Dr. Siegal
I am most surprised by your column today. Do you not understand that people (corporations are people under the law) that are most affected by a law are the people who should be most consulted.
The problem with this law is not that Philip Morris was involved with it.
The problem with this law is that ALL the tobacco companies and smokers were not represented.
Why is TC threatened when anyone else is allowed to speak on a particular issue? Does TC fear debate?
Michelle
“As long as you're working "for the children" and not against them, you can lie all you want.
Of course, this means that Philip Morris is now working "for the children." It's only appropriate that we now allow them to start lying again since they're now on our side.”
AHHH ................ The Children™, .... The Children™. It’s all about Saving® The Children™.
It is most noble of TC/PH to endure the hardship of high salaries/funding and unmerited political and social status in their quest to “educate” the illiterate, and at times ungrateful, masses. Let not fact, reason, sensibility or goodwill impede the way of these tireless crusaders. May Facts® prevail ...... for The Children™.
To Truth®, Justice©, in the Public Health way!!
Michael, could you be interested in a cape, and spangled underwear that is worn over tights?
_
Doctor Siegel, - "The nation's largest cigarette company was present at the negotiating table and had to give its approval to each provision in order for the bill to move forward."
You still don't get it.
It was only right that they be present despite your preference of dictating personal standards and their happy submission in accepting those standards without comment.
Get over yourself for a minute.
EVERY corporation, regardless of the product they make available should be represented when negotiations of how their products will be manufactured, advertised, and sold to the consumers at which they are aimed is being debated by people that DON'T USE THOSE PRODUCTS and especially when those that wish to "regulate" those products have a demonstrated history of holding those manufacturers in utter contempt.
The ONLY problem with this law, and it's the reason there is so much wrong with it, is that the consumers of the products were not represented, in any way, shape or form.
Tobacco Control ("health organizations" in name only) continuously represent their own interests and nothing more.
Comrades,
Technically Tobacco Control does mean 'Control of the Tobacco', so all those at the table should be all grouped under one agency, with no distinctions.
"Control of the Tobacco"
.
Dr. Siegel,
If you’re going to unconstitutionally dismiss a legal industry and its customers from all discussions and unilaterally decide stringent policies affecting their bottom line and the lives of their customers, what is it that stops you from supporting total prohibition? This is a genuine question addressed to you as a public health professor.
Sin taxes and smoking bans represent a criminal form of political bigotry, based in a view that a person is only a sum of physical parts and has value only according to their lifespan.
Crimes and guilt that Public health will just have to learn to live with in the normative reality they prefer to prescribe, denormalized in the same way that they attempted to impose that guilt and isolation on others.
"Michael, could you be interested in a cape, and spangled underwear that is worn over tights?
_
RickDP | Homepage | 06.29.09 - 11:39 am | # " Oh so true Rick lol.
Was there a representative from the National Association of Convenience Stores present during these "negotiations?"
How 'bout someone from the National Association of Bar and Tavern Owners?
No?,..How 'bout someone from the National Restaurant Association?
Anybody from the National Retail Federation?
Retail Industry Leaders Association?
Teamsters Union?
Bob the builder?
Joe the plumber?
Anybody at all even pretending to represent me?
No, ..of course not.
Just the two warring factions of greed and deception.
Both of them arguing over who gets the bigger share of my money, and neither one interested in what I think at all.
It's amazing doc that you are so sure that those who smoke want your protection. My wife likes to smoke clove cigarettes and now from what I understand that may not be possible, although I will find them elsewhere.
Or she will start to smoke Marlboro's again. I guess I should thank you, Marlboro's are a lot cheaper.
per Dr. Siegel, "The latest and saddest chapter of tobacco control history ..."
Well, lift you head up high and take a walk in the sun ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p...h?
v=pOhKqWMhVVI
There may be sadder chapters yet to come.
