“torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments”

Nice try, Gadphli.
Indeed, we should be thankful to an intellectual giant such as yourself for highlighting the rules of inference (Puhhhh-leeeez!). Judging by the tone of your posts, you seem to be a shallow thinker very much in the eugenics tradition, e.g., “god complex” – delusions of grandeur, delusions of omniscience, delusions of benevolence. You conjure up “hypotheticals” that blur the issue at hand. Other posters have well picked-up on the pomposity of your poorly-informed opinions.

Are you questioning that antismoking is an aspect of the eugenics framework? Then you’d be wrong. Are you questioning that “nicotine addiction” is a concocted concept serving an ideological goal? Then you’d be wrong. Are you questioning that there are also financial ties to the “nicotine addiction” myth? Then you’d be wrong. Are you questioning that the medical establishment can become a dangerous entity when it ventures into social engineering? Then you’d be wrong – again. You’re very much demonstrating the proclivity of the tyrannically disposed – they are quickly offended by the tyrannical tag.

Gadphli, you’d do well to read the supplied information, although I doubt you’d comprehend its implications. Do you know what bigotry is? Do you know what manifestations of bigotry in the medical establishment look like? Do you know that bigotry is mentally dysfunctional? It addles the thinking: Fanatics don’t think straight, particularly concerning the objects of their bigotry. To use one of your terms, you’re suffering a “pathological coping mechanism(s)”. You’re stuck in a superficial, bigoted thinking and pathologically protecting it as well. In this dysfunctional state can you haughtily declare that all should be made to fit your delusional template for “proper functioning”. Has it ever dawned on you that your antismoking bigotry can compromise the standard of care that you provide those who smoke? This would be antithetical to the ideals of medical care.

Rhys Jones has put it well: “However, the only restrictions that should be applied are those that are clinically necessary. Any extra infringement of their liberty is unjustified.”

Gadphli,
You’re making quite a number of erratic claims. Why do you liken tobacco to alcohol? They are not alike at all. Why do you liken tobacco to illicit drugs? They are not alike at all. Tobacco isn’t even remotely similar to some of the highly potent, consciousness-altering pharmaceuticals that are administered to patients. You even suggest that those who would permit tobacco would also be bound to permit alcohol and illicit drugs!

Then you claim that there should be a “right to a smokefree environment”. Where did this “right” come from – the wishing well at the Castle of Fantasy? The bulk of what is in tobacco smoke is already in the air generally. It is also the same in other forms of smoke, e.g., cooking, heating, candle. And there is no evidence that these constitute any physical harm as they are typically encountered, particularly outdoors. There is evidence, however, that there are now some that are suffering neurotic tendencies, e.g., anxiety reactions, hypochondria, somatization. Antismoking propaganda has manufactured secondhand smoke (SHS) into a bio-weapon-like phenomenon, extraordinarily different to anything else on earth. Those that have lapped up this propaganda are now in irrational belief and fear concerning SHS, hyper-reacting to it as if it was sarin gas. They are the hand-wavers and hand-to-mouthers at the prospect of a whiff of SHS, utterly convinced that a whiff of SHS will drop them dead on the spot. Unfortunately, their neurosis has been promoted by the medical establishment. These neurotics act like a cult whose primary belief is to avoid any SHS exposure and a “right” to a smokefree environment. And officialdom accommodates and reinforces their delusion because this is the primary means to the eugenics smokefree “utopia”.

If that wasn’t enough, you then invoke a contortion of the utilitarian idea of the greatest good for the greatest number. But “greatest good” according to whom? If we used your version, it would be based on incoherent analogies and neurosis.

It would easy to accommodate those who smoke; they were being accommodated for the better part of the last century until the current antismoking crusade took hold in the 1990s. The intent now is to offer no accommodation to smokers whatsoever. Not indoors, not outdoors. This has nothing to do with “protecting” nonsmokers. It is ideologically motivated. It is the attempt, through removing smoking-permitted areas, to “help” (i.e., coerce) those who smoke into [nonsmoking] conformity.

There is NO evidence of harm from outdoor SHS exposure. It may come as a shock to many that there is no evidence indicating harm from SHS *indoors*.

