However, the anti-smoking groups, headed by the SmokeFreeMovies campaign and the American Legacy Foundation, were outraged, complaining...
So what's new? Or, as you say, "And Now for something Different..."
But people who opposed smoking bans are neccessearily people who smoke and "cry babies".
Doc, do you ever get tired of dealing with people who rage and fume trying to make everyone else's lives as miserable as they've made their own? Also, do you think that attacking the MPAA is a particularly wise move by your TC buddies?
Doctor,
Is there anything they are not up in arms about? As you say, there are far worse things that kids or anyone could be seeing.
I am glad you posted this today as it reminds me of something I was going to ask yesterday. I understand that Disney has announced that they will not be making anymore movies with smoking. That is fine, I can find the humor in a plot without a cigarette. During the news segment though, your buddy Stanton Glantz was
interviewed too. He was saying how wonderful this was and he quoted a huge number of how many kids has started smoking throughout the years from watching cartoon characters smoke. As a former student of his, I was wondering if you could tell me if he uses a chrystal ball to come up with these numbers? There is no way this jerk can come on tv and tell us how many people started smoking just from watching "101 Dalmations".
I also think that Disney, in partner with Glantz, should take it one step further though. They should ban or not allow any actor/actress who smokes even audition for any upcoming movies. Their agents should subject them to random drug testing and make sure that no actor smokes. If this was to happen, putting an R rating on a movie wouldn't even be a concern for any of the antis. I wonder if these overpaid celebrities would take that kind of discrimination as lightly as the employees of Scott MiracleGro has supposedly done.
gratuitous smoking
What does that mean?
Was the airbrushing of Paul McCartney's cigarette on the re-relase of Abbey Road the removal of 'gratuitous smoking'?
History is already being re-written. Oh My.
Perhaps they should make a sing and dance about this film and get it R-Rated, more publicity.
The fall out though is unpredictable.
Maybe they will give August Underground a PG!
west
----
OKay -- so they REALLY don't like John Waters... Toldja -- everything=everything.
"Doc, do you ever get tired of dealing with people who rage and fume trying to make everyone else's lives as miserable as they've made their own?"
Amen DTB.
And how about removing all war scenes, all killing, from historic movies about WW II ... and in news reports from Iraq?
After all, we don't want our children to become cold blooded killers. Don't show the bad example, make them believe in an ideal (by whose standard?) world.
Michael -- "not just whistling Dixie" (grandma speech -- like "cockamamie") I love it. Bet you had a wonderful granny.
What's even funnier is the fact that most R rated movies are actually very good and have nothing wrong with them, that most kids don't see at home anyway. So what if there's some strong language? So what if there's sexual innuendo or energy? Do these people not ever use foul language or have sex with their partner that they think their kids are so innocent and never exposed to it? Puhleeeeeze.
Then there's the fact that most of these movies are great for parents to watch with their children as it does open the door to talks between them. I used R movies to get the door cracked with my son for discussions about touchy subjects. It really helped because we discussed the movie and he would ask questions and I would answer them.
Most parents actually bring their kids with them to these movies. Unless they are under the age of 10.
TC needs to take a chill pill and get their own life.
To appease the Man Made Global Warming Alarmist, the movie directors should also make sure the actors don a few more layers of clothes so children will see today's impact of Global Warming and how wonderfully stylish sweaters were...
Also, Doesn't "Hairspray" depict a large leading woman as it's star?....Well, that shouldn't happen. Obesity is contagious, teen-aged viewers may relate to the star and gain weight...especially if it becomes a cult movie and is watched over and over again. OH-The Obesity....
Hairspray gets a "Black-Lung" rating from this site.
http://www.scenesmoking.org/revi...ils2.cfm?
id=803
Michael Siegel, as for your rhetorical questions:
"Are we really supposed to change history and pretend that smoking didn't exist? " - YES
"Are artists depicting 1962 actually supposed to ignore the historical facts and depict everyone as nonsmokers if they are not interested in producing an adult-oriented film?" - YES
"Don't we actually want to reveal the truth to kids?" - NO!
"Perhaps we should also wipe away that aspect of our nation's history as well, so as not to expose kids to anything that might give them ideas. " - YES.
Now you are beginning to get it. Example: In 1986 when Oluf Palme was assasinated, the story was bent in certain African nations. There, he merely died. Why? Because an autocrat does not want to give the common people the idea that leaders can be assasinated. I know this for a fact, because a couple that I know lived in one such country at the time. They had trouble understanding why Oluf Palme died.... They got the truth from BBC World. BBC has changed....
Earlier you stated:
"In the 1960s (as today), people's diets were crappy. People ingested (as they do today) high amounts of fat and low amounts of fruits and vegetables." - Aha! That will have to be changed. We cannot run Franz Kafkan "The Trial" style charges (tribunals) in courts that the 'food industry causes obesity', if is commonly known that in 1960 people had the same 'junk' food and did not turn fat. These scenes must be banned from films, lest court judges let themselves be influenced by contrary common knowledge.
When are you going to understand the magnitude of social engineering, Michael?
By the way, in 1960, American consumers smoked 484 billion cigarettes and 40.000 Americans succumbed to lung cancer. 45 years later Americans smoked about 380 billion cigarettes. That year 164.000 Americans died of lung cancer. As the cigarette sales dwindle, the numbers of lung cancer victims rise. Go figure.
"It's now clear that anti-smoking groups are trying to meddle in artistic expression..."
Yes. And the smoking bans you support do the same thing by making it illegal for actors to smoke in theatrical productions. Because the ushers might die from SHS exposure.
Would you make exceptions?
If so, then what if I open a bar and set aside 25 stools for people to "express themselves"?
Wouldn't be unheard of. I hear there are strip clubs that have thier dancers recite Hamlet while dancing. They then claim tha tthey are putting on their own interpretations of the great plays.
Oh. 220?
" in 1960, American consumers smoked 484 billion cigarettes and 40.000 Americans succumbed to lung cancer. 45 years later Americans smoked about 380 billion cigarettes. That year 164.000 Americans died of lung cancer."
There can only be one explanation treatment methods must be a lot worse now than they were in 1960.
The doctors are killing a lot more patients lately, because we know the cigarettes cause virtually all cancers, nothing else could explain it.
Shouldn't someone in one of these incredibly powerfully advocacy groups who tell movie producers what to do, be able to raise a little hell with punishing these careless doctors, this group "the Smoke Free Movies campaign" sounds pretty powerful, and obviously they have huge public support. They must have enough of a following to get the job done.
LOL
GDF: Michael -- "not just whistling Dixie" (grandma speech -- like "cockamamie") I love it. Bet you had a wonderful granny.
Yes, and this is after that "y'all" incident. Hmmmm...has TC been meddling in the South again?
BTW, do these R-ratings go for smoking guns, too?
Did anyone notice the last lines of this blog? I can tell you as a parent that the few fleeting scenes of smoking in the movie are of far less concern to me in terms of my kids seeing them than the highly suggestive sexual content of the film. If the film is not going to receive higher than a PG rating for that sexual content, there is no way it should receive an R-rating for the few fleeting scenes of smoking. No sex?! *gasp* Is the Doc a prude or what!
Any new news on the legislation?
Insider stack tip...
Get out the piggy bank and call your broker.
Now that it appears Philip Morris and stakeholder partners Senator Kennedy, The campaign for tobacco free kids, The American Cancer society and the heart and lung foundation will be successful in presenting their co-authored bill, PM market share will quickly rise and will show substantial gains in the next reported sales quarter.
You won't be alone cashing out on the predictable profits of Galton institute/ New Public Health, scare campaigns.
"I can tell you as a parent that the few fleeting scenes of smoking in the movie are of far less concern to me in terms of my kids seeing them than the highly suggestive sexual content of the film. If the film is not going to receive higher than a PG rating for that sexual content, there is no way it should receive an R-rating for the few fleeting scenes of smoking."
Again, this backhanded charge of hypocrisy" That people who want to make "smoking movies" R rated must be up to something because there are other, more dangerous things in movies that they are content to let slide.
Well, have you ever been to a bar? Is inhaling SHS REALLY the most dangerous thing going on there?
Remember, you have to work there for 40 years, 40 hours a week for the risk level to rise to a significant level.
I know a lot of people--both patrons and emplyees--who have been killed a lot quicker than that.
So if "consistency" requires going after ALL significant dangers... we're going to have to eliminate a lot more than smoking from bars.
Oh. And did I mention? You are really ought to come out an defend your own work with regard the 220 deaths. If you can't just say so. We all engage youthful indiscreations. Maybe yours includes mileading legislators. Worse things have happened.
"anemic response to a public health problem."
The statement itself is correct, but the problem is not smoking, the problem is public health advocates.
The anemic response has been from smokers and that has unfortunately allowed this plague to spread unabated.
That's another term that makes me ill when typed "Public Health Advocates"
yuck.
These people are sick. The Anti-Smoking Dysfunction Syndrome is clearly diminishing their mental capacity, which is a major symptom of the disease.
Perhaps an intervention is in order.
But who do we get to do it?
ASDS has reached epedemic proportions, so it's difficult to find any non-smokers that aren't also displaying even mild symptoms of the affliction.
TC is sick. Everyone keep that in mind.
They have a disease and are in desperate need of help and counselling. Don't forget that ASDS is also a highly contagious disease.
The mere utterance of a few doublespeak "facts" by an infected TC drone and a heretofore unconcerned non-smoker can be infected with this indidious dibilitating disorder.
Once infected, the disease can consume the victim in shortorder unless an injection of truth is administered within 72 hours, or before the victim decides to "donate" cash to the thieving ACS or similar members of the new health cartel.
There is clearly a second strain of the disease as well.
The Doc here is unfortunately infected with the less virulent version, but it's no less dibilitating. Clearly the victims Judgement is still impacted, and although the megalomania is far less obvious, it is replaced by a more pronounced symtom of overtly projecting empathy toward smokers while diligently working to spread the disease in a more subtle, less obvious manner.
Truth is the only cure, and in repeated massive doses.
Restricting smoking in motion pictures is an attempt to limit a means of injecting that truth.
R ratings in movies. So much for parental choice. Seventeen to see smoking in movies now. I suppose the next step from TC will be banning smoking in front of kids under seventeen anywhere in public. Followed by anywhere in private except accompanied by an adult. Followed by child abuse laws smoking in front of anyone under 18.
What was that about only on 2 hour flights less than 2 hours?
LB, do you suppose that ASDS and AHJS (Antihypochondriajunkscientifica) could be put under a large umbrella group and interchanged much in the way CPOD has been?
ALF: "I don't know that just because a movie takes place in the '60s that it justifies a PG, since 14- and 15-year-olds are in the bull's-eye for the cigarette market."
But there you have it -- their underlying seethe. No matter that the tobacco industry does NOT engage in product placement the raging antis continue to press implicitly that that is what's going on. They're disturbingly convinced that no one -- no actor, no director, no writer -- would CHOOSE to include smoking and it must be by some secret deals taking place between parties (all players suspect) to place smoking in the movie to MARKET it.
Dr. Siegel: "It's now clear that anti-smoking groups are trying to meddle in artistic expression..."
Meddlers? They are not due such mildness. There is only one word to describe them: CENSORS
Do any of you remember when "Midnight Cowboy" with Dustin Hoffman and John Voight was rated "X"? And not for the smoking either.
Now it is probably rated PG. Although, it might be rated "R" for lots of smoking...forget the sex parts.
Q. What's the first thing any knowledgeable kid thinks of when they hear the name, American Legacy Foundation?
A. Smoking.
ALF's rants and commercials should be rated R. (And not only for retarded)
Doctor---'"It's now clear that anti-smoking groups are trying to meddle in artistic expression..."
I agree with JTF meddle is way to kind. Funny Doc, you are finally 'offended' when artistic expression is messed with. The ordinary Joe Smoe you could not care less how we're messed with. Real people. Living real lives, out trying to make real livings. You know like the 220 bartenders you told us about. Artistic expression must really mean something great big to you.
.
.
If you want to give the Ants a heart attack, try 30 minutes of exposure to (the hourlong) "Mad Men," Thursday nights on AMC, 10 PM EST. Set in 1960 NYC, there's yet to be a scene without 2 to 6 cigarettes going because that's the way it was.
Before this Halo Scan comment demon crashes my browser (as it's done for weeks) I'll post this one here.
An open invitation to Dr Siegel:
On the off chance you believe (without wiggles) this statement you made that was buried somewhere in a thread below, have you got the guts to post it up front on your home page as an open article "for all the world to see" ?
my actual opinion is that I completely oppose the FDA legislation, thus I oppose the passage of this provision that would create graphic warning labels. ... I was not suggesting that I actually want to see this provision pass.
My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours, since none of you complained about the CURRENT warning labels on cigarettes. My opinion is that the warning labels on cigarettes should be eliminated completely. Requiring the warning labels on cigarettes was the WORST thing that we have ever done in public health (at least up until negotiating misguided FDA legislation with Philip Morris). Michael Siegel
The invitation holds even tho I guess you think the current warnings were the WORST thing ever because, by warning folx, it delayed, by decades, their ability to claim, in billiion $ lawsuits, that they'd thought cigarettes were vitamin-enriched health sticks.
Still, if you think scare-graphics are wrong, I ask you to say so, and perhaps explain your reasoning. 220 reasons aren't required. Just a few wou;d suffice.
:
Walt: ...they'd thought cigarettes were vitamin-enriched health sticks.
Now, see i thought there was some sort of niacin (B3) in these puppies. Darn it all.
Actually, there does seem to be some confusion on the matter. Free nicotine doesn't seem to be terribly stable in the air or while burning. But there seem to be various forms of nicotine floating around, e.g. cotinine or something like that?
Non-addictive tobacco products, US Patent Issued on February 3, 1998 -- http://www.patentstorm.us/patent...ts/
5713376.html
Nicotine: What is it, and where does it come from? -- http://193.78.190.200/smokersclu...b/
nicotine.html
This last one's kinda interesting:
Campaign for Tobacco-free kids or Campaign for Oxygen free babies -- http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/t...sc/
00000026.htm
It's short, but I'll put a minor excerpt here:
All niacin supplements come from tobacco because it is hard to get in ordinary foods unless you eat a lot of spinach or a lot of turkey.
This I find interesting because my understanding is that the body makes niacin from trytophan. You know, trytophan, the stuff in turkey that makes you sleepy. (Kinda odd if you think of niacin as an energy thing.) But, again, there's oodles of different people saying different things.
Walt,
I don't necessarily think that scare graphics are wrong, I just think it is pretty much pointless. By the time someone picks up a pack, haven't they already made a decision to smoke? It's not like it's really going to stop them. Apparently, there is research that finds some small effect. But it is very small. The very idea that the government would allow the product to be marketed, knowing that people are going to die from using it, but then placate itself by saying that at least it warned those people just doesn't cut it for me. I would rather see the onus be on the industry to warn their own customers. Requiring the warning labels is actually letting them off the hook.
Walt,
If you want to give the Ants a heart attack, try 30 minutes of exposure to (the hourlong) "Mad Men," Thursday nights on AMC, 10 PM EST. Set in 1960 NYC, there's yet to be a scene without 2 to 6 cigarettes going because that's the way it was
I saw that show and found it quite good. You should try to see it next week. Your right, the antis must be flapping their arms and waving their 'fan hands' if they see this show!!!
If I were to ask any smoker what their large warning said; how many of them would know what it was?
I did a survey of several people, and not one of them knew what it was. Now how is this suppose to do anything? Do your own survey, and see how many know.
These things are easy to avoid to look at. I don't even know exactly what they say, and they've been on about when I started smoking. Yet they are suppose to work.... ok yeap LOL
Walt wrote:
"that they'd thought cigarettes were vitamin-enriched health sticks."
I used to think cigarettes were bad until I found out that benzene is also found in food. That acetone is used by women to remove nail polish. That carbon monoxide is frequently inhaled while driving to the gym.
Nicotine is found in potatoes and tomatoes. Arsenic is found in drinking water (and I believe used to be used as a medicine). Ammonia, inhaled while cleaning your house.
Yeah, I used to think smoking was bad until health experts pointed out that cigarette smoke is mostly just a bunch of ordinary chemicals we use or inhale every day without much fuss or worry.
Dr. Siegel: The very idea that the government would allow the product to be marketed, knowing that people are going to die from using it, but then placate itself by saying that at least it warned those people just doesn't cut it for me.
Arghhhhhhhhh. Telling/warning people and then letting them choose for themselves doesn't cut it for you?!?!?
That is THE crux of our argument with you. As long as the product remains legal then that's as intrusive as you should be allowed to get in people's lives and legal informed choices. Yet again you as much as say in your full context that warnings aren't enough. And if warnings don't cut it for you then what's left? What's the alternative for you? There's only one left other than leaving consumers alone at all. COERCION. (or outright prohibition).
Nevermind trying to say it's the placation they feel by it that you meant doesn't cut it with you and not the warning itself. Either way you meant it the final product is the same.
Placated or not, the issue is the warning and that IS enough input/advice/education. It's okay if they're placated by it because that's as far as the intrusion should be ANYway.
Not wanting to muddy up the above, I post this separately.
Dr. Siegel: The very idea that the government would allow the product to be marketed, knowing that people are going to die from using it, but then placate itself by saying that at least it warned those people just doesn't cut it for me.
Really? All of them? A majority of them? Dr. Siegel, MOST people who smoke do NOT die from "tobacco-related diseases" (and how many of those are SAMMEC garbage-in, garbage out, generated numbers?).
Let's get this out of the way before I go on.... NECESSITY has nothing to do with it. It's subjective. What's "unnecessary" to you is necessary (i.e. a chosen pleasure) to others so don't dare start with "inherent" or "necessary" when something like cars is a replacement example which fits as easily into your "The very idea that the government would allow the product to be marketed, knowing that people are going to die from using it..."
Or bicycles, or jetskis, or snowmobiles, or candy, or soda, or pools, or balloons (swallowed), or or or...
I once asked you what you would say after I tell you I know all about the warnings on smoking. ALL of them. I still choose to smoke. Now what do you do?
"Apparently, there is research that finds some small effect. But it is very small."Like 1.19,the risk factor for SHS,NOW THAT IS SMALL,BUT DR SIEGEL YOU STATE OTHERWISE,NOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THESE 220 ?
smallbird, how funny you should ask. I just saw Midnight Cowboy on Danish PBS TV last night. 'Ratso' (was that his name?) living in a filthy apartment - ooh a cigarette fiend. Coughing all the time - those nasty cancer sticks... The film must have been pretty kinky in 1969, and not for the smoking.
"I would rather see the onus be on the industry to warn their own customers."
Is that the truth, or are you flat out lying? The last time you said something about warnings, you said that if the restaurant indistry warned workers sufficiently, you would back away from smoking bans.
And you said such a warning was possible.
Then you refused to say what such a warning would look like.
Then you said you didn't really want to talk about warnings, because what you really wanted to talk about the risk.
Then we asked how you calculated the risk factor you used to publicly support a ban.
Then you refused to answer.
Now you say the important thing, really, is a sufficent warning.
BS. BS. BS.
You are being dishonest and deceptive Straight up. Flat out.
"I don't necessarily think that scare graphics are wrong, I just think it is pretty much pointless. By the time someone picks up a pack, haven't they already made a decision to smoke? It's not like it's really going to stop them. Apparently, there is research that finds some small effect. But it is very small."
The more predominant effect was not discovered in the test groups who were exposed to a series of photos measuring the response. Among the public and particularly among the kids the initial shock value goes quickly followed by a very interested child running around asking his friends if they saw the gross labels on the cigarettes. The next thing we actually saw them collecting the pictures and placing them in lockers and on their binders to impress the other kids.
For the smokers we immediately saw the pictures for what they were, scare tactics, and grew to ignore them with a common shrug of disgust for the ignorance of government along the way.
The total effect?
One of desensitizing anyone who saw them on a daily basis, making the shock value of the future that much more difficult to attain and more so in a view of the government; that much more difficult to believe as a source of health relevant information.
Should TC promote the pictures?
Absolutely, they have a nothing effect on reducing smoking or smokers but that common shrug of disgust among anyone who sees them is priceless.
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they all think it true. People are stupid, they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so all the easier to fool.
People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It's easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. (TC) is providing them with an enemy, other than themselves, a sense of purpose.
Even more people will rally around (TC) and support them because they have told them they want to protect the people from this enemy. Truth is a hard sell; it gives no sense of purpose. It is simply truth. For most people, it's not the truth that is important, it's the cause. (TC) has given them a cause. (TC) gets people on their side because people don't care about the truth; they do (TC's) bidding because they believe what they want to, and fight to the death for those beliefs, despite how false they are.
We are up against a plague. A plague of fools. Directed by (TC).--Terry Goodkind
“The mob is man voluntarily descending to the nature of the beast. Its fit hour of activity is night. Its actions are insane like its whole constitution. It persecutes a principle; it would whip a right; it would tar and feather justice, by inflicting fire and outrage upon the houses and persons of those who have these. It resembles the prank of boys, who run with fire-engines to put out the ruddy aurora streaming to the stars.”--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Apparently, there is a misunderstanding of my position on the acceptability of warning people, as opposed to removing or banning a risk. I think it is pretty clear that as a society, we have decided to tolerate the risks of smoking. I pretty much agree, then, that our goal now is to adequately warn people of the risks. In fact, that's really all we can do, since we're not going to take the product off the market.
But people are mistaking themselves if they are going to argue that the warnings on the cigarette packs are sufficient to warn people about the risks. The fact that the government requires these warning labels in the first place completely undermines them. It would be more effective if the tobacco companies voluntarily put out strong warnings of their own.
When I testified in Engle, the defense argued that the cigarette companies were adequately warning the public about the risks, because on their web sites, they acknowledged that public health authorities were saying that smoking was potentially fatal. I pointed out that the companies were not actually saying that they AGREED with the public health authorities, and that in fact, the statement almost implied that the public health authorities were off-base. By not saying that we agree with the public health authorities, the implication was that the authorities were wrong.
The companies, if they wanted to argue that they were adequately warning the public, would have had to themselves admit that smoking was potentially fatal, and communicate their own belief of that to the public.
The issue, then, is what constitutes an adequate warning. I say that the warning labels on cigarette packs are not adequate, because no one pays attention to them anyway. As Lynda D. noted above, many or most smokers don't even know what the warnings say. They simply don't pay attention.
I am not opposed to the idea of warning people and allowing them to make their own informed decisions. However, I happen to feel that the warnings need to be adequate and that people cannot make a truly informed decision unless certain conditions are met.
One of those conditions is that the people have an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the risk.
With respect to smoking, I don't think that the required warnings are paid attention to. Even if they were made stronger, I don't think they would be adequate.
With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm.
So in your mind, Drs. Whelan and Goti are underinformed? They just don;t "understand"?
That is, it is clearly possible to know just about everything there is to know about SHS and STILL THINK IT DOES NOT POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK.
Your standard for ""knowledge" appears to be "agrees with doctor Sielgel."
That's a bunch of malarkey. And that's where you veered into dishonesty when you promised to back away from bans if bartenders were adequately warned. You didn;t mean that. You said it. But you didn't mean it.
What you meant was to define an adequate warning as one which makes all bartenders refuse to work in smokey bars. Anything short of that--anything that left those stupid, ignorant bartenders insufficiently terrified of the demon whiff--was defined as inadequate.
It was not presented in good faith. It was a rhetoricl sleight of hand. And a poorly executed one at that.
But fear not. You said--your won words--that it was, in fact, possible to adequately warn them. After all, you are a professional educator! You have experience! You know how it should be done!
But you won't say.
It almost makes me think that you really won't back away from bans, no matter what the warnings say.
Weird.
I wonder. How might you educate Whelan and Goti? What evidence do you have access to that they do not? Or are they just stupid or otherwise misinformed, like the 44 percent of Americans who agree with them?
"With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm."
I just want you to consider something. For five seconds. I know it will de difficult. But play along.
MAYBE THOSE 44 PERCENT OF PEOPLE ARE RIGHT.
Maybe Dr. Whelan, who has access to all the same information you have, is correct.
Maybe--I know, I know--but maybe you are...
Wrong!
Gosh.
It would be more effective if the tobacco companies voluntarily put out strong warnings of their own.
Isn't that exactly what pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers of electrical appliances for example are asked and used to do?
I haven't seen any ads lately telling me that Sonata, Ambien, Viagra, Aspirine or simply gasoline are potential health hazards.
But then I don't think that all these companies would warn about potential health hazards if nobody forced them.
On the other side of the coin, we haven been warned for the last at least 50 years about the health hazards of cigarettes. What else do we need? Isn't there a clear limit between nagging and informing?
I think, the basic questions is: do we want to allow politicians to become our nannies? They most likely were not and never will be elected for their excellence in medicine (don't tell me Ted Kennedy or Enzi are PhDs), nor were they elected for their track record of an impeccable, exemplary life style (not Ted Kennedy, anyway). There are over 6 billion different lifestyles on this planet, which one should we choose so that it fits all? Or do we choose one and do we everybody has to make sure they fit, or else ...?
I don't know how humankind survived the pas million years without warning labels. How did they know which plants not to eat, which mushrooms to avoid.
How do children learn not to go into deep water, not to jump out of a window on the 3rd floor, not to cross roads without looking out for cars?
Warning labels everywhere? On all our food, fries, chocolate, drinks, and - soon to come if the EU Parlament gets its saying - on this excellent bottle of Château Petrus?
STOP, LET ME GET OFF ...
With respect to smoking, I don't think that the required warnings are paid attention to. Even if they were made stronger, I don't think they would be adequate.
Adequate for what? To satisfy the will and urge of our government? Or to eradicate smoking?
You are right. I wonder when there will only be genetically modified tobacco plants allowed that grow their own warning label on every leaf.
We heard the message; but now leave us alone.
As long as our politicians have no clue about psychology, it will never work. In Switzerland, every pack has a warning label covering 50% of the front (in 3 of the 4 national languages):
Rauchen ist tödlich
Fumer tue
Il fumo uccide
Translation: Smoking kills
We all no that this is a gross exaggeration. With the same justification, we could put warnings on every car: Driving kills.
We all know it is not true. So why should we believe these warnings at all? We all know that we are guarded by nannies and control freaks, so best is not to listen to them at all.
almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful.
Who says they must? Since the term SHS doesn't imply duration and dose, they might be right, because in THEIR VIEW, they are not exposed to high doses over a long period of time.
And then there are those who believe that even 30 seconds .... they of course are part of the remaining 56%. Are they right?
I also think you willfully confuse the ideas of "knowing" the risk and "refusing to take" the risk. Some people might "know" that smoking kills--even that SHS kills--and expose themselves anyway.
Most skydivers clearly know the risk they take. Same as kayakers. But they enjoy those activities so much that they take the risk.
So even among the 56 percent who agree with you about SHS, I assume that some portion of them would work in a smokey bar anyway. I guess they are stupid, too. Like me.
But I admit that I might be wrong, too. Please educate me about the risks. You are a professional with real-life experience. So...
Please explain to me how you determined that those 220 bartenders would die. I am begging you. You can't see me. But I am in front of my computer, on my knees, pleading with you to teach me.
Most professional public-health educators would agree to educate someone so thirsty for knowledge, I would think. Only a heartless one would deny someone so eager to suckle at the teat of wisdom.
You say the problem is people who are insufficiently warned. Well, warn me. The best way to do that is to explain how and why you determnined those bartenders would die.
At this stage, I think you have a professional responsibility to do so.
