You are so right. You may recall a few months ago I described a bad dental day.
I waited 2 months to see the Consultant who confirmed I need an op to remove the rest of the tooth. He informed me they TRY to treat people within 26 weeks.
8 months to get treated! In the meantime I just have to grin and bear it.
The NHS sucks.
GreatScot
Beryl has been threatening to tell everyone about my radical babbling for a while now.
He finally published one my rants;
http://www.barricades.ca/
http://www.barricades.ca/current...t/
I_smocker.htm
After having 2 major surgeries I suffered no delay in healing or complications.
Alan, should you ever be faced with surgery you will be asked to sign a consent form. Boy have you ever read one of those? When I read mine about the possible consequences/complications I decided to weigh what the end results would be were they successful. I decided both of these surgeries were worth the risk to me and I proceeded.
How can anyone (especially with a financial interest) except the patient make such a decision?
And Alan are you prepared for the possible outcome of 'complications'with continued Morphine usage in this patient? Or will you simply cut that supply off too once you have grown tired of dealing with him? Are you prepared to compensate Mr Nuttall for the delay you have caused in his healing and going forth with his life?
Looking forward to your response.
.
.
Congrats Kevin!!! 
From Kevins essay.
"Society is taught to rage against those who smoke, embracing traditional hatreds against non-conformists. But we make our own fun. We date the best people. We don’t live in fear. We live full and productive lives. The cowards dread every morning. The risk takers awake to seek out new challenges."
So right, Kevin. Every day I awake and see there is no chalk-line around myself, I roll outta bed, put my feet on the floor, and say a prayer of thanks for the oppurtunity to give life another try. I refuse to live in fear. How pointless would that be?
Thank you for a great rant.
.
Robin's link is absolutely chilling.
On top of which -- welcome to Sunday -- we get juvenile crap like this: "Who will take up a collection to pay his medical bills if he needs an amputation or coslty medical care for surgery follow up if he won't heal?" Sure a lot of 'ifs'! Yes, and what if with surgery he should develop hemorrhoids? Will we take up a collection for that?
Piccun should go back to playing with his toy soldiers, where he can manufacture absolute scenarios, until he develops a fully functioning brain.
.
Alan Piccun's proposal or fear inspiration has been defeated millions of times already. Historically smokers have made it through bone placement surgeries just as well as anyone else.
The fear is the only deficit factor here.
Fear promoted out of all proportion, which made even a trained surgeon hesitate, when he knows exactly what needs to be done. If the patient is of any importance at all.
As I tried to explain in previous posts not very concisely i admit.
What people fail to realize is the agreement signed at the WHO was in fact an agreement to succumb to the realities it contained regardless of their validity.
Much of the ridiculous statements made by TC are empowered by the agreement alone. To accept those statements it contained as fact by all signatory governments.
The so called research which sounds so ridiculous yet finds credibility in the media is created in the new light of what was agreed to be "real" even if it never was or could be, from a credibility position.
The opening line which established a right to take our autonomy was a crime under the pacts of Helsinki and Nuremberg, the contract was ratified anyway. All parties knowing full well it would never stand a chance in hell of sustaining a legal challenge.
Unless of course in the agreement the nations of the world agreed, the tenet of autonomy was nullified by the new agreement.
This is the question to be asked of elected officials; Do you agree personal rights are more urgent and substantial than the State's right to protect the "common good"
Then you will see what they really believe, but only if you can succeed in dragging an answer from either them or from the courts.
Some great quotes in this article. I can't even decide which is my favorite:
Poor smokers would pay for health bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...BLBq_lcwKus0NUE
Maybe this one..
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., defended putting the burden of expanded medical care on smokers. "The tobacco tax is a great way to pay for it," he said, "because if you tax people who are smoking and they smoke less, then we have less health problems."
Kevin and Robin -- your posts on this thread... what can I say? They should inspire any (formerly) free citizen to be sad.. angry... frightened...
Harry wrote:
"Yes, and what if with surgery he should develop hemorrhoids? Will we take up a collection for that?"
On that topic, don't narcotics cause constipation which can cause hemorrhoids? If the doctors don't operate he may not be able to stand or sit down.
GDF;
From your link I think we can feel confident the work we do here is finally receiving some recognition.
They are starting to look again.
I keep telling them;
If smoking is defined as a medical condition as "nicotine dependency" what moral and just society could condone taxing a medical condition, or abusing with petty acts like smoking ban promotions, those so affected?
Kevin,
The task of taking on the WHO and their obscene contract with 150 Nations is daunting to say the least. at present none of our counties have a leader with the guts to defend what is right.
My word of caution to our American friends is once any Nation has ratified the deal they are legally bound to follow the script. Hence countries with much more pressing problems,like Iraq and Afghanistan, have anti-smoking policies. The USA have signed in principle but have yet to ratify the deal. I would not bet a whole lot of beans on that being the case next year, particularly if Hilarity Clinton or similar wins the next Presidential election.
Fraud and corruption on a global scale at the expense of the ordinary citizen.
GreatScot
GreatScot;
TC in their attack ads have already voided the WHO agreement. The tenets to respect the rights of women and children I can say confidently have been undermined and deliberately ignored, by the promotion of child abuse claims which attempt to interfere with guardianships of the rights of a child afforded only to the parent.
The wide brush applied in the smoking bans in cars, implies all parents to be guilty as the formation of logic, driving the bill. Otherwise existing legislation would be sufficient to cure all concerns, if of course abuse by definition as charged; is a reality we can all accept and prove.
This is punitive and deliberately slanderous in public statements made by prominent organizations and many prominent individuals.
The harms done by promotions interfering with parent child relationships or in treating smokers who have not specifically afforded their informed consent to do so.
The treatment by abuse leaves a lot to be desired, and those responsible will ultimately have to answer for their actions, once the public and the international community starts to really understand what is at stake here.
Alan Piccun: You know what? Paying for the surgery isn't the issue. The issue is the extra after care he may need because he won't quit smoking.
Neither the paying nor any subsequent circumstances, good or bad, is the issue.
Let me whittle this onion down to the heart of it as I see it.
Mr. Nuttal was denied treatment that HE wants because he smokes.
WE find that excuse to be nothing short of indecent, inhumane, persecution.
OUR donation is a statement of high protest of THE POLICY. It's proper that the recipient of that statement be the victim in question.
What he does with it is HIS CHOICE to make.
Ergo, the donations fund Mr. Nuttal's choice and have nothing to do with anything -- good or bad -- in the future.
This is not a health fund, it's a liberty fund -- the liberty to make (not "be allowed" even because we shouldn't need anyone's permission) one's own informed decision. THAT'S what we're paying for.
At least that's the way **I** see it.
JTF,
Very well put.
BTW, count me in for $50 usd.
JTF;
I agree entirely. This is not about smokers rights exclusively it is a statement in support of common rights afforded the individual. Your most precious possession.
Which no one including the State and certainly not a physician has any right to take.
This clown impersonating a doctor, in more reasonable times, would have been in jail or yoked and pelted with tomatoes and eggs.
He should be thankful our protest is so restrained.
Has Mr. Piccun return and I missed his comments?
Hmmmmm.
James Austin OMG---too funny and very true.
.
I took a few minutes to look up the risk factors of delayed healing.
There were lots of articles mentioning smoking, of course, being the easiest source of grant money and media attention.
The ones dealing with delayed healing as the topic, rather than the evils of smoking, list numerous factors which may contribute.
The short list: diabetes, age, anxiety, depression, stress, diet, infection, poor sleep, pain, swelling, poor circulation, and a wide variety of medications. Especially those for asthma and pain, including, oddly enough, morphine.
Who on that list should be denied care? Or should it only be people whose risk factors are considered to be their own fault?
