Total smoking bans work best

Total smoking bans work best

There are 14 comments on the Science Daily story from Dec 18, 2013, titled Total smoking bans work best. In it, Science Daily reports that:

"When there's a total smoking ban in the home, we found that smokers are more likely to reduce tobacco consumption and attempt to quit than when they're allowed to smoke in some parts of the house," said Wael K. Al-Delaimy, MD, PhD, professor and chief of the Division of Global Health in the UC San Diego Department of Family and Preventive ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Science Daily.

MichaelJMcFadden

Philadelphia, PA

#1 Dec 19, 2013
"The researchers found that total home bans were more effective in reducing smoking among persons 65 years and older and among females, "
Yep. Throwing old folks out into the snow and cold to smoke is pretty effective. They don't have the metabolism to keep warm no matter how they dress so they'll freeze up pretty quickly. Torture by freezing has always been effective in breaking down resistance among POW's in wartime and it'll work pretty well with the old geezers who are still smoking too. It's just like with lab rats: give them strong enough electric shocks when they indulge in behavior you don't want, and you'll train them out of it. Simple behavioral conditioning with negative reinforcement. High taxes work well too, and if you can get the grandkids to believe that they're going to "catch cancer" from letting grandma or grandpa give them a hug that's doubly effective.
As for females, yeah, kicking them out into the dark at night to smoke, particularly in some neighborhoods, will be a pretty good incentive to quit. Might take a while, but after a few "incidents" they'll learn.
Nice world the Antismokers have brought us, eh?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame"

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#2 Dec 20, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
"The researchers found that total home bans were more effective in reducing smoking among persons 65 years and older and among females, "
Yep. Throwing old folks out into the snow and cold to smoke is pretty effective. They don't have the metabolism to keep warm no matter how they dress so they'll freeze up pretty quickly. Torture by freezing has always been effective in breaking down resistance among POW's in wartime and it'll work pretty well with the old geezers who are still smoking too. It's just like with lab rats: give them strong enough electric shocks when they indulge in behavior you don't want, and you'll train them out of it. Simple behavioral conditioning with negative reinforcement. High taxes work well too, and if you can get the grandkids to believe that they're going to "catch cancer" from letting grandma or grandpa give them a hug that's doubly effective.
As for females, yeah, kicking them out into the dark at night to smoke, particularly in some neighborhoods, will be a pretty good incentive to quit. Might take a while, but after a few "incidents" they'll learn.
Nice world the Antismokers have brought us, eh?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "TobakkoNacht -- The Antismoking Endgame"
Sorry, MJM. You sound just like an addict. It is not our (the evil nonsmokers) fault that a bunch of people fell hook, line, and sinker into Big Tobacco lies and got so addicted that they cannot even go through a meal or have a beer without needing a cigarette so bad that they will put themselves into mortal danger to have one. Really says something about the addictive nature of smoking that it takes bone chilling cold, fear or rape or murder, or other serious consequences to get someone to quit smoking. If they are really THAT addicted, they should be grateful to us (the evil nonsmokers) for pushing them to quit.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#4 Dec 21, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Nice of you to be so helpful Bud. Will you be helping out the drinkers next? I'm sure they'd appreciate it. You might want to hit the fatties first though... A reasonable Twinkie Tax of about a dollar apiece could go to children's health care (you DO care about the children, right?) and if that wasn't enough to reduce consumption we could do something about their child-attracting flavors and pretty colors.
They'll be grateful to you for helping them to quit.
- MJM
You are quite welcome. I appreciate your bringing up the drinkers. That is a good thing. Long ago, we decided that drinking could harm others, so we limited it. You cannot drink and drive anymore. No one really cares if a drunk wastes his sorry ass out there on a lonely road somewhere, but when he takes others with him, it is a problem. That is why we made it illegal. Smoking around others harms the others. No one cares if a smoker kills their sorry assed self, but when they kill others, it is a different story. NOTHING you can say will make the research disappear that links second hand smoke to deaths and illness. You, and the rest of the smokers, are welcome to smoke yourself to death. Just like the drinkers are welcome to drink themselves to death and the twinkie eaters are welcome to eat themselves to death. You just cannot harm others in the process.

