Readers may want to note that the fact that the study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare is not of primary concern to me. My concern is over the financial conflicts of interest of study authors and principal investigators, not with the overall funding by a pharmaceutical company. The funding itself does not represent a financial conflict of interest.
Had the study been funded by big tobacco and showed that NRT was INeffective, I'd bet you'd be singing a different tune and would have a problem with the funding source. Even if those carrying out the study were totally UNbiased.
You have problems with big tobacco funding anything, but don't have a problem with big pharma funding a study that benefits it?
I see that as hypocrisy.
Well, if you gave a crack cocaine addict cocaine gum or patch, the success rate would be 100%.
Electronic cigarettes present the best option for those who want to quit smoking IMO. Of course WHO and others in TC are clamoring to ban them. I wonder why. Victoria in Australia has already banned the e cig. Too bad TC never studies actual smokers to find out why they smoke and what might work if they decided to quit smoking. If anyone wishes to examine actual people using the e cig to quit smoking, visit www.e-cigarette-forum.com Disclosure: I have no connection to e cigarettes and their development or sales other than owning a couple. I have been using them to cut back my own smoking and have gone from a pack a day to 5-6 per day with their usage. I have no intention of actually quitting smoking, so save the suggestions.
Question: What company can generate profits with Cold Turkey?
Answer: ?
"When the pair were unable to get approval to test the idea on human subjects, they tried it on themselves.
"We put the tobacco on our skin and waited to see what would happen," Jarvik recalled in an issue of UCLA magazine. "Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping, all the things that happen to smokers."
http://www.news.com.au/
courierma...5003402,00.html
Green tobacco on nonsmokers...
Green Tobacco Sickness in Tobacco Harvesters
"Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/...ml/
00020119.htm
THE ABSORPTION OF NIACIN IN THE SMOKING OF CIGARETTES
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...bde38e00&
page=2
NIACIN AND NIACINAMIDE IN FLUE-CURED CIGARETTE SMOKE CONDENSATE
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...pnx69d00&
page=1
Niacin (Nicotinic Acid)
"Niacin is a member of the B-vitamin family. It is sometimes referred to as vitamin B3. Nicotinic acid was first discovered as an oxidation product of nicotine and thus, the origin of its name. In fact, much of the confusion caused by the use of the term niacin for both nicotinic acid and nicotinamide, as well as for nicotinic acid alone, was created by the attempt to dissociate nicotinic acid from its nicotine origins."
http://research.exercisingyourmi...tinic-
acid.aspx
How about a nice coffee flavoured niacin gum?
That should do the trick.
But that would ruin the Nicotine addiction theory wouldn't it?
The laws and guidelines of advertising for profit are not simply moral indignation, they have been well considered and defined for a very long time.
The problem resides with groups like TC who promote that they have a right to do as they please. They believe as in the case of a quarantine, human rights can be ignored by the medical and scientific community when the safety of the larger group is in their sights.
Wrong!!! by both logic and legal right.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg.../14/suppl_2/
ii3
"The US government is now required by law to ensure
that information disseminated by its agencies meets standards
that maximise the quality of information, including
objectivity, utility, and integrity.21 22
Much of the health communication we discuss employs
the internet, and ethical guidelines have been established
specifically for the internet (as is discussed in the US Healthy
People guidelines in health communication and health
literacy).2 These guidelines are unambiguous on honesty:
‘‘Be truthful and not deceptive.’’ They emphasise the
importance of providing accurate and well supported
information. There is no allowance for the use of deception
in web based health communications. These standards reflect
the rights of internet users, specifically, and individuals more
generally, to expect to find quality information. Because the
supply of internet information is essentially unregulated and
potentially boundless, science based ‘‘data quality’’ is
necessary to protect the credibility of legitimate channels of
information. Deceptive messages will be contradicted in the
multiply sourced ‘‘free press’’ internet leaving the credibility
of all sources in question. In other words, even well intended
deceptive messages present serious risks to the public health
community.”"
"These guidelines are unambiguous on honesty:
‘‘Be truthful and not deceptive."
Truthful meaning the full truth
Deceptive meaning interfering with public perceptions by the employ of less than full disclosure of all the facts we have at hand.
Less than full disclosure of all the reliant facts at hand, [described in a form which is understood by all of the audience in clear and concise terms] while cherry picking the politically supportive facts, are deceptive and rightly defined as illegal and immoral acts against humanity.
Per Kevin's quote, "In other words, even well intended deceptive messages present serious risks to the public health community.”
But there's still "no safe level". Right?
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Kevin
Quite frankly , this has been going on so long that I don't think they know themselves.
I suspect that by now the nicotine addiction theory has become an article of faith.
Mind you, if you give a person, knowingly or unknowingly, the wrong substitute and they repeatedly fail, you can then point out what a terribly strong addiction it is.
Mike wrote:
"In my view, these results indicate that the use of nicotine replacement therapy was a dismal failure."
While the nicotine gum didn't help 94% of users quit, it was successful for 6% of users, an important public health benefit that cannot be considered a dismal failure.
A previous meta analysis similarly found a 7% quit rate (i.e. a 93% relapse rate) after six months for nicotine gum users.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...y=5.ko5/
Oz4yutl
And past studies have similarly found that nicotine gum users are twice as likely to quit (7% to 3.5%) when given the gum compared to placebo. But as Mooney an Polito have pointed out, it is very likely that many recipients of placebos realized they weren't receiving nicotine (something that nicotine addicts crave), which renders the studies as not blind, and thus biased. http://whyquit.com/studies/
NRT_B...ng_Failures.pdf
The overwhelming percentage of exsmokers have quit cold turkey, something that isn't recommended (or even mentioned) in the 276 page US PHS Tobacco Treatment Guidelines (which were drafted, approved and recently amended by a panel that has received extensive funding from drug companies.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
to...bacco_use08.pdf
Several million exsmokers in the US and seveal hundred thousand exsmokers in Sweden have also quit smoking by switching to smokefree tobacco products, which are very similar to NRT gums and lozenges (except that smokefree tobacco products tend to deliver more nicotine faster, taste better and are less expensive than NRT gums and lozenges.
And of course, concurrent use of smokefree tobacco and/or nicotine products with cigarettes can reduce smokers' health risks, (proportionate to the reduction in cigarettes smoked).
Every dose of nicotine obtained from a smokefree product is less hazardous than those obtained from inhaling cigarette smoked.
Public health agencies, health organizations, and healthcare professionals have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and the public about ALL of these risk reduction options, and should respect the autonomy of smokers to make informed decisions on which type of nicotine delivery device(s) they use.
I agree with Mike that the authors of this (and other studies) should fully disclose financial conflicts of interest.
I've known and respected Saul Shiffman since 1986, when I was administering and marketing free small group cold turkey smoking cessation programs that Shiffman developed for the American Cancer Society.
But it also concerns me that Shiffman has received probably more than $1 million since then from drug companies (primarily GSK and GSK funded Pinney Associates) to research and report the benefits (but not the limitations) about NRT products.
Smoking and addiction are personal traits which may or may not apply to any or all individuals.
Some like to drink alcohol and some can not stop. Some exercise for hours every day and others can not be bothered. Some drink coffee first thing every morning, as a matter of habit, although it is rarely described as addiction. Similar to defining a smoker as addicted by his actions on waking up first thing and lighting a cigarette.
The effects one receives from smoking can be directly compared to drinking a cup of coffee which in many medical circles [like nicotine] is still defined as a mutagen. Meaning it can destabilize or alter your genes.
The misinformation devising the perception of addiction, is found in an inability or unwillingness to venture below the population view of statistics and actually investigate individuals which would require much more time and effort. Although the statistical numbers would be much more accurate if they did.
Addiction may well be appropriate in reference to some individuals, however it is far from credible to describe them all or even the majority of those who smoke by the same wide brush.
If there is a belief of primary addiction, how is that complicit with the belief people can quit easily and only a stubborn nature or community acceptance, is in the way of a smoke free world?
Only a political need [Reference the smoking treaty at the WHO] to devalue certain members of our communities, allows science to speak in such biased or defamatory and imprecise terms, to promote political perceptions; which have nothing whatsoever to do with unbiased scientific observations.
Junk science is an appropriate description of "research" with political or financial obligation. As a motivation seen both in it's funding or more abundantly, in the observer's political leanings.
Should the doubtful day ever come when I decide to quit smoking, it will be done by cold turkey. If no one bought into this cessation to quit theories, there would be no money to pay these lobbyist. As long as there is a dollar to be made, there will always be these conflicts of interest from the greedy medical professionals.
E cigarettes
Is this more or less how they work?
"The best-known application is the electric cigarette lighter: pressing the button causes a spring-loaded hammer to hit a piezoelectric crystal, producing a sufficiently high voltage that electric current flows across a small spark gap, thus heating and igniting the gas. The portable sparkers used to light gas grills or stoves work the same way, and many types of gas burners now have built-in piezo-based ignition systems"
High voltage through nicotine to oxidize it?
Should be OK.
Looks like someone has been reading the original literature.
""In my view, these results indicate that the use of nicotine replacement therapy was a dismal failure."
While the nicotine gum didn't help 94% of users quit, it was successful for 6% of users, an important public health benefit that cannot be considered a dismal failure."
How is any assesment even possible without sorting out first how many are addicted and second how severely that addiction might be. In reference to physical need alone, with psychological need on a far more distant and complicated level.
To make generalizations and classifications based in a complete lack of understanding or respect of individuals, has been the problem all along.
Science should first define the condition of individuals or a process to separate unique groupings if they in fact exist, before mass treatments with no understanding of the symptoms, much less the results.
They used to call it human experimentation, today they call it Public Health intervention. Both are equally displays of ignorance and degeneration.
"While the nicotine gum didn't help 94% of users quit, it was successful for 6% of users, an important public health benefit that cannot be considered a dismal failure. - Bill"
Government propoganda at work, if we set the bar low enough any measure of reduction is a success. This is why I left working with the EPA, everything we did started out with lofty goals and expectations and as time went on the goals got ratcheted down, until success could be obtained without lifting your feet off the ground.
How many politicians have stood and stated; they smoked pot in college but they never inhaled?
Would this not indicate a large portion of those who smoked pot, did so as a means to impress others with no intent of becoming high?
Why is it so difficult for researchers to understand, many who smoke never inhaled either. Can someone who has smoked for years have an increased health risk equal to those who do, or an addiction above habit which is difficult to quit?
