Opportunism

I was disturbed to hear UBP Deputy Leader Michael Dunkley on the radio yesterday morning, urging the Government to capitalise on the death of ABC news anchor Peter Jennings from lung cancer and introduce a ban on smoking in public places.

Why link the two? Peter Jennings didn't die from second-hand smoke. It's even debatable to what extent his cancer was caused by the cigarettes he smoked himself: he gave up 20 years ago (except for a relapse over 9/11).

Using his death to push for a public smoking ban seems just a tad opportunistic.

Comments

[SmokingGun on 10.08.05 at 14:44]

How about a tad insensitive. Maybe a tad inflammatory? Quick, let's invite Christopher Reeves' widow down to lecture all the kids in school just because she's been diagnosed with lung cancer. Oh sorry, she didn't smoke.

Actually it is a very serious subject but I would agree, he could have waited a month or two.

[Ev on 10.08.05 at 15:20]

There are different types of lung cancer. It was reported the type Peter had is caused by smoking in more than 95% of cases. From all the reports too, Peter would be pleased if his name helped stop or prevented anyone from smoking.

[Monkeyman on 10.08.05 at 15:24]

Insensitive? Opportunism?

I call it grasping at straws.

The UBP has not made any major inroads in defineing their so called 'Road Map'. They want public suport and come up with ideas they get from bloggers and what is spoke at the bar at the RBYC,RHADC,etc. Everyone is calling the PLP a bunch of baffoons but lately all the UBP has been doing is what the old school tell them, and they can't seem to get it write through words or deeds.

For the record, I met Peter twice in the past 15 years. What has been said of him is true beyond immagination. Once in DC and once in Turkey. Listen to the words of Dan Rather and Tom Browka, Andrea Mitchell, and all the high profile individuals that knew him. He was a school dropout who cared about other people and proved it to the world. Very few come our way who can attain and sustain such qualities.

As for Dunkley, he's better off making milk products, and stop making Smoke Clouds. He is off base on this one but as usual some have to say something for they have nothing to say.

And for you Smokingun, give it up, it could backfire.

Seriously, Dunkley needs some serious breast feeding and some councelling on his conduct and approach to sensative issues. Smoking is a major contributor to Lung Cancer but there is a very large percentage that this death sentence that have never smoked nor been exposed to heavy intakes of second hand smoke, and that is not a fact for conclusion, or inclusion.

Take care, and have a Bannanafull day.

[Lost in Flatts on 10.08.05 at 15:30]

I agree it was insensitive and poorly timed, but at the same time I do think the issue needs attention. If NY/Ireland/California and many other cities can do it, why can't bermuda?

Monkeyman: That's awesome, what were you doing in Turkey with Peter Jennings? I bet he was really genuine, something that more or less prohibits people from getting into the media (or politics!) these days.

[Monkeyman on 10.08.05 at 15:52]

Flatts, I really can't get into that, Phillip would say it was'off topic' and would piss off BC and Terry. Lets just say, for ALL to know, we, my Wife and I travel a lot for the US Government. We are no Plames but we do what we got to do. In fact, I think I am James Carville's genetic twin.

And so we are back to square one. I smoke two packs a day. I will probably develope this death sentence too, or get hit by a bus, or something but we can cure a lot of things but there is no way we can cure death. I have tried throwing them out the car window, cold/hot turkey/hippotising and all that. It's all part of genetics, some will,some can, some won't. It's big bussiness just like oil. The benefits are unheard of in most everyday firms but when you have a lobby as strong as it is today and all that green stuff, they just don't give a dam. Pork Barrel, ya bet ya and we all get left holding the bag, or just trying to hold on.

Dunkley should be prioritising Bermuda's real true direction instead of trying to gain brownie points which could come back to prick him.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.05 at 16:10]

From all accounts Peter Jennings was a class act.
Given time, just the fact that this person was so well known and respected, many people will think twice about smoking.

[jake on 10.08.05 at 16:34]

Phil,

Did you read the whole article on Peter that you linked?

You have misrepresented two facts:

1. "It's even debatable to what extent his cancer was caused by the cigarettes he smoked himself"

I think the article puts it this way, "According to the American Lung Association, about 87 percent of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, and 40 percent to 50 percent of new cases may occur in former smokers."

Not the same thing, huh?

2. "he gave up 20 years ago (except for a relapse over 9/11)"

That suggests smoking during that time period only. What does the article say?

"Jennings, who was 67 when he died, quit smoking 20 years ago but admitted starting again after 9/11. That might have further damaged lungs that were not yet healed, Brooks said."

So further damage is possible AND the story indicates AFTER 9/11 or 4 years of further smoking - not the same thing as OVER 9/11.

