I just had to be the first,
"...And I think it's high time that anti-smoking groups and my fellow tobacco control advocates condemn such policies......"
I think it's high time activists, and the pharmaceutical companies, NGO's, etc. who fund them, pack up.....call it all a failed experiment (smoking bans) and go back to the business of marketing / educational campaigns designed to get smoker's to quit smoking voluntarily.
Oh and here's a novel idea, the health groups could use the hundreds of millions of dollars they're wasting on lobbying campaigns for smoking bans, to develope a cure for diseases.
And to remain consistent in the message (and to sideline Bill before his eyes light up over a perceived opportunity), let's edit this sentence a little:
Well I would submit that the right to employment is also a basic right to which all individuals should be entitled.
Let's start with an analogy so my pickiness is understood:
We all have the "right to pursue happiness." No one is entitled to happiness. One has to earn and find it on their own but ALSO without someone placing intentional obstacles in front of your pursuit. And if you end up unhappy then it's no fault but your own and no one owes it to you.
And so I would assert that we have the right of access to employment but no one is "entitled" to a job. But also that no one should be intentionally trying to block access that one could normally achieve by their own efforts.
Sorry Dr. Siegel, but semantics is everything sometimes.
If the real motive of Universities was to save money on health care costs for students, then they would ban sex and booze not smoke.
Alcohol consumption has a greater effect on the occurance of URI's than smoking according to a study by Eng at the Unmiversity of Illinois. Alcohol increases the risk of sex. Sex increases the risk of STD's. Too much booze and meaningless sex leads to depression, also common in college students.
My guess is that if you banned smoking and did an honest study, health care costs would increase on the non-smoking campus.
Point 2 is negated by point 1.
I agree with point 3, employers should be free to hire/fire whoever they want. This is hardly the reality in the USA today. It once took me almost 2 years to fire a useless employee. What's troubling though is what a wrong headed policy it is, as not employing smokers limits your selection pool and disqualifies otherwise stellar employees (like me for instance).
Point 4 is the most nauseating argument. Using coercive measures to impose one's value systems on others.
Gives me the willies every time. Maybe McFadden can chime in on the "saving lives" terminology that PH officials like to bandy about so much. Such an emotional terminolgy with so little to back it up. How does one define "saving a life"? How far is one willing to interfere in people's choices and lifestyles to do it? Who benefits? Who loses?
Sticky, sticky, sticky questions.
typos, typos
Should have had another cup of coffee before posting the above.
Dr. Siegel writes:
Interestingly, most (if not all) of us would view such policies as being completely inappropriate, unacceptable, and inhumane, because they are highly discriminatory, unduly intrusive into individual privacy, and most importantly, because they deny individuals a basic right - the right to an education - solely because of a lawful individual behavior choice.
I think this statement illustrates something about your thinking that is keeping you from making a break with the anti-smoking establishment. You seem to honestly believe that most if not all people would be opposed to the policy. You do not seem to realize that most people would NOT be opposed to the policy. There are already agitator groups appearing on campus (like REBEL) pushing for "smoke free campuses" and whipping up animosity toward studnts who smoke. You know what comes next.
When there's a call for "smoke free" it's a if everyone changes character immediately.Rational,sane people just jump on the bandwagon and will agree to the most discriminatory practices.The only reason i can see for this sort of behaviour is that the numerous lies from the anti-smokers and the time they've had to indoctrinate the populace has worked.These followers wouldn't care at all about the numerous lies they've swallowed ,they will just make up something else to convince themselves that they are right.Smokers are often accused of deluding themselves BUT at least a fair amount of scientific evidence seeks to argue the "dangers" of smoking AND DOES NOT NEED TO RESORT TO LIES & DECEIPT.Perhaps the "new breed" of anti's NEED AN AVENUE TO VENT THEIR FRUSTRATION OF LIFE OUT ON ,THEIR AGGRESSION CERTAINLY BEARS OUT THE MALICE THEY SUFFER FROM.CONVENIENTLY THEY ARE BREAKING NO LAW,SO IT AT LEAST GIVES OTHER DISCRIMINATED PEOPLE A BREATHER.MOB RULE NO MORE,NO LESS.IT WILL GET WORSE.