Lets say we advise those people who have never inhaled, to put on a smoking patch.
Will we be doubling their chances of success? Or will we be introducing them for the first time to nicotine and doubling their chances they will never quit?
I haven't shared any tidbits from my postings at Topix for awhile. Here are some words of love posted to me today.
"You should turn in your uterus; no woman should be as stupid as you.
So do not try to tell me about SHS, you stupid fu**king bitc/h. You can smoke as much as you want to; hell, I hope you end up in an oxygen tank and wither away from emphysema and cancer. But you are NOT going to drag the rest of us down with you."
Sheri;
Thank your doctor, The medical charities and your local politicians for encouraging the attitude which drives these comments.
Ignorance abounds with a Public health seal of approval.
Per Dr. Siegel, "Only 5.9% of subjects receiving nicotine gum achieved six-month abstinence, compared to 2.1% of those receiving placebo.
In my view, these results indicate that the use of nicotine replacement therapy was a dismal failure."
But the 94% who failed learned that ...
http://www.nicorette.com/Nicorette.aspx
Nicorette comes in 6 flavors:
White Ice™ Mint—helps whiten teeth while you use it, coated for a cool mint flavor
Cinnamon Surge™—coated for an intense rush of bold cinnamon flavor
Fruit Chill™—coated twice for an intense fruit flavor with a hint of mint
FreshMint™—coated for a delicious burst of mint flavor
Mint
Original
They also learned that Nicorette will help them though those "tight spots" where they can't smoke. That means that they can continue to pay high taxes (smoke) while they carry some very profitable (over priced) gum around "just in case."
(All of this just because there is no big money in medical grade CO2)
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Bill
If there was 6% temporary ending of a ailment (since this doesn't mention how many people long term quitters there is), would the FDA approve it as well??
Why is the 6% success rate considered successful? We have seen where this same rate is used for champix , and got approval; why? Especially since the amount of suicides, and other effects are now known. Makes you wonder how many other side effects have been "ignored" as well?
There is only deaths etc side effects for nicoderm (over 400-including death), etc. Yet according to your fellow lobbyists "Never quit quitting," she said. "Nobody's died from quitting smoking, everyone gets healthier." said Karen Loney, Smoke-Free Ontario co-ordinator with public health. Wonder if shes looked at champix or nicoderm???
In other words bill, Oh yes I believe everything you say and wouldn't hold any bias (afteral what would happen to your lobbying if you were to "turn coat" like dr Seigel; my bet would be that you wouldn't have any income going toward your house. Is there no wonder you won't speak out on anti smokers, anti smoking efforts? Yeap all comes down to money once again.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/m...cherche-
eng.php
Sheri,
You might want to ask those people who say those things if they know if their mothers were on any illegal drugs during conception. Their brains were obviously fried before birth to even consider saying those things, much less actually saying them! The ignorance is astounding!
It all comes down to the smell and what they can make you believe;
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Dep...nsf/all/
agin320
"Psychological response to odours is more complex and less understood than the physiological response. "Evidence suggests that each of us learn to like or dislike certain odours," says Perih. "Children like most smells, but it is only as we mature and begin to talk about odours that we develop a sense of which smells we like and dislike."
Kind of taints the often seen comments claiming abuse in the blogs. With people claiming to hate the way their parents smoked around them in cars years ago, when they were very young and had not developed fear inspired opinions yet.
there is a commercial running for NICORETTE® Extreme Chill Gum. An older lady in a posh restaurant lifts up her dress and flashes an even older gentleman while he is just about to take one of the gums. The voice over says when you will do anything to stop the cravings.
I find the commercial offensive on many levels.
If third hand smoke is to be promoted and funded properly, they better get their name on the calendar soon, not many spots are left open. After the health days we have the bleeding hearts days which are dedicated to sexual orientation, women's issues and race celebrations, add in the unions and the vets and the year is pretty much done.
If the next move includes a holiday to celebrate these events, no one will have to work and we will have to have a day off, to visit the shrink and recoup from all the holidays and perpetual guilt of bleeding hearts drama.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/c...d/index-
eng.php
"In my view, these results indicate that the use of nicotine replacement therapy was a dismal failure"
Agreed.
There is no point in flogging a dead horse, the solution requires fresh thinking.
( without any organized bullying this time, it's not big and it's not clever )
Ann W.--and I thought some of the Viagra/Cialis commercials were creepy. At the base of it, it says any need for nicotine is greater than sex, or people who want a cigarette are less in their right minds than nymphomaniacs.
That's a big problem with slightly inaccurate science--advertisers pick up the ball and run with it. They know how to really influence people.
l. duguay wrote:
"There is only deaths etc side effects for nicoderm (over 400-including death), etc."
There is no evidence that nicoderm (or any other brand of nicotine skin patch or any nicotine gum, lozenge or inhaler) has caused any deaths.
In contrast, cigarettes kill about 440,000 Americans each year.
Well here's 15 deaths for a start
"Surprisingly, they found that 18 of the patients on NRT died, compared with just three of the smokers that did not receive nicotine. Also, the average duration of an ICU stay for patients given nicotine was 24.4 hours, about 2 hours longer than their cold-turkey counterparts."
"We have to be aware that we may be doing some harm [by giving patients NRT]," Afessa warns."
"Nicotine may further weaken the hearts of these patients by causing the coronary artery feeding the heart, to narrow, he suggests. This would reduce the amount of oxygen being pumped to other organs in the body. Many of the ICU patients in the trial died of multiple organ failure"
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...-care-
risk.html
Its not nice stuff,
"Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping"
"Nobody's died from quitting smoking, everyone gets healthier." said Karen Loney, Smoke-Free Ontario co-ordinator with public health"
Hey Bill, learning to read? She didn't specify that the deaths were from nicoderm alone, but all pharma smoking aids; thats what I was referring to. Although the first adverse affect says "Outcome: Died drug may be contributory" - caused heart problems(Report ID: 81642). You can't deny the health official lied when she said "Nobody's died from quitting smoking, everyone gets healthier." Why aren't you exposing the liar for what she is Bill; since your all about "honesty" in Anti smoking? $$$$
Per Bill Godshall, "There is no evidence that nicoderm (or any other brand of nicotine skin patch or any nicotine gum, lozenge or inhaler) has caused any deaths."
I was going to agree with you Bill and then I did a quick search.
http://www.patientsville.com/
med...ide_effects.htm
Nicoderm Side Effects summary
Total Nicoderm reports: 92.
Nicoderm FDA safety alerts: No.
Reported deaths: 10 Reported hospitalizations: 28.
This is not a large survey or study. It's just the number of reports received by the person or persons running this web site.
"Nicoderm Side Effects Report #5401445-3
NICODERM problem was reported by a Consumer or non-health professional from UNITED STATES on July 31, 2007. Female patient, 74 years of age, was treated with NICODERM. After drug was administered, patient experienced the following problems/side effects: adverse event, coma, gastric ulcer. NICODERM dosage: unknown. Patient died on 01/01/1997."
"Nicoderm Side Effects Report #5404772-9
Consumer or non-health professional from UNITED STATES reported NICODERM problem on July 27, 2007. Female patient was treated with NICODERM. NICODERM dosage: unknown. Patient died."
There are more deaths associated with Nicoderm on this page but the vast majority of patients who experienced adverse reactions recovered.
I'm very surprised. All the deaths that I found on the first page were female deaths. I can't get the link to the second page to work to see the next 40 reports.
I guess that there really is "no safe level" of Nicoderm.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Does the 440,000 number of smokers who die each year ever change? It has been that number ever since I can remember. So, if there are more or fewer smokers in a decade, or if the general population happens to grow or shrink dramatically, then is the number of dead smokers still 440,000 no matter what? Seems kind of odd, doesn't it that the number is etched in scientific fact...no matter what.
"Nobody's died from quitting smoking, everyone gets healthier." said Karen Loney, Smoke-Free Ontario co-ordinator with public health"
I'll bet those families of ex-smokers who committed Chanticide would disagree with that statement.
Patient testimonials about Nicorette - lots of creepy side effects and evidence of serious addiction.
http://www.askapatient.com/viewr...&
name=NICORETTE
"There is no evidence that nicoderm (or any other brand of nicotine skin patch or any nicotine gum, lozenge or inhaler) has caused any deaths."
There is a significant increased risk of seriously malformed babies [Thalidomide was mentioned] among women who use the patch when expecting.
Those who smoked or where expossed to ETS when expecting, saw no increased risk.
The study published last January included 76,000 women so the results are nothing to take lightly, unlike the Calgary researcher who; based on his study of 20 odd rats, concluded the opposite and declared the patches safe for use when pregnant.
I believe [If memory serves]there was an undeclared conflict in that study as well. The Calgary research found it's way into the mainstream press while the former study was page 35 in the papers and not mentioned in the broadcast media at all, despite many requests for a correction.
More good news Bill;
http://www.boston.com/news/
polit..._taps_anti.html
Tobacco free kids just took over all the choices.
Bill - Again with the 440,000 deaths, grasping at straws? Can you at least come up with a better number of actual confirmed deaths from cigarette smoking and not some fantasy PlayStation algorithm that spits out a number and that means it's correct.
Good lord, do any of the TC'ers actually read any of the studies that the Public Health Lords put out?
From one of my favorite stats blogs.
Dubious Data Awards
http://www.stats.org/stories/
200...8_dec_2008.html
Per Jerry S "Bill - Again with the 440,000 deaths, grasping at straws?"
The actual number is 443,556. That's the number 666 squared. I don't know what significance this number holds for the anti-smoker cartel.
The smokers who are abusing the nicotine gum in the link from On Edge aren't getting something from the gum that they were getting from tobacco. It couldn't possibly be the CO2 in tobacco smoke that they are craving. Could it? Because they have all been told by "experts who have never smoked" that it's the nicotine they crave so they keep trying to get more and more nicotine and it just isn't satisfying them.)
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
The CO2 in the smoke may be something that quitters miss from NRT - and from smokeless like snus too. That same CO2 is indicated as a benefit for sufferers of ulcerative colitis, who are known to benefit from smoking but not much from other sources of nicotine.
Personal experience with NRT's.
Nicorette: Gave me a constant case of the hiccups, and made me want to smoke.
Patch: Woke up in the middle of the night craving a cigarette. Craved cigarettes more than when not wearing the patch
Zyban (Welbutrin): Didn't smoke for approximately 40 days, but all I wanted to do was lay on the couch and cry.