Michael;
I understand completely what your saying here and partially agree.
Humor me for a few moments and I would really appreciate a response to this one.
You yourself admit we will not be seeing the end of smoking any time soon. In reading the labeling of Canadian cigarettes I noticed something a while back which made me a little concerned, and if TC is about reducing the effect they are creating a larger problem than what they resolve. The toxic numbers have increased significantly over the past five years. The per cigarette numbers seem to have climbed by well over 300% With no public outrage or reported concerns.
This was made possible by the no safe cigarette nonsense which eliminated existing regulation and opened the flow of imported products virtually without restriction. This took Canadian cigarettes from the low end of the toxic scale to the upper almost overnight.
This as you seem to indicate you believe will have no effect because all cigarettes are thought to be the same in the TC view of the world, which flies in the face of common sense and research which consistently establishes the fact with more use or exposure the rate of effects is profound. Similarly with Toxins to repeat a likely over used phrase the poison is in the dose at least if we are not discussing cigarettes which are unique and have no point of reference in biology which can be used to illustrate the science.
You promote the theory all smokers will be effected in a linear model when the research says different. Those who smoke more, are effected more, similarly with higher levels of toxins all smokers will have increased risk.
Does the message of moderation have any value at all in TC advocacy or is it generally agreed common sense does more damage than good in reducing the level of unrestricted fear being promoted to sell the message.
Can you justify increasing the risk and the mortality and morbidity effect through promotion strategies simply to promote the movement, which is seen now to be more important than the purpose.
Your understanding of the message being deflated by the cigarette companies simply parroting what appears to be words forced into their mouths is well founded.
They cast the half package doom and gloom messages and pictures aside on their side of the package easily.
Knowing the rebellious nature of their client base, who are for the most part not completely trusting of the powers that be[to put it mildly], otherwise it would make sense their would be very few if any smokers.
The ad confirms agreement that mistrust is well deserved, we are superior in our silence and our strength. Knowing promoted fads will pass and extremists will defeat themselves in time, patience rules the day.
The promotion says clearly we can preserver as usual in spite of the rhetoric, hate and abuse. We can just ignore them till they fade away. While enjoying our own pleasures.
The ad simply states
"Impeccable style"
"Distinctive pleasure"
Jalestra: (TC) is providing them with an enemy, other than themselves, a sense of purpose.
A common enemy is often used to band people together. I wonder...could we think of any other instance of creating an enemy in the population for the purpose of bolstering the egos of the remaining population and create a force of unity under a governing body--i.e. fostering the idea that "we're better than THEM and we need to band togather to wipe THEM out." This is actually a fairly well-known and oft-used tactic to bring drones (workers) into a movement. Also, to begin, "the enemy" must be de-humanized; this is neccessary in military training to condition soldiers to kill "the enemy". Police officers often have problems after shooting a criminal, even after shooting violent criminals. They aren't always prepared for killing another human being. Soldiers would have too many inhibitions if they thought of their enemies as human beings; ergo, they are trained to de-humanize "the enemy". That's the reason I prefer to say "people who smoke" rather than "smokers". (I notice that I'm also pulling away from "butts" in favor of "filters," although for different reasons. "People complain about the percentage of cigarette filters in overall litter.")
Doc: So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm.
*That* is a question and a very good question that *you* need to examine. How can *you* say that workers are adequately informed about the risks of SHS if nearly half of them don't believe that it represents a serious risk? *We* can say that is an adequate warning because SHS doesn't pose a serious risk. If you want to inform people of serious risk, you must first establish the risk as *serious*. This proof does not exist. If the proof of serious harm truly existed, then informing people of the severity of the risk would be a simple matter. Therefore, this is a question that you need to honestly ask yourself. One further note: I guarantee that the percentage of people who actually believe the SHS/ETS is relatively harmless in most circumstances is MUCH higher. Even people who have devoted much time and study to the matter have come to the conclusion that secondhand [tobacco] smoke does not pose much of a threat to the general public.
I'd like to address a different matter, Dr. Siegel. You recently said, "Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support." First, encouraging kids not to smoke is futile; the more you talk to them about smoking--for or against--the more curious they get. Moreover, if you *try* to encourage them not to smoke, then you are ultimately encouraging them to smoke when they feel like rebeling. The best way to avoid a particular behavior--whether dieting, quitting smoking or biting your nails--the only effective way to do it is to concentrate on something else. In other words, the only real way to discourage a particular behavior is to encourage a different behavior. Second, and I've previously asked this but to no avail, what do you consider the best way (or ways) to honestly encourage adults to quit smoking? You've talked about what does NOT work, e.g. required warning labels, and we know that popularized/advertised methods such as NRT have minimal success rates in reality. De-humanizing/denormalizing people who smoke is ineffective and only serves to create a whole culture around secret smoking. So, what do you think DOES work? If you could design a program-employing whatever scheme you like, as fantastic or as trivial as you like--then what would the program be?
Michael Siegel -
"I am not opposed to the idea of warning people and allowing them to make their own informed decisions. However, I happen to feel that the warnings need to be adequate and that people cannot make a truly informed decision unless certain conditions are met.
One of those conditions is that the people have an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the risk.
With respect to smoking, I don't think that the required warnings are paid attention to. Even if they were made stronger, I don't think they would be adequate."
Your requirements, as stated, are based on circular reasoning and personal belief -a lack of subjectivity. Your definition of the magnitude of the risk is so large, the consequences so horrendous, that it is not possible for a consumer to make a "truly informed decision." Truth is subjective and is a matter of philosophy. Facts are much harder to come by.
"With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm.
While some evidence (not proof) exists that smoking a pack a day (or more) for over forty years will, on average, shorten a smoker's life by about three years, the evidence that SHS is harmful to non-smokers is almost totally lacking.
The well-established scientific (and common sense) premise that "The poison is in the dose," does not make an exception for SHS. SHS has no magical properties that exempt it from that rule, regardless of the desires of BTC.
You speak of informed decisions based upon educating the consumer of the magnitude of the risk. BTC, health organizations, health departments and the Legal Drug Cartel, instead of educating the public, are responsible for the largest disinformation campaigns I have ever seen in America. Science is trashed, statistics are fabricated, correlation is cause, theories and paper statistics generated by assumptions are magically translated into corpses - corpses that can't be found. All trumpeted as "proven" and SHS Kills, "Mothers are Murdering Their Babies."
Educate the public, the consumer? Is that what you call education?
I don't.
You know, I may be a bit slow on the uptake here, but in all this yelling and screaming about how smokers and fat people cost society too much in hospitals, why hasn't no one gone up in arms over the $126 box of Kleenex the hospitals gouge you for? The $14 for ONE aspirin? The $50 for a toothbrush? Maryland put in price control for hospitals and found out that hospitals survived just fine on that. Why isn't anyone going after the real problem? National health care just puts us all in the same sinking boat..addressing the unrealistic (ridiculous, outrageous) prices hospitals charge would be a productive step in the right direction. Why isn't anyone pushing for THIS kind of legislation? Then we would be so damn concerned how much everyone else costs and we wouldn't be a bunch of selfish pigs, so worried about ourselves that we start denying health care to other human beings? Denying smokers and fat people health care won't LOWER prices, but price control would.
Geeze, is anyone counting?
There is a certain question that has been asked, oh I don't know but it must be, about....220 times.
Someone more cynical than me might think that the stonewalling is stalling tactic for time to allow some mathamagician to create a plausible equation.
Lynda D,
I have no idea what the warning signs on my smokes say as they are in Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch.
No taxes going to HMG if I can help it.
GreatScot
Doc, what you are saying, is that if no one follows your belief of the magnitude of the risk, then they aren't informed enough. Are people not allowed to believe differently? You say One of those conditions is that the people have an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the risk. If you've given them all the information in your disposal (true information) and they still don't believe, perhaps they just disagree with you. Who knows more about tobacco than us right here? We smoke it, we talk to you on a scientific level about it, those of us that don't talk, read it right here. Perhaps there are others in this world like us, we have the information, we just don't agree with your assessment of the risk. Is it your idea that unless we believe as you do, that there is a terrifyingly HUGE risk to smoking and SHS, then what? Force us to? Make us stop or coerce us into stopping to suit your own views of how risky it is?
Doctor, when you say things like that, what it convinces us of, is that we are right. That you will MAKE us believe, because YOU believe. You say it's based on facts, good, give us your formula. Give us the information you had. If this is true, we should come to the same conclusions as you, maybe not the same belief, but we should be able to reproduce the conclusion. After all, that's what real science is. Otherwise, you're just another nanny, trying to make us believe what you do or suffer the consequences. Except now the nanny is choosing the consequences. Not us.
Risk is completely subjective. It really is. I can prove people have died from activities that are widely accepted, in some cases a huge amount of people, but others will disagree. Do I make them do what I say? I've never had a flu shot...some people consider that highly irresponsible and risky, *shrugs* I say they are idiots. Am I not endangering others? Am I not risking that I will pass on the flu to someone else and it may kill them? When does it stop? Why should anyone else's perception of risk rule another person? And yes, this applies to SHS. If people WANT to be around it, well, as politely as I can, get over it.
Jalestra: why hasn't no one gone up in arms over the $126 box of Kleenex the hospitals gouge you for? The $14 for ONE aspirin? The $50 for a toothbrush? Maryland put in price control for hospitals and found out that hospitals survived just fine on that. Why isn't anyone going after the real problem? National health care just puts us all in the same sinking boat..addressing the unrealistic (ridiculous, outrageous) prices hospitals charge would be a productive step in the right direction. Why isn't anyone pushing for THIS kind of legislation?....Denying smokers and fat people health care won't LOWER prices, but price control would.
You've forgotten another area in which health "care" costs society. Here's a bit from a letter I wrote to legislators:
***********
A recent study of over 40 million MediCare hospitalization records paint a sorry picture of hospital safety. Dr. Joseph Mercola’s comments on the study include, "if the gap between high and low performers in terms of hospital safety wasn't as steep, some 200,000 safety problems and 34,000 Medicare patient deaths would've been avoided, at a savings of $1.7 billion." And this is only the Medicare patients’ treatment. If we could improve hospital safety, we’d have our $1.6 million to thoroughly trash the economy with antismoking propaganda—and we’d have $100 million leftover to throw a big party!
************
Also, denying treatment to a segment of society--and a fairly sizable segment albeit a minority--would actually mean less revenue for those service providers. They will make-up for the loss on their remaining patients, namely nonsmokers. In other words, denying healthcare to people who smoke (and/or obese people) will RAISE medical costs for the remaining patients. Also, if treatment and healthcare is denied to people who smoke, then we don't need insurance, do we? I think people who smoke should demand that their unusable insurance be dropped and they be given raises for the savings to their employers. 
I wonder why?
Burying the evidence
How the UK is prolonging the
occupational cancer epidemic
http://www.hazards.org/cancer/
hs...secriticism.htm
Excerpt
The UK approach to occupational cancers fails to take account of the workplace contributions to supposedly “lifestyle” cancers. For example, work stress is associated with poor behaviour patterns, including smoking and other substance abuse behaviours (35).
Workplace exposures can also “potentiate” the effect of tobacco smoke. For example, the synergy between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke is well reported, the combination creating a massively increased risk compared to exposure to either carcinogen alone. And a 2005 paper concluded exposure to wood dust increased the chances of developing not only nasal cancer but also lung cancer, finding the risk of lung cancer was increased by 57 per cent with wood dust exposure in absence of smoking, by 71 per cent for smoking in the absence of wood dust exposure, and by 187 per cent for individuals who were exposed to both smoking and wood dust (20).
Jalestra: Is it your idea that unless we believe as you do, that there is a terrifyingly HUGE risk to smoking and SHS, then what?
Jalestra, the argument is that the reason we don't believe the antitobacco hype is that we are deluding ourselves. This delusion is supposedly attributable to our addiction addiction--but then, this argument is part of the antitobacco hype. Yes, circular logic can make you dizzy...and lead to a severe attack of ASDS.
Am I not risking that I will pass on the flu to someone else and it may kill them?
This is one of the absurdities of required vaccinations. Supposedly, if you are NOT innoculated, then you could get the (contagious) disease and pass it along to someone else who might die from it. Yet, according to the pro-vaccine hype, innoculation will prevent people from dying of the disease. So, if you believe the pro-vaccine hype, then how could someone who has been vaccinated die from catching the disease from you? Absurd the whole way around.
snippet from GreatScot's linked report: For example, the synergy between asbestos exposure and tobacco smoke is well reported, the combination creating a massively increased risk compared to exposure to either carcinogen alone.
That is untrue. People who smoke fare better when exposed to asbestos than nonsmokers. The best I can do for a citation at the moment is:
Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers.
0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers.
Frankly, it's common sense even if you believe that smoking tobacco is deadly. If you smoke, then your body is already in "defence mode." People who smoke have a greater mucus lining and a potent antioxidant (in reduced form) in their lungs. Common sense tells you that *particles* from asbestos would be prevented from embedding in lung tissue that is covered by mucus and tar.
Have I mentioned that a symptom of ASDS is impaired cognitive abilities? *big sigh* I get so tired of this brand of ignorance being hailed as smart, educated and scientific. Sometimes, I think that, if this is really the world of garbage in which people wish to wallow, then maybe we should just let them. That bitchy idiocy (as seen in that report) is part of the hate-mongering being bred in society. Ultimately, there is only one real way for things to play out...and I'm going to live either in a cave or underground until the radiation levels return to normal. *snort*
The propaganda/disinformation campaigns of Big Tobacco Control, the Legal Drug Cartel, and others, reminds me of "Bodyguard of Lies." "The truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
In the case of smoking, SHS, obesity,trans-fats, salt, sugar...the list goes on, it has taken on new meaning:
"The lie is so lucrative it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of more lies."
We have a huge industry employing tens of thousands that, should the lie be exposed, their world would come crashing down.
This industry has a symbiotic relationship with Socialism/Social Engineering.
The money must be kept flowing, the propaganda must continue, censorship must be imposed, the scientific community must be cowed by destroying the careers of any opposed, the media must be subverted, the "disease carriers" must be marginalized and demonized.
Have I read my history wrong? Haven't we been here before and seen the results?
Is a puzzlement...
I am not opposed to the idea of warning people and allowing them to make their own informed decisions. However, I happen to feel that the warnings need to be adequate and that people cannot make a truly informed decision unless certain conditions are met.
Obviously you ARE opposed to the idea, as you’ve shown you don’t feel there is any warning that is adequate enough to suit you, other than to ban smoking in PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES that INVITE the public to enter (implies personal choice of guest).
If there weren’t any or enough smoke free bars and restaurants, then you need to ask yourself why. And I’ll guarantee you that it is NOT because people are not adequately informed, but rather because the majority of those businesses customers were smokers, and the non-smokers who were bothered by the smell were too lazy to exercise their constitutional right to try to make some changes that would accommodate them as well as smokers. Just because you and yours couldn’t be bothered to make an attempt to show your local bars and restaurants that their business wouldn’t suffer if they went smoke free, does not give you the right to then demand the government pass a law to force ALL bars and restaurants to go smoke free.
With regards to secondhand smoke, almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm
Have you asked those 44% why they don’t believe it? I’m guessing you just assume they are not adequately informed, because you cannot fathom someone NOT believing as you believe, even though your belief flies in the face of their very real and personal experiences. Besides, hasn’t it been proven already that your risk ratios are on the low side of risk?
Speaking of warnings, do you really read anything besides TC garbage? Seriously. Have you a clue what is going on around the world? Are you aware that the “sliding slope” has become a steep cliff that we are all hurtling head first over? Have you noticed the censorship that is starting to spread? Are you proud of your work for contributing to the decline of our once free country?
GreatScot, you missed this one:
Item 10:
Equally unlikely to be classified as occupational are the many lung cancers caused by exposure to “nuisance” dusts, for example general building or foundry dusts. Lung cancer is the standout cancer killer, but is overwhelmingly attributed to smoking. In fact, as smoking levels decline in developed nations a much larger than expected number of “never smoked” lung cancers are being seen. Occupation is a clear contributory factor to these cancers.
The last sentence is BS. They do not know. They are bluffing.
http://www.hazards.org/cancer/ hs...secriticism.htm
I did not notice that the article is written by two rent seekers, from the same institute. Of course they would claim the not-dropping lung cancers are occupational... 
GreatScot (again) I can get this number out of Doctors Study:
"by 71 per cent for smoking"
That was for lung cancer.
You are not happy that people know the full risks for smoking Dr Siegel,well,you tell US what you THINK.You see when we ask and put forward REASONED ARGUEMENT,YOU THROW YOUR DUMMY OUT AND CLAM UP.The rest of the rantis refuse to provide scientifically accurate information,so unless the public delve into the available research,they will either (1) believe everything they are told (2) realise the bullshit being spouted and subsequently ignore it all.Dr Siegel you are exacerbating the situation by procrastinating after you have been asked direct questions.TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE AND HOW IT CAN BE ACHIEVED ,IF YOU WON'T PROVIDE IT.440/2 JUST FOR A CHANGE.
Soren: Occupation is a clear contributory factor to these cancers.
Life = occupation, hence life is a contributory factor.
Life without occupation? How boring!
I posted this observation in another blog and it really should be considered when trying to come to grips with this chaos being sold to us by the evening news. Communities have always been successful in keeping businesses in check with a decided advantage over them. It seems lately they may have finally figured it out, and are in the process of turning the tables on us.
Is the Global village really representative of a village, or simply an old style top down organizational structure?
Here is something to kick around in your interpretations of Post modernist debates appropriately more commonly assigned to poetry classes as a great excuse for pot smoking. antidisestablishmentarianism at least had a reality base.
10 years ago the industry convention circuits were abuzz with inclusion as a business model. The right brain vs left brain analysis and elimination of middle management in corporate power structures.
Industry had finally discovered the power of community the top down corporate structures were inefficient because decisions were at the approval of a small management team at the top, who relied on a small but very expensive middle management base. Communities were evolved with discussions and controversy delivering wisdom based common sense formed in the experience of thousands of years of trial and error.
The majority of the employee base was under utilized if used at all in creating solutions to even the most minute problems found in day to day operations. Even ISO certifications were limited in their ability to deal with unique problems which more often than not when dealt with in traditional process increased costs significantly above what should be warranted.
The most significant process developed to cure corporate woes was the inclusion process of "brain storming" taking advantage in very short time frames of perspectives from many sources and the narrowing down of those ideas, to a solution to deal with virtually any problem which may arise. The inclusions of the floor sweepers gave ownership of the success of a company, to all members who felt empowered and through that empowerment a responsible to help a company succeed. In short; working with me not not for me.
Realizing this was a more efficient model most of the largest corporate entities on the planet set out to downsize, not the workers but the middle mangers, who's duties would fall to the workers, and save billions in the process.
This was found to be so efficient the idea came forward almost by accident. If community replication was so powerful wouldn't it be justified to swap positions and let them adapt to a top down management system and take the advantage away; Hello Globalization and the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child". When in a more accurate perspective that village has been replaced by the UN management team and Public Health agencies are being installed every where to do the middle management jobs modeled after the Taliban with the watchers on the corner. The rest of us? all irrelevant all of a sudden.
OK let's try the Barbara WaWA tac for an answer.
Si has stated that you fell out of your tree, what kind of a tree were you in?
I accept the reasonableness of the argument some people are making that people can't be "adequately informed" about the risks of secondhand smoke under my definition because secondhand smoke is not actually a severe threat to health. I have always stated that it is not unreasonable for people to disagree, and unlike many (?all) of my colleagues, I have refused to accuse anyone who disagrees of being a tobacco front.
But this is the point: what it comes down to is a disagreement about whether secondhand smoke is a severe health threat. Once one accepts that it is a severe threat, then I don't think one can argue that people are adequately informed of the risk (since 44% of the population does not believe it is a serious risk).
If I am wrong, and it's not a serious threat, then the argument against smoking bans is that they are unnecessary because secondhand smoke is not a serious threat. The argument against smoking bans cannot be that people are adequately informed about the risk and so we don't need to protect them. You can't advance both arguments at the same time, because if you refuse to accept that secondhand smoke is a serious hazard, then there is no way for people to be adequately informed of the seriousness of the risk -- such a risk doesn't exist.
I think I would offer the same point with regards to smoking. Many people are arguing that smoking is not as serious a health risk as some are saying (for example, that it does not kill half of its long-term users). If one makes that argument, then one cannot also argue that people are adequately warned that smoking kills half of its long-term users. The statement that smoking kills half of its long-term users may be false, but the compelling argument against anti-smoking campaigns which inform smokers that their chances of dying from smoking are 50% is that it's not true, not that people are already adequately informed of the risk.
Doctor-----' I have always stated that it is not unreasonable for people to disagree, and unlike many (?all) of my colleagues, I have refused to accuse anyone who disagrees of being a tobacco front'
No, just accused us of being callous for not going along with everything you say.
' If one makes that argument, then one cannot also argue that people are adequately warned that smoking kills half of its long-term user'
But Doctor LIFE kills ALL of it users---long-term or not.
Last time I checked, we are not born into this world and presented with a 'Book of Warnings--How to Get Out Alive' the size of a Buick. Somehow most of us manage without that kind of 'assistance'
.
.
It's been years since I read Fountainhead. It's still a big seller
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reila.../
reiland20.html
Is this what you are after, Doctor?
'There are many ways, he says, to destroy a man's soul. "Here's one. Make a man feel small. Make him feel guilty." Instill "a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness." To cement the obedience, "Don't allow men to be happy," "kill their joy of living," "take away from them whatever is dear or important to them."
The result – a man afraid of not being controlled. "His soul gives up its self-respect. You've got him. He'll obey. He'll be glad to obey – because he can't trust himself, he feels uncertain, he feels unclean."
Are you really interested in guiding us toward a place where we will not know what to do (behave like, think like .....) without your (public health) controls?
.
"You can't advance both arguments at the same time, because if you refuse to accept that secondhand smoke is a serious hazard, then there is no way for people to be adequately informed of the seriousness of the risk -- such a risk doesn't exist."
What in the world are you talking about? Seriously. That basically amounts to nonsense.
Who says anyone is advancing both of those positions? I mean it. I have no idea what you are talking about.
And to be perfectly frank, why CAN'T you advance both? Let's say that someone comes up with a theory that says exposure to, say, hamburger grease is dangerous. And therefore insists on a hamburger ban to protect employees.
I don't need to be an expert--or have any views whatsoever--on the accuracy of claims about the risk. I might. But I don't need to. And I can STILL be against the hamburger ban. How? I can argue instead for sharing all of the risk data with potential employees. And any potential employees who believe the claims can get a job at a pizza place instead.
Now, if I do a little more research, I might discover that the studies supporting the hamburger risk claim are a bunch of crap. That they are exaggerated, overblown and otherwise wrong.
But I could STILL accept that some people, for whatever reason, agree with what I consider crap. And in the interest of accomodation, I could still support legislation requiring employers to share the data with prospective employees. Anything to keep the government from taking the drastic step of a ban.
Why couldn't I do that? Where is the logical inconsistency? And why can't I do the same with SHS?
Are you seriously trying to propose some sort of ridiculous Catch-22 scenario, in which the only way you can support warnings is if you agree that there is no safe level of SHS? And that if think there is a safe level of SHS, you can't support a warning?
My god man, you are twisting yourself into some kind of knots.
Seriously. Go back and read that last post slowly. Does it still make sense to you?
And while you at it, if we are going to turn our attention to the actual risk levels, maybe you could go ahead and tell us how you determined those 220 bartenders would die.
But not before you clarify what you are getting at now. Sheesh. I have never seen anything like it. Is this what you were getting at with your whole ruse about accepting a warning? Wow. It was even weaker than I thought.
But do keep in mind that it was, in fact, a ruse. Total BS. You concocted this bizarre gotcha scenario, never intending to back away from bans.
You lied.
And that bit about active smoking is even worse. What do you mean SHS skeptics can't argue that people are "adequately warned"? In my book, adequately warned means informed of both sides of the debate and left alone to make their own decisions.
In your book, it means "agrees with me."
Seriously. I don't believe that a meteor is going to crash into my wife's butt tomorrow if she goes to church. But I am sure someone could go ahead and calculate the odds of that happening. There might even be controversy. Some scientists might say it can't happen. Others might say there is X likelihod. Others might say the likelihood is 5X. Doonsayers might say 100,000X.
But even if I am a complete skeptic and I don't think it can happen at all, I could still explain the risks to her. That is, I could explain how the different theories came about.
And in doing so, I would be giving her full, fair warning about the risks of a meteor hitting her butt. Even though don't believe it at all.
Similary, even though I think your 220 dead bartenders rank up there with unicorn-riding leprechauns, I am astute enough to understand your point of view and warn prospective smokers and bartenders accordingly.
Just like a Muslim Scholar is certainly capable of studying the Book of Revelations and explaining the "warnings" contained therein to Christians and nonchristians alike. Just like my mom warned me all about the perils of angering Santa Claus. ]
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Clearly, you can warn people about dangers you do not think are real.
"Once one accepts that it is a severe threat, then I don't think one can argue that people are adequately informed of the risk (since 44% of the population does not believe it is a serious risk)."
Another example to shatter this nonsense:
I believe that smoking bans are a dire threat to individual liberty. I think it is obvious. And I have been trying to warn people.
But they keep voting for bans.
Is that because they are not adequately warned? I don't think so. I think they define "liberty" and "threat" and "dire" differently than I do. And I believe it is quite possible that, given full information, they would STILL disagree with me. I hope not. But I believe it to be possible.
You don't. You measure knowledge in terms of agreement with your own position. People who disagree with you just don't know enough. Or are too damn stupid for their own good. Which is why you need to pass laws just to make sure they comply.
I can admit that some people just flat out disagree with me.
You can't.
Seriously. Please answer: In what sense are Drs.Gori and Whelan misinformed? Would more warnings heko them? What would the warnings say?
Why are they allowed to disagree, but the other 43 percent of people are not? Bartenders are just too dumb, I guess.
Sam M 'You don't. You measure knowledge in terms of agreement with your own position. People who disagree with you just don't know enough. Or are too damn stupid for their own good. Which is why you need to pass laws just to make sure they comply.'
We will never 'know' enough for the control freaks, Sam. Enough is NEVER enough for them. I was married to one, I work for one. When the smokers have been eliminated, they will all go onto another quest. A shame really. All the money in the world spent on a education and this is how they choose to spend there knowledge.
I would be ashamed if this were the results of my raising.
.
The argument against smoking bans cannot be that people are adequately informed about the risk and so we don't need to protect them.
You are assuming that the only possibility is that either tobacco smoke poses a *serious* health threat or it does not pose any risk. That is faulty reasoning. For example, in most situations, secondhand smoke poses no threat; however, next to a gas pump, smoking could be considered a very hazardous threat and kill lots of nonsmoking bystanders. So, yes, even if SHS does not pose a serious health risk, some cautions could still be deemed reasonable. I can think of other, less dramatic, examples.
You can't advance both arguments at the same time....
No, you can't. But, again, you are assuming that there are only two possibilities. Either SHS/ETS is a serious health threat and, therefore, no warning is appropriate because it should simply be avoided at all costs. Or, SHS/ETS poses no threat under any circumstance and, therefore, no warning is necessary.
You completely miss the fact that the threat is not true for *most* people. Consider you own example, "Many people are arguing that smoking is not as serious a health risk as some are saying (for example, that it does not kill half of its long-term users)." Okay, suppose that tobacco companies really do kill half of their customers. List the assumptions you need to make.