As I commented before: The Smoker is one who a perfect stranger can walk right up to and vent their crap on..with no repercussions. The thrill of that! the no holds barred! no political correctness needed here!
The Smoker has cowed down for so many years...because of our "filthy" habit, aplogies all around, MY BAD.
I now make NO APOLOGIES for me, my body, my mind, my habits.
It is my "bubble" and stay out of it!
I no longer believe any doctors, scientists, "public health, my ass", scaremongers.
The water here in Madison, WI is affected by large, large amounts of Magnesium, and they are finding human bacteria where it was not supposed to be. OK, I lived in CO for years, giardea (however you spell that), was rampant in the mountains (duh, animal waste got into streams and got into the water system because of a misaligned filter).
So-using what commen sense I have, filter the water, boil the water-also know that nothing is pure in this world and we have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own bodies, and accept the consequences with a backbone.
A catch 22
If hell did freeze over and the "PUBLIC FUNDED" anti smoking workforce had to roll up its carpet and finally admit failure and seek gainful employment, think of all of the illegal immigrants that would be put out of work, However it would permit elected officials to spend less time with anti smoking lobbyists and more time re-generating basic trust with American voters.
Why doesn't the anti-smoking crowd show their true colors and sew a gold star on the clothing of all smokers? I guess we have a right to live free so long as we act exactly like those that are politically correct tell us to act.
Just the Facts-
I accept and appreciate your edit to my statement. It is, indeed, the right to PURSUE employment that people are entitled to. And the right to pursue an education. I think that banning smokers from particular colleges or companies does deprive them of the right to pursue employment or to pursue an education at those establishments. I've made some changes in the post to reflect this change.
Thanks JTF!
"the right to PURSUE employment that people are entitled to"
Well it's for certain that the pro-smoking ban activists don't subscribe to that line of thinking.
When their deceipt, and lies culminated in local smoking bans which then ended my 15 year career of selling Smokeeters to bars & restaurants.....I didn't hear a word of concern from these groups.....
What I did get from the communications director of the local American Lung was ".....tough break Mark, even the buggy whip people were put out of business when cars were invented...."
Oh well, a person really only needs a house when it gets cold outside.
Well Marcus - you're a bright guy. You can go back to school, get a degree in epidemiology and become a public health nazi - seems there's no shortage of demand for them. Why in the world would you rather sell a device that would allow people to smoke? Wouldn't you rather have an honorable position like scaring people "straight" and "saving lives" with fear-mongering propaganda?
the sad fact is that i can no longer visit my alma mater--uc berkeley--and smoke on campus even in the many open spaces there. therefore, i will not visit ucb. but who knows...maybe i'll go pay a visit to gwu when i am in dc this week. want to join me bill g.????
Thanks Margaret.....that's comforting.......anybody know where I can find some shopping carts for my belongings?
North Korea, get real Mike, in the Peoples Republic of Canada this type of 'policy' is being bashed through.
Smoker racists among students at The University of Alberta are making a petition for just this type of Virtual Prohibition. Oh you can be smoking student all right, as long as you go to the moon for your smokes.
http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/2006013...ional/
uofa.html
Mike wrote:
"I don't want any part of this type of thinking."
Then why did you just advocate that type of thinking?
Smokers shouldn't be banned from college. More should be done to keep people from starting and to help the 70% that want to quit do so.
http://
media.www.thejusticeonlin...gepublisher.com
Don't hate smokers--we're addicts and we know it
Norman Anderson
That disgusted stare, the forced cough and the "informative" comments-these are all things you've come to know well if you're a smoker at Brandeis. At a liberal campus where the utterance of any slur, racial or otherwise, in a tone above a whisper will lead to immediate outrage, smokers are the only minority that's fair game.