Smoking is serious and will kill people who are emboldened by your less than accurate comments, Phil. Perhaps you might consider that.

[The Limey on 10.08.05 at 17:51]

Jake

I did read the whole thing. Including this bit:

There were likely other factors at play as well.

"We're gambling with other things in the environment or genes or both," Edelman said. "The fact that Jennings smoked for a long period of time increased his risk of getting lung cancer. How much that risk was dissipated by stopping for 20 years I don't know, but it was obviously not entirely."

I agree it's likely his smoking was a cause of his death, but we don't know for sure. Perhaps he was part of that 13% who would have got lung cancer anyway?

As to your second point, Jennings started smoking again after 9/11, but he stopped again soon afterwards, as can be verified here and here.

The second link is actually an ASH press release, issued soon after the announcement of Jennings' death in another crass attempt to further the anti-smoking crusade (and I'm not the only one who thinks so).

I stand by my original comments.

[Monkeyman on 10.08.05 at 18:05]

Typical. Phil you are skirting around the edges. As they say, your covering your ass. You do a job of that. Mabe Jake or Smokinsomething can put up a site.

Come on Phil, put up something and let us nit wits do the research. It all comes out in the wash.

Lets be bloggers, not smoggers.

Dam, I'm going to watch Seseamy/sasamie/somebody Street.

Oh, and another thought, Rodney endorses me. Your worried about a big ship in front of your house? Hell, it aint even yours.

[jake on 10.08.05 at 18:29]

Phil, you are bordering on the ridiculous now.

The ASH say this: "he returned to regular smoking after the terrorist attacks in 2001. He later quit again, a colleague said."

Regular smoking as opposed to "he stopped again soon afterwards" which it does not say.

The man was a smoker and died of lung cancer and you would rather believe that it had nothing to do with it. If your only level of comprehension is "certainty" - however you define it - then what can any of us know?

It is more likely that his early life of smoking heralded his lung cancer, and his return to the habit did not help him.

When you call the anti smoking lobby a crusade, you are only furthering your own agenda which is to appear insightful.

It is dumb really, but be my guest. Tell more people that smoking won't cause them cancer, or that those who tell them that it will are being over the top. We should just let all those smokers and potential smokers die from a product proven to kill and designed to be addictive.

I am sure they and their loved ones will thank you for it in the long run.

[The Limey on 10.08.05 at 18:54]

Jake

You're misrepresenting me.

The wikipedia link says "briefly".

I did not say that his smoking had "nothing to do with it". I said "I agree it's likely his smoking was a cause of his death". I agree his return to the habit probably didn't help him. But I don't know for sure. Perhaps you can point me in the direction of an article that says categorically that it was smoking that killed him?

Smoking doesn't inevitably cause cancer. It increases the risk. Increases it by a lot, granted. But it doesn't inevitably cause it. If it did, every smoker would die of cancer and that's simply not the case. As the article said, genetics and environment also play a part.

When you say "we should just let all those smokers and potential smokers die from a product proven to kill and designed to be addictive" you're revealing nannyish tendencies which seem common among anti-smoking campaigners. Smokers know that their risk of death is significantly increased by smoking. They're not dumb. To suggest that they need society to protect them from their habit is patronising. They just need to make the effort to give up. Plenty of people have succeeded and there's plenty of assistance available to help them do so.

But my core point remains this: Peter Jennings' death was not caused by passive smoking. It was (probably) caused by smoking. If you want to ban something, why then aren't you pressing for cigarettes themselves to be banned? That would certainly be a better way to protect people from themselves than just stopping them from smoking in public.

[ace on 10.08.05 at 19:48]

I'm not posting in this thread until CB does....

oooops

[Bill Cook on 10.08.05 at 19:54]

Guns dont kill people people do.
The same bullshit applies to all asshole apologists who try to whitewash one of the deadliest habits in the history of humanity.
The deaths resulting by smoking exceed the plague those rats equal the rats who profit by dealing in death.
I question the moral integrity and possibly the sanity of anyone who can in any shape form or manner do anything than condemn utterly the tobacca business or lend any support direct or indirectly
For those unmitagated bastards who are or represent the industry I am sure that the Devil will reserve a unique place in Hell for them and if they have not gone already their departure is already long overdue.

[SmokingGun on 10.08.05 at 19:58]

Eloquently put Bill, but what do you really think about them?

[Monkeyman on 10.08.05 at 20:32]

Bill, I know what you think of them, I took my blinders off.
Now that is Readers Digest/New York Times Material. Hurray.

Great wording.