1) 50% of all tobacco users die of a "tobacco-related disease"
2) Ignore the fact that many of these people who smoke will die at a ripe old age of a "tobacco-related disease"
3) Ignore the fact that many of the people who die of "tobacco related diseases" actually got the diseases from somewhere else, e.g. asbestos, silica, overwhelmed by diesel fumes on a daily basis, nickel in their dental work, whatever...
4) Assume that treatment for "tobacco-related diseases" will not improve by the time people who are currently smoking actually contract one of those diseases (despite the exorbitant taxes we've paid in the name of overwhelming medical expenses)
Even if we make the above three assumptions, we still haven't addressed the fact that half of the tobacco users do NOT die of "tobacco-related diseases". This is one of the biggies that your colleagues' ASDS prevents them from addressing. Within the smoking population, either everybody is the same or people are different. Agreed?
1) Everybody is the same. If smoking poses a serious risk to all people, then all people who smoke will die from smoking. Because half of the people who smoke do NOT die from it, then tobacco is not the culprit, i.e., tobacco did not kill the first 50%--but our third wild assumption above assumes otherwise. #
2) People are different. Under this assumption, if we believe that smoking tobacco kills half the smoking population, then we would look at what makes those who were killed different from those who were not killed. The lack--or scarcity--of research along these lines is the big tip-off that tobacco is merely being used as a scapegoat. But, okay, under our first wild assumption, 50% of all tobacco users will be killed by "tobacco-related diseases" and, therefore, we should WARN people that 50% of all people who smoke will die of a disease that we BELIEVE is caused by tobacco use.
Getting back to the point at hand, namely passive smoking....the only reasonable assumption is that people are different. Even if we ASSUME that epi studies have sufficiently shown that a SEVERE threat exists, the effect is small enough and confidence weak enough that SHS threat is untrue/nonexistent for most (or all) people.
Again, referring to your own words, "Once one accepts that it is a severe threat..." This very statement tells all. You ACCEPT that SHS/ETS is a severe theat--and that is the reason that you are not bothered by a lack of PROOF for the threat. (That is the problem with the OEHHA report; it ACCEPTS a threat rather than PROVES it--although, there is one instance that I believe needs further investigation.) This is the reason that you are not bothered by 220 nonexistent dying bartenders...or SAMMEC...or passing laws based on faulty reports...or.....
If you really believe that passive smoking poses ANY threat and you are uncomfortable with that, then most people will grant you the latitude of issuing a warning to those whom you believe are in harm's way. However, rearranging society according to a false religion is unacceptable.
The argument against smoking bans cannot be that people are adequately informed about the risk and so we don't need to protect them.
Yes it can. They are lied to about the risks, in fact, most believe the risk is MORE than it actually is. Are they stupid enough to STILL walk into a place with SHS if they believe it's the deadliest thing on the planet? Wow Doc, is no one even half as smart as you? I'm surprised we don't have people drinking bleach...I mean, we know the dangers, but we still need people to protect us. Because even knowing the dangers we're all stupid enough to drink it.
Doc, it must be very very hard to live in a world where you are the only one not functionally retarded.
Wow, Sam. A few shout-outs? Go for it.
Sunz...I've been working on updating my little vita-esque thingy today. ( http://www.stahlheart.com/author.html ) Added a new one, updated another, put up some MatLab/ForTran/executable progs and some data sets...why do I do it? I don't use a vita. *thpt* Still, my head was spinning and then I came across Kevin's last post and *then* my brain started to hurt. Now, you throw Fountainhead at me? Man, oh, man. I really need to stick to decaf. LOL! Have I written anything that made sense today? :-/
Oh, BTW, I've been invited to read my little short story on the radio. Cool?
Jalestra: I'm surprised we don't have people drinking bleach...
Me, too.
I think I'll take a bath...in a thunderstorm. Well, shoot, nobody on the Weather Channel told me not to! And I don't see a warning label on the bathub. Must be safe.
Are these healthists gonna take away my raw cookie dough?! *grumble*
Sam,
Nothing more than my opinion...
Even aside from differences of opinion about SHS associated risk --
I think you are pointing out a problem with the public health community that Michael doesn't see yet. But he's stuck on it. Which is making him sound... odd.
As public health has moved more and more toward "lifestyle" issues - many of the older "beliefs" have been inappropriately carried over. For example, the belief that most people, being informed, would make the same choice. That is, you tell most people that that water is full of harmful bacteria, most people won't drink it. It would be most unusual for anyone to claim a *right* to drink the water. Thus you could measure your success (at informing or educating) by behavior change.
Obviously, I believe that this way of thinking is now a problem for some areas of public health. The behaviors public health now seeks to change are much more complex. And the assessment of risk is also more complex. With lifestyle issues, there are competing desires, values, needs, beliefs, situations, rights, culture, etc... All the things we talk about here. Michael sees that -- but he's still stuck in the old paradigm.
So, while acknowleding that there are competing interests, on another level he really believes that if behavior change isn't happening voluntarily, public health must coerce it. Because that is the measure of success.
Obviously, I believe the paradigm must change, and that the success of public health (with regard to lifestyle issues) should be measured by the provision of accurate information, rather than the behavioral results of that information.
Or else -- public health has no choice but to hound us - and we're never going to get any sleep.
GDF
Mr Siegel, you are so full of dung, I would die laughing if I thought you were making a joke.
Because YOU believe SHS and even primary smoking to be a severe threat, that a large portion does NOT believe means they don't understand the risks? Really? And yet, when just a few of us point out that your own "risk assessment" of race car drivers was sorely lacking, you hmmm...imagine that, I didn't realize it was so risky", yet have not begun any campaign as you said you would to have racing banned, risks we can prove, with the names of the victims to back it up, and even video evidence of direct results of death from the activity. You have an RR of 1.19, period, a risk factor so low as to be confounded by pure chance in EVERY OTHER use of the same values, and you say WE aren't adequately informed of the risks associated? We have begged, pleaded, cajoled, threatened and even asked politely for your evidence of this compelling risk of "serious threat", you, as usual, have said NOTHING to defend your position or the "science" you used to come to these conclusions. I can tell you right now, I may not be as "smart" as you, but I am proven to be smarter (more intelligent, and quick witted), than the average person, based upon acadamia's own standardized tests. I can tell you I have trained myself to read exactly how these "tobacco smoke studies" are conducted and what there limitations are. ANd I can tell you, oh great educator, that I am fully capable of learning what you have to teach, are you capable of the same? Can you honestly say that if we could produce a study showing negative health consequences or even health benefits from smoking and exposure to SHS, that after reading it, it would change your preconcieved perception of the "harm" you claim is absolutely CAUSED by exposure to tobacco smoke? You are a great danger to us all sir, a far greater danger than tobacco could ever be proven to be, for you try to foist your belief on others, without benefit of showing what experiences led you to these belief's, without putting forth the "science" you, personally used to come to these conclusions. You are far worse than the Bill's, Jill's ding dongs and others, for at least with them, we know they are irrational in their belief, and driven to overcome whatever the costs to others may be, but you, you are the sneaky little bastard, callously pimping your agenda while double speaking that you believe "they" are lying and should be held to the truth, the same exact standard we demand of you, yet you duck and dodge and weave far better than "they" do, and then wonder why we don't believe you? All we have EVER asked you for, is how you came to your conclusions, and to seriously consider what those conclusions mean in regard to all other risks faced everyday, by everybody, to put them into perspective, stacked against the other risks taken voluntarily by everybody, or even those few who work in high risk situations such as race car drivers, coal miners, astronauts (even when they are drinking before flying lol), etc, etc, yet the best you can do is retreat to your hyperbole about the "severe threat" of a substance that has never been proven to be THE cause of a single death, and if you have that proof, provide it now, and you win, the debate is over, just name one person you can prove died from either direct smoking, or exposure to second hand tobacco smoke, not one person who died of cancer, for cancer has been proven to affect those who have NEVER been exposed to tobacco, unless you have the proof that it was exposure to tobacco smoke that CAUSED the disease. Can't do it can you? You are still a hypocrite and a liar, and you deserve whatever flack these people give you for all the callousness of your posts leading them to believe that you were a reasonable person who did want to discuss the science used and to provide for a true debate about the merits of the science, and then took it all away with observations such as " I am better" than the rest of you, you couldn't possibly understand for you do not have my education, well, mr educator, teach us then, and remember, just because you are the teacher, doesn't mean that your students cant surpass you. I once proved an entire chapter in an algebra class wrong, it took me most of the year, and I was at odds with that teacher the entire time, for he, like you, refused to believe that a student could understand the principles being taught better than he could teach them, in the end, it was not me who had egg on his face, and the school was not happy that a mere student had proven the text chosen by the teacher was wrong. Just because you believe it, does not make it any better than faith, and since you seem so unwilling to discuss your science and how it led to your proof, I can only assume that you aren't that confident in your own findings.
So much red meat here it's hard to know where to begin (or continue since others have already). So I'll wade in first with stats.
Dr. Siegel, it's quite clear you're quoting this week's released Gallup Poll when you report "44% do not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful."
That's the total of
Somewhat Harmful = 29%
Not Too Harmful = 10%
Not At All Harmful = 5%
That leaves 56% that answered Very Harmful in regards to the risk they feel from ETS.
Following just one line of your reasoning about "an accurate understanding of the magnitude of the risk" then one should not ignore other questions in this poll about banning smoking and where.
In Workplaces (offices) 56% think that smoking should NOT be totally banned -- that either Areas Should be Set Aside (52%) or No Restrictions at all (3%). 1% was No Opinion.
In Bars 71% think that smoking should NOT be totally banned - that either Areas Should be Set Aside (45%) or No Restrictions at all (23%). 3% was No Opinion.
Only in Restaurants did the numbers lean toward more of a total restriction with 48% thinking that smoking should NOT be totally banned - that either Areas Should be Set Aside(42%) or No Restrictions at all (3%). 1% was No Opinion.
You know what that tells me? That people's opinion rely on their nose/comfort level, NOT their understanding (and they do) of the magnitude of the risk. They basically REJECT the risk in their calculations. More want smoking totally banned in restaurants because?... Hmmm, to them, where there's food and eating there shouldn't be smoke.
I repeat, they basically REJECT the risk in their calculations because some of the 56% who live up to your satisfaction by agreeing that ETS is Very Harmful CROSS OVER into at least allowing smoking in Separate Areas in Workplaces and Bars. I didn't even bother trotting out the Hotel/Motel figures where 66% don't feel a need for a total ban.
According to your view of the situation how can that be? They've met your requirement and still want to allow accomodations for smoking.
They key phrase seems to be what people BELIEVE
almost half of the public (44%) does not believe that secondhand smoke is very harmful. So how can we say that workers are adequately informed about the risks if nearly half of them don't think it represents a serious harm."
and we're into religion (belief). No matter how many times to tell me and tell me how Leda, the Swan, gave birth to the War God, I just don't believe it.
The point is: you can't make people BELIEVE things they don't...well, believe. (Perhaps they don't BELIEVE that secondhand smoke is" very harmful" because nothing in their 30, 40, 60 or 70 years of living has ever presented an empirical example. Just as I've never seen a demi-god swan getting sexy with Zeus.???)
And here's yet another thing I may not believe: that half of all smokers will die from smoking. Yes, I do believe that smoking (plus something unknown and perhaps genetic) presents a far greater risk of lung disease including cancer. But 90%-92% of smokers will never get lung cancer so a lot of other ultimately fatal diseases have to be magically-- or mathematically-- attributed to smoking.
The rest of those Numbers come straight from SAMMEC, which is still, AFAIK, attributing 13% of the deaths from cervical cancer to smoking when it's now been shown that 99+% of it is caused by a virus. It continues to arbitrarily assign a % of deaths from almost all causes except possibly plane crashes to smoking, often by postulating bizarre and occasionally baroque scenarios of biological "plausibility" to justify the stat.
So I'm not too sure I "believe" that one either.
:
Dr Siegel,you have told us your views,now obviously your views are based upon YOUR STUDIES,which have been questioned by those QUALIFIED to do so.SO HOW ABOUT ANSWERING US,RATHER THAN ACTING LIKE A DEMENTED CLAM ?WHAT ABOUT "THE POISON IS IN THE DOSE ? DO YOU VIEW THIS AS IRRELEVANT ?YOU STATE YOU WANT MORE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY,I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE.660/3.
JTF something to consider in the numbers above the smoking population is believed to be less than 25% indicating the numbers do not reflect people voting according to personal comfort levels a significant number of non smokers are using common sense.
And that would include informed opinions weighing all the evidence available. Some people are starting to listen.
I really should ask Michael in his learned opinion; how many repetitions does it take to properly inform someone anyway?
DTB;
A talented writer who develops Progs in MatLab, I am entirely impressed.
I prefer LabView Myself the best of both worlds, existing MatLab developments can be integrated into a GCME or GUI that doesn't make your head hurt [or nearly as much]. LOL
Doctor,
Would a full, fair warning include access to information about how public health officials derive their risk figures? Or should bartenders and other members of the general public simply accept any and all claims at face value?
Do you have any responsibility as a public health official to explain what you mean by "risk," and to reveal the methodology you emplyed in your work?
I guess not. Otherwise you would not refuse to discuss the 220 dead bartenders.
Does that sound like a legitimate movement to you? Or does it sound more like a dishonest crusade?
And once you reveal your methodology... what to make of anyone who draws different conclusions? Will you contnue to insist that they are not adequately warned? Will you continue to insist that Drs. Whelan and Gori have insufficient intellects? (They would have too, wouldn't they? Because they obviously have access to the same info you used, and they still insist SHS is not a dire health threat.)
You know, you say you were brainwashed when you used to say anyone who disagreed with you was a tobacco shill. But do you really think it is an improvement to say, instead, that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?
I know, you will say that is not what you are getting at. But look at your own arguments. You say that 44 percent of people disagree with you, and glibly attribute that to a lack of knowledge or understanding instead of even considering the possibility that there are two ways of looking at the issue.
This seems of a piece with your claim that anyone who opposes a ban is a callous jerk intent on killing as many bartenders as possible.
That's nasty business all around. We've come to expect more of you.
Sam;
I would like to see a little more discussion of how the media misreads the research numbers consistently.
Reporting 30% increased risk of developing a disease if you are exposed, supporting a lobby position.
While at the same time in apparent ignorance when advocating for safety in exposures to other dangers reporting a .3 increased risk.
Both presentations are technically reporting the same findings, however one form has a considerable increased ability in promoting fear than the other.
It is really sad Health Care experts have not properly informed the public of this confused style of presentation, which would severely impair the public perception in weighing the facts provided.
Apparently none of the experts even noticed? Or at least they are pretty quiet, indicating an apparent consensus in comfort with the practice of misdirection.
Repetition is a necessary part of informing the public and misdirection is acceptable if it helps to sell what is being repeated.
What was it Hitler said about telling lies?
What transpires when "specialists" are called on their research,another falls out of their tree, http://freedom2choose.co.uk/art1...k/art1.php?
id=4
Perhaps if we bastardised a cigarette warning already in use ? "DR SIEGEL STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY SMOKING KILLS" we could eradicate the views of those who perceive that LIVING IS TERMINAL ?
What's shocking to me is the length to which the doctor would go to force doubters to comply with his findings.
Even people who think flouride in the water supply is a Communist plot are allowed to live their lives. They can go wherever they like and order a bottled water. Etc. Similarly, restauranters are allowed to cater to customers who are suspicious of genetically modified foods--even though some people argue that GM is better for you.
Clearly, there exists a segment of the population that does not agree with doctor Siegel about SHS. There exists a cadre of business owners eager to cater to that segment of the population. And there exists a cadre of workers willing to work in that environment.
Not some sort of whacko fringe. We're talking 44 percent of the population, by the doctor's own telling.
So how does he respond? With a more aggressive education campaign? With a more intensive study proving his point more convincingly? Clever advertisements? A proposal to ensure that 56 percent of hospitality jobs are in smoke-free places?
No. He responds with a proposal to send police officers into bars and restaurants to FORCE people--every single one of them--to comply with his version of the truth. A proposal that he freely admits will destroy at least some businesses.
All because these people are not sufficiently warned. Which can't account for the fact that the doctor has spent the last few years countering EXAGGERATED warnings about SHS. And despite the fact that the ALA, CTFK, ACA and other trusted public health organizations have been parroting these lies to millions upon millions of people who now believe brief exposure to SHS can kill them in five seconds.
How much more warned can people be?
And why the insistence on complete control? Why not set aside 44 percent of bar stools for the idiots who think SHS isn't a threat? Ten percent? One percent?
Methinks there is a larger agenda.
Dr Siegel, wrt SHS, accomodating people who smoke and acknowledging the previous comments.
My question: What would change your belief that SHS/ETS posed a serious public health threat?
west
----
As public health has moved more and more toward "lifestyle" issues -
This has also happened to journalism and 'news' as well. How informed are we about real issues by these supposed founts of information is a joke.
Saw a program last night FoxNews Watch. When it came time to discuss the Lindsey Lohan story one man tore up the story on camera!!! Stated this was not 'news' and Fox News, CBS etc should not identify themselves as news organizations.
~snip~
'Fine. Just don't call it "Fox News Channel," the "CBS Evening News," etc. How about: "The Human Train Wreck Network"?'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mar...ver-lohan-
story
Someone, of note, in the scientific community, needs to do likewise.
Perhaps than will start to end the useless garbage we are fed from them as well. Otherwise I just look at it all as the latest chapter of 'As the Stomach Turns'
Just a thought from my puny brain who doesn't understand much of anything.
.
In earlier posts Michael indicated he had friends who smoke.
The question would be; if he would feel uncomfortable or fearful discussing the day having a couple of drinks over say a couple of hours in that friend's company.
Just to guys having a drink, while that friend smoked in comfort.
Or would he feel it necessary to flee the room in fear?
Assuming he would feel comfortable would he still feel comfortable doing it once a week once a month or god forbid once a day.
In the perspective being repeated to the public once would not be advisable because there is no safe level of the cursed smoke. So once a day would have the same effects as once in a lifetime.
This of course begs the question if most have already been exposed at some point revealed by the number of people who have suffered smelly clothes and hair. What is the point of the bans?
If any level of exposure leads to the predicted effects in seconds consistent with the no safe level directive, you can't kill someone who is already dead.
So what is the harm in letting them live out their remaining years in comfort?
Kevin----'So what is the harm in letting them live out their remaining years in comfort?'
Since the malcontents in life cannot seems to master the art of washing their own hair, it would remain smelly and they counld never deal with that. They would not be 'comfortable' with that, therefore, the rest of us will find no comfort.
Bah
So it boils down to the smell again.
If the nasty tasting gum can be reformed to be sold in exciting new flavors, perhaps the cigarette companies could end the majority of complaits by making them smell better.
When I smoke an aromatic colt, I am told all the time how wonderful they smell, primarily by non smokers.
How strange is that?
In the real world Kevin, not strange at all. But with the neurotics we are not in the real world. The doctor and others in public health continue to bow to the needs of the few and the real world be damned.
Its a mystery to me!
WARNING! Purchasing of these products may promote employee abuse. The companies selling this product own/control many of the farming fields where materials contained in this product are grown. The owners take advantage and abuse undocumented workers (illegal aliens/see note bottom). The Surgeon General and the Secretary of Labor have determined that because of the epidemic of abuse of undocumented workers that additional taxes on this product are required to protect these undocumented workers from abuse and to provide health care for their children above those that the current Medicaide program is providing now. The Center For Disease and Control has determined the users of this product cost society XXX...billions of dollars a year to justify additional excise taxes on this product. If abuse is observed please call this toll free number 1-800-SAVEMEX
ADDITIONAL WARNING: From note reference above. Illegal Aliens is not a Politically Correct term it is considered prejudicial and discrinatory. The Politically Correct term is Undocumented Workers. The undocumented workers being in the USA against the law is not the purpose of this warning. Please turn in the abusers only.
ADDITIONAL WARNING: In many states the burning or smoking of this product is illegal in enclosed and posted areas due to a slight risk of others. If observing anyone doing this please turn these criminals in to the national hotline at 1-800-JAILCIG.
FINAL WARNING: This product may kill you but by using this product you are supporting the health care of undocumented workers kids not to mention just about anything else.
Also provided en esapnol.
BTW Kevin, Perhaps we could have training sessions in how to wash your hair and cleanse your clothing after SHS exposure. That seems to be the 'cost effective' way for society and for the ASDS crowd to deal with this.
Kevin, you could even teach the class!!!
I get the sense people get confused including those in both camps locally the smoking debate is not a community derived conflict.
Although the Industry advocates and professionals are a necessary evil in communities, in a broader sense communities are traditionally independent of the governments and soothsayers who seek to control them.
TC is a top down "control" promotion and once enlightened to that fact, those who live in real world communities. tend to see the discussion in a decidedly different light.
Communities real ones are formed by common experience. Top down corporate structures fail consistently when in competition with traditional community values.
Perhaps Michael has a point, the problem rests with public education and in properly distributing the evidence so people can make informed decisions.
Now, if we only had equal access to the information networks and the money taken out of our pockets to enhance that education. I don't suppose any of the top down educators of ethics and informed choices or any of the policy makers could help us out here?
Not likely.
Kevin---"Perhaps Michael has a point, the problem rests with public education and in properly distributing the evidence so people can make informed decisions."
But Michael thinks he is the only one capable of informing the public. He will not clarify his 'evidence' we find ourselves in a dilema. And if you don't agree with him, you are too dumb to know what he is saying.
What is a 'community' to do then?
.
"In my book, adequately warned means informed of both sides of the debate and left alone to make their own decisions."
This is exactly what the tobacco industry argued for years about smoking, while they denied that smoking caused cancer and created their own "debate".
And this is why I do not accept your argument for "adequately" warning people as opposed to just getting rid of the secondhand smoke in restaurants.
Adequately warning people means that they would be warned of the serious health effects of secondhand smoke, not told about the "other" side of the debate and listen to the unscientific information about, for example, secondhand smoke not being a cause of thousands of asthma attacks.
This is my whole point. You are not serious about creating a serious warning. This idea of presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning. What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?
The warning labels are a caveat. They are an invitation to carelessness.
Firstly, by focusing the smokers attention so strongly on smoking, it invites the smoker not to worry about taking care of himself. Why should he? Smoking is 'worst'.
Secondly, the exact same point can be made for non-smokers. Since the too can see the warning, it will make them feel invicible. It does not matter what they do, because they don't smoke, and that's the 'worst'.
The effects of this singletracked propaganda can be clearly inspected in cancer statistics.
They do not 'protect' anybody, they expose everybody to more damage.
"This is my whole point. You are not serious about creating a serious warning. This garbage about presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning. What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?'
The circle debate continues. This should be interesting.
I have to go feed my horses.
Check back with 'y'all' later.
.
Would anyone consider this "editorial" a fair "warning" of the risks involved with tobacco smoke?
http://www.in-forum.com/Opinion/...articles/
173292
excerpt "The pro-smoke (pro-poison in your air) gang surely understands that even businesses can be wrong. Think asbestos in insulation, lead in paint, mercury in thermometers – all legal products at one time. Environmental tobacco smoke is on the same track. As usual, the public in Fargo, West Fargo and across the nation is way ahead of tobacco’s myopic defenders.
Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper’s Editorial Board.".
As Kevin asked, would any of the top down educators of ethics and informed choices...help us out here?
I mean truly, the vitriol spewed by this "editorial" makes no bones about saying ANY exposure is absolutely dangerous, and that anyone who disagrees is a pro poison spewing idiot, this is the major news media for the entire region, and their "opinion" has nothing to do with reputable facts, it is plain that the editorial staff is as rigidly Anti minded as a Bill Godshall, Kathy ding dong, etc, etc.
And all the while, not caring one whit for the business's effected, the personal cost in lives and taxation of the socially "poorer" classes, and gleefully promote the hatred of anyone who dares to make a different choice.
While it would not be all that big a deal iof it were confined to this one paper, or news media outlet, the fact is, this is being repeated throughout the world, and you still say that trumps free choice? that the evidence exists to warrant this type of behaviour? Well, thats what we have continuosly asked you for Siegel, that very evidence, Most of us have stated at one time or another, show us the proof and we will not only quit fighting this, we will join your (BTC) fight against this "deadly" toxic waste, yet whenever asked for scientific proof, and not simply a mathematical model that definately includes errors in input (as in Garbage in = garbage out), NONE of you can provide it, in ANY other risk assessment venue, the concrete proof is available, and demonstratable, yet a few incidences of increased risk, or the by chance encounter of those who suffer from a disease and also happen to smoke are considered prro enough to force others free choices to be taken away? I don't think so, the revolution has begun, it will end like all revolutions, with many paying the ultimate price for freedom to choose, and many suffering simple collateral damage as a direct result of some trying to force others to their belief's, and I know which side I will be on, and it will not be the side telling us that a few can and should make the choice for all.
Doc: But this is the point: what it comes down to is a disagreement about whether secondhand smoke is a severe health threat. Once one accepts that it is a severe threat, then I don't think one can argue that people are adequately informed of the risk (since 44% of the population does not believe it is a serious risk).
Am I interpreting this correctly? I mean I had to read it several times to be sure I was actually reading it accurately. Are you seriously suggesting that YOUR belief is that one HAS to believe that SHS is a severe health threat before you consider them adequately informed? And ONLY then can you accept their disagreement (which is no longer disbelief)?
You have got to be joking. Please tell me this really isn’t your philosophy. Disagreeing and believing are not the same. I might believe you and disagree with your methods, but I cannot believe you AND disbelieve you at the same time. Did you even read what you wrote there?
That statement doesn’t smack of serious control freak tendancies, it knocks you up-side the head with a couple of 2x4’s.
I can’t believe you actually said that. You’re getting scarier by the day Doc.
Sunz: Make a man feel small. Make him feel guilty." Instill "a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness."
Isn’t this exactly what organized religions do? At least I know the Catholic Church does.
Are you really interested in guiding us toward a place where we will not know what to do (behave like, think like .....) without your (public health) controls?
I’d say the answer to that is more and more every day, an obvious YES. Sorry, I refuse to submit to this tyranny. It’ll be over my dead body.
A shame really. All the money in the world spent on a education and this is how they choose to spend there knowledge.
The even bigger sin here is all the money being spent on all this control freak BS when there are bigger issues that would benefit from those dollars………….like, I don’t know, world hunger, housing the homeless, finding real causes and cures for diseases…to name a few.
Since the malcontents in life cannot seems to master the art of washing their own hair, it would remain smelly and they could never deal with that. They would not be 'comfortable' with that, therefore, the rest of us will find no comfort.
Well, in the attempt to be fair here, it’s really not that can’t handle washing their own hair, it’s just they can’t be bothered washing it more than once a week (and not for nothing but for men that is totally and disgustingly lazy).
Sam M:
Even people who think flouride in the water supply is a Communist plot are allowed to live their lives. They can go wherever they like and order a bottled water.
Ummmm, that might not be so for much longer. San Francisco is trying to ban bottled water as is Wisconsin. The reason? Too much trash and recycling. They are trying to force everyone into drinking their “treated” tap water.
West2 to the Doc: My question: What would change your belief that SHS/ETS posed a serious public health threat?
Allow me to respond for the Doc here. ‘Nothing. I cannot and will not ever believe that SHS is NOT a serious public health threat, because less than 1% of the population MUST be catered to by the other 99+% of the population. And then there is the fact that I personally don’t like the smell.’
