What business does the Campaign have opposing an amendment that simply strengthens the warning labels so that there is at least a chance that they may have a deterrent effect?
I'm so glad you see nothing wrong with this at all Doc. How nice to know that you don't give a crap about harrassing smokers or trying to coerce us into quitting.
THIS is your idea of education? I call it harassment and an attempt to coerce. So much for your statement yesterday about NOT wanting to harrass or coerce. You need to start practicing what you preach.
Thank Goddess I make my own and won't have to deal with those pathetic and grossly obscene packs now.
You and your kind make me sick. I'm beginning to wonder if even you would know the truth if it came up and bit your ba....umm....err....nose off
I need to find some cave somewhere to live away from all you fanatical looney toons.
YOU dear Doc are going to be the death of me. My son will also have your name on the list of those to sue when I die "prematurely" from a high blood pressure.
Congratulations, you've got your 'education'. Thanks for all you've done.....for the statistical casualies, because you have done squat for any real people.
Michael----'Despite the unanimous vote indicating bipartisan support, and the substantial strengthening of the warning label provisions of the bill,'
So unanimous support makes it right to bulldoze your fellow citizens?
Jerry Thomas was DEAD RIGHT when he called you dangerous. You make me sick.
The amendment strengthens these warning statements by increasing the size of warning labels from 30% to 50% of the pack...
Okay, fine. Whatever floats your boat.
...and adding color graphics that depict the negative health consequences of smoking.
BIG wrong. Even if you try to con yourself into thinking that it has had some success [in getting people to quit smoking], it is extremely unhealthy. Bombarding people with sick images is the best way to CAUSE disease--and everybody knows it. Have you just decided that the "do no harm" thing is a thing of the past?
Shameful and deadly.
"The two notions--one to regulate things by a committee of control, and the other to let things regulate themselves by the conflict of interests between free men--are diametrically opposed; and the former is corrupting to free institutions, because men who are taught to expect Government inspectors to come and take care of them lose all true education in liberty.
— William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other [1883]"
I totally agree DTB.
How about this? How about we -- just those of us who post on this blog and we each recruit a few friends each -- to -- each time we purchase one of those packs with the color graphics of "negative health consequences" -- we write "Michael Siegel" across the pictures.
Now, I wouldn't actually do that -- because even IF it had no demonstrable direct effect, it would be simply mean and nasty to even associate "negative health consequences" with a particular person... day after day... week after week...month after month...
sorry for the triple "each" DTB -- I'm slightly angry.
Legal industry free from having speech imposed on it? Nah. What anti cares about such things.
Government taking over the operations of a private industry? Sure, why not? Nothhhhhing wrong with that.
While that bit of anti-Americanism is going on I'll counter it with offsets. Called great American Capitalism. And start a line of cigarette pack covers.
Hmmmm, remember the Dean Martin Roasts? The entire panel would smoke. What utter fun and hilarity they had. Remember? I think I'll start my line with those images.
One thought on this is that sometimes kids just love this sick, gross, disgusting stuff. Isn't that the same thing the antis said about the Joe Camel campaign? But then, everything the antis do results in more kids smoking -- obviously they want to keep a fresh supply coming for their friends in pharma. As for what this says for our country in general, this is childish.
GDF? Slightly angry? Hmmm...would this help:
"Anti Smoking Group Laments Acquittal in Omaha Smoke Free Law Case" at http://www.swnebr.net/newspaper/...hiver.pl?
161468
I think I might have come up with the most simple analogy that even Dr. Siegel would understand -- what we're saying, not that it would change his mind:
The robber accosts you on the street and through sheer overpowering demands you hand over your money.
In Dr. Siegel's world, that robber has merely "encouraged" you to give your money to him (and because he needs it).
There are some people who want to give to the unfortunate and do. There are some who want to and never get around to it. There are some that just don't want to. Since the first exists and it's good to give to the less fortunate then it's apparently appropriate to stick the latter two groups up and call it "encouragement."
That's what you'll have us believe, Dr. Siegel. That's what you've convinced yourself to believe.
"It is getting more and more embarrassing by the minute for the tobacco control groups" Said Dr Siegel failing to take into account his own gross misdemeanour's concerning the 220 bodies hanging around somewhere .The secret of Dr Siegel's abolitionist yearnings he hotly denies ,but which the bill he promotes with so much gusto demands. His constant moving of goalposts which culminated in a promise to support a removal of smoking bans in bars on the premise that a suitable statement highlighting his perceived horrors of exposure to SHS could be met.Yet he has the temerity to ridicule TFK .Dr Siegel needs to clean up his own act before he questions others with such opprobrium.
From the laugh a day BBC health page
Obesity is contagious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6914397.stm
I thought it was bad news that traveled fast, it must also include crap news.
Diesel pollution clogs arteries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6915057.stm
Excerpt
"Anyone with chronic lung disease or coronary heart disease should avoid staying outside for long periods when pollution levels are high"
Amazing how people are advised to avoid things that may hurt them unless you are 1 of the 16,000,000 wantabe asthmatic bartenders. Then you ban the thing (ETS) and forcing smokers to stand outside in the pollution is ok. (they are only smokers anyway, it's not like hurting humans)
Oh and for all you non-smoking drinkers out there, be prepared for interrogation by the health professionals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6915993.stm
GreatScot
The warnings used in Canada:
* Studies have shown that tobacco can be harder to quit than heroin or cocaine.
This one will always make me laugh.
* Your children are twice as likely to smoke if you do. Half of all premature deaths among life-long smokers result from tobacco use.
Are they now? At least they'll have to smoke their whole lives to have a 50% chance of dying from it, since we already know that a smoker's death at 75 is considered "premature."
* Tobacco use during pregnancy reduces the growth of babies during pregnancy. These smaller babies may not catch up in growth after birth, and the risks of infant illness, disability and death are increased.
Obviously they never heard of the Low Birth Weight Paradox. I've never heard of maternal smoking to cause failure to thrive, but at least they use weasel words.
* Cigarettes may cause sexual impotence due to decreased blood flow to the penis. This can prevent you from having an erection.
No worries. I don't have a penis.
* Second-hand smoke contains carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde, benzoapyrene and nitrosamines. These chemicals can harm your children.
True, if they drink them. Dr. Siegel must really like this one, even if it leaves out the dead bartenders.
* Tobacco use during pregnancy increases the risk of preterm birth. Babies born preterm are at an increased risk of infant death, illness and disability.
No worries here, either. That factory is closed. Funny, my own obstetrician told me to cut way down, and never mentioned it again. However, he gave me a strong warning against Campbell's soup.
* Tobacco smoke can cause the arteries in your brain to clog. This can block the blood vessels and cause a stroke. A stroke can cause disability and death.
I'm clogging! I'm clogging! What, nothing about The Children?
I began smoking in 1981. I've seen how many warnings? 10,000? More? Real effective, aren't they.
