Smoking ban = Hitler's Jewish policy

[JJ]

Quote:

John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
David at a recent Republican event.

End quote

Full story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitler_n_1437201.html

Jay

[DORIS LADAN]

I WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS ARTICLE FROM HUFFINGTON POST --
-
I CANNOT CLICK IT -- IF SOMEONE COULD GET IT ON OUR SCREEN THAT WOULD BE
GREAT --
THANKS .... DVORA

[JJ]

"DORIS LADAN" <dvo...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:21718-4F9...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...

Hi,

I just e-mailed you the story by e-mail.

Jay

[Shelly]

Can you spell "hyperbole" or "demagoguery"?

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:jmpf3r$qv2$4...@dont-email.me...

No, but I can spell "nuts".

Jay

[The Golem from Schmolem]

On Apr 19, 12:11 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/19/2012 11:46 AM, JJ wrote:
>
> > Quote:
>
> > John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> > equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> > David at a recent Republican event.
>
> > End quote
>
> > Full story:
>

> >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitle...

>
> > Jay
>
> Can you spell "hyperbole" or "demagoguery"?

I would just put it at "false analogy". Better he should have
compared it to Stalin's ban on religious observance. That would be the
perfect analogy.
--
The Smokin' Golem

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

More on this:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/19/note-to-candidates-drop-nazi-analogies/
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[mm]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>said:
>
>>Quote:
>>
>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>David at a recent Republican event.
>>
>>End quote
>>
>>Full story:
>>
>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitler_n_1437201.html
>
>More on this:
>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/19/note-to-candidates-drop-nazi-analogies/

They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
grew up in the US perfectly safe.

I refer to his use of "soup nazi". The line, the whole bit, appeared
in reruns too a couple years later, even though I'm sure he got a lot
of flak because of it. I wrote them a stern complaint.

I also didn't like his silly bit when a "religious" girl he was
dating couldn't control herself when there was lobster or something
lieft over in the fridge at the beach house they were staying in for a
couple days on Long Island. Few girls in their 20's who have kept
kosher all their lives would be tempted by that, when they could have
bought it on their own anytime they wanted, but the scrpt made her
seem typical.
--

Meir

[mm]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>Quote:
>
>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>David at a recent Republican event.
>
>End quote

Frankly, I don't believe the stories about second-hand smoke -- maybe
if you live in the same home with a heavy smoker, but not other places
--, and neither does my brother, an MD. Neither of us have ever
smoked, so we have nothing personal to gain. And I think people who
work at bars and should find another job if they're afraid of second
hand smoke. And I think smokers are abused in large part becasue
it's no longer acceptable to abuse in public Blacks or Jews or
homosexuals, and there aren't enough Gypsies. So people take out
their aggressions on smokers.

But even from my pov this guy is as stupid as they come. If the
worst I faced in my life would be having to go outside to smoke, I'd
be a very happy man. He seems ignorant beyond belief about the
nazis. And he's stupid.


OTOH, if they have their science right, the rules are reasonable.
Except probably for the bars.



>Full story:
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitler_n_1437201.html

I wonder how many of his audience applauded when he said it.
Actually no one made a sound. That's good.
>Jay
>
>
>
>
>

--

Meir

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:66o6p7p714igdj1te...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Quote:
>>
>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>David at a recent Republican event.
>>
>>End quote
>
> Frankly, I don't believe the stories about second-hand smoke -- maybe
> if you live in the same home with a heavy smoker, but not other places
> --, and neither does my brother, an MD. Neither of us have ever
> smoked, so we have nothing personal to gain. And I think people who
> work at bars and should find another job if they're afraid of second
> hand smoke. And I think smokers are abused in large part becasue
> it's no longer acceptable to abuse in public Blacks or Jews or
> homosexuals, and there aren't enough Gypsies. So people take out
> their aggressions on smokers.
>
> But even from my pov this guy is as stupid as they come. If the
> worst I faced in my life would be having to go outside to smoke, I'd
> be a very happy man. He seems ignorant beyond belief about the
> nazis. And he's stupid.
>
>
> OTOH, if they have their science right, the rules are reasonable.
> Except probably for the bars.
>
>

> Meir



If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
cause it to be banned.

Jay

[Henry Goodman]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:57o6p7p3cttdvek9p...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
> <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>>said:
>>
>>>Quote:
>>>
>>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
>>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
>>>David at a recent Republican event.
>>>
>>>End quote
>>>
>>>Full story:
>>>
>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitler_n_1437201.html
>>
>>More on this:
>>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/19/note-to-candidates-drop-nazi-analogies/
>
> They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
> very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
> grew up in the US perfectly safe.
>

The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
Great Dictator" (1938, I think)

--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:

>
> If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> cause it to be banned.
>

A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
The real reason is ideological. If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, מאת JJ:
>
> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> > cause it to be banned.
>
> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> The real reason is ideological.

The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
eyes to water, their clothes to smell, and often gives them allergic
reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
former smokers who succeeded in quitting).

In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
would have left. Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
do with political correctness.

>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.

There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
blowing in their faces?

In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 6:10 am, "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57o6p7p3cttdvek9p...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov

> > <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com>

> >>said:
>
> >>>Quote:
>
> >>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> >>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> >>>David at a recent Republican event.
>
> >>>End quote
>
> >>>Full story:
>

> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitle...
>
> >>More on this:
> >>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/19/note-to-candidates-drop-...

>
> > They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> > esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis..  He's usually
> > very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> > given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> > his making fun of Jewish tragedy.   He wasn't even born yet, and he
> > grew up in the US perfectly safe.
>
> The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
> Great Dictator" (1938, I think)

----
Yes. The point of the Seinfeld episode was to spoof Hitler, not to
make a mockery of the Holocaust.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

No, the reason isn't ideological. It is that it unfairly infringes on
the rights on non-smokers to breath fresh air.

I stopped smoking 40 years ago. I would never ban smoking entirely.
However, I do support banning smoking where the non-smoker has no choice
but to inhale the obnoxious fumes. This includes such places as
restaurants and ball parks (with fixed seating) and the workplace. If
the smoker wants to smoke, that is fine with me -- so long as no
non-smoker is forced to inhale that smoke.

--
Shelly

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 22, 6:10 am, "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:

> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:57o6p7p3cttdvek9p...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:49:38 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov

> > <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:46:52 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com>

> >>said:
>
> >>>Quote:
>
> >>>John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> >>>equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> >>>David at a recent Republican event.
>
> >>>End quote
>
> >>>Full story:
>

> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitle...
>
> >>More on this:
> >>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/04/19/note-to-candidates-drop-...
>

> > They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
> > esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis..  He's usually
> > very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
> > given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
> > his making fun of Jewish tragedy.   He wasn't even born yet, and he
> > grew up in the US perfectly safe.
>
> The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
> Great Dictator" (1938, I think)
>
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net

The propaganda cartoons during World War II put out by Walt Disney
in the 1940s weren't too bad -- but the subject matter was not
trivial. The first link is quite a serious cartoon, the second one has
a little more humor

http://youtu.be/B1VfThisblE


http://youtu.be/y00ygpgALi0

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9321d0ce-e5a3-4f8b...@c28g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

> ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ?????? 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, ??? JJ:

*******************************************************************

Precisely.

I stopped smoking over 20 years ago. Today, when I stand on a street corner
and someone is smoking in the crowd, the smell is almost nauseating.

At one time smokers were allowed to smoke in the "smoking section" of an
airplane or a restaurant. About which someone said that having a smoking
section in a restaurant Is like having peeing section in a swimming pool.

Jay

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per malcolm...@btinternet.com:

>The real reason is ideological. If people have to go to special shelter, open on
>two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they
>can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking.

At one of the firms that I serve (a large financial institution)
a broadcast email went out last year that seemed to imply one
more reason.

The gist was that smokers may no longer just go outside of a
building and smoke anywhere they want - not even walking around
on the campus' grassy areas. Instead, anybody smoking on the
premises must be in one of the designated areas.

Since the designated areas were so conspicuously out of sight,
the widely-attributed implication was that The Powers That Be did
not want visitors to the institution (some of whom were
entrusting very large sums of money to same) to think that
anybody working there would have such poor judgment as to have
started smoking.

Maybe that goes back to the social stigma aspect.... but it seems
like there is truth there: what level of judgment would a person
have (aside from a child or adolescent) who would voluntarily
addict themselves to something with such horrendous health and
social consequences? Would I want to entrust my life savings
or my company's entire retirement fund to an institution where
such people work when alternatives were available?
--
Pete Cresswell

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום ראשון, 22 באפריל 2012 18:29:44 UTC+1, מאת (PeteCresswell):

>
> Maybe that goes back to the social stigma aspect.... but it seems
> like there is truth there: what level of judgment would a person
> have (aside from a child or adolescent) who would voluntarily
> addict themselves to something with such horrendous health and
> social consequences?
>

Virtually no-one starts smoking after the age of 25. It's something that people do in the later years of school, ate university, or when they are just starting out on adulthood.
Peer pressure in this age group is extraordinarily strong. The main reason is that everyone is looking for sexual partners. There's an awful lot to play for, and the costs of being excluded for the peer group are very high. Also, this is the age at which the messages from the adult world are not right. Adults are always making demands of late teenagers, then rewarding those who don't comply, because they perceive them as more mature.


The the medical costs of smoking usually don't kick in until the fifties. To a teenager, that is another life. A lot of youngsters also start smoking to smoke cannabis with it. Cannabis has a similar but different culture associated with it.

[topazgalaxy]

[ Moderator's Comment: We're getting well off-topic HPG ]

I agree with Cindy.
It is my understanding that one of the reasons second hand smoke was
banned in NY state in bars and restaurants was the observation that
people who worked in those places and who did not smoke themselves
were dying at a higher rate from cigarette induced medical problems.
There is no doubt that second hand smoke causes substantial health
problems, not the least of which is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,
pneumonia in children, ear problems, and asthma.

The toxins are numerous and deadly

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke

http://youtu.be/raYlnhksw5I

By making smoking less and less convenient, it may encourage more
smokers to quit and save their own lives.
Not to mention smoking is very expensive.

The California EPA estimates that 430 babies die each year from
SIDS in the USA due to second hand smoke.
Some authorities estimate that almost 50,000 people die in the US
annually due to second hand smoke. Preventable deaths too.

The politician making the the silly statements about the smoking ban,
is he in a state where growing tobacco is a major industry?
That might be the real reason he is fighting any kind of smoking
ban. Wonder what industry might be donating to his campaign, or
what lobbyists are knocking on his door.

[mm]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:06:59 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ?????? 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, ??? JJ:

>>
>> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>> > cause it to be banned.
>>
>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
>> The real reason is ideological.
>
>The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
>second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
>noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
>eyes to water, their clothes to smell,

And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL

> and often gives them allergic
>reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
>former smokers who succeeded in quitting).

If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.

>
>In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
>places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
>ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
>woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
>faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
>would have left.

Fair enough, you can move or you can leave. You don't even have to
sit down It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
in this area.

>Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
>smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
>do with political correctness.
>
>>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
>
>There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.

But it was piddling.

>Also, why
>*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>blowing in their faces?

Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it. Duh.

No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.

>
>In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
>alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
>were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
>fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.

That's artfully phrared. They didn't fail and they didn't go bankrupt
"at all" but you don't say they didn't have reduced profits, or a
reduced customer base that would be less able to tide them through a
business mistake or a recession, or other problems. If they closed
years later after working with a smaller customer base for years,
especially if in a recession, it woudln't be attributed to the no
smoking rule.

Plus money is hardly the only thing. It limited their freedom and
the fee activitiy of smokers.

When you deal with a God who knows you and loves you, your duties are
important.

When you deal with a government that barely knows you, doesn't love
you, makes one rule for everyone, and doesn't make exceptions, your
rights are mportant. Unfortunately, this is a right that has been
lost, at least for now.

>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>

--

Meir

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:g539p7h4gos6m3oti...@4ax.com...

