E-cigarettes: safer than what?

To hear their proponents tell the tale, you could be excused for believing that e-cigarettes are the health equivalent of the Second Coming.

The most harmful part of smoking is the smoke, which e-cigarettes eliminate while keeping the experience of smoking. Physically resembling cigarettes, they are actually electronic devices containing a cartridge of liquid nicotine solution that is heated and vaporized for inhalation.

For addicted smokers, e-cigarettes are a kinder, gentler way to needlessly empty their wallets into a wealthy corporation’s bank account in order to gratify an artificially manufactured craving for a toxic non-essential.

But e-cigarette proponents resolutely refuse to address the two major flaws in their argument.

-   Backwards burden of proof. They believe that e-cigarette use or “vaping” should be permitted everywhere that smoking is not. Then, if in 50 or 60 years we find out that, like secondhand smoke, e-cigarette vapour harms bystanders, we can spend another 30 to 50 years fighting to outlaw their use in public. They describe anyone who objects to being volunteered as a lab rat to protect their comfort and convenience as a heartless zealot at best and genocidal maniac at worst.

-  Irrelevant safety standard. Few doubt that inhaling e-cigarette vapor is safer than smoking. Or for that matter, leaping in front of an oncoming train. Or gargling drain cleaner. If we used smoking as a benchmark against which to measure acceptable safety standards for everything, there would not be much left in the world to describe as harmful.

History has already shown the irresponsibility of legalizing a dangerous product and then waiting for decades to see whether the suffering it causes is really a direct result of that product. People have needlessly suffered for over a century while fighting tobacco industry propaganda. Decision-makers have only begun to understand that the harm caused by secondhand smoke warrants smoking bans.

Do we really need to repeat this lesson yet again?

The only acceptable safety standard for a non-essential recreational drug with potential to harm bystanders is conclusive proof by independent research that passive exposure to e-cigarette vapour is “as safe as or safer than not being exposed to it at all.”

And e-cigarette proponents alone bear the entire burden of proving their product safe for use around others by this standard. The public does not owe it to them to act as lab rats once again for yet another questionable tobacco product simply so that users may be spared the inconvenience of respectful behaviour toward others.

Lawmakers owe it to us to ban public e-cigarette use until proponents have met this standard of proof.

Secondhand smoke and SIDS on Law & Order SVU

Last night’s Law & Order SVU’s Episode 1305, Missing Pieces, held an important public health education message. And then dropped it.

Spoiler alert!

A young mother, popping into a store to buy organic diapers, keeps an anxious eye on her car, where she left her 3-month-old baby. Before completing the purchase, she runs outside, screaming that someone has driven off with her child. She stresses the urgency of finding him as he requires a special lactose-free formula.

The father is found, an amber alert is issued, and tremendous police resources are engaged. Police treat the frantic parents kindly, but keep and question them separately. Details reveal that the mother smokes and that smoking is a normal part of their lives.

Eventually the car is found and its contents recovered, but the baby is still missing. Forensic analysis shows that the baby had been in the cooler. The mother admits that she buried the body, which is sent to the medical examiner to determine cause of death.

The ME finds that the baby died of “natural causes.” She asks whether the mother smokes, noting that this is one of the leading risk factors for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, the likely cause of the baby’s death.

Then the show drops the issue. The mother emphasizes having put her child to sleep on his back. The parents don’t know why their baby died and concocted their act because they thought no one would believe them. Police console them, “sometimes babies ‘just die.’”

The producers could have made this important message more powerful in two ways:

• Before asking whether the mother smoked, the ME should have tested for cotinine to determine the extent to which the child was exposed to secondhand smoke. This would have strengthened the message about protecting babies from secondhand smoke by establishing that there are actual biomarkers to measure this risk factor.

• At that moment the detectives understandably preferred to shield the grieving parents from knowing that the mother’s smoking was the likely cause of their baby’s death. But the final discussion among the detectives about whether to press criminal charges for wasting police resources should have included mention of negligent homicide or manslaughter.

I also found it implausible that a mother who smokes around her baby, presumably smoked while pregnant, and doesn't breastfeed would think about organic diapers, a lactose-free diet, or sleeping position, the other major SIDS risk factor. Obviously the producers wanted to show that the mother’s negligence arose from ignorance, not lack of love. But despite an excellent performance, the character rang false for me.