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 10.08.05 at 21:05]

He got mixed up again when the mike was placed infront of him without a prepared written piece...D'ont think Peter was offended though...so Who is perfect out there? Maybe big G...but even some of his work with fate really confuses this ant..Anyway I'm sure Peter would of loved more time...You lot seem to have some still ...so dont waste it on judging others to harshly...better just make your own calls!!! Later

[jake on 10.08.05 at 21:45]

"Perhaps you can point me in the direction of an article that says categorically that it was smoking that killed him?"

Come on Phil. Are you seriously suggesting that if an internet article says categorically that he was killed by his smoking or second hand smoking you will accept it?

Nannyish? Is that a standard that all laws should be judged by? What about the monkeys that have the lighters and the baygon. Should we turn a blind eye to that as well?

My opinion is that smoking is a bad habit. I have had my share of cigars and the odd cigarette, but I also recognize that it is a dumb habit that needs no protection. If people want to use Peter Jennings to prevent a few deaths I am all for it. Ban smoking in public places - all for it.

I remember when International business was like a smoking club. Coming home from the office smelling like an ashtry. No one would dare light up inside now.

The balance - smoke em' if you want to, but do so outside and in the face of every campaign we can foster which tries to get you to stop it.

[Phil on 10.08.05 at 23:19]

jake - "Are you seriously suggesting that if an internet article says categorically that he was killed by his smoking or second hand smoking you will accept it?". Try me.

I'm 100% with you when you say that smoking is a bad habit. We just differ in what we think the Government should do about it.

[Bandit on 11.08.05 at 05:50]

Very sad that Peter died of lung cancer. Regardless of 2001, the irreparable damage he did in the early years of smoking, along with the certainty of some passive smoking has taken it's toll.

Someone above mentioned the bans in NY, CA and Ireland. Those are the tip of th iceberg. Several other European countries (including Italy) also have bans, even France (king of smokers) is currently considereing it. Several other US states (e.g. Vermont) also have bans in place and have had for a long time.

However, I think there is an hypocricy whereby Michael Dunkley will call for a ban like this and then jump into his carbon monoxide maker and drive home, along with all of his supporters.

[Bill Cook on 11.08.05 at 07:11]

Bandit

Thats great news.

You mean that Dunkley is Car-Pooling his supporters ?

I'm one of them and I'll moth ball my ancient jalopy and jump on the band-wagon too !

[Bandit on 11.08.05 at 07:59]

Not quite what I meant but...

[CB on 11.08.05 at 11:06]

At least Michael's carbon monoxide maker will be outside - not in a public building. You see, C02 is a poison so nobody would ever let it be distributed indoors. That would be plain foolish. I'm sure that even in the IOM you don't allow TT motorcycles in bars right?
The risk of poisoning people would be considered too high.

Now smoking - ah well its the smokers right blah blah....drool.

[H Reardon on 11.08.05 at 11:32]

Limey,

Well said. This is akin to lowering the legal blood alcohol level to 0.06 after a drunk at 0.50 kills a family. There is no causal relationship.

Peter Jennings' death and a ban in public places have nothing to do with one another.

[SmokingGun on 11.08.05 at 11:32]

"What about the monkeys that have the lighters and the baygon. Should we turn a blind eye to that as well?" Posted by Jake

"The risk of poisoning people would be considered too high." Posted by CB

Well allright then. If the dumb-asses don't blow your head off they still get to spray roach killer all over you. Can't wait till the next BermyNet party, I'm bringing my fire-extinguisher. Anybody want to join me?

Baygon's be Bye-Gones!!

[Bandit on 11.08.05 at 11:34]

Christ, who woke him up? Nothing worse than an ex-smoker is there CB?

I agree with you though!

They tried a no smoking pub over here for a couple of months and it failed to make as much money as it did when it was a smoking pub. However, food sales were up over 100% and wine sales (by the bottle) had increased dramatically. Unfortunately, not quickly enough for the bean counters though. I went in a couple of times and it was lovely and clean. The tables were not sticky like in regular bars.

Funny though it went back to being a smoking pub and now they no longer serv food and have stopped selling wine by the bottle.

[Monkeyman on 11.08.05 at 11:49]

Bandit, Brilliant. You must be related to Greenspan. Thers money in booze, not in food. Suppppermakets sell food. Gas stations sell gas. Anyone remember the song 'Money, Money, MONEY. Sing it to yourself, then go outside stand next to the bus, have a beer, through your butt on the ground and take the wheelchair back to your closet.

[Bandit on 11.08.05 at 11:58]

You totally missed the point, are you pissed already?

The point was that the whole role of the establishment was gradually changing and peoples attiture to the place was changing. Had they given it more time it would almost cetainly have made more money than as a smoking pub. The mark up (profit) on a bottle of wine in gigantic to the mark up on beer etc. Even a cheap bottle was marked up by the cost of 2-3 pints

[CB on 11.08.05 at 12:00]

I neglected to say - yes Dunkley's relating Jenning's death to our no smoking thing was at best a stretch.

