Dr. Siegel's New Website!

[grimmer255]

If you check the rules and regs for people with disabilities or severe health problems as you offer as justification for blanket bans....you will see they want equal access as healthy people. There is no right to mandate that all places be free of their specific irritant just in case they walk thru the doors of a privately owned business or rental property. If 20% of the population still smoke, shouldn't 20% of venues be open to that segment of clientele if the owner so chooses? You are proposing that we all should be mandated by law to defer to the ill ....rather than exercise good manners when the ill are present. Manners dictated by law are doomed to anger people and get an undesirable response.

After all, isn't pseudo-smoking an e-cig offensive to the nonsmokers who may become fearful by the sheer presense of a cigarette looking device?

Okay now this I agree with you. But there should be a sign on the front door stating this establishment is also for smokers or something like that.
Just to let those who are offended of smoke to enter at own choice. I forgot to mention in PA you can pay a fee to allow this. unfortunately they have to but its there choice to do so.

 

[grimmer255]

Okay, lets take it a little further. I am severly allergic to pets. The people that live next to me are pet owners and although my allergy doesn't strike all the time, there are times when just being in the room that is next to them is making me sick. When I walk in the hallway to get to my apartment and they were there in the last 30 minutes, I feel it. Would it be appropriate for me to ask them to give up their pets?

This is a good one as long as the there pet hair doesn't reach your apartment. I agree with this but smoke can go into the walls and under doors and can get anywhere and the worse of it it lingers for a long time. And can easily get into other peoples apartments. pet hair can not.

 

[tromboneking]

By the way, not add fuel to the fire, but forcing smokers to go outside, to not get a job...all this could be considered discrimination towards smokers, especially if you're going to go the route of child abuse.

For you to move such a long distance away from everything you might have known is admirable. Some people do NOT have that choice. Like I said, I know a few friends of mine that MUST live in NYC because the commuting costs and time are way too much. It can take anywhere from 1hr to 2+hrs to commute one way from where I live. Who wants to get home at 7p? Like I said, a good example are police officers. Some officers CAN'T get a job in small town USA because of the numerous applications sent because it is better. My town hasn't hired an officer for about 5-7 yrs now. My town has volunteer firefighters...can't pay the bills as a volunteer, which means they go to NYC or Passiac where it is a paid job (at least Passiac was at one point, not sure anymore) so tell me where the jobs are? In the city areas, not in the suburbs. With the economy the way it is right now and jobs not in high demand, yet taxes and everything else is still the same as it was when the economy was booming, it is difficult to even FIND a decent job that pays the bills.

Personally, if I smoke, it's because I want to. If someone asks me to NOT smoke or the law prohibits smoking inside (like NJ), I stop and go elsewhere. It's happened several times while on vacation where I'm smoking a cigar and a friend's family asks me to not smoke, I stop.

BTW, I think ramblingrose was referring to 2nd hand smoke, not actual smoking.

 

[tromboneking]

Okay now this I agree with you. But there should be a sign on the front door stating this establishment is also for smokers or something like that.
Just to let those who are offended of smoke to enter at own choice. I forgot to mention in PA you can pay a fee to allow this. unfortunately they have to but its there choice to do so.

Where have you had to pay a fee? I thought the PA smoking ban was all encompassing and if you smoke inside you'll be fined for each time you smoke?

 

[ramblingrose]

okay fine let me ask you something. Why did you go to vaping....if smoking is not bad for you as you seem to claim yourself....then why do you vape....

There ya go, twisting things again. I NEVER said smoking isn't bad. It kills smokers. So what's your excuse for years of smoking, as the one who's ranting and raving about it killing others? As ever, you avoid addressing the points people make and the questions they ask.

I'm sick of your flaming. Take it over to the ASH board.

 

[ladyraj]

Hey Grimmer,

Here in Ohio one can not even pay to post a sign that allows smoking. We all go to Kentucky to smoke in venues.

Regarding the pet scenario...it isn't the hair one has to worry about it is the dander or dead skin that pets shake off and become aerosoled in the ventilation. A lot of people are unaware that normal house dust is 75-85% dead human skin cells, add a pet and the problem can become worse. It gives whole new meaning to cleanliness when one knows where dust comes from. Dust mites, an allergen, feed on these dead cells and can be a source of problems for the chronically ill as well.8-o

 

[Sar]

This is a good one as long as the there pet hair doesn't reach your apartment. I agree with this but smoke can go into the walls and under doors and can get anywhere and the worse of it it lingers for a long time. And can easily get into other peoples apartments. pet hair can not.