*********************************************************************

Yeah, we also lost the right to breathe the exhaust fumes of trucks on the
roads, the right to drink filthy water polluted by big business, and the
right to kill ourselves by not wearing seat belts in cars. What an
irrational, power-grabbing (socialist or fascist, take your pick)
government. Then they took away our rights to endanger babies by making up
MORE irrational rules as to cribs and high chairs. My one-year old grandson
will never forgive them, I'm sure.

Jay

[mm]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>

I can't resist, but said with a warm smile:

A, that assumes they know more than I do!

B, If they want to require a sign to be posted that sitting in a room
with smoke is risky, fine, but people should be allowed to risk their
lives. Many people don't seem to regard freedom as a value anymore.
Bars are for relaxation. In a free country threre would be bars
with smoking and entrepreneurs would open bars with no smoking.
There are so many bars in most places that the travel time would
barely increase. (The last time I went to a bar was about 20 years
ago.)

And for the first time in a while, I fully agree with Malcomn's
points.


--

Meir

[cindys]

On Apr 22, 7:43 pm, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:06:59 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> >> ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ?????? 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, ??? JJ:
>
> >> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
> >> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
> >> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
> >> > cause it to be banned.
>
> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
> >> The real reason is ideological.
>
> >The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
> >second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
> >noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
> >eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
>
> And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL

Not illegal. Just not allowed in public places.

>
> > and often gives them allergic
> >reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
> >former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
>
> If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.

Well, happily, since New York State doesn't allow smoking in bars, New
Yorkers with asthma and COPD can go to bars without putting their
health at risk.

>
>
>
> >In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
> >places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
> >ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
> >woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
> >faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
> >would have left.
>
> Fair enough, you can move or you can leave.  You don't even have to
> sit down    It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
> in this area.

And I think it's sad that so many young people in Italy smoke and also
that Italian smokers are allowed to pollute everybody else's air in
public places.

>
> >Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
> >smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
> >do with political correctness.
>
> >>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
>
> >There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
> >doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
>
> But it was piddling.

I don't think giving other people an asthma attack or making their
hair and clothes stink is piddling. Sorry.

>
> >Also, why
> >*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
> >blowing in their faces?
>
> Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it.    Duh.

Well, in New York, it's against the law for the owner to permit it.

Duh.

>
> No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.

Sure. If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, let them stay home.
Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
stay home.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[mm]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:13:01 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No comparison. The roads are public roads. Everyone breathes
everyone's exhaust.

>, the right to drink filthy water polluted by big business,

No way to give good water to those who want it and bad water to those
who don't mind.

> and the
>right to kill ourselves by not wearing seat belts in cars

That's fascist also.

> What an
>irrational, power-grabbing (socialist or fascist, take your pick)

Fascisl. I don't see what sociallism has to do with it.

>government. Then they took away our rights to endanger babies by making up
>MORE irrational rules as to cribs and high chairs.

People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
right to risk their own lives. In fact everyone risks their own
lives, the question is who gets to decide how much. If Halacha were
telling you what you couldn't do, and it has such rules, you would
bridle and ignore them. Yet you expect me and other Americans to
willingly follow some other set of rules. Maybe from now on I'll
expect you to follow Halacha.

> My one-year old grandson
>will never forgive them, I'm sure.

>Jay

Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.


--

Meir

[mm]

"best"?

The difference I see is that when that was made and first seen, most
people didn't know the extent of german crimes, and for those who knew
it hadn't sunk in.

By the time of Seinfeld it had sunk in, but he thought his line was
funny.


I won't watch the Chaplin movie either, and I wouldn't watch the
Produces either. I come across them switching channels on the tv and
I keep going. I don't think they're funny.

--

Meir

[mm]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:00:28 +0000 (UTC), topazgalaxy
<topaz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>[ Moderator's Comment: We're getting well off-topic HPG ]
>On Apr 22, 11:06 am, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>

>> > ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ?????? 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, ??? JJ:

Assuming for the sake of argument that it's as dangeous as you say,
there are lots of dangerous jobs. I have no problem making employers
give prospective employees a packet of info about how dangerous it is,
and they can decide for themselves whether to work there or not.
They don't require that for mining, which is still plenty dangerous,
much more than working in a bar I'll bet.

They can also require bigger exhaust fans in such bars. AFAIK, now
they only have them in the toilets and they're no bigger there than
any other location.

Where is freedom on your list of possible priorities?

>http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/TobaccoCancer/secondhand-smoke
>
>http://youtu.be/raYlnhksw5I
>
>By making smoking less and less convenient, it may encourage more
>smokers to quit and save their own lives.
>Not to mention smoking is very expensive.
>
>The California EPA estimates that 430 babies die each year from
>SIDS in the USA due to second hand smoke.
>Some authorities estimate that almost 50,000 people die in the US
>annually due to second hand smoke. Preventable deaths too.
>
>The politician making the the silly statements about the smoking ban,
>is he in a state where growing tobacco is a major industry?
>That might be the real reason he is fighting any kind of smoking
>ban. Wonder what industry might be donating to his campaign, or
>what lobbyists are knocking on his door.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

Meir

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> Somebody wrote:
>>
>> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>> > cause it to be banned.
>>
>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of
>> 5 cigarettes per year.

And where did you get this 'fact" which you state with such conviction?
You may want to see this URL:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
which gives a diffwerent picture.

>> Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an
>> entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking
>> in public places.
>> The real reason is ideological.
>
> The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
> second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
> noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
> eyes to water, their clothes to smell, and often gives them allergic
> reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
> former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
>
> In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
> places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
> ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
> woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
> faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
> would have left. Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
> smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
> do with political correctness.
>

>>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and=
> the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the co=
> mfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justif=
> iable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in t=

> he name of science.
>
> There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
> doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
> *should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
> blowing in their faces?
>
> In New York State, when smoking was first banned in bars and bowling
> alleys and BINGO halls (the last holdouts), the owners of these places
> were certain that no one would come anymore, their businesses would
> fail, and they would go bankrupt. That didn't happen at all.

When we first moved to Israel, smoking was permitted on public
buses. I remember myself and my family coming home nauseous after
the ride. Now it is forbidden. Same as on airplanes.

--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> writes:
> "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>

>>> They don't mention Jerry Seinfeld, who may have been one of the first,
>>> esp. the first Jew to start trivializing the nazis.. He's usually
>>> very funny, and I I don't mind his making fun of Jews and Judaism
>>> given that he makes fun, iirc, of everything else, but I do mind a lot
>>> his making fun of Jewish tragedy. He wasn't even born yet, and he
>>> grew up in the US perfectly safe.
>>
>> The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie
>> Chaplin in "the Great Dictator" (1938, I think)
>

> The propaganda cartoons during World War II put out by Walt Disney
> in the 1940s weren't too bad -- but the subject matter was not
> trivial. The first link is quite a serious cartoon, the second one has
> a little more humor
>
> http://youtu.be/B1VfThisblE
>
>
> http://youtu.be/y00ygpgALi0

Unfortunately, the "education" given Palestinian children is _very_
similar to that first cartoon.

[mm]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:37:09 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 7:43 pm, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:06:59 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 22, 10:37 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> >> ?????? ??? ?????, 22 ?????? 2012 10:49:50 UTC+1, ??? JJ:
>>
>> >> > If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>> >> > does not hold much sway) I would say that French and Irish scientists
>> >> > probably agree that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>> >> > cause it to be banned.
>>
>> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of 5 cigarettes per year. Smokers often smoke twenty cigarettes per day. So it's an entirely trivial exposure, and it doesn't justify bans on smoking in public places.
>> >> The real reason is ideological.
>>
>> >The reason is more than "ideological." The reason is that whether
>> >second-hand smoke causes lung cancer in other people or not, it's
>> >noxious and it stinks and at the very least it causes other people's
>> >eyes to water, their clothes to smell,
>>
>> And you think those are reasons to make something ILLEGAL
>
>Not illegal. Just not allowed in public places.

ILLEGAL in public places. That's what not alllowed by the governemnt
means. Not allowed by the owner doesn't mean illegal.

>
>>
>> > and often gives them allergic
>> >reactions. It also exacerbates other people's asthma and COPD (in
>> >former smokers who succeeded in quitting).
>>
>> If I had asthma or COPD I wouldn't go to a bar that had smoking.
>
>Well, happily, since New York State doesn't allow smoking in bars, New
>Yorkers with asthma and COPD can go to bars without putting their
>health at risk.

Happily for them but bad for those who smoke.

>>
>>
>> >In New York State, cigarette smoking has been banned in all public
>> >places (including bars) for years. When we were in Rome two summers
>> >ago, we were sitting at an outside table on the sidewalk, and the
>> >woman at the next table was smoking, and the smoke was blowing in our
>> >faces. We moved to a different table. Had we been unable to do so, we
>> >would have left.
>>
>> Fair enough, you can move or you can leave.  You don't even have to
>> sit down    It's sad to hear that Italy has more Freedom than the US,
>> in this area.
>
>And I think it's sad that so many young people in Italy smoke and also
>that Italian smokers are allowed to pollute everybody else's air in
>public places.
>>
>> >Nobody enjoys a dinner with someone else's cigarette
>> >smoke blowing in their faces. And it doesn't have anything at all to
>> >do with political correctness.
>>
>> >>If people have to go to special shelter, open on two sides to the wind and the rain, to smoke, they might smoke less than if they can do it in the comfort of the bar. It also attaches a stigma to smoking. That's maybe justifiable. But it's worrying that an untrue rationalisation was given, and in the name of science.
>>
>> >There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>> >doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer.
>>
>> But it was piddling.
>
>I don't think giving other people an asthma attack or making their
>hair and clothes stink is piddling. Sorry.

But you also didn't realize you were talking about making something
illegal.

>>
>> >Also, why
>> >*should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>> >blowing in their faces?
>>
>> Because the owner owns the bar and he permits it.    Duh.
>
>Well, in New York, it's against the law for the owner to permit it.
>Duh.

You asked "Why should nosmokers have to". and the answer was obvious.
Hence, "Duh". There is no converse question pending with an obvious
answer, and your Duh make no sense.

>
>>
>> No one twists the arms of the non-smokers to make them customers.
>
>Sure. If they don't want to breathe in the smoke, let them stay home.

If people who actually patronize bars wanted bars with no smoking, one
could have made a lot of money by opening bars that had no smoking.
So it seems few people who actually patronized bars wanted such bars.
Instead we had people who wanted to tell other people what to do, so
they did that. They can't solve any of the real problems and so they
won't feel their time in the city council or state legisltature is
wasted, they come up with some way to feel like they've accomplished
something.

>Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
>stay home.

Your in the marjoify, you have the power, and you're happy to pick on
the minority. That's why it's a replacement for picking on Jews,
Blacks, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.

Meir

--

Meir

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 23, 3:44 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:

Yes, exactly right!!! It is striking isn't it how the education in
the cartoon given to young children who will be future Nazis is so
similar to the education given to Palestinian children??
I noticed the same thing you did.


http://www.palwatch.org/


above website watches Palestinian media and educational projects .

[Shelly]

On 4/23/2012 5:47 AM, topazgalaxy wrote:
> Yes, exactly right!!! It is striking isn't it how the education in
> the cartoon given to young children who will be future Nazis is so
> similar to the education given to Palestinian children??
> I noticed the same thing you did.
>
>
> http://www.palwatch.org/
>
>
> above website watches Palestinian media and educational projects .

Well, it didn't take too long before a discussion of "Smoking ban =
Hitler's Jewish policy" turned into yet another thread about the moslems
and islam.

--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <jn0lf4$5s8$1...@harrier.steinthal.us> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:


>The first (and best) trivialisation of the Nazis was Charlie Chaplin in "the
>Great Dictator" (1938, I think)

Actually Moe Howard of the Three Stooges did a Hitler parody several
months earlier than Chaplin - from what I've read he was (justifiably)
proud of being one of the first entertainers to speak out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Nazty_Spy!

--s
--

[JJ]

"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:l2j9p7p3n5gkaonn6...@4ax.com...

Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and then there
is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do anything in the name
of so-called freedom. Some people want the freedom to purchase as many
assault arms as they wish, unfettered by any legal licensing requirements.
Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way of
reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the freedom to
impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what contraception may or may
not be used. And some demand that their addiction to tobacco permit them, in
the name of freedom, to pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.

Jay

[JJ]

<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2012Apr2...@mm.huji.ac.il...

It was also permitted in the movies and in university lectures. When I
attended the huge 101 lectures at Hebrew U in the early 1960s, we were about
1,000 students in a huge auditorium for the initial lectures. Ventilation
was so-so and there was no a/c. About half the people smoked. The other half
gagged.

Jay

[cindys]

On Apr 23, 11:46 am, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
snip

>
> > When we first moved to Israel, smoking was permitted on public
> > buses. I remember myself and my family coming home nauseous after
> > the ride. Now it is forbidden. Same as on airplanes.
>
> > --
> > Moshe Schorr
>
> It was also permitted in the movies and in university lectures. When I
> attended the huge 101 lectures at Hebrew U in the early 1960s, we were about
> 1,000 students in a huge auditorium for the initial lectures. Ventilation
> was so-so and there was no a/c. About half the people smoked. The other half
> gagged.

-----
It went way beyond the 1960s. When I was in college, the ashtrays were
actually built into the arms of the chairs in the lecture halls. Also,
until the 1970s, it was permissible to smoke in movie theaters.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Herman Rubin]

I agree that banning public smoking IS within the province
of government activity. As it is said, the right to swing
your fist stops at my nose. But unless there is clear
evidence that a person's actions pose a threat to others,
I do not believe that government has a right to regulate.

Hillel's one-foot Torah:

Do not unto others what you would not have others do unto you.








--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[Shelly]

There were many times back then when I sincerely wished I could release
a very smelly fart at will. In a restaurant I would have stood next to
a smoker's table with my back to them and let one rip (if their smoke
had bothered me). Of course I would have waited until they were eating.

--
Shelly

[cindys]

On Apr 23, 4:29 am, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:37:09 +0000 (UTC), cindys

>

> >Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
> >stay home.
>

> Your in the marjority, you have the power, and you're happy to pick on

> the minority.    That's why it's a replacement for picking on Jews,
> Blacks, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.

------
Sure. It's also a replacement for picking on people who like to pee in
the street and walk around naked. The law against peeing in the street
impinges on personal freedoms (and there was a Seinfeld episode about
that, as well). With respect to public decency, if I want to walk down
the street naked, it's not hurting anybody else, and I should have the
personal freedom to do so.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On Apr 23, 4:29 am, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:37:09 +0000 (UTC), cindys

snip

>
> >Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
> >stay home.
>
> Your in the marjoify, you have the power, and you're happy to pick on
> the minority.    That's why it's a replacement for picking on Jews,
> Blacks, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.

----
So, you think we can make an analogy between telling someone he can't
smoke in a bar and the German persecution of Jews and Gypsies?
Unbelievable.

I think we can let your position speak for itself. Shameful.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

[snip]

>If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American PC
>does not hold much sway)

Was this cessation voluntary or mandated?

>I would say that French and Irish scientists probably agree

And, no less importantly, either the public, the legislature, or both
listen to them. Is that so?

>that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>cause it to be banned.

Yes, it's noxious and annoying, even if not particularly dangerous.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:41:45 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

>"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:l2j9p7p3n5gkaonn6...@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.
>>
>>
>
>
>Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and then there
>is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do anything in the name
>of so-called freedom. Some people want the freedom to purchase as many
>assault arms as they wish, unfettered by any legal licensing requirements.
>Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way of
>reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the freedom to
>impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what contraception may or may
>not be used. And some demand that their addiction to tobacco permit them, in
>the name of freedom, to pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.

Wow. Unless this was inadvertent, the above is a textbook example of
how to confuse the issue. Kudos.

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <f9c8526f-4e80-48a5...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:

>So, you think we can make an analogy between telling someone he can't
>smoke in a bar and the German persecution of Jews and Gypsies?
>Unbelievable.

There is certainly no analogy. However, I would suggest that there is a
downside to "nanny state" policies even when implemented for actual social
good - they can create levers of power that can then be exploited by
others to do evil. Unintended consequences, and all that.

--s


--

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:l2nap75fq83o9rfmn...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where American
>>PC
>>does not hold much sway)
>
> Was this cessation voluntary or mandated?

Government mandated.

>
>>I would say that French and Irish scientists probably agree
>
> And, no less importantly, either the public, the legislature, or both
> listen to them. Is that so?

Yup.

>
>>that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>>cause it to be banned.
>
> Yes, it's noxious and annoying, even if not particularly dangerous.
> --

So nice to agree with you sometimes.

:-)

Jay

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message

news:5kgbp7p4hb13ad84u...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:41:45 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
>>"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:l2j9p7p3n5gkaonn6...@4ax.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and then there
>>is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do anything in the
>>name
>>of so-called freedom. Some people want the freedom to purchase as many
>>assault arms as they wish, unfettered by any legal licensing requirements.
>>Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way of
>>reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the freedom to
>>impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what contraception may or
>>may
>>not be used. And some demand that their addiction to tobacco permit them,
>>in
>>the name of freedom, to pollute the air that everyone else breathes as
>>well.
>
> Wow. Unless this was inadvertent, the above is a textbook example of
> how to confuse the issue. Kudos.
> --

It was done on purpose. Freedom can mean different things to different
people. We just had a national political candidate (yes, the guy from
Pennsylvania who forgot that the Spanish Inquisition doesn't work here any
more) whose motto was "FREEDOM", always with a big sign right behind him. At
the top of his priorities was how to stop abortions totally, and how to stop
contraception. He also believed that the state has the right to force people
to have sex relations for procreation only. He called this "Freedom" from
the oppressive current regime.

Jay

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Yisroel Markov:

>>that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>>cause it to be banned.
>
>Yes, it's noxious and annoying, even if not particularly dangerous.

I had the experience of working with about the same 400 people in
an urban electric utility for about 25 years - both before and
after the ban on workplace smoking.

Before the ban, people (who were not necessarily in proximity to
smokers) getting "sick" (mainly headaches) at about 2 pm every
workday was a recognized phenomenon.

After the ban, that didn't happen any more.
--
Pete Cresswell

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 23, 1:51 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 1:04 PM, Herman Rubin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-04-23, JJ<dmr1...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> "mm"<mm2...@bigfoot.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:l2j9p7p3n5gkaonn6...@4ax.com...

> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:13:01 +0000 (UTC), "JJ"<dmr1...@gmail.com>

> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "mm"<mm2...@bigfoot.com>  wrote in message
> >>>>news:g539p7h4gos6m3oti...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:06:59 +0000 (UTC), cindys

> >>>> <cste...@rochester.rr.com>  wrote:

Depending on the methane content , that could be a dangerous and
daring move. :)

You sound like a character in the movie Mystery Men.

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 23, 11:41 am, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
> news:l2j9p7p3n5gkaonn6...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:13:01 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com>

Freedom is of course a very important and wonderful concept for all
of us.
However, if I may digress a tiny bit, when the Jews were liberated
from Egypt-- now they were free and no longer slaves -- they were not
led into the wilderness by Moses and God to just do whatever they
wanted. There were still necessary rules all around them; rules to
obey God, rules to exhibit civilized behavior towards each other,
rules that set them apart from the other peoples around them.
Yes, they griped, they kvetched, they were punished along the way
etc but eventually they were given a set of rules called the Torah.

So I am agreeing with you -- whether it is a modern more secular
setting or a group of ancient people being coaxed/prodded into a
chosen people, rules are there.
Total unbridled freedom to just give in to our baser instincts, no,
that is not good for any society IMO. Then we are reduced to pure
Darwinian survival of the fittest and the meanest.

[cindys]

On Apr 23, 5:59 pm, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:

> In <f9c8526f-4e80-48a5-bc2d-360f767da...@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> >So, you think we can make an analogy between telling someone he can't
> >smoke in a bar and the German persecution of Jews and Gypsies?
> >Unbelievable.
>
> There is certainly no analogy. However, I would suggest that there is a
> downside to "nanny state" policies even when implemented for actual social
> good - they can create levers of power that can then be exploited by
> others to do evil. Unintended consequences, and all that.

----
I don't think I would classify anti-smoking laws as "nanny state" for
the simple reason that their primary function is to protect non-
smokers from having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. If the
sole purpose for these anti-smoking laws were to protect the smokers
from themselves, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shelly]

Well said.

--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <62bb567e-5330-4cf5...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:

>I don't think I would classify anti-smoking laws as "nanny state" for
>the simple reason that their primary function is to protect non-
>smokers from having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. If the
>sole purpose for these anti-smoking laws were to protect the smokers
>from themselves, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

I'm a bit on the fence with smoking bans. On the one hand, I don't smoke,
and so I definitely enjoy the benefits of smoke-free bars and restaurants.
And in practice, while restaurants and bars always had the option to ban
smoking on their own premises, few if any actually did because it would
have put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, all that said,
I don't see why it should be illegal for a bar to allow smoking if that's
what its patrons want.

And while it's certainly annoying to have to breathe someone's smoke while
on the beach, say, I can't imagine there's any real health threat from
such a dilute quantity of smoke. It's an aesthetic thing at that point.

Maybe smoking is an anomaly, though, because it was so pervasive and
addicting. Everyone I know used to complain about coming home from bars
smelling like an ashtray, and yet we still went to them. But now in NYC
for example its gone from smoking, to saturated fats, to sodium.

Nose of the camel, as they say.

--s
--

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

"JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

big snip

>> People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
>> right to risk their own lives.

Do they? Espescially if others state will be expected to foot their
medical bills.

>> In fact everyone risks their own lives,

That is a true observation. The Torah says we must pay workers
punctually, they risked their lives doing the work.

>> the question is who gets to decide how much.

A better question would be how big a risk and for what purpose.

>> If Halacha were telling you what you couldn't do, and it has such
>> rules, you would bridle and ignore them.

I'll let Jay respond to that.

>> Yet you expect me and other Americans to willingly follow some
>> other set of rules. Maybe from now on I'll expect you to follow
>> Halacha.

LOL.

snip

>> Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.
>
>
> Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and
> then there is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do
> anything in the name of so-called freedom. Some people want the
> freedom to purchase as many assault arms as they wish, unfettered
> by any legal licensing requirements.

It seems that un the USA at least, it's a Constitutional right. :-)

> Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way
> of reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the
> freedom to impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what
> contraception may or may not be used. And some demand that their
> addiction to tobacco permit them, in the name of freedom, to
> pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.

So it all depends on whose ox is being gored?

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

"JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message

>> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>>> There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>>> doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
>>> *should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>>> blowing in their faces?

snip

>> When we first moved to Israel, smoking was permitted on public
>> buses. I remember myself and my family coming home nauseous after
>> the ride. Now it is forbidden. Same as on airplanes.
>>

> It was also permitted in the movies and in university lectures.
> When I attended the huge 101 lectures at Hebrew U in the early
> 1960s, we were about 1,000 students

That sounds very impressive. Do most universities have such numbers?

> in a huge auditorium for the initial lectures. Ventilation was
> so-so and there was no a/c. About half the people smoked. The
> other half gagged.

So who was left to pay attention to the lecture? :-)

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> [snip]
>
>>If they managed to stop smoking in French and Irish bars (where
>>American PC does not hold much sway)
>
> Was this cessation voluntary or mandated?
>
>>I would say that French and Irish scientists probably agree
>
> And, no less importantly, either the public, the legislature, or
> both listen to them. Is that so?
>
>>that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>>cause it to be banned.
>
> Yes, it's noxious and annoying, even if not particularly dangerous.

And why do youthink it's "not _particularly_ dangerous"? Did you
see the URL I posted?

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

"JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message

>> "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> said:
>>>"mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>

>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.
>>>>
>>>Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and
>>>then there is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do
>>>anything in the name of so-called freedom.

snip

>> Wow. Unless this was inadvertent, the above is a textbook example of
>> how to confuse the issue. Kudos.
>

> It was done on purpose.