Conclusion: NRT's only made me want to smoke MORE.
Nicotine was NOT the reason I smoked. If it were, I would've quit with NRT's.
Do NOT attempt to quit smoking UNLESS you REALLY, REALLY want to. You will NOT be successful. Peer pressure will NOT make you a successful quitter.
If you really want to quit smoking, you can do it without NRT's.
Key word is "REALLY".
"provided funding to the association in the form of a restricted educational grant, which means that Pfizer isn't involved in how the money is spent. "
So why does this only work one way?
Champix side effects prompt 818 complaints
January 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
s...cienceandHealth
CARLY WEEKS - Globe and Mail
January 9, 2009 at 9:31 AM EST
Health Canada has received more than 800 reports of side effects - including more than 500 reports of psychiatric problems - linked to the controversial smoking-cessation drug Champix in less than two years on the market.
But although evidence is growing that the medication is linked to aggression, depression and suicidal tendencies, some tobacco-control experts and non-profit groups in Canada still encourage its use, often without mention of the possibility of psychiatric problems.
In its online guide to quitting smoking, forexample, the Canadian Lung Association includes a section that lists Champix first as an effective option to "reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms."
The association says the "pros" of Champix include the fact it is in pill form and is easy to use, as well as the fact it is not addictive because it doesn't contain nicotine. The guide lists only minor side effects, such as nausea, strange dreams and constipation, as "cons" to taking Champix, even though Health Canada has issued two warnings in recent months about links between the drug and serious psychiatric side effects.
The smoking and tobacco section of the website indicates that Pfizer Canada, which sells Champix, provided funding to the association in the form of a restricted educational grant, which means that Pfizer isn't involved in how the money is spent.
Lung Association spokesman Cameron Bishop said the organization is aware that Health Canada is in the process of strengthening its warning on Champix.
The association "is [in] the process of updating tobacco-cessation content on our website to reflect the new information," Mr. Bishop wrote in an e-mail. "We remain committed to ensuring that Canadians who want to quit smoking have the best possible information on all available smoking-cessation options approved by Health Canada."
The Canadian Cancer Society's quit-smoking guide also alludes to the effectiveness of Champix, one of two approved smoking-cessation pills on the market in Canada, but doesn't mention it by name.
Some doctors and tobacco-control experts who receive research or other funding from Pfizer sometimes promote the benefits of Champix without mentioning safety concerns.
Controversy over the safety of Champix has been brewing in Canada and internationally since shortly after the drug was introduced to the market.
Last June, Health Canada issued its first warning on the drug, advising the public and health-care professionals that it had received more than 200 reports of psychiatric problems, including hostility and suicidal thoughts, linked to Champix. The warning followed an earlier one issued by U.S. health authorities.
The safety warning issued on Champix in the U.S. (where the drug is sold under the name Chantix) had a dramatic impact on sales. The company said third-quarter Chantix revenues in the U.S. plummeted 49 per cent last year compared with the same period the year before. The drop was attributed to the safety warning issued in February, 2007. However, the drug's international third-quarter revenues jumped 60 per cent compared with the same period in 2007.
Earlier this week, Health Canada issued its second warning about the product to ensure the risks were being communicated to the public. It also announced it is in the process of creating a stronger warning label to better reflect potential health risks.
Champix was put on the Canadian market in April, 2007. From its introduction until Oct. 31, 2008, Health Canada received 818 reports of adverse reactions associated with the medication, spokesman Paul Duchesne wrote in an e-mail.
Of those, 520 reports were linked to psychiatric problems.
Pfizer Canada said it considers the drug safe and efficacious for people who are looking to quit smoking.
Although the drug may pose some health risks to some, Health Canada said the link between Champix and psychiatric problems hasn't been proven. The overall benefits of the medication outweigh the potential risks, but Canadians considering taking it should be aware of the safety issues, Health Canada said in its public advisory this week.
Have you all read what Pr Molimard (a professional ''tobaccologist'' with 60 years of practice) has to say about nicotine addiction ? In two words, it's not the nicotine that smokers crave, it is the tobacco. If nothing else read the interview from Chapter 3 to the end.
I apologize in advance for the very approximate translation I had done at the time. I wanted the wording to be the exact equivalent of what he had said in the French interview, but some of it sounds strange in English.
Excerpt from: http://cagecanada.homestead.com/
...henanigans.html
Chapter 3
Pr Molimard: I never succeeded to get rats to push on a lever to get them to maintain their nicotine levels. We install a lever, when the lever is pushed, it activates a syringe. With cocaine, the rats would go at it, toc, toc, toc , 300 times a day. With nicotine? Never. Tobacco addiction is amazing. Nicotine addiction, no. ‘’Nicotine Addiction’’. Why did this book under such a title get published in 1988? They could have named it ‘’Tobacco Addiction: The role of nicotine’’…They named it ‘’Nicotine Addiction’’. It means that in 1988 they were already set up for their offensive. And they called that offensive : ‘’nicotine substitutes’’. Why did they call it ‘’nicotine substitutes’’? Because they wanted to benefit from the aura of opiate substitution.
Great point, Iro. They make "nicotine" the focus because it's the only thing they can actually "substitute" (for moral fun and profit). The only possible substitute for smoking tobacco is smoking something else. I have to assume the quit rate is low (and btw, 6% minus the placebo 2% is 4%) on patches and gum is because you can't smoke them and smokers, by definition, smoke.
Burning and inhaling anything, I presume, provides CO2. Rose, give a try to smoking tomato leaves and let us know the results. And tho I'd hate to see tomato crops being banned, it's just the price we pay.
Speaking of "price we pay," I don't know how far this SCHIP proposal has actually gone--but these are the latest proposals on taxes written up in the form of a bill. That $10 carton, $8 a pound looks like just the beginning of a very steep escalator, only going UP:
http://www.stogieguys.com/wp-con...SCHIP-
Taxes.pdf
:
All The Crap That's Fit To Print:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/1...rch/
13prev.html
.
Squeeze ‘em ‘Til They Quit (The Siegel Method):
http://www.rockymountainnews.com...co-report-card/
“The ALA says cigarette taxes overall are still too low. If they were higher, 1,100 kids a day wouldn't begin smoking in America.”
Staggering Cost in New York State (the ALA again):
http://readme.readmedia.com/news...l-Report/
330511
.
Because they have all been told by "experts who have never smoked" that it's the nicotine they crave so they keep trying to get more and more nicotine and it just isn't satisfying them.)
Beautifully put Einstein.
It seems that Fritz Lickint started that one, a man who obviously disapproved of his fellow man and despised their small pleasures. He seems to have chosen the nastiest thing in raw tobacco so that he could call smokers addicts regardless of any relevance. He said that nicotine and coffee were carcinogenic for no good reason and disliked alcohol.
If you want to investigate why people do things, I think it better to be non judgemental from the start.That way you shouldn't go astray.
If the majority of people doing whatever it is, are happy, healthy and functioning well in life, rather than looking only for a downside, look for the benefits too.
Of course Lickint produced his work long before anyone knew that nicotine converted to niacin when burned and before it that was discovered to be an essential vitamin. He decided that nicotine wasn't carcinogenic when Roffo came up with his carcinogenic tar theory.
He assumed that because coal tar was carcinogenic then so must tobacco tar be and set out to prove it.... interesting logic.
I have no idea what solvents he used for the extraction, but he managed to repeatedly heat a clear whitish liquid until it was burnt black.
His results that apparently no one saw or could reproduce were dismissed because of the extreme temperatures.
Needless to say anti-tobacco gathered up all these failures and they became part of the articles of faith.
Nicotinic acid had its name changed, to avoid anyone thinking there was anything good about tobacco, and after Public Health put it in the bread, it saved thousands of lives and still does.Though its a cheaper cold tar version now.
Solanesol was discovered in 1956 and is now found in medicines,as CoenymeQ10 in face creams and very expensive capsules because of its anti aging properties. Most of it is naturally in the heart and its recommended as a supplement for statin users.
Even to an amateur gardener, the original "science" is looking pretty feeble.
hmm..long and great post..informative
keep it up!
Cheers,
locksmith mesa
Naturally, the theory was a great boon to industry and governments, workers were replaceable but industry was not.
The environmental scientists who had worked so hard to limit the damage to the workforce were distraught, and alongside the march of anti-tobacco and the lifestyle theory, there is a long line of the wrecked careers of honest scientists who disputed it.
The only reason we got the Clean Air Acts was because the deaths were so many, so sudden and so indisputable in 1952.
4000 until the cutoff date and the remainder of the 12,000 put down as victims of fictitous flu epidemic apparently.
"Rose, give a try to smoking tomato leaves and let us know the results."
Erm Walt,
Regretfully no.
Tomato leaves smell absolutely dreadful and I agree with the Settlers view of the tomato, that it is the Wolf Peach, poisonous and only fit to be grown as an ornamental.
However, I have test driven herbal cigarettes, both commercial and handrolling mixtures,smoked as normal, no withdrawal but a slight wistfulness after a day or so, that was to be expected with the minor drop in niacin levels and speedily cured with extra coffee.
Oddly enough, my brain seemed slightly less agile, but that could have been my imagination.
The downside is that the smoke is heavier on the chest and it makes the house smell of bonfires.Definately one for outside.
My DIY menthols were a success though, one pinch of top quality flaked peppermint leaves sprinkled on the top of ordinary tobacco and rolled.
Adjust herb to taste.
Do bear in mind though, that herbal cigarettes contain no nicotine and that niacin applied to the skin appears to be cancer preventative.
We wouldn't want to fulfil any prophecies now would we?
FSC is threatening enough.
"Squeeze ‘em ‘Til They Quit (The Siegel Method):
http://www.rockymountainnews.com...co-report-card/
“The ALA says cigarette taxes overall are still too low. If they were higher, 1,100 kids a day wouldn't begin smoking in America.”"
So if the gov wants to stop kids from using drugs all they ever had to do was tax them?
It sounds so simple, I wonder why no one ever though of it before?
Now this sounds familiar...
http://www.econedlink.org/lesson...56&
page=teacher
The English felt that the colonists should pay taxes because the English government was providing services that the colonists would otherwise have had to do without. The Americans felt the taxes were unfair because they were being imposed by a government in which the colonists had no "voice.""
From Thomas Paine's article Common sense;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Com...ense_(pamphlet)
* "There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy; it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required."