I found it interesting to note that obesity was rarely mentioned.
I also found it interesting that former smokers also have a higher risk of delayed healing.
The articles I've read on why some smokers don't heal as fast as some non-smokers name nicotine as the culprit.
Why, then, the former smokers?
Stress, anxiety, and depression factored as a much greater risk than smoking for delayed healing. Higher than that were diabetes and age.
Obviously, a middle-aged worrier would be a poor candidate for surgery. Screw him. Let those bones grind.
Sunz--
Thanks for the credit. Tho as Reagan apparently said, "It's amazing what you can accomplish if you don't give a damn who gets the credit."
Alan--
They were willing to operate on the ankle at the time of the accident, even though he smoked . The only thing that changed is the doctors' degree of bigotry, not the patient's degree of risk. As for possible negative aftermaths, that should up to the patient, as with any other patient. The man should be given the choice. All considered, it's his life. His leg. His pain. S**t Happens, sure as your born. And nonsmokers dont get a pass.
Tangentially on the subject, if you're willing to get a good clear look at the Mother State, rent "Other Peoples' Lives." One wonders, watching the film, what'll happen with home smoke bans. Or tobacco execs whispering tiny heresies on the john.
:
CC wrote, "Obviously, a middle-aged worrier would be a poor candidate for surgery. Screw him. Let those bones grind."
And middle age worriers don't even pay any extra health taxes for their Callousness!
Hmm... speaking of which... Are they planning to refund Mr. Nuttall all the thousands of dollars in extra taxes he's paid, supposedly precisely to cover his "extra" health care costs, over the years?
Or is this another case of government getting their cake and eating it too?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
This Minnesota Senator is a chemical engineer who saw thru the smoking ban BS. He cites Dr. Michael Siegel to great effect! What a smart website for state senator!
http://tomneuville.com/archives/...ry/smoking-ban/
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co...64375-19873383/
Halton and St Helens Primary Care Trust is one of just 16 PCTs in England that have policies restricting operations for obese people or smokers, according to a documentary due to be screened tonight
In a survey of the country’s 152 PCTs, it emerged that one in every 10, including the Merseyside authority, restricts joint replacement or other non-emergency operations to these patients.
Documentary airs TONIGHT with Trevor McDonald will be broadcast at 8pm on ITV 1.
Alan seems to take it as a given that he won't heal...as if we're betting on the roll of some bad dice. Alan, we actually heal. Like non-smokers, if we have a problem its not ORDINARY. It's not odd if we have a surgery and COMPLETELY heal. You act like we're a separate species with an entirely different set of rules from the rest of you. We're not.
Increased risk is not a guarantee of a bad recovery. Every non-smoker is required to sign the EXACT same paperwork as a smoker, saying that you know the risks associated with a surgery (because surgeries are risks in and of themselves in addition to whatever type of lifestyle issues). If you are saying because of an increased risk no one should have surgery then surgeries are out already.
The bottom line is the surgery is the patient's descision alone after weighing the risks and benifits.
A doctor refusing surgery to a patient for any non life threatening reason in this case amounts to blackmail or coercion.
This guy should face at minimum a hearing to discuss his mental stability and a right to hold a medical license.
If he is so determined to force smokers to quit, I would have to question if it would be safe for a smoker to be treated by this hateful individual, not knowing if he has any limits as to how far he will go to express his viewpoint.
He already travels into the realm of torturing a patient, How far will he go?
I echo Sunz' tribute to Walt. It was truly his idea to initiate this.
Thanks, Walt, for initiating this idea!
Gilster,
Re: your link---the denials have begun.
http://
www.manchestereveningnews...ng_restrictions
.
WOW 200 lives saved in just 6 months!!!
Names please.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/s...-
name_page.html
.
.
The EPA says a bar that filtrates its air against tobacco smoke also reduces radon exposure of its workers:
"Air cleaning is generally not the preferred approach to reducing health risks associated with radon. When source control techniques are not possible, or do not result in acceptable radon levels, air-cleaning techniques are available to reduce levels of radon gas and its progeny."
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/resi...al%20of%
20radon
Sunz, one wonders what kind of "support" and "encouragement" they give. While holding a gun to someone's head might be considered encouragement (in the broadest sense of the term) and incentive, I don't think it's deemed supportive.
Given the comment above, which shows the extent to which the public just isn't understanding what is happening here, I am going to up my pledged donation from $50 to $100.
Is there EVER a case, in the United States, where a person who suffered a complex ankle fracture (broken in three places) is denied surgery solely because they happen to smoke? The answer, in my experience, is NO. It would represent medical malpractice, in my opinion, to refuse to repair a broken ankle in a smoker simply because they are a smoker.
I've worked in a lot of emergency rooms in my day, and I've never seen a person with a severely broken ankle told that they have to go home for 4 weeks simply because they need to quit smoking.
I don't think people really understand the absurdity of the whole thing.
If this fund can make a difference, not only by helping Mr. Nuttall, but also by generating publicity to the issue, then we will have accomplished something very important.
So count me in for $100.
Jales----"Sunz, one wonders what kind of "support" and "encouragement" they give."
I know this 'one' is wondering about the support given.
.
People need to be made aware of the market value of personal rights similar to a home or a car the worth is weighted by supply and demand. In a civil case where rights have been abused, it is generally believed those rights have a value which is incalculable. In a country which doesn't recognize they exist outside of government, you could only dream about how much better life would be if you had them.
Most refuse to acknowledge the rise of fascism is a reality in our world. Not just a nasty name to call an adversary but a legitimate and growing political reality. It is sureal the evidence is seen most prominently right in the same UN agencies which were formed to defeat it.
In Columbia university a clown who promotes islamophobia to attack the validity of anti-semitic laws, was actually being applauded after his speech, you have to know society and the security of your rights are in big trouble. We will all support a person's right to an opinion as is their right, however when they support a political cult which threatens to take even the right to your own opinion our mood should be tempered.
The human rights commission is the opposing force to combat rights abuses. How many of us even know of a mechanism to report a rights abuse? When you do send a report to them more often than not it is ignored. It is no secret this is an agency failing in it's mandate, as with the bulk of UN agencies; so tied down in their own bureaucracy and corruption due to lack of regulatory agency or enforcement mechanism they have become less than useless. Paired with the fact most often the participants are political failures and appointees throw into the pot representatives of some of the most repressive countries on the planet and afford diplomatic immunity and the results should be predictable.
Due to apathy on behalf of the so called free countries and the type of people we send to represent our interests in these posts. The more repressive states are in the highest rates of attendance and participation. The UN now represents the same poison they were supposed to cure.
Your rights are your most precious possession regardless of your net worth, nothing you could possibly own could compare to that worth. When you consider how many died to preserve them how much do we cheapen our own assets when we cheapen the value of those belonging to others.
Fascism seeks to take those rights in order to use them to control you. The Protections we hear about, in governments "protecting" public health, what we actually see is a statement governments are intending to make decisions for you, and take from you an asset only you can surrender, otherwise we are seeing a criminal act which needs to be punished.
Irregardless if you are a smoker or not, your assets are being stolen and cheapened with a dropping market share paralleled in supply and demand, and the current fad aimed at health and genetic perfection, is the tool being used to depreciate them.
Finally an article on this blog that brings a smile to my face!!!
Nice little opinion piece to welcome TN's new law.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/
arti...icle_114362.asp
"But when zealots go after a segment of society “because it will do them good,” I have the same problem with that thinking that Franklin Roosevelt had with Prohibition in 1933 when it was agreed the previous 13 years in the ole USA had been a mess caused by the fanatics."
and...
"Starting today, let’s get ready to bang on those who smoke because “it will be good for them.” Then let’s figure out what group we can target next because we may find banging is almost as fun as smoking and drinking."