Why are we vilified? Why do I pay nearly double for the same pack of cigarettes in Massachusetts than I do back home in Virginia? Where did the smoking section go? People who deem smoke offensive look at me as if their abhorrence of cigarettes is the only thing that keeps me smoking. Does no one understand the addictive properties of nicotine? Were the implications of the Big Tobacco lawsuits of the past 20 years lost on the Brandeis population? The worst thing a smoker can hear from a stranger is "Those are bad for you."
Anyone who smokes can tell you cigarettes are bad for you-not because they heard it but rather because they can feel it. Most of my friends smoke and most of them wish they didn't. If you smoke, your lungs fall apart, you smell like burning and you're out at least 35 dollars a week, every week. When I first started smoking it was a choice, but what people who don't smoke fail to realize is that it isn't much of a choice anymore. My body thinks I need a cigarette, and will let me know this with headaches, mood swings and a voice in the back of my head that chants "smooooke."
People don't consider all this when I'm smoking a cigarette by a door and they pretend to cough as a way of voicing their displeasure. If you want to hear a cough of displeasure, listen to me in the morning and think about whether your passive aggression is really the impetus I need to change my ways.
I've tried to quit on at least three different occasions; the most recent was a 12-day stint this summer. Those 12 days were tough, but I'm still smoking. This is not because I want to be a smoker but rather, I'm compelled to.
Don't deride us for being addicted to a legal substance the government should have banned long ago because it kills millions of Americans. Instead, not only do we pay for a product that kills us, but the state thinks it will hurt the tobacco companies if we become impoverished while dying.
Just because you find something displeasing to your senses doesn't mean it is acceptable to attack a person for being this way. When's the last time you walked over to an obese stranger eating something unhealthy and told them they were putting themselves at serious risk for heart disease? Why is it OK to do the same thing to smokers?
I understand that non-smokers find the odor of tobacco unappealing and fear the dangers of secondhand smoke. The danger with secondhand smoke though is a moot point, though, as you cannot smoke indoors in Massachusetts. I can assure you that no minutes will be shaved off anyone's life walking by someone smoking, regardless of whatever study you think you understand. And if its any consolation I'll probably be dead before you'll even have to start counting those minutes.
If this is not a reason to look at us through more compassionate eyes, then just think about the last time you walked back to your dorm at three in the morning with no keys. Chances are either a smoker who just couldn't stay in bed without one more let you in, or we butted the door just for you.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's been 20 minutes since my last one.
Dr. Siegel -- who exactly is advocating that people who smoke be barred from attending college?
BILL & SKARLOEY STOP PRETENDING AND PLAYING WITH WORDS.YOU KNOW PERFECTLY WELL IT IS RABID SPEAKE AND YOU KNOW WHAT THE AGENDA IS.SO PLEASE JUST LOOK A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THE END OF YOUR NOSE.NOT NICE IS IT BEING VILIFIED BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS EXPECT MORE SINCE YOU ARE THE HARBINGERS OF THE RABID MESSAGE AND IT'S OH SO NICE TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT BACK.LOOK HOW MANY TIMES SMOKE NAZI IS BEING USED SKARLOOEY AND REALISE THAT IS HOW YOU ARE VIEWED.NOW ARGUE THAT IT ISN'T APPROPRIATE,THOUGH OF COURSE YOU'LL DIP OR OFFER SOME SNIDE COMMENT.
