Just hang in there as in a couple of years, these same people will be accusing the tobacco industry of lowering the nicotine so to entice new younger smokers. They bank on the knowledge that people will forget that it was actually them who encouraged it.
What it comes down to is they are seeing their well running dry and they need to encourage new smokers so that they eventually have a whole new group to hate, fear and tax. These people are running a very lucrative business with their lies and hatred and if this is what it takes to keep the wheels turning and the money coming in, then there is no level where they aren't afraid to lower themselves into.
By the way, let's not forget the stories on brainwashing. Looking forward to that.
"Misled smokers into believing low tar cigarettes were healthier" Dr Siegel,that is what the Government thought,otherwise WHY DID THEY ASK THE TOBACCO COMPANIES TO REDUCE TAR ?FUN?How much of you believes your statement and how much WANTS TO BELIEVE IN ORDER TO BLAME THE TOBACCO COMPANIES.I am sick to the back teeth of the drive to reduce tar and nicotine in cigarettes HENCE i switched to making my own-NO GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC HEALTH INTERFERENCE,MY CHOICE.You are perpetuating another myth,smokers can read and make informed decisions,SOMETHING TOTAL CONTROL DOESN'T LIKE.
Dr. Siegel,
I agree with your blog. I think a reduction in nicotine would 1) send the message that nicotine is the culprit of the health effects associated with smoking and 2) communicate that cigarettes are somehow safer because of lower nicotine yields.
It's no surprise that some smokers perceive nicotine to be the cancer causing agent and that even among general practitioners, there are beliefs that NRT is as harmful as cigarettes and that nicotine may cause cardiovascular disease and stroke despite no data to suggest a direct role.
Even the significant reduction of machine derived sales-weighted tar yields from ~40mg per cig in 1950 to ~7mg per "very-low-tar cig" today has had little to no impact on lung cancer risk (as demonstrated by the CPS-II). I think it is unfortunate that CTFK and similar entities are not engaging in a national effort to educate smokers about alternative nicotine delivery systems that are vastly safer than cigarettes.
When it comes down to it, smokers are the ones who will have to make their own informed decisions. I believe that policies that contradict or disregard the research completely prevent people from being able--let alone comfortable--in making their own choices about health behaviors. Smokers deserve all the information out there, not policies that facilitate bigotry and marginalization. The quest to make smoking a socially unacceptable behavior will ultimately be the downfall of tobacco control especially if/when morbidity and mortality do not significantly change over the next few decades.
Nick wrote:
"I think it is unfortunate that CTFK and similar entities are not engaging in a national effort to educate smokers about alternative nicotine delivery systems that are vastly safer than cigarettes."
Are you talking about Bill's favorite alternative (smokeless) or the NRT industry?
The NRT companies run ads 50 times a day so there's already a national effort and it doesn't cost anti-tobacco one cent.
Btw, I've never heard a smoker say, "I don't want the smoke, I just want the nicotine" so I think it's irrelevant if NRT is safer or not.
Diane said "Just hang in there as in a couple of years, these same people will be accusing the tobacco industry of lowering the nicotine so to entice new younger smokers."
Actually, Diane, it has already happened. The smokeless tobacco industry has been accused of marketing products with graduated levels of nicotine to young people so that they start out with brands with low nicotine and work their way up. The industry, it is said, understands that if only high-nicotine products are available, young people will be deterred from tobacco use. So they provide lower-nicotine products and graduate their way up. This certainly runs counter to the idea in the editorial, and implied by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Harvard report, that lower nicotine levels will reduce youth smoking.
Upon reading the Florida Times-Union editorial yesterday, I came to the same conclusion Mike has expressed in this blog posting.
Regarding Mike's comment about the smokeless tobacco industry being accused of deploying a graduated marketing strategy to hook youth on lower nicotine smokeless products and then graduate them to higher nicotine smokeless products, the tobacco control advocate who I first heard express that theory was none other than Greg Connolly, the same person who authored the HSPH study and who has advocated (most recently to the US Senate HELP Committee) the FDA impose mandatory reductions in all cigarette nicotine yields (to purportedly make cigarettes less addictive).
Good point Bill. It seems inconsistent to criticize tobacco companies at once for marketing high-nicotine products and for marketing low-nicotine products, because they are going to increase addiction among kids. Which is it?
Come Come Michael, he recieved the same [Cough]training as you did.
You have to know Bill can not answer that, anymore than you will answer;
How it was with a stable number of smokers for over 50 years, smoking related diseases [which comprise the bulk of statistical data numbers, the numeric substance in the elevated risks of ETS] rose so dramatically?
If we factor out the unassociated increases, which logically could not be caused by smoking it becomes less of a hazard.
With dramatic reductions of exposures to ETS, any association to ETS would not substantiate any significant populatiuon risk remains today either.
How elevated is the true risk today as a result of current conditions?
Or is there a risk left at all?
From the last discussion, Delphi advocacy seems to reign supreme, even after you are driven outside looking back in.
BTW your question to Bill could be argued; as he supports non linear association, no safe level is known so nicotenne content is irrelivant. Anything tobacco companies do which places them in a better light is clearly dangerous.
Only the forces of good make good choices remember? LOL
BTW Bill;
Don't expect me to keep making you look good around here forever get with the program.
Excuse my ignorance,but i've always believed that certain smokeless tobacco products have been higher in nicotine than others.As with cigarettes ,cigars and pipe tobacco.Do you automatically promote the highest nicotine product to neophytes ?Of course you don't,those products are usually reserved for those who are experienced.Example a person new to pipe smoking would usually be pointed towards medium/mild ready rubbed tobacco,they wouldn't really know what to do with a lump of plug or twist.How do you know Dr Siegel that this is a cynical exploitation by the Tobacco Companies.Everything appears to be doesn't it ? Well,everything from Public Health appears to me to be a cynical exploitation of smokers,those poor deluded individuals that must be helped,because they are unable to help themselves.You know,the Bill school of understanding.But you have also attended that school Dr Siegel,supposition cuts both ways.I am angry that the Tobacco Companies ceased manufacturing the cigarettes that i preferred in lieu of the lighter,pathetic tasting paper sticks of today.Why do you think they did it,when they had a steady market for the ones i liked ?
