57 Comments

1. trangbang68:

Cough…cough, I think I’m suffering from 7th hand smoke from reading an article about smoking on the internet. Or maybe its second hand stupidity from living in the same time period as so many nanny liberals.

Jan 4, 2009 - 5:50 pm 2. rumcrook:

what a load of bs.

I think many average poeple are wise with comon sense to the “experts game.

this game sets up a “bad guy” and the experts can virtually say anything about how bad, dangerous, destructive, it is and its allways about saving the “planet” the “children” and if you disagree or dont believe the hype your the devil or a payed crony of the other side.

Jan 4, 2009 - 5:52 pm 3. Paul:

Aren’t there carcinogens in the newspaper ink that gets all over your fingers after reading the New York Times? A whole lot of people who’ve read newspapers have died of cancer. I think a medical expert needs to address the question immediately.

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:01 pm 4. Wadeusaf:

It seems to me the biggest threat to children is in the pollution from major highways built too close to residential areas…,wheeze.
Third hand smoke? Cough…,heck they haven’t yet proven the effects of second hand smoke (btw a misnomer, only the smoke filtered by human lungs is second hand hack…, the blue stuff that isn’t inhaled is prime puff-able smoke and is unfiltered even by the cigarette…, gurgle spit hack wheeze.

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:07 pm 5. F:

Pssst. Wanna hear the new threat to infants? It’s incorrectly-disposed-of lead foil from wine corks, dropped absently-mindedly into cribs where infants (of course) immediately put it into their mouth. No, it’s not the lead that’s worrisome, it’s the possibility that the infants will develop an addictive personality toward the fermented grape. Ok, maybe it is the lead. . . Ok, maybe it’s not all that big a threat. But let some of the “change” folks get ahold of it, and it’ll be a threat. F

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:08 pm 6. wildernesscalling:

I as a former three time smoker, believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness so long as my taxes dollars do not keep a smoker cancer free or from any other smoker related disease this goes for the alcoholic’s, drug users, AIDS and Obese! In other words the only tax dollars that should be going towards health care are for common health and disease research other than that you’re on your own! you pay for our play…

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:39 pm 7. Alex:

Wretchard:

This seems like simply another power grab by those who think the Nanny State is a good idea. The goal is not to protect the public but to gain control over as much of people’s lives as possible.

If you want a contrast between how people were thought of as citizens capable of making their own decisions in the past and today’s idea of people as helpless subjects who must be led and guided for their own good, just take a look at attitudes towards cigaretes in your father’s time and today.

Back in the WWII era, cigaretes were commonly known as “coffin nails” but people could make up their own minds as to smoke or not. Of course, people could pay for their own health care costs as well. Now, its more like we are going to tell you what to do for your own good and we have a right to since we are paying taxes for your health care.

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:40 pm 8. elby:

Sounds like third hand facism to me.

Jan 4, 2009 - 6:56 pm 9. Gordon:

Smokers will be required to ring a hand bell warning all of their approach so they can get out of the way and avoid the third-hand smoke.

This will also, BTW, signal the latest avalanche of ambulance chasers filing sweeping lawsuits.

Jan 4, 2009 - 7:38 pm 10. John Moore:

Wanta bet there are some tort lawyers behind this? Another liability vein to be mined?

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:25 pm 11. ledger:

The NYT is blowing smoke (or breaking wind depending on how you smell it). I have not let the NYT in my house for eight years because it is like bringing dog feces into your home and having to suffer the horrible odor.

I have recommended to my sisters and cousins to do the same. Thankfully, most them have discontinued the NYT as physical paper. Now, my cousin’s husband who is a lawyer continues to get it. But, they have two dogs and one bird so they can put it to good use.

Further, I am thankful to people like Wretchard who read and critique the offensive crap the NYT spews so I don’t have to.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:25 pm 12. DanM:

Being a Leper myself, I applaud our non-smoking overlords… The smell is my badge of shame, my tattoo on my arm, my cross to bear… Ahh heck, they can all go f*** themselves – they can have my cigarettes when they pry them from my cold dead fingers.