jill s if you wish to act out the role of heroin addict/smoker that is your decision but not all smokers view themselves in such a negative manner.Manufactured Cigarettes offer a fair selection of chemicals,and it is these i suggest are the root of your problems,not the tobacco itself.If they are mixed with alcohol then that could be a possible source of reaction.To moan about how you feel but without seeking to rectify the matter or at least try suggests you are either looking to play out the role of pathetic drug addict for either attention or ridicule depending if you happen to be pep-pill Jill or not.If it's the latter i would suggest it is more a case of alcohol or some other un-named substance and NOT tobacco which is to blame.Furthermore how much lower do you want to go Jill are you such a pathetic creature with such a boring life that you get your kicks here?Have a cigarette and join the happy band.Perhaps not,we have no wish to be associated with someone who is a rabid at heart and stoops forever lower.
jill S:
You seem to be happily miserable in your victimhood. You say, "The worst thing a smoker can hear from a stranger is, 'Those are bad for you.'" If anyone says that to you, the only proper response is, "Go f... yourself, you impertinent creep!" Or, "Mind your own business, you prissy bastard!" What are you, a piece of cattle that strangers can intimidate and inflict their bigotry upon you? Stand up like a woman and cease being a doormat to a bunch of brainwashed morons.
Suggestion: contact Audrey, an ex cop, at C.L.A.S.H.; she'll set you straight and put some sense into that noggin of yours. She doesn't take crap like that, and neither should you. And for godsake, stop your whining!
Si asks Godshall and skarlooey to "PLEASE JUST LOOK A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THE END OF YOUR NOSE.
And how are they supposed to do that, Si? Their noses are so damn long now that it would take telescopic vision to see past the end of them.
You know, when I went my alma mater, a prominent private college in the midwest, freshmen were required to stay on campus in the dorms.
I wonder if some of the recent colleges which have announced 100% smoke free campuses have similar residence requirements.
When a person can't smoke inside, they can't smoke outside, they can't smoke in their (mandated) home, they can't even smoke in the middle of a parking lot 50 feet away from another human. You have to get on the bus, bike, or car, and leave campus. Kind of makes a cigarette study break hard to do.
I'd say that kind of a policy is so restrictive as to make smoking completely impractical. So, it's either quit smoking or quit college.
It's obviously the intent.
Just a passive-aggressive version of our North Korean dictator's new smoking policy.
A little scattered buckshot:
1. An AP item today cites a study just published in Pediatrics which says that up to 1/5 of college students ( Cornell and Princeton surveys were the source of the generalization) cut and burn themselves on a regular basis because, among other things, it helps relieve stress. This pattern is also found in high school students.
Smoking is also well-known to relieve stress. Which choice do you think is better? Mr. BIll?
And to what extent has anti-smoking "education" and "denormalization" created this diversion in the methods of stress-relief?
2. Jill S-- who I'm not quite sure isn't "our" Jill, but I;'ll address you as though you're not. You're in really deep trouble here, and it's not about smoking. I partly agree with whoever (above) talked about your playing the "romance of the addict", and partly think you're fingering your status as "smoker" instead of the real reasons for your feelings about yourself and your feelings of helplessness, and the ease with which you're internalizing the opinions of The World. I've really never given this advice in my life, but I think you should quit smoking. It seems to be a source of great unhappiness for you (or at least you believe it's the source) and that's not what it's about and surely not what it's for. Perhaps you could then deal with what the problems really are.
Long ago and far away I also went to Braindeis; disappointed but not surprised to learn it's gone so PC. I don't know if it's still there, but the only library then was that converted stone barn in the dead-center of campus (halfway between the Castle and the quad). It had two large rooms: one was the smoking room, the other was non-smoking (tho almost everybody smoked). We also smoked in class (and so did the profs). And nobody hated the smell, fanned the air, or gave a damn. Interestingly too no one who used any of the less-than-legal drugs felt the shame, self-disgust or self-pity that you evince. So I'd repeat: either quit or relax and enjoy it. You are not an addict; you are not helpless; you are not without choice.
Finally, Mr. Bill--
Mike wrote:"I don't want any part of this type of thinking."
Then why did you just advocate that type of thinking?