* Hereditary succession has no claim. “For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and thought himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them.”
* "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins." (Opening Line)
* "I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ."
* "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom."
* "Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil."
Forgot to mention that Muller apparently believed Roffo's carcinogenic tar theory and so he used that to account for the lung cancer in smokers at Cologne, but he was deeply worried about the remaining 30% which he couldn't link to smoking at all, and suggested urgent investigation, but I don't know if that ever happened.
Even during the times I sort of wanted to quit (you know the drill, I was supposed to want to want to, etc.), I always suspected that while nicotine might play a role, that smoking itself was the major player. Obviously I'm not the only one! So I never was interested in NRT except out of curiosity.
My brother quit smoking with Nicorette. But what he quit was the "act of smoking." He did not "use as directed", i.e. he abused it. This from a guy who was never interested in getting high - but he got so high he was on a different plane and could resist the little habits of smoking - those little rituals that compose most of the habit (I myself simply adore lighting them). Quitting the nicotine later was negligible.
On the other hand, I know of someone who still chews the damn gum after 4 years.
I tried it once - out of curiousity - and a fancy-schmancy cocktail party was coming up where I expected non-smoking, I wanted to see how it would work. AFTER plunking down the 20 bucks, I get the insert telling me it will stick to any capped teeth, that you are not supposed to drink anything while chewing (big help at a cocktail party!) and - ok, caveat emptor - it was so terrible tasting I had to keep spitting it out in the sink rather than swallowing so of course it wouldn't have gone very well with a glass of white wine. I also wanted to experience the high, but I guess you have to swallow it. Of course, this idea was absurd - if I never chew regular gum with a glass of white wine, why should Nicorette taste good? And then I had the hassle of scraping it off my caps.
I also tried Zyban years ago - again out of curiousity. I'd noticed the first articles many years ago that had to do with women on a certain antidepressant "accidentally" quitting smoking. The outcome of that obviously led to Zyban. So I tried it - but still loved smoking, so that was that.
The first person I knew of who took it - Dr. wanted him to quit - became a very happy smoker.
Since then, after having a bad experience with the psychotropic class - SSRI's - and finding Chantix could have similar effects, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
My dentist was on it last year - so while he didn't feel the same impulse to smoke, he still did for pleasure! Last time I saw him, I asked how's the smoking going - he's smoking.
I did have an experience similar to my brother's about 20 years ago when I came into a tab of Ecstasy (assuming that's what it was). Ever the curious one - but not a clubber, altho I still like loud rock and roll from time to time - I tried it on a wintry sunday afternoon. I did not get what I would call high but I do remember that while I would have liked a cigarette, I was far too content to sit on the sofa than go to the kitchen to get a smoke.
Meanwhile, there's yet another concoction - they don't say what's in it. A friend in Frankfurt found out about it so she gave it a try. You get about 6 jabs in your earlobe for about $75. Sure enough, it worked (over 6 months).
Guess what happened - she started to feel "programmed" - it wasn't her who'd quit. So she deliberately started again so when she quit it would really be her! She did quit again a few months later on her own. Now is smoking again, however (again, stopped for over 6 months). She is simply going to have to come to terms with the fact that she likes to smoke.
Definitely gives me doubts about these "6-month wonders."
I'd be curious how I'd like a nicotine free cigarette. It would be essential to not know til afterwards - just as alcohol-free beer might not taste differently, but the knowledge that a "spice" is missing has important psychological impact.
Re last thread - Rose brings it up but I want to again - it's really strange nothing is mentioned about cotinine levels being affected by foods from the nightshade family possibly having been part of the diet - I thought this was a "confounder."
I am not convinced they knew, proving that 88% of nonsmoking Americans had been "exposed" to tobacco smoke made a startling headline.
I suggest that they thought that nicotine was unique to tobacco.
I also think that until they refined the tests , they were also picking up nicotinic acid in the coffee etc.
Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke Widespread
"The data, reported by the CDC in this week's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, shows measurable levels of cotinine in the blood of 88 percent of all non-tobacco users"
http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/p...rel/
second1.htm
Now, its not a question of wether its there , but how much.
Hadn't read whole last thread - had searched "cotinine"
Can we be sure that the "toxic layers" might not also have residue from cooking?
I would be very surprised if it didn't, you know how cooking smells can spread through a house.
Of course, in a premade cigarette , even the "toxins" are approved food additives already used in ready meals and other processed food, hot air rises and goes everywhere, volatile oils in vegetables evaporate from the cut surfaces.
Totally off topic except for the main character (bold emphasis is mine):
(Copyright 2009 by MetroSource. All Rights Reserved.)
WASHINGTON - The masses heading to the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama could spend a lot of time in line for a port-a-potty.
A George Washington University law professor says the 5,000 port-o-potties planned for Inauguration Day will be "grossly inadequate."
Professor John Banzhaf, the so-called "Father of Potty Parity" sent a letter to the Presidential Inaugural Committee warning of potential lawsuits.
He says women, who take longer in the restroom, could be forced to wait in longer lines than men, and that amounts to discrimination.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=780...780&
sid=1572281
The man really does give lawyers a bad name. It scares me that he actually teaches law..........*shivers*
It is interesting to note many novelists and fiction writers, for years when describing a seedy environment, or low rent housing depicting poverty, in order to make the image real for the reader, the most popular method was to mention; "the pungent odor of cooked cabbage wafting through the air". Strange none of them seemed to mention the smell of tobacco smoke.
In the old days, before the moralist impositions of fanatics, thieves and dictators were introduced, as "the new normal".
I just clicked Kevins ‘calendar’ link and I’m quite depressed now.
This health thing is becoming like a religion, only much gloomier. We no longer celebrate some Saint on a particular day, but instead we dedicate this day to the awareness of some disease or other. It’s like ‘memento mori’ all year round…
Can we please go back to commemorating Saints? Please?
(And I’m not even religious.)
.
On Monday, California’s Second District Court of Appeal became the first court to rule that an apartment tenant can sue (via a nuisance claim) her landlord for failing to restrict cigarette smoking in outdoor common areas like the swimming pool, playground or dining areas.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opin...nts/
B203093.PDF
Memento Mori!
I like that one Alecto
Meanwhile
Cabbage contains sulphur ( also in toxic industrial smog )
"Because cabbage is a sulfur food, it can cause intestinal distress"
http://www.health-care-clinic.or...es/
cabbage.html
I am practising my denormalization of the Brassicas, brussels sprouts are next.
Helpful for nuisance claims too no doubt.
So, we have here a 96% failure rate. I have long said these products are useless.
Imagine going on holiday and hiring a car. It starts on the first day, but refuses to budge for the next nine and a half days.
Would you be happy to cough up the rental costs?
Absolutely not.
The thieves at Big Pharma happily take your dough, snigger quietly as you head out of the pharmacy to plaster this crap all over your body, and then they positively howl with laughter when you come back in several months later for more.
These products should be branded "unfit for the purpose for which they were designed".
Big Pharma should be sued for everything they have got.
Just how gullible are the people who buy this rubbish?
Presumably the same morons who buy into that 2nd and 3rd hand smoke fairy tale......
Drug companies that market NRT products as smoking cessation aids know that their nicotine maintenance products are really less hazardous temporary and/or long term alternatives to cigarettes.
But the drug companies won't say so because they don't want the public to realize that NRT products sustain nicotine addiction and compete for market share against cigarettes and besmokeless tobacco products, and the drug companies cannot say so because the FDA hasn't approved NRT products for that type of truthful marketing claim.
A more alarming "thirdhand smoke" theory from 2001
Carpets are piled high with toxic pollutants
"THE British penchant for fitted carpets could be killing us. According to a report published today, carpets act like toxic sponges, sucking up dangerous amounts of poisons and pollutants dragged into the home by pets and on shoes.
John Roberts, an environmental engineer known as Dr Dust for his obsession with household hygiene, said that a typical carpet contained such high levels of toxic chemicals that it would trigger an environmental clean-up if found outside."
"It could mean that living in a wooden-floored loft is better for your health. Ninety per cent of British homes were carpeted, more than any other country. Mr Roberts said a laboratory test of a sample of carpet dust from an average home revealed alarmingly high levels of pesticides, cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury, and polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs).
"According to Mr Robert's latest research, vacuuming deposited more dust than it picked up so that over time carpets became a disgusting repository of toxic substances."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...pollutants.html
Thank goodness for a good immune system.
Bill, I'm a landlord and if I had a passing 'whiff' that a tenant would sue me for not enforcing a smoking ban they'd be on their butts within a month.
I pay the mortgage, the taxes, and the fees, they can go find another place to sue. I'm taxed enough!
Where's the SCHIP tax increase on NRT's?
"NRT products sustain nicotine addiction"
MrGodshall
Thats just the point, they don't for most people, probably because they didn't have a nicotine addiction in the first place. Raw nicotine is filthy stuff,test animals can't stand it and neither can we.
You can brainwash people in lots of ways, you can even hypnotise them into thinking they are Napoleon, but it doesn't make it true.
The dismal failure of NRT proves this.
I can imagine giving Doctor Siegel a tablespoon of plain flour, and telling him that as the main ingredient in Vienna Fingers, he would like it just as well.
I doubt very much that he would be impressed.
Gilster,
I too am a landlord and I plan to put in all new rental agreements that I allow smoking of my tenants and it is up to the new tenants to decide to move in. Then they will have to sign it and initial it. I will give them plenty of notice before their moving van arrives as to who owns the house, and who pays the bills! In otherwords, it will be their choice whether to rent it or not and if they happen to be antis, they will learn real fast that I couldn't care less where they live! I have never gone a whole week without a tenant and I am pretty sure I still won't have a problem filling the home.
As for NRT's. Remember when you could only get them through a prescription, then it was over the counter, but behind locked doors? I have worn the patch when I would have to fly and I always felt like I was flying higher than the plane. To dangerous for me.
On Monday, California’s Second District Court of Appeal became the first court to rule that an apartment tenant can sue (via a nuisance claim) her landlord for failing to restrict cigarette smoking in outdoor common areas like the swimming pool, playground or dining areas.
I think it would be DELIGHTFUL to see this in court. I would, in fact, love to see it go further by testing, once again, the science of shs in court. The lawyers already have their material lined up from the Osteen decision. Now would be a perfect time to forge ahead. Good news, indeed, Bill. It gets you people back in to court, albeit through a back door. Perhaps the court could also rule on the nuisance of having to hear nuisance cases.