Re; GDF's link;
TC simply refuses to accept the fact that given the choice, many people will STILL choose to patronize a venue that allows smoking.
This supports Dr. Siegels apparent position that there is no sufficient warning to prevent people from making this choice.
YOU'RE LIKELY RIGHT DOC, there probably is none. It's all a part of being an independent ADULT and thinking for yourself.
The only option TC has is to punish everyone who would even consider such a choice. Clearly the best way to do this is by rescinding the property rights of business owners that support personal choice in opposition to the TC proponents that want to DICTATE what is and is not acceptable behavior.
Acceptable to whom?
TC has the same choice available to themselves, but routinely fail to make it. They are obviously not interested in, or are incapable of supporting voluntary "Smoke Free" venues specifically designed to entice their patronage, and prefer to play the part of schoolyard bully. Soliciting (BUYING) unwarranted government intervention to force legislation that criminalizes a personal choice of a minority soley for their own personal comfort so that if, and or when they eventually, maybe, someday, visit a venue that is FORCED to cater to only a portion of their respective customer base regardless of what may or may not be in the property owners best interest,
No Choice will be required.
TC advocates will have saved the energy necessary to excercise the two brain cells required to make this monumentally horrific, life altering decision themselves, and at the cost of liberty to 50 million people that prefer to think for themselves.
Legislators who support smoking bans demonstrate their fundamental lack of understanding of what property rights are and why they are important.
Legislators who claim otherwise merely prove their lack of integrity. The legislative pawns supporting such freedom killing tactics should never be trusted again.
I'm still in for $50.00 for Mr. Nuttalls surgery, though this should be promoted for what it is.
A protest against the discrimination. Not a charity for "one of us", or "one of them" depending on which side of the smoking section you find yourself standing.
I am confounded that all the soldiers injured during all previous wars were able to heal. Given the fact that probably 60% of them used tobacco you would think that they would have died from not healing because of tobacco use.
I'm still in for 50 agreeing with LightningBoy. All should asked thenselves; What will be the next thing the elite minority decides precludes you from medical care????
lastly, I was at Forces and linked to the "YouTube" presentation of the Constitution. I was struck at the outrage directed at the Bush. Well they just don't get it. There is a war inside America that is being fought to preserve personal freedom.
Bill Hannegan writes, "The EPA says a bar that filtrates its air against tobacco smoke also reduces radon exposure of its workers:"
An interesting observation: so far as I am aware, not a single one of the dozens of studies that have been carried out concerning the before and after "pollution" measurements in bars and restaurants regarding smoking bans, studies that have probably cost literally MILLIONS of dollars, have
**EVER**
invested in a $19.95 radon tester kit to see if radon levels have increased after bans resulted in reduced ventilation requirements.
Am I wrong in that observation? And would such neglect step over the bounds of ethical nonfeasance directly into ethical malfeasance?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Fund update:
Including new pledges from Leander (100), Walt H (50) and Siegel's additional 50, we're at $1745.
Further, AFAIK, neither Iro's group or forces has yet actively asked for funds, let alone Forest. So once this gets going-- once we hear from Nuttall and get his address--the collections should grow more.
Walt wrote:
"Including new pledges from Leander (100), Walt H (50) and Siegel's additional 50, we're at $1745."
It's rude to count money in front of people (LOL), but I only counted $1665. Are there missing names on this list?
Update stands: ($50 unless otherwise stated)
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel $100
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $50 (and more)
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
20. Rod Guilmette $100
21. Colin Grainger £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
22. NaptownKrabbi
23. Brandz
24. smokenreader
25. Bill H.
26. smallbird
27. Jemeyes ($25 guaranteed, $50 possible)
28. LeanderJ $100
29. Walt H.
Michael J. McFadden, doesn't the EPA claim radon in indoor air causes 7 times more lung cancer cases than ETS?
Michael J. McFadden, doesn't the EPA claim radon in indoor air causes 7 times more lung cancer cases than ETS?
Bill Hannegan
Now Bill how in GAWDS name will the bartenders ever understand such a thing? I mean really now? s/
.
Walt,
Make mine $100 as well.
.
Bill H asked, "Michael J. McFadden, doesn't the EPA claim radon in indoor air causes 7 times more lung cancer cases than ETS?"
I believe so. Think the claimed figures are 3,000 vs. 20,000.
First, how much more is needed to get Nutall treament?
Second, very off-topic...
I came across this:
http://www.ash.org/dangerous-doc...us-
doctors.html
So...now, ASH is going after doctors. Hmmm, big surprise. *yawn*
DTB---Please email me. Thanks
"If this fund can make a difference, not only by helping Mr. Nuttall, but also by generating publicity to the issue, then we will have accomplished something very important."
Kudos to Dr. Siegel.
"I came across this:
http://www.ash.org/dangerous-doc...us- doctors.html
So...now, ASH is going after doctors. Hmmm, big surprise. *yawn*
DancingTigerBait | Homepage | 10.01.07 - 4:28 pm | # ITS SO IMPORTANT YOU MUST PAY TO JOIN TO GET THE LIST.BANZAF IS A GREEDY LITTLE SCUMBAG,MONEY BEFORE LIVES ?
This is waaaaay off topic (Bill, I'll go immediately to the naughty step, I will not pass go etc etc)
But it is a good read....
http://smokingsides.com/docs/why...s/
whysmoke.html
From 1947!
Bill Hannegan wrote:
"Michael J. McFadden, doesn't the EPA claim radon in indoor air causes 7 times more lung cancer cases than ETS?"
I believe the ALA says many or most radon deaths are in smokers.
Thanks again Doctor for your efforts here. Teamwork!
Why on earth is the focus on fundraising for this person? It's encouraging physicians or hospitals to continue this practice! Someone, somewhere should step up and remind doctors of their oath - they don't turn away drug addicts, alcoholics, high-stress or thrill-seekers, kids who break their bones playing sports, etc, etc, etc. Don't encourage this behavior by telling the world that smokers will come to the patient's rescue. That man paid his dues and his country OWES him health care. I don't understand why no one, no entity, won't step up and stop this madness.
Collin; Excellent find, Thanks.
And they say we get nothing.
How little the "experts" really know.
I have to wonder sometimes how, when it takes years of refining taste for a wine connoisseur to distinguish one wine from another, and how almost by instinct most of us can define our tastes of the smoke to narrow our definition to the brand we prefer and to consistently have an ability to tell the difference when someone hands you a different brand. How could a non smoker even begin to understand, that reality alone?
Just blowing a few smoke rings on a particularly nice evening, LOL
"If we consider all the pleasure and advantages provided, in a most democratic and international fashion, by this little white paper roll, we shall understand why it is difficult to destroy its power by means of warnings, threats, or preachings. This pleasure miracle has so much to offer that we can safely predict the cigarette is here to stay. Our psychological analysis is not intended as a eulogy of the habit of smoking, but rather as an objective report on why people smoke cigarettes. Perhaps this will seem more convincing if we reveal a personal secret: We ourselves do not smoke at all. We may be missing a great deal."
Ash is providing the info to sell out their medical partners in TC, all for a few tax deductible gifts.
Yea I feel the love and empathy for their neighbors.
How pathetic can these scumbags get? They outdo themselves with this one; Selling tax deductible, life saving information.
"Because this is so important, ASH presents a list of these web sites on another page, together with links where you can find even more information. Using this information could literally save YOUR life.
Please note, however, that this information is available only to member-supporters of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). To find out how you can become a member of ASH on line, and to obtain access to this and other valuable information for members as well as several special gifts, please click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line.
Once you join -- which you can do conveniently over the Internet -- you will receive by e-mail the user name and password you need to unlock this valuable information. Your other gifts will be sent to you by mail.