Actually Nick, people believe nicotine is so bad for you because it was part of the first anti-smoker call. What a deadly addictive thing nicotine was. And I recall it being used as late as last year. But since nicotine is the main ingredient in NRT they had to change their call...
Jalestra,
They are always changing their call now Big T is their friend:
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247612.html
(while Big Bill is out to recess playing volleyball---this is from his latest announcements site-Going Smokeless)
~snip~
'Cigarette giants have noticed the trend and are trying to make smoke-free
products that are more acceptable to a wider range of consumers than traditional
spit tobacco. Most major smokeless companies, as well as cigarette makers such
as Philip Morris USA, are experimenting with sales of spit-free, smokeless
products.'
"Philip Morris USA, are experimenting with sales of spit-free, smokeless
products."
They can experiment all they want. I will never buy any of their products anyway, and, you smokeless people need to really pay attention here, I like setting fire to my tobacco. Its been done that way for over 6000 years and I intend to continue the tradition. It never killed anyone for 6 milennia. That only started happening when you freaks ran out of people to order around.
I can only imagine that you, the anti-smoking goon squad, are the remnants of the Puritans we put on boats and sent to America a couple of centuries ago.
If the cappeth doth fitteth, thou must weareth it.
Sunz wrote:
"They are always changing their call now Big T is their friend:
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/ 247612.html"
Clicking that link I found Bill saying:
"There are two upcoming tobacco harm reduction conferences at which I will
present: on April 20 at the University of Maryland School of Law in Baltimore and on May 8 at the
Tobacco Merchants Association in Williamsburg, VA"
Bill, I'm curious. Are you going to oral rape your way there by plane or Prius?
Couldn't you stay home and just email each other?
I'm with you Colin----I enjoy the ritual of smoking from start to finish. During the time I was a non-smoker---that was the only thing I did miss---not the nicotine. First couple of days I kept myself busy and I remained a non-smoker for 4.5 yrs. What brought me back was in the end the ritual. Puff, puff
.
I thought they couldn't reduce the "harm" of tobacco, y'know, there is no safe dose. Bill, are you going there to support or harass? I'm curious as to why you'd go to any kind of tobacco harm reduction conference? What do you think you will take away from that?
Ummmm, Bill, you live in Pennsylvania. What right have you got to speak in Maryland or Virginia? After all, you don't feel smokers who are not from PA have any right to speak out against the PA bans, what right have you got to push your agenda in a state you don't live in?
Showing your hypocritical colors again, quite clearly too.
The Karma you have coming your way is going to really be huge.........glad I won't be anywhere near you when that happens.
James, Lynda F & Jalestra,
Wait----perhaps Bill will be just and 'innocent bystander' at the group think on the 20th. Just like he is an innocent bystander to SHS!!!
Just a victim, once again.
LOL
Here's another really good one:
Secondhand Smoke Linked To Risk Of Tooth Loss
A study published in this month's issue of the Journal of Periodontology found that subjects with periodontitis who were exposed to secondhand smoke were more likely to develop bone loss, the number one cause of tooth loss.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70403153859.htm
Was there ever a study that linked smoking with tooth loss...because atm I'm not aware of one, and I'd be terribly on the edge of my seat to hear how smoking has nothing to do with it, but SHS does....
ALL--In case you missed this on previous post re: Enstrom: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...7803807/
#114611
Scroll to comments (near end) by john dale dunn MD JD (2 comments)
Enjoy
I wonder if Bill uses the Delphi method when giving his presentations...?
Jalestra,
I saw that, but then found this:
http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com...x.2002.290207.x
And medical professionals, and public health wonders how the masses are confused.
What about the SHS from SMOKELESS TOBACCO,as per an earlier article.But Bill according to a staement he made a while ago,has never used smokeless tobacco,so he is promoting an item he has no knowledge about,other than the science he has read.
Sunz;
Here is a limk to the epidemiology advice to Judges, Dr. John Dunn referred to in your link.
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.ns...le/
sciman00.pdf
Here is an epidemiology link assessment at the BMJ for reference The comments are pretty informative as well.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/
f...ourcetype=HWCIT
It should be noted at the first link it suggests published articles at a Medical Journal are considered heresay which defeats the so called cannon of proof, until each is described individually and scrutinized on it's own merrit.
Colin wrote:
"I like setting fire to my tobacco. Its been done that way for over 6000 years and I intend to continue the tradition."
Prior to the 1930's, smokeless tobacco products accounted for the overwhelming majority of tobacco consumption in America and in Europe (i.e. during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries).
Lynda inquired:
"What right have you got to speak in Maryland or Virginia?" The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution gives me that right, and I also was invited.
The comments relating to the BMJ article are pretty clear in my understanding,but begs the question as to how and why so many anti smoking studies have been proclaimed as being accurate and have helped the war against smokers.Both Dr Siegel's earlier research and the majority of Stanton Glans's appear to be on rocky ground,yet still retain their appeal.The EPA study of ETS has been lambasted as being unprofessional and miraculously finding the results to suit the result,yet still continue to provide the antis with "evidence".Pretty serious question ought to be asked about the researchers where they are clearly omitting the basic working parameters of epidemiology,in order to further a fixed agenda.Will they heck as like.Whoever oversees the provision of funding for these cynical abuses of science ought to be held to account.Money is power,and the antis are well funded ,remove their tax free status and start forcing them to produce transparent accounts for all to see.