Rose,
You can keep the flour - I'll stick with my Vienna Fingers!
mike
New T-Shirt;
"NICORETTE ONLY WORKS 6% OF THE TIME, BUT MARLBORO NEVER FAILS."
"NOCORETTE FAILS 94% OF THE TIME, MARLBORO NEVER DOES"
"NOCORETTE JUST DOESN'T SMOKE THE SAME WAY"
"SMOKELESS TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE JUST TOO HARD LIGHT"
The U.S. House of Representatives just voted, 289-139, to approve the bill to increase federal tobacco taxes, including a $.61/pack cigarette tax increase, to fund reauthorization and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
Well, that is good news! Though it has only passed the house and still has the senate to get through, which it probably will and then there is always that little veto thingy, but even if Obama doesn't veto it, you do realize what the cost of your smokeless will be going up to, right?
SCHIP, ...bring it on, ...the T-shirts are ready to go.
"CHEW LESS NICORETTE, SMOKE MORE TOBACCO, IT'S FOR THE KIDS."
"SMOKELESS TOBACCO?,...NO,...
SMOKE MORE TOBACCO,...IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!"
"SMOKERS CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR KIDS THAN YOU DO. WE'RE PAYING FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE"
Seriously LightningBoy, I wish you would produce and sell these t-shirts. There is a market out there for them, with me ordering several as gifts and 2 of each for myself!
diane wrote:
"Though it has only passed the house and still has the senate to get through, which it probably will and then there is always that little veto thingy, but even if Obama doesn't veto it, you do realize what the cost of your smokeless will be going up to, right?"
The Senate is likely to approve the SCHIP legislation this week, and Obama is likely to sign it next week.
Although the new tobacco tax rates are just one third of the rate necessary to offset federal healthcare costs due to tobacco use,
the tax increases for different products are proportionate to the harm they cause (and an excellent model for states).
The cigarette and little cigar tax rate will increase to $1/pack, RollYourOwn tobacco tax rate will increase to $8.89/lb (up from $1.10/lb), and smokeless tobacco will increase to $.11/can (from $.04/can).
The new tax rates are likely to encourage many more cigarette smokers to switch to (or to substitute) less hazardous smokefree tobacco products.
Godshal, - "The new tax rates are likely to encourage many more cigarette smokers to switch to (or to substitute) less hazardous smokefree tobacco products."
Probably, ...but many more will buy a T-shirt, wear it proudly, and smoke more 'cause,......it's for the kids.
And SCHIP is a coercive and punitive tactic, not tough love encouragment.
Spare us the faux altruism.
Yes, SCHIP passed the House, is now in "markup" in the Senate Finance Committee, and may be passed into law as soon as this week, or even tomorrow. Apparently, the only differences left to resolve between the House and Senate versions, is how soon illegal aliens (up to the ge of 26) will be able to enjoy health insurance thanks to you. No, not kidding about that. Got it from a Senate aide.
The tax on loose tobacco apparently goes up from about a buck a pound to...$24/pound! plus additional taxes on paper and tubes. Still up to interpretation whether there's an escalator on the cigarette taxes, IOW they may, in time, rise to $20/ carton. but don't count on the press to give you that info. Bill estimated to be ready for Obama to sign (enthusiastically) w/i his first week.
Got a backyard? Time to plant seeds and learn about curing.
Or consider moving to, say, Costa Rico. Why not? We're second class citizens here, and with no political representation in either party.
:
Even more importantly, the $.61/pack cigarette tax hike will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption by about 7% (1.2 billion packs/year) and by about 14% among youth. The economic recession could further reduce cigarette consumption.
As such, this FET tax is the single most impactful action ever taken by any US Congress to reduce cigarette consumption.
The new tax rates are likely to encourage many more cigarette smokers to switch to (or to substitute) less hazardous smokefree tobacco products.
WRONG Bill! Most of us, at least us who make our own, are starting now to stock up AND grow our own.
And I saw a tax rate of $24.62/lb for RYO tobacco today, which works out to more than $1/pack as a pound yields about 2 cartons ($12.31/carton divided by 10 -packs per carton - and that equals $1.23/pack) worth of cigarettes. They are shafting the RYO folks the most, as then they are also taxing the rolling papers AND tubes.
It won't copy and paste here, so go to page 3, line 11 for the roll your own:
http://www.stogieguys.com/wp-con...SCHIP-
Taxes.pdf
Looks like they snuck the new taxes in yesterday.
"SMOKERS CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR KIDS THAN YOU DO. WE'RE PAYING FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE"
THAT's the T-shirt I want!!!
Even more importantly, the $.61/pack cigarette tax hike will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption by about 7%
Then YOUR taxes can get raised to pay for the kids healthcare..........how would you like that?
Here is an excellent chance to deflate the power of self serving charity foundations.
I received an email from the Obama transition team and was asked to contribute and vote for a list of recommendations for Obama.
Someone has posted the following which is not a half bad Idea letting the people decide where charity donations are sent. If anyone wants to vote simply sign up and log in to have your say.
http://
citizensbriefingbook.chan...800000004tTkAAI
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/
Bill G-What gets taxed if you're pie in the sky plan worked and everyone quit smoking? Who would pay for all of the kids healthcare?
As such, this FET tax is the single most impactful action ever taken by any US Congress to reduce cigarette consumption.-Bill G
Not true, the number of cigarettes purchased may have dropped by 7%, but that does not necessarily mean that 7% of people quit, it probably means that people cut back. The fallacy of numbers used by the antismoking zealots to prove they were right.
Bill you never answered the question above, but if the taxes are supposed to get us to quit our habit, why do state and local governments use the tax money to balance their budgets?
Per Bill Godshall, "Even more importantly, the $.61/pack cigarette tax hike will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption by about 7% (1.2 billion packs/year) and by about 14% among youth. The economic recession could further reduce cigarette consumption."
Perhaps.
It was at about this price point that the blackmarket for tobacco in Canada took off ... and the blackmarket grew at about the same rate that tobacco consumption was expected to fall.
It is estimated that 30% or more of all tobacco consumed in Canada today is supplied by the blackmarket. Europe is seriously affected by contraband tobacco from Eastern Europe. Asia has a similar problem with tobacco from China.
As for the payments made under the terms of the MSA Big Tobacco will probably just add another nickel or dime to their price to protect their margins in a shrinking "legal" market. That should help the blackmarket grow even faster.
Disclaimer: No NRT product of any kind was used during the typing of this post. There is no way to be sure of where the tobacco consumed while typing it came from.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
I wonder how much kids pay for their marijuana?
And it's tax free!
I always like the anti's argument about smokers medical bills being higher than the general population. Again, this seems like a logical fallacy, as I smoke, pay a lot of taxes through work and I've never been hospitalized for anything. The worst I ever had was a fractured bone in my foot from playing softball.
So I smoke (pay higher taxes), pay taxes through work and yet magically somehow I cost more than someone else.
And how do they get the masses to buy it, through the dumbing down of america.
Per Bill Godshall, "Even more importantly, the $.61/pack cigarette tax hike will reduce nationwide cigarette consumption by about 7% (1.2 billion packs/year) and by about 14% among youth. The economic recession could further reduce cigarette consumption."
1st, what's more important, reducing cigarette consumption...or having people in general being well off?
2nd, I believe that there was a link by a blog commenter about how recessions are correlated with higher smoking rates--making for a possible lose lose.
So yes, it may be impactful, but maybe not the impact they want.
Lots of "common sense" recently from anti-tobacco dovetailing with what people want to believe, so they do.
The more I look at this, the more I see taking from the lower class to give to the middle class, and that's now how this bill could have worked.
I'm reminded of Clinton's plan to raise taxes, which cost the Democrats seats. I thought that was sounder than this. The Democrats now have an immediate tax rise, and people won't be happy. And if SCHIP is short-funded because even more people quit smoking/go to the black market/get sick of FSCs than estimated...(whistles)...
Someone's going to have to admit they're wrong. With the current crop of anti smokers(including Daschle's #2 who's at CTFK right now) that's highly unlikely.
I wonder how many people of the 6% reduction buy their cigarettes either through the black market or through Indian Reservations?
My daughter is 14 and son is 17, and they both have many friends who smoke. They have no problem getting cigarettes if thay want them.
Seriously LightningBoy, I wish you would produce and sell these t-shirts. There is a market out there for them, with me ordering several as gifts and 2 of each for myself!
You can have them made at www.vistaprint.com Good prices too. Business cards, stationery, coffee mugs, etc. are also options.
Happy now, Doc? You just got one of your fondest wishes-- a large punitive dedicated tax hike. All of the smokers I've spoken to today now feel completely alienated from the country, have some pretty sexy plans for evading the tax, but no plans to quit. What's brewing is rebellion.
As for the tshirt (with apologies to LB whom I greatly respect) why would anyone seriously want to wear a shirt that proclaims "I'm a Patsy."
As for "smokers' costs to society," Mr. Bill can repeat that ad nauseum like the robotic thug he is, but it still doesn't make it true. Too many objective economic studies, including by the US Congressional Research Service, show that it's a lie. And employers who barred smokers have been forced to admit that they haven't saved a dime. Again, according to economic reports, the largest employer expenses come from a) thoughtless nonsmokers coming in to the office with communicable diseases and b) from diabetics. Pregnant employees likely rank third.
:
"In the old days, before the moralist impositions of fanatics, thieves and dictators were introduced, as 'the new normal.'"
A good case can be made that our amiable host can be accused of all of those things:
1. Fanatic: No smoking on outdoor patios. Fanatic: Segregating by separation smokers' apartments from non-smokers' apartments in the fear that a wisp of smoke may stray abroad and creep by night under a neighbor's door. Fanatic: No allowing bartenders to make up their own minds -- after a stern and clearly written warning is forced down their throats -- as to whether or not they choose to work for 30 or 40 years (or less) in a bar that allows smoking. On the grounds that bartenders are all children (and maybe half-wits as well) and have to be led by the nose by their elders and betters for their own good. (Why does that last stink of nauseating arrogance to me, as the first reeks of idiocy?)
2. Thief: Stealing money out of smokers' pockets by a "substantial" increase in cigarette taxes. The 61-cent proposed increase must have the professor doing cartwheels in the classroom.
3. Dictator: Jackbooting smokers with (fascist-democratic) legislation, such as any increase that might force them to quit smoking.