BTW, in case you have not noticed it, you are on the losing side of the battle. Since your book came out 1,182 colleges and universities have instituted total 100% smoking bans. Rental apartments, condos and shared housing is increasingly going smoke free wither by ordinance or owners choice. In many states it is illegal to smoke in a car with children. Smoking is being considered as a negative in child custody cases. The following states and territories, SINCE YOUR BOOK CAME OUT, have enacted at least partial bans (you will even see some tobacco producing states on this list)
Arizona
American Samoa
Colorado
DC
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
US Virgin Islands
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin

Sorry MJM, but you ARE on the losing side.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#6 Dec 22, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
A fair number of those schools are religious-type and medical places that had bans in place BEFORE my book came out. And your impressive-sounding 1,182 has a couple of other problems as well:(1) It's only about 20% of total US campuses; and (2) Take a look at the student newspapers on those campuses and see how often you find articles and letters complaining about how everyone ignores the bans.
OBVIOUSLY, I am referring to an earlier book. Playing semantics here with "which book?" works about as well as playing semantics with ETS studies. Basically, the only people who believe ETS is harmless are the smokers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157793/few-smokers...
So, save your platitudes about whether second hand smoke is harmless. First hand smoke kills. I know of so many people who have dies from cancer who were smokers, I cannot say the same for non smokers. You cannot expect me to believe that the same smoke is not harmful to me. There may be questions about exactly how harmful or how much exposure is needed to harm someone, but there is no question that ETS is still harmful.

BTW, most of the colleges and Universities have gone smoke free RECENTLY. I refer you to University of Illinois or Tulane University campuses. In October, 2010, only 446 college campuses had total smoking bans. Many of those occurred AFTER your book (not your latest one, although University of Illinois did occur after your latest one). In fact, between October 2010 and October 2011, an additional 140 campuses went smoke free. Here is a list of schools that are smoke free:
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/smokefreecolleges...
Interesting how many are PUBLIC colleges that are NOT medical schools.
Again, trying to play with words and disinformation on your part reduces your credibility on the subject. You bring up the letters in college newspapers complaining about smokers who ignore the rules. I point out that these smokers are continuing to piss off non smokers until more draconian interventions occur. I have no idea why smokers are so rude and inconsiderate- you "dissected" non-smokers brains (a reference to an EARLIER book)- why don't you dissect smokers brains and tell us why smokers continue to drop butts 5 feet away from an ashtray when they walk into a store. Tell us why smokers continue to smoke even though almost all lung cancers occur in smokers. Tell us why smokers are so stupid that they will choose to go to a college that is 100% smoke free and then proceed to piss off the non smokers by smoking in an area where it is prohibited.
Ted King

United States

#8 Dec 22, 2013
I tell you what, you start paying my bills (keep your Obamacare) then you can start running my life. Otherwise, piss off! You antis are looking for PAIN if you go after the home of a smoker.
GiveMeABreak

Naperville, IL

#9 Dec 22, 2013
Ted King wrote:
I tell you what, you start paying my bills (keep your Obamacare) then you can start running my life. Otherwise, piss off! You antis are looking for PAIN if you go after the home of a smoker.
We will allow you to get pissed off. At least you can see that eventually your house, except for a hermetically sealed room connected by an exhaust fan to a sewer, and only after filtration, will you be allowed to smoke anywhere. Smokers are like drunks who.fall down and crap themselves. No one wants to.smell that.
GiveMeABreak