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.®
Dr. Siegel: “It is pitiful that the anti-smoking groups and health groups which supported this legislation are of the opinion that Philip Morris belongs in the business of crafting tobacco legislation and that inviting Philip Morris to the table where this legislation is hammered out is an appropriate way to formulate public health policy.”
Your contention appears to be that only public health, heavily influenced by anti-smoker zealots, should be permitted to draft tobacco legislation. But public health is no more deserving of a seat at the table than bar and tavern owners, convenience store owners, etc. or any of the others mentioned by LightningBoy. Public Health is in the business of pushing anti-smoker, tobacco regulation.
Public Health does not exist in a vacuum. The socio-economic effects of punitive taxation and draconian regulation are far reaching, and all affected parties deserve to be heard, including the tobacco companies.
And, honestly Doc, I find your continued insistence that the agenda was controlled by Philip Morris to be somewhat disingenuous. There were three parties at the table, all intent on protecting their own little fiefdom, and all three seem satisfied with the outcome. All three seem quite willing to puff up their chest, turn their noses towards the sky and await the adulation of the masses for “saving the children”.
The only ones likely to get the shaft will be tobacco consumers. And, there was no one at the table to speak on our behalf.
Si & ES
_
When is the next nomination meeting to decide the head of Public Health?
It is a democratic process, No?
I want to be there to nominate Joe the plumber who has promised to legalize crack. Someone will be needed soon to satisfy all those smokers who have been forbidden tobacco and are now eager to participate in the next rendition of drug abuse, that the normal people promote.
From the conspirator files;
Before every world war their is always a gov. promotion of physical fitness, aligned with a numbing down of common sense and permissive bigotry to get the mind frame in the right order, so that basic training is not too much of a strain on the budget.
The world is becoming too crowded to suffice the current infrastructure and the time for another cull is drawing near.
We need to lobby hard to have all the leaders of Public health on the front lines. Have Stanton and James and old Banzass lead the charge, to show us the way to really protect our children?
Hard to imagine isn't it?
I ditto everything that everyone said already. Thank you all for voicing so clearly what was going through my head.
I also agree wholeheartedly with what has been said here. At least the process leading to this legislation had someone besides careerist zealot "public health" loudmouths involved.
I am definitely not a big fan of PM. However, I now find myself in the position of rooting for the underdog. Wouldn't it be wonderful if PM's, RJR's, and all tobacco companies stock just skyrockets in this very weak market? Wouldn't it be nice if the tobacco companies shafted TC? After all, tobacco is now FDA approved, so why exactly does a FREE country like AMERICA need TC?
PM is obviously a lot smarter than TC.
PM
Push em back, push em back
WAAAAAAAAAAAAY back!
A big ditto to everyone too. Great responses. Long day. Going to have a smoke and then hit the hay. Keep up the great words guys!
"I want to be there to nominate Joe the plumber who has promised to legalize crack."- Kevin
I believe he was referring to a different crack ....which ties in nicely with the sweat off the buttocks. Some cracks should never be revealed much less made legal.
Rick;
My one disappointment with your gift is that the PDF format does not allow copy and paste, to demonstrate a referenced quote. The book in an open format with active HTML links could be an excellent resource and reference compilation. I am personally considering a use in a court challenge of some pretty ridiculous laws imposed recently in Ontario Canada.
Can I request you post the explanation of "Do no harm" from pages 127-128, in order to demonstrate to Michael and hopefully entice a response; what was always deranged and dangerous with the TC promotions and how flimsy the evidence he relies upon really is.
I can't imagine anyone explaining it any better than what I saw in your writing.