I don't think that it is specifically the pet hair for me. If I go into the hallway within 30 minutes after my neighbors were there, my body reacts. Even in the room that shares the same wall with their apartment my body reacts, but not often.

I would not be asking them to get rid of their pets, although I know that the building management would be happy to do that.

I think they must have at times smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway too even though I never smoked in such shared public area. Of course, since I started vaping, this is no longer an issue.

 

[grimmer255]

There ya go, twisting things again. I NEVER said smoking isn't bad. It kills smokers. So what's your excuse for years of smoking, as the one who's ranting and raving about it killing others? As ever, you avoid addressing the points people make and the questions they ask.

I'm sick of your flaming. Take it over to the ASH board.

seriously we're only having good conversation and not bashing each other. Theres nothing wrong with a good debate on each others opinions. We're having fun disagreeing and agreeing....whats wrong with that?

 

[grimmer255]

I don't think that it is specifically the pet hair for me. If I go into the hallway within 30 minutes after my neighbors were there, my body reacts. Even in the room that shares the same wall with their apartment my body reacts, but not often.

I would not be asking them to get rid of their pets, although I know that the building management would be happy to do that.

I think they must have at times smelled cigarette smoke in the hallway too even though I never smoked in such shared public area. Of course, since I started vaping, this is no longer an issue.

I thought about this for a while and I see your points very clearly....If living in apartments and you want to smoke inside your apartment there should be only smokers in those complexes....not to be mean but to make sure no one gets ticked off. Same with pets... The mangers should look in logs making sure no one has allergies to pets before signing someone to a unit who has pets....again not to be mean but to make sure no one gets upset. I will say though if others who live in that apartment do not smoke you should not smoke as well to keep the peace. I hope I said this right. There are way to make everyone happy but everyone has to be willing to work with each other. Thats why the state ban indoor smoking because the smokers still get to smoke but outside and the non smokers can enjoy a smoke free environment....it makes since if you look at from there point of view.

 

[ramblingrose]

seriously we're only having good conversation and not bashing each other. Theres nothing wrong with a good debate on each others opinions. We're having fun disagreeing and agreeing....whats wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with a good debate. When I find one I'll join in.

 

[grimmer255]

Where have you had to pay a fee? I thought the PA smoking ban was all encompassing and if you smoke inside you'll be fined for each time you smoke?

not me personally but the establishment has to pay a fee to the state. Also if there other building joined together the establishment has to update there air systems to suck up the smoke so it cant enter the establishments... and there are still many places you can smoke in....just have to look around

 

[grimmer255]

Nothing wrong with a good debate. When I find one I'll join in.

again what is your deal. why are you so upset because some else has a different opinion than you.

 

[ladyraj]

I thought about this for a while and I see your points very clearly....If living in apartments and you want to smoke inside your apartment there should be only smokers in those complexes....not to be mean but to make sure no one gets ticked off. Same with pets... The mangers should look in logs making sure no one has allergies to pets before signing someone to a unit who has pets....again not to be mean but to make sure no one gets upset. I will say though if others who live in that apartment do not smoke you should not smoke as well to keep the peace. I hope I said this right. There are way to make everyone happy but everyone has to be willing to work with each other. Thats why the state ban indoor smoking because the smokers still get to smoke but outside and the non smokers can enjoy a smoke free environment....it makes since if you look at from there point of view.

Perhaps in an imperfect world there are screening tools and paperwork to scrutinize and categorize individual choice and behavior so no one is inconvenienced. God forbid that we should tolerate our fellow man...it's not enough that credit checks are run regularly without our knowledge...now choice inventories will dictate what space we are allowed to occupy...just in case a chronically allergic person may want to occupy that space. House all the smokers together? Why not house all the chronically ill together rather than mainstreaming them into society where they may be exposed to irritants?

My home is my castle ....under castle law if the lease does not specify "no smoking", I am free to do as I wish.

 

[ramblingrose]

again what is your deal. why are you so upset because some else has a different opinion than you.

Ah yes, you are consistent - and again putting your own spin on things.

I'm not at all upset. I made a simple statement - don't read more into it. It is what it is.

 

[grimmer255]

Ah yes, you are consistent - and again putting your own spin on things.

I'm not at all upset. I made a simple statement - don't read more into it. It is what it is.