I'm not surprised.

> Freedom can mean different things to different people. We just had
> a national political candidate (yes, the guy from Pennsylvania who
> forgot that the Spanish Inquisition doesn't work here any more)

When did it ever?

> whose motto was "FREEDOM", always with a big sign right behind him.
> At the top of his priorities was how to stop abortions totally, and
> how to stop contraception. He also believed that the state has the
> right to force people to have sex relations for procreation only.

Umm how was he planning to do that? Force all post-menoposal women
to get divorced? Forbid sterile men or women from getting married?
Sheeesh!

[Alex Fisher]

On 24/04/2012 16:48, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> "JJ"<dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>> cindys<cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>>> There is a scientific/medical reason (which I gave above), and it
>>>> doesn't have anything at all to do with lung cancer. Also, why
>>>> *should* nonsmokers have to be subjected to other people's smoke
>>>> blowing in their faces?
>
> snip
>
>>> When we first moved to Israel, smoking was permitted on public
>>> buses. I remember myself and my family coming home nauseous after
>>> the ride. Now it is forbidden. Same as on airplanes.
>>>
>> It was also permitted in the movies and in university lectures.
>> When I attended the huge 101 lectures at Hebrew U in the early
>> 1960s, we were about 1,000 students
>
> That sounds very impressive. Do most universities have such numbers?

Depends on the course or subject. I've seen that many in a lecture
theatre. My uni (UQ, or the University of Queensland) has several
lecture theatres which can hold 1,000+, sometimes they need to have a
lecture in the Great Hall because none of the other theatres are big enough.

>
>> in a huge auditorium for the initial lectures. Ventilation was
>> so-so and there was no a/c. About half the people smoked. The
>> other half gagged.
>
> So who was left to pay attention to the lecture? :-)
>


--

Alex

[Shelly]

On 4/23/2012 10:42 PM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In<62bb567e-5330-4cf5...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> cindys<cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
>> I don't think I would classify anti-smoking laws as "nanny state" for
>> the simple reason that their primary function is to protect non-
>> smokers from having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. If the
>> sole purpose for these anti-smoking laws were to protect the smokers
>>from themselves, I might be more inclined to agree with you.
>
> I'm a bit on the fence with smoking bans. On the one hand, I don't smoke,
> and so I definitely enjoy the benefits of smoke-free bars and restaurants.
> And in practice, while restaurants and bars always had the option to ban
> smoking on their own premises, few if any actually did because it would
> have put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, all that said,

I think that myth was very rapidly dispelled. In Massachusetts (where I
then lived) the state required a non-smoking section to be available in
all restaurants. Restaurants put allocated about 20% for non-smoking.
Within about six months, due to customers asking for the non-smoking
section, those figures were rapidly reversed to about 20% now for
smoking. It wasn't long before restaurants started putting smokers in a
separate room or highly ventilated area. Then came the outright ban a
number of years later.

So, as it turned out, there was a competitive advantage to disallowing
smoking.

> I don't see why it should be illegal for a bar to allow smoking if that's
> what its patrons want.

They probably still can do it if they become a private club with dues.
(Just guessing here).

>
> And while it's certainly annoying to have to breathe someone's smoke while
> on the beach, say, I can't imagine there's any real health threat from
> such a dilute quantity of smoke. It's an aesthetic thing at that point.

Shouldn't that be enough? Remember, one's rights do not include the
right to violate another's rights.

> Maybe smoking is an anomaly, though, because it was so pervasive and
> addicting. Everyone I know used to complain about coming home from bars
> smelling like an ashtray, and yet we still went to them. But now in NYC
> for example its gone from smoking, to saturated fats, to sodium.

Can you expand on this please?

>
> Nose of the camel, as they say.

If we always avoid the nose of the camel, then NOTHING will ever be
accomplished.

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/24/2012 2:36 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> > Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and
>> > then there is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do
>> > anything in the name of so-called freedom. Some people want the
>> > freedom to purchase as many assault arms as they wish, unfettered
>> > by any legal licensing requirements.
> It seems that un the USA at least, it's a Constitutional right.:-)

Not the unlicensed part.

>
>> > Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way
>> > of reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the
>> > freedom to impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what
>> > contraception may or may not be used. And some demand that their
>> > addiction to tobacco permit them, in the name of freedom, to
>> > pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.
> So it all depends on whose ox is being gored?

Another victim of SDNWOTN.

--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <jn64gu$ub0$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>> I'm a bit on the fence with smoking bans. On the one hand, I don't smoke,
>> and so I definitely enjoy the benefits of smoke-free bars and restaurants.
>> And in practice, while restaurants and bars always had the option to ban
>> smoking on their own premises, few if any actually did because it would
>> have put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, all that said,

>I think that myth was very rapidly dispelled. In Massachusetts (where I
>then lived) the state required a non-smoking section to be available in
>all restaurants. Restaurants put allocated about 20% for non-smoking.
>Within about six months, due to customers asking for the non-smoking
>section, those figures were rapidly reversed to about 20% now for
>smoking. It wasn't long before restaurants started putting smokers in a
>separate room or highly ventilated area. Then came the outright ban a
>number of years later.

>So, as it turned out, there was a competitive advantage to disallowing
>smoking.

If that was truly the case, then you wouldn't have needed a smoking ban at
all, would you? Most if not all restaurants would have chosen voluntarily
to ban smoking.

I think it was a case where if only one restaurant or bar were to ban
smoking, it'd be at a competitive disadvantage relative to its neighbors,
but the ban leveled the playing fiel for them.

>> I don't see why it should be illegal for a bar to allow smoking if that's
>> what its patrons want.

>They probably still can do it if they become a private club with dues.
>(Just guessing here).

Doubt it. You aren't allowed to subject employees to cigarette smoke.

>>
>> And while it's certainly annoying to have to breathe someone's smoke while
>> on the beach, say, I can't imagine there's any real health threat from
>> such a dilute quantity of smoke. It's an aesthetic thing at that point.

>Shouldn't that be enough? Remember, one's rights do not include the
>right to violate another's rights.

Yeah, but where does it stop? IMO the impact needs to be truly compelling
- which I think it probably was in the case of smoking in bars and
restaurants.

>> Maybe smoking is an anomaly, though, because it was so pervasive and
>> addicting. Everyone I know used to complain about coming home from bars
>> smelling like an ashtray, and yet we still went to them. But now in NYC
>> for example its gone from smoking, to saturated fats, to sodium.

>Can you expand on this please?

Due I'm sure to the success of the smoking ban, Mayor Bloomberg had the
city pass a law making it illegal for restaurants to use any artificial
trans fats, because they're bad for you, and more recently he's been
trying to get a ban on sodium, or at least what he considers to be
excessive sodium, because he thinks it's bad for you. He knows better than
you do, after all, he's rich.

>>
>> Nose of the camel, as they say.

>If we always avoid the nose of the camel, then NOTHING will ever be
>accomplished.

Right. But at the same time, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions. You need to strike the right balance.

--s
--

[JJ]

<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2012Apr2...@mm.huji.ac.il...

He did not say he would use this force. Only that theoretically the state
had the right, because otherwise people would do things that they weren't
supposed to. HE was going to decide what was right and what was not. What an
a**hole.

Jay

[Henry Goodman]

"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jn67ea$lck$1...@reader1.panix.com...

Certainly not allowed in the UK. All shuls (which I suppose are private
clubs) have to have a notice saying "It is against the law to smoke on these
premises"

--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net

[Shelly]

On 4/24/2012 9:20 AM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
> In<jn64gu$ub0$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>
>>> I'm a bit on the fence with smoking bans. On the one hand, I don't smoke,
>>> and so I definitely enjoy the benefits of smoke-free bars and restaurants.
>>> And in practice, while restaurants and bars always had the option to ban
>>> smoking on their own premises, few if any actually did because it would
>>> have put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, all that said,
>
>> I think that myth was very rapidly dispelled. In Massachusetts (where I
>> then lived) the state required a non-smoking section to be available in
>> all restaurants. Restaurants put allocated about 20% for non-smoking.
>> Within about six months, due to customers asking for the non-smoking
>> section, those figures were rapidly reversed to about 20% now for
>> smoking. It wasn't long before restaurants started putting smokers in a
>> separate room or highly ventilated area. Then came the outright ban a
>> number of years later.
>
>> So, as it turned out, there was a competitive advantage to disallowing
>> smoking.
>
> If that was truly the case, then you wouldn't have needed a smoking ban at
> all, would you? Most if not all restaurants would have chosen voluntarily
> to ban smoking.
>
> I think it was a case where if only one restaurant or bar were to ban
> smoking, it'd be at a competitive disadvantage relative to its neighbors,
> but the ban leveled the playing fiel for them.

You didn't read it carefully. That switch from 20-80 to 80-20 in six
months occurred *before* the ban.

>
>
>>> I don't see why it should be illegal for a bar to allow smoking if that's
>>> what its patrons want.
>
>> They probably still can do it if they become a private club with dues.
>> (Just guessing here).
>
> Doubt it. You aren't allowed to subject employees to cigarette smoke.
>
>>>
>>> And while it's certainly annoying to have to breathe someone's smoke while
>>> on the beach, say, I can't imagine there's any real health threat from
>>> such a dilute quantity of smoke. It's an aesthetic thing at that point.
>
>> Shouldn't that be enough? Remember, one's rights do not include the
>> right to violate another's rights.
>
> Yeah, but where does it stop? IMO the impact needs to be truly compelling
> - which I think it probably was in the case of smoking in bars and
> restaurants.

What about at ball parks where you have fixed seat?
How about theaters with assigned seats?
How about in the workplace?
How about in a bus, train or plane where you are trapped in one place?
etc.

>
>
>>> Maybe smoking is an anomaly, though, because it was so pervasive and
>>> addicting. Everyone I know used to complain about coming home from bars
>>> smelling like an ashtray, and yet we still went to them. But now in NYC
>>> for example its gone from smoking, to saturated fats, to sodium.
>
>> Can you expand on this please?
>
> Due I'm sure to the success of the smoking ban, Mayor Bloomberg had the
> city pass a law making it illegal for restaurants to use any artificial
> trans fats, because they're bad for you, and more recently he's been
> trying to get a ban on sodium, or at least what he considers to be
> excessive sodium, because he thinks it's bad for you. He knows better than
> you do, after all, he's rich.

OK. Here I agree with you. You don't have to buy that stuff and no one
is forcing you to eat it.

>
>>>
>>> Nose of the camel, as they say.
>
>> If we always avoid the nose of the camel, then NOTHING will ever be
>> accomplished.
>
> Right. But at the same time, the road to hell is paved with good
> intentions. You need to strike the right balance.

Nice to agree for once.

--
Shelly

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per topazgalaxy:

>Total unbridled freedom to just give in to our baser instincts, no,
>that is not good for any society IMO. Then we are reduced to pure
>Darwinian survival of the fittest and the meanest.

A long time ago, my late brother spent several weeks camping on a
part of Kauai that was only accessible by boat. The only people
there were pig hunters and other campers.

There was a cave in the side of the mountain that was big enough
to stand up in and in which quite a few campers would sleep to be
out of the rain.

Every morning, they'd wake up to find that somebody had defecated
inside the cave, at the entrance - presumably to avoid going out
into the rain at night.

He said that was when he fully realize why society needs rules
and police to enforce them.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Herman Rubin]

On 2012-04-24, Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <62bb567e-5330-4cf5...@z3g2000vbk.googlegroups.com> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:

>>I don't think I would classify anti-smoking laws as "nanny state" for
>>the simple reason that their primary function is to protect non-
>>smokers from having to inhale other people's cigarette smoke. If the
>>sole purpose for these anti-smoking laws were to protect the smokers
>>from themselves, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

> I'm a bit on the fence with smoking bans. On the one hand, I don't smoke,
> and so I definitely enjoy the benefits of smoke-free bars and restaurants.