Bill Godshall
Surely you're not THAT irony-impaired.
Walt -
Where was that article? Just last week I had three teenaged "cutters" in my teeney hospital ER and noted to myself that this seems to be a mighty popular activity of late. Nice to see that my anectdotal observation has also been noted by others. I'd love to see that report.
Um, thanks si. You've clarified everything. And thanks for using all caps -- particularly useful.
Jill S is not writing about herself.
Jill's only input was the first sentence, which contains a made up percentage.
The article was written by Norman Anderson last October.
Young Norman needs to have a word with himself. His self esteem is low, low, low.
Oops. I got suckered. But then I think "Jill S" also ought to get herself to the psych counseling office. And oughta learn how to use quote mark, too.
Margaret--
I read it in today's (well, yesterday's-- June 5) Sun but it's an AP story bylined Lindsey Tanner. and datelined Chicago. It also says "The study appears in this month's issue of Pediatrics, released today." Lead author is one Janis Whitlock, a Cornell psychologist who also published a related article about websites for teens devoted self-mutilation (of which it says there are 400!) in the April issue of Developmental Psychology. Ought to be enough there to do a google.
PLEASURE SKARLOOEY IT MAY HELP YOU TO SEE A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY ,PARTICULARLY IF YOU NEED A TELESCOPE.
Found this article linked on the Forest website in the UK.
Lying, the new Anti drug.
"If you're like me, you expect the government to lie to you. And we expect lies, too, from email scammers who seek to sell all kinds of things or claim they're from Nigeria and need our help to collect millions from some phony bank account.
But we don't expect respectable health authorities such as the American Cancer Society to lie. From these we have a reasonable expectation of honesty, even truth.
That's history, folks. It's now apparently OK for medical scientists and health advocates to lie through their teeth.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a health researcher and professor of medicine, has identified 68 anti-smoking groups that urge activists to overstate the medical case against tobacco. These groups want activists to increase the emotional appeal of their anti-smoking pitches by stating that second-hand smoke can almost instantly cause hardening of the arteries and heart disease.
Siegel puts the documents that urge such scientifically nonsensical statements on his blog. You can read the lengths anti-tobacco activists will go to counter what they call "the twentieth century's brown plague."
I'm sure some anti-tobacco activists see their overstatements as nothing more than white lies. Still, you can't get heart disease in 30 minutes. Impossible. No matter what people from the American Cancer Society or the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids may tell us.
In my opinion, lies like these aren't white, they are the real "brown plague" of our time.
This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob".
Yup. Bans are harmless. This story was probably just made up.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsi...06/
s1656541.htm
Thanks Walt.
Yes, that is an opinion piece written by a smoker that gives a viewpoint substantially different than most on this site give. The sad fact is that many smokers fall into the category of wishing they had never started than the loud minority who are out fighting for "smoker's rights."
"I wonder if some of the recent colleges which have announced 100% smoke free campuses have similar residence requirements.
When a person can't smoke inside, they can't smoke outside, they can't smoke in their (mandated) home, they can't even smoke in the middle of a parking lot 50 feet away from another human. You have to get on the bus, bike, or car, and leave campus. Kind of makes a cigarette study break hard to do."
UW Madison has mandated, no smoking in dorms, no guest visitors overnite in dorms, no alcohol in dorms: and on. The visitor issue came up because of the BIG Halloween State St party-alcohol and smoking allowed.
This is the Anti dictate of mayor and city council-get these baby college kids to start behaving, quit the "work hard, play hard" mentality (exact quote from a Robert Woods Johnson Foundation request for proposal grant for universities). Ya know the second hand alcohol effects at college. (another exact verbage, second hand alcohol effects).