Please don't hesitate. Your contribution to join ASH is fully tax deductible.
Once you have become a member of ASH you can access the information by clicking on the following link: "
"Radon is an invisible, odourless, radioactive gas. It is formed by the disintegration of radium, which is a decay product of uranium. Radon emits alpha particles and produces several solid radioactive products called radon daughters.
Radon daughters are inhaled with air and deposit in the lungs. The lung absorbs alpha particles emitted by the radon daughters. The resulting radiation dose increases the risk of lung cancer.
Air filtration can decrease the radon daughter concentration as much as 90 percent. The majority of radon daughters are attached to airborne particles in the building. Particle removal by air filtration helps decrease radon daughter concentration in the air."
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/p...ents/
radon.html
Colin -- great read! Anti-smokers will never understand... oh well.
DTB and Kevin - As for that ASH link... offering to direct you to free info that could *save your life* -- IF you PAY them --oh yeah, I feel the love too.
OK, so now that we have UK taken care of, how about putting come pressure on the Cleveland Clinic here in the USA. Please someone out there apply for a job, if you are a smoker, then when they discriminate against you we'll pay for the lawsuit. How about it? This blog and doc apparently has REAL power. THIS IS A BIGGER DEAL THAN UK in my opimion.
(I still plan on sending flowers to Mr. Nuttall after his surgery.)
GiveUp writes:
Why on earth is the focus on fundraising for this person? It's encouraging physicians or hospitals to continue this practice!... Don't encourage this behavior by telling the world that smokers will come to the patient's rescue.
You apparently miss the fine point. The fund is the stick with which to beat the NHS over the head. That happens when it's explained to the media WHY this fund raiser took place.
----
utopia, each situation has its own circumstances. Some have easy or more doable answers than others. In the case of Cleveland Clinic -- as despicable as it is -- there can be no discrimination lawsuit. Ohio is not one of the states that has a law protecting employment in that regard. They have what's called "at will" hiring and firing latitude (as long as it's not on race, religion, etc.). A lawsuit wouldn't stand a chance. Their's is a policy that has to be handled with social pressure -- explaining that though they can do it, IT'S WRONG.
"Bill H asked, 'Michael J. McFadden, doesn't the EPA claim radon in indoor air causes 7 times more lung cancer cases than ETS?'
"I believe so. Think the claimed figures are 3,000 vs. 20,000.
Michael J. McFadden"
Keep at it, Bill. I think this is pregnant stuff.
GiveUP: "Why on earth is the focus on fundraising for this person? It's encouraging physicians or hospitals to continue this practice!"
Don't think so:
1. Publicity
2. Shame
.
P.S. If radon in all Massachusetts bars, would that mean 1540 bartender deaths for 40/40 in Massachusetts (7 times 220)?
.
James--
I always stunk at math. You're right.
Didnt follow Colin's link but it sounds like the Dichter article, which I read a while ago. What stood out to me was that in 1947 nonsmokers all claimed to love the smell of smoke.
Since I doubt human noses have notable evolved since 1947, this seems further proof that smell-hating's a fad, a social construct. Tho, in fairness, smell-loving may have been one too.
:
The American Lung Association praises companies, like Weyco, that adopt these policies.
Their term for lifestyle discrimination laws is "smoker protection laws."
If insurance costs are the problem, it's much easier to go after the employees than the insurance companies. Rather than provide insurance, it's probably cheaper to open a clinic for their employees.
Too bad the ALA switched from curing to preventing. Yet another choice between what is right, and what is easy coming down on the side of easy.
According to John Howard, M.D., Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, "Filtration systems can play a major role in protecting both buildings and their occupants ... from a terrorist release of chemical, biological, or radiological contaminants." But stray cigarette smoke is nothing they can deal with. Right.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/20...fs/2003-
136.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/20...fs/2003-
136.pdf
Conclusions:
"CBR agents can effectively be removed by properly designed, installed, and well-maintained filtration and air-cleaning systems."
But not ETS from a bar. Right.
I saw where Banzaf is now looking into medical mistakes.
Kevin said: How pathetic can these scumbags get? They outdo themselves with this one; Selling tax deductible, life saving information.
It won't be long until the number grows to 800K. If the guy smells a dollar he goes for it. I expect some doc organization to pay him off or even Big Pharma to protect their investment.
If we need more for Mr. Nuttall, I can give a little more if needed. Keep us updated.
Bill Hannegan this should interest you.
Local restaurant to fight smoking ban for cigar room
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/s...33&
provider=top
~snip~
"He wanted to make sure it would be a room that met state standards, sealing it off from the rest of the restaurant and his bar area.
"First of all, it's a room with a dedicated ceiling, a dedicated HVAC system--which is air conditioning and heating and is specially engineered," Kalogeros said. "It's not intermingled with any of the bar pieces."
The dining room has always been non-smoking, but almost a month ago, Kalgeros banned smoking from the bar.
The health department says that is not enough, and the cigar room will have to go too.'
.
Too Fat for Treatment Video now on YouTube:
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=0
Obese (by today's BMI standards) and smokers denied treatment in NHS/UK
In three segments
I just watched the three part video and was sickened by the elitist attitude of the British Medical establishment.
Those "Health Nazis" should be dragged onto the street and be tarred and feathered, probably something worse. It's all about the money. Maybe somebody should pop a cap into that professor and then drag him out in the street and refuse him treatment because his hair is gray.
This is what we have to look forward to in the US if we don't stop these people now! Check out Ron Paul.
James,
I also pledged $50.00
Gilster,
Revolting. I could only watch about 3 minutes.
What, oh what, a world we live in today????
;(
Dr. Siegel wrote:
“Is there EVER a case, in the United States, where a person who suffered a complex ankle fracture (broken in three places) is denied surgery solely because they happen to smoke? The answer, in my experience, is NO. It would represent medical malpractice, in my opinion, to refuse to repair a broken ankle in a smoker simply because they are a smoker.”
Even if my doctor suggested I should stop smoking 4 weeks before surgery, I would still file a writ, if for no other reason but to preserve statutory limitations. This smoking issue seems to evolve into a different animal every day. I just wouldn’t be willing to take any chances involving delays and such.
I have the utmost respect for the professionalism expected and practiced by those in the medical field. However I haven’t seen many in this field here in the United States condemning the practice of refusing surgery on the supposed obese, and smokers. Yet, according to Gilster post above the practice of refusal has been going on for quite sometime now in the UK. Maybe I just missed all the protest against this type of non-treatment? Or are we harboring the idea here in the US as well? Again I wouldn’t take the chance as the smoking issue has reached the point of absurd. Aside, its amazing that one would even have to weigh the possibilities.
We need a new direction in the US. Ron Paul may be it. A voice for real freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S...h?
v=SwRXp8ZMdNQ
WLC wrote:
"James,
I also pledged $50.00"
I was pretty sure I had seen someone else pledge, but for the life of me I couldn't remember who it was. Thanks.
Walt, your math is still better than the CDC. Didn't they err on obesity deaths by 300,000? Or Glantz et al. and the mathematically impossible Helena study. LOL
With WLC now appearing on the list and Harry's increase to $100:
Update stands: ($50 unless otherwise stated)
1. Walt
2. JTF
3. Sunz
4. GDF
5. Michael Siegel $100
6. James Austin
7. rrgabe23
8. Gilster
9. Judy
10. Kevin
11. Rufus Trotman (£50 ($100 US))
12. Andrew
13. Diane
14. LightningBoy!
15. Dawn (aka) Backtalk ($20)
16. GreatScot £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
17. Iro 50 $
18. Harry $100
19. Lynda F ($20 guaranteed, $50 possible)
20. Rod Guilmette $100
21. Colin Grainger £50 (£50 ($100 USD)
22. NaptownKrabbi
23. Brandz
24. smokenreader
25. Bill H.
26. smallbird
27. Jemeyes ($25 guaranteed, $50 possible)
28. LeanderJ $100
29. Walt H.
30. WLC*
*Pledged earlier, but missed.