Naperville, IL

#10 Dec 22, 2013
Ted King wrote:
I tell you what, you start paying my bills (keep your Obamacare) then you can start running my life. Otherwise, piss off! You antis are looking for PAIN if you go after the home of a smoker.
Sheesh
Whining because we don't want you to kill your family.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#12 Dec 23, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Bud, you wrote, "NOTHING you can say will make the research disappear that links second hand smoke to deaths and illness"
You read that correctly
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
No, nothing *I* can say, but what the researchers say indicates a lot.
I really do not feel like reading what a bunch of tobacco lobbyists say. I am familiar with the research. The preponderance of the evidence is on the side of ETS being harmful. I did note in an earlier post that there is disagreement about exactly how harmful ETS is or what level of exposure makes it dangerous. Cigarette smoke is harmful. What about a few feet of air between a cigarette and a on smoker renders the cigarette smoke harmless?
BUTT Disease

Winnipeg, Canada

#13 Dec 23, 2013
Ted QUEEN wrote:
I tell you what, you start paying my bills (keep your Obamacare) then you can start running my life. Otherwise, piss off! You antis are looking for PAIN if you go after the home of a smoker.
Maybe you need to begin to accept your inability to look after yourself and let others do it for you. Slow suicide is a form of abuse and a sign of mental deficits. Or you can continue to act like a smoking baboon.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#17 Dec 23, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
<quoted text>
Bud, you'll note the selective quote. It's justified, since you clearly did not even TRY reading what I suggested since it certainly was *not* written by "a bunch of tobacco lobbyists." When you're so uncertain and insecure in your position that you're unable to bring yourself to read what the opposition has to say ... well ... that in itself says a lot.
- MJM
I read your "brain" book several years back. I was not impressed. Sorry. Just to clarify, I was referring to the authors of the studies that you refer to in your book trying to prove that ETS is not harmful. Many of them have been singled out for criticism as to their methodologies, etc. There is speculation that many studies that ETS is harmless are funded by Big Tobacco and that studies from ORNL cannot be trusted. Even if you accept those studies at face value, the preponderance of evidence is that ETS is harmful.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#18 Dec 23, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Bud, an additional note: if you were perhaps trying to refer to *me* as a "tobacco lobbyist," I'd recommend that you have someone read you the "About The Author" section at http://Antibrains.com
- MJM
I had already read your bio a long time ago. The bicycle accessibility work was good, as was some of the other things you have done. I am not sure what your motivation is for trying to convince people that smoking is okay. I work with young people, and I work very hard to try and make sure that they understand how bad smoking truly is,