So you won't quit smoking? Well, children, we have democratic methods to make you quit, whether you like it or not and whether you want your lives dictated to or not. And we do this with a perfectly clear conscience, BECAUSE OUR MOTIVES ARE PURE. (Shades of H. Himmler!) Besides, it's for your own good.
I'm selling all my depressed stock and investing in vomit buckets. Surely in these uplifting times, there must lie a future bull market in those handy-dandy receptacles.
.
"Robotic thug." Very good, Walt. In fact it describes him perfectly.
But here's the Great God Banzhaf spouting off: Smokers cost employers up to $12,000 a year in health insurance, time off from work and absenteeism, with absenteeism (there was apparently some 6-year Sarasota study) being 35% higher among smokers than non-smokers.
Truthiness.
.
The inestimable Michael Kelly (RIP) in The New Republic on the subject of smoking bans and taxes. Worth repeating, memorizing, and singing to the young ones in the form of an inspirational lullaby
“It’s been called The Nanny State but that’s far too kind a term. It’s too cold, too cruel, too implacable, too illiberal to be a nanny. It’s the Nurse Ratched State.... It turns out this new model is as devoted to spectacular schemes of social engineering as the old one-- and it has added the awful idea that these schemes might be achieved... through a creative and brutal system of mandated behaviorism in which the state uses its immense powers to force targeted citizens to “voluntarily” accept a violation of their rights and an encroachment of their liberties...
“The two principal methods by which the Nurse Ratched state achieves its aims are both rooted in that power which the Framers most wanted to limit: the power to criminalize and to punish, to deprive a citizen who violates the state’s wishes of his liberty and his property. The two methods, which overlap in practice, are the expansion of the definition of actions as illegal behavior and the exploitation of this power to win submission through extortion.” (7/14/97)
:
I made all the calls on Monday (international, so big bucks), to my Congressman, both Senators, Minority and Majority offices of Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce.
Now to find out how my Congressman voted - might be hard, I've had trouble before.
Anyone have a link?
You know guys, there is no reason to panic here. Truth be told, you will not realize any loss when the taxes increase. No need to run to the reservation just yet. Keep in mind that Obama's stimulus plan calls for a decrease in middle to lower incomes and he plans to increase taxes on incomes over $250,000 a year. According to TC and Bill, only poor people smoke, so no matter what the numbers say on your IRS tax refund, you are considered poor and you will see less taxes taken from your paycheck. With that new increase in your take home pay, you can apply it to your new cost of cigarettes. No harm, no foul here. Dollar for dollar, your spending limit remains the same. Congress is only moving one set of money from one pot to another so to pay for SCHIP. In the end, it will be people in TC who will be funding the other programs Congress can't say no to. In other words, you might pay more, but you will have more to work with from the start.
The idiots in DC just doesn't seem to understand the trickle down theory and how it works. Let's look at the minimum wage and how they increased that. For those earners, they may have gotten $20 more a week in their pay checks and all the other crooks decided they wanted it instead. Oil companies increased the price of gas which led to increases in the cost of food, utilities etc. All began with that first increase in minimum wage increases. They knew someone was getting it and they wanted it. Higher earners felt it the most and they are the ones who paid for those pay raises. In the end, it will be TC paying for the SCHIP program. You are poor, you will not see a difference in your spending power!
No panic here, Diane. I'm skeptical that one tax change will offset another but let's say it does.
It's outrage, not panic. It's about injustice. I haven't done the math (yet) what a single handrolled cigarette will cost but I assume that even with the incredible increase it may somehow be "affordable" in any case.
This summary from Clash info:
"Since 2000 cigarette taxes have been raised 73 times. Approximately 25% of the population has been singled out for punishment by tax time after time to the point of persecution. Enough is enough. It's economic slavery of one segment of society when only smokers are forced to pay for what benefits everyone.
- The Heritage Foundation estimates that an ADDITIONAL 22 million Americans would need to take up smoking in the next 10 years to fund the free health insurance. (Perhaps the public service ads for THAT strategy might have Harry and Louise saying, "I'll keep smoking - it's good for the kids.")
Kendra's NB: the government's idea of health care seems to consist of bombarding children with vaccinations, inoculations, Ritalin, psychotropic drugs, out-of date and flawed nutritional advice - soon statin drugs, weight loss patches, etc. In short, anything the darling of the New World Order, Big Pharma, wants to sell. So we will rob the poorest to pay the government to make children weak, ill, autistic, with shattered immune systems, only to abandon them in that condition when the money runs out.
- The median household income of an American smoker is about $35,000. Yet people eligible for the free insurance could make up to $82,000. Why should lower-income people pay for free insurance for middle- or upper-middle-class earners?
Just a start.
I simply cannot justify evil from one side by the possibility that good might come from another.
..
OT or is it?
Just found a nice site for those following the nicotinic acid trail
Nicotinic Acid Information
Plants uses etc etc
http://www.medications.com/drugs.../nicotinic-
acid
I was just doing a follow up on this story -
Shocker: 'Villain' nicotine slays TB
"Nicotine might be a surprising alternative someday for treating stubborn forms of tuberculosis, a University of Central Florida researcher said Monday.
The compound stopped the growth of tuberculosis in laboratory tests, even when used in small quantities, said Saleh Naser, an associate professor of microbiology and molecular biology at UCF.
http://www.data-yard.net/10c/nic...0c/
nicotine.htm
Unfortunately Anti-tobacco's little deception in 1942, is now causing younger scientists to reinvent the wheel.
"Inoculation and effective antibiotics (para amino salasylic acid and streptomycin) since 1944 with izo nicotinic acid hydrazide later (1951) markedly reduced the prevalence and morbidity of TB"
http://www.orthosupersite.com/vi...w.asp?
rID=26363
Tiny levels of nicotine kill the tuberculosis bacterium, researchers in Florida have discovered. They say it might be possible to use nicotine to treat the growing problem of drug-resistant forms of TB.
"The amount of nicotine needed to kill the bacteria is less than in one cigarette," says Saleh Naser of the University of Central Florida, who presented his results at a meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Orlando on Monday.
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...m/article/
dn769
Isoniazid used to treat TB
It's a derivative of nicotinic acid which explains why it is recorded that tobacco shops and factories and warehouses protected their workforce from TB and various plagues.
What price those poor bartenders' health now?
Can we say, crimes against humanity?
Kendra
"In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."
Warnings from the past.
Previous M O
http://
www.bibliotecapleyades.ne..._igfarben02.htm
One for the Doctor,
How Big Tobacco will benefit from US anti-smoking laws
"Why are the Democrats going so easy on Big Tobacco? Because they know what every tax-hungry government knows – you can tax the hell out of cigarettes and people won’t stop smoking. The Irish government, for example, worked out that lifting the price of a pack by 30% only led to a 1% fall in smoking. They’ve exploited that fact to take in 53% more revenue from tobacco tax over the last decade, according to Eithne Donnellan in The Irish Times.
That’s why Obama supports the bill. He has worked out that the $1-a-pack tax will raise $35bn to fund his health reforms. And why not tax them? The tobacco groups look healthy financially, says Duff Wilson in The New York Times. Total wholesale revenue in America is estimated at well over $40bn this year. And while the volume of cigarettes sold might drop off by 5%-10%, according to Citigroup analyst Adam Spielman, the big tobacco groups won’t lose out, because they can just lift their prices"
http://www.moneyweek.com/investm...laws-
14460.aspx
5 years ago they claimed 30% of Canadians smoke today they say 20% and the 30% figure attributed to the black market which is now claimed to be 40$ is not a part of the official figures. So how much has the ten dollar package of cigarettes reduced the number of those smoking?
It never did when we see increased consumption as the net result.
The latest claims are that young people under 20 years of age are smoking in greater numbers than they did 10 years ago, the increase is the first we have seen in decades.
This was never about reducing the number of those smoking, otherwise the real numbers would be recognized and dealt with. This was always about increasing the value of a cigarette and collecting more percentage based sales taxation, in line with that increase. Just like the price of oil the price is driven by greed and has little to do with production costs or supply and demand.
In Canada we had an industrialist who served as a Liberal Prime minister. He was always barking about health care reforms. The Romanov commision was a sound stage for medical lobby groups with the rest of the country ignorred it was a scripted sham to instill preordained UN Fascism as a protector for all of us.
Since the reforms were put in place waiting times at emergency rooms went from an average of 45 minutes to what the CMA claims are reasonable and to be expected at 6 hours!!!
WE have Health ministries and Health information ministries [Spewing the Godshall styled "good" news] opened in every province now, with local offices in all regions and cities at a cost of tens of billions in new infrastructure spending. Building a system with rat lines and parental dictation which can only be compared logically to the Taliban system of personal control, with a watcher on every corner. This is the politicization of a once efficient process, using it's own failures to create horror stories and fear to cement it's necessity as permanent.
We hear about job cuts and layoffs increasing every day while two segments are still hiring consistently; the Police and Public Health agencies can't find enough people to fill the new positions created by Healthscare reform.
Walt, - "why would anyone seriously want to wear a shirt that proclaims "I'm a Patsy."
You know, I hadn't really considered that, but you're right of course.
That is exactly the message that would be sent, and I think the solution is to keep it "positive" and supportive of our oh so nuturing government, after-all, it's for the children.
Only the most supportive messages should be used for such wearable protests/endorsements. Especially after the FDA is given "authority" to "regulate" tobacco. That should be seriously entertaining.
The FDA WILL get the ok, because the Socialist juggernaut is on the move and it's steering committee can't get out of their own way to stop it.
"FDA APPROVED TOBBACCO, IT'S ALL GOOD"
"SMOKE MORE, THE FDA MAKES IT SAFE"
"TOBACCO CONTROL APPROVES OF FDA REGULATION - FDA APPROVES SMOKING."
"FDA MAKES TOBACCO SAFE FOR CHILDREN"
"FDA, - FAILED DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABLITY"
Newspaper headline:
"FDA REGULATES TOBACCO, - TOBACCO CONTROL NO LONGER HAS ANY SAY IN THE MATTER, ORDERED TO STOP WHINING"
SCHIP Re-defined:
"SCHIP, - Smokers Cheated by Health Insurance Professionals"
"FDA, - a subsidiary of the Altria group in partnership with Phizer, Glaxo-Smith & The American Cancer Society"
OTR?
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._34/
ai_87425671
Less than zero - The Real Cost of Smoking
This is a really good artcile on the fallacy of the governments position on what a smoker costs society.