I always said that the way to be a Kennedy was for some Congress to ban cigarettes. Looks like I need to draw up some plans for purchase, transportation and distribution. Any one want in?

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:34 pm 13. 3Case:

Funny thing. My parents smoked until I was 4. My Sister is 2 years younger and my Brother 5. Of the 3 of us, only my Brother smokes. About 8 years ago, I took up enjoying a cigar or 2 a week. I report that every year to my doctor, who laughs at me and says, “That’s not smoking.”

When I encounter someone who twitters about cigar smoking, I ask them to get back to me when they get they head out they butt. We live in an age of whiners and criers and ninnies.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:36 pm 14. Dave:

Secondhand smoke is of course diluted smoke.
If diluted smoke did that much damage, then no smoker could possibly survive more than 20 years of so since he or she would be inhaling
the undiluted variety.

However, the liars have made so much headway with their second-hand propoganda that they now feel free to come up with this third-hand nonsense.

BTW 3case: One of Murrays’ most insightful
articles was on the anti-smoking crusade
and how is was propelled by “Post-Millenial
Existential Pietism”. I would describe this
as a seminal work.

Jan 4, 2009 - 9:14 pm 15. Lifeofthemind:

When I was in College I remembered that my Father had told how in the Army it was an order “Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” and he had quit as a New Years resolution when the War ended. The thought occurred to me that it would be nice to do the same thing 30 years later. Unfortunately that meant that I had to take up the practice first so that I could gain the spiritual benefit of quitting. My secret was a combination of poverty and snobbery. There was no way that I would smoke cheap coffin nails like Lucky Strikes, despite the nostalgia appeal of their heritage in the “Lucky Strike goes to war” advertising campaign. So instead I took up Balkan Sobranies that came in a little tin of ten. You could only get it in special shops and it cost over a dollar a tin. Imagine that cigarettes that cost over ten cents each!

What annoys me about the public behavior gestapo is that they do not in fact focus on public behavior. They do not regulate the people smoking in building entranceways or on the sidewalks. Those are places where some argument could be made that there is a public property interest and a right of free passage concern to give cover to this concern. They instead are determined to regulate conduct in private settings. I do not smoke but I dislike the government telling a businessman that he cannot allow his patrons to smoke. It would be much more pleasant if the restaurant owner advertised that his establishment was smoke free because he wanted my trade. If he didn’t stay up at night worrying about that then fine, I’ll take my business elsewhere. If he wants to get the hippest young wait staff to work for him then he’d offer them a smoke free place of employment. If he finds staff that prefer the risk of getting bigger tips from smoking moguls then let him.

Jan 4, 2009 - 9:22 pm 16. Gaffe Prices:

Every day I endure the cloud of smoke and noise coming from crews using leaf blowers on multiple yards on every street in the neighborhood. I imagine it is going on simultaneously in neighborhoods all over the city.

The crews blow leaves from one yard to the next, blowing up all sorts of fungus and dust as well; its how they tick off the yards quickly, and move on to the next. The other day, to stop them blowing the leaves to my yard, I began to approach the area (the back by the alley), but the noxious cloud got to me first, so I headed instead to my house for some fresh air.

Whatever the media, and its “experts tell us”, there is all “politically sentive areas” that they cover up by not mentioning them at all. No context whatsoever.

Leaf blowers is politically charged in favour of covering up its relevance, i.e. not mentioning it; it comes under things like sanctuary cities, and other hypocracies. There is the agenda and its villian.

What part do leaf blowers, weed whackers play in contributing to health dangers to children, according to their own standards? Carcinogens from burning petrol fuel, anyone? And don’t get me started on the noise pollution. The lawn mowers have the sound of a low, dull roar, but the leaf blowers and weed whackers sound like some fool revving his motorcycle up over and over.

Pass a law against those immediately. Not likely though, the people who use them are a victims group with special rights in this multi-culti social experiment in patronage and arbitrary class privilege.

Jan 4, 2009 - 9:56 pm 17. comatus:

Do you like conspiracy theories? In 1948, the Democrat party was split between northern liberals, led by Kennedy interests, and southern anti-integration conservatives, who ran Strom Thurmond for President. The southern faction was backed by the considerable fortune of tobacco entrepreneurs. The split nearly cost the party the election. The Kennedys had an oft-quoted motto: “Don’t get mad, get even.”