Kevin,
I take it that this is the section you're referring to:
“The Hippocratic Dictum of “First do no harm” includes potential psychological and social harm. Medical practitioners were mindful of the capacity of a patient’s lack of mental composure to adversely affect their overall health. A subgroup of persons with illness can manifest neurotic tendencies such as dependency, maladjustment, anxiety, meticulousness, perfectionism, obsessions (e.g., Neuhaus, 1958; Kelly & Zeller, 1969). A medical practitioner needs to determine what a patient is biologically/physiologically capable of and what psychogenic (originating in thought/emotion) constraints are being placed on this functioning. Even with, for example, post-cardiac arrest or post-surgery, overprotection may become problematic, i.e., akin to “losing one’s nerve.” Encouragement is provided to overcome psychological obstacles to allow a full recovery of physiological function.
It can also be said that jeopardizing persons’ mental health in terms of worry and anxiety on the basis of potentially flimsy evidence (e.g., low-level risk factors), and therefore jeopardizing overall health, would not have been considered lightly. If medical practitioners mentioned a risk factor (low-level) for specific disease at all, they would be quick to point out that it is only a risk factor and therefore very little is understood about its actual relationship to the disease in question and for what subgroup it might critically be relevant. There is even a term for adverse effects produced by a medical practitioner – iatrogenic effect. This typically includes the detrimental consequences of, for example, misdiagnosis, improper medication or combination of medications, surgical errors, negligence. It also includes iatrogenic psychopathology.” (p.127-128 ).
_
That would be it, Thanks again.
Michael;
Considering the above post; how on earth in good conscience can you stand in concert with a process of wide brush, absolutely devoid of personal diagnosis and declare a homogeneous group known only as smokers are not being abused with impunity, by the TC promotions of denormalization, smoking bans and sin taxes?
Can the FDA bill possibly produce a larger insult to humanity, than we have been witnessing by your beloved lobby for years?
I really can't see how you can ignore this without some form of explanation.
Even the Tobacco companies were never so vile, because the so called "experts" knew precisely what they were doing and they went ahead with enthused gusto, patting each other on the back at every opportunity.
Kevin,
I would be quite happy to make a copy of the book available to Michael. I sent him an email a number of months ago indicating that I would send him a download link. I didn’t hear back. I assumed the more gracious alternative that he never received the email. But, I’m not sure why he didn’t take up the offer this past weekend. The offer still stands for Michael.
Michael, would you like a copy of the book? There might be some interesting bits in it.
_
BTW I shouldn't have to remind you. TC is targeting non smokers to incite power, The effects and pain which will develop among smokers, who number in the tens of millions, will put your postulated 400,000 [or what ever the lie is today] into the minuscule, compared to observable effects, in the real world.
Rick;
If Michael was brave enough to read without bias, the pages up to 77, the first few sentences would be more than his heart could bear.
Don't hurt the man, give him fair warning and have him read it close to a medical facility. Just in case.
If he were to make it grudgingly through chapter two, chapter three would have him screaming vulgarities and looking to purchase a weapon to vent his denials.
No I can't believe Michael is string enough to withstand your language and logic, although personally I believe he should be making your book required reading for every one of his students. And that would happen without question, in a world that was a little more concerned and a lot less greedy.
Your book requires a health warning for the faint of integrity.
"Your book requires a health warning for the faint of integrity.
Kevin | 06.30.09 - 1:05 am | # " I was thinking of something akin to SILVER BULLETS for the lycan community or THE CRUCIFIX for those of the vampire (possibly TC here) community. That is merely based on what i've read so far,and the juicy bits are yet to come.The only drawback that i really do fear,is that having read it,i will NEVER be able to give the medical profession any credibility ever again.Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing,should any of us ? Denormalisation is nothing short of a NAZI ideal,happily accepted by Public Health.FIRST DO NO HARM, MY ARSE !
OT
No plans to extend smoking ban to outdoors
"The news comes amid media speculation that the European Commissioner for Health is to recommend that the ban is extended to cover outdoor areas, which would include pub beer gardens. An announcement is due from the Commissioner later this morning"
http://www.morningadvertiser.co....Article?
R=83582
Well lets hope not, when you start banning smoking outside, you have left all pretence of science.