More hot news from the UK! Home of miracles!
Here's another! Praise the Lord!
http://tinyurl.com/25wx6k
From Colins link:
"THE lives of 200 non-smokers have been saved in the first six months of Wales’ smoking ban."
I'm surprised that 200 non-smokers haven't been selected at random by the health "authorities" and been presented a bill for saving their lives. (maybe that's already in the works)
And,...
“Sales of bar snacks, such as crisps, have increased tremendously because smokers want something to do with their hands.”
(aside from placing them around the necks of the health "authorities"
A new epidemic in the making;
"Restricted smoking fat people"
Still no donation from "Tough Love" Bill Godshall, I see.
.
Harry,
I notice Bill didn't even offer to pay for the man's HELP to quit for the surgery. I can think of a few names to call him, but I'll respect the good Doc's wish to not "personally" attack another.
"Since I doubt human noses have notable evolved since 1947, this seems further proof that smell-hating's a fad, a social construct. Tho, in fairness, smell-loving may have been one too."
Noses have evolved in one way, Walt: they've gotten longer.
I can remember NOBODY ever saying they disliked the smell of cigarette smoke. Most people, in fact, lived in a sea of cigarette smoke, AND NOBODY -- OR NEXT TO NOBODY - EVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. Draw your own conclusions.
I remember once many years ago eating a fruit cocktail and a friend said, "Don't eat the cherry, it's full of bad chemicals." Well, that didn't stop me from eating the cherries in fruit cocktail, but I can never eat one to this day without thinking about the bad chemicals.
In earlier days when the tobacco companies had a campaign going to remove the social stigma of women smoking, they had an ad showing a man smoking and a woman saying, "Blow a little smoke my way." Not an inkling of bad odor back then.
.
Right, Linda; talk about 'bad odor'!
.
I haven't gone away. Following along to see if/when the money needs to go out.
Dr. Siegel, you rock. Thanks for all your help in this matter.
Bill H.
Your are right, I bet Rush would love this story. Sorry I didn't think of him, but to be honest, I very seldom listen to talk radio.
This is the freatest humanitarian story to come along in ages. Forget charities and foundations. Normal everyday people can make a difference and yes, we smokers are normal, everyday people too. I bet that once the media picks up on this story and the lengths that everyday people will go through to make sure a fellow human is no longer suffering, we will slowly see a change in how we are percieved.
I know the Bill G's and the Glantz's out there will not be thrilled, but this is just all in the life of an everyday person. This is who we are and this is what we do. We help those who needs help the most. We don't take kindly to people who discriminate all in the name of stealing our money!!!
I enjoyed the article and that it's getting play, though I can think of one person who wouldn't be considered a "pro smoker" who donated eg the host of this blog. I think FOREST should mention that angle--if you're pro or anti smoking, this is wrong.
As for smells, apparently in nonsmoking bars body odor replaces the smell of tobacco--but--early 20th century Big Pharma sort of invented body odor too.
Interesting how they sold better once they went negative.
Amazing to find common ground with Rush Limbaugh on this one. Smoking bans aren't totally divisive I guess. I can't think of any issues that has helped me feel I can see eye to eye with Republicans better than smoking related ones.
Andrew, a lot of times the reporter inserts "pro-smoking" as the description all on their own. But you're right that the one being interviewed needs to remember to make a point of this so that the reporter DOESN'T go and do that on their own because the subject didn't come up.
I wrote: Why on earth is the focus on fundraising for this person? It's encouraging physicians or hospitals to continue this practice!... Don't encourage this behavior by telling the world that smokers will come to the patient's rescue.
Just the facts wrote: You apparently miss the fine point. The fund is the stick with which to beat the NHS over the head. That happens when it's explained to the media WHY this fund raiser took place.
__
Do you honestly think they CARE? It will give them a belly-laugh at what they are able to make us smokers do, nobody will care, they'll just say "fine, let THEM pay for it, they're not worth our time or money." I just don't think offering to pay for it is the right track to follow.
""THE lives of 200 non-smokers have been saved in the first six months of Wales’ smoking ban."
Gee, and not a word on how many bartenders lives were spared in the 6 months!!!!.s/
.
Walt, Dr. Siegel, All...
Great job Walt and all for actually DOING something.
Put me down for $100.
A letter just sent to Lisa Jones about UK smoking ban article:
Ms. Jones,
Please be sceptical whenever authorities make wild claims of lives saved so far in defense of their smoking bans, such as those claims referenced in your article yesterday, "Smoking deaths fall as ban hits six months". When Mayor Bloomberg made a similarly wild claim after the first year of the New York City smoking ban, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the
American Council on Science and Health, reminded Mayor Bloomberg that
secondhand smoke death tolls are only speculation. According to Dr.
Whelan, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee —
has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Whelan said a more realistic estimate of lives saved by the New York City ban would be somewhere between zero to fifteen.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Furthermore, the best study done so far to determine the real world effects of smoking bans on the secondhand smoke exposure of the general public found that such bans do not decrease the overall smoke exposure of nonsmokers, and actually increase the smoke exposure of young children. Given this research, why would anyone expect lives to be saved by smoking bans?
http://news.scotsman.com/politic...fm?
id=341192007
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
Ms. Jones, I think journalists should take a hard look at the claims made by Dr. Tony Jewell. There is every reason to believe that the air in pubs has become more dangerous now as ventilation and filtration systems, no longer needed to deal with the cosmetic issues of secondhand smoke, are turned down or off to save money. Yet these systems are the public's first line of defense against many airborne toxins and pathogens, including radon progeny, which health authorities say causes seven times as many cases of lung cancer as secondhand smoke.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
GiveUp: ...they'll just say "fine, let THEM pay for it, they're not worth our time or money."
Won't that play well with the public.
Excuse me, but who do you think our target is? (rhetorical question)
A smoker (alleged anyway) choosing the alias "GiveUp" says all I need to know about "with friends like this..."
This just in.
NUTTALL SAYS NO
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=380
:
Bill H.
I think it's a case of Good cop/Bad cop. I sent an email to the lady as well, and with many of the same points, but I was a little harder on her. But since I believe we're both whistling in the wind, it probably doesn't matter.
You seem to be of the Michael McFadden school (a soft voice turneth away wrath), and I of the Callous Cowbell, et al. school (tell it like it is). You and Michael are possibly right, I don't know. Neither approach seems to help any, though, in this 'low, dishonest age.' (I forget who wrote that.) It may be that, together, both approaches are more effective?
.
John Nuttall is a man of principle.
Where are all of the left wing Socialists like melle who posted here twice now?
They all want Gubmint to provide Universal Healthcare for the "greater good". It's for the chilruns after all.
OK.
But when Gubmint is in charge of healthcare payments, it is in their interest (indeed their duty) to intervene and reduce their (and taxpayer) costs.
If there are any left wingers still out there let me put it to you in a language that you can understand...
Maybe you have children, but if you don't you were once a child:
Remember when your parents told you or you tell your kids when they want to do whatever they want "MY HOUSE, MY RULES"?
If Gubmint is paying for healthcare than you will drop the Chalupa, throw out the beer and stub out the smoke.
Their money, their rules.
Spare me the rational argument about how the money is not really theirs but the people. Posession is 9/10ths of the law. And the Gubmint is posessed...of your money.
Harry--
Auden. "September 1,1939"
One of the all-time great poems.
:
Kinda thought it was Auden. Just wouldn't have sworn to it.
Too bad about the Nuttall thing, but it may yet turn out better doing it his way. Let's hope.