Now look at when the government anti-tobaccco campaign started, and by what political processes it prospered. Someday someone will write a book about this, but it will have to be after tobacco use is extinct, lest they be accused of shilling for the death merchants.

This campaign began the politicization of scientific research which we now see in so many other issues, such as climate change.

Jan 4, 2009 - 10:17 pm 18. dick:

This is really scary: Studies also show that 98% of all people who die, die in bed.
That’s why I sleep on the floor now. Ban beds before more die.

Jan 4, 2009 - 10:33 pm 19. Ray:

Isn’t BO a smoker?

Fire that reporter!

Jan 4, 2009 - 10:52 pm 20. NahnCee:

Here in Los Angeles, there is worry that every time it rains, the run-off water will wash over left-over animal feces in the streets and hills and canyons, so that we’ll end up with shitty water in our reservoirs.

Aren’t you glad that you’re not the sort of person who lays awake at 3:00 in the morning thinking up things to worry about like 3rd hand smoke and feces-polluted rain water?

Jan 4, 2009 - 10:56 pm 21. Karen:

My only consolation for standing a President Obama was the hope that maybe now the anti-smoking Nazis would ease up a bit on us lepers. Alas, if the Messiah himself can’t change it, then nothing can. Or has Obama managed to kick the habit by now? If not, what are they going to do, with the President himself contaminating the White House and everyone he comes in contact with? How could anybody even shake his hand? How will they stand it? How can they subject themselves to being poisoned by him?

Seems like every time I begin to steel myself for another try at the ordeal of quitting, another assinine new report like this third-hand smoke thing comes out. And further reduces my desire to quit. The more they whine and complain and ostracize and accuse us of killing people and costing everyone a ton of money in health-care costs, the more desperately I want to smoke. Now why is that? What’s the matter with me? That can’t be the proper reaction.

About the medical costs – I wonder greatly about that. I mean, the inference seems to be that, if only it weren’t for smokers, then medical care would be affordable at last. So would a routine doctor’s visit suddenly cost, say, half as much? Would an emergency room bill look reasonable? Would a kidney transplant seem suddenly affordable? Would the final tally for open-heart surgery look like fire-sale prices? Somehow, I think not. If no one in the history of the world had ever smoked, I suspect health care would cost not one penny less. But how can I think this way? Must be my addiction talking.

Jan 4, 2009 - 10:59 pm 22. chthus:

One person sits in a closed garage with ten chain smokers, another sits in a closed garage with one running car, who has a longer life expectancy?

Jan 4, 2009 - 11:16 pm 23. PA Cat:

Anybody done a study of the dangers of second- or third-hand marijuana smoke? Can’t have the children getting high– or getting cancer– from their parents’ weed. According to the BBC (yeah, I know, consider the source), the Canadian government issued a report in 2007 “that found 20 times as much ammonia [in cannabis as in tobacco smoke], a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said.”

“The Health Canada team also found five times as much hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to heart and lung damage respectively.”

And here’s a possible explanation for NahnCee about Angelenos’ worrying about animal feces contaminating runoff water: Berton Roueché published an item in the New Yorker in 1984 about a mysterious outbreak of salmonella poisoning in Ohio, Michigan, Alabama, and Georgia. The breakthrough came when one of the victims admitted to smoking pot with friends who had also gotten sick. The epidemiologist from the CDC said, “The salmonella was in the marijuana. When a marijuana smoker rolled a cigarette, his hands became contaminated, and when he put the cigarette in his mouth his lips became contaminated. Then a touch or a kiss or any sort of contact could spread the infection. . . . And not only that. Pot decreases the gastric acid, and gastric acid is an important defense against infections of all kinds. Regular pot smokers are especially susceptible to infection. . . . because of the extremely heavy contamination and the presence of other bacteria like E. coli and K. pneumoniae, the marijuana had likely been deliberately laced with dried manure—a quick way to boost weight, and profits.”

So there’s another health campaign for the Nanny State.

