One slight correction, Dr. Siegel, tobacco companies do not fund the MSA, only the consumers of the products of the participating manufacturers fund the MSA and thus Legacy. It is a specific part of the MSA that all costs of funding could and would be immediately passed on to the consumer, to the tune of at least 45 cents per pack, within days after it was signed and a month before it even went into effect.
This is the 1 reason that Philip Morris has been pushing legislation in the 46 participating states to force the non-participating manufacturers to pay into it. In many states, companies that did not even exist in 1998 are now being forced to raise their prices. Legislatures are going along with this extortion because PM and other MSA signatories were losing market share to the lower priced products, and since MSA payments are based upon market shasre sales, the states were losing their ill gotten gains.
The American Legacy Foundation belongs in the same category as another group with the same acronym...ALF...the Animal Liberation Front. They are nothing more than a terrorist organization. The only difference between Legacy and the other ALF, is Legacy is government sanctioned terrorism.
I realize we may have been a bit harsh in our criticism of your views on funding for studies to Universities, But behind that harshness, was a real concern that exactly this type of coercion was and is taking place. Legacy is not the only one putting conditions on their funding, as you well know, nor are they even the worst of the transgressors, but thats another rest of the story. That you have publicly stated that you feel that they are doing wrong as well goes far to clear the misperceptions of what we have been discussing the last few days.
I still feel that WHERE the funding comes from is not nearly as important as how the funding is presented, and whether or not it has attachments or conditions such as those laid out by Legacy.
If no conditions as to funding are inherant, and the recieving University has the power to run it's studies, it's way, I still don't care who the funding comes from, be it tobacco, Pharma, or even SmokefreePennsylvania, as long as the science is sound and the results are public, and not predisposed.
Gabz wrote:
"The only difference between Legacy and the other ALF, is Legacy is government sanctioned terrorism."
Comments like this truly enhance the public image of right to smoke advocates.
So keep on writing that style of prose, preferrably in letters to elected officials and letters to newspaper editors.
We've been saying this for a long time: there is a conspiracy to control all sources of funding for tobacco-related research, specifically to prevent any research hypothesis that could contradict the TC cabal's public policy agenda (such as Engstrom & Kabat) from ever being funded.
That's despicable. It's an offence to science and scientific freedom.
Comments like this truly enhance the public image of right to smoke advocates.
And keep twisting phrases in order to portray a group of people incorrectly, and with intent to slander, to the public.
"Smokers' rights" and "right to smoke" are not the same thing and you know it. Try that same nonsense with gays, why don't you? Turn "gay rights" into "right to be gay" and see how far that gets you.
Speaking of Cherner (not that there's anything wrong with that -- only his own personal hypocrisy in finding something wrong with others), he's a fine example of wordplay... changing reporters' own words to ones that fit the agenda.
Geeez, people in glass houses...
Bill: Comments like this truly enhance the public image of right to smoke advocates.
Pot, kettle, black..........sound familiar Bill?
Considering your name calling and innuendos, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others.
Dr. Siegel,
Now this posting of yours I fully understand and can agree with. And not just because of the parties involved, but on principal alone. And yet, I also fully agree with Jerry Thomas' comment also. IF the university has full control over the research, and the research is clean, accurate, and honest; then the funding source should not matter.
Now, IF the universities are concerned about HOW that research is then used and presented by others, then perhaps copywriting might be in order also.
Mr. Godshall...........
You truly need to get a grip. That you are unable to see the parallel between the American Legacy Foundation and the Animal Liberation Front astounds me. It really and truly does.
One ALF seeks to put private businesses out of business by lying to government entities. The other ALF seeks to put private businesses out of business by damaging/destroying property. Compared to the first mentined ALF, the second is actually an honest operation, as the second group actually admits their responsibility/culpability. Something you and your kind will never do.
I have absolutely no use for either organization, but I must give credit where credit is due.......and the Legacy people are due no credit.
It's nice to know the types of people you have an affinity for, Mr. Godshall..........