.
"THE lives of 200 non-smokers have been saved in the first six months of Wales’ smoking ban."
Gee, and not a word on how many bartenders lives were spared in the 6 months!!!!.s/
That's an excellent observation, Sunz.
That's almost the total number of people that Dr. Siegel wanted to save.
His ban "saved" only 220 imaginary people, total. (Can't count any future ones. They were never in danger.)
Harry,
I do have a soft voice. You should hear me when I'm really cheesed about something. I have to rein it in here. Imagine what would happen if Bill G. or Cathy heard what I really want to say, and they didn't have their helmets on?
Eric,
"Drop the Calupa" darn near made my Diet Coke shoot out of my nose.
Cheers.
Harry, in a boxing match the referee will stop a fight if a sufficient number of punches are thrown unanswered. You and Callous Cowbell have a hard, tough style. I practice what my wife calls a "sweet style". Michael McFadden has what I would call a "friendly and civil yet scientific" style. But the particular style of argument doesn't matter much in this fight. The real problem here is that Tobacco Control is throwing almost all the punches and legislators are about to stop the fight. To avoid a TKO, we need to start hitting back as you and I have done tonight.
Harry---'Too bad about the Nuttall thing, but it may yet turn out better doing it his way. Let's hope.'
Mr. Nuttall wants to give the rats more fight and I respect that.
The very last thing I want to do is interfere with his not wanting 'help'. I resent 'public health' et al, forcing their 'help' on me.
My offer still stands.
Mr. Nuttall now knows where the offer comes from and where to go should the rats sink him rather then the other way around.
I hope this makes sense. I just woke up---my first cup is still making.
.
Dr Blair in his wisdom states 'Their money, their rules'
Americans, make note---this is OUR future if the stampede toward Universal Healthcare succeeds.
We will all be Universally Screwed--with our own money, once again.
OT---so sue me!
The smokers can just stay home.....right.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/
hea...m#uslPageReturn
.
Giveup'
By offering to take up the responsibility for the bill we take and demonstrate the higher moral ground.
The point being; we need to be compassionate first and foremost, the money involved should never have been the focus.
It is the money which gives the power to coerce decisions, take away the money and explain why the surgery is really being denied. They can't admit it, so they withdraw in shame.
The world bank demonstrates their ability to coerce abusive regimes in a similar manner by denying development funds they make the population of a targeted country suffer untill their leaders adhere to acceptable politics.
The use in this case of abuse to achieve their goals, is particularly abhorrent because they are targeting individuals. To conform or be punished its called coercion, and it is not only immoral it is illegal by every human rights agreement we have seen including the multitude of promises UN agencies have made and breached in adhering to the "common good" cultist beliefs they now promote.
In aging populations we know mistakes in the past of poor planning have lead to a system of communal health care systems without the funds to sustain their obligations.
Expect this cult to grow; in absence of constructive solutions, those elected who are not competent enough to meet their obligations, will always blame others, take the easy route and ignore those who stand on integrity and principles. Unfortunately in modern politics the incompetents far outnumber the professionals.
It is simply less expensive and less time consuming to purchase a reputation, than to actually earn one.
GiveUp---Okay, I'll bite if we were following you, what would the path be?
.
Kevin - "In aging populations we know mistakes in the past of poor planning have lead to a system of communal health care systems without the funds to sustain their obligations."
Kevin- ever growing populations, aging (the first world population is definately aging)or otherwise are widly blamed for financial and eccological insustainability. There are growing calls, world wide, for population reduction, usually suggested through birth control. IMO it will not be too long before this switches to death control.
Was it not a WHO spokesman, during the DDT fiasco, that stated it was better for the Africans to die than breed?
Eugenics and euthanasia is fast approaching..... for our own good of course.
GreatScot
Good interview.---Of course OT
.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_art...sp?
art_id=12065
~SNIP~
"Sinclair Lewis's bumper sticker friendly maxim, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross," may be all the rage these days, yet from my New York City perch it seems more likely fascism will come weighed down with studies by self-congratulatory "public interest" groups and carrying a sign reading, "It's for the children!"
~snip~
'This is a collective shift in our mindset that explains a small part of the Nanny State. What scares me the most about nannyists, though, is their disdain for free will -- which I still hope is "anathema" to our spirit. Nannies are constantly trying to persuade America that a corporation can hypnotize consumers into engaging in activities that hurt them. The nanny doesn't believe you or I have the willpower to withstand the lure of, say, Taco Bell"
Remember when it was "you're either with us or against us"? If you spoke out about the war you were unpatriotic? How many times a Congressman was alluded to as a "traitor" because his opinion gave "aid and succor to the terrorists"?
Now it's "for the children". And if you speak out against it, then you hate the children. Which, if they are going to hold to that "for the children", then it means those that spoke out against Iraq really WERE unpatriotic traitors giving aid and succor to the terrorists.
Perhaps they don't see the irony of their own form of "you're either with us or against us"...
"Drop the chalupa" LOL
Health Advocate: Drop the chalupa.
Joe SixPack: You can have my chalupa when you pry it from my cold, dead...
Health Advocate: (Bang)
A letter sent last night to Lisa Jones about UK smoking ban article:
Ms. Jones,
Please be sceptical whenever authorities make wild claims of lives saved so far in defense of their smoking bans, such as those claims referenced in your article yesterday, "Smoking deaths fall as ban hits six months". When Mayor Bloomberg made a similarly wild claim after the first year of the New York City smoking ban, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the
American Council on Science and Health, reminded Mayor Bloomberg that
secondhand smoke death tolls are only speculation. According to Dr.
Whelan, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee —
has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Whelan said a more realistic estimate of lives saved by the New York City ban would be somewhere between zero to fifteen.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Furthermore, the best study done so far to determine the real world effects of smoking bans on the secondhand smoke exposure of the general public found that such bans do not decrease the overall smoke exposure of nonsmokers, and actually increase the smoke exposure of young children. Given this research, why would anyone expect lives to be saved by smoking bans?
http://news.scotsman.com/politic...fm?
id=341192007
http://www.ifs.org.uk/
publicatio...ication_id=3523
Ms. Jones, I think journalists should take a hard look at the claims made by Dr. Tony Jewell. There is every reason to believe that the air in pubs has become more dangerous now as ventilation and filtration systems, no longer needed to deal with the cosmetic issues of secondhand smoke, are turned down or off to save money. Yet these systems are the public's first line of defense against many airborne toxins and pathogens, including radon progeny, which health authorities say causes seven times as many cases of lung cancer as secondhand smoke.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Her reply this morning:
Mr Hannegan,
As you may have gathered from reading the article, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Tony Jewell, predicts 200 lives have been saved from illnesses attributable to passive smoking. I can't imagine a more reliable source of experitse, can you? I would hardly call them wild claims, either. They are based on statistical analysis.
Mayor Bloomerberg is a politician, whereas Dr Jewell has no political axe to grind, so I don't think your comparison is an apt one. The figures are estimated, as was quite clearly stated in the article, but
they were based on information supplied by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and figures from a report published by the All Wales Smoking Cessation Service. The service has tangible figures of the amount of people who have given up smoking since the ban has come into force in Wales. Dr Jewell, I understand, has been able to use these figures to form a considered opinion on the numbers of lives saved.
What qualifications do you have to assert which is the best study done so far to determine the real world
effects of smoking bans? The Welsh research relates to the saving of the lives of people who were previously exposed to smoke, who now are not, because of the ban. It has nothing to do with children or the home. Your arguments and the use of this research to win your point are muddled. What evidence do you have that extractor fans and air filtration systems are turned off?
While I appreciate what you are saying, I have no reason to question the motives of the people who have produced this research or their data.