So yes, the college of today is goosestepping their way to their future...hope I'm gone before they get there.
and Jill S-
I, one of THE SMOKERS, do hear and now proclaim-so you can not use me as one of your twististics- I am NOT sorry I ever started smoking tobacco. I DO NOT want to quit smoking tobacco. In my 50 yrs of life, it has kept me sane in the most insane times of life. It has taught me, patience-of and for others, perserverance-in the most challenging times, moderation-that too much at one time of anything is not good for me(my choice my body), the honor of supporting so many peoples with so little-the cost of that tobacco cigarette, taxes-health impact fee-etc.., the power of the choice to smoke or not to smoke is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice of how I want to live and die is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, ACCEPT the world as it is is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice to CHANGE anything in my life is in MY HANDS and no one elses.
Thanks for listening
capri
Jill wrote: "Yes, that is an opinion piece written by a smoker that gives a viewpoint substantially different than most on this site give. The sad fact is that many smokers fall into the category of wishing they had never started than the loud minority who are out fighting for "smoker's rights."
No Jill, the sad fact is that the writer of your little story, likes being a victim, likes believing he is so addicted he cannot possibly quit. He likes his crutch and wants your sympathy.
Truth of the matter is this.......IF someone really and truly wants to quit, they not only can, but they will AND they will also succeed. Those who try and fail, fail because their reasons are not coming from deep within their own will. Just because many wish they never started, does not mean that they also wish to quit.
I may find it bothersome at times that I smoke, but I have NO desire to quit, or to give in to your pathetic attempts to get me to quit either. My mother often wonders how I've dealt with all the crosses in my life that I've had to bear............I tell her that my smoking is my sanity, keeps me level headed and centered. Too bad if you don't like that. I personally can't stand self-righteous, sanctimonious sermons from strangers who have no right harrassing me. Guess that makes us even eh?
sorry, above post of mine I forgot to acknowledge edpsycho's authorship of college post...
sorry ed!
thanks
capri
"the power of the choice to smoke or not to smoke is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice of how I want to live and die is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice to LEARN, UNDERSTAND, ACCEPT the world as it is is in MY HANDS and no one elses, the power of the choice to CHANGE anything in my life is in MY HANDS and no one elses. --- capri"
I'm subscribing 100%! Otherwise I couldn't stand looking in the mirror (of my life).
Shall we all grow our own tobacco ?Would this send the message that we CHOOSE to smoke and that we are NOT victims of Big T.I suppose it wouldn't,they'd still lie about it.
BTW Jill "the loud "MINORITY" " have you been swanning round all the bars in California again doing your straw pole?Little inebriated were we OR did we just decide to suggest another lie as a statistic,"Most smokers wished they'd never started" Probably down to listening to you when you're in full gob-merchant mode.Go and chew a brick.
jill S writes: "The sad fact is that many smokers fall into the category of wishing they had never started than the loud minority who are out fighting for "smoker's rights."
1) What's the point? Do you have one?
2) People like you can't seem to get it through their thick skulls that it isn't a question of smoker's rights but a question of resisting tyranny. Please think about that for at least 10 seconds before you come out with any more inane comments.
jill S wrote:
"The sad fact is that many smokers fall into the category of wishing they had never started than the loud minority who are out fighting for 'smoker's rights.'"
Substitute "smoker's" with "the overweight" and "smoker's rights" with "fattie's rights" and you get this:
The sad fact is that many of the overweight fall into the category of wishing they had never started (getting fat) than the loud minority who are out fighting for "Fatties's rights."
You could apply this to many situations (e.g., suntanning/wrinkles).
Here's how they should have answered it:
I don't regret starting smoking. I just wish it was easier to quit. It's almost as hard as staying on a diet.
Given the propensity of the antis for lying, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the author of that pathetic piece isn't a figment of their demented imaginations. It sure reads like a talking points memo for the antis now doesn't it?
To put a lot of what's already been said into even other words...
Jill hasn't a clue that the greatest part of our argument has nothing to do with smoking or what the issue boils down to.