Jan 5, 2009 - 1:33 am 24. Jay:

A late friend of mine interviewed the “scientists” who were doing the second hand smoking studies. My friend did the study in order to write several papers on the subject. Almost every “scientist” told him privately and off the record that they could not find any evidence of the second hand smoke doing damage to non smokers in the room where the smoker was puffing away. They told him that the fabricated their results for a “good cause”.
But they also go more research grants for their bogus research.

Jan 5, 2009 - 7:20 am 25. DocBill:

Jay:

My father died of other causes but had a mid-grade case of emphisima. He never smoked a day in his life but worked in/owned barber shops where his clothes and the walls were stained brown from cigarette tar. The effects of second hand smoke are real.

That said we have a culture that has gone insane with risk aversion. The safest way to avoid risk is to not be born. Maybe we can convince all the whiners to unborn themselves.

Jan 5, 2009 - 8:00 am 26. SeniorD:

I grew up in a family where both parents and both younger brothers smoked like smokestacks. Then I enlisted in the US Navy where, on a ship of 500 sailors, I was one of but 20 sailors that didn’t smoke.

All of that second- and third-hand smoke must have damaged my brain somehow.

I’ve voted Conservative Republican/Libertarian since my 18th birthday.

Jan 5, 2009 - 9:19 am 27. steveaz:

The Progressives’ desired collectivization cannot succeed as long as citizens’ private autonomy competes with the “Commons.” This is the stealthy thrust of the NYT’s “Third Hand Smoke” hand-wringing.

It used to be, if a person didn’t like cigarettes, or pornography, or liquor, he simply didn’t use them. Private parties make personal decisions like this all the time. But, by blurring the lines between the private and the Commons, the progressive movement hopes to erode the former, and to compel the nation to take one more step towards redefining everything we do as falling within the regulate-able grounds of “the Commons.”

My opinion: when people live in unwholesome, expensive, crowded theatres like our northern cities, they are more susceptible to gradual collectivization. I mean, where else could media conjurers like the NYT’s manufacture health scares like this by using the indefinate plural object “children?” Or, for a more salient, potentially more damaging example, how about “Global Warming, which uses the indefinite, unquantifiable object, “the environment?”

Or, “health.” In these urbanites’ minds, my personal health falls into their commons, too. The ‘campusing’ of America is continuing apace at full-steam.

Where will the herding stop? When we are all in fenced pens with rings in our noses!

Jan 5, 2009 - 9:45 am 28. Agoraphobic Plumber:

“According to the BBC (yeah, I know, consider the source), the Canadian government issued a report in 2007 “that found 20 times as much ammonia [in cannabis as in tobacco smoke], a chemical linked to cancer, New Scientist said.””

If that’s the case, I guess I’d better get an NBC suit for when I clean the cat box.

Jan 5, 2009 - 9:45 am 29. davod:

I thought the research had already disproved this. NYT f inds another reason for people to buy it papers.

Jan 5, 2009 - 10:23 am 30. Marcus Aurelius:

In an effort to protect our children and ourselves from the slightest bit of unpleasantness we have so sensitized ourselves to it, our psyches & our bodies overreact to the inevitable unpleasantries that come along.

I believe there is a lot of truth to the hypothesis that it is hypercleanliness leading to increased occurrences of asthma. Unfortunately, too many people leap the other way and look for more ways to remove the dirty sub-atomic particles from their air.

Howard Hughes was nutty because this dirt-paranoia was concentrated in one man, however, our society has dirt-paranoia as well.

Jan 5, 2009 - 10:33 am 31. Marcus Aurelius:

South Park did a thing on that. The tour of the Museum of Diversity was complete and after the tour they were all out in the parking lot and they spotted a person smoking. All of a sudden all the diversity smokers tarted hurling epithets and insults at the smoker.

Jan 5, 2009 - 10:42 am 32. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"”I always said that the way to be a Kennedy was for some Congress to ban cigarettes. Looks like I need to draw up some plans for purchase, transportation and distribution. Any one want in?”"”"”"”"

Cigarette smuggling is already a lucrative business, and has been for a very long time. It’s because of the different tobaco tax rates in different states. Now, if there were a ban on cigarettes, that business would mushroom, and the existing players would become billionaires. You could make money driving trucks for these guys, the way ordinary guys drove trucks for bootleggeres the last time the government tried to ban a common vice.