Perhaps if you unhappy with Dr Jewell's assertions, or those of the other experts in the field which I mentioned, you should take the matter up with them. I am satisfied they are credible sources.
Lisa Jones
Reporter
South Wales Echo
Thomson House
Havelock Street
Cardiff
CF10 1XR
Tel: 029 2058 3737
Fax: 029 2058 3624
Mobile: 0776 1424286
E-Mail: lisa.jones@mediawales.co.uk.
"I would hardly call them wild claims, either. They are based on statistical analysis."
One hardly knows where to begin.
GIGO
Ms. Jones said:
Dr Jewell, I understand, has been able to use these figures to form a considered opinion on the numbers of lives saved.
Adolph Hitler was also able to form considered opinions from figures he had required.
Perhaps if you unhappy with Dr Jewell's assertions, or those of the other experts in the field which I mentioned, you should take the matter up with them. I am satisfied they are credible sources.
A true journalist. There is a possibility given the links supplied that she might have been duped.
What she does is bury her head in the sand and take the word of the establishment mouthpiece. And why, because she is a true believer in the cause and has no interest in the truth.
Please note the statement Mr. Nuttall made: "I have decided not to take up your offer yet. I want to make the NHS pay for it. After all, I've paid my taxes and should be covered."
The word "yet" is there, we decided not to close the offer at this time as Mr. Nuttall had valid reasons for asking for more time. It was explained to him that the longer we wait, the harder it will be to recapture the public's attention on this matter.
My reply to Lisa Jones:
Ms. Jones,
Your article does give the impression that the overall death toll due to secondhand smoke will be cut by pub smoking bans. The study I sent argues that smokers have merely been displaced by such bans and now "threaten" a truly involuntary group with their smoke: very young children. That doesn't sound like a public health success to me and I think journalists should more openly question the wisdom of such policies.
The experts you quote are completely credible. But as our sad experience
in Iraq has taught us, a consensus of credible experts driven by an agenda can be very wrong. Though a medical and public health authority, Dr. Jewell has the same political agenda of promoting the restriction by law of public smoking and keeping such restrictions in place once imposed as does Mayor Bloomberg. Dr. Jewell should be quoted first, but I am sure there are dissenting lesser authorities that can also be quoted on this issue but weren't.
My contention that filtration and ventilation measures will be cut back in pubs due to the smoking ban is only based on my person experience and common sense. But if the secondhand smoke problem in pubs had been dealt with by requiring all pubs that allow indoor smoking to intensively filtrate their air, then a great number of public health threats such as radon, avian flu and tuberculosis would have be stripped from the air along with the tobacco smoke. Dr. Jewell's failure to push for such truly clean air in pubs seems like bad public health policy and should be questioned by journalists like you.
I believe journalists are an essential part of society's immune system. They should always be questioning the assumptions and claims of political authorities. If journalists had been more sceptical of the existence of Saddam Hussein's WMD's and listened to dissenting voices, we might have avoided a great deal of suffering in Iraq. Journalists now should be sceptical of the existence of hundreds or thousands of dead bodies due to
secondhand smoke and should consult those lesser authorities who doubt
their existence. Surely someone was available who doubts the rosy
assessments and projections of Dr. Tony Jewell.
Sincerely,
Bill Hannegan
Meaty interview of Mr. Harsanyi. Thanks, Sunz.
These especially caught my eye:
“And once nanny laws are instituted there is little way back -- at least, in the foreseeable future.”
Yes, the Godshalls of this world win because of all the lies one can recall and all the indecent reasons people accept. At least we can hold our heads high.
“Sadly, many of us have bought into the idea that we have the ‘right’ not be irritated or inconvenienced -- even on someone else's property.”
I've posted this before, but some months ago I exchanged a few emails with a publisher in Louisiana whose town was contemplating a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. And although he said he enjoyed a cigar now and then, HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WAS FOR A SMOKING BAN BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE TO EAT IN RESTAURANTS THAT ALLOWED SMOKING.
What a digusting piece of selfish narcissism that would dictate a ban because of a personal preference -- and on private property where an owner is simply trying to make a living.
Even our friendly nemesis Dr. Siegel must find a reason like that highly offensive and perhaps be the cause of a little bit of shame that people such as that are big factors in instituting the bans he approves of.
The ME generation come into its own.
.
Billl H.,
I think you and McFadden win with the softly-softly approach. Gee, Lisa didn't bother to reply to little old me!
Here's the email I sent to her, but I do repent of the snide first paragraph. Shouldn't have done that. But I wouldn't have omitted the final paragraph. Give her 'professionalism' a little jolt.
--------
I’m an American, Ms. Jones, who once had a Welsh girlfriend who, although raised in Wales, claimed to be English because her parents were English, and now I think I know why.
“The lives of 200 non-smokers have been saved in the first six months of Wales’ smoking ban.”
What does that mean? Already saved? Will have been saved? It reads as though it were the former, which is absolutely insane. Please think about it.
“Wales’ chief medical officer, Dr Tony Jewell, said hundreds more lives will be saved thanks to ban, which came in on April 2. ‘The ban will help to cut the number of deaths from second hand smoke,’ he said.”
Again, “hundreds more lives will be saved.” Doesn’t that rather indicate that 200 have ALREADY been saved?
“Across South Wales, many pubs and bars, who braced themselves for a dip in their takings, have seen an upturn in business.” And then you cite a landlord who invested £20,000 for a luxurious smoking shelter fitted with a giant plasma screen TV! Well, with that kind of investment, he’d be likely to find an upturn in business whether there was a smoking ban or not, don’t you agree?
Things to ponder:
1. Secondhand smoke has never been shown to cause a single death in a bar or restaurant. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, who is AN ANTI-SMOKING ACTIVIST, an epidemiologist and president of the American Council on Science and Health, had this to say when the New York City ban went into effect:
"There is simply no convincing evidence linking secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease."
“[Dr. Whelan] labels ‘patently absurd’ Mayor Bloomberg's claim that it would prevent 1,000 deaths of bar and restaurant workers.”
“There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant.”
“The link between secondhand smoke and premature death ... is a real stretch.”
2. There are two ways – and only two ways – you might try and get a handle on any long-term danger second-hand smoke MAY pose for either lung cancer or heart disease: the epidemiological studies and chemical dosages; and both show no real evidence of risk. For example, of the dozens of epidemiological studies made over the past quarter century, 80 percent of them show only a statistically insignificant association between secondhand smoke and either lung cancer or heart disease. Fact. While tests in pubs and restaurants show that chemical dosages in the air are far below what government agencies (such as OSHA in the United States) consider unsafe. Also a fact.
3. There’s no longer any doubt that smoking bans hurt the bar business; there’s just too much evidence available (and just plain common sense tells you that it can and will hurt business). And just wait until winter sets in and all those smokers stay home and expose their children to the second-hand smoke jackasses like Jewell get hysterical about!
Is your newspaper in the business of simply being a conduit for bullshit, Ms. Jones, without a modicum of skepticism and balance from the other side? If so, so much for journalism in Wales.
Sincerely,
Harry O’Brien
.
Harry & Bill H
Great letters!! I think all styles of communication are in some way helpful. Perhaps Harry's letter did not illicit a response as did Bill H's but I know Harry's letter lives in her head.
Harry the interview w/Mr Harsanyi was good, wasn't it. It reminded me of the Diana West stuff I posted on the Death of the Adult a few threads back.
We cannot be shoved back into the cradle of infancy fast enough to suit these folks.
.
;')
I’m sorry, I seem to be in the process of beating this thing to death, but Lisa’s reply to Bill H. is truly grotesque. This woman – better call her a girl – is a cautionary tale of green unreason.
Items:
“As you may have gathered from reading the article, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, Dr Tony Jewell, predicts 200 lives have been saved from illnesses attributable to passive smoking.”
