Smoking Gets Even Tougher in New York City...

I guess I am having an unhealthy night...

New York City under the guidance of Mayor Michael Bloomberg banned smoking in bars, restaurants, and other public indoor areas way back in 2002 (has he been in the big seat that long already?). This caused a little bit of a public outcry about the trampling of smoker's rights. However, that has seemingly passed. Nevertheless, it has taken the Bloomberg administration a very long time to become emboldened enough to take the next step and ban smoking in open public spaces.

Bloomberg has signed a law that bans smoking in all city parks, beaches, public plazas and boardwalks. If you get caught smoking in any of these places once the law comes into full force and effect, in about 90 days, there is a USD 50 fine. I am a non-smoker, so in the big scheme of things a ban of this nature bothers me nought. Yet, the reasoning for the ban is to protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking. Now, I am sure most people can appreciate that passive smoking or being forced to suck-up the second-hand smoke from a smoker's cigarette in a confined space like a bar or restaurant is considerably different from smoking in a large open space like a beach.

I am no scientist, or chemist for that matter, but is second-hand smoke in a large public place a serious threat to non-smokers? On a slightly different tangent. Where are smokers going to be able to light up their cancer sticks and take the years off their collective lives?

After all, if I am not mistaken, tobacco is a legal product and those who wish to indulge in the habit are, and must be, allowed to do so. So, I wonder, where does Mayor Bloomberg and his health-conscious pencil-pushing tobacco banners proposing that cigarette smokers go to feed their nicotine cravings? Is the expectation that smoking becomes an exclusively home-based activity? Then again, perhaps the next smoking law will ban smoking in all private homes where their are children present.

I have always been intrigued by the argument that smoking is a human right and that restricting where it can occur is tantamount to violating the civil liberties of smokers. I am not quite sure where the balance is for those who do not smoke. So, do the human rights of smokers trump the human rights of non-smokers?

Considering, the ongoing onslaught against smokers to reduce the places where they can indulge, perhaps the answer is to take the plunge and go the whole nine yards; make smoking illegal, make tobacco illegal.

The Battle of the Bracelets...

Live Strong vs. Power Balance...

I don't know about you, but I am happy to wear a "Live Strong" bracelet. I actually feel pretty good wearing it too. And, what's more, I was not fleeced AUD 60 for something of questionable science. At least I know my bracelet contribution, for the most part, is going to a good cause, the Lance Armstrong Foundation. I am all for finding a cure for cancer.

Has Obama Quit Smoking?

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, has said he has not seen the "Boss" on the cancer sticks for some nine months. However, he knows that the smoking habit (or addiction) is one that the President struggles with on a  daily basis. Yet, there has been some suggestion that Obama has gone "cold turkey" and no longer smokes. Let's face it, if the man was not smoking, he would surely be drinking, right?

But, in all seriousness, good luck to the man. He will be much better for it, if he has indeed pulled the plug and ceased to ingest the toxins that are cigarettes.

I am wondering whether the commander-in-chief quitting the smoking habit is going to have any direct impact on others? Will people take the Obama worship stuff to the level that they will quit too? Conversely, will Republican and Tea Party types start smoking just to prove how anti-Obama they really are?

The mind boggles.

I have never been a smoker. But, I am in support of laws and regulations that restrict where the habit can occur in public places. If smokers want to smoke and kill themselves in the process,then I am fine with that. If they want to argue that they have a human right to kill themselves with tobacco,then I am fine with that. But, if they want to invade my space with nasty cancer-causing fumes, then they are invading and violating my basic human right to life, and that is something they must be restricted from doing.

However, if I am stupid enough to go to a place where smoking is still permitted, legally, such as just about anywhere in Indonesia (although there are regulations in place to protect public facilities, but enforcement is slack), and ingest those nasty fumes then that is a personal choice of mine and the consequences are ones that I must live with.

So, what does the 'big man' say? Well, Obama acknowledges that it is a struggle and that it is one where he has fallen off the wagon on occasion. But, he is not a daily smoker. Giving credit where credit is due. That, sir, is a good start.

The images, if you are wondering, are pulled from the internet. Speaking of which, it would seem that the first two images are mirror reversed and one of them has been photoshopped. Iwill leave it to the experts to work out which one! The last one is really just to suggest that smoking is really like rolling up your own cash and burning it...priceless or pointless?

Patrick Swayze -- Rest In Peace...

He might be remembered as much for the movies that did not do well as for the two films that made him a household name, Dirty Dancing and Ghost. However, I actually remember him in the North and South televisions mini-series. This is probably because I read the books by John Jakes.