None of the rAntis ever seems to learn that the louder they scream, the less we listen.
It's time to get out my old cigarette case to carry my stoges again, and pitch the warnings in the trash.
"Obesity is contagious"
I was wondering how they were going to "prove" that one person's obesity harms other people.
That's how they forced through smoking bans. The food bans are on their way.
I love the new term coined by ,or at least referred to, by FORCES, BANSTABATORS,it speaks volumes.
A couple of interesting articles from Reason Magazine
1 Kids health insurance and tobacco tax
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...how/
121558.html
2 Longevity sought
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...how/
121564.html
GreatScot
I'm going to side with Tobacco Free Kids on this one. Anyone who is opposed to the large, graphic, and annoying warning labels is OK wih me. I am not disturbed that they have a "secret deal" with Phillip Morris. Whatever it takes to water down this bill is good.
What truly is disturbing is the unanimous bipartisan support. This proves what a terrible government we have, a fascistic nanny state. It also shows that the two parties are too similar. It's sad to see how the Reps have moved towards the left, there no longer is a major party that wants government out of our lives.
I do give President Bush an A+ on tobacco issues though. He has threatened to veto the tax increase and has spoken up against FDA regulaion of tobacco. Thank you Mr Bush I wish there were more Reps like you.
And what about the children?
Are these graphic labels something you would want children to see? They will see them, be assured.
And what about the scenes in a family where kids can see those labels?
These labels are just another way of stirring the same emotions as does the ALA video with the screaming child.
Scare the children, create fears inside families, depict smoking family members as sick bodies.
GREAT!
From http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....-
immediate.html
Does the American Lung Association not appreciate the difference between risk and harm. Physically beating a child is child abuse because it invariably causes harm. The harm is intentional, it is immediate, it is severe, and it is irreversible. You cannot physically abuse a child without causing harm.
Isn't spreading unfunded fear within a family the same traumatizing (emotional) abuse of children? Are they trying to set up children against their parents?
Why doesn't the government show to the children of soldiers how their dad might return from his mission in Iraq (if he returns)?
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007...g-made-in-iraq/
Or show them how their dad might look like at the end of an otherwise happy working day?
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/lay...t/view/full/
148
Note: My dad, a life long smoker, died at the age of 82 without being ill. I remember that at the age of around 12, I had nightmares about loosing my parents because I thought they where already "old", when in fact they were less than 40. It was an extremely traumatizing period for me. Imagine that now they give children food for nightmares.
With additions of graphic images, children will be collecting them like Baseball cards, Pokeman or the state coins.
An enterprising person will create a collection book to place all the different packages.
It will be 'fun' to get the latest picture to fill out the collection.
It will sweep MySpace.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archiv...ives/
000495.php
Sunz: I couldn't agree more completely.
"The two notions--one to regulate things by a committee of control, and the other to let things regulate themselves by the conflict of interests between free men--are diametrically opposed; and the former is corrupting to free institutions, because men who are taught to expect Government inspectors to come and take care of them lose all true education in liberty.
— William Graham Sumner, What Social Classes Owe to Each Other [1883]"
By our continued apathy we ask for this.
I will again argue that smoking is not the most preventable cause of death. Abortion kills 1 million children per year. I am tired of hearing about protecting our children when this allowed. These are real numbers not created by a computer in Maryland.
If these hypocrits and cowards in Washington and the health industry really cared about life and the preservation of it, they would be calling for bans on abortion. But noooooo, it is not PC and being against tobacco is. Big Pharma also does not fund research in this area.
In any case, my point in this to point out the hypocracy.
Lastly I was musing about the low birth weight claim. My wife smokes and when our son was born he weighed 11 pounds 8 ounces and was 24 inches long. My wife is about 5'1" and weighs 101 lbs. The doctors asked if she smoked and of course she replied yes. When asked how much she replied 3 to 4 packs a day (in reality less than 1). She them asked them if it had caused the low birth weight of our son. That was in 1988.
"This is similar to warning labels that have been used with some success in Canada."
Um, success? There was zero effect! None, zip, nada, 0%.
Well, ok, when purchasing cigarettes it did make me ask for Baby-Killers. 
12,000,000 black market cigarettes siezed in England.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...olk/
6915125.stm
Read the whole article for lessons in hypocricy!!
GreatScot
WELCOME TO FANTASYLAND
Seems if they can make us disappear we simply do not exist.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/
ae1674e6...00779fd2ac.html
~snip~
'Walt Disney on Wednesday became the first Hollywood studio to phase out cigarette smoking in its films, in a move that could herald the end of the industry’s longlasting love-affair with tobacco'
________
No longer will 'R' ratings do. We must be eliminated!!!
~snip~
'Disney’s new policy on smoking is part of a broader move by the company towards promotion of healthier living.'
______________
So now Hollyweird will tell us how to live healthy.
.
.
Callous Cowbell,
You missed the latest, but I forgive you as it is a new one. Seems that women who smokes are at a risk of having early menopause. Heard that 3 times in as many days. Oiginnally it was from a study done in Oslo, Norway. Heard that one 3 times. This part made me laugh the hardest though. On the 4 o'clock news/health hour, the study was done in Oslo. At 5 o'clock, the same network (NBC) changed media people and they reported on the same article, but this time it was done by researchers at Harvard. I believe there is a big difference between Oslo and Harvard, and there is also that big old ocean between them, yet it only took 45 minutes for it to cross the ocean and let Harvard take the credit for it.
As for me, I have already experienced menopause with absolutely no complications. I feel better everyday without it. Had I known that I might have gone through it earlier in life, I might have started smoking 10 years earlier!
RE: Disney post.
And you rAnti ASDS cases wonder why we always ask 'what's next'----we know full well---enough is NEVER enough for you.
.
From GreatScots post on smuggled cigs:
~snip~
"Not only are counterfeit cigarettes more dangerous to health due to their unregulated chemical content, but smokers who think wrongly they are getting a bargain don't realise that this trade damages honest businesses, costs billions in lost revenue and lines the pockets of criminals instead of funding public services."
No, this trade is the same as the theivery (sp) practiced by the government in fleecing the public.
Un-flippinbelievable
However many hospitals, as seen in this latest study, do not record whether an admission is alcohol-related or not.
But they do smokers......but it's not about the smoker, just the smoke. Riiiiggghhhtttt.
* Cigarettes may cause sexual impotence due to decreased blood flow to the penis. This can prevent you from having an erection.
Ahhhh then I’ve been right all along…………all us baby boomers are products of a massive “Immaculate Conception”………..that or our mothers were all impregnated by ET’s.
* Tobacco use during pregnancy increases the risk of preterm birth. Babies born preterm are at an increased risk of infant death, illness and disability.
So does this mean that both my pregnancies, full term supposedly, were actually LATE deliveries? Interesting.
Are these graphic labels something you would want children to see?
Not normally, but since it’s for their own good and will keep them from ever taking up a habit they absolutely deplore……………..YES they want them to see them. Nightmares be damned.
