More good news for the New Year, as comprehensive smokefree workplace laws are now in effect in Oregon and Utah.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/
i...king_in_or.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/conte...iew/294563/182/
I think that is wonderful news Bill. Just wondering though, how much does it cost to move that guy from State to State so that he can quit smoking with each new ban? Bet you can't wait til he can settle down for good!
LOL! Dr. Siegel, I don't think it COUNTS as a vacation when you save up four new blog postings for when you get back!
Happy New Year!
:>
Michael
LOL, MJM! But I love abundance!
Great, Bill, another personal achievement and source of joy for you! You must be so happy.
But wait ... do you live in Oregon or Utah? So what's in it for you?
An article in today's NY Times confirms that Congress will increase the federal cigarette tax to at least $1/pack in the next few weeks, and that FDA tobacco legislation will be considered (and enacted) this session.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/0...=1&
ref=business
And an article from Sunday's Philly Inquirer indicates that former Waxman tobacco staffer Josh Sharfstein (who advocated and defended the PM/CTFK FDA tobacco legislative deal from 2004-2007 before he became Baltimore's Health Commissioner) is being considered for FDA Commissioner.
http://www.philly.com/philly/bus...s/
37053624.html
A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit against the MSA filed by General Tobacco.
http://www.google.com/
hostednews...DLDLl_pYixSfjdN
2QD95HODB00
Anybody know whatever happened to a similar federal lawsuit against the MSA that was filed several years ago by the Competitive Enterprise Institute?
OT
Doctor start stockpiling the Vienna Fingers
"Could it really be that sweets and chocolate are as addictive as cigarettes?
That's the controversial conclusion from a study by New Zealand scientists who found that foods made largely from refined sugar and flour have the same addictive qualities as tobacco."
"Just how big a contribution this could be making to the obesity crisis isn't yet clear. 'We need more research,' says Thornley, 'but the evidence for refined carbs being potentially addictive is growing fast.
There's a good case for treating highly refined foods as we do cigarettes - banning TV ads, taxing them and even insisting on pack health warnings."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt...arb-
addict.html
"SMOKE MORE, - IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
"FDA APPROVED TOBACCO, IT'S ALL GOOD."
"YOU'RE SAFE NOW, THE FDA SAYS SO."
"BACK THE FU*K OFF!, I PAY FOR YOUR KIDS HEALTHCARE!"
Bill, don't you ever see the big picture? You can sing and dance now, but I guarantee that in less than a year, you will see how our wonderful leaders have once again screwed the American people. I don't blame them all though. What can you expect when they see only through rose colored glasses? Here's the problem.
These Politicians ran on platforms that promised to spread the wealth and give healthcare and jobs. Promises made without a clue on how to fulfill the promise. So, they all got together for lunch and decided that by increasing the taxes on the wealthy or anyone making over $250,000 a year would mean that we could take less taxes from the middle class. They need to give it to the poor, the people who was once considered middle class not so long ago. I believe you may fall under that category too. So the middle class will see more in his paycheck, that new increase will actually be spent on the higher taxes for their cigarettes, which is suppose to go for health care for the poor. It would have been the same spending power had the Government just took more taxes from the rich and put it into healthcare, but this way, they can stand on the steps of the capital and smile while getting their pictures taken and patting each other on the back. In reality, they have less money to work with.
Now, we have to get people back to work and the answer is infrascture. Build roads, bridges and schools. I agree that money needs to be put here, but these jobs will not help the everyday people who needs it the most. Instead, big corporation will bid the jobs and reap the profits and Joe the bartender who lost his job due to your smoking ban will make enough to feed his family but will have to work overtime should he want a family vacation. These corporations profits will soar as they only have to offer benefits while the work is being done. Healthcare is not an expense, the government is paying for that. How is this being paid for? By you. A 10 cent a gallon tax has been suggested and even your Prius needs that once in awhile, but has it only been suggested or has it already been implemented? At 9 AM today, I filled my tank at $1.45 a gal. At noontime, this same gas station had raised the prices to $1.59 a gal. Fourteen cents in 3 hours? Are we already building roads?
You would think they all would learn from their mistake. Let's take the minimum wage. It was increased this year for the poor that we are so desperate to take care of, who should never have been poor in the first place, the people whose jobs were sent overseas or lost due to a smoking ban. To give increases in their pay, the employer needs to raise his rates to his customers who in turn raises their rates to their customers and the cycle continues. What did we get? Gas at over $4.00 a gallon and more lost jobs. Wall Street crashed and the middle class became poor.
Relying on higher taxes, especially on cigarettes, to save the world in not the answer, but lets see if anyone wakes up and sees it for themselves. As for the smokers, give a nod to your fellow neighbor when you are avoiding another new tax while purchasing out of that trunk. Less than a year and we will see total destruction.
diane inquired:
"Bill, don't you ever see the big picture?"
I always try to see and to expose the forest through the trees (i.e. the big picture).
Among the soundest fiscal, health, safety, environmental and security policies are increased taxation rates for cigarettes, beverage alcohol and gasoline.