In free America is does not matter how many people WISH anything -- whether to have or to stop or to change. It is THEIR responsibility to accomplish those wishful goals. It is not the Green freakin' light for control freaks to insert themselves into those wishes bound by free will and legislate (read dictate) them "for their own good."
So you could tell us that 100% of us WISH we didn't smoke (a hypothetical!)and that still doesn't give you the right to manipulate my wishes.
Why oh why don't you tyrants get that?!? (operative word "tyrants". Could be replaced with "bullies").
Please, I'd really like to know... (and answer honestly) by a show of hands: How many of you antis were beaten up in the schoolyard as kids?
It could answer so much.
From Jill: "...More should be done to keep people from starting and to help the 70% that want to quit do so."
I will assume you are sincere in that statement. But it's not likely to happen as long as states use the settlement money to balance their budgets.
As best as I've been able to ascertain, in NYS 10% of the settlement went to "educational programs". The rest went to balance the budget. Zero -- that's zero as in zilch, zip, nada -- went to smoking cessation programs or even for researching better cessation programs. Not at the state level, at least.
We can argue the merits and success rates of cessation programs, but the fact is that it's extremely disingenuous to bilk companies (and, ultimately, consumers) of millions and billions of dollars under the guise of costs to public health, and then spend that money to compensate for political and economic malfeasance.
The money in some states has gone to various projects, from public golf courses to senior citizen services. I can't help but wonder, if there's such a gaping economic hole left by tobacco related illnesses, why that money is not spent to compensate for that, instead of being spent on pork barrel projects.
Something about the whole kit and kaboodle smells really bad, and it ain't just tobacco smoke (or pot smoke or charcoal or diesel exhaust or cheap perfume). Rather, it is the shameless highway robbery that produces nothing, sending good money into the black hole of government coffers, where it's never seen or heard from again.
NYC is, for a short period of time, making nicotine patches available to its residents. I don't know how long the program will last nor do I know what standards have to be met to qualify for the giveaway. I haven't looked to see who's behind it nor how it's funded, but it would be interesting to follow the money on that one. Could big pharma be subsidizing a new, tres chic, substitute addiction in hopes of cashing in on the nicotine industry? Perhaps that's cynical, but fool me twice...
Anyhow, the patch is the absolute worst method of nicotine delivery available. It doesn't deliver enough nicotine over a long enough period of time to be effective in any measure. At least, not for the truly addicted, for whom it is virtually useless after a few hours. It would be much better to offer the gum or the lozenges (or perhaps even the inhaler) so that one can control the delivery, using more or less as needed.
But the municipality isn't even enlightened on that front, nor does it seem to consider other methods. This is nothing more than political grandstanding, so politicians can pat themselves on the back for trying everything and doing a good, humanitarian job. I think they will just end up with a charley horse in their shoulders, as their arms are more trained for picking pockets.
I was very interested in the nicotine addiction research that had been done. Unfortunately, that research has been rather isolated and I suspect that it's not well funded, although I don't know for certain. It certainly isn't sexy and probably serves no political agenda, so it is likely underserved. After all, if it led to reduced addiction, how would governments and special interst groups make money and claim fame? Why, they might actually have to spend their lives producing something other than a new caste system. 
Dr. Siegel,
Did you go to BU as an undergrad? For God's sake, the health nannies are worried about smoking? They want to ban that? How about the binge drinking, drunk driving, unprotected sex, pot smoking, cocaine snorting, X, shrooms, prostitutes, and 2 AM Dominos deep dish pizza ordering.
One of my best friends went to BU and I saw all of that and more (which is unprintable).
Cigarettes?
Nice one Leander ,it would be most illuminating to get the low down on this racket.Legalised extortion and money laundering with a bribe to continue selling a legal product.To bail a states inability to balance its budget but at the expense of the small manufacturers who see their profit margins plummet.Yes it does stink something evil,right the way to the top.I wonder what the backhander is ?
Commenting by HaloScan