A ban on cigarettes would deprive the feds and states of both taxes, and of that other source of revenue from tobacco lawsuit settlements. It would also cause some kind of rebellion in the tobacco states (Civil War II, anyone?).

I’m not saying a ban couldn’t be enacted, because governments have been that stupid before, but several very high prices would be paid as a result of such a disastrous blunder.

Jan 5, 2009 - 11:00 am 33. DanM:

Roderick,

Competition is a good thing, I am a capitalist after all.

Jan 5, 2009 - 11:08 am 34. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”"”"”our society has dirt-paranoia as well.”"”"”"”"”"

It’s part of a general trend. Many of us are old enough to recall that people who complained loudly and constantly of smells, smoke , noise, bent restaurant forks, or whatever, were looked upon as neurotic and annoying. Now these types of people are at the forefront of American and Western European social policy. We still detest them, but they’ve made an end-around to our desire for common sense to prevail.

Jan 5, 2009 - 11:14 am 35. Lamont Cranston:

I dunno. I’ve got to admit: restaurants and bars don’t STINK any more.

Lamont

Jan 5, 2009 - 11:55 am 36. TTC:

What are the risks of third-hand smoke?

The article starts by discussing a study about third-hand smoke, but then dove-tails into a discussion of people’s attitudes toward and awareness of third-hand smoke. But nowhere does it discuss the risks or dangers.

Or am I missing something?

Jan 5, 2009 - 12:28 pm 37. Marcus Aurelius:

Here in a town nearby the barowners launched multiple effort to overturn or amend the town’s “workplace” smoking ban. They all failed, but one barowner took the cake. He said his bar was never going back to allowing smoking. The implication being pushed was the amendments/efforts were going to make smoking mandatory. Nope, it simply put the responsibility back on the bar owner/operator to allow or prohibit smoking in their establishments.

Jan 5, 2009 - 12:29 pm 38. Karen:

Lamont Cranston: I dunno. I’ve got to admit: restaurants and bars don’t STINK any more.

Nobody is saying we ought to go back to allowing smoking in restaurants, bars, airplanes, etc. So what is your point?

Smokers have complied with all the bans but they’re still not satisfied.

Jan 5, 2009 - 1:27 pm 39. woodie4827:

How long now before smokers carry the same stigma that people with VD or tuberculosis once had? How long before we hear the scream, “there’s a smoker!”?

Uh, we are already there.

Jan 5, 2009 - 1:58 pm 40. Jay:

DocBill, Don’t confuse correlation with causation. I am a scientist with a lot of statistical background. My friend was well schooled in statistics. The “science” of second hand smoking is bogus science.
I grew up in Pittsburgh when it was a steel town. The air was more than filthy.
My wife was a heavy smoker but then gave it up. I hated the smell of tobacco but I liked my wife. I am happy she gave it up and we do not allow people to smoke in our house. We just don’t like it.

Jan 5, 2009 - 2:37 pm 41. Orphaned Son of Liberty:

LotM opines:
I do not smoke but I dislike the government telling a businessman that he cannot allow his patrons to smoke. It would be much more pleasant if the restaurant owner advertised that his establishment was smoke free because he wanted my trade. If he didn’t stay up at night worrying about that then fine, I’ll take my business elsewhere.
:end LotM

I agree with this! I think that I should be able to open a private establishment, should I choose to do so, which required lit tobacco products in all orifices at all times, and let the market decide! I would be comfortable with regulations mandating the clear posting of smoking policy on publicly accessible private establishments, so that an informed decision could be made prior to entry. And I strongly resist the argument that the “public cost” of such things permits restrictions on individual freedom. The problem is that “society” has been structured by the do-gooders such that the public is forced to pay for the results of personal choices. I would much prefer the insurace industry to calculate the actuarial cost of, say helmetless motorcycling and offer such policies than to have a law forbidding helmetless motorcycling. And if I don’t have helmetless insurace and have a severe accident, then society shouldn’t be obligated beyond the cost of a bullet, or a lethal dose of morphine.