Isn't spreading unfunded fear within a family the same traumatizing (emotional) abuse of children? Are they trying to set up children against their parents?
Not when it is for a cause that WE believe in. Abuse them all you want if it gets the message they agree with into their little brains.
Why doesn't the government show to the children of soldiers how their dad might return from his mission in Iraq (if he returns)?
They don’t want to scare the children. They also want to make sure those children are NOT afraid to join up when they grow up.
With additions of graphic images, children will be collecting them like Baseball cards, Pokeman or the state coins.
And somehow they will blame that on smokers too.
Si ----' I love the new term coined by ,or at least referred to, by FORCES, BANSTABATORS,it speaks volumes.'
Caught that this morning what a hoot. Though I don't think it's a combo of banning and self-abuse.
More a combo of banning and self-gratification!!
Doctor Siegel--
I haven't read any comments from CTFK on the new warning label requirements. How do you know they opposed it?
And does its addition make the bill's passage less likely? How does Philip Morris feel about the graphic health labels?
Sunz,
Re the smuggled smokes. That last paragraph had me choking with laughter and indignation.
"Not only are counterfeit cigarettes more dangerous to health due to their unregulated chemical content, (now they care about our health)but smokers who think wrongly they are getting a bargain don't realise that this trade damages honest businesses, (now they care about business) costs billions in lost revenue (Now they care about their income despite assuring us they want no smokers) and lines the pockets of criminals instead of funding public services."(Now the Government criminals want a monopoly and smokers to fund public services while denying smokers access to the same public services)
Bloody shameless so they are.
GreatScot
GreatScot,
If these folks weren't so dangerous, they would be a laugh a minute.
Despite all the comments above attacking me, my actual opinion is that I completely oppose the FDA legislation, thus I oppose the passage of this provision that would create graphic warning labels. The point I was making was simply that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is full of hypocrisy and speaks out of both sides of its mouth. I was not suggesting that I actually want to see this provision pass.
My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours, since none of you complained about the CURRENT warning labels on cigarettes. My opinion is that the warning labels on cigarettes should be eliminated completely. Requiring the warning labels on cigarettes was the WORST thing that we have ever done in public health (at least up until negotiating misguided FDA legislation with Philip Morris).
Doctor----'since none of you complained about the CURRENT warning labels on cigarettes'
Who says non of us complained? (and since this happened oh so long ago---none of us were asked.
'My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours,"
You must be making a funny here, right?
'Requiring the warning labels on cigarettes was the WORST thing that we have ever done in public health '
Wrong here. It was actually the fanatical control freaks such as yourself pandering to the neurotic worried well with nasal challenges that should have butt out. See Doctor, now that the heat is on you don't seem to like it one bit. Tuff Darts!!
.
OK - so we agree on this. You're right. I shouldn't have assumed that you were OK with the current warnings. But we seem to agree: Eliminate the required warnings on cigarettes. Leave it up to the manufacturers to decide what to put on their own packages. I'm not sure I'm as much of a control freak as people might have assumed. I'm not sure there are too many other antis who support the complete elimination of warning labels on cigarettes! Give me at least a little credit!
DR SIEGEL has the wind changed direction again ? Comments all attacking you,don't you really think you deserve it ?You say one thing do another and then pull a fast one and state something totally different.Argue the points before you suggest you are being attacked without due cause.
Leave it up to the manufacturers to decide what to put on their own packages.--why ever not,they are IGNORED.ARE YOU BEING FACETIOUS OR SARCASTIC ?
Why don't you please warnings on each CIGARETTE for additional impact ?Or sell lighters that tell you smoking is bad for you,every time you use it ?Endless possibilities for you to consider.
Michael;
What increased a lot of confusion was a deliberate ploy of what is known as Public Health or directly APHA to give an illusion this is a government agency or international government coalition, when in fact APHA operates as a separate and private organization. The group was founded 137 years ago and has created an illusion they are a compassionate government agency, in fact most confuse them with the WHO.
This is the same group who supported and sold Eugenics of the Hitler prescription, they went into hiding after the war to avoid prosecutions and changed the name to the Galton institute. They were pivotal in selling abortion and a number of other large policy changes over the years. Today the movement exists melded into the who is who of American medicine and carry a large voice in international affairs.
People here need to understand the full package and who creates policies which are now to a point they dominate the control of international science now traveling beyond that even into absolutely social and personal issues the end of the war on Iraq and troop withdrawal to contraceptives and diet choices they want to decide it all for us in spite of what we think.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bi...04494747&
EDATE=
All things can affect health but how large and abusive of a private agency does it take to control all things that could affect our lives?
And what power is left in community voice with such a behemoth at the helm growing at an accelerated pace with every cash grab and off generous proportions of our tax dollars without discussion or consent?
Who can control the cult movement when a known corrupt process of HIA is considered viable policy Directional studies developed to force thiose directions are allowed to replace science common sense and political will. Mosat disturbing of all APHA gets absolute control of all the puppet strings. It is through public perceptions being crafted as they did in 1930 Germany and in Romania in the 70s with the new man campaign. A private organization allowed to control every elected government on the planet by coercion and monetary controls.
So where do you get off and does it really matter if you ride at all? It doesn't matter what you feel when science is still riding the wave and are powerless to speak for fear of what it will cost them to be left out. The time to speak up is now while that opportunity still exists.
For the rest of us;
Do you enjoy a beer after a long day at the office it wont be around for long so enjoy it while it lasts.
And they said it couldn't be done...
" 200615 Alcohol Control -- Calls for the World Health Organization to
adopt and implement a binding international treaty on alcohol control
modeled after the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Urges
national public health organizations and other non-governmental
organizations to support the treaty. Asks the U.S. government to
support and help plan for such a treaty, designed to reduce the global
health burden of alcohol."
"Not only are counterfeit cigarettes more dangerous to health due to their unregulated chemical content, but smokers who think wrongly they are getting a bargain don't realise that this trade damages honest businesses, costs billions in lost revenue and lines the pockets of criminals instead of funding public services."
Are these the honest businesses that get accused of being tobacco company shills because they still want to sell smokes or allow them?
And do these folks really think that by treating smokers like quasi-criminals(smoking bans, restrictions on adoption,) there's a chance it might offend them?
"My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours"
Say again? You don't care what it says on the packs, as long as you can force legislation preventing them from being smoked in a privately-owned business.
Anti-regulatory, my big pink....
OK - so I'm not anti-regulatory when compared to y'all. But compared to many of the anti-smoking groups, which want the FDA to assume regulatory jurisdiction over cigarettes and control every aspect of manufacturing, my attitude is certainly more anti-regulatory. I say leave the companies free to actually try to develop safer products. Let the free market drive competition towards safer products. Don't try to regulate safer products - it's not going to work. In fact, it will have the opposite effect, freezing the current market since it will be impossible for new products to gain approval.