And this is why I do not accept your argument for "adequately" warning people as opposed to just getting rid of the secondhand smoke in restaurants.
Adequately warning people means that they would be warned of the serious health effects of secondhand smoke, not told about the "other" side of the debate and listen to the unscientific information about, for example, secondhand smoke not being a cause of thousands of asthma attacks.
This is my whole point. You are not serious about creating a serious warning. This idea of presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning. What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?
Then you agree, adequate warning/information is ONLY YOUR side of the issue? NO other facts, studies, ideas can be presented or included.
Doctor Siegel, to hear an educator say that scares the hell out of me. A REAL educator encourages debate, encourages critical thinking, encourages showing ALL points of view.
You can't accept that because you know damned well YOUR point of view is weak and you canNOT prove your facts.
Where's the proof that SHS CAUSES anything.........and to clarify this for you......the general public considers "cause" to be absolute and NOT "an increase in risk". There, I want your proof using MY definition of "cause".
IF your case were truly solid and strong, you would not be so intimidated and afraid for people to hear ALL sides of the issue.
And I think that about sums it all up. You just cannot and will not accept that there really is another side, and that even you are using and depending upon FALSIFIED information to suit your personal agenda.
I do believe you just proved that here today.
"This is exactly what the tobacco industry argued for years about smoking, while they denied that smoking caused cancer and created their own "debate".
And this is why I do not accept your argument for "adequately" warning people as opposed to just getting rid of the secondhand smoke in restaurants.
Adequately warning people means that they would be warned of the serious health effects of secondhand smoke, not told about the "other" side of the debate and listen to the unscientific information about, for example, secondhand smoke not being a cause of thousands of asthma attacks.
This is my whole point. You are not serious about creating a serious warning. This idea of presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning. What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 10:34 am | # ".
Ahhh, I see, we are back to being big tobacco schills again - Shame on you Michael.
And does "adequate" warning include the lies put forth by Anti's as gospel? I notice we are back to "serious health effects of secondhand smoke", as opposed to "risks" again as well, please quantify the actual "effects" that can be proven in every case good educator.
"What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?", well to start - how many attacks are prevented by use of tobacco yearly? I know of several that are avoided annually just by myself, and numerous others I can relate as well, or what about putting those same attacks "caused" by tobacco into perspective, say along the lines of attacks caused by tobacco smoke versus attacks caused by perfumes? Or what about the number of attacks that have only been reported since the health scare warnings began? There are always two sides to any point Michael, and only a fool would argue that it is not possible to have a counterpoint to ANY argument, I don't believe you are a fool, but I do believe your belief's are driving you to defend an undefedable position.
Can you even scientifically prove that those "hundreds of thousands of attacks" every year ARE caused by exposure to tobacco smoke? or are they merely the suggestions turned into belief that tobacco smoke MUST be responsible for them?
What, exactly, do you consider an adequate warning? A dispersment of the facts? or a dispersment of the belief? The facts say that the risk is lower than MANY other risk factors we all choose to take everyday, and lower than many of those we don't CHOOSE, such as the risk a drunk driver will kill us while we are practicing safe driving, or the risk that the exhaust from diesel engines is higher than the risk of a waft of smoke, or even an enclosed room filled with tobacco smoke?
Adequate warnings should be truth, not hyperbole, not scare warnings, and certainly not a death sentence from exposure, for if it is a death sentence, then where are 3 bodies, or 220, or any? and if such a death sentence is true, what is the purpose of trying to do something about it now? Horse, Barn door, fire, etc, etc. Since, according to TC, any exposure has already damaged us on a genetic level, and since said exposure has been in place for centuries, and since said exposure has certainly touched members in every family in those centuries, arent we to late anyway?
Until you provide the bodies and proof that tobacco CAUSED those bodies, you are operating undar FAITH Michael, and until such time as you can quantify your FAITH, you have no business telling me or others what to believe. You are encouraged to tell us your belief's, but not to force others into conforming with those belief's. For that reason, I will fight you, and your bretheren in the movement until you pry my cigarettes from my cold dead hands.
Michael Siegel -This is my whole point. You are not serious about creating a serious warning. This garbage about presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning. What is the "other side" of the "debate" about secondhand smoke causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year?
.............
Second Hand Smoke is not causing hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks each year.
If it is, then there must be hundreds of millions of asthma attacks caused by other triggers.
I find it odd that the number & percentage of asthmatics, and the number & percentage of asthma attacks claimed to be triggered by SHS is rising exponentially as the percentage of smokers goes down and the SHS exposure to non-smokers has dropped to a tiny percentage of what it was previously.
You keep telling us that less exposure to SHS is desirable, healthwise, yet less exposure to SHS is triggering more asthma attacks.
If that is true, then, over time, more exposure should result in a smaller percentage of asthmatics and fewer attacks triggered by SHS.
Is it now the "consensus" of the scientific community that "The poison is in the dose" just a lie dreamed up by Big Tobacco and its paid shills?
You are encouraged to tell us your belief's, but not to force others into conforming with those belief's. For that reason, I will fight you, and your bretheren in the movement until you pry my cigarettes from my cold dead hands.
DITTO
GDF: "...success of public health (with regard to lifestyle issues) should be measured by the provision of accurate information, rather than the behavioral results of that information."
You made a good point about the shifting paradigm. However, I think that the key word here is ACCURATE. If you measure the success of public health initiatives by behavioral change, then you are assuming that ACCURATE information would lead to behavioral change. That is not a valid assumption because ACCURATE information might require minimal or no change. By relying on this invalid assumption, the paradigm leads to providing the public with DISinformation until behavior is changed.
Walt: They key phrase seems to be what people BELIEVE
As JTF pointed out, people don't always act on what they say that they believe. The question then becomes a matter of what people WANT to believe and/or what people think they are SUPPOSED to believe.
Also Walt: But 90%-92% of smokers will never get lung cancer so a lot of other ultimately fatal diseases have to be magically-- or mathematically-- attributed to smoking.
Well stated.
More Walt: It continues to arbitrarily assign a % of deaths from almost all causes except possibly plane crashes to smoking, often by postulating bizarre and occasionally baroque scenarios of biological "plausibility" to justify the stat.
Just a couple of interesting notes. When there were smoking/nonsmoking sections on planes, people who smoked sat toward the BACK of the plane, which is rumored to be the safest place to be in the event of a crash. Also, in the event of fire, people who smoke have a better survival rate (less "air trapping"; see http://www.lifespan.org/news/200...fire-survivors/
) So, plane-crash-wise, people who smoke fare better--but that won't stop pseudoscience from saying the opposite, just like saying that people who smoke fare better with asbestos.
Kevin: JTF something to consider in the numbers above the smoking population is believed to be less than 25% indicating the numbers do not reflect people voting according to personal comfort levels a significant number of non smokers are using common sense. And that would include informed opinions weighing all the evidence available. Some people are starting to listen.
Excellent point. I believe this should be repeated: SOME PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO LISTEN. (INRE MatLab, it isn't my favorite environment. ForTran is quicker--hence the name, Formula translation--and VB produces standalone progs for non-technical people to use in parapsychology as well as a chance to write progs to produce "pretty pictures", i.e. graphs. In fact, I wrote a test program once in MatLab and it naturally took longer because it has that horrid oop-type language. Haven't tried LabView yet. Just my humble opinion.)
Sam M: Or should bartenders and other members of the general public simply accept any and all claims at face value?
That seems to be a problem for people in public health. The public doesn't accept any and all of their claims. When people feel coerced into believing something, they become more skeptical and lose even more confidence in such claims..which drives public health into a tizzy...which drives them to make more outlandish claims (as noted above in GDF's paradigm) and more coersive measures...which decreases confidence.... A bit of a vicious cycle, eh?
Kevin: I would like to see a little more discussion of how the media misreads the research numbers consistently. Reporting 30% increased risk of developing a disease if you are exposed, supporting a lobby position. While at the same time in apparent ignorance when advocating for safety in exposures to other dangers reporting a .3 increased risk.
My guess is that the people in the media often say what they are told to say. Period. Journalists and newsreaders don't really research. I've used this word in previous discussion: Regurgitation. Look at the artcile in The Telegraph; when reporters actually pay attention to what they're reporting, news actually breaks but then they get threatened by ASH. (See Dominic Lawson's comments.)
Sunz: Just a thought from my puny brain who doesn't understand much of anything.
Ah! But you discovered ASDS!
Kevin: When I smoke an aromatic colt, I am told all the time how wonderful they smell, primarily by non smokers.
I just bought a tobacco scented candle.
You, sir, are a liar.
I have stated time and again that I don't care what the warning says. I said I would let you craft it. Because I don't believe that the risks are as great as you say they are. But still, in the interest of accomodation and compromise, I am willing to issue whatever warning you see fit.
And you have stated publicly that it is, in fact, possible to warn people adequately.
And you have stated publicly that you would back away from bans of the public were adequately warned.
That was not true. It was a lie.
When I first came to this blog, I thought it refreshing. I thought it a place where, although people might disagree, we could all have a fair and open exchange of ideas.
You, sir, have undone that completely. You said something you did not mean. And now you refuse to admit it. Simple as that.
I have maintained a consistent position throughout this exchange, going back to July 5. You have not. Go back. Re-read the posts.
Believe me, doctor: You are not such a great thinker as to be completely incomprehensible to lowly bartenders. They understand your point of view. Just like Drs. Whelan and Gori and a host of others. And they think you are full of crap.
Previously, I would have cautioned people holding that view to take you a bit more seriously. I would have counseled them to instead engage you in conversation. To challenge you and be challenged in return. Because as an honest opponent, there was a chance for engagement.
Now? I think they're right.
Sorry to be so stark and cynical. But at this stage I just can't see any of this as a good faith argument. If you had simply said that you mentioned backing away from bans in the heat of the moment, I would have accepted it. We all say stupid things we don't mean.
But you have refused to fess up. You continue to obfuscate. And you refuse to address the question of risk--which you say is at the heart of it all.
What a disappointment. What a sham.
Ok, this is comepletely off topic, and I apologize for that, but after spewing Mountain Dew all over my keyboard from reading this, I had to share it with other's, it's from Dave Hitt's Quick Hitts blog.
Chasing Gandpa
07.29.2007 | 10:18 am | Uncategorized
The setup: An old guy decides to ride his old-guy scooter on the highway.
The cops tell him to pull over. He swears at them and cranks it up to it’s maximum speed: 8 MPH.
The punch line: He got away!
Dave Hitts Quick Hitts - http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.php
The actual story -
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/new...-
name_page.html
You gotta love us defiant old geezers, we won't bow to anybody lol.
Not so far off topic
Prohibition politics
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/
...int_518872.html
excerpt -
"The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this:
Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934.
This popular belief is completely mistaken. Here's what really happened:".
This article shows why prohibition WILL fail, and why the Anti's want so badly to control the revenue generated by tobacco while punishing it's user's.
Thanks for the reply Lynda F - it's the smell!
It would seem that there were a series of things (events, studies, people) that led Dr Siegel to the belief that SHS/ETS is a 'serious public health' problem.
Surely as a scientist/educator new and compelling evidence and or argument should cause pause for thought? If the social damage (which is becoming evident) is high then this should also provoke a rethink. Indeed if the student outshines the teacher, I consider this a success for the teacher.
Yet, we have a slightly odd position. Provide adequate warnings and bans are not needed, yet there seems to be no way of providing these warnings in a manor that satifies.
The SHS/ETS ban advocates have taken the inquisition position, you are a Witch - any evidence of innocence is twisted to provide further proof of guilt. The restatement that Big T lied as defence of TC lies is of course itself indefensible - a childs argument.
On asthma, I have consistently shown that countries with reduced smoking have increased asthma and those with high rates do not. Dr Siegel, to his credit, is unable to explain this (earlier post on another thread). Yet asthma is consistently raised as a problem with SHS and part of the excuse for bans.
So, without knowing the full reasoning behind Dr Siegel's position it is diffcult to understand the depth of the belief. Only a fringe argument takes place. This was exactly the problem the Judge in the McTear case had with the ASH 'experts'. He said (from memory and paraphrasing) He could not understand the conclusion (Smoking causes lung cancer)as they had failed to provide the pathway to the conclusion. Hence it stands in Scottish law that apparently the judiciary are unaware that smoking itself causes cancer. (Unless anyone is aware of a further case revising this)
So with SHS/ETS, perhaps Dr Seigel could, as an educator and scientist, provide that pathway rather than the axiomatic/dogmatic postion we currently find ourselves in?
thanks,
west
----
DTB;
This is also off topic however I have to respond to your VB comment. Run don't walk to a bookstore and get one of dozens of Labview books in print. Labview was originally created to support a graphic interface to connect physical and virtual intrumentation for testing monitoring and analysis. The subsequent revisions added capabilities for including into your model calculations and decision making tools based in limits set by the user.
It had never occurred to me this could actually be used as you do to analyze relationships, meaning a possible stable environment with fixed rules to replace or just test research studies as well. Imagine the possibilities of replacing the human element in epidemiology with fixed process.
The information produced could be only limited by the accuracy of the information presented which could be verified in peer review.
I pause to wonder how the medical community would react to a program which took opinions out of the statistical calculation venue, and the confidence we could gain by such a process.
Anyone with a modest education could evaluate the research and weigh the results in; for the first time an apples to apples comparison. It would be simple to do a meta analysis as all data would already be in a standard format.
Know anyone with some development money available to foster a new standard in research? The results could rock the med community to it's knees. It would send shock waves into the media communities as well. The spin doctors would be running for the hills.
Jerry--
"There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol. Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury."
To my knowledge, Prohibition did not lead to the avalanche of bans that we now see. ( sign of the times: http://www.stahlheart.com/
signof...nofthetimes.jpg Notice that "No Smoking" is not included--that got a *separate* sign all to itself.) Although the punch to Congressional revenue might be rough if people quit smoking and/or find alternate sources for cigarettes (and revenue from resulting "unintended consequences" drops), there is the big problem of people starting to realize how a smoking ban adversely affects them--and will affect them when a ban hits something they favor. Thus far, I've been minimally affected in the direct sense by bans and tax increases but I am still rabidly opposed to them. Also, I'm not convinced that the prohibition of alcohol was backed by the same level of...erm, questionable "science". I don't know the actual demographics, but I would think that the comparison of the popularity of smoking vs. alcohol use would be relevant. However, I think there is an undeniable link between the two instances of social engineering, e.g. smoking bans have definitely curbed public consumption of alcohol.
Dr Siegel,you have been asked umpteen times to discuss the magic workings of your studies,YOU CHOOSE TO DECLINE,you now whinge about people not adequately knowing about the facts .WHAT'S THE NEXT EXCUSE ? YOU ARE A PARAGON OF THE "I KNOW BEST" BRIGADE.You say you know the facts,BUT if you are not going to disclose them,you are useful as a chocolate teapot.Do you have some form of brain dysfunction on Sundays ?Are you some form of passive asthmatic,you know ,see a cigarette and have an attack.Without supporting evidence you are beginning to sound like a trainee Glantz.
Kevin--
Thanks for the heads-up on Labview--going to look at it now and will be back later.
I'm not sure about exactly *how* my models would apply to medical research, but I know that some people do it. (I think Biometrika does it.) The "fixed" rules in what we do are often mutable--the intro stats student runs into the same questions of finding the best model for a problem. However, my guess is that seriation is valuable because it puts factors along a continuum. (The danger is from people who do unsavory things to data just to get it into a form for a particular model, such as normalizing inappropriately or forcing/inducing symmetry in the data.) anyway...will check these things out and be back.
Lynda asks: "Am I interpreting this correctly? I mean I had to read it several times to be sure I was actually reading it accurately. Are you seriously suggesting that YOUR belief is that one HAS to believe that SHS is a severe health threat before you consider them adequately informed?"
No - it is only the case that one has to understand that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat in order to be adequately informed that SHS is a severe health threat IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat. If it's not such a severe health threat, then you can be adequately informed about it WITHOUT thinking it is a severe threat. In fact, under such circumstances, if you believed it were a severe health threat, you would not be PROPERLY informed.
I would argue that many anti-smoking groups are IMPROPERLY informing the public about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke. In fact, the claims are so ridiculous that they may be undermining efforts to inform people about the actual effects, since no one will believe anything they have to say.
I am reading all the comments and some questions sprung to mind.
I hear the word studies being mentioned an I remember that most of those studies are based on not the usual 8 hours (but on 4 hours, which would amplify the "danger" rating by excluding the slow periods). What is the quality are those studies you base your opinion upon, and why aren't they based on 8 hours? How exactly did they confound for their exposure to other carcinogens, and exposures that we run into every day? Did you realize that community arena's may have 250,000 unltrafine particles per centimetre (1 Inch = 2.54 cm); 24 per cent tested higher than 60,000 particles. Now if you as a child spent 8 hours in that(since hockey is the most popular sport in Canada for children). How bad was the pollution levels 30 years ago? Whats the risks and how do you consider that and similar situations in those studies?
There's mention that people don't know risk, and that tobacco isn't emphasized enough. Although if we emphasis only tobacco (as was previously mentioned) that would skew peoples outlook on dangers. Now how can emphasis on one area be good for the overall exposure without allowing the public to say they never see exposure to all dangers (so they aren't/as harmful as the emphasized "danger").
There is an article out that talks about the 12 myths of cancer are debunked. Now if people can believe that bras can cause cancer, are we really relying on science in health warnings? I don't think so! I believe somethings go to change, but its about total load of toxins, and the larger picture; not emphasis on one "danger" or another. Why can't they be given the whole picture and decide for themselves.
A nationally representative telephone survey by the American Cancer Society of nearly 1,000 U.S. adults who had never been diagnosed with cancer revealed a surprising number agreed with inaccurate or unlikely statements about cancer risk and prevention statements.
http://www.livescience.com/
healt...ncer_myths.html
Sam -
Not sure how I have been dishonest, because I hold by my original statement that if people were adequately informed about the risks, I think we could reach a point where we could let them make their own decisions. But I don't believe that workers currently are informed adequately.
I don't know where you got the idea that I believe there is a warning I could write that would do the trick. Yes - I am a health educator, but that's the point. Even a health educator like myself could not come up with a statement adequately warn people about the risks of secondhand smoke UNLESS certain conditions were met.
One of those conditions is that there would have to be a relative consensus that secondhand smoke is a serious risk to workers' health. Without a consensus, you simply can't inform people adequately, because they are going to rightly perceive that there is a debate going on, and that the claims are simply claims, not facts.
If people believe secondhand smoke claims are just claims, not facts, then they are not adequately informed, because to be informed means that you understand the facts, not that you simply perceive that there is a debate raging.
My point is that as long as there is a raging debate about whether secondhand smoke is seriously harmful to bar and restaurant workers' health, THERE IS NO WAY that they can be adequately informed.
So yes, I could write some sort of scientific statement about the health effects of secondhand smoke, but that doesn't serve as adequately informed if people have good reason not to believe it. And the claims that are raging here and elsewhere that the secondhand smoke science is competely bogus (and yes- I'm contributing somewhat towards one aspect of that) are going to undermine any information that I might write to give out to workers.
My point is that to be informed adequately means more than simply receiving a statement about the risks. It means actually understanding and accepting the information. In the presence of a raging debate, this is not possible.
For example, I am well-educated and have seen claims that global warming is basically going to change life as we know it. To tell you the truth, I don't really believe it. Why? Not because the information was not presented adequately, but because I see a raging debate out there. I am not convinced because I see reputable scientists challenging these conclusions.
You really need some sort of consensus (I realize there are always going to be a few people denying things, but you know what I mean) before people accept the severity of certain health hazards.
So yes- I am sincere that if people were adequately informed, I don't think we would necessarily need to ban smoking in every workplace. But right now, they are not adequately informed, so we cannot simply let them make their own informed decisions. Because those decisions, currently, will not be adequately "informed."
Perhaps a good place to start with in terms of understanding what I mean by adequately informed are the effects of secondhand smoke on ashtma. Secondhand smoke causes thousands of asthma attacks each year. I do not believe that the public is adequately informed about that risk. And how can they, when people on this blog itself seem to be denying this fact, thus creating a debate about it?
I agree with Lynda that educators should present various sides of a controversy. However, I still don't understand what the "other" side is to the medical fact that secondhand smoke causes hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and is a severe health hazard for literally millions of asthmatics.
Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side?
Do we then need to teach creationism in schools? Do we need to present the view of that crazy scientist who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus? Do we teach kids that some people believe that smoking causes lung cancer, and some believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer?
Are there any facts that you consider to be facts that we can teach, or is it simply those things that you personally do or do not believe that need to be run past you first before deciding what we should be teaching in our schools?
Doc says "No - it is only the case that one has to understand that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat in order to be adequately informed that SHS is a severe health threat IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat.".
What???
IF IT IS INDEED TRUE?
But you claim that it is INDEED true, and we all clamor for your proof of this TRUTH, which you do not provide, if you, one of the elite of tobacco control, one of the instigators of social change based on your belief, do not KNOW if it IS indeed true, then why the pressure to make changes based upon something you don't know is truth or not?
If you KNOW this to be TRUTH, this is your chance to convert many of us, show us how you derived that knowledge, if you cannot or will not provide said proof, you are a hypocrite for demanding laws to force the removal of liberty and free choice for a theory, laws which incidentally, do CAUSE PROVEN damage to economics, livliehoods, and actual physical assault on a percentage of the population, while lambasting others for supporting theories you believe are outrageous. SO which is it doc, do you BELIEVE that SHS is INDEED a SEVERE HEALTH THREAT? and if so, why? what proof do you have and can educate us with that shows this TRUTH?
What exactly leads you to believe that SHS is indeed a SEVERE HEALTH THREAT (I notice you toned it down for this reply, as not to confuse your earlier statement that it was a SEVERE HEALTH EFFECT, instead of threat, makes it a little easier on the burden of proof required, but still where is even that proof?).
Workers are told to shape up or pay up
To hold down medical costs, some firms are penalizing workers who are overweight or don't meet health guidelines.
By Daniel Costello, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 29, 2007
Lead in:
Looking for new ways to trim the fat and boost workers' health, some employers are starting to make overweight employees pay if they don't slim down.
Others, citing growing medical costs tied to obesity, are offering fit workers lucrative incentives that shave thousands of dollars a year off healthcare premiums.
Excerpt:
"Critics of the lose-it-or-pay trend say that companies that charge overweight employees more for their medical coverage are turning the healthcare system into a police state and, just as worrisome, are working off of a false assumption that it's easy for people who are obese and have other health issues to change their situations.
According to a 2005 Stanford University study, obese people with health coverage may already be punished on the job. Those surveyed were paid an average of $1.20 less per hour than non-obese workers, perhaps because employers intentionally adjust their wages to account for healthcare costs.
"It's reprehensible to punish and emasculate someone for having a disease like obesity," said Walter Lindstrom, director of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in Chula Vista, Calif. "Anyone who penalizes workers for being overweight should brace themselves for a backlash."
Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a Princeton, N.J.-based employee rights group, called the trend "a very dangerous road that could lead to employers controlling everything we do in our private lives."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/254o8r
This link probably only good for today
..................................
Junkfood Science
July 28, 2007
How she spent her holiday
Lead in:
This isn’t what most of us might think of as summer tourism, but for this woman in the UK, it changed her life.
The East Anglian Daily Times in Suffolk reports:
Health tourist claims back cash from NHS
A PENSIONER who borrowed more than £7,000 to pay for a hip operation abroad after being told she was too overweight to be treated on the NHS is trying to claim the money back from health chiefs. Former Bartlet Hospital canteen worker Moira Ryan, 69, from Felixstowe, flew to Malta with her son for the successful hip replacement....
The PCT had refused her treatment because of its policy of not providing surgery to most people with a body mass index of more than 35 unless they go through a weight-loss plan....Mrs Ryan said: “I had gone to Ipswich Hospital for an appointment and was told I needed a new hip but ...NHS kept putting me off, telling me to lose weight. I am obese, but I paid my taxes all my life and feel let down badly. I am very, very disappointed - I had to turn to the banks to get a loan...
Mrs. Ryan, who has three children, flew from Stansted with Operations Abroad, which arranged for her to be picked up at her home, taken to the airport, and met off the plane in Malta. She was taken to the hospital, underwent tests, and was operated on the following day.
She said: “I feel brilliant, and I am back on my feet and doing very well. I am out of pain for the first time in five years....
Excerpt:
"How many people will continue to be denied treatment that can return them to quality, functional living, and will be left to suffer excruciating pain, simply because they are fat? As has been well documented in the medical literature, there is no credible evidence to support claims that fat people don’t benefit just as much as anyone else from joint replacements. There is only one reason for rationing and denying them care."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/yw3vle
Michael Siegel - "... I agree with Lynda that educators should present various sides of a controversy. However, I still don't understand what the "other" side is to the medical fact that secondhand smoke causes hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and is a severe health hazard for literally millions of asthmatics."
..............
Doctor Siegel,
Please provide the medical proof.
So far, all we have gotten is the statement "It's a proven medical fact."
"Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side?".
In the first place, it is far more than just SOME people who disagree with you Michael, and in the second place, your comparisons would be more valid if you were discussing a matter of fact, not theory, not a statistical link, not mathematically possible hyperbole, but PROVEN FACT, do you have PROOF that asthma attacks ARE CAUSED by tobacco smoke, not just any old irritant? I have lived with asthma for over 4 decades now, and NEVER ONCE has an attack been triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke (Or wood smoke, for that matter), but has been triggered by allergens released from plants and animals, including oil scented perfumes. I have never seen any proof of asthma attacks being CAUSED by tobacco smoke, not one single scientifically demonstratable proof of CAUSAL action. Knowing asthma as well as I do (My last visit to an "asthma specialist" surprised her by the fact that I knew far more about asthma than she did, she was just relating, verbatim, the talking points they are taught and had no real world knowledge or experience with asthmatics), I know that it has and can be triggered by a rise in stress levels, such as one would expect when people are told they will die if exposed to tobacco smoke, and has been triggered by mere changes in air temperature or humidity, but just because any burning substance is an irritant, doesn't make the one product responsible for all the evils of asthma, and if it is a simple irritant that is the causal factor, shouldn't we be banning places like restaraunts that use wood fire grills, churches that allow incense burning, any exhaust fumes, perfumes, scented candles, soaps, hairspray(or even pumps, the chemicals still stink, without the ozone depletion possibilities). Your argument is weak at best Michael, the "possiblity" of "some" asthmatics being overly sensitive to tobacco smoke doesn't hold water, and provably does not, see other replies above for reference to smoking/exposure rates vs asthmatic attacks, abd certainly doesn't justify social engineering to dominate a minority with a majority belief that removes the very foundations of pursuit of liberty and happiness gauranteed us in the Constitution.
A simple warning that smoking is allowed on any particular premises is sufficient to "warn" people of the POSSIBILITY of danger, not the FACT that danger exists, because you cannot prove that it is indeed a danger to all exposed, as a matter of fact, you cant even prove it is a danger to a majority of those exposed, the very best you can prove is that it elevates the RISK of danger, which is a FAR cry from a SEVERE HEALTH THREAT, especially in comparison to so many other "RISKS" we face knowingly and unkowingly every day, certainly not even close to enough to warrant the removal of other's rights for your pet peeve.