Have a little trouble with that “predicts 200 lives have been saved,” though I may just be nit-picking. But how can you predict something that’s already happened?
“I can't imagine a more reliable source of expertise, can you?”
Hmm. On what grounds does she conclude that there’s no more reliable source of expertise? That’s just plain silly. I guess she doesn’t believe in medical second opinions, or any other kind, for that matter.
“they were based on information supplied by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and figures from a report published by the All Wales Smoking Cessation Service.”
Now THERE’S a source for reliable figures if ever I heard one – figures from an outfit that is in the business of getting people to stop smoking!.
“The service has tangible figures of the amount of people who have given up smoking since the ban has come into force in Wales. Dr Jewell, I understand, has been able to use these figures to form a considered opinion on the numbers of lives saved.”
Now it’s people who have given up smoking and not people exposed to secondhand smoke? I don’t get it. And don’t forget, we’re talking about 200 people WHO WOULD NOW BE DEAD were it not for the 6-month-old ban. Well, the vast majority of them must have been saved from the acute effects of passive smoking, because it’s a little difficult to imagine how chronic effects would have kicked in in so short a time, with either non-smokers OR smokers.
“What qualifications do you have to assert which is the best study done so far to determine the real world effects of smoking bans?”
Usual juvenile attempt at self-justification. Well, what qualification do you have, dear Lisa, to evaluate the evaluators?
“The Welsh research relates to the saving of the lives of people who were previously exposed to smoke, who now are not, because of the ban.”
Pardon my obtuseness, but aren’t we talking about a ban that’s been in effect for a mere 6-months? And when we say, “who were previously exposed to smoke,” aren’t we talking about secondhand smoke exclusively? What is this, the Helena miracle redux?
“While I appreciate what you are saying, I have no reason to question the motives of the people who have produced this research or their data.”
A complete non sequitur. Moreover, she damn well better question motives, or she’ll never develop into any kind of a real, professional reporter.
“Perhaps if you are unhappy with Dr Jewell's assertions, or those of the other experts in the field which I mentioned, you should take the matter up with them.”
No, Ms. Jones, we’re taking it up with YOU. YOU’RE the one who wrote the article; YOU’RE the one who went along with Dr. Jewell’s assertions; and YOU’RE the one responsible for the article’s contents.
“ I am satisfied they are credible sources.”
She apparently knows nothing or next to nothing about the subject, but she’s satisfied they’re “credible sources”? Some reporter! “Credible sources,” dear Lisa, pertains to people who can give a reporter factual information on something they know first-hand; how did suddenly the term “credible sources” creep into a discussion of statistical evaluations?
So much for adult journalism.
.
This article says the Irish are abandoning their pubs and bringing the party home, smoking there and getting more splashed that ever. Doesn't sound to me like the result of a smart public health policy:
Holly Jacobs from Raheny is another avid follower of the new 'cocoon' trend, she said: "I think Ireland is fast losing its pub culture. I can see why people drink at home, it is a more cost-effective way. But in reality, we are doing more harm to ourselves because in general, you will be more intoxicated compared to drinking in the pub as the drinks are measured. It's very dangerous because people are pouring their own spirit measures and drinking more than they can handle. They pour alcohol like lemonade into a cup.
"As a smoker, drinking at home gives me the freedom to smoke..."
http://www.independent.ie/lifest...me-
1085712.html
I've named myself "GiveUp" because the more I read the anti's "blinders-on" responses, the more I see the bans progressing, the more I see the junk science published without a shred of evidence or support and I never see anything published to counter their crap and no one with any "pull" can say a word against the "antis" where it would truly matter, I have given up on us ever being able to get through to them -- it's like talking to a wall.
I think Nuttall's response is the right one (decline the donation) - he needs publicity and emotional support and needs to force his country to do what they would do for a non-smoker...to help him. He has paid his dues.
Should he have taken up the offer, whose case would be next? Will you continue to fundraise for the next case and the next and the next?
That's not do-able, and it gives "them" what they want anyhow. What we need is some way, some how, to get those "in power" to listen, and maybe the news of the fundraiser did do that. Would a petition have been a better idea? I know, how to do it online? How about asking us to write letters to "powers that be" over there? They'd probably never read them.
That's why I'm "give up" -- I don't know the answer, but I know I'll keep smoking as long as it's legal.
Bill H; In the conversation with this reporter could bring forward a couple of questions to define her legitimate sources who she would have to admit were a little short on the details leaving more questions than answers. If her story were complete, clarity would have to be at least attempted in order to avoid an audience believing she may be biased on the subject.
Q&As;
If there is no safe level of tobacco smoke, bringing forth the wisdom of her sources. Who did the studies compare with those exposed in order to create their numbers? Do you know anyone who has not been exposed to tobacco smoke?
If bars are measured for deadly toxins after a smoking ban in an effort to lessen the risk of employees.
Did the testers wear respirators or did their employers endanger their health? In the belief they were sending them into an environment detramental to their health? Can we consider this neglect or indifference or do they simply not believe Cigarette smoke is dangerous?
The testers obviously didn't demonstrate any fear.
Sorry Doc but,
Were they properly informed?
If smoking kills 450,000 Americans every year, did it kill 900,000 when twice as many people smoked in 1960?
If second hand smoke kills 30,000 Americans every year, when exposures were 75% higher did it kill 120,000? Or going with the no safe level thing leveling the playing field and all that; if we assume the same number in 1960 after 50 years of reductions by now 75% how many were saved per year in the past?
The big one now; why are they saved in smoke free bars in just 6 months? Wouldn't prior exposures through out their entire life cancel out the benefits?
If not how do we define a risk; as temporary or permanent? keeping in mind no safe level is non linear and according to the sayers of the word permanent damage results. Please explain I really want to hear the explanation for that one.
Just for the chilrns.
Bill H-I can see why people drink at home, it is a more cost-effective way. (not his own quote)
Folks,
this type of comment is becoming more frequent, and to be honest gets my goat.
Off sales has always been cheaper than on sales yet people still used to choose to go to bars. Cheaper drink is not the driver for people staying away. Something else is motivating people to abandon their local. I wonder what that can be?
GreatScot
GreatScot, bars are fun because of their feeling of freedom. I work to keep smoking bans off bars not to protect my own minimal smoking, but rather out of a romantic passion to save the last remnants in my own town of the Wild West. Introduce the Nanny State and its health police in bars and people say, "Screw it. I'll save money and stay home."
Hi, guys.
Just wondering if the death tolls would reflect the 200 victim drop in rescued non-smokers.
Were they supposed to decease due to heart attack or asthma, allergy or the sheer horror of seeing a smoker exhale?
If the numbers of the otherwise doomed were known, surely the expected manner of their death must be as well; would the decline show among the overall population?
If rates are the same or higher in whatever categories are accepted for SHS attack - say, platelets sticking to the ribs, an ear infection shifting to the other side and taking out the brain between, dying of disappointment over second-hand erectile dysfunction on a hot date - perhaps the journalist might respond to numbers.
But if there have been recent actions taken in reducing diesel or general automotive and/or coal/industrial pollution, (and I can't recall just now if coal burning was lately reduced in Scotland, Ireland or Wales, but some such Celtic coal burning reduction does ring a faint bell) there will be both an immediate and long-term reduction in disease and mortality; the linked response in health effects to alterations in air pollution levels is constant, (unlike population levels of tobacco smoking/ETS exposure, which show none) and the ban may have been planned to correspond, so I'd suggest checking into that as well.
Although, frankly, if tobacco smoke is half as terribly deadly as now claimed, the generations that bore us must have died long ago, and the life we dream a mere illusion.
Honestly, though, I could dream up a better fantasy than this in my sleep.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