Two more points-
1. I assume flamingo.
2. This is a tough audience.
Well I'm confused.
(from July 23 post)
"There are also three other very important aspects to the legislation:
1. Much stronger cigarette and smokeless tobacco warning labels would be required (such as "Smoking kills" and "Cigarettes cause fatal lung cancer"). In addition to the text warning, a color graphic depicting the negative health consequences of smoking and occupying at least 50% of the pack would be required."
"Important", yet you do NOT support it?
Gee, what ever happened to 'the good doctor,' folks?
I like flamingo's.
John Waters fan - huh?
For the rest of us;
Do you enjoy a beer after a long day at the office it wont be around for long so enjoy it while it lasts.
And they said it couldn't be done...
" 200615 Alcohol Control -- Calls for the World Health Organization to
adopt and implement a binding international treaty on alcohol control
modeled after the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Urges
national public health organizations and other non-governmental
organizations to support the treaty. Asks the U.S. government to
support and help plan for such a treaty, designed to reduce the global
health burden of alcohol."
Kevin is right!!!! It will not stop at tobacco. These guys will not stop until they have complete control. I am waiting for genetic testing to weed out the weak. Think how much healthier we will all be and how much money will be saved. Some may laugh, but it's coming.
Doc,
If you are more anti-regulatory than most of us, then why applaud Sen Enzi's attempt to regulate (prohibit) tobacco use.
You realize that this only serves to create a criminal endeavor. An increase in the federal tax, elimination of nicotine and others only accelerates this process. In the end the states and federal government will lose more than is gained by this short term politically correct legislation.
If this passes, regulation as we know it today will be gone. Cigs will come from anywhere with no knowledge of the chemical content.
Doc, what then?
Si---'Endless possibilities for you to consider'
I personally would love a musical warning---you know in a snappy show tune. One, thrilling obsevation, every little step she takes , du da du da de dah! One, singular sensation, every move she makes.... (Chorusline)
You bet your sweet pink flamingo bippy it's a tough crowd!
But we have NEVER lied or misled you about one thing on our minds. See when you deal with folks who are not game players, in it for the big dollar$---your are pretty much dealing with straight shooter.
This 'crowd' is not at all like the ivory tower, PC, TC, ASDS Good Time Charlie Crowd you are used to.
.
"My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours." Would you ever believe it?!
That's why you're for a big increase in cigarette taxes to discourage smoking? Your purpose in advocating a big increase in cigarette taxes isn't meant to be REGULATORY ... right?
"Let the free market drive competition towards safer products." Like letting the free market determine whether or not a bar or restaurant owner makes his establishment smoke-free? (Sorry, I forgot. It's the long-term health effects of PATIO staff!)
"This is a tough audience."
No tougher than you deserve. And previously, not as tough as you HAVE deserved. Who are you kidding with this 'tough audience' bit?
Item:
"Drinking a can of fizzy drink a day can dramatically raise the risk of heart disease, researchers say." The discovery came after checks on 3,000 men and women was made over three years. "They also found that diet drinks posed an equal risk to regular sugar-laden varieties."
Something else to get your regulatory teeth into, Doc. Tax vice; save lives!
Item:
"Incense, burnt copiously in many Catholic and High Anglican churches, may be more cancer causing than tobacco smoke." "Given the ban on tobacco smoke in enclosed public spaces, shouldn't churches and temples be subject to similar (or even stricter) laws in order to protect their worshippers?" writes Daniel Emlyn-Jones of Oxford.
"I say leave the companies free to actually try to develop safer products. Let the free market drive competition towards safer products. Don't try to regulate safer products - it's not going to work. In fact, it will have the opposite effect, freezing the current market since it will be impossible for new products to gain approval."
Michael on this point you have my total agreement. The one drawback? the policy is now to support there is no safe cigarette and no safe level of second hand smoke, The stance which opened the floodgates to unregulated tobacco undermining current regulation internationally. So with promotion of an absolute harm you eliminate any possibility of either regulatory power or of any ability of a manufacturer to present a case, if they do develop less harmful brands.
Both proposals are in agreement on this stance which unless behind the scenes the FDA were to investigate and lead the product to a less dangerous content, we all loose with unwarranted increased mortality and morbidity due to a lobby solution of elevated toxic content to invigorate the message. A stance which no one can argue; will increase effects, promoted to sell only partisanship and power positions.
A lot of consistency problems exist in TC simply because these decisions are made for the most part by a very small number of stakeholders selling industry ads who dictate the control of language for maximum impact, and altogether too little participation is noticed by those who would support more intelligent reasoning and ethical considerations.
But we have NEVER lied or misled you about one thing on our minds. See when you deal with folks who are not game players, in it for the big dollar$---your are pretty much dealing with straight shooter.-This separates us Dr Siegel,WE DON'T PLAY GAMES,of one-upmanship,changing our views to promote an arguement or write an article,our position does not waiver WHICHEVER WAY THE WIND BLOWS.We would also answer the question of the missing 220.
"But compared to many of the anti-smoking groups, which want the FDA to assume regulatory jurisdiction over cigarettes and control every aspect of manufacturing, my attitude is certainly more anti-regulatory."
Ummm... Except that the proposals you endorse rely at least as much on "regulation" as anything CTFK is proposing.
I mean, you are against a 61-cent tax increase. Not because you question the extent of the tax. You oppose it on principal. Of course, you support a 10-cent increase. Because you like how thAt money might be spent.
You are for a regulation REQUIRING the tobacco companies to reduce consumption by 90 percent. And you endorse multi-billion-dollar fines if they fail to achieve that reduction. (Fines to be paid indirectly bY smokers, no less.)
You endorse regulations forcing manufacturers to include dramatic, government-approved warning labels--or else.
And you endorse banning smoking in public places, even when the workers you are purporting to protect actively resist your protection. That is, you strongly support sending armed deputies into bingo parlors and corner bars to FORCE people to stop smoking. And you support measures to heavily fine people who do not comply--even taking away their license to conduct business.
Anti-regulation?
Well. Let's test out that hypothesis. You say you are being blackballed by the public health community. Well, why not switch venues? Places like CEI and the Cato Insitute are always on the look-out for free-market policy analysts.
So I propose you put together your resume and submit it to Cato. Think they'll hire you?
Me neither.
Is it because they don't like your hair style, you think? Some other form of bias? Or maybe it is because, in truth, you favor a steady stream of regulations to "solve" the smoking "crisis."
But since you are putting your resume together anyway, why not forward me the part where you describe how you came up with the 220 bartender deaths. It had a real impact on public policy. You ought to be proud of your work. And willing to defend it. Are you? It doesn't seem that way.
I mean, come on. We are talking about Pink Flamingoes, here. And you know what? I have seen John Waters make an active defense of the scene in which Divine eats the doo-doo.
If he can defend that, surely you can explain how you came up your numbers. Unless, of course, they are a bunch of dog doo-doo, too.
