GeBlack

One last statement. Phillip Morris, in accordance with the out of court settlement was forced, along with the monetary amount, to perform certain community service acts including funding anti-smoking commercials, training, and publicly announcing the delitorious affects of smoking using wording which was provided to them. I know the lack of any direct studies showing a causal relationship between smoking and disease is mostly due to the amount of time that such a study would have to monitor individuals and the lack of true scientific control of other possible disease causing factors which those individuals might encounter during that time. But it does bother me that it is represented as incontrovertible fact. A little like eggs and butter were completely unhealthy for you a few years back, now they are OK. So much for incontrovertible facts. Regardless the disinformation is there. Does the end justify the means? Do scare tactics using false studies put the anti-smoking crowd on the high ground? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, I regret to say that this will be my last post. Please do not reply to me personally in this group as I will not be tracking further messages. I apologize to all for using this group to attain my own personal catharsis, but I do thank those who have kept the coversation going. This was, for me, more an exorcism of pent up anger than anything else. Please remember that smoker's are human and may not be aware of your organizational rules. When approached, tact will go along way in gaining their confidence. They are already being put in a corner by public policy through no fault of their own. EOT

NJCubScouter Your risk analysis scenario while enlightening on a personal level does not fully explain the situation it only rationalizes the reasons for not banning auto usage. You completely avoid any less extreme attempts to lessen fatalities even though there are many ways in which it could be done. I provided you with hard facts showing the danger of automobile usage especially to young adults. Can you show me hard facts showing the danger of exposing children to adults smoking cigarettes, or even scientific studies showing definitive ill effects of second hand smoke? It would seem that with all of the campaigning done to eliminate smoking that there would be some shred of scientific evidence to back up all of the well intentioned masses who claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, and that second hand smoke is as dangerous to others as it is to the smoker. Concerning the issue of smoking and disease, numerous studies have been made and not one has been able to establish a causal relationship between smoking and any disease although many have tried. What does exist is the general belief that this is so which has been fostered by a massive disinformation campaign funded by the federal government and private organizations. The propaganda reached it's zenith during the multi-state lawsuit brought against the tobacco companies. You remember the lawsuit where a group of lawyers made hundreds of millions of dollars and the states got some of it? Never before in US history have legislators (who have had the power to regulate tobacco use) been able to shift blame to a corporate sector, made money from it, and still did nothing about it. A shrewd bit of non-representative taxation since I'm now paying for that state revenue by paying more for tobacco. Not to mention the other nanny taxes which have accompanied this self-righteous movement. In fact, there have been studies which show that smoking could actually prevent some types of cancer, but these have been discounted as unreliable because they did not further the cause. Regarding the accepted belief that second hand smoke is toxic to everyone who is exposed. (which is the founding rally point for anti-smokers since you are free to do as you choose until it affects others) there have been no direct studies showing any ill effects from second hand smoke. The most famous report from the EPA purported to show the ill effects of second hand smoke. The EPA report was compiled from 30 other reports (called a meta-analysis) the results were released before the analysis was finished, and then when they did finish they increased their margin of error so that they could match the figures which they had previously reported. Even given all of that they claimed that 3,000 people a year died from second-hand smoke. Much less than the over 40,000 that die in motor vehicles each year. It is important that if you are going to take a hard stand on an issue that you do the research and find out what the issue is about. Don't just sit in your easy chair and watch the evening news, they only tell you the news you want to hear, how else can they maintain their ratings? Otherwise you can easily become a tool for those who will feed you convenient easily believable information. (See WMD) Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. See what some leading scientists feel about the EPA report. As statistical research goes it is considered smoke and mirrors if not an outright lie. Research the many experiments done to try to link smoking to disease, see what you find. Until then my cold hard facts on motor vehicle fatalities overshadow any imagined dangers of smoking, why aren't we at least attempting to lower these deaths? In the best of my knowledge, none of the information contained above is concocted, embellished or otherwise untruthful. I myself had always believed the prevailing sentiment until recently when I've been under attack constantly from the numerous people who feel they have the right to dictate to me how I should live and raise my family. I then decided to see how many others were out there who felt the same way as I. I have gathered the information from a variety of sources and do realize that some of it may be biased, but considering the number and reliability of the sources I feel that the facts are represented truthfully. If the measure of whether we should eliminate risky behaviors based on the metric of whether they are necessary then there are a lot of activities which people enjoy which should be eliminated due to the risks that they introduce. Parachuting, Bungee Jumping NFL Football, Motorcycles... the list is endless Couldn't we get rid of all of these and just tell people to get their enjoyment somewhere else. It would be easy to do especially for those who have never enjoyed any of these activities. There are no practical benefits to any of these activities which could not be supplanted by less risky more socially acceptable activities.