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Comments like this truly enhance the public image of right to smoke advocates."
Coming from someone who's used the urinating ("pissing") in the swimming pool analogy in an interview; said SHS is oral rape; research on lung cancer is a waste of money, I can't help but chuckle.
I wonder if what you write sometimes could be considered eye rape? LOL
No James,i reckon it's brain mugging,or assault with the deadly word.
I wish when Bill Godshall makes a comment people would not allow it to so get their goat. Incidentally, I think his point was not altogether without merit.
I call myself a "smokers' rights advocate." How is that different than "a right to smoke" advocate?
Since the American Legacy Foundation gets public funding is it not a public entity and is it not accountable for anything it spends or does?
"I call myself a 'smokers' rights advocate.' How is that different than 'a right to smoke' advocate?"
But JTF surely got it exactly right: "'Smokers' rights' and 'right to smoke' are not the same thing ..."
'A right to smoke' sounds in-your-face. Whereas "smokers' rights" says, among other things, that smokers should not be discriminated against, and that smoking in the great outdoors is none of the government's damn business.
I do tend to agree with Bill's post in the very general sense, and in fact I'm almost scared to mention that his statements make good sense on the surface and start of irrefutible--I almost feel guilty and self-interested for trying to look more under them(and I bet other smokers do too,) but to me the exercise in logic chopping has paid off elsewhere. So this post is sort of thanks for anyone who's taken time to dissect his argument and part for myself.
Having said that I think there's hay to be made by showing that we ARE being considerate, or trying to be, when anti-smokers say we are not. And this word shifting in arguments can leave people at a loss--they don't notice it until down the line in the argument.
It's like the social psychological experiment where a green car got into an accident and people say "So how fast was the blue car going?" -- link here, look at "studies" for the general phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Mis...staken_identity
Only it's not just about mistaken identity but mistaken intention or effect--hit vs smashed here parallels some of what we've seen from him. Mr Godshall has been very persuasive other methods, too, but what sticks out here are two words in particular--"pollution" and "rape." And "forcing smoke down children's lungs" vs exposing them to drifting smoke.
So while Mr Godshall does not blur the obvious yes/no facts, I think he is guilty of blurring what is beneath the surface, and for this he deserves a counter-argument at the very least.
I've seen in general anti-smoking bigwigs say stuff like "they can't blow smoke in your face any more"--which hurt me a lot. I try to avoid that but I still felt accused, but I can't imagine how he'd react if he had something similar thrown at him.
I think we can do better. I do admit sometimes I have to cool down a bit after reading some of his more contentious posts, but they've been valuable to wrestle with.
And the better questions we ask, the more we can learn from him and how he's managed to persuade the Allegheny County executive/legislators of his vision. I think we need to ask questions and have our own vision, to restore the balance, and to counter some of the anti-smoking one-offs that feel good to say.
Finally, I find it's kind of ironic that one anti-smoking canard is that a quick fix isn't good for you long term. I would submit that the anti-smoking product has been packaged in such a way that people reciting the dangers of smoking/ETS can get their quick fixes of social approval, etc., and it seems hard to work against that. And I think it is necessary for purposes of general civility.
Well, that's my soapbox. I probably sound frustrated, but I've learned(a little late) that admitting you're frustrated stops you from getting outright mad. And I hope I've touched base maybe with some lurkers here or maybe even given regular posters opportunity to say "well, I'd say it like this instead..."
And as for smokers rights vs right to smoke...my favorite example of a political wordtwister is legislating common sense vs common sense legislation. The two do seem to get confused, with unfortunate consequences.
just wrote:
""Smokers' rights" and "right to smoke" are not the same thing and you know it."
I agree that "smokers' rights" are very different than "right to smoke".
I strongly support smoker's rights, which is they reason I've been encouraging smokers and lawyers to sue cigarette companies for lying to and harming smokers.
In contrast, I strongly oppose a so-called "right to smoke" because that oxymoron conflicts with everyone's century's old right of not being harmed by the irresponsible actions of others.