> Andu in practice, while restaurants and bars always had the option to ban

> smoking on their own premises, few if any actually did because it would
> have put them at a huge competitive disadvantage. However, all that said,
> I don't see why it should be illegal for a bar to allow smoking if that's
> what its patrons want.

> And while it's certainly annoying to have to breathe someone's smoke while
> on the beach, say, I can't imagine there's any real health threat from
> such a dilute quantity of smoke. It's an aesthetic thing at that point.

> Maybe smoking is an anomaly, though, because it was so pervasive and
> addicting. Everyone I know used to complain about coming home from bars
> smelling like an ashtray, and yet we still went to them. But now in NYC
> for example its gone from smoking, to saturated fats, to sodium.

> Nose of the camel, as they say.

There is no reason to allow the camel in. BTW, the studies on
sodium are quite contradictory; from reading them, I have formed
the opinion that SOME people have to watch their sodium, but
this is far from universal. Some things need salt for flavor,
and there is no good alternative.

But the government should be limited to requiring information,
if possible. People should be allowed to make their own
decisions based on the information, and that's all.

> --s


--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[Herman Rubin]

On 2012-04-24, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
>> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

> big snip

>>> People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
>>> right to risk their own lives.

> Do they? Espescially if others state will be expected to foot their
> medical bills.

Possibly this should be limited in cases where there is a strong
presumption of recklessness. On the other hand, people have
survived by NOT wearing seat belts, where they would have been
injured or killed otherwise. And BTW, I have seen comments
that Social Security would be quite solvent if smoking had
not declined. As for Medicare, it is unclear.

>>> In fact everyone risks their own lives,

> That is a true observation. The Torah says we must pay workers
> punctually, they risked their lives doing the work.


>>> the question is who gets to decide how much.

> A better question would be how big a risk and for what purpose.

>>> If Halacha were telling you what you couldn't do, and it has such
>>> rules, you would bridle and ignore them.

You know my position on that.

> I'll let Jay respond to that.

>>> Yet you expect me and other Americans to willingly follow some
>>> other set of rules. Maybe from now on I'll expect you to follow
>>> Halacha.

> LOL.

> snip

>>> Freedom is low on your list of possible priorities.


>> Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and
>> then there is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do
>> anything in the name of so-called freedom. Some people want the
>> freedom to purchase as many assault arms as they wish, unfettered
>> by any legal licensing requirements.

> It seems that un the USA at least, it's a Constitutional right. :-)

>> Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way
>> of reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the
>> freedom to impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what
>> contraception may or may not be used. And some demand that their
>> addiction to tobacco permit them, in the name of freedom, to
>> pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.

> So it all depends on whose ox is being gored?

There must be a real ox being gored for legislation. Pollution
of the air by tobacco smoke is a KNOWN danger to others, as well
as being publicly obnoxious to non-smokers. This does not apply
to any of the others. As for reading scripture, this goes against
the separation of church and state.

I take the libertarian position. It is not all that different
from Hillel's position. It is quite different from the present
halakhic position.

At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, some states
still had state religions, and states' rights really meant
something, so a real separation of church and state could
not be included. To see what Madison's position really was,
I suggest you read his _Remonstrance_ to the Virginia _House
of Burgesses_ (legislature), which makes it quite clear that
he is continuing in the American tradition, since Roger
Williams, of keeping church and state separate. BTW, John
Quincy Adams even took the oath of office on a book of laws.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2012-04-24, Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 2:36 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> > Freedom is very high on my priorities. But there is freedom and
>>> > then there is unbridled fanaticism which would allow anyone to do
>>> > anything in the name of so-called freedom. Some people want the
>>> > freedom to purchase as many assault arms as they wish, unfettered
>>> > by any legal licensing requirements.
>> It seems that un the USA at least, it's a Constitutional right.:-)

> Not the unlicensed part.

It is not clear how much licensing there can be. Read the
Second Amendment; the word "regulated" there means "trained".
In fact, a law was introduced, but not passed, requiring all
men to purchase firearms.

>>> > Some people want the freedom to force others to abide by their way
>>> > of reading scripture, such as banning abortions. Some demand the
>>> > freedom to impose their narrow vision to dictate to women what
>>> > contraception may or may not be used. And some demand that their
>>> > addiction to tobacco permit them, in the name of freedom, to
>>> > pollute the air that everyone else breathes as well.
>> So it all depends on whose ox is being gored?

> Another victim of SDNWOTN.

You are oversimplifying. This is not just sarcasm, but is being
brought up daily.

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <slrnjpdrvc...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> writes:

>There is no reason to allow the camel in. BTW, the studies on
>sodium are quite contradictory; from reading them, I have formed
>the opinion that SOME people have to watch their sodium, but
>this is far from universal. Some things need salt for flavor,
>and there is no good alternative.

I've seen reports of similar studies, that there's no conclusive link
between sodium intake and health problems, at least for most people. So at
best the evidence is inconclusive.

>But the government should be limited to requiring information,
>if possible. People should be allowed to make their own
>decisions based on the information, and that's all.

I tend to agree, at least where practical. I'm willing to concede that
smoking might be an exception, though.

--s
--

[Shelly]

I don't agree. If people want to pollute their lungs, let them do it.
Just don't include me.

--
Shelly

[Steve Goldfarb]

In <jn72c7$q28$1...@dont-email.me> Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:

>> I tend to agree, at least where practical. I'm willing to concede that
>> smoking might be an exception, though.

>I don't agree. If people want to pollute their lungs, let them do it.
>Just don't include me.

Well, that's where I'm willing to concede that smoking is different from
sodium. While there's a similarity in that in both cases, the opportunity
exists for restaurants to distinguish themselves from the competition
through their non-smoking and/or non-sodium policies, so that in theory
government intervention isn't needed just full disclosure. Then people can
make their own decisions - if they want smoke free, then they go to smoke
free. If they want low-sodium, they go to low-sodium. However, one
argument that was made regarding smoking is that it affects not just the
patrons, but also the employees.

Now one could argue that the employees can make the same choice as the
patrons - if they don't want to breathe smoke, then they don't have to
work in a restaurant that allows smoking. However, our society has chosen
to take a different stance in regards to workplace rights, and we've
decided that people shouldn't have to make that choice. Not so regarding
sodium - or meat, maybe a better example. If they don't believe in
smoking, then they do indeed have the right to force the restaurant to ban
smoking entirely, for everyone. However, they don't have that right when
it comes to, say, meat-eating.

--s
--

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:57:45 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:

>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 09:49:50 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>> said:

[snip]

>>>that there is SOMETHING in second hand smoke which should
>>>cause it to be banned.
>>
>> Yes, it's noxious and annoying, even if not particularly dangerous.
>
>And why do youthink it's "not _particularly_ dangerous"? Did you
>see the URL I posted?

I did. My evaluation is that what it describes is not particularly
dangerous. I'm still grateful for smoke-free environments.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[Yisroel Markov]

Thanks for calling BS on this, Moshe. Of course, even Santorum didn't
have the hutzpa to declare that the restrictions he sought were in the
name of freedom. (That's just a partisan smear.) He thinks that such
restrictions are an appropriate use of government power, and for that
and other reasons I'm thankful that he's out of the race.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום שני, 23 באפריל 2012 08:26:58 UTC+1, מאת mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:
> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:

> > malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of
> >> 5 cigarettes per year.
>

> And where did you get this 'fact" which you state with such conviction?
> You may want to see this URL:
> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
> which gives a diffwerent picture.
>
The url says that 3,000 Americans die each year from lung cnacer cuased by second hand smoking. The population of the US is 300 million. So that's one lung cancer death for every 100,000 years of exposure.
Now let's say a smoker somkes 1 packet of cigarettes per day. It's to be hoped he doesn't smoke on Shabbat, so I make that 6024 cigarettes per year. Call it 6,000 for a nice round figure. A 20 a day man has a 20% - 25% chance of dying from lung cancer. Typically cancer starts after 20 years or so of smoking. So let's say 1 cancer death for every 100 years of exposure. A quick calculation will give you a secondhand smoking exposure of 6 cigarettes per year equivalent. So we're one off.

Now you might object that the risk for heart disases, from the same link, is much higher. If we dilute the cigarette some we get a 1000-fold reduction in the carcinogenic properties, but only a much smaller dilution in the heart-disease causing properties. This seems very surprising. I'm not saying it's physically impossible that it is so. But it's a most curious finding.
I think the probable explanation is that, to a first approximation, lung cnacer is always caused by tobacco smoke. Heart disease has many causes. Now second hand smokers have a quite different profile to non-second hand smokers, in terms of alcohol consumption, diet, income, exercise levels, maybe race, almost certainly obesity, possibly marital status, and so on. So what i suggest is that it's these confounding factors which are pushing up the relative risk of secondhand smoking for heart disease, and the calcuation from lung cancer statistics gives the correct dose from tobacco.

But in fact you can measure the dose you get from second hand smoking in other ways.

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 19, 11:46 am, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quote:
>
> John Raese, running for U.S. Senate as a Republican in West Virginia,
> equated a county smoking ban with Hitler forcing Jews to wear the Star of
> David at a recent Republican event.
>
> End quote
>
> Full story:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/19/john-raese-smoking-ban-hitle...
>
> Jay


even the President quit smoking-- maybe this will be the next "us vs
them" issue in the political fireworks that are sure to lead up to
the election



http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/649732.html

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

Shelly <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>> Shelly<shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>> Steve Goldfarb wrote:

snip

>>>> But now in NYC for example its gone from smoking,
>>>> to saturated fats, to sodium.
>>

>>> Can you expand on this please?
>>
>> Due I'm sure to the success of the smoking ban, Mayor Bloomberg had the
>> city pass a law making it illegal for restaurants to use any artificial
>> trans fats, because they're bad for you, and more recently he's been
>> trying to get a ban on sodium, or at least what he considers to be
>> excessive sodium, because he thinks it's bad for you. He knows better
>> than you do, after all, he's rich.
>
> OK. Here I agree with you. You don't have to buy that stuff and
> no one is forcing you to eat it.

Ah, but in a restaurant you _don't_ have a choice of what goes in
the food. That's the rationale behind the proposed law.

>>>> Nose of the camel, as they say.
>>

>>> If we always avoid the nose of the camel, then NOTHING will
>>> ever be accomplished.
>>
>> Right. But at the same time, the road to hell is paved with good
>> intentions. You need to strike the right balance.
>
> Nice to agree for once.

Sign me up for agreement as well. In almost _all_ cases you need to
strike the right balance.

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> writes:

> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>
>> big snip
>
>>> People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
>>> right to risk their own lives.
>
>> Do they? Espescially if others state will be expected to foot their
>> medical bills.
>
> Possibly this should be limited in cases where there is a strong
> presumption of recklessness. On the other hand, people have
> survived by NOT wearing seat belts, where they would have been
> injured or killed otherwise. And BTW, I have seen comments
> that Social Security would be quite solvent if smoking had
> not declined.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. "Keep smoking - we can't meet
our Social Security obligations of you don't". OY!

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>>"JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Freedom can mean different things to different people. We just had
>>> a national political candidate (yes, the guy from Pennsylvania who
>>> forgot that the Spanish Inquisition doesn't work here any more)
>>
>>When did it ever?
>>
>>> whose motto was "FREEDOM", always with a big sign right behind him.
>>> At the top of his priorities was how to stop abortions totally, and
>>> how to stop contraception. He also believed that the state has the
>>> right to force people to have sex relations for procreation only.
>>
>>Umm how was he planning to do that? Force all post-menoposal women
>>to get divorced? Forbid sterile men or women from getting married?
>>Sheeesh!
>
> Thanks for calling BS on this, Moshe.

My pleasure. Actually, I got the "muse" from _you_. You often
debunk nonesense, so I thought I would as well.

> Of course, even Santorum didn't have the hutzpa to declare that
> the restrictions he sought were in the name of freedom. (That's
> just a partisan smear.) He thinks that such restrictions are an
> appropriate use of government power, and for that and other
> reasons I'm thankful that he's out of the race.