LightningBoy--
Probably not succinct enough, but
"My taxes pay for the health care for...
(big long list)
...and any debatable damage from a whiff of my cigarette. Deal with it."
I think I'm seeing something interesting from Bill. I had a blind spot that, well, they're going to maybe ban smoking in restaurants, but that's it. I thought that seemed fair--unhappy, but fair. Maybe restaurants with bars would be exempt. But I recognized I was biased myself!
Then there's someone like Dr Siegel who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars. He figured that nobody really wanted to do more than that, that more would be cruel.
But people have in fact done more. There are people like Bill who are in favor of banning smoking at college campuses or in parking garages. But it can't go any farther than that! Any further would be crazy, but his measures are necessary and good. Bill has some good criticisms of the more bloated and entrenched anti-tobacco interests, though, and he clearly understands that some issues and memes being pushed have become about money and power.
Then there are people who stop just short of prohibition but who are willing to go in the home. Prohibition would be bad, because cigarette taxes would dry up, and one day we'll find alternate funding(maybe with another vice...)
It's a sort of Russian doll thing, where nobody assumes anyone else is more dedicated than they are, because that would be oppressive, etc. But nobody ever goes to the conclusion that if the next view down is out of line, and the momentum of society's opinion/legislative fashion is coming their way fast,
...maybe they are closer to out of line than you'd think.
"SMOKE MORE, - IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN"
"FDA APPROVED TOBACCO, IT'S ALL GOOD."
"YOU'RE SAFE NOW, THE FDA SAYS SO."
"BACK THE FU*K OFF!, I PAY FOR YOUR KIDS HEALTHCARE!"
So appropriate, I had to repeat it, LightningBoy.
.
"BACK THE FU*K OFF!, I PAY FOR YOUR KIDS HEALTHCARE!" is the clear T-shirt contest winner.
Congratulations Kayci!
Bill needs to wash his windows before he can see those trees. The end of the year Bill, just wait and see.
Ummmm, Doc, that was LightningBoy's suggestion, Kayci was just repeating it as it was most excellent and deserved repeating.
Well congratulations LightningBoy.
This is a double money-maker, because the same slogan would make a perfect bumper sticker for smokers in these states.
Yeah, pooh. I had to pass the trophy to LB 
I think it is a winner, too!
.
Just found this link again, the precursor to Chantix if anyone is interested
Tabex (Cytisine
"Cytisine stimulates the autonomic nerve ganglia and by a reflex pathway stimulates breathing, induces release of epinephrine form the suprarenal glands and elevates blood pressure. The aim when using Tabex is to replace nicotine, entering in the body during smoking, by cytisine taken orally. The mechanism of the cytisine action is similar to nicotine. Because of this fact gradual cessation of smoking can be achieved and abstinence is avoided."
http://www.bpg.bg/sopharma/tabex.phtml
I took a look a while back, its another pyridine alkaloid, like trigoneline in coffee or nicotine in tobacco, I'd guess they are all likely to turn to niacin when roasted/burned.
Cytisine is a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist, and as a pharmaceutical preparation it is available for the treatment of nicotinism. Cytisine derivative varenicline was approved in 2006 as a smoking cessation drug. A 2006 literature review concludes that while trials performed with cytisine itself are mostly of poor quality, there is some evidence that cytisine may be prescribed to aid in smoking cessation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytisine
Cytisine and Cigarettes
To evaluate the effectiveness of an alkaloid derivative of the plant Cytisus laburnum L., or golden rain tree, known as cytisine (not to be confused with cytosine or cysteine), a review of the literature and a meta-analysis were conducted. Ten studies reporting the effects of cytisine on smoking cessation, published between the years 1967 and 2005, were identified, including 3 placebo-controlled trials. The studies, all from Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, and Russia, involved a total of 4404 smokers treated with cytisine and 3518 controls
Quit/abstinence rates, based on survey (not biochemical) assessment, ranged from 13.8% to 70% anywhere from 15 days to 14 months following treatment with cytisine.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti...warticle/
545093
"If a smoker wants to gain knowledge about the history of chantix medication, then he or she should search for articles on a plant called Cytisus laburnum. The leaves of that plant satisfied the needs of many World War II soldiers who had run out of cigarettes. Those soldiers found that they could get a nicotine fix by chewing on the leaves of the above-mentioned plant."
http://www.educationarticles.inf...=18143&
catid=73
Incidentally,if they come for our coffee, trigoneline is also in Fenugreek.
"In India the roasted ground seeds are infused for a coffee substitute or adulterant. A tea can be made by infusing teaspoon of seed with two cups of water for five minutes."
http://www.theepicentre.com/Spic...s/
fenugree.html
I try to make myself useful
Caution
Laburnum leaves vary in toxity through the year, if you ask me the aforementioned soldiers were very lucky to get away with it.
Bill G. wrote, "Among the soundest fiscal, health, safety, environmental and security policies are increased taxation rates for cigarettes, beverage alcohol and gasoline."