In order to provide information from alternative sources so that you might get a different perspective on this issue (or in the very least have a better understanding of 'statistics' that are bandied about) I recommend reading Lauren Colby's book at http://www.lcolby.com/pdf/book.pdf'>http://www.lcolby.com/pdf/book.pdf or http://www.lcolby.com/

See the CDC statistics at http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html if you want to see how much of a risk this is to our youth.

How unfortunate that the mitigating factors for not pursuing a ban on motor vehicles be economy and convenience, don't you care at all about the children who die in auto accidents each year. The fact that it is the leading cause of death for persons under the age of 35? Even if you wouldn't support a nationwide ban on autos, maybe the BSA could idealistically lead the way by banning vehicle use at all of it's events. And if people couldn't do without their vehicles, at least keep them out of site from our youth. You don't want to encourage a behavior which leads to the types of pain and suffering brought on by motor vehicles.

I think I've got the next crusade. Let's ban automobiles!! -120 deaths per day in the USA alone are due to automobile accidents -One car produces 2.7 billion cubic yards of poisonous air during its normal life (producing much more respiratory distress than cigarettes) -Car crashes are the number one cause of death in children in North America -29 tons of waste material are created during the construction of a single automobile -There have been more deaths and disfigurement due to car accidents than in the two world wars -The quest for oil and gas results in frequent wars -The quest for rubber for tires has essentially obliterated the worlds rubber trees. Given the facts how could we continue to subject our children to this risk of death. Not only should we not allow our children to drive, but we should abstain from driving ourself. After all, how can we tell them that they can't drive and yet continue driving ourselves.

My sympathies for your loss and the difficulties you are facing. I myself have a 100 y/o grandmother who has alzheimers, never smoked and has required constant care for the last 20 years. Aging, death and disease are not pleasant no matter how they happen. People do not steal their time away from other people, it was never theirs to give, smoking does not guarantee a lingering death from lung cancer or emphysema. You may wake up tomorrow to have a toilet drop on your head. Enjoy the time you are given with the one's you love. Respect their choices even if you do not agree with them. I respect your position but do not agree. Of course I am one of the few who still feels the seat belt law is an infringement upon individual liberties. I have parents and don't need the government or any other organization to continue that role for me.

You chose to use a prison story to parallel the situation which occurred to a paying guest at a scouting event? I guess I'm beginning to see the point of reference which I am up against. My old drill instructor used to call it the my way or the highway mentality, of course he was absolutely in charge so that worked for him. Bob, before the event I was not even aware of the G2SS. I could not have noticed the discrepancy if I was not aware that there were two opposing statements. So I couldn't have asked my unit leader for clarification of a statement which in my eyes was very clear. What is amazing is that this literature was posted well before the event. Why didn't someone correct it out of the 16,000 people who attended the event?

OK, given the G2SS states that you "may not allow" and that this means prohibited. What does it mean when a regional scouting organization states: "We encourage leaders to take one additional step in setting a good example for the youth of our council. Please give serious consideration on taking a weekend break from the use of all tobacco products. Young minds are impressionable and the Scouting youth frequently look to their leaders as role models." (http://ads.omaha.com/sites/boyscouts/jubilee_general.zip, page six) Does this also say prohibit? If not, how do you reconcile the two statements.

dan, You are misinterpreting, but it is apparent that you want to see it that way so I won't try to change your opinion. My 7 y/o son has already progressed beyond the good/bad right/wrong stage. He is already aware that there are multiple viewpoints that are not his own, this does not make those viewpoints wrong. I will continue to foster those ideas as he grows up regardless of the poor examples he may see.

scoutldr, thank you for your addition to the conversation. 1. Alcohol is not allowed in state parks 2. Alcohol consumption is not common in public places (unless you frequent different places than I) 3. You characterization of 'smokers' as litterbugs surely exemplifies your superiority 4. You are a scout leader so you not only are already aware of the G2SS, you have already bought in to it's directions by continued registration as a scout leader. If I'm not mistaken the wording is quite clear on this topic and I have seen no literature put out by a scouting entity which says that Use of Alcohol is discouraged during the event. 5. As a matter of fact we encountered a scout leader who appeared to have taken a few quaffs on the day of the event, I am not a zealot so while it was something which I felt was not 'ideal' I saw no reason to turn him in, if I felt strongly enough about it I would have approached him in a personal 1-1 manner and not called him out in front of everyone. I am not bound by your standards, this was my choice and the choice of the other parents present. Apparently the current effort is towards keeping parents from smoking in front of children, not in keeping leaders sober during events. 6. Interesting that you should use this as your example because I personally feel that alcohol abuse is much more of a problem than tobacco use, although it doesn't get half the press, maybe next crusade. I have witnessed this first hand working in an Alchohol Rehabilitation Center for five years. I'm sure that there are those who think that your very use of alcohol should precipitate your removal, after all should we actually trust our children to someone who advocates the use of mind altering substances. As we say in the computer world - garbage in, garbage out

