What a very long post for something that is so simply absurd on it's face. I searched for it the last time you posted on this nonsense, what exactly is the published acceptable SD for this methodology? I know of very, very few chemistry methodologies which claim accuracy with sd's in the 100ths, the differences in these measurements could well be within the margin of error. Without that data it's really hard to tell.
Then, of course, one needs to prove that a measurable difference has any clinical significance. Can these people cite any studies that prove a 0.01 mg difference changes anything?
Praise the Lord that by making my own cigarettes i can get up to 4mg of nicotine per cigarette.It's a good job they don't produce nicotine figures for smoking a cigar.It's frightening that these so called specialists are totally useless in their jobs,but are given such credability by the exremist rabids.Lies and corruption harkening back to the 20's and 30's methinks.
I find it entirely difficult to comprehend after our free basing activities and with drug addled brains smokers could detect a variation of less then 20 Micrograms over a stretch of 9 years which varies by less than 9 micrograms year over year, could affect the amount of cigarettes smoked. Hard to believe the human brain is able to detect variations in those amounts especially considering the insensitive nature of smokers currently being promoted.
I am sorry Doc In one respect I side with the Tobacco free kids on this one believe it or not; although they appear to be entirely mislead on their motives intentions and values. Tobacco products although TC will vehemently deny it; can be made safer by regulation, which is the failure in following bandwagons. The evidence from physical testing is clear; tobacco harm is directly related to pre existing toxins within the tobacco filler, aside from any additives. This can be controlled by the manufacturer and to a significant degree. If as the TC groups claim nicotine which is not known to be harmful should be regulated to a Millionth of a gram why not too PAH and NNL?
FDA regulation could serve those ends by restricting growing conditions, parts and plants they are allowed to use. Restrictions of fertilizers could eliminate the claim by Glanz cigarettes contain radiation it is well known some do most do not determined by growing conditions. PAH levels can be reduced in the curing process. If these actions were considered, what will the numbers tell you about a product with 90% reduced toxins consumed on a daily basis.
Why is that idea so hard to grasp yet the so called professionals have never been able to take the steps required to reduce the toxic risk and the resulting mortality risk.
North American production is closing down being moved deliberately to third world countries where labor is cheaper the source of the products is slipping out of our means to control along with the move to remote markets we loose our only hope to establish regulation which once the sources are defined as purely non domestic how could we implement growing or production controls. Free trade expansion will take away any future hope of control by trade barriers which will be illegal soon.
If The FDA does not lay down the law soon we can forget about any chance we may have to do so in the future. In Canada the Health of the nation is entirely politicized and led by the American regulators. So all hope here is flying south along with the 90% of tobacco production and 100% of production plants, gone already. The Political nature of the EPA and the CDC leave little reason to believe they will enact any laws to protect those they wish [by recent demonstration of those politics] to harm the most; the consumers. The debate rages while tobacco company profit soar unbelievably the Canadian government invested pension plan equity in Tobacco companies making millions in profits while the debate raged in the press. If that were me pulling this scam; would you say manipulating the stock market and cashing in on the insider information would be illegal?
I have to wonder how many in the US bureaucracy made similar investments?
That is an intersting analysis. I honestly find this hard to believe. Dr. Siegel do you believe that both the state of Mass and the Harvard medical study are lying?
If so, why would these organizations risk their credibility for producing studies on completely false information?
Particularly it would seem that Harvard would have too much to lose to risk its credibility by taking sides and outright manufactureing data for an article - especially when the data they are lying about is publicly available.
Something doesn't seem right.
If this is the case, do you expect ethical investigations at Harvard over this study?
Are the jobs of the authors in jeopardy? Shouldn't they be?
http://www.boston.com/news/local...ate_study_says/
The anti smoking zealots who released this story did not make a 'mistake'. The story is a deliberate piece of panic mongering, designed to give the "Reine Luft" crusaders a headline.
and just for an aside:
farming practices, mother nature, the goal of producing the best product grown, weather, soil, better case weather....
could it be that it was just some better growing seasons for cotinine production? I would be curious to see if tomatoes, potatos, eggplant had a better than average or stable production thruout those years.
I would have to ask would the public's health and safety be better served through product regulation taking the politics out of it through measurements replacing theoretic calculations, which are entirely open to enterpretation, has you have just demonstrated.