Dr. Siegel wrote: thus I oppose the passage of this provision that would create graphic warning labels……I was not suggesting that I actually want to see this provision pass.
Dr. Siegel’s ‘rest of the story’ comment in the blog post was:
“What business does the Campaign have opposing an amendment that simply strengthens the warning labels so that there is at least a chance that they may have a deterrent effect?......”
I don’t know, Doc, that sure sounds like to me that you can agree with the new amendment so long as YOU believe there is a chance it will have a “deterrent effect”. Since there is NO indication that you really are against it, one can only surmise you agree with it. It’s just a common logical conclusion to draw………..surely you can see that.
My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours, since none of you complained about the CURRENT warning labels on cigarettes.
That’s because we stopped complaining about the current warning labels decades ago Doc. Don’t even try sounding like those are recent warnings. They are decades old. We ignored them when they first started and we have continued to ignore them to this day. We ignore them because they don’t say anything we didn’t already know or that isn’t totally Unproven. It was one of those “reasonable” things we tolerated nicely. THIS is NOT reasonable or even sensible.
Requiring the warning labels on cigarettes was the WORST thing that we have ever done in public health
HUH? YOU who insist that no one is properly informed and IF they were you might reconsider your stand on bans? You really need to explain this to me because this statement makes absolutely NO sense coming from you who harps on “educating” about the dangers. At least the warning labels currently in use are informative to anyone who chooses to read them. This new rule will FORCE people to read them, removing ANY choice from the matter.
I'm not sure I'm as much of a control freak as people might have assumed. I'm not sure there are too many other antis who support the complete elimination of warning labels on cigarettes! Give me at least a little credit!
Now you are joking!! Of course you are the control freak we assume, if you weren’t you would NOT be insisting that every single bar and restaurant be smoke free. IF you weren’t you would not try to convince us that your delicate bartenders and wait staff have NO other employment options which is your excuse for forcing ALL PRIVATELY OWNED businesses to conform to YOUR standards. Sorry, can’t give you any credit on this one. Can’t give you much credit anymore since your true colors are really starting to show more and more.
Two more points-
1. I assume flamingo.
2. This is a tough audience.
You need to explain 1 to me, I don’t get it. As far as 2 goes, what did you expect? WE are the ones constantly harassed and verbally attacked on a daily basis in REAL life. The only thing I’ll give you credit for, is being nice enough to actually allow us a voice here, no matter how many deaf ears it falls on.
Rrgabe23 wrote: It will not stop at tobacco.
I’ve been saying that for at least 10 years now. Doesn’t matter what was first, the minute they got a toe in the door the dominos started to fall.
If this passes, regulation as we know it today will be gone. Cigs will come from anywhere with no knowledge of the chemical content.
Doc, what then?
I’m going to be growing my own (getting all the information now and will start my first private use crop in the spring). I recommend this for all smokers, keeps us legal while giving the antis what they claim they want…………..a reduction of cigarette sales to bring down the tobacco companies. Too bad their funding goes down the drain with that, but hey…….someone needs to be the martyr.
I think we really have to give Dr. Siegel credit for his fight against deception by health officials, politicians and anti-smoker groups.
His intervention definitely changed the landscape, and with a little luck and some more pushing, CTFK will tumble with a bloody nose.
Enzi is playing a completely different game. It is not about protecing non-smokers, it is not about shoddy science, it is a drug war against BT in which smokers are only considerate collateral damage.
Unfortunately Enzi will be much harder to counter for us smokers, because he doesn't rely on shoddy science or science at all, he uses political power and money, he builds on the climate that was created by TC over the past decades, depicting smokers as idiots and outcasts and of courses the fear from SHS over which the debate will be definitely closed by Enzi's effort to displace the battle field.
Of course, in his fight against the anti-tobacco dishonesty, Dr. Siegel cannot and will not condone smoking, especially now that he has found an ally who is helping him to bring down the liars in TCs. A goal we share with him.
I think he has chosen quite a clever tactic which has ended up with CTFK being caught with its pants down. He has to be congratulated for this, sincerely. Without him, we couldn't have achieved this.
Dr. Siegel will certainly never condone smoking, because of his personal and medical convictions. That's his right and I have no problem with this.
Now let's wait and see his position regarding the new battle which will be fought against BT, and in which the smokers will be trampled over like footfolk and cannon fodder.
correction 3 sentence: "are only considered as"
The point I was making was simply that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is full of hypocrisy and speaks out of both sides of its mouth. I was not suggesting that I actually want to see this provision pass.
This is a reassuring statement.
And I'm not sure it will pass, either.
I guess the change in direction will drive Philip Morris's layers into a frenzy, now that they have lost CTFK as an ally, and they may have to change their strategy completely. I don't think Enzi's proposal will hold up to constitutional scrutiny with regards to a self-imposed decline in tobacco sales, so PM might as well fight it on legal grounds, unless they accept an MSA II.
Dr. Siegel will certainly never condone smoking, because of his personal and medical convictions. That's his right and I have no problem with this.
Benpal, like you I have no problem with this, it is his right.
I don't think anyone else on this list has a problem with this either.
What we DO have a problem with is the Doctor's continued insistance that OUR free choice must be regulated on all levels, except the home.....maybe.
So while we certainly respect the Doctor's rights, he doesn't have as much respect for everyone else's. Anyone who has no problem demanding that ALL privately owned businesses conform to HIS standards, (when more and more places already did on their own) because the employees there are too stupid...I'm sorry.... too enslaved to change jobs, I'd say it was he who was harsh and callous, and demanding that WE change to suit him.
Sam - I mean, come on. We are talking about Pink Flamingoes, here. And you know what? I have seen John Waters make an active defense of the scene in which Divine eats the doo-doo.
.......
Well, I am sure Divine's death was attributed to smoking.
A side note:
Years ago, I spotted Pink Flamingos in the comedy section of a chain video rental store in our neighborhood.
I pulled it off the shelf and explained to the manager that this was a Triple-X rated item and should be placed in the adults-only section.
I spotted it in the same location for three subsequent visits, did the same thing each time. I finally gave up.
Will Blockbuster, etc. re-rate all movies that depict smoking? I mean, other than those that show instant death from lighting up and/or heart attacks among non-smokers thirty minutes later from the SHS?
The evaluation of the last five decades illustrates a perfect case for a ways and means through public health to shift the power balance of nations to a more compatible left popularity.
The effect in the 70s of Romania and other socialist and communist countries in promoting increased birthrates through criminalizing abortions and elimination of birth controls was loudly lauded by the world health organization because in short order Romania doubled the birthrate. They went as far as implementing a non fertility tax for those who failed to have children. China is suffering the over population effects and has implemented a negative birthrate policy to deal with the effects of an aging population. In Romania Mothers who were suspected of having abortions were beaten to get confessions, after which public shaming put them up as vulgar criminals for murdering babies.