Dr Siegel,do you want us to lie then about our appreciation of the risks of SHS ? This is what you seem to be seeking ? You just do not seem to want to explain where you are coming from,you've shot off on a tangent and appear to be somewhere just inside this solar system.Why must you persist in answering questions that are not those asked ?If you simply want to obfuscate,fine,but be professional enough to accept the criticism.I see it being difficult for you to accept responsibility when Tobacco Control survives within a blame cultured environment.Perhaps appreciating the question and NOT YOUR INTERPRETATION or SPIN would get us off to a good start,since you obviously enjoy the feeling of being in control by making a mockery out of a discussion.
Siegel: I would argue that many anti-smoking groups are IMPROPERLY informing the public about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke. In fact, the claims are so ridiculous that they may be undermining efforts to inform people about the actual effects, since no one will believe anything they have to say.
That makes more sense.
Kevin--I looked over LabView at their site and at Amazon, it looks great for collecting data, especially binary data. I don't do much in the way of data collection (yet) and, although the program generates reports for common presentation programs, I usually just do my own programming to generate results in text or in graphs. (VB has a weird plotting arrangment. A box is given a *rotated* coordinated sytem from our usual Cartesian xy-orientation. Strange.) I prefer writing the function plotters myself because that allows me to graph what is pertinent, place labels whereever I like on the graph (if at all), etc... In fact, I used the graphs generated in our BnB book (combinatorial data analysis). I usually put the results in text format on the program interface with the option of saving to file or printing. If somebody wants the results in a "pretty" format, they can add italics, bold or highlights later--or simply paste into Excel. Admittedly, I don't usually have a "Save" option for graphs, but that's easy enough to add I suppose. The LabView environment look like the programs have to be run from within the environment, which is a problem for researchers who don't have a LabView compiler (same as with MatLab). The excutables--like http://www.stahlheart.com/EJP/kappa.exe --are better for public/researcher consumption. (This exe for this particular app on Cohen's kappa isn't really our best, the BnB application to finding optimal p-values is really sweet. In fact, we got another paper accepted that has a much improved methodology.) I could see using LabView for data collection but I'm not sure that it's the best programming environment for what i do.
I tried to look at Biometrika but the site seems to be down for now. I did notice that one of the founders was none other than Karl Pearson. (His original paper on the correlation coefficient was interesting. He used vaccination data in a way that I thought was...well, very interesting.) Honestly, some of those old stat guys were kinda into eugenics, ya know? Anyway, I'll keep checking on it.
---Maybe a better example is http://www.stahlheart.com/BnB_RRC.exe It's a big program to demonstrate various methodologies; see the last menu on the menu bar for a graphic example. Cut'n'paste one of the examples into the matrix box and click "Come Scale Away". That's a "perfect" example for mutlidimensional scaling, but reality isn't always perfect and people sometimes prefer nonmetric MDS. (Feel free to play around with other symmetric matrices if you'd like.) Anyway, I've added options on the MDS program to give the user options of plotting points with/without lines, zeroing the diagonal or whatever. Fair warning: The programs do generate "temporary files," which can be deleted, on the Desktop for now.
West;
"So with SHS/ETS, perhaps Dr Seigel could, as an educator and scientist, provide that pathway rather than the axiomatic/dogmatic postion we currently find ourselves in?"
If he could do that, one of his partners in TC would not have been satisfied in supporting smoking bans but criminal charges of aggravated assault or attempted murder against anyone who smoked in their presence could have been laid.
Bans would not be necessary at all when you could use existing legislation to arrest all the smokers for much more serious charges.
The slander by association is the best they can muster, indicating smokers are carelessly harming others and allowing them no opportunity to defend themselves against such ridiculous allegations in the process, without being labeled as either brain damaged by their addiction or shills to big tobacco.
Michael;
"Adequately warning people means that they would be warned of the serious health effects of secondhand smoke, not told about the "other" side of the debate and listen to the unscientific information about, for example, secondhand smoke not being a cause of thousands of asthma attacks."
We have heard a lot of opinions yet, to date I don't recall what those serious effects might be. Educate me as to the serious effects of casual exposures to cigarette smoke so I may be whole.
In connection with casual exposures. I know the asthma thing is claimed by many, and smelly mink coats cost a fortune to clean, however if you by experience are affected by exposures; self defense mechanisms kick in and you learn to avoid the triggers as you do cut grass and eating peanuts if you are allergic.
Are you of the mind we should no longer cut the grass in the hopes of forcing homeowners to replace grass with wood chip lawns? The numbers seriously affected are certainly much higher than the paltry numbers of asthmatics seriously harmed by tobacco smoke.
The serious health affects you refer to are within known safe standards in risk assessment despite what you may have heard, we accept risks in all other areas, your level of protection goes well beyond what would be reasonably expected. Is 1 in 10,000 as a starting point still acceptable to you or has something changed?
You have been given dozens of other examples of measured risk levels accepted which are much higher risk yet still they are defined as "acceptable risk" not "serious health risk". But the public will be educated and the serious health effects of second hand smoke will be revealed to all, "so say one so say we all"
Lets look at benzine levels in gasoline content 1 in 100 as opposed to 1 in 1 million known safe level in the air[It is believed we can all hold our noses at the self serve gas pump so no real risk is evident, unless you drive a huge gas guzzling SUV, in that case you deserve what you get by means of celestial intervention] or a pilot's radiation risk of cancers.Increased .7 or 70% depending on who is reporting it.
No problems noted? We should be comforted by the research?
You stated yourself earlier the public has found smoking to be an acceptable public risk. We all agree there will be no prohibition on the horizon. Yet you promote a belief the smoke produced is unacceptable risk, how does that fall within any reasonable expectation of consistency?
Defining a separate category for the same substance does not license a separate risk analysis unless you intend to do the complete job and define what second hand smoke means in regards to specific content and commonality with the many sources which vary widely in what they may contain. 3000 or 4000 deadly ingredients is entirely loose and careless language for a scientist to be embracing, as the only public distribution of informative education?
You can separate the smoke inhaled by a smoker from the smoke produced at the other end of the same cigarette and contend it is the same substance produced by someone at another table smoking a different brand?
Not to mention no one is more exposed than a smoker to second hand smoke which brings us back to as you stated a "public acceptance" of the same risk factor limited to those most exposed by their own choosing.
Is what you are attempting to teach the public akin to ; Smoker's, it is agreed by consensus kill themselves and won't be missed by those of us who don't smoke. The TC good riddance attitudes are only offset by those who want to continue to pick their pockets apparently. But no one is preaching hatred here of course.
I know you won't respond [you never do entirely] because of the catch 22 nature here but you need to know I am not impressed with your logic model, for an educator to promote protection of focussed attitudes as opposed to free and open minds in science, it is disturbing to know how this type of thinking will spread.
They will be banning smoking altogether before you know it, then how will we balance the mortality figures, when people see the actual effect it really had? Of course we always have the new horde of pandemics to fall back on don't we?
Political science always finds it's scapegoats to protect the all important money train.
WoW ! did this thread get off topic, or what?
First let me get the following off my chest... When I was in highschool, a bunch of my classmates got drunk and tied a toboggin up to the back of a car, and they all took turns riding in the snow on the streets on the toboggin as others drove. Until the car made a close turn around a corner and the toboggin ran into a tree, killing 2 of my classmates.
Then, a few years later, ( New York State had a legal drinking age of 18 at the time, ) a girl I knew who had gotten drunk in NY was pulling out of a bar parking lot onto route 20, and collided with a truck she did not see because she was drunk. She was killed instantly.
No R rating for films depicting alcohol use????? why not? I knew 3 kids which alcohol killed while their whole lives were still infront of them, and just how many of my frineds do you think cigarettes killed while they were still in high school?
Which is more important here?
Now, I noticed Dr Siegels comments that people are not being adequately warned about shs, and active smoking,.
First, in 2004, the BMJ published the 50 year follow up results of the British Doctors' study.
5.8 % of those doctors who smoked developed lung cancer, and 0.8% of the doctors who did not smoke developed lung cancer.
Study after study, including those cited by the Library of Congress, have shown that the american public thinks smoking is 4 times more dangerous than it actually is. general practicing physicians think smoking is twice as dangerous as it actually is. So the question is have we all been warned? - Do we need bigger, and grosser warning lables on cig packs?
I really think Dr Siegel is confusing the term "warning" with the term "intervention"
and again among those 40-some percent who do not think shs is a serious risk, Does Dr Siegel claim that they have not heard the contrary claim,a sufficient number of times to have been warned? or- does he imply that not heeding the warning is sufficient cause to adopt "intervention" ..that is to say, protect them from the fact they actually refuse to either believe the warning. or conduct their lives accordingly, in the form of forced compliance in the form of smoking bans.
What has gotten muddled in the realm of public health is that "warning" and "intervention" terms are getting confused. If a water treatment plant gets contaminated and the dept of ehalth issues a boil order, and someone drinks out of the tap, should that person be arrested or fined? No, the whole duty of the health dept was to warn....not intervene. and that's the way it should be with shs.
remember, 94.2% of the smoking Birtish Doctors did not develop lung cancer, but is it reasonable to assume that 44.2% of the smoking British doctors died of other causes brought on by their smoking? Of what then, surely not CVD, because since half of the nonsmoking brit doctors died of CVD, we would need 94% of the smoking Brit drs to die from CVD inorder to satisfy the claim that 44.2% MORE doctors than would have been expected died from CVD.
If, so what follows then is there were no smoking BRIT doctors left over to die from COPD, other cancers, other so-called smoking realted diseases etc. The claim that smoking kills half of it's users suffers from a serious mass-imbalance problem.
What I suspect is that the claim smoking kills ahlf it's users comes from the same people who are the reason why most americans think smoking is 4 times more dangerous than it actually is.
I remember making a decision in the late 1980s on whether i expected my life to be cut short from tobacco use. As I thought about my older family members and others in the previous generation I knew, i realized that whether or not they smoked was no predictor of their life span.
I decided, at least in my case, that my gentic heritage was compatable with continuing smoking. Sure, it could cut a few eyars off, but what the heck I'd rather live the years i've got refusing to be bullied by self proclaimed "interventionists" than give up my freedom. So what right do they have to ban my partaking just about everywhere? i have been "warned"... I don't mind being warned, , but i will not be "intervened"
dave K
No - it is only the case that one has to understand that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat in order to be adequately informed that SHS is a severe health threat IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat. If it's not such a severe health threat, then you can be adequately informed about it WITHOUT thinking it is a severe threat. In fact, under such circumstances, if you believed it were a severe health threat, you would not be PROPERLY informed.
OK, one of us is definitely on drugs, and I know for a fact it is NOT me.
So………………since you are stating that I am totally NOT understanding you, spell it out like you would for a 6 year old. And in the future, you might try writing in coherent English and not in the discombobulated manner you commented earlier and are now commenting here. Reading your comments today is like my mind running around in circles………………..you are making absolutely NO sense whatsoever.
I’m reading this as you say they are adequately informed IF they believe the serious health threat nonsense and only IF it is actually true. But you also consistently state that SHS IS a serious health threat and have stated that anyone NOT believing that is NOT adequately informed. Make up your mind Doctor. In my mind, my having all the facts from ALL sides of an issue is all I need to make the appropriate decision for MYSELF. According to you, all I should need is YOUR side only and if I don’t make the appropriate decision (doing it your way) then I am to be forced into compliance. Thank you, that’s mighty generous of you.
Doc, sorry, you can present all your arguments, and have………………the minute more than one tiny little hole can be punched in it though, your facts become questionable. Hundreds of holes have been punched into the SHS facts you state, and you still refuse to divulge the methodology involved, expose the science used to come up with your beliefs.
For that matter, when you put your 16 million asthmatics into the context of the entire population, that number shrinks to an insignificant amount, and yet you demand that the majority change it’s behaviour for a handful?
If our “anecdotal” experiences are NOT good enough to convince you that you are over-exaggerating; then kindly explain why and how YOUR anecdotal experiences are any better.
If anyone else can make any logical sense out of what the doc is trying to say, kindly translate it for me? This is just NOT any kind of English I learned.
Oh my god.
"...it is only the case that one has to understand that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat in order to be adequately informed that SHS is a severe health threat IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat."
So if SHS is a threat, you need to believe SHS is a threat to be properly informed.
But you believe SHS is a threat. So from your position, "properly informed" means believeng that it is a threat. Quite a tidy little package, sir.
It also means that you case is a prima facie one. That if someone does not believe that SHS is a threat, they are not adequately informed.
Which is rubbish. I think that there are plenty of heroin addicts, for instance, who had all sorts of warning about drugs and addicion. I think theter are plenty of people who kill people in drunk driving accidents who had all the warning in the world. Thre are others who have big fat behinds, not because they didn't get warned about Big Macs, but because they love Big macs more than they love beig thin.
You know all this. Don't be obtuse. Some people ignore warnings. Some people disbelieve warnings. Some people don't care. No matter how sufficiently they are warned.
For instance, if the Rapture comes and the evangelicals are right and I get "left behind," that has nothing to do with the fact that I was not sufficiently warned. I have heard the preachers. I have gotten the handouts in church and on the street and on television. I just don't happen to believe what they are saying.
Just like 44 percent of the people in American don't believe what you are saying. Just like Dr. Whelan and Gori do not believe what you are saying.
Again, tell me more about Drs. Whelan and Gori. Have they not been sufficiently warned? Because they believe that the notion of SHS as a deadly force is a bunch of hokum. How do you explain that? Do all bartenders need to go to medical school before they are allowed to work in a smokey bar? Nonsense. Some people just think you are full of crap. (Which might have something to do with the fact that you continually refuse to educate us about how you came up with your risk figures.)
"If people believe secondhand smoke claims are just claims, not facts, then they are not adequately informed, because to be informed means that you understand the facts, not that you simply perceive that there is a debate raging."
You have to be kidding me. We have to ban SHS rather than warn bartenders about SHS because... we can't really agree it's a danger? You are sinking to a new low, there.
"My point is that to be informed adequately means more than simply receiving a statement about the risks. It means actually understanding and accepting the information."
So. It means agreeing with you. Got it.
"So yes- I am sincere that if people were adequately informed, I don't think we would necessarily need to ban smoking in every workplace. But right now, they are not adequately informed, so we cannot simply let them make their own informed decisions. Because those decisions, currently, will not be adequately "informed.""
But you are a super genius. And you know the truth. So you will use the power of the state to force people to avoid SHS. Even if they think you are full of crap. Even if 50 pecent of people disagree with you. Even if well-respected public health professionals disagree with you. And the use of force is necessary--a warning will not suffice--because there really is no consensus about the danger. And lacking such a consensus, it is possible that some people might not listen to you.
OK. Got it.
"Perhaps a good place to start with in terms of understanding what I mean by adequately informed are the effects of secondhand smoke on ashtma."
OK. Fine. I actually think you are understating the risk. I think everyone who has ever had an asthma attack had it caused by SHS. Or maybe not all. Whatever percentage you say. I will not disagree with it. Just say it, and I will accept it as fact. At which point I will be entirely educated about the subject.
Once we have that exchange, I will propose the next avenue of discussion: How you came up with the 220 bartender deaths.
Game?
Dr Siegel, from above:
"I don't know where you got the idea that I believe there is a warning I could write that would do the trick."
Dr. Siegel from a comment in the July 5 post:
"By the way, I'm NOT arguing that a bartender cannot understand the risks. I think anyone can understand the risks. I spend my career trying to communicate risks to people and I in fact have expertise in the area of health communication (and have written a book on it). I'm also a teacher and I have some knowledge about how to communicate information to people."
Weird.
Oh well. Whatever argument is convenient at the time, I guess.
Lynda---'Isn’t this exactly what organized religions do? At least I know the Catholic Church does'
In my experience, yes. That and the unbelievable corruption I witnessed is why I left the church many years ago. Turned out I was right. One of the priests is in hiding on a criminal sexual assault charge. Don't even get me started on the subject.
.
Secondhand smoke causes thousands of asthma attacks each year. I do not believe that the public is adequately informed about that risk. And how can they, when people on this blog itself seem to be denying this fact, thus creating a debate about it?
Us asthmatics tend to band together some, probably to complain about all the selfish jerks out there that marinate in their "perfume". Point is, if you know one asthmatic, chances are, that asthmatic knows at least 10 more and has met 30 more. There's 3 if I recall correctly here on this blog. None of us seem to have ever had an SHS related attack. Apparently, no one we know has had an SHS related attack. Apparently, many of us either treat our own asthma or know someone who treats their asthma with cigarettes. If the numbers are really as high as you believe wouldn't ONE of us know at least ONE asthmatic who's asthma is triggered by SHS? My little brother's best friend was an asthmatic, no one in his family smoked. No one in his and my brother's group of friends smoked, yet he could come to our house all the time where 4 people smoked and never have a problem. He died as a matter of fact from an attack triggered by hay. I assume it was hay...he was fine until the hay, but then again...I wasn't there, for all I know some gal walked by him wearing her stinky stuff and did it.
Everyone on the blog, go poll your friends. Surely there are asthmatics around you somewhere, it's pretty prevalent, even with SHS going down. Anyhow, one of us ought to be able to find ONE person who's asthma has been triggered by SHS somewhere. But hey, make sure of a few things. There was a woman that once stepped out with 7 people, 3 of whom were smokers, and claimed the smell of smoke on a smoker's clothes was enough to do her in. She was around those 3 smokers for 2 hours before they decided to step out for a smoke, THEN, promptly following a "where are they going" and it's answer, begins wheezing. She wasn't allowed to hang out with them anymore.
One of those conditions is that there would have to be a relative consensus that secondhand smoke is a serious risk to workers' health.
What? The 56% who do believe you don’t constitute a “relative consensus”?
Without a consensus, you simply can't inform people adequately, because they are going to rightly perceive that there is a debate going on, and that the claims are simply claims, not facts.
NOW we know the truth. Because we all know your claims are ONLY your claims and there is NO imperial truth to them.
Sam is right. You did deceive us. YOU claimed if people could be adequately warned of the “serious health threat” of SHS you would rally against the bans. THEN you conveniently started claiming there was NO way to adequately inform them.
The real truth is, that IF everyone concedes to your belief, then there is no need to warn anyone for they already believe and you accomplished your goal. It really must irk you that we are so independent, and intelligent enough to read ourselves, that you cannot convince us that you are right.
Perhaps a good place to start with in terms of understanding what I mean by adequately informed are the effects of secondhand smoke on ashtma. Secondhand smoke causes thousands of asthma attacks each year.
So that’s thousands of attacks. With 16 million asthmatics, one is then left to wonder WHAT causes the other MILLIONS of attacks, that you don’t seem overly concerned with? Talk about transparent agendas.
Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side? Do we then need to teach creationism in schools? Do we need to present the view of that crazy scientist who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus? Do we teach kids that some people believe that smoking causes lung cancer, and some believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer?
Yes. What is your problem with that? How the hell can you possible teach someone critical thinking or to make an informed decision if they only have 1 set of “facts” to go on? How? Really. Is it really so threatening that in your SHS propaganda you also point out that even MORE people do NOT contract any so-called “smoking-related” diseases? Do you point out the fact that you really are not saving any lives because everyone is going to die anyway? You really want your children only hearing one side of a story? Even IF that story is something you don’t believe in? You cannot possibly be serious. You call yourself an educator and yet still want to censor what is taught? SCARY.
Are there any facts that you consider to be facts that we can teach, or is it simply those things that you personally do or do not believe that need to be run past you first before deciding what we should be teaching in our schools?
Sarcasm from you is totally Unbecoming Doc. Especially considering the fact that you just got through stating that to present another view would be show debate. Goddess forbid we actually make anyone think now, eh? I notice you seem to have NO problem with ONLY anti propaganda being shown in commercials and taught in schools though. As IF there were NO debate going on about it.
Doc, you are truly sounding hypocritical today.
"Not sure how I have been dishonest, because I hold by my original statement that if people were adequately informed about the risks, I think we could reach a point where we could let them make their own decisions."
Good grief. What is this? Fifth grade? Would someone please have Sally pass Dr. Siegel a note at recess?
It's dishonest because you misrepresented your position. You said if people were adequately informed, you would let them work in a smokey bar. But then you define "adequately informed" as "so terrified of SHS that they would refuse to work in a smokey bar."
You define adequately informed as agreeing with you. Which has been demonstrated.
As defined, there is no way possible that you would ever back away from banning SHS in bars and restaurants. Simple. And that was your intention all along.
Look. I come from a very Catholic family. The women, in particular, are immovable in their faith. And their views on abortion are what you might imagine.
So let's imagine that my mother were to start a blog. And on that blog she promised to stop agitating for a ban on abortions--if and only if women considering an abortion were adequately warned about the moral and physical questions in play.
So someone calls her on that and says, OK. Go ahead and write the warning. Whatever you want.
And then she turns around and says, well, people must not be warned adequately, otherwise they would not seek abortions.
And detractors say, wait, maybe they just think you are full of crap.
And she says, "Now come on. There is no scientific consensus on abortion. There is too much of a debate going on for the women to ever be informed. Therefore, no warning is possible and abortions must be banned."
If she said that, she would reveal herself to have been LYING about offering to back away from a ban on abortion. Because she NEVER, EVER intended to. The whole time, she would have been playing word games about "adequate" and "warning" and "information."
Note that it does not matter where you stand on SHS or abortion. That has nothing to do with what I am getting at.
What I am getting at is a discussion of the rhetorical device the doctor used here. Which was a fundamentally dishonest one.
Sure, he can say, "Well, IF someone were to come up with the warning, I WOULD back away from bans." But as any kindergarten student can see, he has defined his terms to make sure that will never happen.
Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish. Dishonest rubbish.
With 16 million asthmatics, one is then left to wonder WHAT causes the other MILLIONS of attacks, that you don’t seem overly concerned with?
I told you that's 15998...my father and I don't want in on THAT number. Has anyone actually done a poll of adult asthmatics? Not that I guess it would work now, but, it wouldn't take long. Let's get a rating on which things affect asthmatics the worse and eliminate the top 4? Someone save me from Chanel No 5!!!!
Sam -- at the very beginning of that ridiculous discussion about informing bartenders - I made the following post -- and got no response. He knew (as we did) where he was going from the start.
...Whatever you think fairly and accurately conveys the risk.
Sam M | 07.08.07 - 12:27 pm | #
***************
I agree Sam. I want to say -- tell them anything you like. But I'm wary of the changing goalpost. Michael -- If they are informed (and I agree -- who isn't these days?), and don't care, and choose to assume the risk -- you promise not to claim that they don't "understand" and must be protected from their own choices? Will you respect their autonomy?
godownfighting | 07.08.07 - 12:31 pm
*
Sam M to Doctor---'' You, sir, are a liar."
The problem here Sam is that the doctor forgets that, the night has a thousand eyes, and a thousand eyes can't help but see and remember this little game the doctor continues to play. It really does fluster him. Thank you Sam (and many others) for continually coming back at him. You logic, along with others is appreciated more than you know.
I'll respect their autonomy if they were adequately informed of the risk. Right now, they are not. So until such time as they are adequately informed, I'm going to work to protect them by eliminating the smoke from their working environments. When they are adequately informed, let me know and I can stop lobbying for smoking bans. End of my case.
End of my case. (you haven't made your case--just a blanket of protection--even when it's not wanted)
Flustered, picking up his marbles and going home.
This is rich.
.
The headline on this article:
Anti-Smoking Groups Up in Arms Over Failure to Give "Hairspray" an R-Rating Due to Momentary Teen Smoking
The ending chapter could read:
The Doctor Up in Arms that No One Agrees With Him Storms Out In Disgust
The audacity of the callous idiots on his blog who would like some questions answered.....
.
and adequately informed is defined as...?
Don't even bother to answer. There can't be anyone still reading who doesn't see where this goes.
I think what I've shown here is the strength of the argument for smoking bans IF it is true that the effects of secondhand smoke are as serious as I believe them to be.
Because IF it is as serious a hazard as I believe it to be, then it is quite clear that people are not adequately informed of those risks. Thus, a ban on smoking in bars/restaurants is justified.
What I have shown is that the ONLY way out of this predicament for the argument against smoking bans is EITHER:
1) To support the idea that we don't need to ban smoking, EVEN THOUGH workers are not adequately informed of the risk. Such an argument would be contrary to the way we handle all other occupational health issues.
OR
2) To argue that the risks of secondhand smoke are not as serious as I believe they are. In other words, I'm simply wrong about the health effects of secondhand smoke.
I think either of these 2 approaches to maintain opposition to smoking bans is reasonable. I am a little less comfortable with the first approach, however, because I really think people have a right to be informed adequately about risks that they are exposed to in their workplace. However, the argument that secondhand smoke is not a serious threat to health is a reasonable one to make, and would certainly argue against legislating smoking bans in workplaces.
The point of my discussion here is not to try to convince anyone to support smoking bans; it's simply to try to outline the types of arguments that would be effective and compelling to oppose smoking bans. Anyone is free to disagree with me about the severity of the health effects of secondhand smoke.
Lynda;
In the way he presented it it is confusing, however what he is saying here is pretty simple. Self serving but simple.
"I’m reading this as you say they are adequately informed IF they believe the serious health threat nonsense and only IF it is actually true. But you also consistently state that SHS IS a serious health threat and have stated that anyone NOT believing that is NOT adequately informed. "
1] If SHS is a serious health risk and you believe it you are adequately informed.
2]"He believes" it is a serious heath threat and as others do not believe it to be true, "he believes" they have not been adequately informed because they do not also believe what he does. Negating of course the thin possibility in the future as estimation methods improve or public attitudes he wishes to control may change [TC] we may find it to be less of a hazard than what "he" currently believes it to be.
Its the top down way; to present proof of superiority whenever possible. It keeps people reactive as opposed to pro-active by intimidation alone. The way Repace in a link above insinuated any ability in non education in a specific science specialty for others to understand the printed word.
It is just more profitable for the venue and all stakeholders in formulating illusions of integrity in process replacing true integrity of process.
It seems it is ethical for a surgeon after waiting months for a surgery to hand you a legal sized document printed both sides in font sizes so small you need a microscope to read it seconds before going into the operating room and contending you had ample time and no duress was found involved in making you sign a standard release form.
Yet none of the 220 bartenders could be given a mandatory education/intervention of the risks and be allowed to make a choice to work in a smoke filled environment by a signature, as we see in a number of other identical situations where risk is involved as a reasonable compromise to the massive effort and expenditures associated with smoking bans.
It is further demonstrated evidence to compound the type of ethics involved to stray from standard evolved risk assessment procedures by participating government agencies, to hammer home the point; there can be only one solution. A solution as decried from again a top down architecture, well before the public was allowed to be even privy to the plan already in place, known as the WHO tobacco treaty.
Dr. Siegel, why doesn't the Surgeon General's report and the universal coverage his "no safe level of exposure" statements recieved in the media adequately warn bartenders of ETS risks in the workplace? What more do they need to hear? You can't change the fact that most bartenders either don't believe the ETS risks or don't care.
It's not the end of the debate until pro-ban can show us the methodology. How can we share your belief if that isn't presented to us? And it's not really fair to say that if we don't share your belief then we haven't been sufficiently warned. We know more about tobacco than you. Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that actually wants to know all the information before they make decisions...We also want to find out for sure if we deserve the treatment we've been getting for so long. Of course, we don't believe we do, because from the information shared thus far, all we're guilty of is consuming a legal product that, as far as we can tell, does no harm. Of course, we do have to go by what we SEE, because what is now considered science is too busy tripping all over themselves to tell the biggest lie and win the prize of Most Anti-Anti of Them All. Not to mention,the leader of the group has no medical training whatsoever. Why on earth would I go to a car mechanic to ask about brain surgery?