So Bill why promote something you've never tried yourself ? And BTW who do you refer to as being the consumers of smokeless tobacco in the 17,18 centuries,NOT 19TH,the white man or the original inhabitants of the Americas WHO SMOKED IE BURNT TOBACCO.
Just to avoid any confusion for you Bill,pipe and cigar smoking became very popular in the C19th and Lucky Strike cigarettes were first made in 1871.
The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution gives me that right, and I also was invited.
Good, then you'll remember that before making any snide remarks in the future about out-of-staters commenting on other states bans.
Because like it or not, invitation or not, the same 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, gives US the right to speak out also.
Just wanted to see you say it.
He still hasn't answered why he's attending a tobacco harm reduction convention if he doesn't believe that the "harm" can be reduced, or what exactly he expects to take away from such a thing.
And Bill, do you have the numbers, history, etc to prove that smokeless tobacco was the majority choice? Because everything I've ever read puts in a pipe pretty far back. Regardless of majority of choice or not, if my tobacco goes, I'm taking yours down with me. Because in a way I'm like you Bill, spiteful like that.
Bill and Mike,
With lower nicotine levels in cigarettes, is there then a lower level of airborne nicotine produced?
As these BMJ published reports suggest.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ality-
test.html
Regardless of majority of choice or not, if my tobacco goes, I'm taking yours down with me. Because in a way I'm like you Bill, spiteful like that.
I am soooo with you on that Jalestra.
I try not to be spiteful, but in this instance I am more than happy AND willing to make an exception.
Here is lighthearted view of unethical funds investment, a topic back in the news locally of late.
http://michaelbluejay.com/sri/
With observed and obvious effects in the efficiencies of Delphi strategies the point many gloss over is who profits the most from psychological control strategies. The stories of the former Liberal Government in Canada investing retirement funds in Tobacco companies at the same time they put the anti smoker campaigns into high gear has seen a parallel this week when University of Toronto a hotbed of propaganda built research studies, and the same institution our current “political science professor” or so called “head scientist” at Health Canada, plies his trade educating the study writers. University of Toronto announced due to recent pleading of it's students, it has finally decided to sell it's 10 million dollars in tobacco industry stocks at a considerable profit no doubt, becoming the first as they put it Canadian University to stop purchasing unethical Tobacco funds.
Wouldn't it be great if we had access to the investment portfolios of people like James Replace and Stanton Glaze or of prominent Canadian politicians like Ralph Goodale or Stephan Dion to see if Political influence of Delphi is making them look like investment Gurus?
Do we have nannies protecting us from ourselves, or more likely profiteers cashing in on the war on smokers?
Kevin,
We have the same thing here in Soviet Scotland.
The Scottish Executive were repeated asked to desist from investing in tobacco stocks just before, during, and just after enacting the nasty & quite childish smoker ban.
To date, they have not removed tobacco from their investment portfolio.
The excuse?
"Its too complicated".
Collin;
"It’s too complicated"
Its getting more complicated by the hour.
Just when TC advocates creating the big lie have the world all parceled out in nicely digestible chunks of public knowledge, then some applied science ass, produces research to put the spin doctors back on overtime pay.
Check this out and try to imagine research into ETS had somehow confounded this new reality. LOL
http://www.the-scientist.com/new...ews/home/53062/
What this proves is ETS exibits a lot less risk than previously believed. Smoking related diseases occur in later life, gray hair although also associated has never been suggested as a cause of those diseases.
With physical science which contradicts even the most convincing arguments in theories of ETS "irrefutable" proclamations. For the same reasons ETS is likely now as dangerous as gray hair risk in establishing causal relationships.
As a harmful carcinogen? laughed right out of existence now fits the bill.
It seems the fat pandemic took a large hit today as well.
It is starting to look like applied science is making a come back.
Watch closely as the WHO bandwagon spin doctors get their self serving shots in over the next few weeks.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_re...u-
sfd040907.php
A little off this particular topic, but quite in line with the general topic of Dr. Siegel's blog. Walter Williams' article this week discusses bogus science...the second-hand smoke "science" in particular. The comments after the article are also pretty interesting (there are A LOT of comments!)
http://www.townhall.com/columnis...l&
comments=true
But Julie doesn't the basis of THIS "SCIENCE" PROVE THE ANTIS CASE FOR BANS.It's about time the fraudulent use of SHS is broadcast LOUD AND CLEAR AND AS FREQUENTLY AS NEEDED FOR IT TO SINK IN.Can we expect a debate on this issue Dr Siegel ?
I think it's encouraging that more peope are waking up to the fraudulent science. Walter Williams is a pretty well-known and respected journalist (and economist). If you read the comments, most of the people agreed with him and were able to provide even more documentation to support his case.
The more extreme these anti-smoking groups become, the more people will begin to question their motives and the "science" used to enact these bans. I think Dr. Siegel is absolutely correct in that the movement will eventually be discredited and all their work will be undone (of course, I will be very pleased if this happens, and Dr. Siegle will probably feel some disappointment).
Doctor Siegel,
This is completely OT, but I am curious as to why Cathy Bell's Link to her website http://www.geocities.com/corpora..._opposition/
has been removed from your website? Or am I simply missing it?
It is really not any of my business, but I wonder if that was done at her request or at your decision?
First it's the smell....now the very site of us is too much to bear.
http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/d...com/
default.asp
'Sight of smokers raises aesthetic issues
Australia, Monday, March 19, 2007—A week after a Sydney council voted to ban smoking in every council-controlled public space, its mayor has said that footpaths might one day be declared smoke-free zones, according to a report by Sunanda Creagh for the Sydney Morning Herald.
