Wisconsin, Michigan -- No Smoking Rooms In Hotels -- Period. Thank Liberals. (broadcast, schools)

[natalie469]

As a former smoker I still love the smell of a freshly lit cigarette but find stale smoke extremely nauseating. And in a restaurant I would never smoke because I thought it was rude of me. I always sat in nonsmoking because I didn't want to eat while someone was blowing smoke around me, not a very appetizing meal.
So why not just have designated smoking hotels and restaurants next to nonsmoking ones. That would make everyone happy. And if people choose to intermix then that is their decision.

[Michael J. McFadden]

[quote=suzy_q2010;22649359]

If the mortality of smokeless tobacco users is less than that of smokers, then that makes it all right to encourage use of smokeless tobacco? If only one smokeless tobacco user dies for every ten smokers who die, that is a good thing? I think not.

If I may paraphrase...

"If the suicide rate of Chantix users is higher than that of smokers, then is it still all right to encourage use of Chantix? If ten Chantix users commit suicide for every smoker who does, that is a good thing? I think not."

More to the point however, Rodu et al are not encouraging the use of smokeless tobacco per se, but are instead encouraging its use among smokers who either can't quit using tobacco OR smokers who prefer NOT to quit using tobacco but would like to reduce its health risks. You would condemn that m'lady? Perhaps you'd prefer to see them continuing to smoke? After all, as another poster has pointed out, many people feel smokeless use is not very attractive, while there have been and still are many people who there who see smoking as attractive.

Who keeps the Chantix folks in business? It's not the people who are prescribing the drug. It's the smokers, whose addiction is fueled by the tobacco industry.

Fueled by all those TV ads perhaps? Or perhaps all the other advertising we're bombarded with every day? Tell you what: let's take a count of how many ads from the evil tobacco industry we see during the next few days and compare it to how many we see from the evil alcohol industry? After all, if it wasn't for the Big Alcohol folks pushing their addiction, no one would drink, right? Just look what happened over in Russia: Communism fell and suddenly the Russians got brainwashed into drinking vodka by the Capitalist Advertising Machine. {Note for the humor impaired: look up the word "sarcasm."}

Since the study did not control for the residence of the participants, we do not know, do we? That is the point. It is a potential confounder that was not taken into consideration. Unless you have a source for the percentages you are tossing around, they are meaningless.

Not entirely: I believe most people would feel the percentages were at least somewhat reasonable. Perhaps you could make the opposite case by outlining the same model with different percentages: I doubt the final conclusion would be much different if you used any percentages here that general readers would find "reasonable" however.

Helena was chosen as a study site to reduce that very aspect --- keeping the study confined as much as possible to local residents.

I see that in addition to not reading "pro-tobacco" sites you seem also to have an aversion to reading medical journal sites. I believe that if you read the editor reviewed criticisms of the Helena study on their site you will find that one of Helena's great weaknesses was the fact that the heart attack rate went UP in the town next door at the same time that Helena's went DOWN. An uncharitable critic of the Helena study might point out that such a result would be expected if smokers and their friends spent more time partying in the town next door during the ban, particularly in the first warm three months when the dip actually occurred.

I note that once again you have no response to a major point that was made: the false claim about the miraculous "bounce-back" of Helena's heart attacks and the erasure of the relevant data from the general internet.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by suzy_q2010

If the mortality of smokeless tobacco users is less than that of smokers, then that makes it all right to encourage use of smokeless tobacco? If only one smokeless tobacco user dies for every ten smokers who die, that is a good thing? I think not.

I am actually quite glad you said that. It shows that you're a zealot. You used a hypothetical scenario where tobacco morality is reduced by 90% by switching tobacco products, you said that it still wouldn't be worth it. You said earlier that smoking kills 430,000 people a year. So, hypothetically reducing that done to 43,000 wouldn't be a good thing? Yeah, I don't think we have too much left to debate.

This type of thinking has caused countless problems in the world. This type of thinking of is what allowed AIDS to spread as far as it did because people like you didn't want to "encourage" sodomy, prostitution, and IV drug use by doing things like giving out condoms and setting up needle exchanges.

But like I said, there is really isn't too much left for me to say to you.

Originally Posted by natalie469

So why not just have designated smoking hotels and restaurants next to nonsmoking ones. That would make everyone happy. And if people choose to intermix then that is their decision.

You don't understand. If there was a smoking hotel right next to a non-smoking one small amounts of cigarette smoke would escape through the cracks in the building, drift over, and KILL everyone inside the hotel.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by natalie469

So why not just have designated smoking hotels and restaurants next to nonsmoking ones. That would make everyone happy. And if people choose to intermix then that is their decision.

Natalie, there are many different types of people involved in the antismoking movement for many different reasons. Unfortunately the fanatics and the profiteers seem to have the main reins of power in it at the moment and your solution does nothing to advance their goals. As Lady Elaine Murphy wrote me after I'd written her to protest the smoking ban in Wales:

You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.