"SUPPOSE YOU EARN $100,000 a year, invest well, and decide to retire at 65 rather than 70. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), you have just cost "society" half a million bucks."
"Counting forgone income as a "cost to society" suggests that every individual has an obligation to work for the highest possible wage until he drops dead. According to this view, anyone who chooses to trade income for leisure, better working conditions, or early retirement imposes a burden on society for which he ought to be taxed.
In estimating smoking-related medical expenses, the CDC likewise made no attempt to distinguish between costs borne by third parties and costs borne by smokers themselves. Nor did it ask whether smoking raises health care costs on balance, which requires taking into account the medical expenses people would incur if they did not smoke."
This is something TC'ers never talk about. Not every smoker gets cancer or some other ailment related to smoking. With all of the ratcheting down on smokers, has anyones medical premiums ever gone down? Not mine, in fact, mine went up by 15% this January, co-pays also went up.
Andrew wrote:
"1st, what's more important, reducing cigarette consumption...or having people in general being well off?"
The overwhelming majority of exsmokers, a significant majority of current smokers (and their family members) and all health experts agree that eliminating and/or sharply reducing cigarette consumption is the best way for a smoker to improve his/her health and well being.
Virtually nobody else shares the delusional and conspiratorial views of the dozen or so angry smokers who post on this blog.
"The overwhelming majority of exsmokers, a significant majority of current smokers (and their family members) and all health experts agree that eliminating and/or sharply reducing cigarette consumption is the best way for a smoker to improve his/her health and well being."
Oh well if they all agree , then it must be right, just like everyone agreed that the earth was flat except the occasional delusional,conspiratorial and angry astronomer.
Bill...you know, seeing you ignore my main point--or stuff like the second part of what I say--has really helped me deal with other people in real life who do the same, and it's helped realize that you may cherry pick a bit. I bet it's helped other "angry smokers." So thanks for that, in a weird way.
It just seems terribly inappropriate for someone who says he looks out for the welfare of all people to bring up that an economic downturn will help a main goal of yours because, well, the downturn affects about 100% of us negatively. It's like the heart attack study in MA, when Dave K brought up that a lot of the fatality reduction was likely due to increased facilities. You criticized the study here, too. There, a few numbers gave the impression smoking bans should be credited more than general advances in technology.
For the majority of people, the economy IS more important than a small shift in smoking rates. And you failed to address how people can turn to quick fixes and stress relief in hard economic times. Stress occurs, and that makes people unhappy.
You can't even qualify that with "the economic downturn may help people to quit smoking and be healthier when things get better"... or the usual bit about helping people quit. I'm not cherry picking--I read your post twice to make sure.
Antismoking movements are not more important than the economy, or technological advances. It is your area of focus, and you need to treat it as most important to your line of work, when you are working. But it's a mistake to blur the line between your focus and things in general.
So how does the rest of my previous post stand up?
Anyone have a link?
Kendra | 01.15.09 - 6:03 am |
Kendra, I don't know if you have found the link yourself, but here is one that lists all the House votes by state:
http://www.google.com/
hostednews...2UdTEAD95N6PD00
I have long contended that the anti-tobacco cartel members would eventually be brought up on a variety of criminal and civil charges for the actions over the years, but I never excepted it to come from a direction that at first glance appears to be entirely non-tobacco related. How lovely.
By encouraging, promoting, and endorsing the S-CHIP legislation thy are not only encouraging, but actively aiding and abetting, the criminality of businesses which hire illegal aliens to take American jobs. Such actions border on Treason, as they are admitting they are domestic enemies of the sovereignty of our nation.
It is going to be interesting to see just how this pans out.
"Virtually nobody else shares the delusional and conspiratorial views of the dozen or so angry smokers who post on this blog."
The reason that virtually no one else shares our views, is becasue they are truly ignorant of the fraud that has been perpetuated by people such as you, the idiot Banzaf and the government.
SAMMEC defines "Productivity Loss" as "The present value of foregone future earnings from paid labor and imputed earnings from unpaid household work."
This means that the SAMMEC fraudulently pretends that money smokers didn't make is an economic burden to non-smokers (even if non-smokers took their jobs!), and it fraudulently pretends that housewives who die instead of collecting Social Security are an economic burden to society.
So Bill, if everyone stopped smoking, would they not die of something else? So all the costs would disappear and nothing else would take it's place? Do smokers pay no taxes and allk of the costs are burdened by society? C
Still waiting for answers to proevious posts. Are they too difficult for you to answer?
This is one of the reasons why its worth all the time, money, effort and misery.
Industrial-scale pharmaceutical production from tobacco
http://www.stockholders-newslett...en/
Tobacco.aspx
Bill Godshall wrote: Public health agencies, health organizations, and healthcare professionals have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and the public about ALL of these risk reduction options, and should respect the autonomy of smokers to make informed decisions on which type of nicotine delivery device(s) they use.
That’s all we angry smokers are asking; that we be given the option to decide for ourselves. My preferred nicotine delivery device is called a cigarette.
Obama’s proposed federal increase in tobacco taxes is unfortunate. Well in excess of 40% of tobacco sales in Ontario, Canada’s most populous province is now contraband. Patrick Fleenor suspects similar problems will occur in the US.
Cigarette Taxes Are Fueling Organized Crime
Um, well, I never supplied the logical reasoning behind the statement, "All smoking (and other) bans shall be lifted".
This movement is already begun and escalating (e.g.: in KY where bans were refused by the health department of 10 counties and anti-smokers forbidden to return with their agenda for a specified length of time; and in Ohio where there is a movement to correct the law language to agree with the ballot language of exemptions...)
The logic is simple. If Source-given, unalienable autonomy is accepted (free will), then that means Autonomy Is Absolute. If free will is absolute, it means that we create our own illnesses. It means that there are No Victims Whatsoever. Quantum Physics already knows that there is no cause and effect, and knows that Time is not what it appears to be.
Linear Time would be necessary to prove cause and effect, which is what the current status of epidemi-illogical science is all about.
But Time is not actually linear, therefor cause and effect cannot be a truth. It can only an appearance of perception. (a very powerful thing!
As Quantum Physics becomes more and more mainstream, cause and effect ("BLAME") will naturally become obsolete.
I'm promoting Quantum Physics!
.
Sorry, that link to the Fleenor article didn’t take. Try this one.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/res...show/
23196.html
Radio Commentary on 3rd hand Smoke from Jan 12th - Michael McFadden gets a quote here!
http://www.wtic.com/topic/
play_w...audioId=3319718
Here's a few more.
Your tobacco will still be growing it will just be a little "different"
Should save thousands of lives ..
Tobacco as Medicine, Indian Research Institute Wins Patent
"Folk medicine has always found some therapeutic value in tobacco. Now the Central Tobacco Research Institute (CTRI) based in Guntur in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has bagged the patent rights for for ‘solansole’ (a medicine extracted from tobacco for use in the manufacture of cancer and cardiac drugs)."
http://www.medindia.net/news/Tob...ent-30130-
1.htm
Tobacco-derived drug prevents cavities
"The cultivation of these plants for eventual use in the pharmaceutical industry is set to become a subject of much focus, as attention is not concentrated on the risks of green biotechnology, but rather on its medicinal possibilities"
http://www.drugresearcher.com/ne...d=60622-
tobacco
Tobacco research could yield medical bonanza
"Research is showing that the tobacco plant may yet provide a bonanza for the medical world and bring a brighter future for small tobacco farmers thinking of calling it quits."
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/HEAL...lant/
index.html
Tobacco Promising "Factory" for Biopharmaceuticals
"The economics of producing biopharmaceuticals from transgenic plants such as tobacco is still a roadblock to producing large quantities of urgently needed medicines, especially for people in underdeveloped nations"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...40812052930.htm
Health-bringing tobacco
http://www.research.bayer.com/
ed...aceuticals.aspx
How a tobacco farm in Kent could provide a life-saving drug for millions
"There is nothing unusual about the plants' appearance, but they are nonetheless extraordinary. A genetic tweak ensures that every cell of every plant churns out tiny quantities of an experimental drug. When harvested, they could bring cheap medicine to millions"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/scienc.../jul/04/
gm.food
Believe it or not, tobacco too can save your life
"Scientists, who have spent their lives trying to improve tobacco yield in Gujarat, will tell you that you can even extract compounds for life-saving drugs from that same plant that is allegedly the source of many cancers."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...0,prtpage-
1.cms
Harvesting "green" pharmaceuticals
"Blood substitutes and antibodies to combat caries, harvested from plants - molecular farming provides a solution. Fraunhofer researchers are producing a number of valuable substances from tobacco. They were awarded Joseph-von-Fraunhofer special-merit prize."
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/
h...aceuticals.html
"A St. Louis firm — Chlorogen Inc. — is developing ways to make tobacco leaves produce proteins for medical research and treatments. The technology alters the chloroplast DNA in the plant cells."
http://www.plantpharma.org/2005/...ptions-weighed/
Tobacco plants grown to treat HIV
"An experimental drug is being harvested in Kent which could eventually save millions of lives, researchers say."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/engl...ent/
5152172.stm
Molecular farming - Tobacco's future?
"The tobacco plant is most suited to large-scale production of active agents," says Dr. Stefan Schillberg of the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biotechnology and Applied Ecology in Germany. "It can easily be genetically modified and cultivated at low cost. Tobacco generates a great volume of biomass per hectare per year, and thus produces a very high yield of the final product."
http://www.molecularfarming.com/...om/
tobacco.html
I still like this one
Researchers Light Up for Nicotine, the Wonder Drug
"Smoking may be bad for you, but researchers and biotech companies are quietly developing pharmaceuticals that are decidedly good for brains, bowels, blood vessels and even immune systems -- and they're inspired by tobacco's deadly active ingredient: nicotine.
Nicotine acts on the acetylcholine receptors in the brain, stimulating and regulating the release of a slew of brain chemicals, including seratonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. Not surprisingly, the first scientific work that identified these chemicals and how they affect the body came out of nicotine research -- much of it performed by tobacco companies.
Now drugs derived from nicotine and the research on nicotine receptors are in clinical trials for everything from helping to heal wounds, to depression, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Tourette Syndrome, ADHD, anger management and anxiety."
http://www.wired.com/science/dis...icotine?
wp_ml=0
Don't worry, you will still be able to buy your tobacco, its just that it will be in several different pills.