At the same time in the free world fear of AIDS was promoted along with the legalization of abortion and safe sex strategies to somewhat smaller part the popularization of homosexual relations and non traditional relationships and the all popular dead beat dads campaign all contributed to lowering the birthrates by making procreation almost an illegal activity in democratic nations. Paired with increased costs the need for two partners to work created a lot of good reasons to not have children.
The negative eugenics effect demanded higher immigration numbers to maintain economic growth this was promoted along with a shift in power through imported left leaning voters. The numbers of immigrants and their protected rights along with multi cultural heritage sales, sought to keep those left votes left by creating ghettos and keeping the traditional values in place by avoiding integration into existing cultures The new people arriving were traditionally those who had large families and the rebounding effects of transplanting them and keeping cultural values intact was a large birthrate increase among the immigrant population which offset and cloaked the lowered birthrates of the existing population while the right to left numbers changed and really no one knew why.
In the 60s socialism or fascism were nasty words in our culture now we don't even use them without shaming claiming intolerance for naming something for what it is. Shaming of the PC promoters allowed those words to be replaced with such soothing phrases as social justice and forward going strategies [Not right or left but the third way or Third Reight; going forward] the industrial socialist complex is almost complete. The election of Bush really wasn't supposed to happen and socialists were crying in their beer when it did. The repeat win had them frantic because as predictions go that was not in agreement with the polls either.
Bush may be a political disaster but for the time being he represents a parallel to politics we saw in the 100 days which brought Hitler to power with a lame duck leadership. Replaced for want of something better. We are on the verge of a steep decline in personal freedom and human rights one which will take perhaps decades to heal if at all.
For myself on the day the Hillary crowd take power or sooner I intend get liquid of all personal assets because the stability of democracies around the planet will be all but destroyed. Industrial Socialism can not bear personal property holdings, because they delay the effects of coercion. Which is a pretty good indication of the driving force behind gun controls world wide as well.
Global warming, Absolute safety in health issues, Early learning and a host of other new national health care strategies will bankrupt the G8 countries.
The largest secret they are not revealing in the lobby campaign cult is the costs associated with these large policy implementations and considering the numbers of poor and working poor living on the streets already, we are looking at very dark days ahead.
By the way, in what sense does CTFK's involvement with PM amount to a "secret deal"?
Seems like we know the details. A lot more than we know about Dr. Siegel's involvement with the good legislators in Amherst.
Bepal, I agree:
"I think we really have to give Dr. Siegel credit for his fight against deception by health officials, politicians and anti-smoker groups."
I just hope he continues to be courageous and do what he knows is right. I think the Doc struggles with personal freedom and his conviction to health care, but in the end we all have to choose for ourselves. It is wrong and unamerican for us to give away our heritage to choose our own lifestyle.
This is what the antis are trying to accomplish with this SHS farse. So far it's working, but the Doc has been one of the few who has had the courage to exposed the farse. I am sure he has taken alot of abuse for that.
Thanks Doc and think about the effect on our way of life. The attempt to regulate one's lifestyle can become a slippery slope.
As you can see by this campaign, data has been manipulated to persuade public opinion. It can and will happen again. At that time who will be in the position to decide what is valid and what is not?
rrgabe23: It is wrong and unamerican for us to give away our heritage to choose our own lifestyle.
This is what the antis are trying to accomplish with this SHS farse. So far it's working, but the Doc has been one of the few who has had the courage to exposed the farse.
Actually, the Doc has only exposed the 'exaggerations' on the already existing farce that he still strongly believes and supports. HIS ideals are what helped build the SHS farce in the first place. So, it is ONLY the exaggerations on the poorly supported and manipulated computer generated data that he has gone after.
The dear Doc has not answered one single question regarding his own work, that has been repeatedly asked of him for almost a month now, and that's just the recent stuff.
As I said earlier, I can only give the Doc credit for allowing us our voice on his blog. Beyond that, he is almost as guilty as the rest for this fiasco masquerading as our free country now.
OT---But look at what the 'abuse of power' costs----IN REAL LIVES
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,290904,00.html
'DURHAM, N.C. — Disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology.'
What a pitiful excuse for a 'public servant'
.
Spot on Sam.Dr Siegel is a past master of the SHS scam,he helped invent the damn thing.Surprisingly he doesn't wish to discuss it with us,hence the historical Sunday,forever remembered as the Sunday of the 220 and 16 Million.""I think we really have to give Dr. Siegel credit for his fight against deception by health officials, politicians and anti-smoker groups." This does NOT SIT EASILY WITH HIS ORIGINAL OFFERINGS RE SHS.
Lynda,i would rather guess that without us,his blog would be nothing !
I had written quite a few comments on today's posts, but I'm just putting a few here to the Doc's messages.
Siegel: Despite all the comments above attacking me, my actual opinion is that I completely oppose the FDA legislation, thus I oppose the passage of this provision that would create graphic warning labels. The point I was making was simply that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is full of hypocrisy and speaks out of both sides of its mouth. I was not suggesting that I actually want to see this provision pass.
That was not clear. *I* apologize for *my* nasty comments assuming that you do favor graphic, full-color images. However, in my defence and that of others here, as GDF noted, you did write (from July 23 post), ""There are also three other very important aspects to the legislation. 1. Much stronger cigarette and smokeless tobacco warning labels would be required (such as "Smoking kills" and "Cigarettes cause fatal lung cancer"). In addition to the text warning, a color graphic depicting the negative health consequences of smoking and occupying at least 50% of the pack would be required...." As Kevin commented, "A lot of consistency problems exist in TC..."
Siegel continues: My personal opinion is probably more anti-regulatory than any of yours, since none of you complained about the CURRENT warning labels on cigarettes. My opinion is that the warning labels on cigarettes should be eliminated completely. Requiring the warning labels on cigarettes was the WORST thing that we have ever done in public health (at least up until negotiating misguided FDA legislation with Philip Morris).
Now, you've piqued my curiosity. Why do you think that requring warning labels was the worst thing ever done in public health? At the risk of being rude and incorrect, I'm guessing that maybe the abudance of warning labels desensitized people to the warnings. Is that correct?
Siegel does an encore: OK - so I'm not anti-regulatory when compared to y'all....I say leave the companies free to actually try to develop safer products.
A Bostonian just said, "y'all".....anything is possible! As for developing safer products, there are true ways of making cigarettes safer. (No tobacco sheets would reduce fire hazards without adding chemicals. Filters need to be...improved. *grrr* Et cetera.) Just out of curiosity, as an alternative to regulating tobacco or any particular tobacco product that you have in mind, could the FDA regulate just the cigarette filters? Could the FDA require the use of slower burning tobacco (specifically, require that whole leaf be used rather than tobacco sheets) and prohibit the use of accelerants to keep cigarettes burning longer while not in use (this might already be done(, which would at least minimize fire hazards? *Now* can we get somebody to fund research of ASDS? Even by your own admission, there are wack-o TC people out ther...oh, wait, I'm getting off-topic.
