Is this a case

This is crap. The motives of the big chunk of modern research are very primitive and short-ranged. For example, what could be the topic of a "research" that would be easy to sell and easy to conduct? Yet another confirmation that SHS is harmful. This is not science, for one because no thinking is involved. It's pure data collection and calculation of a few statistical characteristics. I don't need to be smart, hell, I don't even need to be trained to do such kind of "research".

Of course, if I would be completely stupid I could chose different topic. Say, correlation between cyanides consumption and deaths. Nobody's interested in that. I guess, it's still possible to make a scientific career out of this topic but the standards to meet will be really tough. But these two themes - "SHS is very harmful" and "we all gonna die next year because of global warming" - are easy to sell, get financed and get paid for doing a monkey job.

Ironically both these topics are touching real science. For example, not all data confirm the harm of SHS. Now, that's the problem, which should be investigated. However, that's when I have to be smart, even training is not enough. It's much easier to discard data and to do it again. And when the data is discarded, it's the mortal sin for a statistical analysis. It's more or less allowed when there is real knowledge of what's going on, but when it's pure statistical one will burn in hell for that.

The standards of research are lower and lower even in physics and math. I can only imagine what's going on with other sciences where there is no effective mechanisms to tell lie from truth.

there have long been stories like that...that organizations had done stuff like that...I mean if you are an institution that funds research...there is clearly a point to doing your research...and if it goes the wrong way...you are going to hush it up...and clearly that is what has happened...

I don't know...but regardless...I don't think that it is the governments responsibility...we should be able to chose whether or not to take the risk...and honestly in businesses...well...it is a capitalist market...and some would wind up with smoking and others not...clearly that is a choice and a calculated risk...same with working at a place with or without smoking...

in the end it should be our decision...not the government's.

Cheers,

Josh

I attended a public cookout this noon. It was windy and my pipe was out. It remained in my mouth because my hands were full of drink and food. I Went to a picnic table with a retired man and woman already seated and asked if I could join them, The man did not speak. The woman said "ok, but I'm not sure about that pipe." I responded, "do you see any smoke"? "That's because there is none".

Sometimes I get compliments from ladies, other times I get this crap. The point is, the anti-smoking campaign is so entrenched in people's minds that it doesn't matter if it's good science or bad science.

I have a small insurance agency office and I own it. I smoke at my desk. If I am smoking when a client comes in, I ask if the pipe is a problem for them. No one has ever said yes it is. I generally can sense with most folks and when having to talk a lot I end up taking it out of my mouth anyway.

But, if (when) Wisconsin passes a ban on smoking in any public business, I'll be pissed. And, I'll still smoke unless someone is coming in to see me. And, that's that!

Usually discussions around this kind of questions (government or private capital) are heated. This is because all have opinions while there are no well defined subjects. For example, I look at it from the perspective of comparison of longevity of the society with the business life-span. Someone else may stand at the point of view development vs stagnation and so force. The necessity and usefulness of particular are functions of perspective. Here it goes with plus sign but here it does with the opposite one. Should we wait before the global questions what is the most "correct" point of view are solved? Well, absence of action is also the sort of action and is also evaluated from the same perspectives. In a sense this is the lose-lose situation.

What is sad and what Chris was talking about (and I basically rephrased) is that people don't stand for their principles, probably because of lack of them. Whether it's a private corporation or a government organization. Same dirt everywhere.

Bob. The attitude is all over the place. Even your post one can see the effects of years of social conditioning. You refer to your owned "property" in anti terminology "public business". It may be in use as a place to conduct business with the public but it is your property. This is how they skirt the constitutional aspects of the fifth ammendment.

Enacting a ban curtailing your rights is not friggin' due process. Where is your compensation? How about a Jumbo Jet, think you can handle it and get us all outta here.

BTW: Great Banner

as reported by our infamous Surgeon General, were to be reversed or plainly come into question... The fact is (IMHO) so much damage has been done to the once-perceived acceptance of smoking, that it probably could never recover as an accepted part of society for generations.

Captain Bob,
You touch on something very significant with asking people if they object. Now, no secret I love to smoke a pipe but if any bystanders have significant difficulty with the smoke, I will gladly move somewhere else to accomodate them. Decent people were doing this sort of thing even back when you could smoke wherever you wanted. Like you though, I've never really been called out about it and generally if I ask "is the smoke bothering you?" I'll get the, "No, I don't mind the smell, my grandpa smoked a pipe and the smell reminds me of him" or something similar.

I really don't have much of a problem with one on one courtesy. My point of contention with the anti's is how:
1. They refuse to be swayed by the facts, everyone who uses tobacco needs to quit immediately.
2. Smoking should be outlawed everywhere and if you smoke you are a bastard
3. This idea of, I know we're in a 200 acre park outside with free flowing air but somehow miraculously your second hand smoke is killing everyone within 50 miles of you (see #2 above)

These are the same people who will pity a disfunctional crackhead that steals stuff to support his habit but an honest hardworking man who enjoys and occassional briar full of tobacco, well, that's another issue entirely, we can't even tolerate that. Everything that was ever right is now wrong. I don't know, this just ain't the world I grew up in. You'd expect that statement from an 80 year old man but dammit I'm not even 46 yet.

I wasn't surprised when I read that the truth was being covered up. No big surprise at all sadly. I hate it when folks have an militant agenda. Also hate it when companies go into a 'study' not to find out what the results would be but to prove their preconceptions.

of the replies I can easily draw some parallels in history.

Anti-ism is the same mentality that placed Christians in the Colloseum, imprisoned Galileo, The Father of Science, burned Jean d'Arc at the stake and a half million other witches and gased millions of jews. Persecution of others for beliefs that oppose the moral majority or ruling class are nothing new. While mankind itself has made progress and has taken great strides forward the human species has not evolved at all and those that think otherwise see less than the blind.

Addendum: And those that were persecuted and see so clearly and could lead this race into a better world are all so ... dead.

Sorry my post got bumped below yours.

In regard to Waxing, absolutely - it is thong season.