Mayor, Denise Wilton was quoted as saying that she thought the community would support such a move because in her opinion people didn’t “particularly like seeing a whole host of smokers outside any building".'
Wonder what else Ms Wilton finds too offensive to merely see?
...'its mayor has said that footpaths might one day be declared smoke-free zones,...'
Won't that make it so much more comfortable for her parade through these areas with her jackboots strapped on tightly? How nice of her. At least she maker it clear this is really about 'aesthetic issues'
The Government obviously cares little about human rights or scientific integrity in your right to adcurate health information. Factual information was replaced when they redefined the language now all bets are off.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/
to...tobacco_use.pdf
In reviewing the SGs recommendations for treating smoking the points most of us missed were; the Surgeon generals office went beyond legal boundaries and was never criticized for doing so.
This will have profound impacts to society as a whole in the precedents established Any future legal opinion as to the rights, could refer specifically to rights which were diminished.
Check with your insurer [and make sure you get it in writing] your insurance coverage may no longer be as comprehensive as it once was, now that the insurance companies no longer have to respect personal autonomy rights. Regardless if you smoke or not.
Breaches defined;
1] Recommended forced treatments to all smokers whether they wanted them or not.
2] Institutionalized treatments every time a patient was seen all to be billed according to tables included in the appendices. Adding significant expense to health care systems With replicated and forced treatments..
3] Made the information of those treatments a matter of public record breaching for all time, the right to Doctor Patient privilege
4] Classified doctors who did not co-operate, as incompetent. with evidence in billing records.
5] Recommended documentation of every smoker as a public record available to anyone.
6] The report was financed and recommendations were made by the very groups who would gain substantial financial rewards by its release.
I believe this is an abuse of office and could be considered beyond the ethical considerations, a breach of international Laws and personal rights covenants on a number of fronts.
Point one and two
Patients willing to try to quit tobacco use should be provided with
treatments identified as effective in this guideline.
Patients unwilling to try to quit tobacco use should be provided with a
brief intervention designed to increase their motivation to quit.
Point five and Three
3. It is essential that clinicians and health care delivery systems (including
administrators, insurers, and purchasers) institutionalize the consistent identification,
documentation, and treatment of every tobacco user seen in a health
care setting.
Àƒ Over-the-counter nicotine patches are effective relative to placebo, and
their use should be encouraged.
8. Tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and cost-effective
relative to other medical and disease prevention interventions. As
such, insurers and purchasers should ensure that:
Àƒ All insurance plans include as a reimbursed benefit the counseling and
pharmacotherapeutic treatments identified as effective in this guideline;
and
Clinicians are reimbursed for providing tobacco dependence treatment
just as they are reimbursed for treating other chronic conditions.
Point 4
Just as the clinician must
intervene with his or her patient, so must the health care administrator, insurer,
and purchaser foster and support tobacco intervention as an integral element of
health care delivery. Health care administrators and insurers should ensure that
clinicians have the training and support, and receive the reimbursement necessary
to achieve consistent, effective intervention with tobacco users.
the panel encourages a
culture of health care in which failure to treat tobacco use-the chief cause of
preventable disease and death-constitutes an inappropriate standard of care.
Point six
Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence, a Public Health Service-sponsored
Clinical Practice Guideline, is the result of an extraordinary partnership among
Federal Government and nonprofit organizations comprised of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
National Cancer Institute; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National
Institute on Drug Abuse; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; and University of
Wisconsin Medical School’s Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention.
The update was written to include new,
effective clinical treatments for tobacco dependence
When the evidence was incomplete or inconsistent in a particular area, the
recommendations reflect the professional judgment of panel members and
consultants.
Please ask your patients two key questions: “Do you smoke?” “Do you
want to quit?” followed by use of the recommendations in this guideline.
David Satcher, MD, PhD
U.S. Surgeon General
Assistant Secretary for Health
updated guideline was sponsored by a consortium of seven Federal Government
and nonprofit organizations: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
(AHRQ); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Cancer
Institute (NCI); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF); and
University of Wisconsin Medical School’s Center for Tobacco Research and
Intervention (CTRI)
7. Numerous effective pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation now exist.
Except in the presence of contraindications, these should be used with all
patients attempting to quit smoking.
Àƒ Five first-line pharmacotherapies were identified that reliably increase
long-term smoking abstinence rates:
- Bupropion SR
- Nicotine gum
- Nicotine inhaler
- Nicotine nasal spray
- Nicotine patch
Àƒ Two second-line pharmacotherapies were identified as efficacious and
may be considered by clinicians if first-line pharmacotherapies are not
effective:
- Clonidine
- Nortriptyline
v
Àƒ Over-the-counter nicotine patches are effective relative to placebo, and
their use should be encouraged.
Sunz,
It was my decision to remove the link.
Thank you Doctor for your response.
Dr Siegel, you asked us to remind you to talk about brainwashing at ANR and other TC outfits. I'm looking forward to reading your comments when you have a chance to post them.
Last time you posted about this, your were wondering how the idea would hold up in court Carl.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripo...eftist/
id1.html
I don't think the anti-smoking cleansing deal worked out so well the last time, did it?
Jalestra wrote:
"He still hasn't answered why he's attending a tobacco harm reduction convention if he doesn't believe that the "harm" can be reduced, or what exactly he expects to take away from such a thing."
Bill's harm reduction is smokers switching to smokeless.
As to what he expects to take away from this...probably a plaque.
Dr. Siegel, why would you take the link to Cathy's website down? You've got a number of other websites that seem like they'd be equally good candidates for removal.
Why'd you pick Cathy's?
Kevin,
All I can say is..............Oh My God!
What the hell is happening to the America I grew up in? Our founding fathers are probably smoking in their graves over this one.
This is some scarey s$%t.
Lyda and Kevin,
The America we grew up in appears to be disappearing in a vapor behind us.