It won't be the end of the debate until real science comes into play. If there is real science out there on it, well, then the onus is on those pro-ban to show it to us. And that means showing it all. If it's all true, then no one should be afraid to present their science in it's entirety and debate it. You seem angry that we challenge you. We challenge you because we're angry too. Except we have the right to be angry. WE are being punished, WE are being robbed, WE are being singled out, WE are being abused. We want all the reasons why. This has become religion, "cuz I said so" didn't work on me as a child and it won't work now. Will you change YOUR mind on something if I just throw you a bunch of numbers and say "don't worry about HOW I got these numbers, I'm qualified, now you must believe me and share my belief?"
We may be angry, and some of us may be angry enough to get downright mean about it, but we're all good people here. None of us want to responsible for hurting others. Especially those of us with children. As I've said before, none of us are monsters. But we're not stupid either.
Siegel: Without a consensus....they are going to rightly perceive that there is a debate going on
Right on both counts. First, there is no consensus, which demonstrates the fact that there is no consensus in the public to have smoking bans. Yet, politicians BELIVE that there is. Rod, among others, gave us a couple of examples as to how that BELIEF probably has come about. Second, there is a debate going on--and the FACTS support one side while the BELIEFS are being swayed to the other whether you believe/like it or not.
Siegel: I still don't understand what the "other" side is to the medical fact that secondhand smoke causes hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and is a severe health hazard for literally millions of asthmatics. Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side?
Many of the people who disagree are asthmatics. Therefore, the "medical fact" on which you rely is faulty. From this, we can see that your medical facts are not based in reality. (Yet, people who smoke are supposed to be "cranks in denial"? Whatta laugh.)
Siegel: I'll respect their autonomy if..."
No IFs about it. Not anymore.
Siegel:I'm going to work to protect them by eliminating the smoke from their working environments. When they are adequately informed, let me know and I can stop lobbying for smoking bans.
As has been shown time and again, you aren't protecting anybody with smoking bans. You are hurting people--both individuals and society.
Siegel: End of my case.
Then you are taking yourself out of the "raging debate" to which you referred earlier. That is your choice.
***************
Jerry Thomas: A simple warning that smoking is allowed on any particular premises is sufficient to "warn" people of the POSSIBILITY of danger
More than that, such a sign is common courtesy. Alas, such courtesy is a thing of the past as we have seen. Smoking bans are always followed by an increase in societal hostility and a decrease in air quality. If "the debate" really is over, then people don't have anything to lose by fulfilling the accusations of being "callous". If this really is the case, then there's no going back because the damage that has been done will never be repaired and forgiveness...well, it's over.
When they are adequately informed, let me know and I can stop lobbying for smoking bans. End of my case.
You mean when they finally concede to YOUR point of view.
I believe that you believe, Doc. I just don't believe WHAT you believe. WHY does that make me UNINFORMED?
I told you that's 15998...my father and I don't want in on THAT number.
Oh, I’m sorry Jalestra, I forgot about that. But then, being the stupid, retarded, deluded, uninformed smoker that I am it is so hard to remember these things…..(yes, I’m being sarcastic, I took no offense).
because I really think people have a right to be informed adequately about risks that they are exposed to in their workplace.
They do indeed and they already are, if they weren’t before, they sure as hell are now. So WHAT is the problem?
However, the argument that secondhand smoke is not a serious threat to health is a reasonable one to make, and would certainly argue against legislating smoking bans in workplaces.
AHHHHH herein lies the problem. You don’t believe they are adequately informed IF they don’t believe YOUR belief that SHS is deadly. Therefore, in order to protect them from a choice they made that you don’t like, you push for bans.
Got it. Thank you, you are most generous and benevolent.
"I'll respect their autonomy if they were adequately informed of the risk. Right now, they are not."
OK. I'll call BS again.
How could they prove it to you? I am proposing a modified ban. A ban in all bars and restaurants during shifts staffed by even one employee who has not been adequately informed.
There will be a government tribunal for all bartenders who choose to prove that they have been warned.
How could they prove to you, Dr. Siegel, that they have the information you think they need?
You say that they are not so dumb as to be in-educatable. OK. Tell me what they need to know to qualify as informed and warned.
Oh.. and what will you do if they choose to work in a smokey bar anyway?
Not that I expect an answer. Because to be honest, you have abused my trust so thoroughly that I expect very little from you at this stage.
Oh... and just in case: I know a bartender who thinks to be fully informed he would really need to know how you came up with the 220 deaths. As a professional health educator dedicated to the truth, surely you won't leave him hanging. Surely you are proud of your work and the public statements you have made. Surely you can defend them.
You are fond of challenges, doctor. So here is one. Do a Google search for "Sam MacDonald." Find some things I have written. Challenge me on any one of them. Asked me how I conducted my work. Pay special attention to anything I have done that has had a nefarious effect on someone's life. (Like you openly admit SHS bans have on some people.) Question my methodology. My thought process. My conclusions.
I commit myself here and now to publicly discussing anything I have written. And if I have made an error, I will admit it. Here. In this forum. Or any other.
You know why? That's what people with integrity do.
Once we are done with that, I will ask you to explain the 220 bartender deaths.
I stand behind my work.
Do you?
Dr. Siegel,
I have been working so hard lately against smoking bans that I don't get out much anymore to hear my favorite bands and see my old friends. But a month ago I did hear one of my favorite bands, the Schwag, a Grateful Dead tribute band named after leftover pot that is full of stems and seeds.
http://www.theschwag.com/home.html
While waiting for the band to play, I fell into a conversation with a Hell's Angel's/biker type who show me a wicked knife wound in his belly that he got in a fight at a Schwag show a month earlier. He said his attacker's knife hadn't scared him during the fight because it was only a three inch blade. This fellow used an inhaler for his asthma and smoked as we talked. Doctor, this fellow has chosen a high risk lifestyle and no accurate warning you could write would influence him or many of the bar people I know. The risk one takes on in working at a bar that allows smoking is about the same respiratory risk involved in moving from rural Illinois to Chicago. That level of risk, even if it is real, does not scare many ordinary people. Warn them as best you can, but is wrong to force people to change their way of life over such a tiny, disputed risks.
Dr Siegel, surely it is possibe to provide the reasoning behind your belief that SHS is a 'serious health threat'.
This could then be distilled into a warning.
People could then decide for themselves.
Your contention that you are unable to write a warning makes no sense since something clearly informed you. Just make thar 'something' visible in laymens terms.
If you could do that what would it be?
west
----
West,
Now you are being silly. The doctor has said that he knows how to warn people properly. He said it could be done. But if he did that, he would have to make good on his promise to back away from bans, wouldn't he? And he clearly has no intention of doing that. Regardless of what he said.
One wonders what would happen if the government WERE to enact Dr. Siegel's purported plan. If they said that bars could allow smoking, but only if the bartenders could prove that they had been "warned." Nowm, imagine if Doctor Siegel were put incharge of assessing who had been warned and in what fashion, and judging whether or not that level of warning was sufficient.
Now imagine further that the first bar to apply for a smoking license were called Sam, Elizabeth and Gio's House of Reckless Idiotic Jerks, a place staffed solely by me, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and Dr. Gio Batta Gori. All of whom, after careful analysis, think that SHS poses very little health threat.
One wonders if Doctor Siegel would grant us the license. I doubt it. Because if we were "really" warned we would believe him. Because he is a super genius.
Or, more succintly--it doesn't matter what the warning says. He will not accept it.
He didn't really mean it when he said that.
Siegel "I'll respect their autonomy if they were adequately informed of the risk. Right now, they are not. So until such time as they are adequately informed, I'm going to work to protect them by eliminating the smoke from their working environments. When they are adequately informed, let me know and I can stop lobbying for smoking bans. End of my case.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 3:43 pm | # ".
Followed very shortly by
"I think either of these 2 approaches to maintain opposition to smoking bans is reasonable. I am a little less comfortable with the first approach, however, because I really think people have a right to be informed adequately about risks that they are exposed to in their workplace. However, the argument that secondhand smoke is not a serious threat to health is a reasonable one to make, and would certainly argue against legislating smoking bans in workplaces.
The point of my discussion here is not to try to convince anyone to support smoking bans; it's simply to try to outline the types of arguments that would be effective and compelling to oppose smoking bans. Anyone is free to disagree with me about the severity of the health effects of secondhand smoke.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 4:04 pm | # ".
You will continue to work to have legislation passed to bring about smoking bans and yet you are not trying to convince anybody to support smoking bans?
Doc, whatever medication they have you on, you better have it checked, you are cracking up, going totally loony tunes.
You believe you have made a strong argument for smoking bans, yet you have made NO argument whatsoever except that YOU believe in harm CAUSED by mere exposure to slight amounts of tobacco smoke, even if repeatedly over hours and hours, week after week, year after year, the very best you can say truly, is that there is an associated increase in risk of these diseases after all that exposure, and not one single proven case where said exposure can be shown to be the culprit trigger in the chain of events that led to said disease.
Based on that alone, I believe your credentials should be checked where you work to prove that you are indeed qualified to be teaching anybody anything, talk about no child left behind, this isnt rocket science Doc, it is a battle for the right to choose what risks we are comfortable taking, and again, all it needs is a simple non verbal sign showing a smoldering cigarette to inform people of what they may be exposed to upon entering ANY establishment, at that point they are adequately informed of the risk they will be undertaking, and have the choice to take that risk or not. Any further "warning" is based upon SOME peoples BELIEF'S of supposed harm/threat/effects, and they have the ability to decide for themselves if that belief is enough to prevent their entering said establishment. If you want, I'll throw you a bone, put the old "poison" graphics up along with the smoldering cigarette and see if that meets your criteria. Having been an over the road truck driver formerly in my life, I can tell you there are thousands and thousands of totally underinformed truck drivers out there this very second, hauling very dangerous chemicals, chemicals of which one single whiff is proven to cause death, and yet they are "adequately" informed of the "danger"? and still choose to take this risk? ANd it gets worse, for there are millions who are in jeopardy if even one single incident occurs to these drivers that may cause an accident and release these chemicals, upon millions of uninformed, unsuspecting motorists who have had not one iota of warning other than the standard hazmat signs placed on these trucks, just the fuel tankers driving by you are so dangerous that even one spark during an accident can level a city block, yet motorists pass these tankers all the time, cutting them off to make that next exit they forgot was coming up so fast, and these people are adequately informed of the risks they face? Really? You are a wonder doc, as in wonder what the hell he can be thinking, you are a moron if you believe exposure to tobacco smoke holds a candle to the risks these innocent mototrists face, without ANY warning what so ever, and yet we cannot adequately inform workers of the dangers of tobacco smoke, we can inform them adequately of the risks involved in driving on the same roads as 80,000 pound vehicles with deadly cargo's, but we cant make them understand that tobacco smoke whisping by will kill them, right, you have lost it doc, any and all credibility, and any and all respect we had ever given you. You have shown to be just as unbending a believer in your faith as your mentor Stanton Glanz.
Sam, I try my best Interesting scenario.
What I wanted to know is what tipped Dr Siegel from skeptical to firm belief and the reasoning behind that?
west
----
Perhaps to ensure a balanced view is maintained,we should suggest that say, TFK start a blog highlighting discrepancies in Dr Siegel's views.As your position stands Dr Siegel,you have made it obvious that you will not elucidate upon your studies that you state PROVE the dangers of SHS,but which are contradicted by some.Your agreement to accept that bans would not be needed should a suitable warning suffice rests totally on an acceptance that you are totally correct in the first place.Dr Siegel,your totalitarian view is extraordinary ,are you honing your skills to take on the elite of the total control movement in order to strengthen restrictions ?Your obvious skill in inverted logic coupled with lateral thinking is a credit to your brainwashing.
Michael Siegel: This idea of presenting two sides of the picture is not an adequate warning.
OMG! I cannot believe you wrote that!
Dr. Siegel, George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a blueprint.
220?
.
I have to agree with the commenters here.
Doc is the only thing that you will accept is that people will ban smoking if they were educated on all aspects?
If the risk statements are used then they wouldn't work there? You will notice not guaranteed harm can be used. You will also notice that risk assesment doesn't stop B.A.S.E. skydivers, or welders, or asbestos mine workers (still allowed in Canada) to do what they want.
Now why can't people who are educated decide to continue to work in smoking bars? Remember risk doesn't equal the workers automatic harm, and that will allow risk takers & smokers to continue to actually be hospitable to customers they want.
I wrote: Dr. Siegel, George Orwell's 1984 was a warning, not a blueprint.
It just occurred to me that perhaps Dr. Siegel hasn't been adequately informed of the warning in 1984.
LOL
.
Bill asked: "Dr. Siegel, why doesn't the Surgeon General's report and the universal coverage his "no safe level of exposure" statements recieved in the media adequately warn bartenders of ETS risks in the workplace? What more do they need to hear? You can't change the fact that most bartenders either don't believe the ETS risks or don't care."
Bill, I agree with you that most bartenders probably DON'T believe the ETS risks. And I think the meaningless statements of the Surgeon General (THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE) only makes things worse because people just stop listening altogether. The 30 minute claims have the same effect. If SHS is supposed to have people dropping dead in 30 minutes, yet you don't witness that all around you, you are going to just tune out completely. I think that's what many people have done.
So no - I don't think the Surgeon General's hyper-exaggeration adequately informs people. In fact, I think it does the opposite. It tunes people out completely. If anything, making them less informed.
And everyone - please don't get me wrong. I'm not stating that if you don't agree that SHS is a serious health hazard, you are not well-informed!!!! If you have come to your own opinion based on your own review of the evidence, then you are not uninformed! You just happen to have a different opinion, or to have reached a different conclusion than me.
But I think it's clear - and Bill seems to agree, that with respect to most bartenders, they do not tend to believe that SHS represents a very serious threat to their health.
Thus, if and only if it is true that SHS is indeed a serious threat, those bartenders are not well-informed about the risks.
Look - what I'm really trying to say is this: only 1 of the following 2 statements can be true.
EITHER:
#1 - Secondhand smoke is a very serious health threat
OR
#2 - Secondhand smoke is not a very serious health threat.
Now if #1 is true, then it is also true that bartenders in general are not adequately informed about the risks. Thus, we should all agree that smoking bans would be justified under this scenario.
If, on the other hand, #2 is true, then there is no need to inform anyone of serious risks and smoking bans are not justified. We should all agree that smoking bans would not be justified under this scenario.
What I'm simply trying to argue is that IF the scientific evidence does indeed show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are reasonably well justified.
On the other hand, if the evidence does not show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are not justified and I'm causing a lot of hardship to a lot of people for no reason.
Can we agree on that much?
Oh my god!
"I'm not stating that if you don't agree that SHS is a serious health hazard, you are not well-informed!!!!"
No. You are just saying that if BARTENDERS don't agree that it is a serious health hazard, THEY are misinformed. BY DEFINITION.
That is, in fact, EXACTLY what you are saying. You used the fact that 44 percent of people disagree with you as DIRECT EVIDENCE that people must not be well informed. BECAUSE IF THEY WERE, THEY'D AGREE WITH YOU.
My gosh. That's exactly what you said. And continue to say.
You would accept a warning. But not until people prove that they are warned. And the only proof you will accept is that they see SHS as a significant health threat. Like you do.
Anyone else is obviously not sufficiently warned.
Holy Moses.
I can agree that so far the actual evidence does not point to any significant health risk and thus bounds have been overstepped by many.
However, I am willing to accept actual evidence that can be reproduced that proves otherwise. However, that would entail actually knowing the methodology to arrive at the alleged evidence.
So let's start there. 220 dead bartenders? 15998 asthmatics? GO!
If Michael would just put his elusive information into words we could receive it inside cirarette packages on the internet and in the press just like the news of new research studies everyone is joking about lately. We could carry around the information and show it to anyone who might not be properly advised of the risks.
I for one would be delighted to advise others just so no one is inadvertently harmed, perhaps smokers could carry release forms like doctors do to prove others had fair warning of the risks involved. We could go through the wait staff and make sure everyone is advised and ask permission to smoke in a bar would that be enough to appease those who are claiming to be so concerned with the lives of others.
Life would be so much better if only those elusive bar tenders could be served the information in a form they could not help but understand. And put a recognition in writing so there would be no doubt they had been advised.
If only he were able to put it into words.
That is the crux of the deception; there is no safe level because no one has established one. Not that it is not possible to develop one based in traditional methods, it is just more convenient to spew without one.
Now we get the second impassable barrier no one will be properly informed so how could they possibly understand the risks because as we know there are risks we just don't know what they are, and no one can be protected from the unknown.
So we will continue to be protected by avoidance of all quantitative risk. Bogeyman science rules the day. Create a fear and maintain it to establish control, way to go Michael your TC cult are just too smart for the rest of us. It is progress to finally see a TC member openly bragging though which reveals the strategy to the public.
What no one though of, is just how difficult it will be to hide from the realization of what is actually in play, further what the public reaction is going to be in realizing the level of deceit and opportunism widely accepted in the scientific community laid out for all to see.
Let's see how long that perception lasts in the information age when the public stops laughing and starts to tally up the costs.
Will it be Global warming, the fat pandemic or the alcohol campaign that takes this thing over the top? Perhaps just internal conflict, rest assured it will happen. And we can wait it out, until it is our turn to finally speak our opinions.
Your pals are only making it worse with every new study and every promotion of fear and hatred they spew. The larger the associated costs the more extreme the public reaction will be. You are building a huge house of match sticks, which is getting close to the point it collapses under its own weight as they always do.
People just hate being used, especially considering how much those funds are in need right now and how they are being carelessly wasted in purchased rhetoric with no real value beyond profiteering.
"What I'm simply trying to argue is that IF the scientific evidence does indeed show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are reasonably well justified."
And can't we all agree that absent a really significant consensus--with near unanimity and plenty of direct evidence to support it--that any government mediations should be tempered, and come complete with signigficant compromises to accomodate people who have legitimate objections to the science? And in this case, don't we consider Gori and Whelan credible scientists?
And can't we agree that about 20 comments up, you admitted that there is still a considerable amount of controversy surrounding this issue? And that the dangers of SHS are nothing more than a "claim"?
And can't we wonder why, despite those facts, you are pushing for bans in 100 percent of businesses, instead of 50 percent? Or 90 percent? Or 90 percent?
And can't we agree that when someone says that he would back away from a ban if there were sufficient warnings in place, follows that statement with one saying that such a warning would be possible, and the fritters around the edges and defines himself out of his commitment--that we should look askance at that person?
And can't we agree that if someone is insisting on arguing about the actual danger, and that same person has made direct statements about the dangers in the past, that person should defend those statements when directly challenged? Or at least try to explain them? Especially when those statements resulted in real harm to real people?
OK - so you don't want to answer the question. That's fine, but it makes it impossible for discussion to proceed.
By the way, I'm happy to answer the question about the 220, whatever that is, but I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. If you could provide the specific research in which I made an argument about 220 somethings, then I will be happy to attempt to explain it.
i don't think this has been posted yet. unfortunately i can't get it to link. another gallup poll (see above) is telling us that 21% of americans admit to smoking. that would be over 60 million smokers. of course the story is spun with useless percentages, not real numbers, making it appear that less people are smoking. in fact, more people are smoking.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...in3106215.shtml
Wow. No idea what the 220 question is? We've been asing it for a month. A fequent commenter changed his screen name to reflect the question. But fine. i guess you missed it. I have to go back and post stuff bit by bit. But here is a direct link quoting you and the 220 number:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/...ws/
amherst.html
Here is you quote and my question, whcih I have cut and pasted probably 25 times in the past month:
Dr. Siegel: "220 bartenders working in the state today, if they continue to work for 40 years, are going to die from their exposure."
My question: "Doctor, to get the 220 number, did you take the total number of bartenders working in Mass. and assume that each and every one of them would work 40/40 careers?"
great! the link worked.
btw, i love this thread. you people truly amaze me (in a good way).
And to answer YOUR question: No. We can't agree on that. There are shades of gray. And I am not willing to answer until I know how you are defining all of your terms.
I have been through this before.
But jus tto gove yo a hint, you say:
"What I'm simply trying to argue is that IF the scientific evidence does indeed show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are reasonably well justified."
I wholeheartedly disagree. We allow all sorts of people to take all sorts of ridiculous risks. I do not believe tending bar in a smokey place is anywhere near as dangerous as driving a stock car. And we allow people to do that.
I believe that there are numerous actions we could take, short of a ban, to ameliarate the risk and make tending bar in a smokey place as safe as it can be, but still let it go on.
Like I said, we do it for football players, window washers, NASCAR, scallop divers, loggers, etc.
No reason you have to outlaw all dangerous jobs.
Particularly when no one can find the bodies.
So there. I guess you did get an answer. And you didn't even have to ask 35 times.
Now, the 220. Then all the questions I asked?
The Mighty Mentor Stanton Glantz:
http://thumbsnap.com/v/fBO7t58g.jpg
In
Tobacco War:
Inside the California Battles
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/vie...&
doc.view=print
I remember in his Epigraph Glantz uses quotes from
Machiavelli:
' And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order to things. Because the inventor has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new . .'
He also uses a quote from Kermit the Frog.
You claim you were brainwashed by this idiot? How did you ever escape the Jim Jones Kool-Aid fest in Guyana?
"than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order to things."
That you Doctor did not take any warning of where this was going from the get go is unbelievable. Perhaps your weren't properly warned?
.
What I'm simply trying to argue is that IF the scientific evidence does indeed show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are reasonably well justified.
On the other hand, if the evidence does not show that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, then my actions are not justified and I'm causing a lot of hardship to a lot of people for no reason.
Seems to me you’ve already done the damage and now openly admit here that you did so without any REAL conclusive evidence. Are you truly proud of that?
Can we agree on that much?
Can you agree you jumped the gun, saw a way to enforce your belief on others and pushed for bans with no real proof?
OK - so you don't want to answer the question.
Considering the questions you continually ignore Doctor, you have nerve saying that.
By the way, I'm happy to answer the question about the 220, whatever that is, but I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. If you could provide the specific research in which I made an argument about 220 somethings, then I will be happy to attempt to explain it.
It's the same 220 bartenders you mentioned earlier in the month Doctor. The same 220 bartenders everyone has been asking you about every day since then. How can you NOT know what he's talking about?
Michael----'By the way, I'm happy to answer the question about the 220, whatever that is, but I have not a clue as to what you are talking about. If you could provide the specific research in which I made an argument about 220 somethings, then I will be happy to attempt to explain it.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 7:47 pm |"
I have a vision of your eyeballs spinning in independent directions and speeds at this point. Geez I thought this thread would be interesting. Never could have imagined this path.
Did you get carried away with the Sunday Brunch Bloody Mary's? Or was is Mimosas?
.
It was the Mimosas.
Now - Sam, I'm not sure what your uncertainty is about. The quote CLEARLY states that it is talking about what would happen if the bartenders all continued to work under current exposure conditions (as of 1997) for 40 years. And I clearly would have used a 40-hour work week. So yes, this is clearly an estimate of the expected mortality if these bartenders worked 40 years at 40 hours per week.
Obviously, not every bartender is going to work for that long. So this is not the actual number of expected deaths. It is simply the number of expected deaths if these bartenders were to work a full 40 year career.
I hope that answers your question.
I also hope that you see that my quote made it clear that I was talking about what would happen if bartenders worked for 40 years. I'm glad that I was so clear about it - anti-smoking groups today just throw out these numbers without providing the assumptions under which they are made.
Thanks to Sam for providing an answer to the question, because now we have a basis for further discussion.
Just to repeat:
The question: Assuming that secondhand smoke is a severe health hazard, would that not justify smoking bans?
The answer: "I wholeheartedly disagree. We allow all sorts of people to take all sorts of ridiculous risks. I do not believe tending bar in a smokey place is anywhere near as dangerous as driving a stock car. And we allow people to do that.
I believe that there are numerous actions we could take, short of a ban, to ameliarate the risk and make tending bar in a smokey place as safe as it can be, but still let it go on.
Like I said, we do it for football players, window washers, NASCAR, scallop divers, loggers, etc.
No reason you have to outlaw all dangerous jobs."
OK - now I agree that there is no reason that we have to outlaw all dangerous jobs. However, the one difference between tending bar and playing football, washing windows on the 81st floor, driving a race car at 200 miles per hour around a track, and chopping down trees (what do scallop divers do?) - the one difference between tending bar and ALL of these other occupations - is that workers in these other occupations are adequately aware of the risks that they are facing.
There is no question in my mind that a person who gets into a car and is prepared to drive at 200 miles per hour around a narrow track with 30 other cars KNOWS that this is a very high risk and that the chances of a serious accident, or even death, is quite high.
There is no doubt in my mind that a person who is up on the 81st floor of a skyscraper on some scaffolding KNOWS that they are taking a pretty severe risk and that if they fall, they are probably going to die.
There is no doubt in my mind that a person who steps into the ring with Mike Tyson (or sees him just walking down the street) appreciates how serious the risk is to step into the ring with him (or get too close).
There is no doubt in my mind that someone who is chopping down a tree realizes that there is a chance that the tree might fall on him and if so, could kill him or seriously injure him.
HOWEVER, I seriously doubt that most bartenders seriously think about the fact that they are facing the risk of developing a potentially life-threatening illness when they walk in to serve drinks in a bar. The risk is so remote from the actual act of serving drinks that I doubt most bartenders think about it.
I think many of you agree. Bill, for example, opined above that he thinks most bartenders don't really think about it or take it seriously.
And the nationwide poll supports my assertion, since it reveals that the majority of the overall public (not even bartenders in particular) does not think secondhand smoke is a severe health hazard.
So that's why I think it is reasonable to allow people to accept the risks at these other jobs. Because they are AWARE of the risks. But they are not adequately aware of the risks of working in a bar. (This is why I am stressing this awareness issue so much in this thread)
As far as the 2nd part of Sam's answer - that there are things we can do short of a smoking ban that would still protect the bartenders adequately - I am just not aware of what we can do. We can use ventilation to try to remove the smoke as quickly as possible, but studies have shown that the levels of smoke still remain quite high. The amount of ventilation required to remove the smoke so that the workers are not exposed to a plume off of the smoker's cigarette is so high that it would be impractical.
This is at the present time, and if technology changes, I'm willing to review the new technology. But right now, I just don't see that ventilation is going to solve the problem (and remember, we are assuming here that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat).
Warn the employees? Why not? When hired give them an informational sheet to read through. Once they read through it they can sign it. This will provide a record that they have been informed of the risk of SHS/ETS in the workplace. IMHO this should suffice after all this seems to work quite well prior to medical procedures. Unless the bar will have to be set higher for all things tobacco.
As far as all the asthamtics? Why not just post a sign that the facility is smoker friendly? I am sure the asthmatic has been diagnosed of their condition by a health care professional and is quite aware of the risks of SHS/ETS. The smoker freindly establishment will do its job by signage (or face hefty fines) the health care pro will do their job by informing their patient. Problem solved! thats it least how it used to be in a free thinking society.
As far as people not knowing they may be asthamtic. Just post another sign informing them that this is a smoker friendly establishment and advising them that it might be wise to see a doctor before entering. Just like the Big Pharma adds on TV.
Doc, see how east it can be to educate people.