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#20 Dec 23, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Bud, I *don't* try to "convince people that smoking is ok." I try to contradict the lies that are being used to promote smoking bans and the persecution of smokers in various ways. There's a very big difference.
You should crack open that book again Bud:**MOST** of the studies and authors I examine and quote SUPPORT smoking bans: I focus on showing how they twist their statistics and language to create lies. Thus the title of my free pamphlet, "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans," that I often point to at:
http://TinyURL.com/SmokingBanLies
I make reference to almost NO studies in that booklet that you would criticize as being pro-smoking. Please cite several of them if you feel I am wrong. And please feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms of anything I *do* say either there or in Brains: I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.
I wasn't aware that studies from ORNL can't be trusted. Given their relationship to things like the nuclear weapons industry I'd say that if you're correct then we have a LOT more to worry about than secondhand smoke!
- MJM
I was not referring to the booklet. I was referring to "brains". I got "brains" at a used bookstore, read it and returned it for credit.
This is an example of ORNL criticism:
http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN174/00096.htm...
Obviously from a biased source, but there are other criticisms out there.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#21 Dec 23, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Bud, I *don't* try to "convince people that smoking is ok." I try to contradict the lies that are being used to promote smoking bans and the persecution of smokers in various ways. There's a very big difference.
You should crack open that book again Bud:**MOST** of the studies and authors I examine and quote SUPPORT smoking bans: I focus on showing how they twist their statistics and language to create lies. Thus the title of my free pamphlet, "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans," that I often point to at:
http://TinyURL.com/SmokingBanLies
I make reference to almost NO studies in that booklet that you would criticize as being pro-smoking. Please cite several of them if you feel I am wrong. And please feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms of anything I *do* say either there or in Brains: I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.
I wasn't aware that studies from ORNL can't be trusted. Given their relationship to things like the nuclear weapons industry I'd say that if you're correct then we have a LOT more to worry about than secondhand smoke!
- MJM
In your pamphlet, which I was NOT referencing earlier, you take researchers to task for using language such as "suggests", "may be" and other similar verbiage. You seem to take this as a less than enthusiastic endorsement of the findings. Most studies in any field, ranging from anthropology to zoology will use similar restraint when publishing findings. Generally, there is at least a 5% to 10% chance that the results could be skewed in another direction or not significant at all. Repeated studies with similar results increase the possibility that there is a relationship of some sort between the variables being looked at. Many studies with a slight positive relationship between the IV and DV indicate that there is a causal relationship between the two. Prior to doing research, I do a literature review to make a prediction. If I do this, then that will happen. I base this prediction on what I find in the literature. Like everyone else who does research, I do not include many studies that do not show the relationship between the IV and DV unless I am willing to discuss why this may have occurred and why it will likely not have a negative impact on my ability to use my results to show possible causation. I am fortunate in that I do not have to rely on lots of unknowns like the astrophysicists who have "found" Earthlike planets. As a side note: I do not research smoking, ETS, or even human subjects. That is not my field. I do understand studies, though, and I do have access to read them. I do not like smoking. I believe that the proof that mainstream smoke is harmful is incontrovertible. The health and human costs of tobacco use are tremendous and we need to do something to reduce the costs and suffering. If tobacco smoke is harmful, it makes sense that ETS, also tobacco smoke, is harmful. There are lots of studies that show ETS as being harmful. Many of the studies do have flaws, but when taken as a group, the many thousands of studies that suggest a positive relationship between ETS and significant diseases paints a pretty convincing portrait that the relationship is, in fact, real.
DR EDIT

Winnipeg, Canada

#22 Dec 24, 2013
MichaelJMcFadden wrote:
Bud, I *don't* try to "convince people that smoking is ok." I try to contradict the lies that are being used to promote smoking bans and the persecution of smokers in various ways. There's a very big difference.
You should crack open that book again Bud:**MOST** of the studies and authors I examine and quote SUPPORT smoking bans: I focus on showing how they twist their statistics and language to create lies. Thus the title of my free pamphlet, "The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans," that I often point to at:
http://TinyURL.com/SmokingBanLies
I make reference to almost NO studies in that booklet that you would criticize as being pro-smoking. Please cite several of them if you feel I am wrong. And please feel free to offer any specific, substantive criticisms of anything I *do* say either there or in Brains: I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.
I wasn't aware that studies from ORNL can't be trusted. Given their relationship to things like the nuclear weapons industry I'd say that if you're correct then we have a LOT more to worry about than secondhand smoke!
- MJM
Maybe you don't SAY smoking is OK but you imply dishonestly that all criticism is invented conspiracy by some force with nothing better to do. How anyone with a properly working brain could expect inhaling toxic gas could cause no harm is ridiculous. How hard can it be to measure smoking related illness? Your attempt to take some moral high ground over this issue and to be a messiah of truth is hilarious. Why not use your super power for goodness and niceness instead of defending a filthy habit and a criminal industry?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Medicine Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bill would ban smoking in all New York hotel rooms 50 min Spammers suck 24
News Playground smokers banned? 1 hr Please stop spamming 6
News Prenatal exposure to historical Ukraine Famine ... 1 hr RED FASCIST GENOCIDE 6
News Iron Maiden star blames oral sex for his cancer 2 hr LOL 3
News Planned Parenthood seeks fed study of fetal tis... 3 hr Cat74 752
News MTV Video Music Awards criticized for glorifyin... 3 hr Sneaky Pete 2
News Lyme Disease Is Growing, Spreading To New Areas... 4 hr Mike g Papa 4
More from around the web