I am grateful that a major network with a history of glamorizing smoking would tell this story at all. But the message that smoking around babies is a leading risk factor for killing them is more important than sparing a few smokers a couple of guilt pangs. I hope that any shows addressing this issue in the future will be clearer and more direct.

For a full episode description see http://allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com/2011/10/law-order-svu-missing-pieces-recap.html .

Pssst - wanna have a good time in Vancouver? (Special Events)

Celebrate your inner Mexican at:
Fiesta Mexico Independencia 2011 - Free
Saturday, September 10 - 12:00 to 8:30 pm
Jack Poole Plaza, New Vancouver Convention Centre
http://mexicofest.ca/events5.html

Part farmer's market, part charming dog-and-horse show, local talent to entertain. I look forward to this family- and pet-friendly event every year.
Southlands Riding Club Country Fair - by donation ($5.00 suggested)
Sunday, September 11 - 10:00 am to 4:00 pm
Southlands Riding Club, 7025 Macdonald Street
http://www.southlandsridingclub.com/Country_Fair/countryfair2.htm

Keep celebrating your inner Mexican at:
MexicoFest
Currently ongoing, last day is Friday, September 16
http://mexicofest.ca/ for details, venues, and prices

Cinephile Alert!
Vancouver Latin American Film Festival - $12 per movie + 1-time $2 membership
Currently ongoing, last day is Sunday, September 11
http://www.vlaff.org/en/festival-info for movie times and venues

For the live theatre fans:
Vancouver International Fringe Festival
Currently ongoing, last day is Sunday, September 18
http://www.vancouverfringe.com/ for schedules, venues, and prices

Well-done Shakespeare, served every year on a silver platter, with creative garnishes:
Bard on the Beach
Currently ongoing, last day is Friday, September 23
http://www.bardonthebeach.org/schedule for schedules, venues, and prices

Their slogan is "Meet Your Makers" and it's true: you will think you died and went to heaven.
Vancouver Farmers Markets
Currently ongoing, last day is Sunday, October 23
http://www.eatlocal.org/ for schedules, locations, and details

Celebrate your inner German - food, Bier, Musik, Lederhosen & Dirndln, usw (German for etc.):
Das Oktoberfest - Real Oktoberfest by real Germans
Various days between Friday, September 16, and Saturday, October 8
Vancouver Alpen Club, 4875 Victoria Drive
http://www.vancouveralpenclub.ca/ for prices and details

Nerd Alert! Nerd Alert! Yes, I admit it. This is one of my ideas of fun:
Social Media Week - Free
Workshops on using social media to market yourself, your business, your ideas, your messages
Monday, September 19, to Friday, September 23
http://socialmediaweek.org/schedule/ for schedules and venues

For those who don't want to know what's going to happen next. And anything can ...
Vancouver International Improv Festival
Shows and workshops
Monday, September 26, to Saturday, October 1
http://vancouverimprovfest.com/ for schedules, venues, and prices

Cinephile Heaven. The best of the best. And sometimes the worst. Trying to decide is part of the fun.
Vancouver International Film Festival - Prices available when box office opens
Program Guide goes on sale Saturday, September 17
Festival runs Thursday, September 29, to Friday, October 14
http://www.viff.org/ for schedules, venues, and prices

Chocolate. Does anything else need to be said?
West Coast Chocolate Festival
Saturday, October 15, to Thursday, November 10
All over the Lower Mainland of British Columbia
http://www.chocolatefestival.ca/festivalmain.htm for schedules, venues, and prices

This probably isn't what Kurt Cobain had in mind when he wrote "who needs action when you've got words," but word nerds who agree with the sentiment can come here to bathe and splash about in them to their hearts' content.
Vancouver International Writers Festival
Special events from Sunday, September 18, to Wednesday, November 30
Festival runs from Tuesday, October 18, to Sunday, October 23
http://www.writersfest.bc.ca/ for schedules, venues, and prices

If I left anything out, please let me know. Blogs can be edited!