Disappearing? How about gone, with the majority sweeping up after it.
Bill says to Lynda:
Lynda inquired:
"What right have you got to speak in Maryland or Virginia?" The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution gives me that right, and I also was invited.
I'm glad you read the first one Billy. How about we talk about the rest of them now.
CARL,show me any other website that has got a fraction of the hate spewed across it like Cathy's had.I firmly believe in freedom with minimal censorship,BUT only when there is no discrimination or incitement against anyone.Sorry but Cathy's site was personally directed at an individual who disagreed with her agenda.That makes it a site that has no position being endorsed by any reasonable person.
si, I don't see any hate on her website. I see disagreement, I see refutation of facts, I see quotes and counter arguments, but I don't see hate speech.
Unless disagreeing is hate speech.
The site seems to have a very clear position and agenda. I am not sure how her agenda could be missed.
I'll be looking forward to seeing the quotes you showing the hate speech you refered to. Maybe then we can discuss it further.
If you cannot see it Carl,you are more conditioned to being an anti than i thought .You suggest any other site that is written in the same manner as Cathy's and i'll gladly peruse it.Should you be correct,i will willingly argue with Dr Siegel that he should remove it.There is a world of a difference between disagreeing with someone and spouting factually incorrect data and personal comments that verge on hatred.I'm sorry if you cannot see that.
I didn't raise the argument this was hate speech si, you did. Now you think the burden is on me to go out and find another site to debate?
After your post, I read a good bit of the site and I didn't see hate speech anywhere I looked.
You're more than happy to call her a hater, but then when I ask for proof, you take the emperor has no clothes argument.
Si, admit there's no hate speech there or put your money where you mouth is and post it so we can look at it fairly.
Carl,
As you demand quotes from Si,
I am still waiting (previous post) for your quotes about who on this site is promotes the right to put a child in a car and smoke with the windows up.
Just a reminder, in case you forgot:
'There are a lot of people on this site willing to stand up and defend the "right" of a parent to smoke in the car with the windows rolled up'
Carl | 04.14.07 - 5:42 pm
Carl,i suggested you chose another site to see how YOU,would interpret the word hate,since you have a problem in seeing it ,when it stares you in the face WHEN it agrees with your view.I personally think the site is an abomination to anyone who is reasonable.IT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT IF IT WAS PRO SMOKER OR ANTI.Since you closely supported Cathy through her often laborious and spurious dialogues,that science failed to impact,i can appreciate where you are coming from.I haven't the slightest inclination to revisit Cathy's site,BUT if you wish to read my comments to Dr Siegel about it,then please do so.There is no onus on me whatsoever,so pull the other one.As for asking for proof,may i ask why ?You have never bothered about it before.Perhaps you could even contact Mr Romano and ask him how he feels about it,he is after all ,the person who is victimised on Cathy's site.
Actually Carl i asked you to show me another site,if you read my comment.
si, I understand completely. When its about TC, proof is paramount. But when its about Cathy Bell, then you deflect and imply that the debate really centers around some unknown site that I am supposed to find for you (when I haven't even mentioned there's another site I believe has hate speech on it.) Cut and paste isn't a hard thing to do.
I think its pretty clear how your standards stack up on this one. If you had something to show I think you would have produced it by now.
Underhand dealings by Charles Els??
Apparently trying to get his own University to change policy and reject all Tobacco funding by knowingly applying for funds that he knows will be rejected because of their policy.
Courtesy of surrealitytimes.
Second article plus link.
http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/
No blow too low. No surprise that he is a member of ASH
GreatScot
Carl,at the end of the day,the site was removed by Dr Siegel.I agree whole heartedly with that decision.If YOU DON'T LIKE IT,then it is up to you to ask him,rather than act like an obnoxious schoolboy.I rather think you like playing semantics,but on an issue of this nature ?You appear to be demanding that i debate you and provide YOU with evidence to support my view.If you've read Cathy's website and refuse to accept that it's OTT and YOU WON'T contact the person who is being abused by her,you obviously have no wish to find out,so stop suggesting i'm deflecting.I 've reached my conclusion,whether you like it or not,so go and argue your point elsewhere,like with the person who decided to remove it.I don't have to argue my personal view with anyone UNLESS I CARE TO DO SO.
"Patients unwilling to try to quit tobacco use should be provided with a
brief intervention designed to increase their motivation to quit." ("Ve haff our methods.")
And here I'd thought that the Antis had gone about as far as they could go with citywide OUTDOOR smoking bans. And here I'd been worried about applying the word 'fascism' to these verminous creeps! This is no longer nannyism, Dr. Siegel, it's creeping, goosestepping Nurse Ratchetism. Can you deny it? What's next from Tobacco CONTROL, rehabilitation camps for smokers? It seems that a day hardly goes by now that Tobacco Control doesn't move towards some sort of fascist final solution.
Now let's hear that anyone capable of the above is NOT also capable of lying like hell about the supposed dangers of secondhand smoke. In light of which, it might be useful to take a second, closer, look at that 2006 Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke. After this, can anyone really believe that we TRULY got unbiased, objective science in that report?
.
Harry i hate to make light of it,but i reckon it's the gas chambers for those of us ,who fail to stop smoking.Most enlightening,when the posh nomenclature following an antis name is delved into and the specialism is revealed to be hot air.Self professed demi gods,i believe.
si,
Comes the revolution ...
These are the same guys who WOULDN'T have dumped your tea into Boston harbor.
.
si, I am fully aware that you're under no obligation to explain yourself or back up what you say. I just figured you'd have something you could easily paste in to show us the basis of the accusation that Cathy's site is "hate speech."
Your petty insults in response to my request seems to show you're used to everyone just going along with what you say, no questions asked. If you want yes men, that's fine. Just don't expect me not to point out the fact that making remarks that you won't substantiate.
