Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree7Likes
  • 2 Post By Old Dog
  • 1 Post By Old Dog
  • 2 Post By T7x
  • 1 Post By Old Dog
  • 1 Post By Old Dog

Thread: The ANTZ are everywhere

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656

    The ANTZ are everywhere

    UCSF this month adopted its long-anticipated "100-Percent Tobacco Free at Work" policy. There won't be any smoking areas or ashtrays anymore; no one can light up or chew tobacco on campus property. That's par for the course. But UCSF's prohibition goes further indefinitely further: "This policy covers all employees or students on all UCSF owned or leased property as well as any off campus locations where work time or breaks may occur" (emphasis ours). Per this language, all workers or students would be proscribed from using tobacco, even on breaks taken on land not controlled by UCSF. In fact, it would prevent someone from smoking during lunch while working from his own home or driving in her own car.

    Queries to UCSF asking, specifically, how the institution plans to regulate workers' legal behaviors during their personal time off-campus led, bizarrely, to university personnel requesting that esteemed tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz contact SF Weekly. His work on tobacco control policies and the deleterious effects of smoking are legion but, he admits, "I'm not a lawyer," and can't address these issues.
    Butt Out: U.C. San Francisco's New Anti-Smoking Policy Follows Workers Everywhere - Page 1 - News - San Francisco - SF Weekly
    Rose and spud like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    Nicotine test not valid proof of smoking.

    A problem arises with a company’s having a hiring policy that disqualifies smokers on the basis of a nicotine test because the applicant might be an e-cigarette or smokeless-tobacco user.

    “Considering that 99 percent of all disease and death caused by tobacco is caused by inhaling smoke from cigarettes, punishing people who are using smoke free nicotine products—including Nicotine Replacement Therapy—is patently absurd,” said Conley.
    Nicotine test not valid proof of smoking : Tobacco Reporter
    spud likes this.

  3. #3
    T7x
    T7x is offline
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    1,319
    How could he be a lawyer when he's a full-time twat :s.
    spud and Cumulonimbus like this.
    Do you know de way 👺

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    The anti-smoking ‘truth regime’ that cannot be questioned.


    Two new books expose how epidemiology has been used as a tool of propaganda in the war on tobacco – and woe betide anyone who tries to inject some real facts into the debate.

    ‘Silencing is based on intimidation, as partisans employ a strident tone full of sarcasm and moral indignation. There are elements of an authoritarian cult involved here: uphold the truth that secondhand smoke kills or else!’

    Their conclusion was that ‘public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a truth regime that cannot be intelligibly questioned’. The result of what Kabat dubs ‘the new McCarthyism in science’ is that epidemiology is reduced to propaganda.

    In his fascinating history of anti-smoking, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, Christopher Snowdon (who was previously interviewed for the spiked review of books here) provides the wider context for the witch-hunt against Kabat and Enstrom. He shows how the campaign against passive smoking took off in the 1970s, long before the first studies that claimed to show its ill-effects. An early campaigner’s statement that ‘we were just waiting for science to tell us what we already knew’ accurately reveals the subordinate role of science in the anti-tobacco cause. Snowdon also shows that the campaign against passive smoking has grown more strident and more influential in inverse proportion to the scientific evidence. Though large studies in the 1990s had shown all ‘those who had eyes to see that the passive smoking theory had unravelled’, the anti-smoking bandwagon rolled on regardless.

    Snowdon provides entertaining examples of the preposterous claims of anti-smoking campaigners – some suggesting that passive smoking causes diseases (such as breast cancer) that have never been linked to active smoking. From Helena, Montana to Glasgow, Scotland, campaigners have claimed dramatic falls in mortality following the introduction of smoking bans – claims that disintegrate under the slightest scrutiny (which they rarely receive from a cravenly ‘on-message’ media). More objective reports suggest increases in levels of smoking, particularly among young people, since the introduction of bans.

    Snowdon quotes a recent editorial in the New Scientist, which suggests that the anti-smoking campaign may have reached some sort of limit. Commenting on the promotion of the concept of ‘third-hand smoke’ – the notion that toxic residues in the form of particulates can be transmitted from a victim of passive smoking to a third party (and hence justifying bans on smoking in the home as well as in the workplace) – campaigners were accused of ‘distorting the facts to make their case’. The editorial concluded that ‘using bad science can never be justified, even in the pursuit of a noble cause’. Yet, as Snowdon observes, the ‘real message’ that emerges from his study is that ‘government health agencies could no longer be trusted to provide accurate medical advice and were now wilfully misleading the public in an effort to manipulate behaviour’. This is the real damage done to public health by its embrace of the cynical moralism of the anti-smoking crusaders.
    The anti-smoking ‘truth regime’ that cannot be questioned | Dr Michael Fitzpatrick | spiked
    spud likes this.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    Cigarettes in 'Rush': people smoked in the 1970s. Anti-smokers should get over it.

    Not content with having helped to ban smoking in public places in pretty much the entire Western world, anti-smoking activists now want to go all ‘1984’ on cultural depictions of the past and stub out any mention of yesteryear’s smoking habits. So in the US, various tobacco-obsessed health groups called on Universal, distributors of Rush, to ensure that the trailer for the movie contained no images of tobacco brands – which would have made it virtually impossible to advertise the film given that in all the scenes showing speeding cars the word “Marlboro” can clearly be seen.

    The protesting groups said they’re keen to “monitor smoking in movies” in order to protect impressionable young people from being exposed to images of ciggies, and in the process “save young lives from the needless death and disease that is associated with tobacco use”. In short, Rush’s faithful depiction of what F1 was like in the 1970s could directly lead to kids dying. This is ugly emotional blackmail designed to shame movie-makers into censoring cigarettes and even into rewriting history

    There’s a strong whiff of Stalinist airbrushing to these demands that even historical movies should refrain from showing too much smoking. Just as surely as Stalin rewrote the past by scrubbing from old photos one-time comrades he had since fallen out with, so anti-smoking activists seem keen to rewrite history to pretend that people didn’t smoke copiously and publicly in the past, when in fact they did. Such is the anti-smoking lobby’s Orwellian urge to scrub inconvenient facts from history that in recent years everything from very old Tom & Jerry cartoons to images of Winston Churchill have been physically doctored to remove cigarettes or cigars. In America, an image of Jackson Pollock with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth (he was a chain smoker) had said cigarette erased before being put on a commemorative stamp.

    That we can so casually rewrite the past is shocking. It also exposes the authoritarian, borderline Stalinist urges that motor today’s moral crusade against smoking, which presents itself as a simple health campaign but is looking more and more like an effort to control not only what people puff on but also what they look at, what they think, and even their access to historical materials and to historical truth itself.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/br...d-get-over-it/
    spud likes this.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 04:14 PM.