Also, I'd like to highlight constantly ongoing sources of fun, such as the Vancouver Theatresports League, Vancouver Improv Anywhere, Meetups, Arts Club Theatre Company, Drexoll Games' in-store games nights, etc. Help me out and let me know your favourites to make sure they are included!

Islamic Prayer in Toronto’s Valley Park Middle School

Today I received an email exhorting me to sign a petition objecting to the segregation of menstruating girls to the back of the room in Toronto’s publicly funded Valley Park Middle School (“VPMS”).

Whenever I receive a sensationally worded email, I google the keywords along with the word hoax. If the story is true, as this one is, I try to find out what really happened.

1.    The VPMS website shows pride in its diversity and the principal’s commitment to his three R’s: respect, responsibility, and reasonableness. In 2008 concerns about students losing class time after attending services at a nearby mosque led VPMS to allow Muslim students to use the cafeteria for Friday prayer services. http://www.tdsb.on.ca/SchoolWeb/ValleyPark/docs/Valley%20Park%20Middle%20School%20-2nd%20council%20meeting%202008.pdf

2.   The prayer structure separates boys from girls, boys in the front row and girls behind them. Menstruating girls sit at the back and do not participate. Opinions vary on whether this discriminates against women or protects their modesty and relieves them from duty during menstruation.

3.    Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“CCRF”) and the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.2 (“EA”), freedom of religion is a right.

The CCRF guarantees:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

It also guarantees freedom from sex discrimination:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination … based on … religion, sex ...

The EA also protects freedom of religion:

Religious instruction

51. (1) … a pupil shall be allowed to receive such religious instruction as the pupil’s parent or guardian desires or, where the pupil is an adult, as the pupil desires. R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2, s. 51 (1).

It does not address sex-based discrimination.

Terry Pratchett once wrote, “sometimes the best answer is a more interesting question.” I can think of several.

·   How does the school meet the cafeteria access needs of non-Muslims every Friday afternoon?

·   Does the school accommodate other religions? How?

·   Does the prayer ceremony’s structure contravene the CCRF’s provisions against sex discrimination? If the purpose is to

-  give boys precedence over girls and shame girls for a natural biological function, then yes.

-  protect female modesty and provide a welcome break for cramp-ridden girls, then no.

If the girls prayed in front, would we complain that they are forced to display their bottoms to the boys? But if it is a question of modesty rather than status, why are boys and girls not segregated by right and left rather than front and back?

·   When religious practices conflict with gender equality, which prevails?

Which brings up something else my googling taught me: the EA makes extensive provisions for publicly funded religious education rife with discrimination. That means your tax dollars, regardless of your religion, fund entire school boards dedicated to teaching children that

·  people who do not share their beliefs deserve eternal damnation.

·  birth control is evil.

·  divorcing a partner who abuses you is a sin.

·  homosexuals belong in Hell.

·  women are inferior to men.

·  personal responsibility for any crime, no matter how heinous, may be absolved by
   repeating a religious phrase a set number of times.

Nope. Not Muslims this time. The Roman Catholic church is probably no more riddled with corruption or superstition than any other religious institution, but

·      why does it get its own publicly funded school system?

·      why are we more upset about a public school allowing one room, one hour per week, to accommodate one ritual than we are about providing public funding for an entire school system devoted to a religion that excludes everyone outside its faith and bases its tenets on values contrary to the CCRF?

VPMS: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/SchoolWeb/_site/viewitem.asp?siteid=10206&pageid=11544&menuid=13079

VPMS Minutes of the Council Meeting—November 24, 2008: http://www.tdsb.on.ca/SchoolWeb/ValleyPark/docs/Valley%20Park%20Middle%20School%20-2nd%20council%20meeting%202008.pdf

CCRF: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/index.html

EA: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e02_e.htm

Vancouver Riot 2011 – Those who came forward voluntarily

So far, 15 rioters, instead of waiting to be reported or found, turned themselves in to police (http://vpdreleases.icontext.com/2011/06/20/riot-investigation-fact-sheet/). Whether they feel real remorse for their actions or merely regret being photographed, only they know. I can’t help but wonder whether they would have done so had there been no chance of discovery. Still, many have no previous record of wrongdoing and they want to apologize, explain, and in some cases atone.