Having read the Nuremberg Laws in which parks and beaches are featured, I find it chilling,to read towns gaily and proudly banning people from smoking in parks and beaches, at the request of unnamed youths from various "smokefree" associations.
I have occasionally walked across a deserted beach at sunset, smoking a cigarette, which is safely put out and put in my pocket.
Presumably if such a law is in force, I will be spied on and prosecuted via satellite.
"To me, “going too far” in SHS policy means efforts premised on reducing harm to others, which ban smoking in outdoor settings such as ships’ decks, parks, golf courses, beaches, outdoor parking lots, hospital gardens( and streets. It is also the
introduction of misguided policies allowing employers to refuse to hire smokers, including those who obey proscriptions on smoking indoors while at work."
"As I stated earlier, while tobacco smoke has its own range of recognisable smells, there are few differences between the physics and chemistry of tobacco smoke and
smoke generated by the incomplete combustion of any biomass, whether it be eucalyptus leaves, campfire logs, gasoline, or meat on a barbeque. Secondhand smoke is not so uniquely noxious that it justifies extraordinary controls of such stringency that zero tolerance outdoors is the only acceptable policy."
"Opponents of clean indoor air will be able to point to dubious “endgame” advocacy in nations which have successfully introduced indoor smoking bans, and invoke slippery
slope precedents that advocates actually want to ban smoking “everywhere”.
This may unfairly brand tobacco control advocates as clandestine extremists with agendas which abandon all proportionality in the formulation of policy"
http://www.aha.org.au/
chapman_ou...oor_smoking.pdf
Oh really?
"Well lets hope not, when you start banning smoking outside, you have left all pretence of science." Actually Rose,didn't science go out of the window in the mid 70's with the advent of passive rauchen ?
Si
I'm afraid so, and as a British person, I once again apologize.
Sir George quoted Joules' letter to the Lancet in 1953 which Ball had also referred to. In it he had criticised the Chief Medical Officer of Health's report which referred to the "mysterious and inexorable rise of lung canceel after Doll and Hill's paper.
Joules had outlined the need for action then, and Sir George did not feel the action taken 25 years later was adequate.The WHO, for example, had made no move till 1970.
Sir Georgedeplored the situation where it was illegal to advertise a cancer cure but legal to advertise smoking, a carcinogen.
He felt smoking,should be seen as an infestation of the home, to be wiped out like head lice.
Rather illogically at first sight (as never smokers only have a life expectation about 3 to 4 years higher than the average smoker) he pointed out that, between 1900 and 1945, the expectation of life had increased 45% whereas between 1945 and 1975, the increase had been only 5%.
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guil...09/
00011035.pdf
Page7
"The generation, interpretation, and use of scientific and medical information about ETS has been influenced, and probably distorted, by a "social movement" to shift the emphasis on the adverse health effects of smoking in the active smoker to an implied health risk for the nonsmoker.
The focus of this movement, initiated by Sir George Godber of the World Health Organization 15 years ago, was and is to emphasize that active cigarette smokers injure those around them, including their families and, especially, any infants that might be exposed involuntarily to ETS.
By fostering the perception that secondhand smoke is unhealthy for nonsmokers, active smoking has become an undesirable and an antisocial behavior. The cigarette smoker has become ever more segregated and isolated."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...23437-
3484.html
1975 when British delegate Sir George Godber instructed the World Health Organization on how to get smokers to quit.
Sir George said, "it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air."
Rose,
Don’t be deceived by Chapman. He is given over to duplicity (surprise!). Below are some links to the antismoking conduct of Mosman Council (a wealthy suburb in Aust) which has recently banned smoking in all municipal areas. There are only some streets and footpaths available to smoking. Chapman was nowhere to be seen in questioning (i.e., going too far) this conduct.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday...04/
s1194073.htm
http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/new...ayoral-
overview
http://www.news.com.au/
dailytele...5006010,00.html
Chapman produces some papers here and there, giving the impression that he is the voice of ‘reason’, of ‘temperance’, in TC. But when it comes to policy, he is very much ANTI.