Jan 5, 2009 - 3:01 pm 42. Bill Befort:

The late Michael Crichton integrated the second-hand smoke story into a general review of the pollution of science by politics in a talk titled “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” available on
http://www.crichton-official.com/index.html .

Jan 5, 2009 - 5:17 pm 43. For Crying Out Loud » The Ethereal Voice:

[...] From the Belmont Club…. The New York Times lays the groundwork for a campaign that’s just waiting to happen. The new menace is Third Hand Smoke, a danger so great that you instinctively fear it even if you’ve never heard of it. [...]

Jan 5, 2009 - 5:30 pm 44. Insufficiently Sensitive:

It is just another step in a process which began in the 60s. The ‘anti-establishment’ generation set out to differentiate themselves in lifestyle from their unthinking, insensitive, war-loving and corrupt elders. They were not yet in power, and their beginnings were small at first.

After some progress, their lives became a competition in sensitivity – who could feel more empathetic with minorities, who could take more offense at synthetic foods and fabrics, at the commercial behavior of other consenting adults, and who was more offended at offhand remarks and behavior in the workplace, at school, eventually in public. And with aging and the acquisition of power, these generational sensitivities were translated into legal prohibitions – environmental prohibitions, race and class preferences, and against the dreaded smoking of tobacco, for starters. Then others’ lifestyle was attacked, in the assault on offensive suburban living and automobiles which were (and still are) majority choices where not prohibited by laws of land use and zoning.

This progress of sensitivity to ‘evil’ has not stopped, and will not stop even if the average citizen becomes as exquisitely sensitive as the Princess and the Pea. No, that pea can still be felt under FORTY mattresses, and one can’t just stop there – that pea might still injure ’some’ people atop sixty mattresses. Legislation must still be increased.

And so it is with trace quantities of ‘chemicals’. The ability of chemists to detect staggeringly minute quantities of any substance – no matter how harmless in those quantities – has created a whole new industry of alarmists with hopes of new regulatory powers over their fellow citizens. And I believe this capsule history is a reasonable explanation of the NYT’s new crusade against ‘third-hand-smoke’.

Fear not, fellow humans, the ever-increasing sensitivity at the Times is lining up an endless legion of new crusaders into the future, into infinity – or into the bankruptcy of the Times, if it can’t get Obama to subsidize their ever-more-sensitive (and uneconomical) choice of employment.

Jan 5, 2009 - 6:08 pm 45. LJ Miller:

I remember back when Howard Hughes was seen as a weirdo for wearing surgical gloves all the time, washing with antibacterial stuff, picking up things with kleenex, watching movies indoors, and generally being crazed about hygeine.

Now half of the mothers you see out in public are washing their kids’ hands with Germ-X in the food court, won’t touch the bathroom door with their hands (using a paper towel or tissue instead), crouch above the toilet or use a paper seat cover, spray every surface with Lysol or bleach, use detergent, bleach, a pre-treatment, a separate stain remover, a grease cutter, and dryer sheets on clothes that have only been worn once, and have an even dozen kitchen cleaning formulae under the kitchen sink. Back in those days Howard Hughes was an obsessive-compulsive oddball. Nowadays he would be like everyone else.

I’m one of those who say all these cleaning products and air fresheners and so on have something to do with the autism-related-disorder, asthma, adhd, allergy and sick-house-syndrome plagues of our time. Frankly, I’d rather have an irascible relative puffing on a stogie in my parlor once or twice a week then all that.

Jan 5, 2009 - 8:00 pm 46. Xixi:

“The meek shall inherit the earth.” was a warning, not a promise.

Jan 6, 2009 - 7:11 am 47. slade:

Then others’ lifestyle was attacked, in the assault on offensive suburban living and automobiles which were (and still are) majority choices where not prohibited by laws of land use and zoning.

I’m now hearing on the news that the “roads and bridges” component of the proposed infrastructure stimulus package is morphing into “mass transit” spending. IOW, “SMART” urban planning, which has suffered some publicized setbacks notably in Portland, OR, now has a funding pool for more light rail. Phoenix just finished one which doesn’t pay for itself and never will. (Same for the Alb-Sante Fe route.) Last I looked, one of the best in the country in terms of service route, cost, cleanliness and safety is BART in SF which still operates on a subsidy. I expect that the 60% infrastructure spending that is left after the 40% tax cuts will emphasize the avant-garde in urban planning – more medium to high density residential, which people don’t want, which sends subburban property values soaring.