Carl go find Cathy's website because i can't, perhaps if you ASK a question RATHER than demand ?As to insulting you,where have you managed to obtain that from,you looked to pick an arguement with me over an issue that is really between you and Dr Siegel,i dislike Cathy's site because there is no need to be as officious and downright bombastic as she is,you may like it it appears.If you don't like straight talk,perhaps monitor what comes out of your mouth a little more closely to ensure it cannot be misconstrued ? Perhaps if you weren't so desperate to protect an anti smoking colleague ,you would have first found out if the site has closed or not,by asking Dr Siegel.I trust this clarifies your concerns.
Si,
Ignore Carl, he isn't worth the aggravation. I don't know Carl and don't care to ever have the chance to meet him, but if I HAD to describe him to anyone, I think I would say that he was the nerd on the playground that the bullies picked on. So for payback, he uses this site to rile a smoker up, but look at him cross eyed and he would go running with his tale between his legs. Face to face confrontations is not for Carl.
Diane, thanks for your piercing and elevating insights.
si, the site is still up.
http://www.geocities.com/corpora...ate_opposition/
And I honestly don't mind if you want to put up quotes or not at this point. I just didn't see the hate speech you were talking about, so I asked.
Looking back I probably could have phrased my question a little better. I honestly thought you'd jump at the chance to post some of it, not realizing that maybe it wasn't that simple.
I really don't see the hate, and obviously you do. I think its best if we just agree to disagree.
Diane, I think perplexed over an issue that is generating so much emotion in Carl,would be more accurate.Those of us who tried to debate Cathy and were met with rhetoric and childish denial are probably less concerned with her site's demise.
Carl,
I was just being polite.
Well Diane, Don't be afraid to speak to the substance of what's being said.
Carl,Yahoo kept telling me no such blog existed,it obviously does.I am happy to disagree with your view,i see little point in debating our respective views UNTIL Dr Siegel advises WHY he chose to withdraw the link.Her comments are peppered with inaccuracies with the research debated here on this site.They are stated as lies,she accuses Romano of lying,of being corrupt,of taking bribes.She refuses to accept what is industry standard practices and accuses Romano of being the perpetrator.Romano is the devil incarnate,is this perfectly acceptable to you ? It isn't to me.Everything is done to demonise Romano,why ? is his every comment erroneous and warrants this level of vindictive behaviour ? No he argues,using many of the statements that are used by pro choice advocates here.Are we all lying and in the pocket of big tobacco.I am appalled at it's content due to enormous errors that she ignores in order to bolster her agenda,and her constant ad hominem attacks against Romano.It isn't professional and ignores the truth.Whatever the side of the fence i sit,endorsement of a site that lacks integrity and honesty with no attempt to seek the truth is not acceptable.You originally stated that there were other suitable sites for removal,did you not ? I presumed therefore that you saw other sites as i saw Cathy's. I asked you to provide the info .Why did you suggest that i was seeking to obfuscate ?
Comepletely off topic here, but has anyone else noticed a definate increase in the vitriol used when Anti's are trying to defend their position these days? It seems, to me at least, that they are getting shriller by the moment, and losing their tempers more and more as we have learned to not be drawn by their hate spew into unreasonable arguments that completely ignore the topic and the science used.
In my own little battle locally (One which was already won, but the Anti's cannot admit defeat and are still crying out for action to be taken (as long as its the action they wish only of course)), the local MSM newspapers thread on the debate of SHS exposure still has their amatuer Anti's goosestepping through the thread, but they are getting so angry since they really cant defend nor justify the measures they desire, that it has become almost strictly a tactic of attack the poster, attack the poster, etc, etc. It is really sad and funny how they label me as the one pushing out a hate driven agenda, while in the same breath do nothing but tell how little moral fiber I have, or how they truly believe that I will be the one to go on a rooftop and settle this matter "democratically", but by the calibre (get the joke here) of my character. It really is fun to watch them tho when in one post they claim that bans are good for business, and in the very next post claim that not making a "level" playing field will hurt the business that may choose to go smoke free, because the bar right accross the street allows smoking, so which is it? I would like an answer from our resident Anti's here, Do smoking bans hurt business, or do we need a "level playing field" to "protect" the business that chooses to go smoke free? I can't see how anyone believes both scenarios can be true. If, as the Anti's claim, business will prosper under smokeless conditions, why the need to level anything? If going smoke free is good for business, how and why do we need to force them to do so? And why worry if the business 10 minutes away doesn't go smoke free? Anybody? ANybody? Beuhler? Beuhler?....
Carl is just acting like another controlled health scare pawn, riding on a bandwagon. He is not versed enough to sing in the band. just here monkey see monkey do with Bill stirring the pot and hoping someone important will notice him.
Cathy's stock in trade is slandering someone with a legal background, that is a plan destined for destruction without anyone's assistance.
Michael has every right to pull her targeted and IMHO "hate filled rantings from his blog. An effort entirely to his credit, in support of integrity and civility, in spite of positioning in the debate.
Cathy needs to grow up or learn to wash dishes for the rest of her days, as the only other job qualification she demonstrates
I hope she isn't too clumsy, leaving the dishes at risk, without washing dishes i can't imagine what else she would qualify for with that mouth of hers, which always seems to move much faster than her brain.
Jerry, when they are normally free to make any moronic claim they like, taking them to task is too much for them to bear, having to prove their claims. Anger is exactly the reacton you always get when chllenging a liar.
As for being "hate filled", I have to agree more so with Carl. I view the sight as hypocritical and extremely vindictive, with conclusions based on falacies, or outright lies. Quite frankly, it was a hatchet job on CAGE, and it's members.
Likewise when questioned about these allogations here, she either ignored them, or dismissed them without substantiating her allogations.