Siegel takes a bow: This is a tough audience.
LOL, then we're doing our job! 
Doc, in case you haven't had enough headaches today, there is one other problem that comes to mind with some of this legislation. From a fairly well-known fact in the economics of a free market, the more people pay for something, the more they tend to appreciate what they've bought. Even if you could honeslt say that increasing cigarette taxes would cut smoking rates by adults (buying, say, a pack a day), the cigarettes will become more prized in the eyes of young people who buy a pack every now and then--until they're hooked. Just a thought from the realm of economic theory.
A couple of further notes....
benpal: I think he has chosen quite a clever tactic which has ended up with CTFK being caught with its pants down.
CTFK with their pants down...and I think I see a litttlllle, bity....yep, I've discovered the cause of ASDS!!! Frankly, I think Phillip Morris has a tiny tweeter--and I wouldn't mind that one getting a bloodied nose either.
Kevin: What increased a lot of confusion was a deliberate ploy of what is known as Public Health or directly APHA to give an illusion this is a government agency or international government coalition, when in fact APHA operates as a separate and private organization. The group was founded 137 years ago and has created an illusion they are a compassionate government agency, in fact most confuse them with the WHO.
This is the same group who supported and sold Eugenics of the Hitler prescription, they went into hiding after the war to avoid prosecutions and changed the name to the Galton institute. They were pivotal in selling abortion and a number of other large policy changes over the years. Today the movement exists melded into the who is who of American medicine and carry a large voice in international affairs.
How interesting! I never fully realized how the history of some groups, companies and organizations is so fascinating. I've never been very good at studying history but, sometimes, it's just so...interesting.
From wikipedia... just 'cause everything connects to everything...
"For years, Waters has been seen in movie art houses announcing that "no smoking" is permitted in the theatre. In this brief filmed announcement, he stares into the camera and he is smoking and obviously enjoying a cigarette. He then goes on: "...which I think is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of in my life. How can anyone sit through a length of a film, especially a European film, and not have a cigarette?" He then takes a heavy drag, with sneering "Don't you wish you had one, right now? Mmm, mmm, mmm, mmm... " He reiterates the "no smoking" rule, gently exhales and then snappily French inhales the smoke through his nose to suddenly end the 40-second spot. This short spot was filmed by Waters for the Nuart Theater (a Landmark Theater) in West Los Angeles, CA in appreciation to the theater for showing Pink Flamingos for many years."
You can find the spot here:
http://thingsicomeupwith.blogspo...smoking-
ad.html
Kevin & Rod
I found this---thought you'd enjoy.
Why Germans Supported Hitler
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0703a.asp
'All these horrors I’ve heard of ... I assured myself with the thought of not being personally guilty. And that I didn’t know anything about the enormous scale of it. But one day I walked by a memorial plate of Sophie Scholl in the Franz-Joseph-Strasse.... And at that moment I actually realized ... that it might have been possible to get to know things'
I found this posted at the smoking lobby. My God.......it's a miracle, less than a month after the ban took effect:
Ban proves lifestyle catalyst for 1.5 million smokers: Less booze, more exercise for 1 in 3 going ‘smoke free’ and Invest in health facilities, not outdoor smoking, employers urged
Wednesday 25 of July 2007
Over 1.5 million people who have gone ‘smoke free’ as a direct result of the July 1st smoking ban have also made a commitment to healthy eating and exercise.
http://www.eurohs.eu.com/front-e...ull.php?
id=7861
From another King Michael
http://reason.com/news/show/121059.html
Nurse Nanny
'Now that Bloomberg's reputation is coming down to earth, maybe we can argue this point. There's no such thing as trivial nanny-stating. There is legislation that affects personal behavior a lot and legislation that affects it only a little. But it's part of one continuum; the pol who believes he can enhance public health by limiting public choice believes he can fix many other problems by limiting that choice. One success follows another. The critics of one minor quality-of-life law wither away, and it's easy to imagine the next round of critics meeting the same date with obscurity.'
Lynda----' I found this posted at the smoking lobby. My God.......it's a miracle, less than a month after the ban took effect:'
We got our 'Smashing Success' report after 2 wks here in New Mexico. Smart of them to start it in mid June when the weather is really nice---wonderfully cool evenings. Wait until it -20 degrees in the blizzards that hit here.
.
http://www.smokingcures.com/main.html
Free labels to cover up health warnings on UK cigarettes.
You can also buy them.
http://www.fakefags.co.uk/
So much for their effectiveness.
Kudos to Mike for continuing to expose the many flaws of the Philip Morris backed FDA tobacco bill sponsored by Kennedy, and for criticizing the so-called health advocacy organizations that have been lobbying to protect Philip Morris.
I'm also pleased that so many cry baby smokers post ad nauseum comments on this blog, as they could have been spending that same amount of time and energy organizing, contacting elected officials, writing letters to editors, etc.
Bill Godshal: I'm also pleased that so many cry baby smokers post ad nauseum comments on this blog, as they could have been spending that same amount of time and energy organizing, contacting elected officials, writing letters to editors, etc.
Hmmm..."cry baby smokers"...isn't that defamation of character. To top it off, Billy Baby, you're wrong again. Many of us have written many letters to politicians, editors and so forth. Care to see one or two? Try http://www.stahlheart.com/
Legisl...egislature.html and http://www.stahlheart.com/Governor.html
and, while we're at it, how about a short story? http://www.stahlheart.com/BigPicture.htm I have plenty more.
Grow up, Bill. You're movement is sinking and we all know it. Throwing more insults at people who smoke only serves to drag you down. Haven't you learned that yet?
Callous Cowbell--Thanks for the sticker links. I was looking for those.
Bill Godshall=NOXIOUS WEED.
.
Bill, people like you really get me to thinking that forced sterilization is probably a good idea. 
We don't have your dollars to buy off the press and politicos, but we do our share as much as we can.
At least we work from a place of fairness and honesty. You can't make that claim, not with a straight face anyway.
"I'm also pleased that so many cry baby smokers post ad nauseum comments on this blog, as they could have been spending that same amount of time and energy organizing, contacting elected officials, writing letters to editors, etc.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 07.26.07 - 5:21 pm | # No Bill,it's far more entertaining watching bansturbators like you fight so much amongst yourselves.Please feel free to continue.
Funny Bill should mention that -- the bit about graphic images made me so *slightly* angry last night, that I wrote a letter to one of my elected officials.
And "Cry Baby" was another John Waters movie... Starring Johnny Depp - who later became a pirate to fight global warming. Wow! Everything DOES connect to everything.
I would write a letter to the Post-Gazette, but I understand Bill is in charge of their editorials. So why bother?
Oh wait. I did write a letter to the editor. And they published it.
Oh... and I don't smoke. Nor do I take money from Big Tobacco. Guess I must just be a shill for something else. Big Smokeless Tobacco?