Jerry inquired:
"Bill G-What gets taxed if you're pie in the sky plan worked and everyone quit smoking?"
First, there is no pie in this sky, as cigarette industry economists, executives and stock analysts agree (with me) that the price elasticity of cigarettes is about -.4 (i.e. consumption declines by 4% for every 10% price hike) with about half of the consumption decline due to people quitting cigarettes, and half due to smokers reducing consumption.
Second, anyone who understands basic math can figure out that with a price elasticity of -.4, millions of smokers will continue to buy and consume cigarettes as the price increases, even if/when the price exceeds $10/pack.
From Jacob Sullum’s article of 2002:
“In short, the true cost to tax-payers from smoking is probably less than zero, which makes the CDC more than 100 percent wrong.”
Since health cost to taxpayers is used as one of the chief reasons for raising tobacco taxes (especially among state legislators), it’s valuable, I believe, to keep emphasizing the several studies:
From 1989. Manning et al. Journal of the American Medical Association 261:1604, which made the point that true fairness (at least at that time, and I’d love to see that updated) would have had smokers getting PAID between 22 cents and $1.28 by nonsmokers (i.e., guys like Godshall and the doctor) for every pack smoked in order to equalize the societal costs and savings from their habit.
From 1997. The economist W. Kip Viscusi found that “on balance there is a net cost savings to society even EXCLUDING consideration of the current cigarette taxes paid by smokers” (my emphasis).
From 1997. The New England Journal of Medicine published an article entitled “The Health Care Costs of Smoking,” which concluded: “ If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.”
Frm 2008. The Dutch study, which put smokers in third place behind both healthy people and the obese in cost-to-society rankings.
(Thanks to MJM for a lot of that.)
Unfortunately, all of that information, which was supplied to her, produced no second thoughts on the part of my U.S. Representative in this week's SCHIP vote. And why should it? Smokers are a wonderful cash cow that can be milked at will.
.
Bill simply cannot admit that the biggest single result of increased taxes is not mass cessation, it merely drives people away from legitimate sources of tobacco products.
Next to Ireland, the United Kingdom has the highest tax burden on tobacco products in the world.
Next to Ireland, the United Kingdom has the highest rates of smuggled and counterfeit tobacco products in the world.
The evidence we have in the UK absolutely negates what Bill says here. For every increase in tobacco tax, there is a direct and immediate proportion of tobacco enthusiasts seeking their products elsewhere. In this case, it's some dodgy looking geezer down a back-alley, or some dodgy looking geezer down the pub.
The AT Cultists scream "Victory!", but all that has happened is that legitimate purchase have decreased, and the Cultists assume cessation, while the illegitimate sales enjoy a boost.
This isn't rocket science Bill.
What were you doing during Dot Joining 101?
"Virtually nobody else shares the delusional and conspiratorial views of the dozen or so angry smokers who post on this blog."
Throw a little crap against the wall and maybe some of will stick. (We all know that one.)
Godshall may throw out words like "delusional" but, as always, he refuses to give specific examples SUBJECT TO REBUTTAL.
And as for the "conspiratorial" part, when various NGOs parrot one another in stating that even 30 minutes of exposure to cigarette smoke can prove fatal, then call that what you will. So just exactly what do YOU call it, Godshall? (Open to suggestions.)
.
Theres an echo in here
As a manufacturer of smokeless tobacco products this misleading information prevents our consumers from getting accurate information about our products. As a result, adult consumers are less able to make informed decisions about the type of tobacco products that they use. To put this in some perspective, consider the following statement by Britain's Royal College of Physicians in December 2002, in a paper titled "Protecting Smokers, Saving Lives":"As a way of using nicotine, the consumption of noncombustible tobacco is of the order of 10-1,000 times less hazardous than smoking, depending on the product. Some manufacturers want to market smokeless tobacco as a 'harm reduction' option for nicotine users, and they may find Support for that in the public health community."
http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/...ponse/
27a.shtml
THE ALA GIVES OUT REPORT CARDS
http://www.rockymountainnews.com...co-report-card/
A beauty here, in my opinion:
“blacksho89 writes:
“‘The ALA says cigarette taxes overall are still too low. If they were higher, 1,100 kids a day wouldn't begin smoking in America.’
“And that news straight from the Department of Pulling Numbers Out Of Your Arse.
“Bill, did you ever think to question the methodology, or did you just publish a press release verbatim, and call it a day? I wish I could do that at MY job!
“Another example of why no one under 40 reads a newspaper. They are irrelevant to the act of gaining information.”
Notice that the two comments posted have a “suggest remove” tag attached. Genteel readers, I’d guess. When what’s needed for truth is exactly the kind of sledgehammer blow that blacksho89 provides.
.
Colin wrote:
"Bill simply cannot admit that the biggest single result of increased taxes is not mass cessation, it merely drives people away from legitimate sources of tobacco products."
Wrong again. I've acknowledged that cigarette tax hikes can also result in an increase in smuggling and gray marketing of cigarettes.
In fact, cigarette companies have created many of these illicit operations (e.g. in Canada during the 1990's) as part of a lobbying strategy to get government officials to lower cigarette tax rates.
But cigarette smuggling (especially here in the US) hasn't come close to offsetting the consumption declines due to cigarette tax hikes.
I also acknowledge that the health and societal benefits of cigarette taxation has limits. But that usually doesn't occur until the price of cigarettes is around $10/pack.
Since the average price of cigarettes in the US is now about $4.40/pack (and will increase to just over $5/pack with SCHIP), the federal and state governments can (and are likely to) continue raising cigarette tax rates.
I also anticipate that Congress will enact legislation this session (which cigarette companies have opposed) that will reduce cigarette smuggling, and Governor Paterson will probably negotiate an cigarette tax agreement with Native Tribes in NY (as has occurred in other states).
Wrong again. I've acknowledged that cigarette tax hikes can also result in an increase in smuggling and gray marketing of cigarettes.
In fact, cigarette companies have created many of these illicit operations (e.g. in Canada during the 1990's) as part of a lobbying strategy to get government officials to lower cigarette tax rates.
Bill...you're going to need evidence for this. At least a link or two. I think it's more likely people see the market for contraband smokes and make this on their own.
Perhaps cigarette companies brought the black market up as a reason to lower taxes, but as it stands, you've got a conspiracy theory akin to what you've accused us "angry smokers" of. You can't just say something like this because the tobacco companies have hid many things before.
As for black markets, prices aren't quite high enough--but you know how a social movement can suddenly really take off, like antismoking has. You may have acknowledged that black markets can exist for the purposes of legislating against them to protect tax doolars, but not how near they could be to mass prevalence.
You have acknowledged a black market before--but if so, you should be more than okay with a view from the other side that cedes little, i.e. someone saying "Well, smoking may be hazardous to smokers, but definitely NOT to other people."
Come on guys, let's leave Bill alone. He is a busy man, what with all the math he does so to know how many will die from smoking to being at the docks when the contraband cigs arrives and how many are sold in each state. Then there is all this buddy buddy visits with Legislators, tobacco company execs, Lawyers, think tank people, etc. Bill does not get paid for any of this, he does it on his free time and I am sure his wife would like it if we left him alone long enough to earn an honest wage of his own.
Andrew wrote:
"Bill...you're going to need evidence for this. At least a link or two."
Here are a few recent ones.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/i...ations/tobacco/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/i...cles/entry/765/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/i...cles/entry/764/
http://www.publicintegrity.org/i...cles/entry/843/
http://medicine.plosjournals.org...ed.0030228&
ct=1
Very interesting, Bill. Thank you for the information. It's made for good reading, and I really should check publicintegrity more often. I don't exactly like to defend the tobacco companies, but on the other hand, smuggling's not just about opposing the tobacco companies.
The 2nd article has a lot of information on this.
"Once dominated by Big Tobacco, Canada’s black market in smokes is now supplied by Indian reservations in upstate New York."
The conclusion: "Ironically, the belated crackdown has not affected the flood of smuggled cigarettes pouring into Canada"
So, I should modify my statement and say it is still happening, much as Kevin has said it would. I know there were some non-taxed non-FSCs smuggled in from China. Big Tobacco were just the first and best organized. The smuggling will still be there.
"I also anticipate that Congress will enact legislation this session (which cigarette companies have opposed) that will reduce cigarette smuggling"
I suppose we could stop the black market in tobacco by going after the Big Tobacco Companies, just as sucessfully as we have stopped the marijuana black market by going after the Big Marijuana Companies.
The difference between the contraband in Canada back in the 90’s (with the help of the tobacco industry) and today’s, is that back then it was brand name cigarettes that were being smuggled tax free back into Canada from the US.
Today’s contraband, (which native people are very insulted that we even call them contraband), are native cigarettes ( which they have every right to sell but it is illegal for whites to buy them), that sell for $10.00 a carton while ‘’white’’ taxed cigarettes sell at $70.00 a carton and can go even higher for some provinces depending on the brands.
At that price difference is it any wonder that untaxed tobacco is running rampant in Canada? Depending on who’s estimating, untaxed cigarettes represent between 30 and 50% of all cigarettes smoked and are second in importance after Imperial Tobacco, selling more than Rothman’s/Benson & Hedges brands.
Untaxed cigarettes (referred to as contraband) have become a real problem in Quebec and Ontario and the government has already hinted without being over alarmist, that it is out of control. School children near the reserves can buy them easily no questions or ID’s asked and 80% of cigarettes smoked by these students are untaxed native cigarettes.
Yet Canadian TC still insists that price has nothing to do with this phenomenon and there is no way they will concede to lowering the taxes! They just want more enforcement and stopping the natives from selling them which would mean an outright war with the natives.
Smokers and the natives in the meantime are laughing all the way to the bank while the government is losing an estimated1 billion dollars in taxes per year and this is not counting the expenses for hiring more enforcement officers, jailing, legal expenses, the unemployment and bankruptcies it has caused to white tobacco retailers etc...
If you want to read more on it, I have included some good links in the following article: http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2...ry-
alcohol.html
I think it's funny that those silly TC people believe that raising the price of smokes will lead to lower teen smoking rates. The teens I know, including my own two, often have more disposable income than many adults. Most work part time jobs and use their income to buy expensive clothes and other labeled goods (especially cell phones and IPods)to impress their friends. Should cigarettes become more expensive, they will find a new audience of smokers in this teen crowd. Status is everything for these kids, and price is how they judge worth.
Commenting by HaloScan