Coming forward voluntarily to apologize is a start, even if some doing so are still in denial about the enormity of their offences or are only doing so in the hope of receiving a lesser punishment than if they had been hunted down.

Nevertheless, I think we should listen to them, regardless of their motives for coming forward. Not because of dew-eyed “everyone is a good person underneath” idealism or even compassion. Listening to what could make a normally exemplary young person behave like that is essential to understanding how to prevent this in the future. Which is the result I would like to see.

The listening should be conditional, though. Restorative justice is not the same as no justice. I believe we are entitled to let the rioters know the full extent of what they inflicted, as an emergency room nurse who was on duty that night at St. Paul’s Hospital did: http://riot2011frontlines.tumblr.com/post/6682186192/a-e-r-nurses-thoughts-on-an-instigators-apology.

And we are entitled to more than tearful apologies and sincere acknowledgements that they are responsible for their actions. The rioters owe us. They need to pay out of their own pockets for the damage and do community service. Lots of it. There should be restrictions on where they can go and when and with whom. They need to find ways to make amends and re-earn our trust.

There is far more value to us all in such a solution than in flushing these kids, their families, and their lives down the toilet out of angry revenge. Mahatma Gandhi was right when he said, “An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”

We also need to back off from the friends and families. If these young people are to make the amends they owe us and contribute to the world in the future, they will need the support of the few people who love them enough to stick by them through this. Supporting them in taking responsibility is not the same as protecting them from having to take it. The ones who have come forward voluntarily have mostly done so with the support of people who love them. I see no reason to harass an already broken-hearted mom or dad. You never stop loving your child. No one should be punished for that.

Moralizing platitudes about today’s youth, our culture of privilege, and bad parenting are balm only to those who find more solace in being right than being happy. I am pragmatic. If we want meaningful healing and change to come out of this mess, then the answer is, as Ram Dass once said, “just say ‘know.’” And the only way we can know is to listen to the ones who are willing to talk.

Vancouver Riot 2011 – Telling the good guys from the bad

Bad Guys

The instigators are unquestionably villains. They came with weapons, prepared to riot regardless of the game’s outcome. They thrive on destruction and knew that they could count on emotionally charged drunks to join in.

I’m also going to include those who joined in the feeding frenzy and are waiting to see whether they get caught. And likely won’t feel bad about what they’ve done if they don’t.

Those are the people who make me wonder whether we should bring back flogging. Just for them.

Good Guys

The clean-up crews were angels.

Then there were the people who, drunk or sober, effectively or quixotically, stood up to rioters to defend businesses and cars. Standing O. From my heart.

Emergency crews did the best they could in a bizarre situation that sometimes forced them to wait for instructions before responding to an emergency.

Although police were lambasted for being unprepared and no doubt did injure innocent people who got in the way, they did an admirable job of handling the craziness. And - let’s be honest - had police been more pro-active and prevented the riot, the criminal liberties acolytes would be bleating about nannying, jackbooted, genocidal maniacs sucking all the joy out of being a public menace.

Good or Bad?

First, there were two types of people who took pictures:

-      law-abiding citizens who wanted to help police identify and prosecute rioters later and

-      rubberneckers who wanted souvenirs of an event they found entertaining, which they would not even have thought of sharing with police had there not been a popularity pay-off.

Regardless of intentions, the effects were the same. The picture-takers were generally not active rioters, tended to get in the way of emergency responders, and have provided useful tools for identifying and prosecuting the offenders.

Then there was the justifiably angry reaction of the larger community, which has led to a massive campaign to identify the rioters and bring them to justice. I’m all for that.

But some call it snitching, oblivious to the subtle difference between ratting out someone who stayed at a parking meter an extra ten minutes without paying and reporting serious, violent vandalism to the proper authorities.

Still others are promoting racism and vigilantism under a halo of self-righteous indignation against not only offenders, but also their families, friends, employers, and other associates. Like sadistic prison guards, they know that few will pity their victims. Just last night I saw a Facebook post by someone who felt that one of the offenders, who had come forward voluntarily, should “take his chink ass back to Korea or whatever shithole he came from.”