Is anybody *good* _in_ the race? :-(

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 24, 5:00 pm, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
> On 4/24/2012 4:55 PM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In<slrnjpdrvc.mcu.hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu>  Herman Rubin<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu>  writes:

Agree!
If someone wants to commit a self destructive act, why should they
be allowed to include a bystander who does not want to bear the
health consequences of that self destructive act.
It also makes me think of driving drunk. It is sad enough when the
drunk driver smashes his or her car into a tree and destroys himself/
herself only.

And what would Jewish law say about self destructive behavior
(smoking) and then expand it to behavior that also hurts others?

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

malcolm...@btinternet.com writes:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:
>> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> > malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>

>> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent=

>> >> of 5 cigarettes per year.
>>
>> And where did you get this 'fact" which you state with such conviction?
>> You may want to see this URL:
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
>> which gives a diffwerent picture.
>>

> The url says that 3,000 Americans die each year from lung cnacer cuased by =
> second hand smoking. The population of the US is 300 million. So that's one=

> lung cancer death for every 100,000 years of exposure.

I don't think that's how statistics work. Herman, could you tell us.

> Now let's say a smoker somkes 1 packet of cigarettes per day. It's to be ho=

> ped he doesn't smoke on Shabbat,

Most Americans don't kkeep Shabbat. And I fear many (most?) smoke more
than one pack a day.

> so I make that 6024 cigarettes per year. C=
> all it 6,000 for a nice round figure. A 20 a day man has a 20% - 25% chance=
> of dying from lung cancer. Typically cancer starts after 20 years or so of=
> smoking. So let's say 1 cancer death for every 100 years of exposure. A qu=
> ick calculation will give you a secondhand smoking exposure of 6 cigarettes=

> per year equivalent. So we're one off.
>

> Now you might object that the risk for heart disases, from the same link, i=
> s much higher. If we dilute the cigarette some we get a 1000-fold reduction=
> in the carcinogenic properties, but only a much smaller dilution in the he=
> art-disease causing properties. This seems very surprising. I'm not saying =

> it's physically impossible that it is so. But it's a most curious finding.

> I think the probable explanation is that, to a first approximation, lung cn=
> acer is always caused by tobacco smoke. Heart disease has many causes. Now =
> second hand smokers have a quite different profile to non-second hand smoke=
> rs, in terms of alcohol consumption, diet, income, exercise levels, maybe r=
> ace, almost certainly obesity, possibly marital status, and so on. So what =
> i suggest is that it's these confounding factors which are pushing up the r=
> elative risk of secondhand smoking for heart disease, and the calcuation fr=

> om lung cancer statistics gives the correct dose from tobacco.
>

> But in fact you can measure the dose you get from second hand smoking in ot=
> her ways. =20

Thanks for replying.

[mos...@mm.huji.ac.il]

topazgalaxy <topaz...@gmail.com> writes:

snip

> And what would Jewish law say about self destructive behavior
> (smoking) and then expand it to behavior that also hurts others?

I heard that the Chofetz Chayim, who died in 1933 forbade smoking
because it was habit-forming. I welcome corroberation/rebutal.

[Shelly]

On 4/25/2012 4:06 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> malcolm...@btinternet.com writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:
>>> cindys<cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>>>> malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent=
>>>>> of 5 cigarettes per year.
>>>
>>> And where did you get this 'fact" which you state with such conviction?
>>> You may want to see this URL:
>>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
>>> which gives a diffwerent picture.
>>>
>> The url says that 3,000 Americans die each year from lung cnacer cuased by =
>> second hand smoking. The population of the US is 300 million. So that's one=
>> lung cancer death for every 100,000 years of exposure.
>
> I don't think that's how statistics work. Herman, could you tell us.

A better statistic would be how many die each year because of second
hand smoke compared to how many die each year because of first hand
smoking. Say that is 10%. Then, if the average smoker is two packs a
day (40 cigarettes), you can say that it is probably like 10% of 40 or 4
cigarettes per day.

Even that is not really accurate because it assumes a linear
relationship between the number of cigarettes and the incidence of
cancer. It is probably more like an S-curve where one or two a day
would have virtually no effect; start rising rapidly after that, and
start leveling off at about a pack a day, and after two packs a day
would see little change. (This is all a guess on my part).

--
Shelly

[Shelly]

On 4/25/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Yisroel Markov<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:
>>> "JJ"<dmr...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>> Freedom can mean different things to different people. We just had
>>>> a national political candidate (yes, the guy from Pennsylvania who
>>>> forgot that the Spanish Inquisition doesn't work here any more)
>>>
>>> When did it ever?
>>>
>>>> whose motto was "FREEDOM", always with a big sign right behind him.
>>>> At the top of his priorities was how to stop abortions totally, and
>>>> how to stop contraception. He also believed that the state has the
>>>> right to force people to have sex relations for procreation only.
>>>
>>> Umm how was he planning to do that? Force all post-menoposal women
>>> to get divorced? Forbid sterile men or women from getting married?
>>> Sheeesh!
>>
>> Thanks for calling BS on this, Moshe.
>
> My pleasure. Actually, I got the "muse" from _you_. You often
> debunk nonesense, so I thought I would as well.
>
>> Of course, even Santorum didn't have the hutzpa to declare that
>> the restrictions he sought were in the name of freedom. (That's
>> just a partisan smear.) He thinks that such restrictions are an
>> appropriate use of government power, and for that and other
>> reasons I'm thankful that he's out of the race.
>
> Is anybody *good* _in_ the race? :-(

...depends upon whose ox. I like Romney.


--
Shelly

[cindys]

On Apr 25, 4:06 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com writes:

snip

>
> > Now let's say a smoker somkes 1 packet of cigarettes per day. It's to be ho=
> > ped he doesn't smoke on Shabbat,
>

> Most Americans don't keep Shabbat. And I fear many (most?) smoke more

> than one pack a day.

-----
It varies from smoker to smoker, but I don't know that they do. Over
the years that you have been living in Israel, Moshe, smoking has
really been on the wane in the USA. Currently, only 20% of the
population smokes. I don't know what was the percentage 30 years ago,
but it was much higher. And cigarettes are outrageously expensive
(cost something like $8.00/pack).

Without going into details, I am currently privy to people's medical
history and physicals. One of the questions on a new patient
questionnaire is the patient is asked if he smokes or drinks alcohol
and how much. Granted, I think people who smoke are inclined to
misrepresent how much they are smoking (because it is embarrassing),
but of the ones who admit to being smokers, almost never does someone
say he or she is a 2 packs/day smoker the way you would have seen back
in the 1970s. In fact, there aren't even a lot of 1 pack/day smokers.
There are a lot of people who admit to a 1/2 pack/day or 5 cigarettes/
day or 1 pack/week. And happily, there are a lot of people who are
*former* smokers who have successfully quit and also a number of
people who are currently using Chantix (a medication that is supposed
to aid with smoking cessation) or who say they are currently trying to
quit. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of patients
who say "I'm a smoker and I like it, and I have no interest in
quitting."

In Europe, OTOH, as I understand it, smoking is on the rise. As I have
written on this forum before, when we went to Rome, everybody was
smoking, all the young people smoke, and smoking is allowed everywhere
(except maybe in a museum or art gallery). And AIUI, American
cigarette manufacturers are really pushing cigarettes in Europe.
Malcolm has written on this forum in the past that smoking is actually
on the rise amongst British women. All of this is so incredibly sad.
When I saw all the healthy young people smoking in Rome, I just wanted
to cry.

I don't know what is the smoking situation in Israel, but in the USA,
smoking is definitely on the wane, and many of the people who do
continue to smoke are generally quite embarrassed about it (it's
become a dirty little secret) and will be very quiet about it or try
to cover it up.

Ironically, it was said in one of my documentaries (FWIW, I haven't
independently checked into the accuracy of this statement), that part
of the reason for this mass increase in the use of the high fructose
corn syrup and other corn products in the USA is that as smoking has
declined in the USA, the US tobacco growers were losing the market to
sell their products, so in an effort to keep these former tobacco
farmers from going bankrupt, the US government asked them to switch to
growing corn, and then there was a glut of corn, and so it needed to
be used for something, etc.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2012-04-24, malcolm...@btinternet.com <malcolm...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> ?????? ??? ???, 23 ?????? 2012 08:26:58 UTC+1, ??? mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:

>> cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> > malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

>> >> A typical exposure to tobacco from second-hand smoke is the equivalent of
>> >> 5 cigarettes per year.

>> And where did you get this 'fact" which you state with such conviction?
>> You may want to see this URL:
>> http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
>> which gives a diffwerent picture.

> The url says that 3,000 Americans die each year from lung cnacer cuased
by second hand smoking. The population of the US is 300 million. So
that's one lung cancer death for every 100,000 years of exposure.

I have no idea where you get your figures for the amount of
exposure. Also, there may be threshhold resistance, and
cumulative effects.

> Now let's say a smoker somkes 1 packet of cigarettes per day. It's to
be hoped he doesn't smoke on Shabbat, so I make that 6024 cigarettes per
year. Call it 6,000 for a nice round figure. A 20 a day man has a 20% -
25% chance of dying from lung cancer. Typically cancer starts after 20
years or so of smoking. So let's say 1 cancer death for every 100 years
of exposure. A quick calculation will give you a secondhand smoking
exposure of 6 cigarettes per year equivalent. So we're one off.

> Now you might object that the risk for heart disases, from the same
link, is much higher. If we dilute the cigarette some we get a 1000-fold
reduction in the carcinogenic properties, but only a much smaller dilution
in the heart-disease causing properties. This seems very surprising. I'm
not saying it's physically impossible that it is so. But it's a most
curious finding.

> I think the probable explanation is that, to a first approximation,
lung cnacer is always caused by tobacco smoke. Heart disease has many
causes. Now second hand smokers have a quite different profile to
non-second hand smokers, in terms of alcohol consumption, diet, income,
exercise levels, maybe race, almost certainly obesity, possibly marital
status, and so on. So what i suggest is that it's these confounding
factors which are pushing up the relative risk of secondhand smoking for
heart disease, and the calcuation from lung cancer statistics gives the
correct dose from tobacco.

> But in fact you can measure the dose you get from second hand smoking
in other ways.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:

>I heard that the Chofetz Chayim, who died in 1933 forbade smoking
>because it was habit-forming. I welcome corroberation/rebutal.

You probably mean corroboration/rebuttal re/Chofetz Chayim.

But, just in case it's the "habit-forming" part; I would assert
that smoking is not habit-forming: it is addictive.

I would cite "Licit and Illicit Drugs" by Edward M Brecher and
the Editors of Consumer Reports (Little, Brown & Company --
Boston -- Toronto)

Pages 216-217 cite Syananon members in NYC saying that kicking
tobacco was harder than kicking heroin.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:44:40 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
<shel...@thevillages.net> said:

>On 4/25/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> Yisroel Markov<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:

[snip]

>>> Of course, even Santorum didn't have the hutzpa to declare that
>>> the restrictions he sought were in the name of freedom. (That's
>>> just a partisan smear.) He thinks that such restrictions are an
>>> appropriate use of government power, and for that and other
>>> reasons I'm thankful that he's out of the race.
>>
>> Is anybody *good* _in_ the race? :-(

Never. To be elected, a candidate has to be many things for many
people, so any candidate is virtually guaranteed to advocate at least
one policy that a given voter disagrees with. Fact of life, IMHO.

>...depends upon whose ox. I like Romney.

Just wait. By the time Obama's campaign, the DNC, etc. are done laying
down the negative ad barrage - and you can expect ads to fly heavy in
your battleground state - you'll be wondering what you ever saw in
that obscenely rich flip-flopping dog-abusing Neanderthal super-ultra
conservative from a polygamous family :-)

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:27:09 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il said:

>Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>> "mm" <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> big snip
>>
>>>> People shouldn't be risking the lives of others, but they have the
>>>> right to risk their own lives.
>>
>>> Do they? Espescially if others state will be expected to foot their
>>> medical bills.
>>
>> Possibly this should be limited in cases where there is a strong
>> presumption of recklessness. On the other hand, people have
>> survived by NOT wearing seat belts, where they would have been
>> injured or killed otherwise. And BTW, I have seen comments
>> that Social Security would be quite solvent if smoking had
>> not declined.
>
>I don't know whether to laugh or cry. "Keep smoking - we can't meet
>our Social Security obligations of you don't". OY!