The bulk of the secondhand smoke “research” has been produced by America. There are many groups, e.g., EPA, Office of the Surgeon General, that have gone to great lengths to promote the idea of SHS “harm” indoors. Such groups have been committed, ideologically [eugenics], to a smokefree society since the 1960s, long before any research on SHS, as has the World Health Organization. They are peddling an ideological agenda. Also not recognized is that such groups are advisory organizations, not regulatory ones. They can essentially say whatever they want, however outlandish, because no-one is compelled to pay any attention to anything they claim. This is their legal defense. There was an attempt to bully the actual [Federal] regulatory authority governing indoor air quality – OSHA – into declaring SHS an indoor hazard. OSHA spent a decade – from early-1990s to early-2000s – scrutinizing the available evidence (see Godber/WHO Blueprint www.rampant-antismoking.com ). Although it had an antismoking leaning and there were initially antismokers on the review panel, OSHA finally concluded that it did not consider typical encounters with SHS indoors as hazardous. The only American *regulatory* authority does not view indoor exposure – let alone outdoor – as problematic. This is why there is no Federal indoor smoking ban in the USA. Unfortunately, most governments around the world have bought into the claims of American advisory groups (and their ideological agenda), committed themselves to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and entirely disregarded the important regulatory authority.

Dreamon,

The point is not mute. As you say so yourself, your example only applies to one facility. Unfortunately since the Richmond report, the push has been to close down larger facilities with sprawling grounds in favour of wings or wards attached to general public hospitals. These often have very little in the way of outdoor areas.

Dooey

In regards to my hypothetical I would follow the guidelines set out below.

Flowchart for Managing Nicotine Dependent MENTAL HEALTH & PEC (Psychiatric Emergency Centre) Patients

http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/49948/Flowchart_-_Nicotine_Dependent_MENTAL_HEALTH__and__PEC_Patients.pdf

Nurse Initiated Medicine Protocol Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT)Mental Health Facilities & Psychiatric Emergency Centres (PEC) (July 2008 / Version 1)

http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/49952/Nurse_Initiated_Medicine_Protocol_for_NRT_-_Mental_Health.pdf

Smoke-Free Mental Health Facilities in NSW - Guidance for Implementing

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/gl/2009/pdf/GL2009_014.pdf

This is not an attempt at a Gish gallop. I have just added the 2nd and 3rd links for people’s interest and reference.

Dooey,

You are right, no one else is held against their will. That is why they are provided NRT for free whilst they are admitted and given three days supply of NRT on discharge.

Please remember that these are health care facilities we are talking about here. Nurses are there to provide health care not be smoking supervisors. The harm minimisation approach calls for NRT.

There is a will for health facilities to be smoke free environments and we have found a way.

Rhys Jones

I agree, links have been attributed between alcohol intoxication and violence. But what if a patient is not intoxicated? Would you advocate their legal right to drink under controlled conditions, say under 0.05 or even one standard drink a day the same way you advocate their legal right to smoke?

Both are legal, where is the line?

I raise the issue of drugs and alcohol because we have to base our policies on principles. I am interested in why people draw a line against alcohol (even healthy use) on one side but accept smoking on the other.

James08

I think you aptly titled your dissertation
“torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments”

But could have added in the title “and other logical fallacies”

Hasbeen

Hello??

Gadphli,
You enquire whether I would advocate an involuntary patient being able to consume alcohol at minimal levels. Yes I would. For example having a beer with dinner would do little harm to themselves or anyone else.
In fact, at a hospital I worked at we gave out mid-strength beer to the patients on the locked ward on Christmas day. I believe that this act really enabled the patients to feel that they were able to celebrate Christmas as every other Australian does and it did not create any problems. The principle according to the mental health act is "the least restrictions on their rights and freedoms. Any arbitrary restriction not justified by clinical need is unacceptable in my opinion.

Rhys Jones,

I agree with your last post.

I see a difference in that there is a lot of evidence to show that alcohol in small amounts has health benefits.

Whereas every cigarette is doing harm and every cigarette you don’t smoke is doing you good.

As a mental health nurse you would be aware of the broader issues that smoking causes in mental health facilities.

Patients often do not have the self control to self manage their cigarette intake.

How and who do you propose controls the supply and intake of the cigarettes?

We used to have a wooden box with everyone’s cigarettes and lighters that we were expected to bring out to the courtyard on a regular basis.

Some staff would even pitch in and buy a communal packet for people that had just been admitted or had run out. I don’t see this as a role or responsibility for any ethical health professional. I know that I highly resented being made responsible for the supply and management of cigarettes.

When lazy staff gave patients a cigarette from their own supply, it created a rod for the back of all other staff and provided an opportunity for staff splitting.

When people were given responsibility for their own cigarettes; People would often chain smoke until they ran out. Then they would harass staff and other patients for cigarettes. Some desperate smokers were violent or threatened violence and used other forms of manipulation. Some offered people sexual favours to get cigarettes.

I concluded that the best solution would be to remove cigarettes from the environment. This would remove cigarettes as a commodity. It would encourage patients to find and develop healthier coping mechanisms and provide staff and other patients with a smoke free environment.

I appreciate that you have a dog in this fight and hope you appreciate that I do too. I have valued all your posts and the integrity of your arguments. Could you please reference the studies mentioning that being 2.7m away from the smoker, there are no detectable amounts in the air? It would be appreciated.