I am clear that I want all the rioters held accountable for their actions, including the ones who come forward voluntarily. They owe us and they should pay.

But somehow, deep down, I have more room in my heart for a frightened young man who has admitted to doing something horrible and knows he deserves the consequences than I do for someone who would feel good about himself for posting a comment like that.

Asthma

What is it?

Asthma is a chronic inflammation of the airways. Symptoms differ for each person, but a key characteristic is that they recur frequently or go on for long periods of time.

Asthma symptoms include	-    coughing -    wheezing -    chest tightness -    shortness of breath -    difficulty breathing -    burning pain when breathing -    mucus build-up in the airways
An attack might bring on other symptoms, such as	-    rapid heart rate -    trembling -    panic -    depression -    sleep disruptions -    inability to think or concentrate -    headaches

Many other medical conditions share the same symptoms as asthma. Your doctor can run tests to diagnose your condition.

What causes it?

There are no definite known causes for asthma, but some factors can predispose you to the disease or trigger it.

Heredity	-    family history of asthma, especially in one or both  parents
Irritants	-    cold air -    aerobic exercise -    reflux -    dust -    mold -    pollution, including: ·   secondhand smoke ·   thirdhand smoke ·   perfumes ·   chemicals, including pesticides ·   wood smoke ·   clothes dryer exhaust ·   car and diesel exhaust ·   industrial pollution -    anything else that irritates the airways
Allergens	-    dust or dust mites -    cockroaches or other insects -    pollen -    plants -    animal skin and fur -    feathers -    mold -    chemicals -    perfumes -    clothes dryer exhaust -    any other allergens
Illnesses	-    cold -    flu -    pneumonia -    other viruses -    bacterial infections
Other triggers	-    hormones ·   adolescent ·   premenstrual ·   pregnancy ·   perimenopausal ·   menopausal -    stress and deep emotional shock -    sleep deprivation -    exhaustion -    any other shock to the immune system

Reactivity and severity are unrelated. How much of a trigger it takes for symptoms to appear is unrelated to how severe the symptoms become.

Is there a cure?

Asthma is a chronic disease with no known cure. Symptoms may worsen or disappear depending on your environment, stress levels, and other trigger factors.

You can improve your chances of staying healthy or minimizing the severity of the illness by managing factors that you can control.

Medication	-    research your options ·   cost ·   effectiveness ·   short- and long-term side effects -    discuss them with your doctor -    take prescribed medication as directed
Aerobic exercise	-    do it properly – it helps -    warm up gradually -    do your best, but know and respect your limit
Cold weather	-    stay indoors or -    wrap a clean scarf made of breathable non-allergenic material around your mouth and nose if you go out
Reflux	-    maintain a healthy weight -    avoid foods that give you heartburn -    keep portions small, especially for your last meal  of the day -    stop eating at least two hours before going to bed
Home (do what you can)	-    use alternatives to carpets -    put up easily cleaned window blinds -    use dust mite proof covers on bedding -    use low-emitting paints -    find an alternative to a furnace -    if you have a furnace ·   use the best filters for the furnace and vents ·   change the filters often ·   have the ducts cleaned at least annually -    limit use of strong chemicals and fragrances -    ban smoking in and around your home -    if you live in multi-unit housing, make sure your  building has an effective smoke-free policy -    keep your home dust- and mold-free -    close windows near clothes dryer vents
Pets	-    avoid pets if you are allergic to them or -    get a hypo-allergenic dog breed
Illnesses	-    take proper care of yourself -    drink lots of fluids -    get plenty of rest
General health (do the best you can)	-    eat a nutritious diet -    minimize processed foods -    exercise -    maintain a healthy weight -    get enough rest -    manage stress levels -    avoid triggers

Anything else worth a try?

Some people find the following two items helpful. They are meant for use in addition to, and not as a substitute for established asthma care methods.

Chocolate	-    should be a minimum of 70% cacao -    is an effective cough suppressant -    opens up and relaxes airways (but is not a substitute for a rescue inhaler) -    has an antidepressant effect
Zymactive	-    is a brand name product made of protein-digesting enzymes -    is effective at reducing inflammation -    has been used for over 25 years in Europe and Japan -    should be avoided if you are pregnant or nursing, due to insufficient research

Grama Queen on me, myself, and I

I have been (accurately) accused of being pedantic. So once in a while I will howl at the moon about my grammatical pet peeves.