[Bill Cook on 11.08.05 at 12:40]

Bandit,

To the best of my knowledge the overwhelming results would indicate that establishments that have banned smoking have seen their profits go up.

This even in Ireland and New York etc.which I never would have believed possible !

Restuarants I could understand but never would have thought pubs.

It will take time to see how all of this affects the sale of tobacca and public health.

As a supporter of Euthanasia I would support hermetically sealed areas for smokers such as the very nice glass enclosed domes at the Singapore airport, where smokers can sit with fellow smokers,while their fellow travellers can watch thru the glass as a form of entertainment while waiting for their boarding call.

[Marlboro Man on 11.08.05 at 14:16]

Bandit,
You remarked about the non-smoking bar that "the tables were not as sticky as regular bars".
I hope you are not suggesting that all smoking bars have sticky tables because of smoke.

[Onion on 11.08.05 at 16:36]

Barabara Bel Geddes or Miss Ellie Ewing (Jr's mom) on Dallas, just died at 82. She was a long-time smoker. She had such a lovely smile.

[Bill Cook on 11.08.05 at 17:26]

Onion,

She had a nice smile but had to compete with Grace Kelly for Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window.

Miss Kitty from Gunsmoke died from cancer and was a heavy smoker also the Female in Ironsides.

So many Film Stars Bogie Wayne etc. died from cancer of lungs.

Ironic Barbara played JRs mother as were almost same age like Laurence Harveys mother in Manchurian Candidate was actually younger ! Angela Lansbury.
Happily still with us.

[Ethiops on 15.09.05 at 21:54]

People that smoke cigerettes in public should be taxed up to $1000.00 in fines and not be allowed to go to america. Why not? I can't walk down front street with a big ass spliff hanging from my chops, why should they able to smoke their stinking, dirty, nasty cancer sticks that pollute all air around the smoker?
Sometimes you go into bars the cig smoke is so thick its sickening.

Dunkley does need to stick to making milk before someone brings up the issue of how pathetic pasturized milk is for human consumption.

[Uncle Elvis on 16.09.05 at 01:06]

Yes, that's right. Because one thing is illegal, the other should be.

For someone that doesn't use marijuana, I'm a very big proponent for the decriminalization. I believe that it is a victimless crime and locking people up for it is ridiculous.

Having said that, PLEASE stop likening cigarettes to pot.

I AM against the use of illegal drugs because, well, they're illegal!

If you don't like that fact, stop bitching and do something about it! Start a petition, talk to lawyers, anything.
DO something!
Organizing Pot Marches with a bunch of people too stoned to show up? Not the best idea.
Beat the system by playing its own game.
Figure out a way to do it and do it, or at least try!
I'm getting sick of people whingeing about the fact that marijuana is illegal... and that's it.
Get off your butt and do something, or keep it down.

What's the phrase?
Put your money where your mouth is.

As for the smoking ban, we've all had this discussion before, on this very site.

Personally, we should all get used to butt filled sidewalks outside of every bar because, as this story shows, the Smoking Ban people will stop at nothing to have their way. Lies, opportunism, misleading, stretching the truth, ignoring the truth, scare tactics... don't matter, they'll do it.
So let 'em. You know we can't stop them because they have the moral high ground.
Smoking's bad for you. We all know this.
Second hand smoke? Not so much.
No proof, but that don't stop them.

So we just gotta get used to it and be ready for cigarette butts outside, all over the place, 'cuz, oh yeah, there ain't gonna be any ashtrays out on the sidewalk and the bar sure isn't gonna clean up after us smokers, so...

I just think it's ridiculous. You don't like smoke? Don't go to the bar!
I don't like fish, so you don't see me sitting at the sushi bar, bitching and complaining that they should make it a law that they should sell a big, fat steak, do you?
I don't drink, either. Hmm... maybe the bars shouldn't be allowed to sell that poison... yeah!
Alcohol kills, too! Let's ban that!

Ah, well... whatcha gonna do?

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 16.09.05 at 07:25]

All drugs should be legal. Anything short of that is a waste of time.Legalize and regulate..end of story.

[SmokingGun on 25.04.06 at 14:10]

A Quebec company is producing a cigarette it claims does not stain teeth, has less of an odour than regular brands and contains beneficial ingredients like vitamin C. Called the “VitaCig,” it was invented by non-smoker Roger Ouellette for his wife, who has smoked a pack of cigarettes every day since the age of 14. “We give you all the vitamins you lose, plus some vitamins to help you,” he told CTV News.

Smells like another great invention destined to go up in smoke.... :-!