TC would cease to exist if such a move were implimented as TC and public health authorities largely depend on politics and contraversay to inspire the fear and manipulations accomplished to date, however if the goal is truly to reduce mortality and morbidity risk; the most significant move they could make to benifit society would be to self destruct by calling for regulation. Regulation based in measurements outside of consensus opinions.
Carl wonders:
"Particularly it would seem that Harvard would have too much to lose to risk its credibility by taking sides and outright manufactureing data for an article - especially when the data they are lying about is publicly available.
Something doesn't seem right."
This might help clear up your confusion. The author of the story seems to have missed it too:
"Industry says it's changed," said Greg Connolly, an author of the Harvard study and former director of the state health agency's Tobacco Control Program. "Yeah, they've changed -- maybe for the worse."
The Harvard researchers, as well as antismoking forces, said the study offers compelling evidence that the federal government should regulate tobacco much the way pharmaceuticals are controlled by the US Food and Drug Administration.
----------------------
The author(s) and antismoking forces are one and the same.
Yes, James, but if they work for a University they have ethical standards they are responsible to uphold. If they are literally making up data - lying - then Dr. Siegel should be willing to call for their resignation or a retraction of the article.
There was one story a few months ago where the science was supposedly corrupt, biased, whatever. Then when I asked if the authors should be held accountable by a retraction, he seemed to lose his steam. In that particular case, all the drama of the blog post wasn't really backed up with any kind of demand that the "bad biased science" be corrected in any way. I seriously questioned whether the science was truly as biased and bad as it was made out to be.
So the same holds true here as well. If they took data and completely made it up, then they should be held accountable for ethical violations and Dr. Siegel shouldn't have any problem calling for an appropriate sanctions from Harvard. In most cases, I believe that if authors are caught lying or plagiarising they are fired. This should be the case for these Harvard authors as well and Dr. Siegel should be willing to call for their resignation and a retraction of the article.
Carl;
Universities tend to shy away from political battles they do not normally regulate research or the authors opinions, the peer review process is supposed to do that.
If they produce literature with the university attached to it, which is illegal or offensive the University would tend to want to protect their name so there would be an intervention.
Control of opinions is the last thing any learning institution should encourage.
What Michasel pointed out was how the information is being deliberately exagerated to carry a meaning which substantially is not found in the actual data, however political invention produces the wild ravings of concern.
Remember we are all entitled to our opinions, as long as we don't hurt others in the process of expressing them. Isn't that similar to your stand on smoking BTW?
Not too thrilled with FDA regulation at all. I mean look at the stunning job they are doing so far...
Jalestra,
Again, I have to agree with you. Think about it a moment......people lived for years without contracting serious illnesses even though they cut chicken, vegitables, etc on the same cutting board without washing/sterilizing the board in between the chicken/potato/veggies.
Seems to me that everytime the government attempts to do something for our own good, things just seem to get worse and suddenly we have new illnesses.
I saw a report the other day that there may be a new "bird flu" that is drug resistant...........oh gee, what a surprise.......
Dr. Siegel--
Don't the proposed FDA regulations ensure the tobacco companies are allowed to make products still acceptable to smokers? I assume that means nicotine levels would stay pretty conisistent, even under FDA control.
And speaking of that subject, I looked over the law that was almost passed in 2004 (it's on TFK website). It includes a number of marketing restrictions that if passed, would surely be opposed on First Amendment grounds by RJR and any tobacco company not supporting the bill. That would tie up the law for years. And I think the Supreme Court would probably side with the opposing tobacco companies.
For those reasons, I don't see FDA reg happening anytime soon. Do you?
Kevin, control of opinions is one thing. The outright manufacturing of data is quite another. I am surprised so many of you are soft pedalling on this issue. It seems to me that we should all be able to agree that lying about data is unacceptable. Isn't accountability in the tobacco control movement what most of you want? If so, I'd like to hear from each of you. If they made up data they should be held account with an immediate retraction - period. Don't you agree?
I'm pleased that Mike has once again written a correct analysis of the HSPH report on nicotine in cigarettes.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the study is that it relied upon and touts nicotine yields from smoking machines, which were widely documented two decades ago as not resembling human smoking behavior (i.e. the nicotine/tar yields of so-called light and ultra light cigarettes are far lower when measured by a machine than what actually is inhaled by a smoker).
Another potential problem with the study (that I haven't been able to ascertain of occuring or not) is that simply averaging nicotine yields from many different cigarette brands does not represent the average yield of cigarettes that are smoked by Americans unless each brand was weighted based on its market share (i.e. Marlboro Light has a greater market share than the combined market share of one hundred lower selling brands).