Dr. Siegel,
I have talked to alot of bar workers about this issue. Most seem agnostic about yet open to the possibility that ETS might increase certain health or life risks but accept whatever increased risk ETS presents as just part of the job in the same way housepainters accept risks from heights, lead and solvents. Bartenders want to keep their smokers the same way painters want to keep their oil-based paints. Most bar workers would also say contemporary ventilation can get rid of the issue.
http://www.smokeeaters.org/bar/
nemo31: Doc, see how east it can be to educate people.
Nope. Because what the doctor is saying is that...
NASCAR drivers know the risk and take it anyway and that's ok.
Window washers washing windows at great heights know the risk and take it anyway and that's ok.
Loggers know the risk and take it anyway and that's ok.
Scallop divers know the risk and take it anyway and that's ok.
Bartenders know the risk and take it anyway and that's NOT OK. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!! THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISK OR THEY'D NEVERNEVERNEVER CHOOSE TO ACCEPT THE RISK!!
See, it doesn't matter how much or in what way they've been informed of the risk, if they choose to take that risk then it proves they haven't been adequately informed. Only bartenders who choose not to take the risk are the only ones who have been adequately informed.
So following the doctor's line of reasoning, NO ONE who's been adequately informed would ever choose to take the risk.
But only about secondhand smoke.
Isn't that right, doctor?
.
And the nationwide poll supports my assertion, since it reveals that the majority of the overall public (not even bartenders in particular) does not think secondhand smoke is a severe health hazard.
And so that means they are not adequately informed? Why? Because they still can't see the hazard that you do?
That IS what you are saying here, all day long. As long as no one agrees that there is a hazard they are NOT properly informed.
B&*ls^#t!!! We are all properly informed, we read this blog, we listen to you, we do our own research and share it. We STILL don't agree with you. We've heard and read YOUR hazards, we accept that you believe what you say..........we just don't believe what you say to be our truth. And for that you feel you have the right to force it on us?
Your logic on this is really bad Doc.
Lynda F: B&*ls^#t!!! We are all properly informed, we read this blog, we listen to you, we do our own research and share it. We STILL don't agree with you.
But that's what it is, what I said in my previous post.
We only think we are adequately informed of the risk. If we weren't merely adequately informed of the risk but really, most sincerely adequately informed of the risk, we could do nothing but agree with Dr. Siegel that secondhand smoke is the most dangerous substance in the universe.
Therefore, since we do not agree with Dr. Siegel that it's the most dangerous substance in the universe, we cannot possibly be adequately informed.
And I really, most sincerely agree that it's B&*ls^#t.
.
We have to be reasonable here Michael is obviously participating, honestly and that is a great start.
Michael FYI
I have spent a good number of years on the swing stages and bolson's chairs hanging above the city. I do so by choice and for a good deal of the time I could see little reason in wearing safety harness. I would not advise this to others with less experience and would never allow others who worked with me to do so, but the fact is I was well aware of the limitations of gravity and the sudden stop principle, however many times for comfort and flexibility in accomplishing a task I took the chance.
Now the obvious was it worth what I was being paid to risk my life? Not at all. Did I consider this while working Not in the least.
Did i need anyone to explain gravity no I honestly thought I had that figured out in early elementary school when I fell off a bike and broke a wrist.
Is there some similarity to risk in tending bar and working on a chair? That would be hard to see considering.
The long term effects I survived over 30 years and came out OK although I know many who didn't, even following the rules to a T, some times things happen beyond your control and no amount of rules and regs will ever change that.
Again the volume of smoke related information thrust at us on a daily basis is well beyond what could be considered sheltered from knowlege.
I certainly did not fully understand the scope of the dangers in my occupation right out of the gate. In that sense, bartenders are much better informed in their specific occupational risks especially now being forced to police smoking in the bars in addition to their other duties, more informed I would say, than all the other professions you named.
We certainly were never instructed in tying knots or estimating fulcrum advantages on the six o'clock news.
Whether bar and restaurant workers are adequately informed or not is the question. Given that almost half of the population doesn't think that secondhand smoke is very harmful, I don't think that we can say that bartenders appreciate the risk in the same way that a racecar driver appreciates the risk of possible injury or death.
I've worked with a large number of bartenders and restaurant workers, and the story I hear is always the same: I had no idea that the smoke was going to be that hazardous. I had no idea that it was going to cause me to suffer so much. I had no idea I was going to get lung cancer (or heart disease).
You don't hear too many bartenders coming down with lung cancer and saying: "Well - I took the risk. I knew I might come down with lung cancer, but it was my decision to work in the smoky environment anyway."
I stand by my contention that these workers are not aware of the risks in the same way that a race car driver, logger, scallop diver, or boxer is.
As far as the 2nd part of Sam's answer - that there are things we can do short of a smoking ban that would still protect the bartenders adequately - I am just not aware of what we can do. We can use ventilation to try to remove the smoke as quickly as possible, but studies have shown that the levels of smoke still remain quite high. The amount of ventilation required to remove the smoke so that the workers are not exposed to a plume off of the smoker's cigarette is so high that it would be impractical.
This is at the present time, and if technology changes, I'm willing to review the new technology. But right now, I just don't see that ventilation is going to solve the problem (and remember, we are assuming here that secondhand smoke is a severe health threat).
You flit back-and-forth between a SEVERE health threat and a health threat. You also flit back-and-forth between working in smoky bar and working where any plume of cigarette smoke might reach the bartender. Finally, your lack of faith in ventilation--well, technically your colleagues' lack of faith in ventilation--is the cause of decreasing air quality AFTER smoking bans are implemented.
(Notice how I just confused cause and correlation? Cuts both ways.)
Moreover, you still have not answered Sam's question. You told us the condition under which you believe the number would hold--namely, working forty years as a barteneder in a smoky bar. However, you did not reveal how you managed to arrive at the magic number of 220.
"I've worked with a large number of bartenders and restaurant workers, and the story I hear is always the same: I had no idea that the smoke was going to be that hazardous. I had no idea that it was going to cause me to suffer so much. I had no idea I was going to get lung cancer (or heart disease). "
I take from that that you tell all your bartender/restaurant worker patients that they got heart disease and lung cancer from their jobs?
ok Dr Siegel
How do we know they really know/don't know the risk they work in? I'll say it again. There are people of all occupations and pastimes who will take risks that are potentially deadly. Is the reason you think that they don't know the risk because they agree to any possible risk they may want to take?
How about you give them an hour long seminar, and they still may want to work at that smoking bar. Is that good enough to know they know the "possible risk" yet? What would guarantee knowledge for you? Although you still have to tell these people that its all theoretical, and real corpses.
Now for possible information given: That would be the no death certificate has ever been given to these dead (220) bartenders (its based on risk not proven harm to all), methods that you come about the exact death numbers in interviews (never ever the word "about" in your messages). There must be at least what 220 death certificates in the state right show them 220 of the peoples faces, how about the typical exposure over 8 hours of work (not the busiest 4) on a graph or even the highest exposure and the lowest in average bars.
BTW you can't say theres 220 lives saved, because one theoretical statistical death may not happen; yet I don't see the word estimate in your statements. (how is that for another side of the information?) Just like the other 219 theoretical deaths may not happen. It always amazes me that there's always a solid number; yet even the risks haven't turned into actual death certificates. Shouldn't that be said?
Michael----' don't think that we can say that bartenders appreciate the risk in the same way that a racecar driver appreciates the risk of possible injury or death.'
What is the criteria for determining their appreciation of the risks?
Or is this simply moving the goalpost yet again?
.
Michael---'I've worked with a large number of bartenders and restaurant workers,'
Note the 'large number' rather than the 220 (or other specific number)
Then 'I had no idea that it was going to cause me to suffer so much. I had no idea I was going to get lung cancer (or heart disease). "
Did they get heart disease or lung cancer? If so how many of the large number were so afflicted? Could there have been any other exposure?
.
Doc,
How do you define "serious" or "severe" in the context of increased health risk?
GreatScot
Dr Siegel,in your evidence you state that having spoken to bar staff suffering potentially fatal ill health,you are presuming that the cause is SHS ,what steps did you take to ensure it was not the plethora of other factors ? You also IGNORE human nature.Unlike the racing scenario where it is somewhat impossible for a dead driver to suggest that they did not fully appreciate the dangers,anyone with a terminal disease will immediately seek to blame someone/something.Is this not the usual coping mechanism ? Surely you must be aware of this factor ? Dr Siegel you have at your disposal numerous studies to PROVE your belief,BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.YOUR OWN STUDIES "PROVED" IT,YET YOU DO NOT ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION USING THEM AS YOUR BASIS FOR PROOF.WHY EVER NOT ? I suppose the more comments made are good for business ,promoting your blog as a topical forum.Though TFK should seriously consider reviewing the contents of your blog in order to provide more information for the masses that need to appreciate every risk conceivable.
Try as I might to come up with my own words to describe what you're saying Dr. Siegel it's a battle. Because it's sooooo easy that it's actually complex. Anyway, I'd be trying to improve on some reactions already posted so rather than do that I'll repeat them here for emphasis on what I believe is the core of the matter:
Lynda F.: The real truth is, that IF everyone concedes to your belief, then there is no need to warn anyone for they already believe and you accomplished your goal.
Sam M: It's dishonest because you misrepresented your position. You said if people were adequately informed, you would let them work in a smokey bar. But then you define "adequately informed" as "so terrified of SHS that they would refuse to work in a smokey bar."
You define adequately informed as agreeing with you. Which has been demonstrated. ...he has defined his terms to make sure that will never happen.
tnsmoker: it doesn't matter how much or in what way they've been informed of the risk, if they choose to take that risk then it proves they haven't been adequately informed. Only bartenders who choose not to take the risk are the only ones who have been adequately informed.
So following the doctor's line of reasoning, NO ONE who's been adequately informed would ever choose to take the risk.
Therefore, since we do not agree with Dr. Siegel that it's the most dangerous substance in the universe, we cannot possibly be adequately informed.
-----------------------------------
No matter how many times you try to clarrrrrify your position, Dr. Siegel, by trying to reword what you mean it all means the same in the end. There really is no "misunderstanding" of your position.
Though I'd like to expand on this:
If people believe secondhand smoke claims are just claims, not facts, then they are not adequately informed, because to be informed means that you understand the facts, not that you simply perceive that there is a debate raging. My point is that as long as there is a raging debate about whether secondhand smoke is seriously harmful to bar and restaurant workers' health, THERE IS NO WAY that they can be adequately informed.
and For example, I am well-educated and have seen claims that global warming is basically going to change life as we know it. To tell you the truth, I don't really believe it. Why? Not because the information was not presented adequately, but because I see a raging debate out there. I am not convinced because I see reputable scientists challenging these conclusions.
This is rather frightening, Dr. Siegel. You're actually saying that the reason people would have a differing opinion is JUST BECAUSE there is a debate. Not that people have listened to what each side has had to say, maybe conducted some independent research, and have reached a verdict of their own. As frightening is your own admission to being as dumbed down as you believe others are. Are you that shallow that all it takes is disagreement -- nevermind what each side presents -- to sideline your taking a position? Hmmm, is it that you're projecting?!? Is that it?
And hey, if you can't decide about global warming because there's debate then how can you be so sure about your issue? Fair question considering what you said.
Speaking of verdicts, how do you suppose the court system should work? There's video of a guy shooting the other guy. Open and shut case. But yet he's allowed a verbalized defense. A refutation of the evidence. The jury is given the highly responsible job of weighing both sides of "the raging debate" in order to reach their verdict.
Except you're implying that because there was a debate at all that the jury cannot possibly reach an informed conclusion. The only way they'd be able to do so would be to only be allowed to hear the prosecution's side.
So pardon me for my mouth being left hung open when you ask Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side?
Wow. And yes. Only a one world order/one world view sort of person would suggest otherwise . You are saying that people are only allowed to hear the opinion you want them to hear. You call your opinion "facts" and the other side's "claims." If your "facts" are so strong then why fear the other side presenting their "claims"? If you believe people can think for themselves then you should believe they'll side with your "facts." But it's clear as day that you've concluded that people can't think for themselves so you TELL THEM what they should think by suppressing contradicting messages that YOU'RE convinced are false.
Just because there are some people who disagree, does that mean we NEED to present their side?
Yes, because dear doctor, it's not like your side is saying the earth is round and the other side wants to debate that it's flat. Contrary to your firm and unyielding stand, you have NOT arrived at proof consistent with proof that the earth is round. Your side is still at the level of "proof" that emphatically declares the next flip of the coin will be heads and the debate is that it will be tails!
Let's reiterate that you say there cannot be such a thing as INFORMED by virtue of the mere existence of debate. That's what you said ("because to be informed means that you understand the facts, not that you simply perceive that there is a debate raging.").
So when you follow your point this way...
Do we then need to teach creationism in schools? Do we need to present the view of that crazy scientist who doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the AIDS virus? Do we teach kids that some people believe that smoking causes lung cancer, and some believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer?
...it's irrelevant. Because it's not WHERE the "raging debate" takes place, it's that it exists anywhere and at all according to you. And as long as it exists anywhere that people run into it or can access it, it "undermines" your mind control that you say is necessary in order to reach the level of INFORMED.
I mean really, no one is invited into the schools or any place of public learning to teach our point of view. If that was the criteria then you've already succeeded in the level of silencing the other side that you want. But no, lacking that you still proclaim it exists. Ergo your complaint is that its voice is out there somewhere at all and nothing short of suppressing it will suffice.
Are there any facts that you consider to be facts that we can teach, or is it simply those things that you personally do or do not believe that need to be run past you first before deciding what we should be teaching in our schools?
See, it's an Either/Or dilemma for you. Why? Did it ever occur to you that one doesn't have to choose (that is, as long as you're not afraid of opposing views presented as fact also)? I propose that BOTH sides can be presented and let the intelligent public decide. That's how they elect presidents too. Or do you think they should be appointed by experts (rather than letting them speak to the public to educate them) who have determined which candidate has the ONLY REAL facts on the economy, etc.? And maybe you DO believe that where the evidence is considered strong there should be no trial with a defense.
Sorry to be long-winded but consider all my comments coming at once rather than sprinkled amid the other 180+ posts.
I'd like to also address this statement more closely: One of those conditions is that there would have to be a relative consensus that secondhand smoke is a serious risk to workers' health. Without a consensus, you simply can't inform people adequately, because they are going to rightly perceive that there is a debate going on, and that the claims are simply claims, not facts. You really need some sort of consensus (I realize there are always going to be a few people denying things, but you know what I mean) before people accept the severity of certain health hazards.
Fact: Consensus is not science.
Michael Crichton: I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Now I believe you meant that not only should there be a consensus among the experts but also a consensus among THE PUBLIC who you believe are essentially adversely affected by the former (the "raging debate"). However, the overall point is that this yardstick of yours -- Consensus -- is a flawed measure whereever you apply it. Consensus does not equal Informed. Informed = having much knowledge or education [and arriving at a verdict based on it].
(Though this is where I should feign confusion because according to your side, Dr. Siegel, consensus HAS been reached. Remember? "The debate is over." Thus everyone can meet your standard of Informed based on your criteria).
The names Whelan and Gori have been invoked in this regard. I'll add Dr. Dean Edell (currently at HealthCentral.com) who has said:
"We don't even know how cigarettes affect us. We don't know what causes cancer. We don't know what causes the increase in heart disease. It's not nicotine - nicotine gum actually helps heart disease patients. Carbon monoxide? Well, any kind of smoke has a lot of carbon monoxide - that's a possibility - but carbon monoxide has a temporary effect; it blocks the oxygen linking to your hemoglobin, then you take a breath of fresh air and it goes away.
"Is that the cause of chronic problems in smokers? We don't know - now we're into secondhand smoke when we don't even know what firsthand smoke does. I think we're becoming a really, really neurotic, fearful people, and politicians and the media love it and know how to feed that monster."
I suppose he too is wrong and needs to shut up and stop confusing everyone with his debate so that they can accept your version of the facts as the only valid version.
What a strange, strange response. I guess I will take it bit by bit. The 220... I'll get back to the 220. Believe me. But first this notion that bartenders are somehow less informed than other professions. Note that this is familiar ground. We were discussing something of this sort when the doctor said he would work to ban car racing if 10 drivers had died in his lifetime. When he discovered that 30 drivers had died in NASCAR alone, he said he really didn't want to talk about that kind of thing anymore, because the REAL reason he supported an SHS ban had nothing to do with a comparison to other professions. I guess he has changed his mind again. So here goes.
"...the one difference between tending bar and ALL of these other occupations - is that workers in these other occupations are adequately aware of the risks that they are facing."
Um... What? How do you know this? Time and time again, you have stated that your poisition is based on hard science. On facts. On studies. Well, where did this come from? Can you point me to the evidence? What was the methodology you used to derive this claim? How did you measure it? Did you? Or did you make it up?
Dipping just briefly back into the 220 debacle: A few years back, you knew so little about bartenders and how they worked that you publicly stated "if they they all work 40 years," despite the fact that there is real evidence showing that basically none of them work 40 years. You knew so little about how the profession worked that you based an entire study on an erroneous if/then statement. Now, years later, you are so in-tune with these workers that you can tell me not just how they work, but how they THINK. Miraculous!
Actually, I think what you are doing here is basing your position on a basic hunch that conveniently fits your position. Seriously. I want you to be honest here. How many bartenders do you know? I don't mean in passing. I mean, how many do you talk to, personally, on a daily, weekly or monthly basis? Do you have kids who tend bar? Do you have a neighbor? What's their take?
I happen to know a lot of them. Probably because of my age and my profession. And it seems to me that they do just fine without your help. They talk about such things. They read the paper. And guess what. They aren't idiots. I know that's hard to believe. But they aren't.
But they do seem to have a different tolerance for risk. How do I know? How about the fact that a full 40 percent are active smokers themselves?
And how about this: If many of them don't think SHS is a "severe health risk," there is a very good chance they are correct. It takes a full 40 years, 40 hours a week, to raise the risk level to 1.19. (Does that even qualify as severe?) But most of them KNOW that they won't be doing it for that many hours a week for that many years. The vast majority assume it will be for a few months or years. And, despite being a little slow on the uptake, according to some, they are correct about that.
So if the risk factor is 1.19 for someone who works 40/40, what is it for someone who works 1/20, or 5/30? Pretty low. Presto. No severe health threat. No dead bartenders.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that you are right. That they are not adequately informed. Why is it that a warning would not suffice? You continue to say that a fully informed bartender could disagree with you. So.... now the onus is on you to tell us what you think they need to know. Unless of course you are going to stick to your disingenous position that disagreeing with you is proof if insufficient knowledge. Well, you can't have it both ways. If smart people can disagree, and bartenders aren't dumb, tell us the battery of facts our drink-slingers need to make a fully informed decision.
And keep in mind that this is a cohort that takes lots of risks in general. They are disproportionately young, first of all. And despite CONSTANT warnings about smoking, many of them do it anyway. They have chosen a profession that often comes with no health insurance. Often involves late nights. Infrequently offers steady hours or clear career advancement. Etc. I mean, if most of them had listened to their MOTHER'S warnings, they would not be working in bars. (Believe me. I know.) But many of them are the kind of people who, while understanding warnings, ignore them. Others just love working in a bar so much that they are accept that it is risky but do it anyway, like a NASCAR driver. I know people like this. Lots of them.
And again about the science, or lack thereof: you keep mentioning the 44 percent in this recent poll. But that is the general public. It tells us nothing about bartenders specifically. Is there any reason to think that bartenders offer a represenative sample of all people polled? Well, no. There isn't. So you just can't use that study to support anything you are saying.
The fact of the matter is, you have no idea how many bartenders consider SHS a severe health risk. And even if you did, that would still not support your claims. Because what you need to know is what percentage disregard it as a threat because they are inadequately warned. Thereafter, you need to find the numbers on how many of THOSE people will actually work in the industry long enough to raise SHS to a "severe health risk." Because many who work far less than that would be correct in assuming that, for them, it is not. (Poison, dose, etc.)
Short of that, your entire position (and you do say your entire position on bans boils down to this) is based on conjecture rather than fact. Anecdote rather than science. Suspicions rather than proof.
And clearly, you have no business destroying people's lives based on those things.
So, can you point me to ANYTHING supporting your notion that bartenders aren't aware of the threat? Something that can't be just as easily explained by assuming they disagree with you? Like I do? Like Dr. Gori does? Like 44 percent of the general public does?
How do you counter the fact that since the vast majority of them work far, far less than 40/40, they are correct in assuming the risk is not severe? (How low does the 1.19 dip for someone working 20/20? 10/10? This is crucial data. I hope you would get it before passing laws that you admit destroy lives.)
Last, how do you account for NASCR drivers who, when interviewed about the dangers of the sport, continually claim that it's not that dangerous? Boxers are similarly cavalier in that regard. When one of them says that, should the sanctioning bodies ban them from the sport until they are sufficiently well-warned? What wold the education process look like?
And this:
"You don't hear too many bartenders coming down with lung cancer and saying: 'Well - I took the risk. I knew I might come down with lung cancer, but it was my decision to work in the smoky environment anyway.'"
Actually, I don't hear of many bartenders who never smoked coming down with lung cancer at all. Do you? I would be surprised. People against bans have been asking for evidence, and all this tie you had it and just didn't say? OK. How many do you know?
Regarding the 220: I believe you have done a grave disservice to public health by making the statement the way you did.
"Sam, I'm not sure what your uncertainty is about. The quote CLEARLY states that it is talking about what would happen if the bartenders all continued to work under current exposure conditions (as of 1997) for 40 years."
I would think that someone in your position would take care to base his studies as much as possible on real world conditions. To take OBVIOUS confounding factors into account. And to make such factors clear whenever discussing the results. You clearly did not do that here. I wonder why.
You reported your findings with a direct if/then statement--knowing fully well that the "if" portion of the statement would never, ever come to pass.
For instance, what would you make of a public health official who was called to testify about the dangers of NASCAR and said, "Well, if drivers race the Daytona 500 and other events at 324 miles per hour, my studies show that a full 30 percent of them will die."
What would the average listener make of that statement? I assume the average listener would be shocked. And rightly so.
But the FACT of the matter is, NASCAR doesn't race that fast. And doing a study based on that datum surely inflates the risk involved in NASCAR. Now... why in the world would the person who did that study assume something he knew to be false? Why wouldn't he take the time to find out the way the industry really works, and base his assumtions on that? I submit that any researcher who did such a thing--even if he did "reveal" the methodology behind his study--could be said to be working with an agenda. And could be said to be engaged in an active campaign of misinformation.
Look. It took me two seconds to discover that government officials HAVE done some research. They have concluded that the vast majority of bartenders work less than 40/40. The researchers discuss it quite openly and consider it one of the defining aspects of the industry. It is almost all part time, and almost all relatively short term.
And for some reason, you disregarded that information and based your risk calculations on an assumption you know to be false.
So yes. If every bartender in Mass. works for 40/40, your data shows 220 will die.
Well, next time I am asked to testify about the dangers of SHS, maybe I will say that, well, some day my pancreas might hire a gardener. And if that gardener introduces my pancreas to a garden gnome who has developed a cure for lung cancer, I can basically eliminate all SHS-related lung-cancer deaths.
Which would be true. But it would be based on such a nonsensical assumption that the point would be meaningless.
You are a public health official. You do studies. And you willfully based your work on a false assumption.
Talk about "fully informed." What are the odds that the people listening to you parsed your words carefully enough to know that there was basically NO CHANCE 220 bartenders would die?
You are resposible for conveying accurate information that people can understand. In this case, you passed on that responsibility and instead did something to support your agenda.
You can go back and show me how it is "accurate" because you carefully snuck in the "if" statement. Which is correct. Depending on what your definition if "is" is.
Carefully crafted, doc. But not much of a credit to your commitment to accurate information.
The fact of the matter is, you have no idea how many bartenders are going to die of SHS. No clue whatsoever. So instead of doing the hard work of figuring it out, you crafted a few studies that you knew would overstate the real risk and reported that study to people contemplating a ban.
Sheesh.
And as for there being no way whatsover to ameliorate the risks: Well, how about we do something radical. How about we take these 40/40 bartenders and just change the entire industry. How about we pass laws to make sure the vast majority of people in the industry don;t work that long. I know it would be social engineering of the highest order, and would require a heavy-handed enforcement regime, and...
Oh, wait. No it wouldn't. The industry ALREADY WORKS THAT WAY!
The industry is already structured to make sure that, by an large, almost nobody is exposed to the risk you have measured.
Presto. No ventilation needed. Because instead of sucking all the smoke out of the bar, what happens is... the bartenders just get other jobs and stop going to work! And they always have!
Now would someone call the coffin maker in Boston and cancel that order?
Wow. Maybe off-topic. But I don't think so.
The timing of this could not be better: Here is a perfect example of what I am getting at:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/
121657.html
Seems that the vast majority of Americans are extremely comfortable with more police surveillance cameras in public. I think this is an outrage. But I am in the minority.
So. Would it be fair for me to automatically assume that these people are not sufficiently warned about the dangers these cameras pose?
I guess that might be true. But I can't just say it. It is iat least as likely that they just disagree with me about the threat.
Look, like the doctor, I can propose the manichean idea that "cameras are a threat or they are not." And I could argue that IF they are a threat, American's are insufficiently warned about the dangers.
But that is complete and utter rubbish. They just disagree with me. Wrongly, I think. But goood grief. How arrogant would I have to be to assume that all of them are just completely unconcerend about their own liberty?
Let's get our facts straight. It is the people who are suffering devastating health effects from secondhand smoke whose lives are being destroyed. There aren't 40,000 people a year dying because of smoking bans. It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year. And fortunately for them, you are not the ones who are making these decisions. I'm proud that my efforts have contributed to protecting these people from a severe, yet easily preventable, occupational health hazard.
I think the data speaks for itself. Nearly half of the public does not believe secondhand smoke is very harmful. Let's assume that restaurant workers and bartenders have similar attitudes - and there's no reason to believe that is not the case. Then, clearly, these workers are NOT adequately informed of the risks and are not making truly informed decisions to accept the risks. How could they be adequately informed if the majority does not recognize secondhand smoke as being a severe health hazard, which it clearly is. When the percentage of people who recognize secondhand smoke as a severe health hazard approaches 90% or more, then let me know. At that point, we can start talking about easing up on smoking bans because the workers are making fully informed decisions to accept the risk. Until then, we need to continue to protect these workers from this severe health threat.
Michael Siegel - It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year.
..........
"40,000 people a year."
Please supply the death certificates, autopsy reports, etc. that certify "death by SHS."
I am willing to make a bet that 80 to 90% of adults do not realize that all those numbers that Big Tobacco Control trumpets as "facts," are not based on verifiable evidence - the "body count" cannot be verified.
The exposures and deaths only exist in a computer program.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"There aren't 40,000 people a year dying because of smoking bans. It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year."
So now all SHS deaths are attributed to hospitality exposures?
You also wrote:
"When the percentage of people who recognize secondhand smoke as a severe health hazard approaches 90% or more, then let me know. At that point, we can start talking about easing up on smoking bans because the workers are making fully informed decisions to accept the risk. Until then, we need to continue to protect these workers from this severe health threat."
Did you know that was the same argument used to make front airbags mandatory in cars? They said they would only be mandatory until xx% of people started wearing seatbelts. That percentage has been met and now not only are front airbags mandatory, but they've moved on to side airbags.
One more interesting point. It was said airbags were going to save 10,000 lives a year. In reality they've saved 10,000 in total throughout all the years combined.