I neither laugh nor cry. What does get lost sometimes in these
discussions is that Social Security and Medicare are in the fiscal
predicament they're in a large part because our seniors are living
longer and healthier lives than when those programs were created. The
disguise may be heavy, but it's still a blessing.

But that fact and the substantial tobacco tax revenues do create a
conflict of interest - in a budgetary sense it does help the public
fisc if people smoke. (We've discussed this previously - the evidence
is that extra cost from smoking-related diseases is balanced or even
slightly outweighed by savings created when smokers die quicker. And
once you add the SocSec effect, a smoker is definitely helping out the
budget.)

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message

news:7msfp7t3otu4e1kue...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:44:40 +0000 (UTC), Shelly
> <shel...@thevillages.net> said:
>
>>On 4/25/2012 2:40 AM, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> Yisroel Markov<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> Of course, even Santorum didn't have the hutzpa to declare that
>>>> the restrictions he sought were in the name of freedom. (That's
>>>> just a partisan smear.) He thinks that such restrictions are an
>>>> appropriate use of government power, and for that and other
>>>> reasons I'm thankful that he's out of the race.
>>>
>>> Is anybody *good* _in_ the race? :-(
>
> Never. To be elected, a candidate has to be many things for many
> people, so any candidate is virtually guaranteed to advocate at least
> one policy that a given voter disagrees with. Fact of life, IMHO.
>
>>...depends upon whose ox. I like Romney.
>
> Just wait. By the time Obama's campaign, the DNC, etc. are done laying
> down the negative ad barrage - and you can expect ads to fly heavy in
> your battleground state - you'll be wondering what you ever saw in
> that obscenely rich flip-flopping dog-abusing Neanderthal super-ultra
> conservative from a polygamous family :-)
> --

Kudos, Yisroel. As someone who would never vote for the guy who supports
the Ryan budget and "we'll shut down Planned Parenthood", I couldn't have
said it better myself. :-)

And it's not negative if it's the truth.

Jay

[cindys]

On Apr 25, 5:06 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:44:40 +0000 (UTC), Shelly

snip

>
> >...depends upon whose ox.  I like Romney.
>
> Just wait. By the time Obama's campaign, the DNC, etc. are done laying
> down the negative ad barrage - and you can expect ads to fly heavy in
> your battleground state - you'll be wondering what you ever saw in
> that obscenely rich flip-flopping dog-abusing Neanderthal super-ultra
> conservative from a polygamous family :-)

----
He abuses dogs? How did I miss this?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

----
Okay. Now, I do remember that he tied his dog to the roof of his car
for a 12-hour ride, claiming that the dog enjoyed it. He's now
considered a registered pet offender and is listed on two animal abuse
registries. The scandal is called "Crate Gate," and they have an
official video out called "Dogs Against Romney."

http://www.politicker.com/2012/04/23/dogs-against-romney-asks-should-we-have-a-president-who-isnt-even-qualified-to-adopt-a-pet/

Never let it be said that my posts aren't educational :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

בתאריך יום רביעי, 25 באפריל 2012 18:35:05 UTC+1, מאת Herman Rubin:
> On 2012-04-24, malcolm...@btinternet.com <malcolm...@btinternet.com>

>
> > The url says that 3,000 Americans die each year from lung cnacer cuased
> by second hand smoking. The population of the US is 300 million. So
> that's one lung cancer death for every 100,000 years of exposure.
>
> I have no idea where you get your figures for the amount of
> exposure. Also, there may be threshhold resistance, and
> cumulative effects.
>

The figure for the number of Americans who die from lung cancer caused by secondhand smoking was 3,000 per year, according to the link posted by Moshe. The population of the US is about 300 million, which is available from many sources. So that gives a figure of one death per 100 thousand years exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.
Of course you're right that the relationship between dose and effect won't be exactly linear. But we need order of magnitude type estimates before we can even begin to investigate further.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Yisroel Markov:

>Just wait. By the time Obama's campaign, the DNC, etc. are done laying
>down the negative ad barrage - and you can expect ads to fly heavy in
>your battleground state - you'll be wondering what you ever saw in
>that obscenely rich flip-flopping dog-abusing Neanderthal super-ultra
>conservative from a polygamous family :-)

When I try to think of things that realistically could help the
country (as opposed to those "If I were King..." ideas); one that
I come up with is convincing comedians like Jay Leno to start
mocking people who actually listen to political commercials.

Every TV has a "Mute" button. and quite a few people have Tivo or
some functional equivalent. So there's really no excuse for
people letting that trash into their minds - and I'll bet a few
prominent comedians could raise the public consciousness in that
respect.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Alex Fisher]

On 26/04/2012 5:20, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:
>> I heard that the Chofetz Chayim, who died in 1933 forbade smoking
>> because it was habit-forming. I welcome corroberation/rebutal.
>
> You probably mean corroboration/rebuttal re/Chofetz Chayim.
>
> But, just in case it's the "habit-forming" part; I would assert
> that smoking is not habit-forming: it is addictive.
>
> I would cite "Licit and Illicit Drugs" by Edward M Brecher and

> the Editors of Consumer Reports (Little, Brown& Company --

> Boston -- Toronto)
>
> Pages 216-217 cite Syananon members in NYC saying that kicking
> tobacco was harder than kicking heroin.

The *only* reason kicking the tobacco habit (habit, not addiction) is so
difficult is because of the "neuromuscular programming". Any regularly
repeated action will produce a neuromuscular response. frequently moving
the neural pathways associated with that action into the reflex
"circuits". The more frequently the action is repeated, the stronger it
becomes. The longer it continues, the more firmly entrenched it is.

Nicotine, OTOH, is cleared from the body in 5 days maximum. Nicotine is
responsible for the initial habituation, but after a relatively short
time, it becomes the secondary factor. It is very easy and quite
painless to get the nicotine out of the system (trust me on this one, I
went through it myself in 1982).

The reason the neuromuscular programming is the real problem is simple.
Once such a pattern has developed, ceasing that action (or series of
actions in the case of smoking) causes severe anxiety, with all its
associated symptoms. Those symptoms can only be relieved by performing
the same actions (which is why "electronic cigarettes" have such
potential as a quitting aid). They can be reduced by substituting a
similar action, which is why so many who are or have quit are forever
chewing on gum or sweets.

And why do I insist that a nicotine habit is *not* an addiction? Because
an addiction causes changes in physical functions such that the body
cannot function in a normal fashion without the substance. Nicotine does
not do that: it does not change the metabolism, neural functions, or the
functioning of any organs.

So nicotine creates a habit, a strong psychological habituation which is
often harder to break than an addiction. Couple that habituation with
the neuromuscular programming and you have one of the most difficult
habits to overcome.

--
Alex

[cindys]

On Apr 25, 10:31 pm, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>
wrote:

> On 26/04/2012 5:20, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>
> > Per mos...@mm.huji.ac.il:
> >> I heard that the Chofetz Chayim, who died in 1933 forbade smoking
> >> because it was habit-forming. I welcome corroberation/rebutal.
>
> > You probably mean corroboration/rebuttal re/Chofetz Chayim.
>
> > But, just in case it's the "habit-forming" part; I would assert
> > that smoking is not habit-forming: it is addictive.
>
> > I would cite "Licit and Illicit Drugs" by Edward M Brecher and
> > the Editors of Consumer Reports (Little, Brown&  Company --
> > Boston -- Toronto)
>
> > Pages 216-217 cite Syananon members in NYC saying that kicking
> > tobacco was harder than kicking heroin.
>
> The *only* reason kicking the tobacco habit (habit, not addiction) is so
> difficult is because of the "neuromuscular programming". Any regularly
> repeated action will produce a neuromuscular response. frequently moving
> the neural pathways associated with that action into the reflex
> "circuits". The more frequently the action is repeated, the stronger it
> becomes. The longer it continues, the more firmly entrenched it is.
>
> Nicotine, OTOH, is cleared from the body in 5 days maximum. Nicotine is
> responsible for the initial habituation, but after a relatively short
> time, it becomes the secondary factor. It is very easy and quite
> painless to get the nicotine out of the system (trust me on this one, I
> went through it myself in 1982).

-----
I went through it too, Alex, and it wasn't easy or painless at all.
The craving for nicotine was overwhelming, and it went on for a lot
longer than 5 days. It felt like I was starving but that no matter how
much I ate, I wasn't satiated. It was not "just a habit." I think the
AMA has classified it as a bonafide addiction.

Not everybody has the same response to nicotine. You were lucky. Some
people are luckier and smoke and never get addicted. But those are the
exceptions. If it is so easy and painless to get nicotine out of one's
system, then why do people struggle with it multiple times? Why do
people keep trying and failing? Why are there all kinds of medications
on the market to help people (and people still fail). If it were as
easy as chewing a piece of gum as a substitute, I would be willing to
bet that there would be a lot fewer than even 20% smokers left in the
USA. Everybody knows it causes emphysema and lung cancer and makes
their hair and clothes smell, and everybody knows that other people
think it's a filthy habit. And an expensive habit. Why would so many
people continue to smoke if it were as easy for everybody to quit as
it was for you?

Quitting smoking was incredibly difficult. Some people have stated it
is more difficult to quit nicotine than to quit heroin. Happily, I
don't know about that but all I can say is that I tried to quit
multiple times before I actually succeeded. I tried hypnosis and that
didn't work. Ultimately, the only way I was able to quit was by
weaning down gradually over the course of an entire summer. Many
people could not quit this way, but this is what worked for me. And
truth be told, I still have dreams where I'm smoking, and I still want
a cigarette. You're fortunate to have had such an easy time quitting,
and you were probably not addicted, but other people are, and it's not
easy at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[topazgalaxy]

On Apr 25, 5:57 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

speaking of cruelty to dogs see link below

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/opinion/frum-obama-romney-dog/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

[mm]

I think we should be fair to the man. After all, this was before
14-passenger vans and he had a station wagon, and his wife and his 5
sons and 10 of their wives, and he had no room for the dog.

And as I heard it, it wasn't an open crate but closed on 5 or 6 sides
Still that must not have been enough since even they say iirc that the
drip gave the dog gastrointestinal discomfort.

But what a bout Mario Rubio for vice-presidentialt candidate.
Problem there. He attended a Mormon church for 3 years, ages 8 to 11,
I think. Will the country tolerate two Momons on the same ticket?

--

Meir

[mm]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:06:22 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>Just wait. By the time Obama's campaign, the DNC, etc. are done laying
>down the negative ad barrage - and you can expect ads to fly heavy in
>your battleground state - you'll be wondering what you ever saw in
>that obscenely rich flip-flopping dog-abusing Neanderthal super-ultra
>conservative from a polygamous family :-)

It's a good thing none of the Republicans would do something like
that. ;-)
--

Meir

[Alex Fisher]

The cravings were almost certainly not from lack of nicotine, but from
the neuromuscular responses I mentioned. The two different factors
produce symptoms so similar that it is frequently almost impossible to
tell which is causing what.

> longer than 5 days. It felt like I was starving but that no matter how
> much I ate, I wasn't satiated. It was not "just a habit." I think the
> AMA has classified it as a bonafide addiction.

I've had this argument with a doctor I used to see (until he moved). It
seems that the definition of what constitutes addiction has been
"modified" somewhat. I should get a copy of the most recent Oxford
Dictionary and compare it with my 30-year old copy.