Jack Shafer wrote an excellent critique of the HSPH study at
http://www.slate.com/id/2157849
The HSPH study, like the August MA Health Dept study, is being promoted by its authors to confuse and scare the public into supported the deeply flawed FDA bill that was a backroom deal cut between Philip Morris and Matt Myers in 2004 when both entities were salivating to get an FDA bill enacted by Congress after RJ Reynolds convinced the U.S. House to pass its tobacco grower's buyout proposal.
Bill, in your opinion are there other FDA regulation bills out there that are not sweetheart deals for the tobacco industry? Or are they all bad?
Carl as far as i am concerned the more nicotine in a cigarette the better.If i don't like it,i can always switch brands,unless i don't know what brands are on offer,should they be forced to be hidden under the counter away from children who could be charmed by the bright coloured appealing packets made to look like sweets,or other such nonsense.
The other problem which can be foreseen,is that now cigarettes cannot be deemed to be light,ultra light in taste,how is a smoker able to judge the potential nicotine content of any given cigarette ?We could end up in the realms of how things were in the 1960's when mild cigarettes tasted mild compared to medium,but both contained a comparable quantity of nicotine.Progress ?
If they made up data they should be held account with an immediate retraction - period. Don't you agree?
Carl
Yes, I totally agree. I'd go so far as to say also, that IF they made up the data or deliberately misrepresented the data (which is what most seem to do) they should also face legal actions....after all, false advertising is false advertising and I don't care what form it takes..........if it's presented publically, it IS advertising.
Carl inquired:
"Bill, in your opinion are there other FDA regulation bills out there that are not sweetheart deals for the tobacco industry? Or are they all bad?"
Both of two FDA tobacco regulatory bills (which are the same) introduced in U.S. Congress during the 109th session (S 666 by DeWine/Kennedy and HR 1376 by Davis/Waxman) are the backroom deal between Philip Morris and CTFK's Matt Myers.
During the 108th session, Philip Morris was pushing its own FDA bill (sponsored by VA Republican Rep. Tom Davis), while Kenndy/Waxman had been sponsoring a bill pushed by CTFK that evolved from a hastily drafted bill by Sen. John McCain's staff in 1998 as part of the 1997 global cigarette bailout deal between cigarette companies, State AGs and Matt Myers that was rejected by the Senate (after many of us successfully urged the Senate to eliminate the cigarette industry lawsuit protection clause).
Carl-
I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I am not suggesting that the report was "false" or that anyone is "lying" or that there was any wrongdoing at all. Nothing of the sort. The data were not made up. They are entirely accurate. And for some of the cigarette brands, it does appear that there has been an increase in nicotine yields over time. So it may well be that the overall conclusion of the report is valid.
What I'm arguing is that the conclusions with regard to the nicotine yield of Marlboro cigarettes that were drawn and disseminated to the public by many anti-smoking groups are not valid based on the actual data.
The data itself is not in dispute here. It's just the conclusions regarding Marlboro that I am challenging.
Carl wrote:
"I am surprised so many of you are soft pedalling on this issue. It seems to me that we should all be able to agree that lying about data is unacceptable."
I was merely offering a suggestion as to why they do what they do.
I don't know if they fudged the data. I didn't look at it. I do know their press release is typical alarmist.
Whether their press release matches their findings I don't know, but this reminds me of two things: The recent SG report and his press release and the 1993 EPA Report where we garnered gems like these:
"Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society."
Also taken from HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR. JULY 21, 1993 is this:
On three separate occasions my staff asked Dr. Lippmann, "if one were to apply the guidelines as written could you classify ETS as a Class A known human carcinogen?" On all three occasions, Dr. Lippmann failed to respond to the question. The next day, however, Dr. Lippmann stated at a meeting outside the glare of media attention that if the guidelines were applied strictly there was no clear mechanistic basis for calling ETS carcinogenic.
After the panel meeting, Dr. Lippmann held a press conference to announce the conclusion that ETS "should be classified as a Class A carcinogen."
-----------------------------
Maybe you're surprised, but many of us find this is par for the course.
Of course eveybody would agree lying shouldn't be tolerated. That's why you and Bill keep telling us that Anti-Tobacco just makes mistakes when these things pop up (about a million times now).
Mike wrote:
"Unfortunately for the anti-smoking movement, this is going to be an embarrassment, because it represents an instance in which Philip Morris was clearly correct, and the anti-smoking groups were wrong."