Rod,
Unfortunately, secondhand smoke is not listed on death certificates as one of the possible causes a doctor can write in as a cause of death. Neither is smoking. This makes it obviously difficult to compare the estimated deaths from epidemiologic risk assessments to the number of deaths that would be recorded as being smoking-related or secondhand-smoke related if doctors could list those as the cause.
However, there was one interesting study in Oregon, where for a year, they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate if it were deemed to be the cause of death. After the year, the investigators compared the number of smoking-related deaths on the death certificates and the number of smoking-related deaths as estimated by the epiedmiologic risk assessment. They found that the numbers were very similar.
So at least with smoking, we know that the death estimates are similar to what you get if you ask doctors to include smoking as one of the causes they can list on the death certificate.
It would be interesting, but more difficult, to do a similar study with secondhand smoke.
Michael;
Perhaps this circular argument rests with the dose and the poison.
The perspective of harm is being judged in context here in the poll reporting what I would naturally perceive to be risk of casual exposures, being the first thing which comes to mind when asked if cigarette smoke is dangerous.
For the average exposure in this day and age there is no doubt that level of exposure has been drastically reduced. With the hopes if exposures are reduced so will the effects be reduced. If a risk exists this would make perfect sense.
Comparing average exposures to work related lifetime assessments is not really a fair assessment confusions are evident because as you yourself seem to agree casual exposures are not a large worry here.
You are advocating for bartenders protection with bans and some are supporting bans in order to make life more difficult in order to make smokers quit, or so I am told, not protection of the general public, who's exposures will be considerably less than those of either bartenders or smokers and if any measurable effect can be found, it would as I am sure you will agree. be considerably reduced.
In short is ETS believed to be dangerous to the public?
the poll says no
Do bartenders believe as the public does that ETS is dangerous to the public?
no
Do Bartenders feel at risk due to lifetime exposures?
No one asked.
You don't hear too many bartenders coming down with lung cancer and saying: "Well - I took the risk. I knew I might come down with lung cancer, but it was my decision to work in the smoky environment anyway."
Actually, I've heard many people mention it was a great job that paid well for the work they had to do when they needed extra money, but they wouldn't want to do it forever because of the noise, the late hours and, yes, the smoke.
According to TC 95% of ETS exposure occurs in the home. How you gonna save 40,000 by workplace bans?
Home bans coming your way soon.
So all you want Doc, is for 90% of the non-smoking public to acknowledge that ETS is a "severe" health risk and we can back away from bans as everybody is suitably informed and warned.? I have never smelled so much BS for a long time.
And fortunately for them, you are not the ones who are making these decisions.
Was that really called for?
Earlier you suggested that it was all right to have differing opinions on the risk severity of ETS. Then you throw a minor tantrum when challanged. Hardly the behaviour I would expect from an open minded, highly educated, professional public health advocate.
Michael;
To press further. My point from above.
The fact so many in the public believe casual exposure is dangerous actually makes your point, the public is not well informed.
Perhaps the information they receive in education the public is misleading them.
Would you support that; the poor quality of information is a problem, leading to a poorly informed public?
It is the people who are suffering devastating health effects from secondhand smoke whose lives are being destroyed.
Nice emotional appeal, Doctor. However, that does not give methodology. Try again, this time, use science, not emotional blackmail. And outline those devastating health effects please and how you have determined that these were ONLY attributed to SHS. I'd like that one in detail. I think we all would. In fact, I'm sure lots of scientists would love to know how to separate each cause of COPD, cancer, heart disease. With evidence like that we'd have all the information we'd need to end all those diseases.
I'm sorry Doc, but really "suffering", "devastating", "lives destroyed". Emotionally laden words bother me tremendously in a factual discussion. It's why I blow off the anti's. If they had a fact to stand on, they wouldn't need emotional blackmail. The facts would work by themselves to make me feel guilty.
Well Dr Siegel,if you KNOW so many lives will be saved,then presumably EVERY STUDY ON SHS WILL GIVE YOU A RISK RATIO HIGHER THAN 3 AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO POINT TO NUMEROUS REPORTS.SO WHERE ARE THEY ALL? THE SECOND COMING OF THE MESSIAH HAS OCCURRED.Those who NEED to blow their OWN trumpet rarely deserve it.You are as pompous a Bill.Compile an article and let's discuss it,or do you want to cry off ?Surely that is reasonable ?
"Then, clearly, these workers are NOT adequately informed of the risks and are not making truly informed decisions to accept the risks. How could they be adequately informed if the majority does not recognize secondhand smoke as being a severe health hazard, which it clearly is."
So, again, theonly people who are informed are people who agree with you. You keep saying that's not what you are saying. But you keep saying it.
So tell me: Are you saying that Whelan and Gori are lazy and have drawn their conclusions on insufficient evidence, or that they have seen all the evidence but are stupid?
You keep avoiding the question.
BTW, you did not reply in a significant way to a single one of my points.
Par for the course.
Evade. Move the goal posts. Lie.
It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year.
Oh? Really? Where exactly is your proof that these people will NEVER die?
Your bans will save NO ONE. NONE. ALL will die.
I just want to know what makes you think you have any right to try to dictate what they die from and how?
How could they be adequately informed if the majority does not recognize secondhand smoke as being a severe health hazard, which it clearly is.
Why do you assume that anyone who does not believe what you believe is UNinformed? I don't believe that SHS IS a serious health hazard, not to the majority of the population anyway. I can concede it could be rather irritating and UNhealthy for those with really severe respiratory issues, but again, they are not the majority are they? You seem to feel that anyone not believing you could not possibly have read all the reports since they do not come to the same conclusion as you do. How arrogant of you.
When the percentage of people who recognize secondhand smoke as a severe health hazard approaches 90% or more, then let me know. At that point, we can start talking about easing up on smoking bans because the workers are making fully informed decisions to accept the risk.
And what proof will there be that they actually READ ALL the information out there and have not just been brainwashed by TC? Oh, you don't care, just as long as they say they agree with you. Gotcha.....silly me for thinking you actually think they are smart enough to think for themselves, and not believe you even with all the facts.
Until then, we need to continue to protect these workers from this severe health threat.
Seriously Doc, are you on drugs lately? You actually sit here demanding at a minimum that 90% BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY, before you will consider dropping bans? Talk about moving the goalposts, because THAT was not what you said a month ago.
Extremely arrogant if you ask me.
So at least with smoking, we know that the death estimates are similar to what you get if you ask doctors to include smoking as one of the causes they can list on the death certificate.
So you list smoking as "one of the causes". What else is listed as a possible cause along with smoking? Nothing I'll bet. Until you can prove that the cause of death was IN FACT CAUSED ONLY by smoking or SHS with no other major contributing factor........you are basically spreading fear based on INCOMPLETE information. In other words......YOU LIE.
Sorry, Doc. I wouldn't tolerate that kind of deception from my own child for a much minor incident, why the hell should I accept it from you?
Michael Siegel:
"Let's get our facts straight. It is the people who are suffering devastating health effects from secondhand smoke whose lives are being destroyed. There aren't 40,000 people a year dying because of smoking bans. It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year. And fortunately for them, you are not the ones who are making these decisions. I'm proud that my efforts have contributed to protecting these people from a severe, yet easily preventable, occupational health hazard."
Elizabeth 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...
The link between secondhand smoke and premature death, however, is a real stretch."
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Dr. Siegel, why is there such a disparity between your statements and those of Dr. Whelan?
Bill,
Maybe she is uninformed. Or perhaps when she was in medical school she worked as a bartender to pay the bills. Doing so, apparently, renders you incapable of coherent thought and effective analysis.
Or maybe she is just flat out stupid. Like the rest of us neanderthals who make up the flat-earth society.
Someday, a messiah will swoop in on a white, smoke-free horse and save us all from themselves.
Sir Michael of the Self-Satisfied Table, wielding his sword of knowledge! Oh, to be warned my the likes of him!
I suspect even Dr. Whelan might swoon. She oght to. Imagine, being completely uninformed like she is after dedicating her whole life to public health.
"Everyone on the blog, go poll your friends. Surely there are asthmatics around you somewhere, it's pretty prevalent, even with SHS going down."
Seconded.
Also, PLEASE, if anyone knows a GP, or sees a GP, ask him how many asthmatics he's seen in his practice claiming an ETS cause of the attack. Because Siegel has claimed he's seen HUNDREDS in his practice with an ETS cause. And frankly, it sounds like more Siegel baloney, but I reserve judgement.
It's the smoking bans that are going to save these 40,000 people a year.
No, they aren't. You need to get your facts straight.
When the percentage of people who recognize secondhand smoke as a severe health hazard approaches 90% or more, then let me know.
SHS in NOT a severe health hazard. To tell people that they are suffering from secondhand smoke is irresponsible and decreases the likelihood of ever finding ACTUAL causes.
Unfortunately, secondhand smoke is not listed on death certificates as one of the possible causes a doctor can write in as a cause of death. Neither is smoking.
That is not unfortunate.
However, there was one interesting study in Oregon, where for a year, they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate if it were deemed to be the cause of death. After the year, the investigators compared the number of smoking-related deaths on the death certificates and the number of smoking-related deaths as estimated by the epiedmiologic risk assessment. They found that the numbers were very similar. So at least with smoking, we know that the death estimates are similar to what you get if you ask doctors to include smoking as one of the causes they can list on the death certificate.
Then those doctors were irresponsible and incompetent. To assume that anything that kills someone who smokes must be tabocco-related is nonsensical. Is that what they teach in med school these days? How to pretend that nonsense is "scientific"?
Sam--Did we ever find out where the 220 came from?
Michael Siegel - However, there was one interesting study in Oregon, where for a year, they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate if it were deemed to be the cause of death. After the year, the investigators compared the number of smoking-related deaths on the death certificates and the number of smoking-related deaths as estimated by the epiedmiologic risk assessment. They found that the numbers were very similar.
...............
Oh yes, I know about that and the fact that there were zero criteria for making that assessment. Here's the question:
Did tobacco use contribute to death?
yes
no
probably
unknown
By the way, no other "specific" question is asked: Alcohol, malnutriton, illegal drugs, long term occupation, other exposures - nothing.
Really, Doctor, your assumption that those who post here have not done their homework is baffling.
That SHS is dangerous, even fatal, is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary proof. Big Tobacco Control cannot provide the proof.
That is why BTC recommends not discussing the science. That is why ad hominem attacks are recommended.
So let's see. Since Dr. Siegel is not responding, perhaps I will do a little digging on my own.
I wonder. Is it possible that anyone--any sane person--could possibly misconstrue the doctor's 220 figure to mean actual deaths, rather than deaths that MIGHT happen if some completely implausible conditions were met?
Well, yes. I think it is. Check out this quote from one guy who was enraged that a skeptic of SHS bans thought the 220 number seemed like a low body count. Note the rage and indignation:
"Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude that many smokers seem to have. It is not a problem that 220 people are dying due to OTHER people's smoking? You can't be serious. What a callous attitude."
See? Note the grammar here. Note that it says "are dying." It does not say, "would die if all bartenders worked 40/40." It says "are dying."
It goes on:
"If all smokers were considerate and simply didn't smoke around other people (nonsmokers), then there would be no need for government intrusion. But apparently, some smokers don't care if as many as 220 people DIE due to other people's smoke (and that's just in one state)."
Note the capital letters. The ANGER!
But maybe this was just some yahoo who can't understand the doctor's nuanced language. Maybe it was someone un-schooled in the subtle art/science known as statistics and public health.
Think so?
Well, actually, those words come from Doctor Siegel himself. In the comment section of the infamous July 5 post.
Allow me to reiterate:
"...220 people are dying due to OTHER people's smoking..."
Are dying.
Looks like you didn't listen to yourself closely enough.
So how do you think the average listener took it? You managed to confuse yourself.
Is that the kind of professional communcations you aim for?
I think it is.
...."there was one interesting study in Oregon, where for a year, they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate"......
Here's the Cato Institute response to the Oregon Doctor Death Certificate Reporting.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/
regulat...ortherecord.pdf
Rod----'That is why BTC recommends not discussing the science'
Actually is was specifically Dr Siegel that stated that TC NEVER discuss the science.
GreatScot had the link. If you are here can you provide? Tx in advance.
.
Sunz,
This one?
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...show/
27666.html
GreatScot
Really, Doctor, your assumption that those who post here have not done their homework is baffling.
Not so much Rod. The doctor has stated, quite frequently AND emphatically over the past 24 hours or so that anyone who does not believe SHS to be a serious health hazard is NOT adequately informed. Since we don't agree with his claim of seriousness, we are therefore UNINFORMED.
I know it's hard to tell, took me all day to figure it out because of the circles he was talking in. But after all is said and done it boils down to this: IF you agree with the doc, you are properly informed; if you don't, you're not.
But maybe this was just some yahoo who can't understand the doctor's nuanced language. Maybe it was someone un-schooled in the subtle art/science known as statistics and public health.
But he agrees with the Doc therefore he IS properly informed................. so his anger is perfectly acceptable. It's just us equally informed folks who happen to disagree with him that are uninformed.
According to the Oregon study analysis of real world mortalities only 20% of those who die of smoking related diseases are actually believed to have died from smoking.
This would reduce the smoking related deaths annually to 88,000 smoking deaths down from 440,000. One would have to assume the percentage calculation in error was also applied in the 40,000 figure Michael Siegal refers to, can also be assumed to be only 8000 deaths annually caused by ETS and the 220 related deaths are only actually estimated to be 44 real bartender deaths. Hardly a severe health risk when you look at the real numbers is it?
Perhaps it is time for Michael to get behind his words and realize his expectation of "properly informed" has been surpassed in what is a credible assessment of harm he overstates tremendously.
It should also be noted the bartender's deaths can only be viable if we assume his belief "a bartender is exposed to enough ETS to equate one and a half packages of cigarettes per day" which makes them equivalent to moderate to heavy smokers and further exaggerated by the same principles stated above only double compounded in the methods to determine their risks.
Here is the present CDC approved Death Certificate:
URL (PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/2s4dad
On page three is the first example of how to fill it out and...oh, big surprise! The first example is tobacco use as a contributory cause.
Does anyone find a separate section devoted to anything other than tobacco?
In essence, indicating tobacco use as a contributing factor is encouraged, almost defaulted to a "yes" answer.
Is there a quota system in place? I have to believe that any doctor who falls very much below the "norm" will have to explain him/herself.
If this were reported in an ethical manner it would be understood by the public; had they been properly informed, if smoking never existed the 440,000 smoking related deaths would actually consist of 330,000 non smokers deaths and 110,000 smoker deaths acording to population proportions at 25% smokers as they exist today, which in reality the proportions of those dying today the smoker figures would be closer to double that, because of their ages.
The percentages of population of those who had ever smoked Normal expectation irregardless of smoking would have the numbers actually dying of smoking only elevated from 220,000 if we are assuming half the population to 300,000 using the current smoking death figures.
Also not quite as scary when trickled down to ETS deaths. In reality if only half that figure smoke today and the relationshiops are correct we can not assume by population averages any more than 40,000 will die annually of smoking directly at the rates they exist today in the future. Among 60 million smokers. That is if smoking reductions have any effect.
We should actually have seen substantial reductions already if smoking was as deadly as we have been told yet those figures rose right along with population growth, despite a stable 55 million smokers throughout.
Michael once took a stab at the confused figures claiming the delayed effect would explain this however the increased population lowering the population percentages of smokers never smoked, so how would they affect the figures and how would their be any delay relevance, among non smokers the numbers should change instantly when non smokers are added to the mix.
If smoking were as deadly as claimed we should have seen a reduction of no less than 40,000 smokers deaths annually 20 years ago.
It is a real mind bender to believe the existence of a risk of 40,000 non smoker mortalities annually from ETS alone, remains today no matter how you slice it.
Here is a fine example of trying to sneak one past us;
"Michael Siegel - However, there was one interesting study in Oregon, where for a year, they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate if it were deemed to be the cause of death. After the year, the investigators compared the number of smoking-related deaths on the death certificates and the number of smoking-related deaths as estimated by the epiedmiologic risk assessment. They found that the numbers were very similar. "
Now look closely for the transition point here;
" they asked doctors to include smoking on the death certificate if it were deemed to be the cause of death"
"The" cause of death?
Now look at what was reported;
" After the year, the investigators compared the number of smoking-related deaths on the death certificates"
Smoking "related" deaths
See how that works the bait and switch gets them every time.
My family also has instructions that IF ever asked if I smoked, they are to say "NO". I refuse to be used as propaganda even in death.
OH, I am going to be cremated as well. Talk about second-hand smoke....... 
And how do the doctors decide if they should list it as a smoking-related death? Well, they check the books. What books? The ones written by TC. The ones that determine what factors go into the "epiedmiologic risk assessment" blender.
Oh my, look at how the numbers match in the end!
So puhleeeze.
It's the same mindset that thinks that means something that can also say that there would be no difference in poll results if bartenders were polled ONLY -- that the general population survey results reflects well enough the bartenders as well.
Care to also say that the general population would also reflect police officers' opinions if asked "How dangerous do you think police work is?" I tell you what, I'd bet a million dollars that the police officers would be the ones to opine that it's LESS dangerous than the general public would answer.
Am I understanding this?
A bartender can be given facts, for example a 1.19 increase in risk, yet if he is exposed (cough) to a different interpretation of those facts, he is now inadequately informed and unable to assume risk?
Dr. Siegel, a health educator, is not up to the task of writing: "Warning: Working in a smoking environment may pose a serious risk to your health."?
With all your nifty bullet points below, i.e. cancer risk is increased by x%, heart disease by y%, and so on.
I find this very, very hard to believe.
That anyone has not been informed of the risks of SHS strains credulity. Good lord, man, it's everywhere!
TV, newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. I've even had flyers stuck to my front door. One of my favorite games is to find the SHS/smoking-is-bad message in the Reader's Digest every month.
I am having a very hard time understanding how anyone, anywhere could have missed The Message.
I am also unable to get my head around some of this logic. Someone who has seen all this information and does not believe SHS is a serious threat is inadequately informed, therefore this person may not assume the risk. Smoking must be banned in that workplace.
However, someone who has seen the information and DOES believe SHS is a serious threat may now assume the risk, and smoking may be permitted in that workplace?
Michael Siegel: I'll respect their autonomy if they were adequately informed of the risk. Right now, they are not. So until such time as they are adequately informed, I'm going to work to protect them by eliminating the smoke from their working environments.
Only one thing I can say: How dare you? This is one of the most disgustingly arrogant statements I have ever seen.
I read that as people are too stupid to make up their own minds, and you need to protect them as you would an infant.
You have not eliminated the exposure. You have moved it. Do you really believe 40,000 people will be saved simply by moving the smokers somewhere else? (It's interesting that all of the 40,000 corpses are now bartenders and servers.)
I understand a statement like "You can die any minute if you are not very careful." This is alarming. I am simply not alarmed by an RR of 1.19. I am not alarmed by "30%." I believe those risks may be reduced further with an air cleaner (or an open window.)
Apparently I am too stupid to be a bartender, but I am free to become an ice road trucker.
Callous Cowbell wrote:
"Am I understanding this?
A bartender can be given facts, for example a 1.19 increase in risk, yet if he is exposed (cough) to a different interpretation of those facts, he is now inadequately informed and unable to assume risk?"
Yes, and it's not just the "SHS Ain't That Bad" crowd he's talking about. As long as anti-tobacco continues to recite that SHS kills on contact, within seconds, minutes, or hours, that too is considered being inadequately informed of the risks.
The day Dr. Siegel is assured every man, woman, and child has heard what he would consider the perfect warning, and assured that no one else will ever speak on the subject again, then and only then......will he come up with yet another excuse.
Here's my guess:
The deaf didn't hear it.
The blind didn't see it.
The mentally retarded (and bartenders) didn't understand it.
CC: Am I understanding this? A bartender can be given facts, for example a 1.19 increase in risk, yet if he is exposed (cough) to a different interpretation of those facts, he is now inadequately informed and unable to assume risk?
Yep, that’s about the size of it from the Doc’s perspective. He’s repeated it enough over the past day and a half that even I got it….hehehe
That anyone has not been informed of the risks of SHS strains credulity. Good lord, man, it's everywhere!
Well apparently the doc feels that until at least 90% of the population agrees with him that SHS IS a “serious health hazard/threat/whatever” then he finds it obvious that they are NOT properly warned.
I am also unable to get my head around some of this logic. Someone who has seen all this information and does not believe SHS is a serious threat is inadequately informed, therefore this person may not assume the risk. Smoking must be banned in that workplace.
Actually, it’s quite easy to grasp once you’ve read it a hundred times. The doc is putting out there a scenario he knows will never happen in order to maintain his “bans”. That’s just his excuse to get him off the hook for claiming he would back down from bans IF Sam could prove 10 racecar drivers had died during his (the doc’s) lifetime. Sam showed him 30 REAL deaths (or was it 3 and 10? Oh geeze I’m just too stupid to remember all these numbers). THEN the goalposts got moved, drastically.
Just as we constantly tell him to prohibit the manufacture and sale of cigarettes (which he is of course against doing)…….knowing they won’t give up their cash cow.
GreatScot, & Rod,
Yes that's it. I could not get it to post here, so I posted it on the next thread.
Thanks again.
Perhaps Dr Siegel ALL OF THOSE ASTHMATICS you constantly use to berate smokers should have this factor considered ?SURPRISING HOW THINGS NEVER REMAIN STATIC,UNLIKE YOUR ORIGINAL STUDIES.http://news.independent.co.uk/health/
article2814749.ece
Let's try again http://news.independent.co.uk/
he...icle2814749.ece
Let's not get distracted by all of the different rabbits popping out of the different hats.
Even IF the 40/40 were a plausible reflection of reality for all [how many thousands of] MA bartenders, which clearly it isn't, the 220 would still be pure bull. Because the next question to ask-- which I clearly remember asking-- is: from what was the number derived? It had to be based on a mathematical formula that in turn had to be based on a mathematical formula extruded in some manner from epidemiology--either a single study or a meta-analysis.
But all of those studies got their numbers from never smokers. That, after all, is the basis of all the stats, which presumably stand for Risks, which are Risks and not Deaths. So the first question to ask would be, how were the RRs for a passel of never-smokers "adjusted" to account for the high number of smokers among MA bartenders? How did you do it? Again mathematically? Or else, not at all?
Now some of those purely statistical expirations would have had to have been from lung cancer. Was your mathematical formula based on the EPA's 1.19 @ only 90% confidence? And exactly how many of the 220 died a lung cancer death? Must've been pretty few. The bulk of the other deaths must have then been from heart attacks. So whose studies offered you your mathematical grid? The implausible reckonings of A Judson Wells (adjective courtesy Congressional Research Service)? Or the rigged meta-analyses of Glantz, Law and He (editorially dismissed by the journals in which they were published)? Or... please provide basis. And exact number of deaths based on mathematical risks.
#
As for badly informed scientists, to Gori and Whelan may we add Enstrom and kabat? Kabat had previously also worked with Wynder whose creditials are unimpeachable. But Wynder himself had been a skeptic on ETS. And so had Lawrence Garfinkle, Was it Doll or was it Peto who said he wasn't concerned about "dangers" from ETS? Hirayama wasn't either, tho he personally drew a circle that ended at 3 feet. Was Hirayama a bloody fool then for not being terrified of smoke on a restaurant patio, let alone in a ballpark? What about Morton Lippmann, the head of the EPA risk assessment panel who'd assured a clutch of reporters they'd exposed themselves to greater risk driving through traffic in downtown DC to get to the press conference than they'd ever get from any exposure to ETS? Or the other government scientist--name slips my mind-- who also assured reporters that the cancer risk from showering in chlorinated water was higher than the relative risk from ETS?
Are they all badly informed?
Finally, Doc, you reveal the depth of your bias when you question global warming based on the counter-evidence (evidence posed by critics who've been slandered, silenced and fired) but seek to silence the similar critics who "deny" ETS.
And further reveal your bias when you argue, as you've done, that the "kids" being recruited to promote the PM cum FDA regs weren't given "all the facts" and left to come to their own conclusions, but see nothing at all wrong with denying "all the facts" to adults working in bars.
More to say, but it's getting long,
Walt,Doll stated he was unconcerned about smokers being around him smoking since the risk was so minimal.This is on record.
Walt,
Excellent points across the board. But I doubt the doctor will discuss them. Just take a look at how the conversation has gone for the past month:
Way back on July 5 we had the argument about the NASCAR drivers. When the doctor backed out on his promise to work for a ban on racecar driving, he said that was because he was not concerned about making those kinds of comparisons. And his real concern was discussing the actual dangers of SHS.
He had expressed that danger in terms of 220 dead bartenders. So I asked him for weeks and weeks and weeks to discuss that claim. because that's what he said he wanted to do. Except he consistently refused to discuss it.
Then this week, he said what he the really wanted to talk about was how, unlike NASCAR drivers, bartenders are insufficiently warned about the risks of their profession. So we were back to making those comparisons. Despite the fact that he had just said he didn't want to do that.
But then he finally responded to the 220 claim (sort of) and responded with a question of his own. I responded in full within a few hours.
He said that was great, because that would open things up to further discussion. So I thought that's what would happen. And I then responded to his claims at length.
Silly me.
How did he respond to my specific critique of his position? To the effort to engage in discussion about the dangers? Which he suddenly wanted again? He said:
"How could they be adequately informed if the majority does not recognize secondhand smoke as being a severe health hazard, which it clearly is. "
Clearly it is. That is the crux of his argument. He refuses to engage in any discussion about it. Despite the fact he says that's exactly what he wants. (But he only says that when he is getting stomped on other rhetorical ground, of course.)
He will not respond to questions about how or why other reputable scientists doubt his "clear" case. And he will not address specific questions about his own work.
It comes down to this: People who agree with him are correct. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. People who disagree with him are so obviously out of their minds, the government must commit real force to protecting such people from their own idiocy. Even if that idiot is Dr. Gio Batta Gori, who used to head the NCI's Cancer Prevention Unit.
What chance do you or I have?
Nope. We are just poor, idiotic jerks, too. And therefore do not deserve a clear response to direct questions.
By the way, I am doing a new study: I have concluded that IF 100 percent of bartenders shoot themselves in the face with a shotgun if smoking bans pass, tens of thousands of bartenders are going to die once the bans become law.
I know. I know. That is a completely ridiculous assumption. But if the doctor can assume that all bartenders will work 40/40 despite knowing full well they will not, I don't see why I can't be equally creative.
See? Maybe I am not as dumb as I look. Maybe I just need to play the doctor's game.
Being a public health expert is easy.
So: Are bartenders sufficiently warned about the dangers of face-shooting should these bans pass? CLEARLY it is a serious health risk.
How serious? Come on. If the doctor won't discuss his assumptions, why should I?
Sam M - It comes down to this: People who agree with him are correct. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. People who disagree with him [Siegel] are so obviously out of their minds, the government must commit real force to protecting such people from their own idiocy. Even if that idiot is Dr. Gio Batta Gori, who used to head the NCI's Cancer Prevention Unit.
.............
Sam,
As someone else has said, BTC has all the requirements needed to qualify it as a religion.
Religion means faith. Faith is belief without proof.
It is impossible to discuss, in an objective manner, issues that are based on faith.
However, there is an odd and very oppressive feature in the church of BTC: Unlike other religions where the faithful are urged to tithe, in this religion, only the unbelievers are forced to "tithe."
Historically, the Christian Crusaders killed Muslim men, women and children because "God Wills It."
For now, BTC only persecutes and taxes unbelievers to save "America's Children." But ten years from now?
Commenting by HaloScan