I apologize for being so relentlesss in my discussion of this issue. The primary purpose of my posts is to encourage that the policy be solidified. I present it here becuse this forum is frequented by those who are within the network to relay my feedback. I neither want condolence of my actions or condemnation of other's actions, although I do appreciate those who are able to see the situation as it was presented. This is not an argument to be won/lost. It was an illustration of the shortcomings of the current policy statement and the problems which can occur because of a lack of a clear policy. Out of the five parents who accompanied our group to the event, none of them were aware of any prohibition. Although most would understand a prohibition if it was stated. Three out of the five parents smoke and were also smoking during the day, but not at the particular time I was confronted. This doesn't make it 'right' but it does illustrate the lack of disseminated information on an issue which has been stated as being the BSA policy for the last five years. Being located near a military base, all the parents were either spouses of military members, prior military members, or active military members who are well acquainted with accepted rules for behavior. All are respectable people who should not be subject to disrespectful treatment due to the inability of BSA to clearly state their position. All love their children and want the best for their children.

No I was not trying to push an agenda, I had been waiting in line for over 40 minutes so my son could participate in the event. I saw no need to excuse myself to a remote location since there had been no statement of prohibition. I stated 'His' to show the overbearing way in which he presented himself, not to imply his ultimate authority for the area. You apparently have not read anything that I have written. Nor are you able to recognize that the information being given to parents concerning the use of tobacco is either non-existant or misleading. You act as if it is a generally known crime to smoke in front of children, it is not. Nor do I believe it should be considered as such. It is part of the world in which we live and until legislated away it is still recognized as completely permissible. I am not a scout leader and am not privy to the dogma of internal workings of the BSA. My only interface to the wishes of the organization are in the literature which is disseminated or vocal communication. I was not given any prior understanding of the BSA's position on smoking other than the event literature and I will not tolerate high-handed attacks by self-important leaders who think that their authority extends beyond positions which have been stated by their superiors. I have dedicated a good portion of my life to preserving the freedoms you enjoy and will not bow to the will of individuals who attempt to take those freedoms away. While you may feel personally that it is 'wrong' to smoke in front of children unless it is backed up by a stated policy, one which is clear and precise, it is only your personal opinion. I believe that body piercing is objectionable and do not want my children exposed to that practice, but I realize it is well within the rights of individuals to have that done, and to display it in public. So instead of attempting to hide the practice from my children, I let them know what my feelings are. I am sick of well meaning and not so well meaning people saying that they are 'doing it for the children' when it is clear they are just beating people over the head with an argument which is impossible to combat. You automatically fall in the category of not caring for children if you attempt to contradict them. The truth of the matter is that children are much more resilient than people believe and sticking their head in the sand does not protect them from ultimately having to deal with the world, it only delays the process and makes them much less prepared when they do confront it.

OK, let me try to bring this back to focus. 1. I was not aware of any 'rule' forbidding smoking in front of scouts. 2. The Mid-America Council event literature did not state any prohibition of smoking in fact the wording was 'discourages' and was directed at scout leaders. 3. As such I was not knowingly breaking a rule, if this is a well known policy then it was the Mid-America Council which was breaking the rule by reducing the prohibition to an advisory discouragement(Bob, take note since you are from the midwest) 4. I question the ethical impact of an adult smoking at a scout event, especially when they are not in a assigned leadership role, since this behavior can be seen anywhere. 5. I agree with the medical impact of second hand smoke, although I feel it is grossly overstated in comparison to other airborn particulates. I do take precautions to avoid sharing my habit with others. 6. The question is not one of good/bad or right/wrong it is of policy. If it is the policy of BSA to disallow smoking at scouting events then that message needs to be consistant and well stated. Not because people are looking for loopholes, simply for consistency in enforcement and so others are not attacked when attending a scouting event with their son. As stated by others the BSA is a private organization and does have the right to establish their own standards. If I feel that those standards are too intolerant then I can either choose not to participate in their activities or I can work to have those policies changed. Given the frenetic political climate of this issue I doubt very seriously that any change could be made when the policy is solidified. But in order to prevent further individual attacks by zealous troop leaders I think it is important that an accepted consistent policy statement be made and globally applied.

No, I am not trying to interpret to fit my personal desires. I'm simply pointing out that if this is an accepted long standing practice that the statement in the event paperwork makes no sense. If smoking around BSA youth has always been prohibited (for at least 5 years), then why the statement encouraging leaders to refrain from smoking for the weekend? I'm also saying that if the message is not being given effectivly then it makes it that much more wrong for righteous leaders to confront parents at an outdoor event. And yes the military does prohibit smoking, and they state that rule very clearly with designation of appropriate places to smoke where applicable. They do not say sometimes we prohibit other times we discourage. You know, when I was a kid scouting. I couldn't tell you if any of our leaders smoked or not. I do remember that some had nasty tempers though. It's amazing what is important to children.