More recently, he has signed his name to a tobacco-free university campus initiative in Australia. The initiative is to place severe restrictions on smoking outside on campus. Policies are to be reviewed (i.e., an eventual complete ban on the entire campus).
http://www.ashaust.org.au/pdfs/
T...sGuideAus09.pdf
_
Isn't the oh so moderate Chapman the one that produced the ''spoiled identity of smokers'' paper ? One of the most despicable papers I have read from public health (Banzhaff and Repace excluded 'cause they're in a class of their own).
Rick
You can tell by his stated beliefs, nevertheless, it does seem that he too can be embarassed by these antics. After all, the Movement must not be brought into disrepute.
Iro,
Yes.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg...nt/full/17/1/
25
_
Iro
Yes, that's the one that always makes me feel as if I have been examining the entrails of a rotting corpse.
It neatly illustrates the principle elements of the astroturf campaign
Smokers as malodourous
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as selfish and thoughtless
Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
Smokers as addicts
Smokers as excessive users of public health services
Smokers as employer liabilities
Its like an advertising campaign in reverse.
They do like their buzzwords,it makes searches so much easier.
Here's another favourite
Design Effective Messages
Experienced tobacco control advocates have built a toolkit of techniques to help them design effective messages. We list some of those tools here, along with references and links to more extensive guidance.
Numbers That "Sing"
Tobacco control advocates can develop motivating messages by presenting statistics in ways that convey scientific truths and also move an audience emotionally. This technique has been called "creative epidemiology" or "social math"—mathematics applied for a social purpose.
Over a decade ago, public health economist Ken Warner used this technique in a message on the death toll of smoking: "Smoking kills more people than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, AIDS, fires, homicide, suicide, and automobile accidents combined." http://strategyguides.globalink..../
guide01_07.htm
Here you go, now you can play too.
Social Math...for Everything
Social math is the shorthand messaging folks use for the kind of number that helps your argument make a connection with your audience. Social math is not "2.9 million people died from AIDS/HIV in 2006." Social math is "One person dies every ten seconds from HIV or AIDS."
With fascinating World Clock, watch those numbers roll!
http://www.gii-exchange.org/
blog...everything.html
Having seen the marketing plot discussions between the manufacturers,the CDC and the AMA, there is little doubt there is nothing arising from the medical community in the news which we can trust.
We should feel relieved and grateful that smokers are not alone as victims in the fraudulent marketing of vaccine for the swine flu.
There is a large line between keeping the public informed and keeping them frightened, which has been eliminated by the press release styled commercials we are seeing on a daily basis.
Thanks for that TC, Your rewards are in the mail.
RickDP,
Yes - I'd love a copy of the book.
I'm grateful for this one
"More people died in 2002 from passive smoking at work in the UK than were killed by the Great London smog of 1952"
James Repace
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
2925633.stm
It led to things like this, and so much more.
Great Smog is history, but foul air still kills
"Other researchers have found evidence that pollution from diesel engines is linked to reduced head growth in unborn children, kidney damage and restricted sexual development"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/
200...npolitics.waste
Anti-smoking agenda 'caused air pollution problem to be obscured'
"Governments concealed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution in the wake of the great London smog 50 years ago, and attempted to shift all the blame on to cigarette smoking, a medical historian will allege today.
While gradually there came to be no doubt of the deaths and disease caused by cigarettes, it suited governments for political reasons that the focus should remain firmly on smoking"
"An estimated 12,000 people died from the effects of the smog, but there was a shift in the public health agenda from the 1950s onwards towards the individual taking responsibility for his or her own health"
"It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2.../
smoking.uknews
Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
http://www.ehponline.org/members...3/6114/
6114.pdf
Experts prove link between pollution and damage to lungs
"URBAN smog damages the lungs of children and could cause asthma, says the first study to confirm a widely suspected, but never proven link between pollution and breathing problems."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...e-to-
lungs.html
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...ung_cancer.html
Exposure to Traffic and the Onset of Myocardial Infarction
"Results An association was found between exposure to traffic and the onset of a myocardial infarction within one hour afterward (odds ratio, 2.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.22 to 3.83; P 0.001). The time the subjects spent in cars, on public transportation, or on motorcycles or bicycles was consistently linked with an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction."