Jan 6, 2009 - 9:44 am 48. woowoo:

I like “lifestyle crime” it deserves a spot in the dictionary…

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:15 pm 49. Orphaned Son of Liberty:

and ““The meek shall inherit the earth.” was a warning, not a promise.” deserves a t-shirt and/or bumper sticker

Jan 6, 2009 - 12:59 pm 50. Dave:

@Xixi #46: The meek inherit the earth in
small plots. Only exception is when they get mass graves.

Jan 6, 2009 - 7:47 pm 51. Kevin:

The New York Times is looking for bailout money. This article is obviously their down payment on the loan.

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:18 am 52. Kevin:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/third-hand-smoke-and-chemtrails.html

“It turned out that this poll was no different. What consumers didn’t hear from reporters, was that it was conducted by the National Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control, a special interest group working to legislate bans on tobacco (not surprisingly, heavily backed by the world’s largest pharmaceutical company of smoking cessation products). Support for its polls is largely provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics Julius B. Richmond Center of Excellence. The AAP Tobacco Consortium, which sets the group’s agenda, is chaired by Dr. Winickoff of Harvard and the lead author of this paper. The only other medical doctor among the authors of this paper was Susanne E. Tanski, M.D., also with the AAP Tobacco Consortium, as was sociology professor, Robert McMillen, Ph.D.

In the 2000 executive report from the National Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control group, professor McMillen and co-authors said that they designed these surveys to measure and ultimately monitor tobacco control in society, explaining: “The ultimate goals of these strategies are to denormalize tobacco use and to improve the social climate of tobacco control through social and political changes.””

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:25 am 53. Kevin:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/01/third-hand-smoke-and-chemtrails.html

“Denormalize. For those who don’t know what is meant by “denormalize,” it is exactly what fat people are experiencing in increasing intensity, as well as all those with physical characteristics, cultural differences or chronic diseases (actually primarily due to aging and genes) that can be condemned for not following some certain diet and lifestyle behavior. Denormalizing is a process of “stigmatizing people in everyday discourse and media representations, in a variety of overwhelmingly negative ways” to make them outcasts and create cultural change as a means for a nation to control behavior.

This technique of denormalizing was described in detail by Simon Chapman, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Sydney, in the January 2008 issue of Tobacco Control, published by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. The full paper is recommended reading because even if you don’t smoke, you’ll be next should you be overweight, growing older, experiencing health problems, or not eating and exercising in a government-approved fashion. Professor Chapman’s paper identifies the undocumented, yet pervasive, tactics “recommended for comprehensive national tobacco control.”

Stigmatization, he explained, is a way to taint a person from being a whole person to one viewed as having blemished, “spoiled” character; associate them with disease; and condemn them as being: “malodorous; as litterers, wasteful and socially irresponsible; as selfish and thoughtless; as unattractive and undesirable partners; as undereducated and a social underclass; as addicts; as excessive users of public health services; and as employer liabilities.” Incredibly, his paper is a veritable blueprint for each tactic, noting that traditional methods have focused on restrictions of smoking and the industry, but a “far wider range of markers of denormalization exist, which are seldom captured.” He urges national control efforts to complement their efforts with these techniques, concluding: “For governments, this negativity foments a public climate that is highly receptive to tobacco control legislation, polices and programs.””

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:26 am 54. Kevin:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25

“Methods: This paper identifies a diversity of generally undocumented yet pervasive markers of the “spoiled identity” of smoking, smokers and the tobacco industry, illustrated with examples from Australia, a nation with advanced tobacco control.

Results: We caution about some important negative consequences arising from the stigmatisation of smokers.”