Patrick Wayne Swayze lost his battle with pancreatic cancer on Monday. He was 57.

May he rest in peace.

Prostate Cancer

For those of you wanting to protect the family jewels then it seems a recent study out of the United Kingdom might provide the answer. Researchers from the Institute of Food Research in Norwich have confirmed that broccoli (photo courtesy of Jennifer Soo) has some benefits in protecting men from developing prostate cancer and may even slow down tumour growth in those that have developed them. Now this is not a series of results from lab rats but from human guinea pigs who were fed either broccoli or peas over the course of a year.

For those of you who are not big broccoli eaters, then there is no real need to fear as the results indicate that as little as one serving a week gives the desired results. Despite the positives, the researchers were quick to point out that there was still much work to be done in determining whether a broccoli regime would work for everyone or only the select few.

The results were verified through the taking of tissue samples from the prostate glands of the participants before and during the trial. What the tissue samples showed was broccoli changed how genes linked to prostate cancer act.

However, like any study that publishes its results there will always be a wet blanket that wants to rain on the parade. In this case it is the Cancer Council Australia and their Chief Executive, Professor Ian Olver, who went so far as to say that the results were only interesting. This is a far cry from "promising". Nevertheless, Olver did not dismiss the results out of hand but indicated that larger studies were required to prove the benefits claimed in this 'small' study.

Now, Dr Michael Fenech, the Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO Human Nutrition lab, added that as yet there are no studies that show how broccoli consumption affected levels of PSA, the main biomarker of prostate cancer risk.

The good Dr Fenech then went on to say that "There is also little direct evidence to suggest that eating more broccoli protects you against prostate cancer if you are susceptible due to any genetic or environmental factor".

When it is all said and done, I am a broccoli eater. So, here is to hoping that the munching of all that broccoli has done its job in providing that little bit extra protection to the family jewels.

Cigarette Money

This is for all you smokers out there!

Patrick Swayze

I am sure people are somewhat confused when they drop by this blog and see that it is a little about nothing and a lot about all things. This was the point in starting the blog in the first place; somewhere to store random thoughts and musings about anything in my sphere of existence that interested or intrigued me.

Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer at the beginning of this year. Any sentence that includes cancer and advanced is not a sentence you want to hear. At the time, news reports were suggesting that the actor had mere weeks to live. However, as we head towards the end of May the bloke is battling on. The prognosis is still not good apparently, but as with anything else and irrespective of whether you are sick or not, you take each day as it comes and live that day.

Swayze is always likely to be most remembered for his starring roles in the film Ghost and Dirty Dancing. However, I always remember him in the mini-series North and South which was the film adaption of John Jakes' book (actually a trilogy). This is probably because I am into historical fiction and have a fascination with the US Civil War (that is another post though).

Anyway, Swayze and his wife, Lisa Niemi are scheduled to celebrate their 33rd wedding anniversary on 12 June. Here is hoping that he makes it to then. Nevertheless, friends of Swayze are reportedly saying that there is not much time left in this world for him and that doctors are saying that despite the treatment regime, once the cancer reaches his brain he has just two weeks to live.

Keep fighting on!

Killing Our Environment and Killing Ourselves

Why is it that human beings have such an exaggerated appetite for death and destruction? This appetite includes an obvious innate desire to limit our opportunities for survival on this planet. We better hope those astro-scientist types work out practical ways for us to live elsewhere in the universe or we will soon be victims of our own excesses.

What inspired this not so cheery post is a press release from the UN that highlights the human race's propensity to destroy its environment means the likelihood of finding cures to modern diseases decreases as rapidly as the natural environment that we destroy on a daily basis.

An example of this is the Rheobatrachus or the Southern Gastric Brooding frog which was thought to produce substances that slowed acid and enzyme excretions which are a main cause of peptic ulcers! Nah, bugger me if we haven't gone and made this poor little frog extinct and with it the possibility of finding and developing a treatment for the prevention of peptic ulcers - idiots!

Just the possibility that the cure for cancer or HIV/AIDS is just sitting there out in the environment there waiting to be discovered must become motivation enough for us as a people to protect the biodiversity that we have left.

Climate change, stripping away of natural resources, environmental degradation, and the like are real and we each need to start playing our little parts in turning the tide against what will ultimately lead to our destruction!

This would be the ultimate irony for those that believe in God our ability to destroy that which was given us! It would also be the ultimate vindication for evolutionists as the cycle of life and death would fit nicely into the evolution theory of humans coming into existence and ultimately being evoluted out of existence.