>
> Not everybody has the same response to nicotine. You were lucky. Some

Not lucky, really. And believe me, the first couple of weeks were
terrible. The difference I think was that I followed the method devised
by the SDA, which requires that, for the first 5 day you have no solid
food, and drink only grape or apple juice, or water (kicking the coffee
habit at the same time *really* made things difficult). Then over the
next 3 days you introduce solids, but only in the form of fresh fruit
and vegetables. Switching to a vegetarian diet at the same time probably
also helped (looking back, I'm surprised I coped at all).

> people are luckier and smoke and never get addicted. But those are the
> exceptions. If it is so easy and painless to get nicotine out of one's
> system, then why do people struggle with it multiple times? Why do
> people keep trying and failing? Why are there all kinds of medications
> on the market to help people (and people still fail). If it were as

As I said above, the symptoms from lack of nicotine and cessation of
habitual actions can be (and usually are) impossible to distinguish. If
it is only the nicotine, why do I see so many people using nicotine
replacements such as the patch or gum, and still smoking, usually just
as much?

I've also met several using medication to quit, most of them have said
that if they'd been aware of the really bad side effects of the
medications (I'm talking about Champix and similar), they would not have
started the treatment. (Champix and the others are essentially
antidepressants. Unfortunately, when used to help stop smoking they
frequently cause severe, often terminal, depression, side effects which
last the rest of one's life.)

> easy as chewing a piece of gum as a substitute, I would be willing to
> bet that there would be a lot fewer than even 20% smokers left in the
> USA. Everybody knows it causes emphysema and lung cancer and makes
> their hair and clothes smell, and everybody knows that other people
> think it's a filthy habit. And an expensive habit. Why would so many
> people continue to smoke if it were as easy for everybody to quit as
> it was for you?

Because it wasn't as easy as my initial post might have suggested. In
fact, when my marriage disintegrated 12 years later, I started smoking
again. that was 20 years ago. I hate smoking, can't really afford it
(the cheapest smokes here are $10 a pack of 20, which translates as
around $10.50 US), but unfortunately I lack sufficient motivation to go
through all that again (and it's also a lot harder the second time around).

>
> Quitting smoking was incredibly difficult. Some people have stated it
> is more difficult to quit nicotine than to quit heroin. Happily, I
> don't know about that but all I can say is that I tried to quit
> multiple times before I actually succeeded. I tried hypnosis and that
> didn't work. Ultimately, the only way I was able to quit was by
> weaning down gradually over the course of an entire summer. Many
> people could not quit this way, but this is what worked for me. And
> truth be told, I still have dreams where I'm smoking, and I still want
> a cigarette. You're fortunate to have had such an easy time quitting,
> and you were probably not addicted, but other people are, and it's not
> easy at all.

As I said above, it wasn't terribly easy for me, but I guess it was
comparatively easy when put alongside other's experiences. But that was
then, this is now, and so far I've not found an adequate method. Add
that to inadequate motivation...

And as for methods, what works for one won't necessarily work for others.

> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
>
>
>>
>> The reason the neuromuscular programming is the real problem is simple.
>> Once such a pattern has developed, ceasing that action (or series of
>> actions in the case of smoking) causes severe anxiety, with all its
>> associated symptoms. Those symptoms can only be relieved by performing
>> the same actions (which is why "electronic cigarettes" have such
>> potential as a quitting aid). They can be reduced by substituting a
>> similar action, which is why so many who are or have quit are forever
>> chewing on gum or sweets.
>>
>> And why do I insist that a nicotine habit is *not* an addiction? Because
>> an addiction causes changes in physical functions such that the body
>> cannot function in a normal fashion without the substance. Nicotine does
>> not do that: it does not change the metabolism, neural functions, or the
>> functioning of any organs.
>>
>> So nicotine creates a habit, a strong psychological habituation which is
>> often harder to break than an addiction. Couple that habituation with
>> the neuromuscular programming and you have one of the most difficult
>> habits to overcome.
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>

--
Alex

[mm]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:19:17 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 4:29 am, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:37:09 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> snip
>>
>> >Happily, in New York, it's the smokers who have to smoke outside or
>> >stay home.
>>
>> Your in the marjoify, you have the power, and you're happy to pick on
>> the minority.    That's why it's a replacement for picking on Jews,
>> Blacks, homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.
>----
>So, you think we can make an analogy between telling someone he can't
>smoke in a bar and the German persecution of Jews and Gypsies?

I wasn't talking about the german persecution, but about the much much
much milder stuff that Americans gave Jews and gypsies. Don't you
remember the posts where I criticized someone's compariison of
something to nzais?

>Unbelievable.

Because it's not true.

>I think we can let your position speak for itself. Shameful.

But it's not my position. Don't forget that.

I've been sick or at least sickly for 13 days now, and it may go on
longer, so there may be other posts of mine which were not clear to
you, which I'll never have time to find or reply to. Don't assume
because I don't answer that I have no good answer. It's more likely
they are some of the 100's of posts I'll not have time to read.


>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.

--

Meir

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Alex Fisher:
>"neuromuscular programming"

Has anybody else read about the study where they recruited
college students for an unnamed purpose and had them live in a
room hooked up to an IV with the stipulations that:

- They had to stay on the IV 24-7

- If they wanted anything, all they had to do was
ask and it would be supplied: food, reading material,
cigarettes... and so-forth.


The story was that only smokers were recruited and the
researchers used the IV to supply nicotine to the participants -
vary9ing the level to suite the purposes of the study.

What they supposedly found was that requests for cigarettes
ceased once a certain level of nicotine was supplied via the IV
and that requests resumed when the level was dropped.

"...story was"... and "...supposedly..." because I have never
seen the actual study - only read a secondhand account and I
can't even cite that account.
--
Pete Cresswell

[cindys]

On Apr 26, 8:16 am, Alex Fisher <peter.fish...@uqconnect.edu.au>

Okay, well, I'm not going to start a discussion/argument about the
physiology of nicotine addiction. What you previously described
sounded more like breaking a coffee habit. People get an addiction to
caffeine. In order to break the habit, either wean down or quit cold
turkey. If you quit cold turkey, you'll have a terrible headache for a
day or so from caffeine withdrawal (which can be controlled with some
over-the-counter analgesic like Tylenol or Aleve). Then, finished.
After that, the "habit" is reaching for a cup of hot liquid, and
herbal tea can be a substitute, for example. It's not terribly
difficult to break a coffee habit/caffeine addiction.

>
> > longer than 5 days. It felt like I was starving but that no matter how
> > much I ate, I wasn't satiated. It was not "just a habit." I think the
> > AMA has classified it as a bonafide addiction.
>
> I've had this argument with a doctor I used to see (until he moved). It
> seems that the definition of what constitutes addiction has been
> "modified" somewhat. I should get a copy of the most recent Oxford
> Dictionary and compare it with my 30-year old copy.

Aha! :-)

>
>
>
> > Not everybody has the same response to nicotine. You were lucky. Some
>
> Not lucky, really. And believe me, the first couple of weeks were
> terrible.

WADR, Alex, now...you're saying something different...Before, you were
saying it was easy and it only took you 5 days to get past it.

>The difference I think was that I followed the method devised
> by the SDA, which requires that, for the first 5 day you have no solid
> food, and drink only grape or apple juice, or water (kicking the coffee
> habit at the same time *really* made things difficult).

I would imagine it would!

>Then over the
> next 3 days you introduce solids, but only in the form of fresh fruit
> and vegetables. Switching to a vegetarian diet at the same time probably
> also helped (looking back, I'm surprised I coped at all).

Now, you're really saying something different...

>
> > people are luckier and smoke and never get addicted. But those are the
> > exceptions. If it is so easy and painless to get nicotine out of one's
> > system, then why do people struggle with it multiple times? Why do
> > people keep trying and failing? Why are there all kinds of medications
> > on the market to help people (and people still fail). If it were as
>
> As I said above, the symptoms from lack of nicotine and cessation of
> habitual actions can be (and usually are) impossible to distinguish. If
> it is only the nicotine, why do I see so many people using nicotine
> replacements such as the patch or gum, and still smoking, usually just
> as much?
>
> I've also met several using medication to quit, most of them have said
> that if they'd been aware of the really bad side effects of the

> medications (I'm talking about Chantix and similar)

In some people, Chantix can cause depression and even suicidal
thoughts, for one thing. But truth be told, every medication on the
market can have nasty side effects. If people read all the side
effects every time they were prescribed medications, nobody would ever
take anything. But oftentimes, the side effects are rare. Any time
anybody reports any new side effect to the doctor, I think the doctor
is supposed to report it to the drug company (not sure about this).

>they would not have
> started the treatment. (Chantix and the others are essentially
> antidepressants.

I'm not aware of any others that are specifically for smoking
cessation. Sometimes people do take antidepressant medications (such
as Wellbutrin/budeprion) to help them with smoking cessation. But
Wellbutrin *is* a mild antidepressant, and its primary use is to
counter depression. That it also helps people with smoking cessation
is a secondary use. Chantix, AFAIK, is the only drug on the market
specifically for smoking cessation (other than nicotine pills).

>Unfortunately, when used to help stop smoking they
> frequently cause severe, often terminal, depression, side effects which
> last the rest of one's life.)

Yes. Sometimes medications have a paradoxical effect (they do the
opposite of what they're supposed to do). With respect to side effects
that are permanent versus temporary, I don't know enough about Chantix
specifically to address that one way or the other.

>
> > easy as chewing a piece of gum as a substitute, I would be willing to
> > bet that there would be a lot fewer than even 20% smokers left in the
> > USA. Everybody knows it causes emphysema and lung cancer and makes
> > their hair and clothes smell, and everybody knows that other people
> > think it's a filthy habit. And an expensive habit. Why would so many
> > people continue to smoke if it were as easy for everybody to quit as
> > it was for you?
>
> Because it wasn't as easy as my initial post might have suggested. In
> fact, when my marriage disintegrated 12 years later, I started smoking
> again. that was 20 years ago. I hate smoking, can't really afford it
> (the cheapest smokes here are $10 a pack of 20, which translates as
> around $10.50 US), but unfortunately I lack sufficient motivation to go
> through all that again (and it's also a lot harder the second time around).

So, you've gone back to smoking. I genuinely feel really sad for you.
It's a horrible thing (for you) and for the people around you. In
addition to causing lung cancer and emphysema, there is also a very
high correlation between smoking and cancers of the urinary tract
(kidneys, bladder). I agree with you that the second time around is
harder than the first time. I quit cold turkey (and with hypnosis)
multiple times and then went back to it before I was able to quit
permanently.

Maybe try the method you outlined above (from the government). You
could also try my weaning method. The reason it worked for me (I
think) was that psychologically, I didn't feel that I was depriving
myself of cigarettes entirely. I was "just cutting back," and I was
still able to have a few cigarettes each day. In the end (and I got
this idea from someone else, and it worked), I still kept a pack of
cigarettes around the house and told myself that I could still have
one anytime I wanted. Psychologically, it worked. I finally threw out
the last pack of stale cigarettes several years later.

>
> > Quitting smoking was incredibly difficult. Some people have stated it
> > is more difficult to quit nicotine than to quit heroin. Happily, I
> > don't know about that but all I can say is that I tried to quit
> > multiple times before I actually succeeded. I tried hypnosis and that
> > didn't work. Ultimately, the only way I was able to quit was by
> > weaning down gradually over the course of an entire summer. Many
> > people could not quit this way, but this is what worked for me. And
> > truth be told, I still have dreams where I'm smoking, and I still want
> > a cigarette. You're fortunate to have had such an easy time quitting,
> > and you were probably not addicted, but other people are, and it's not
> > easy at all.
>
> As I said above, it wasn't terribly easy for me, but I guess it was
> comparatively easy when put alongside other's experiences. But that was
> then, this is now, and so far I've not found an adequate method. Add
> that to inadequate motivation...

Here's the motivation: There is nothing you want less than to find
blood in the toilet one morning, and after undergoing the screening of
your entire urinary tract, end up with having your bladder removed and
an ileal loop diversion. I won't go into more detail than that, but
Google for it.

>
> And as for methods, what works for one won't necessarily work for others.
>

Correct. But try several.
Good luck! I wish you every success!
Best regards,
---Cindy S.