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:32 am 55. Kevin:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/suppl_2/ii3

“”Not safe” is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product
L T Kozlowski, B Q Edwards

Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor Lynn T Kozlowski
Department of Biobehavioral Health, Penn State, 315 East Health and Human Development, University Park, PA 16802, USA; ltk1@psu.edu

The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining “informed consent” and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is “no safe cigarette” or “no safe tobacco product”. We propose that the “no safe” message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, “there is no safe tobacco product” to indicate information on degree of risks. The “no safe tobacco” message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of “rule utilitarian” ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.”

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:37 am 56. Kevin:

And finally

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_2/ii3

“As part of its mission statement, the
FDA takes responsibility for, ‘‘…helping the public get the
accurate, science-based information they need to use
medicines and foods to improve their health’’.19 FTC’s general
rules against deception in advertising, as summarised by
commissioner Varney, clarify how consumer rights to
information include quality standards, specifically that
businesses ‘‘must tell the truth and not mislead consumers…
you can deceive a consumer by what you don’t say as well
as what you do say. If you omit information… that is
material… then it is deceptive’’.20 (Note that the tobacco
industry in the USA remains exempted from FDA regulation.)
The US government is now required by law to ensure
that information disseminated by its agencies meets standards
that maximise the quality of information, including
objectivity, utility, and integrity.21 22
Much of the health communication we discuss employs
the internet, and ethical guidelines have been established
specifically for the internet (as is discussed in the US Healthy
People guidelines in health communication and health
literacy).2 These guidelines are unambiguous on honesty:
‘‘Be truthful and not deceptive.’’ They emphasise the
importance of providing accurate and well supported
information. There is no allowance for the use of deception
in web based health communications. These standards reflect
the rights of internet users, specifically, and individuals more
generally, to expect to find quality information. Because the
supply of internet information is essentially unregulated and
potentially boundless, science based ‘‘data quality’’ is
necessary to protect the credibility of legitimate channels of
information. Deceptive messages will be contradicted in the
multiply sourced ‘‘free press’’ internet leaving the credibility
of all sources in question. In other words, even well intended
deceptive messages present serious risks to the public health
community.”

Jan 13, 2009 - 7:59 am 57. REALITY:

Well, I thought i’d take the opportunity to put in my opinions esp., to those that don’t believe it is possible…..I do strongly doubt that an Assistant Professor from Harvard Medical School would actually waste his time conducting a study about “Third-hand smoke.” Yes I did say Harvard.

And whether or not you like hearing about this new term,….I pray to God that one day there will be a nationwide ban on cigarette smoking, or smoking of any kind. The reality of this happening,…perhaps slim…but you never know…..

While I can understand to a degree,..a small degree,…that smokers are addicted….smoke to relieve stress…..blah blah blah……I don’t understand, nor have any compassion for those “Stressed out,” who smoke and have no consideration for those that don’t smoke. BABIES, PETS, CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY, AND NON-SMOKERS IN GENERAL.

A few months ago I actually saw a mother driving with a baby in the back baby carseat…..SMOKING WITH NO WINDOWS OPEN. This is the kind of person that only thinks of herself. I couldn’t help but to wonder,.. “why did you even bother having a baby….??? if you can’t even think of the welfare of your newborn? The same goes for those who want to have a dog,..or some other type of pet. WHY do you want them for a companion when you are only going to send them to their grave early?

Do smokers realize that when they talk…walk past by you….leave an elevator after taking a 10-15 minute break at work……that they give off either….breath that reaks of cigarette smoke?….or just the nasty odor off from their clothes and hair…..i suppose it is hard to know this especially when smokers aren’t thinking straight…or not at all.

And for those who think that non-smokers are “whiners” as one person in a previous post put it,…chemical gases are a health hazard…..whether you can see your chemical fumes or not….and those chemicals you guys exhale out….they are very much real….if a fire was to burn a house,…do ashes not fly into the atmosphere?….well hello mcfly!….what do you think becomes of your once, whole cigarette?….yeah…some of it remains in your lungs…..and the rest…exhaled out into the atmosphere….and unfortunately to others who don’t care for your germs.

And on behalf of all non-smokers, especially those babies, childrens, and pets who have parents and/or owners that smoke…..take into consideration of those who don’t have a voice in saying…”QUIT BEING SELFISH!”

Feb 20, 2009 - 6:21 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.