While I don't know if PM's statements on this issue are correct or not, the fact remaings that a few activists or organizations do not represent the entire smokefree movement.
Instead of blaming the entire smokefree movement for the actions of a few activists or organizations, Mike should be more careful to focus criticism to the activists or organizations that make inaccurate and/or misleading claims.
Bill -
I agree with you completely. And that's why I was very specific in highlighting the specific statements that were made by anti-smoking groups (and always am).
The problem is that when the two groups that are disseminating information that turns out to be inaccurate or misleading are the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Legacy Foundation, it's difficult to just say that this is an example of a misleading statement by two small, isolated organizations.
These are the two largest and most prominent (and well-funded) anti-smoking groups and right now, they essentially determine the agenda of the movement and command the attention and direction of the media.
So in many respects, if TFK and ALF are putting out communications that turn out to contain misleading or inaccurate conclusions, then one could say that the anti-smoking movement, as a whole, is doing that.
It's kind of like if the NRA were putting out misleading or inaccurate statistics about gun-related deaths. Would not one be justified in stating that the anti-gun control movement is disseminating misleading information? True - it is only one group. But it's a group that essentially runs the movement.
Nevertheless, your point is well-taken, and I should make it clear that I am not here, or anywhere, blaming any groups for something that other groups have done.
Dr. Siegel, I am not sure how you square these two comments. In your original post;
"According to the report, Marlboro brands "showed a significant increase in smoke nicotine yield.""
Then in your analysis you said;
"To get right down to it, then, the rest of the story is that there was no change in the average nicotine yield of Marlboro cigarettes from 1997 to 2006.
If there is no change, it would seem that someone is lying, or at least not talking straight.
Is there no change like you've said?
Or did nicotine in Marlboro and other cigarettes change from 97 to 05?
If it changed between 97 and 05 and landed back at the same point in 05 as it was in 97, then isn't it misleading to say that there is no change?
Was there really the need for Harvard to add the sophisticated algebraic methodology to their research ?Why lump most of the brands together,when the annual tables of tar and nicotine provided by the Government utilise a much more simplistic approach,that provides all of the relevant data.What is actually hidden in the depths of their number crunching that could have been showm in a more simplistic fashion.This is just fodder,that would be more appropriately relegated to the nearest garbage disposal unit.Tobacco Control is just sinking further into its own cesspit.
Right after I wrote:
"Of course eveybody would agree lying shouldn't be tolerated. That's why you and Bill keep telling us that Anti-Tobacco just makes mistakes when these things pop up (about a million times now)."
Bill wrote:
"Instead of blaming the entire smokefree movement for the actions of a few activists or organizations, Mike should be more careful to focus criticism to the activists or organizations that make inaccurate and/or misleading claims."
A million and one.
Was there really the need for Harvard to add the sophisticated algebraic methodology to their research ?
si, I was pondering the same question. What is the motivation of a university to take the numbers that are publicly available and to present them in a slightly rearranged way? I can't help but think that they were looking for something they could use as an argument for a "higher" cause.
Carl:
If you read Dr Siegel's statement, you'll see that nicotine levels went like this: 1997 - 1.81 mg, 1998 - 1.74, 1999 - 1.83, 2000 - 1.85, 2001 - 1.84, 2002 - 1.89, 2003 - 1.93, 2004 - 1.87, 2005 - 1.85, 2006 - 1.81
What the press release asserted was that from 1998 to 2005 nicotine levels had increased over all. That is a "letter of" statement...one that is strictly true, but at the same time leading a reader to a false conclusion.
Where it becomes a misleading statement is when you look at the fact that the levels had actually been decreasing from 2003.
And if the press release asserts that "tobacco companies have deliberately increased the levels of nicotine in cigarette smoke since 1998" (lying by omission due to cherry-picking the start year) and "have increased significantly between 1997 and 2005", the implication is that there has been substantial increase (which .12 is not) and deliberate (it is very unlikely that the tobacco companies control the levels THAT carefully) and that the increases have been steady year after year (when it's actually 97-98 drop,98-2003 increase, 2003-2006 drop), it is deliberately misleading....particularly since the most recent data shows the same levels from 1997 and 2006, just as the tobacco companies have claimed.
The press release also claimed that they'll add 2006 as soon as possible...I'd be willing to bet that one of two things will happen when they do.....either they'll refuse to retract the statement in the press, or they'll use 1998 as the start date (just as the original Mass. DPH study did).