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/cont...ort/351/17/
1721
Michelle -
Your points are well-taken. I want to emphasize, however, that what happened here was not merely that Philip Morris was consulted. What happened is that the health groups made a deal with Philip Morris that could not be altered. So even if other groups were consulted and it turned out that there were amendments that would improve the bill, the health groups would oppose those amendments because it would threaten the original deal. More generally, I'm arguing that health groups should not be crafting legislation through deal-making with the affected industry. But I don't disagree with your comment that the involved industries should be consulted.
As far as your question: "Why is TC threatened when anyone else is allowed to speak on a particular issue? Does TC fear debate?" I have to admit, sadly, that you are correct. The answer is YES. From my personal experience, I've realized that these groups do fear debate because this is a religious-like dogma and is not subject to challenge. And in some cases, they know they could not stand up to questioning so they cannot allow the dogma to be challenged.
I certainly found this to be the case with the FDA legislation, where the groups were not willing to enter into any debate about the bill. Yes - they WERE afraid of debate.
From Rick's link;
"These decades have seen major changes in how smoking and smokers are perceived, where smoking can occur, and to the reputation of the tobacco industry with the community and governments. Restrictions on where smoking is permitted in public places have increased markedly, now applying even in some outdoor settings. Throughout this period, the tobacco industry has continued efforts to position tobacco as an unexceptional item of commerce, and its standing as an entirely legitimate, responsible business selling "legal" products. Publicity about political associations with the tobacco industry has today become a kind of reputational "mark of Cain"."
So lets take stock of reputation change shall we?
Smokers today; Detestable hazard to the public, those sinners who need to be taught a lesson at every opportunity and taxed whenever budgets are strained.
Tobacco industry; The beleaguered underdog being attacked on many fronts just for doing business in the sale of a legal product, attacked many times without just provocation. Today as a partner in protecting children, that negative connotation will be substantially reduced.
So who won and who lost and what was accomplished, by systemic fraud and the worst kept secret [Risk of ETS] the public has quietly chuckled about in decades?
Michael,
I've sent you a download link.
_
Oh,I forgot.The hypocritical prohibitionista don't engage in lying. Now that the fiction of environmental tobacco smoke "dangers" has been enshrined as biblical truth by the media. The strategy has been incremental and very effective. It was used sucessfully by one of the more famous smoke and smoker haters of all time, Adolf Hitler.
"It is a piece of legislation that is designed to make it look like Philip Morris, politicians, and the health groups are doing something about the smoking problem."
WHAT PROBLEM? A simple enough question, I should think. Goodness knows, smokers are a big plus as far as money going to state legislatures and the national government is concerned. No problem there, surely. Smokers who want to quit? If that's a problem, how is it your or the government's problem? Another simple enough question I should think. And smokers who don't want to quit? No problem there, surely.
So just what problem are you talking about, doctor? Can you even articulate it?
.
Harry,...c'mon,...you know what the problem is.
The fact that smokers exist at all.
The fact that someone might actually see someone else smoking.
The fact that despite all the rehtoric, despite all the grotesque images, the tortured statistics, the stories of billions of people keeling over dead at the mere thought of tobacco smoke, and despite the fact that many smokers simply thumb their nose's at these clowns is the problem.
They want respect that they haven't earned, and are clearly willing to do "whatever it takes" to convince everyone that they have.
It's not Public health, it's Public intimidation of those that don't agree.
Commenting by HaloScan