OK, so let's agree with the general Antismokers' call for a "level playing field" and equalize the tax rates for those three products (even though cars and alcohol kill far more people far more quickly than tobacco, the argument could be made from governement figures that the total toll of smoking is greater decades down the line so I think the equalization is not unreasonable if on accepts the antismoking position in general.) (figures below are rough... it's 6am here at the moment...)
Cigarettes without taxation would run about $1.00 a pack, maybe $1.50 for premium brands. The taxes (including the "invisible" and unlegislated tax of the MSA) added on bring their prices up to an average of at least $6 with a SCHIP tax of 61 cents added in... maybe even more if KY goes from 30 cents to a dollar etc.
So that's a tax on basic product of .... hmmm... roughly at least 300 to 400%.
A similar tax on gasoline (at a base price of about $1.50/gallon) would give us $6 to $8 per gallon, similar to Europe.
On alcohol? Hmmm.... what's a cheap six pack of beer without taxes nowadays? $5? So that would give us six packs of Brand X beer at $15 to $20 (Hey, a great way to keep the children from drinking in the parks at night, right? What beer drinker would refuse to go along with such a good idea?)
A cheap quart of vodka is about $10? So hike that to about fifty bucks per quart and we'd see a lot fewer drunken frat parties by the children in colleges.
Our "fiscal, health, safety, environmental and security policies" would all be improved and we'd all be healthier, happier, and more TeleTubbie-friendly.
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Michael McFadden wrote:
"Cigarettes without taxation would run about $1.00 a pack, maybe $1.50 for premium brands."
According to Morgan Stanley, the average retail price for premium brands in the US was $4.40/pack in November, while the average price for discount brands was $3.08/pack.
Those prices include an average $1.19/pack in state excise taxes, $.39/pack federal excise tax, about $.45/pack in state settlement payments, and an average state sales tax of $.04/pack, totaling an average $2.07/pack in taxes and state settlement payments.
If/when the SCHIP legislation is enacted/implemented, the average retail price of premium cigarette brands will exceed $5/pack.
By raising the average price an additional $5/pack (to $10/pack) via taxation and/or litigation, nationwide cigarette consumption decline by an additional 35%.
Bil, I thought it was you who keeps saying the cig. consumption has not gone down. Or did you mean the people will buy them elsewhere?
"...nationwide cigarette consumption decline by an additional 35%"
And why would that make you happy, Bill? What's in it for you? Ego? Power? Self-esteem? A feeling of victory?
By raising the average price an additional $5/pack (to $10/pack) via taxation and/or litigation, nationwide cigarette consumption decline by an additional 35%.
Bill Godshall | 01.08.09 - 12:08 pm
Bill's mathematical gymnastics are flabbergasting. In his given case, the price of a pack of cigarettes will still have at least doubled...and Michael McFadden's thought experiment still holds true. Who would stand for such taxes?
Then Bill goes on to say, at the end, that we probably need to double the price of a pack, neglecting that this will give us Michael McFadden's scenario again.
So Bill, you're saying you do support taxes on a pack of cigarettes being 4x the price otherwise. Do you support this for alcohol, say? Keep in mind that you've used results from raising the drinking rate to 21 as a reason why we should raise the smoking age to 21. You mentioned drunk driving fatalities(harming others as well) as one reason.
So it seems you do support the basic concept, but you don't want to come out and say it. Might make it...unpopular if it spreads to more than just the smokers.
Oh and there's still the black market thing. Can you imagine--black market alcohol with a bit of methanol in it? Worse than fire safe cigarettes. I think that may've happened before after the Volstead Act.
I like how Bill mentions litigation too--I believe he's come out against the MSA in the past, but since litigation could be an option, and it's happened, might as well hold the general concept over smokers' heads.
-"If/when the SCHIP legislation is enacted/implemented, the average retail price of premium cigarette brands will exceed $5/pack.
By raising the average price an additional $5/pack (to $10/pack) via taxation and/or litigation, nationwide cigarette consumption decline by an additional 35%."-
Or nationwide sales of "legal" tobacco declines by an additional 35%, (or more), you mean.
So who will pay for SCHIP? You? It's for the children remember? So I trust you will have no problem picking up the slack. Or hell, why not? Since the smoking rate will decline so much, as you are hoping, maybe you could change causes and go after the overweight.
Or those so addicted to alcohol and dig into their pockets. To pay for SCHIP and chasing the black market tobacco industry around.
Or what the hell, just cancel the SCHIP experiment altogether, since it seems to be just a punishment for not making the politically correct lifestyle choices imposed by holier-than-thou do-gooders.
If it were a GENUINE concern for children's health care, I figure everyone would bear some burden for it.
On top of it, it would be practically unnoticed, since it would be spread over a much larger area.
Instead of 25-30% of the population (smokers only) paying into it, 100% of the population (everybody) would be chipping in. Therefore, such ridiculous increases you would like to see would not be required.
Doesn't sound too complicated to me.
Commenting by HaloScan