The nicotine levels vary year by year (and even crop by crop), that being one of the reasons why in Canada the numbers on the side of the package tend to be ranges, not averages.
As example, the brand I commonly smoke list nicotine as being 1.3 - 2.8mg on the package.
As a result, to imply that the marginal increases and decreases are secret and intentional is blatantly false.
Using them as justification for statements like "cigarette makers have for years deliberately increased nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive", "Given the harm that tobacco causes, it shouldn’t be a game of cat-and-mouse to figure out what the industry is doing to cigarettes", and "is dramatic new proof that Big Tobacco is addicted to addicting millions of young smokers." is just plain old fear-mongering.
Technically Mother Nature alters nicotine levels and all levels of chemistry in everything that grows.
Tobacco is a plant - It's not a highly formulated Twinkie.
Ok - someone show me the study that demonstrates that a 0.19 mg difference in yeild has any clinical significance what-so-ever.
I've been doing clinical chemistry for 25 years. I also can't think of any constituent where a difference of 0.19 mg isn't within the margin of error for the analysis. There's no statistical significance in this set of numbers. To me it shows that year over year the yield is pretty darned stable.
This nicotine yield nonsense is the result of data mining. Just like the Helena and Pueblo studies.
Carl asked;
"Kevin, control of opinions is one thing. The outright manufacturing of data is quite another. I am surprised so many of you are soft pedalling on this issue. It seems to me that we should all be able to agree that lying about data is unacceptable. Isn't accountability in the tobacco control movement what most of you want?"
Carl we have demonstrated on numerous occasions volumous inaccuracies being dispensed by virtually all the groups, and as Bill is offended by the wide brushing, so are smokers. However I have yet to see a smaller group standing up in public and correcting statements even if they know them to be flawed.
Silence is as damning as making the false statement and it is not up to smokers to correct inaccuracies it seems to be a measure of the credibility of those smaller groups in not separating fact from fiction. So far they seem happy to roll with whatever works.
BTW the Tobacco Industry has stood firmly against what Philip Morris stated to be illegal regulation by the FDA when they tried to step in. Calculated risk holds little public confidence in comparison to the same research of a physical nature. The silent majority in the general public knows when they are being lied to and right now ETS is the most loosely held secret in modern history. Many accept the lies because they do not oppose what is happening enough to complain. Consensus determination of ETS as a carcinogen will not accomplish compliance All you produce is resistance which is growing with each imposition. Go ahead walk into people's homes and see the true value of a waking a sleeping lion.
I think TFK is missing the most important point why are they worrying so much about nicotine? The tobacco buyout bill of 2004 did away with the USDA inspecting and sampling the tobacco imported from overseas. Before 2004 hundreds of container loads were destroyed or sent out of the country because they were soaked with prohibited chemicals (DDT, Chlordane,Aldrin and others) now they import it freely and we are chewing and smoking it. But no one will listen to that.
"Finally, TFK's assertion that tobacco companies have been able to "secretly" increase nicotine levels.." -Dr. Siegel
Conversely it is my assertion that Tobacco Free Kids has been "secretly" funded by the pharmaceutical nicotine industry (RWJF) to lobby in favor of smoking bans, in order to increase pharmaceutical nicotine sales.
$14,000,000.00 grant to TFK
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...&iaid=143&
gsa=1
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
BTW;
For those fans of short term studies like Helena; you would do well to observe the level of violence as it grows in Belmont over the next six months, it should give you a pretty good indication of where you are ultimately headed.
Try it in a lower income neighborhood and the police if they are smart would all resign in short order or simply refuse to enforce the law.
Murder and violent crime rates rose in every city which implimented smoking bams acording to police sources in a study I reviewed last year. You can guarantee the streets may smell more to your liking however it will be a lot more risky to walk them.
Marcus, you will enjoy this article:
'Red Flags raised over anti-smoking guide'
http://www.canada.com/topics/bod...4e-
130644177b38
Yet, a smoking-cessation guide published by the Quebec branch of the Lung Association encourages people to review available medication before they do anything else in preparation to quit. The guide offers a detailed description of name-brand smoking cessation products sold by Pfizer and other companies.
"I don't have a clue why it's there. It probably shouldn't be there," Mr. Brisson said when asked about the emphasis on medication. "I guess it's a shot in the dark."
A shot in the dark alright, as was the idea of using Kids to sell the message purchased Foundation credentials by the same industry source.
Whio is this fraudster trying to convince the public or himself?