I suppose then Bill,using your style of comprehension,and murdering the english language,i should be encouraging non-smoker's rights to sue Public Health and those associated with it for the lies and distress being caused to them.Irresponsible actions can and are caused by individuals who have a vision of utopia that they endeavour to force on everyone else,ring any bells Bill.
What about the people being harmed by your irresponsible actions, Mr Godshall?
But you are wrong of course. There is a 'right to smoke', much as it pains you, and there is no 'right of not being harmed by the irresponsible actions of others'.
But then you know that.
.
Godshall writes: "I strongly support smoker's rights, which is they reason I've been encouraging smokers and lawyers to sue cigarette companies for lying to and harming smokers."
You've got the brass to speak of LYING?
Goodness gracious!
Hey, Bill, I've got your next campaign all mapped out: flatulence in elevators. Toxic stuff, that.
Bill: In contrast, I strongly oppose a so-called "right to smoke" because that oxymoron conflicts with everyone's century's old right of not being harmed by the irresponsible actions of others.
Thanks for proving my point, Bill. The anti mob has decided that's what that phrase means and that is the derisive meaning you try to circulate. Your own little made up dictionary that you peddle.
Ergo, by consciously picking that replacement phrase (we write a sentence that says "smokers' rights" and you repeat it with "right to smoke" or you use it in your propaganda material) you seek to character assassinate. That's why YOU use it and that's what **I** said.
And then to soothe your mind (or risk bursting a vein) you rationalize "smokers' rights" everytime you read it printed somewhere to fit your own made up definition!
Really, I can't be wrong. The first part is arrived at by you by a contrivance. So it's sister part must be a contrivance too.
If there's NO "right to smoke" then I suppose there's also no right to eat ice cream or lie in the sun or read books of your choice or play sandlot baseball.
And pleeeze don't trot out "they don't harm others." It's not just that books (ideas) can cause harm ("How to Build a Nuclear Bomb in your Basement") but do you know how many broken windows and broken bones are statistically caused by sandlot baseball?
There oughta be a law.
Godshall writes about urging smokers to sue cigarette companies for lying and harming smokers. On what basis -- IGNORANCE about the dangers of smoking, you charlatan?
How about smokers suing the antis (if that were only possible!) about all the lying reports they've put out about the dangers of ETS (as Dr. Siegel has so ably documented) and due to which much smokers' ostracism, contentiousness within families and without, and misery has resulted? And yes, even deaths! Just how much RESPONSIBILITY do you take for any of that, Godshall, you who've shown, unlike Dr. Siegel, not the slightest damn bit of integrity and honesty on the subject?
What a charming piece of work you are, sir!
Bill Godshall wrote:
"In contrast, I strongly oppose a so-called "right to smoke" because that oxymoron conflicts with everyone's century's old right of not being harmed by the irresponsible actions of others."
Let me guess. You threw in the word "irresponsible" to leave yourself an out as to why you can drive a car past children when they walk to school?
I should just ask you instead. Why did you throw that word in there? It's okay to harm others responsibly?
I strongly support smoker's rights, which is they reason I've been encouraging smokers and lawyers to sue cigarette companies for lying to and harming smokers.
Bill--
Ah--they're smokers now, not addicts, that you want to turn their business over to colleagues or connections.
And yet...these are the first rights you mention. The rights of complaining about cigarettes, about litigation. And if a judgement is won, most of the fees go to lawyers, and some legislators ratchet up taxes again. Forgive my cynicism, but if antismoking groups can do it for tobacco companies and claim smokers support that, turnabout seems fair play.
Given that you've mentioned "rights" in the plural, I am hoping you have more in mind than just litigation. What rights do you feel smokers have? You're at least a step ahead of ANR, who say smokers have no rights, but I am wondering if you'd like to expound on other rights.
If you are able to find this, I'd be interested in your more indepth views, Bill. Thanks!
8 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