As they say to each his own......we all have our own ideas and set of moral values. It all comes down to what we believe. And in the real world not everyone can be happy....thats why in the US we have a voting system and we vote on many issues and the majority most of the time win. that is how the US works. Unfortunately with all the extremist groups putting out false information to bend the will of most to simply get more votes to me is wrong but that show no one wants to do there own thinking and research. Whats worse many lobbyist bank on these extremist groups because in the long run money will lining there pockets. And by the time the people realize how stupid it was to ban so many things it will be to late. I will say I agree with most about our current situation. I just think we need to figure out a way to inform people the same way these extremist do. Obviously they are well organized because there voice is very loud and reaches many people. I hope that ecigs will come out on top....but with lack of funds, organization, and loud voices we simply wont be heard.

 

[Sar]

... I hope that ecigs will come out on top....but with lack of funds, organization, and loud voices we simply wont be heard.

No matter what other views we all have, we also have a common cause in ecigs. But I agree that we will probably not be heard if we remain just a small group and what happens affects only us. That is why we need to change the tactic rather drastically. We need to broaden our scope beyond ecigs.

I have been thinking a bit about this and will try to propose something. But IMHO we need to come up with ways to get more and louder voices.

 

[mnealtx]

Unfortunately with all the extremist groups putting out false information to bend the will of most to simply get more votes to me is wrong but that show no one wants to do there own thinking and research.

And boy, have we seen a LOT of false information being put out...

 

[TropicalBob]

The "cause" we should all support is harm reduction. Not e-cigs. Harm reduction. That encompasses all the healthier-than-cigarettes alternatives pointed out in the Senate by Sen. Burr. The cause is keeping alternatives to quit-or-die, alternatives to expensive and ineffective NRT products pedaled for profit by Big Pharma, which contributes to the antis in health groups that pressure the FDA. That's the cause.

If we try to protect one egg, the fox is going to steal the entire nest.

 

[tromboneking]

Grimmer, yes we vote but we vote (and I'm not talking the local elections and the occasional item on the state-wide elections) for congressmen/women and senators but do they have our best interest? The problem with having a limited number of congressmen/women and senators is that not every voice is heard. I believe that those elected officials don't always choose what the people want. They choose what they want/what works best for their future career. I'm all for the electoral system that the US has and I'm all for the privilege of being able to vote but I do wonder what the officials have in mind when voting on certain issues. This also does not take into account the false information that is put in front of the people that can affect their judgments.

I'm lucky enough to have a GF and some good friends that, despite some of the negative publicity of e-cigs, still stand behind me and e-cgis as a way of reducing the harm to me and those around me. I know that the ECA is a small organization as of right now but isn't there a way that the ECA could speak with and "open the eyes" of a few congressmen/women and senators on the benefits of e-cigs? Despite the recent FDA report (accurate or not), even an elected official should be able to see that e-cigs are healthier than analogs.

Unfortunately attitude changes are slow and Grimmer and those in the military, I'm sure has seen where these kinds of changes don't take place overnight and are difficult to implement.

 

[Sar]

ECA is also very new and definitely not as well funded as the opposition to PVs. But there is urgency for us to move very fast because right now public perception of PVs is being created. It is much more difficult to cause a change when perception is already set.

Also, tobacco industry had lots of time to prepare and invested lots of money. The latest information shows that tobacco has been preparing for FDA regulations changes of all kinds for at least six years already and according to CEO Martin Orlowsky, they made "...huge investments in dealing with this issue on an anticipated basis."

Responding to a question from David Adelman of Morgan Stanley during Lorillard Q2 Earnings call few days ago, Martion Orlowsky, Lorillard CEO said:

"... As far as compliance with FDA, that we have already spent the past six to eight years preparing for the eventuality of FDA regulation and have made a number of changes in our operating environment, in our operations group, the production side, R&D we’ve invested a fair amount of money in systems and procedural changes in anticipation of FDA. So I think that, obviously I don’t know what, literally what those regulations will be, I don’t think the FDA at this point knows what they will be literally, but I don’t believe, unless there’s something radically new introduced into the mix, that we will sustain any substantial charges. As I said, we’ve already made huge investments in dealing with this issue on an anticipated basis."

(from transcript: Lorillard Inc. Q2 Earnings Call Transcript -- Seeking Alpha )

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention that Orlowski has a seat on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee working with FDA to consider public health impact claims. The wolf is guarding the sheep. How does one spell conflict of interest?