Mike, Isn't it misleading to title an article: "Analysis Shows No Increase in Nicotine Yields of Marlboro Cigarettes from 1997-2006"...
when in fact, there was an increase during that time period.
Your quote of Dr. Siegel's: 1997 - 1.81 mg, 1998 - 1.74, 1999 - 1.83, 2000 - 1.85, 2001 - 1.84, 2002 - 1.89, 2003 - 1.93, 2004 - 1.87, 2005 - 1.85, 2006 - 1.81
Based on the numbers you quoted in the article, it looks to me like there was in fact, an increase from 1.81 to 1.93 during that time period. There is no question that when dealing with psychoactive drugs, even tenths of a miligram can mean the difference between a high and an overdose.
The executive director has no idea what's in the brochures his organization produces?
There is no question that when dealing with psychoactive drugs, even tenths of a miligram can mean the difference between a high and an overdose.
huh? you are sooooooo clueless
no question eh?
want to cite me a reference that shows there's one iota of clinical difference between smoking a brand that yeild 1.81mgs as opposed to 1.94???
or find me a reference for hospital admissions for smoking related nicotine overdoses
I am curious about something. For whatever reason someone is on medication. The medication requires 200mg per dose. Is there a threshold for margine of error per dose. One dose might be 195mg the next could be 202mg and the next 205mg. Is this considered significant. What would happen if the next three doses reversed the trend. Should this make headlines that meds are not safe. Is this all about nothing?
First, Dr. Siegel, I heartily commend you for writing this article and am only surprised it didn't jerk Mr Bill's knee to again try to call you a Lackey of Big Tobacco.
Second, the fact that Connelly was one of the study's "authors" seems to answer all questions. He's one of the most agenda-driven Anti's on the planet, as his history plainly proves.
Third: oh Carl, you keep sticking your thumb in, pulling out your thumb and insisting you've found a plum. There is zero inconsistency is what Siegel wrote, and he's further had the courtesy to explain it to you again. And then yet again. As have many others here. So all that you're "discovering" is your own inability to inhale any facts.
Fourth: Does anybody actually think that if nicotine were removed that the anti's would quit? A great deal of the stuff they find so annoying and claim is so lethal are just the products of combustion. So they'd still be reaching for gas masks at the odor of burning lettuce.
Finally, Kevin: Nobody walks in California. And from what I've been reading about it, certainly not in Belmont. I'd say if you're looking for actual violence, it might rather come between neighbor and neighbor or residents and the cops who try to bash down their doors.
:
Carl, you said:
"Mike, Isn't it misleading to title an article: "Analysis Shows No Increase in Nicotine Yields of Marlboro Cigarettes from 1997-2006"...
when in fact, there was an increase during that time period."
There were decreases too. Why don't you fault him on that? You're not acting as an apologist for anti-tobacco again, are you?
But let's take a look at that increase you speak of Carl for the time frame you mentioned, 1997-2006:
1997 - 1.81
2006 - 1.81
They're the same Carl. No increase. LOL
Now you'll say, yeah, but it was 1.93 in 2003.
Yeah, and a bunch of different numbers for the other years, both up and down.
As Gilster said, tobacco isn't a Twinkie.
"There is no question that when dealing with psychoactive drugs, even tenths of a miligram can mean the difference between a high and an overdose."
So maybe Bill Godshall is dead because he used to take in 3 times the milligrams of this psychoactive drug as a 1 pack a day smoker?
Quit trying to apologize for these guys, Carl. They keep cooking and reheating the stuff up so they can make the news no matter how insignificant it is. Don't make excuses for them. They know it's a load of regurgitated crap too. Heck, it's actually in their handbook.
I also got another question. I remember reading in the fall a study that compared light smokers, and heavy smokers(can't find it) that said that there was a maximum amount of nicotine for the heaviest smokers had in their body. Your body would matabolize only so much in one day ( I believe the number was 20)whether you smoke one pack, or 3 packs. Now it makes sense that the body only metabolize so much of other substances, so why not tobacco.
Anyways, what would be the difference if heavy smokers only motablize so many cigarettes in a day if that difference was .00 or .03 since the body only deals with so much nicotine anyhow?
James, thank you for fielding that one as I really, really despise repeating myself....I find that's where my sarcasm addiction tends to get the better of me. 
Mike Walsh wrote:
"James, thank you for fielding that one as I really, really despise repeating myself...."
LOL. No problem Mike. It was my turn to babysit Carl anyway.
Commenting by HaloScan