That was in 2006, back before the antismoking movement as a whole went public about their Denormalization agenda. Most people thought any reference to that kind of thing was just sort of crazy back then: they really believed the goal was just about making comfortable provisions for people who objected to being around smoke.

Today that background motivation is far more open: You even have Bloomberg bragging about New York's commitment to "make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible."

Sooo.... great idea, but you're unlikely to find much support for it: too much money, power, and fanaticism on the other side unfortunately.

[Katiana]

Blaming suicide on smoking policies is pretty sleazy.

Some other of those deaths seem to be random crimes.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Blaming suicide on smoking policies is pretty sleazy.

Some other of those deaths seem to be random crimes.

Some of them? That would imply at least two or three if I understand English correctly. The only one that I see that would possibly fit the "random crime" category was the nurse who suffered multiple stab wounds when forced outside to smoke. Although it's a stretch to imagine a "random stabber" who first takes a cigarette from the victim and stamps it out on the ground just out of random boredom before beginning the stabbing.

Care to name a couple of the others that you felt were random crimes?

In terms of sleaziness and smoking policies, I guess you'd be happier if such "collateral damage" didn't get mentioned, eh? The dirty end of the stick is best kept out of sight.

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Natalie, there are many different types of people involved in the antismoking movement for many different reasons. Unfortunately the fanatics and the profiteers seem to have the main reins of power in it at the moment and your solution does nothing to advance their goals. As Lady Elaine Murphy wrote me after I'd written her to protest the smoking ban in Wales:

You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.

That was in 2006, back before the antismoking movement as a whole went public about their Denormalization agenda. Most people thought any reference to that kind of thing was just sort of crazy back then: they really believed the goal was just about making comfortable provisions for people who objected to being around smoke.

Today that background motivation is far more open: You even have Bloomberg bragging about New York's commitment to "make smoking as difficult and expensive as possible."

Sooo.... great idea, but you're unlikely to find much support for it: too much money, power, and fanaticism on the other side unfortunately.

So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Originally Posted by natalie469

So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.

Who profits? The smokeless tobacco companies, the e-cig companies, and Big Pharma. Of the three Big Pharma is probably raking in the greatest profits although I haven't researched it so all I've got to go on is my general impression. They're often portrayed as the major player behind the bans, but I doubt they pump anywhere near the hundreds of millions of dollars into them that come from the MSA tax on smokers. At one point in the early 2000s close to $900,000,000 per year was given to "Tobacco Control" efforts from the MSA. When NJ was CUTTING its input to "just" $14,000,000 in 2002 or 2003 the head of the antismoking effort there told the press, "That's it. Everything stops. There is no more money." As I observed at the time, when a supposedly "activist movement" calls fourteen million dollars "no money" there's something very rotten in the barrel.

Re your experience of quitting: glad you're feeling better, and if you look over my writings on the net you'll find that I never discourage anyone from quitting or try to claim that smoking isn't bad for a person's health: my beef is with the social engineering and the lies about secondary smoke exposure. Trying to make the public aware of the hazards of smoking is fine, and the surveys they've done have consistently shown that the public is quite fully aware of those hazards -- actually I believe the surveys have shown that people generally OVERbelieve in them!

Giving people the truth is what's important: and that's where the antismoking movement has consistently fallen short ever since the 1975 Godber conference where the focus changed to creating the image that smokers were harming those around them.

[Frank_Carbonni]

Originally Posted by natalie469

So who exactly profits from people not smoking? And what do the anti-smoking establishment have to gain.
I must say that my overall health did improve when I quit smoking. I had a horrible cough that I was embarrassed about and couldn't control. It went away after a few days of not smoking. I was so thankful. I knew right then and there that I needed to quit for my health.
You know what, I have not missed the point.....no one is trying to dismiss public acceptability. They are trying to make the public aware of the hazards.

Drug companies for one. They are also one of the largest private contributors to anti-smoking groups and put out a lot of funding for tobacco research. They make a lot of money from smoking cession products and that's one of the reasons why anti-smoking groups always push "consult your doctor" or Quitlines, even though statistically speaking the best methods of quitting are cold turkey and weaning yourself off of cigarettes, so "consulting your doctor" is actually less useful than just going "I'm done with this".

I should also note that a lot of scientists and doctors involved in Tobacco Control also have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies such as working as consultants. Keep in mind that working as a consultant in the capacity that they do is more or less are part-time that adds another $30,000 or so into their pocket.

Plus, the whole Tobacco Control movement is no longer just individual scientists and doctors concerned about the health risks of smoking as it was originally. There are whole branches of health departments and universities devoted entirely to tobacco control and anti-smoking organizations as well. Cigarettes taxes and the Master Settlement Agreement provide much of the funding for both government and private organizations.

[chielgirl]

I guess none of these people will ever fly again because there's no smoking on planes.
About 20 percent of the population is chemically sensitive.
I'd go for banning perfumes, too.