There were several occasions were I observed her attempting to use these same tactics against Dr. Siegel. Further she went to great length to lament about how she wished she'd never posted here in the first place.
This discussion has distracted Carl from answering a simple question put to him...
Do tell Carl, do you believe all parents should be prevented from transporting their kids and their pets at the same time because this might trigger a fatal asthma attack?
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=21475#114925
Thank you Dr. Siegel for removing this ad homiem attack on people (Bell's site). IMHO
Great to see that some can see past their hate of tobacco, too bad its become so personal and no longer about tobacco but really against smokers. I see that this issue is really about rights of everyone and not about hate against people (smokers)having rights.
Walt H ,can i just clarify,Carl's perspective was that Cathy's site was ok.
I think removing the site shows us Doctor, that you see the value in not having someone (from either side of the issue) come to destroy what you have built here.
That is simply all business wants as well; to do what is best for his customers. And we as those loyal customers were not demanding any private business have smoking just to suit our needs. While it was very irritating and inconvienient, we adapted. A business has it all on the line and for a raving hysteric to want to rearrange everything is pure selfishness. Most hopitality venues were smoke free; that simply was not good enough.
I guess it is a matter of respecting personal autonamy---for each and every one of us.
The hate could be seen to the "naive" as just misunderstood proliferation of Liberal rhetoric in preperation for upcoming elections.
Carl and Cathy could be described in this light as just enthusiastic Liberals.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripo...eftist/
id1.html
"Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.
He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.
Incongruously some of the book's desultory details lend further certitude to its unpromulgated thesis. Hitler not only abstained from tobacco; he also never drank and was,for the most part--a vegetarian. Frighteningly he also was an animal rights activist. The book reruns a nazi-era cartoon depicting many liberated lab animals giving the nazi salute to Hermann Goring after he outlawed animal experimentation and promised to send violators to a concentration camp. Also included is a fitting quote -now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, `the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay." Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism. Passing coverage is given to the Third Reich's forays into euthanasia and eugenics. Another striking morsel is the reporting of a widespread nazi-era whispered joke `What is the ideal German? Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goring. Masculine like Goebbles...' implying that Gautlier Goebble's homosexuality was common knowledge. Nazi linguistic restrictions seem to be the counterpart of modern day `hate speech.' Words such as `catastrophe,' sabotage,' and `assassination' were to be avoided, and in a portentous move, `cripple' was replaced by `handicapped. Proctor also suggests `the word `enlightenment' (was) probably used more in the nazi period than at any other time.'
Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." --Steve Fantina
Kevin quotes Fantina "Also included is a fitting quote -now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, `the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay." Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism."
Which for me is why I continue to ask, what's next. History has already proven, there is a next. Something that seems to escape the Antis intirely.
entirely, damn it.
si,
It appears to me, Carl was more interested in debating semantics rather than substance, and was trolling to avoid any real discussions.
I see CB's hate more directed at tobacco, and the tobacco industry, and anybody who doesn't agree or questions her mantra. If you disagree, you therefore must be working for the industry and on their payroll. At which case you will be subjected to the rath of her vengence.
She took an almost identical path when Dr. Siegel took a blasphemous position to her beliefs. While never coming straight out and accusing him of being on the tobacco industry payroll, she did strongly elude to it.
Brian Bond attempted to engage in discussion with her concerning the E & K study, to which she claimed "The very publisher of the Enstrom and Kabat study, the British Medical Association, has stated that the study is fundamentally flawed."
He pointed out the following comments by Richard Smith the editor. "We then peer review the study, but we are well aware of the extreme deficiencies of peer review. Of course the study we published has flaws—all papers do—but it also has considerable strengths: long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies. It's too easy to dismiss studies like this as "fatally flawed," with the implication that the study means nothing.
Fourthly, I found it disturbing that so many people and organisations referred to the flaws in the study without specifying what they were. Indeed, this debate was much more remarkable for its passion than its precision."
To which she failed to respond, and was typical for discourse with her.
Sunz;
I found out today the "I smoker" piece I posted here was published in Barricades magazine April 15 edition and a newer article I wrote
" The politics of fear " is also sceduled to appear in the May 16 edition.
Available on news stands near you.
We take the little victories where we can find them. [wink]
Cathy is going to be sooo uset with me, should I seek police protection?
There is no saying what a raving radical lunatic is likely to do in protection of an internalize belief system. The stabilty of a brainwashed individual facing internal conflict is much less predictable.
Kevin, Have you considered donning a suit of armor?
Congrats on you publication.
A tin foil hat has been suggested in the past. A whole suit?
That's a whole lot of smokin.
LOL
So Si,
Have you been given the other sites (K)Carl believes should be removed?
Just like myself and Walt H...just the sound of crickets. Yet he invites others "Well Diane, Don't be afraid to speak to the substance of what's being said.
Carl | 04.15.07 - 4:45 pm"
That is until Diane or anyone else asks him a question!!! Maybe he is Bill volleyball boy and they're at a tournament.
I thought advertising Tobacco products was illegal? Look at the list of scum from the Tobacco industry advertising on this site it is reprehensible to see how many of these greed inspired organizations profit from tobacco use.
http://www.globalink.org/
Cheers Walt H.,i expected Carl to seize upon your interpretation of Cathy's site not being "full of hate" but peppered with vindictiveness etc.Our respective takes on what constitutes hate,since as you say,that was his ball game.I saw the thing as being synonymous ,others may stick more rigidly to the dictionary definition.The end result as i saw it was there is NO OTHER site similar or worthy of being removed as Carl suggested.Unless of course Carl wishes to disabuse me of that belief. Sunz,you kill me-"Bill volleyball boy"
Si & Walt H,
Interestingly enough, the comments I quoted from Cathy's response (blasting) someone who had question about her site "Don't tell me how to run my site..." went on to be, if not hateful, quite derogatory if I remember correctly. When I went to the site to check back---THOSE COMMENTS HAD BEEN REMOVED. Which is entirely her right to do---just found it interesting.