Misuses of me, myself, and I are probably the worst offences, not only because of their ubiquity, but because it is so easy to use these words correctly.

When is it correct to say “please give I chocolate”?

You’re right. Never. It is always “please give me chocolate.”

Then why do so many educated and literate people believe that me should become I if they put another person’s name and the word and in front of it? Why would someone say “please give me chocolate,” but if including another recipient in the request, say “please give Opus and I chocolate”?

A simple trick to figure out whether to use I or me

Take away the other party’s name and the and. What is left should look and sound correct to you.

Opus and I love chocolate.

Please give Opus and me chocolate.

But what about myself?

Myself is reflexive, which means that I am both the person acting and the person on the receiving end of the action.

I bought chocolate for Opus and myself.

There is never a time when someone else can do something to or for myself. If someone else is buying the chocolate, then it is for me, whether or not Opus is also included as a recipient.

Marvin bought chocolate for Opus and me.

The comparative trap

Beware the comparative, which contains a hidden trap to lure you into grammatical perfidy.

Marvin bought more chocolate than Opus or I.

HUH?

The comparative conjunction than links two independent clauses. The verb for the second one is implied.

Marvin bought more chocolate than Opus or I [did].

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, it is acceptable to treat than as a preposition and use me in informal contexts, when I would simply sound awkward.

Marvin bought more chocolate than Opus or me.

When writing a comparative, use I. If speaking in an informal setting, use me unless you want people staring at you as though you had just eaten their chocolate.

UBC "bad luck" hospice

http://www.theprovince.com/Furor+mounts+hospice+plans+push+forward/4891568/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/06/03/bc-ubs-hospice-approved-reax.html

One of the things I am proudest of about my country, Canada, is its inclusiveness. I love diversity. I can travel around the world without leaving my home city, Vancouver.

I also love that my country does a decent job taking care of its sick. Our health care system has its problems, but I am grateful every day that I live here and not in a country where only the very rich have any meaningful care or choices. I love that we are compassionate and that our inclusiveness encompasses the terminally ill, allowing them to die in peaceful dignity, surrounded by their loved ones in beautiful, accessible environments.

The University of British Columbia has a perfect spot for a hospice. Unfortunately it is beside a condominium in which 80% of its extremely wealthy residents believe that having dying people next door will bring them bad luck.

Having chosen to immigrate to Canada – presumably because of its reputation for inclusive social values and accommodation of diversity – and having been welcomed into our country, they are puzzled that we seem inclined also to include people they would prefer to exclude on grounds of superstition.

-   Jane argues that Canada is a democratic country and that most of the condo residents do not want terminally ill people next door. Her vision of democracy dismisses the opinion of the Canadian people who welcomed her here, that caring for the dying is a higher priority than accommodating superstition.

-   Maggie compares telling someone’s dying mom to go bleed to death somewhere else because her ghost might upset the neighbours to refusing to touch a trophy because it might jinx a hockey game.

-   Keri eagerly argues for her own right to speak, seeming to believe that exercising it obliges her listeners to do everything she tells them to do.

-   David pleads for a humanistic solution… Even after a bath break to mull it over, I still don’t know how to begin to respond to such chutzpah.

If there were real and meaningful concerns that were being ignored, such as pollution, noise, or higher crime rates or risks of fire, I could understand. I would support indulging the condo owners’ superstition if all they wanted were to put up some weird-looking phantom traps. But if they believe that their superstition is a good reason to treat suffering fellow humans like convicted pedophiles, my sympathy snaps. It seems to me that it is the terminally ill who are at risk for misfortune from these solipsistic whiners.

These condo owners have resources. They can afford to hire ghost-busters. Or move (until it is their turn to die). There must be plenty of rich people happy to snap up luxury housing beside quiet, respectful neighbours.

Maybe UBC should consider relocating the hospice after all and putting up a halfway house instead.

If UBC caves to these ludicrous demands, I swear that when I die I will haunt every single unit at Hawthorn Place, 2688 West Mall, until every person who opposed the hospice is driven out.