Anony is me.
Brainwashing;
Internalizing of what you believe can be described fairly easily. When presented with topical information you either accept it or deny it with fortification from your past knowledge or you place it in an unresolved category. If you have no opinion on a subject i.e. it doesn't affect you, so it doesn’t matter, you are open to accept information to process. It only takes the reinforcement in most cases; by one physical person to move that information from the unresolved to the resolved.
The unexplained or unresolved issues stay near the top of the heap and may aggravate you until they are put to bed. Many actively seek out information and resolve the definition on their own. It is the larger group of unresolved or uninterested TC targeted, including primarily as well; those who take advice from the media on face value. It is what makes advertising so effective that feeling of trust. TC knew the public accepted smokers and there was little conflict so they had to create one. So they simply delivered every comment they could with any exaggerated statement the ad agencies could develop. They; ran them against test groups, measured for impact, and used those most likely to sell the product.
In Ontario they were forced to hold public hearings so they stacked the deck, and greatly outnumbered the voices that wished to speak. The same proponents of the ban who encouraged the politicians to enact a ban and realistically offered no new information relevant to the issue, were once again able to present their spiel in every hearing using up most of the allotted time, with very few opposed actually allowed to speak.
Of those who were allowed to speak their views were critiqued and thrown aside in the media immediately while no critique of the pro ban advocates was even considered. Among issues brought forward was a reality the government already knew from their own research, the bans were slated to loose 5 Billion in hospitality revenues. A very detailed report from a former US government auditor basically stated the same thing. The Health Minister was allowed to without even reading a single page declare; a tobacco connection was obvious. Without any evidence he actually in one fell swoop dismissed even his own government research represented as tainted by big tobacco. The press did not say a word. They had been told also on a number of occasions the feds were going to pay 220 million dollars a year to promote the ban issue is it any wonder when The health ministry stated clearly smokers better quit or they will be punished similarly the press stood silent ignoring completely the many who complained.
It is easy to make a decision or influence millions when you only allow one voice.
For any in the public who even heard about the discussions what was put forward was entirely in agreement from all sources, only a fool would oppose a smoking ban.
What this is describing is a mass brainwashing, affecting the large number of people who don’t smoke and previously cared little if anyone else did.
In similar ways we were sold the 55 MPH speed limits, the abortion issue, deadbeat dads, Seatbelts and helmet laws among others not generally popular with the public at the time. Currently we are being sold a study at a time the global warming belief, The fat pandemic and we will surely see a lot more. The media will not out themselves because in process they will loose the value of the product they sell. If the product starts to be threatened through abuse of common sense they will also find a new internalization driven by self-preservation and as Michael senses it in the air I am convinced the shift has definitely begun.
Ideologies that state if you tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth have a basis of fact. With no opposing voices or alternate information available your issue becomes easy to sell, it became entirely important for TC to dominate all discussions. If you resolve an issue it becomes fortified with each new piece of information, which agrees with it. When you get an alternate view depending on how long you hold a resolution or how stubborn your personality it becomes easier to reject in the face of many other fortifications you already hold. When someone is faced with a fact, which is completely opposed to what they believe depending on the credibility shown they become confused and in most cases react with anger either in shooting the messenger or channeling that anger back where it really belongs, in relation to, who deceived them to start with. There is a lot of truth in What Michael says, by supporting easily dismissed junk science they do actually threaten to loose everything which he considers a gain to accomplished to date. The media in some venues are already starting to sensationalize the poor reasoning in created fears, which cause people to react. The politics of fear has only one opponent who brings it to its knees that being the truth something the ANR fears above everything else. I believe Glanz will die one day after being branded as a liar and a con man and embarrass all those around him. That is his greatest fear.
Right now with the volume of information available it would be relatively easy to dismiss almost every broad claim made by TC recently.
If the media groups saw some research projections describing how much interest could be generated by taking those TC claims apart, one at a time and the increased ratings they could generate in the slow thousand cuts death of the entire TC campaign.
As an increased effect promoted by news coverage possibly generating a flurry courtroom reports as well, of lawsuits for losses and politicians being prodded to get the tax expenditures returned, because of the fraudulent nature of the campaign.
They will then weigh those increased ratings, which increase the price of the media product in the bums in seats ratings game, against what future spending will be available with the bans in place now in most places they will be put in place.
It is a no brainer, the first media group out of the gate will capture the largest ratings and reap the largest level of profits generated from their major advertising base.
It is just a waiting game now.
I must take up Bill Godshalls comments that prior to the 1930s, smokeless tobacco made up the majority of consumed tobacco products.
A fiction Bill, concocted by fanatics and wishful thinkers who try and fool themselves as much as anyone else.
It's a fact, for example, that during World War I, cigarettes were handed out to British troops in bucketfuls. A notable brand for the British troops were Woodbines. The Woodbine was probably the most commonly smoked "fag" in the British trenches and there was a famous military chaplain nicknamed "Woodbine Willie" who used to hand them out on his rounds of beleaguered soldiery. An additional reason for handing out cigarettes was also to suppress appetite as a lot of the time the quantity of food was inadequate.
If, prior to that, we zoom back to the 18th century, yes, snuff was also very popular but in the coffee houses so were pipes. In the 17th century, in Holland, tobacco was also developed and refined for pipe smoking too.
Likewise, in centuries of smoking by the American Indians, I never heard of any of them taking snuff but pipe smoking yes.
So I think a little better research is called for here.
As a footnote, you anti-smoking crowd make me puke. For antismoker see also "willful liar".
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