Damn. That job's already taken.
I guess I could get a bartending job in Boston. Or maybe not. I hear they are dangerous. I wonder why? Too bad no one will explain.
Any idea, doc?
I'm also pleased that so many cry baby smokers post ad nauseum comments on this blog, as they could have been spending that same amount of time and energy organizing, contacting elected officials, writing letters to editors, etc.
Bill is right. Of course, when I suggested that 2 months ago Bill Godshall "send you a plague of locusts" laughed it off and said go ahead write as much as you want it won't make a difference.
Somewhere in Allentown there is a factory worker who toils for 12 hours a day in a miserable job. The one little joy he gets from life is to have a cigarette and a beer in the local bar after a hard day's work. And you get to take that away from him. Using bogus studies and the power of the State. You are a HTJ.
As far as si and others who are assaulting Dr. Siegel, I feel the same way about you.
BG: as they could have been spending that same amount of time and energy organizing, contacting elected officials, writing letters to editors, etc.
What do you know? But if you mean senseless spamming, no, haven't done that yet. My pride doesn't allow me to do this.
I am curious why the doctor is against the current warning labels and thinks they have been a negative for anti-smoking?
I have no opinion on the current labels. I don't think they really make a difference one way or another. The proposed large graphic warning labels are much more disturbing to me. One reason is that it will cause deep emotional problems in some children. They will see the images and incorrectly believe that their parents will soon drop dead of a grusome smoking related disease. I also agree with those who say the new warnings would backfire and actually make smoking more appealing to teens.
benpal, I'm not opposed to spamming or whoring myself in front of part time state legislators/dry cleaners/realtors...but I have a full time job and so do you.
We don't have hours of time to spend talking to clueless legislators...Bill does because he is paid. It's all he does. Great work if you can get it.
The impotent Big Tobacco companies won't shell out the money to you to save their own ass.
For anyone interested;
In Canada, I am not sure of the States, if you go to a federal government office and address a letter to a government office you dont pay postage. A number of my friends and I for quite a while now [over a year] have been addressing opened cigarette packages to Health ministries and elected members.
If more smokers were encouraged to send the trash back from whence it came, along with a message indicating how you feel. The effect of even 1% of smokers saving their packages and sending them in, could triple the costs of inter office mail and you can be sure they would by volume alone, get the message loud and clear.
Pass it on...
SJ asks:
I am curious why the doctor is against the current warning labels and thinks they have been a negative for anti-smoking?
On behalf of Dr. Siegel, let me answer that question.
Smokers have gotten very adept at picking the warning label that doesn't apply to them. For example, men only smoke the packs that say:
SURGEON GENERAL WARNING: SMOKING BY PREGNANT WOMEN MAY RESULT IN LOW BIRTH WEIGHT. (or something like that)
Since they don't have a uterus and can't get pregnant, they figure that pack is safe for them to smoke.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.26.07 - 9:13 pm
Nasty pictures transform nicely into picture postcards.
Protect the environment, recycle....
Obesity is Contagious...Not! Take the time to learn what this piece of crap conclusion was based on.
Junkfood Science
July 26, 2007
Oh what a tangled web we weave — Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)
Lead in:
"I wasn’t even going to write on this “study” because it elicited nothing more than thinly veiled hate speech and was such junk science I was certain no one would take it seriously.
I was wrong."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/3aa267
Rod;
That was priceless. Perhaps Michael could pass this information along to the Hatfield s and McCoys fighting over FDA regulation explaining; once the news spreads, how the public can't help but connect the dots evaluating the true nature of "the deadly effects of second hand smoke".
LOL
This says it all;
" This study illustrates the difference between politics and good science. The reporting and responses from media and medical professionals has illustrated the difference between prejudice versus knowledge, understanding and compassion. There is absolutely no credible science to support stigma against any group. You cannot “catch” fat from associating with a fat person anymore than you can catch “black” from a black person.
What the science knows about obesity “should be sufficient to end the opprobrium of the obese,” said Dr. Friedman. “To end the stigma of obesity, the scientific community must communicate more effectively a growing body of compelling evidence indicating that morbid obesity is the result of differences in biology and not a personal choice.”
The public trusts medical and journalism professionals to give them reliable information to help them. Over the past 24 hours, that trust has proven to be undeserved."
I wonder if this is important in relation to why this study was done?
Funny how that same RWJF pack and the Galton institute [AKA Public Heath] always seek to be involved when new research baffles what you would expect utilizing common sense.
"Whenever we come across a study with questionable science, that receives massive marketing and media attention far beyond its merit, and is being used to support sweeping public policy change, it’s time to ask why. But, in this case, Dr. Christakis declared “no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this paper.”
It may be of interest to learn, however, that he is on the Executive Committee of the Robert Wood Johnson Scholars in Health Policy program at Harvard and was elected to the Institute of Medicine last year. The Scholars website says it is “the most sought-after interdisciplinary post-doctoral fellowship program in the social sciences. Its purpose is to foster the development of a new generation of creative thinkers in health policy research.” Each year, it enables twelve Ph.D.s up to five years “to undertake two-year fellowships without any of the usual obligations of teaching and university administration” and is a program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The fact that RWJF is the largest foundation in the world funding societal policies against obesity, smoking and alcohol, we are to believe, does not constitute a potential conflict of interest. "
SJ asked: I am curious why the doctor is against the current warning labels and thinks they have been a negative for anti-smoking?
Eric Blair responded: On behalf of Dr. Siegel, let me answer that question.
But...Eric...you didn't respond when I asked. *sniffle* I'm so hurt.
Kevin--Love the idea of sending used cigarette packages to health ministeries! Excellent.
Sam M--You're such a trip!
GDF--You're so surreal these days. Like, wow.
Rod--Where do you *get* this stuff?! :-/
Off-topic--I might be doing some writing for Forces. Also, I think my little short story will be read on the radio. *whoa* Trippin'!
Rod,
This study will fly with the sheeple. Just think back at the coughing and clearing of throats that occurs at the SITE of an unlit cigarette!!!
My friend was advised to put his unlit cigarette away in a local Wal-Mart. I'm certain the 'cop' was afraid it might cause masss hysteria and a stampede for the exits.
That these folk think they are normal is a testament to the mental cases they truly are.
"Obesity is Contagious"
I'm convinced. It must be true. Otherwise, there would be no reason for responsible media to publish the results of this carefully conceived study that has been peer-reviewed. Also, the "weight of evidence" argues for this conclusion.
In addition, our trusted Public Health agencies have not denied the conclusions of the study.
"There is no safe level of exposure to obese persons."
Next time I visit a restaurant, I will ask for the Non-Obese section.
There is another thing - I am tired of subsidizing the obese on public transportation: Airplanes, buses, shuttles, etc. Why should society have to subsidize these costs along with the additional health care costs?
Even in restaurants we must subsidize the huge size of the meals that have become normal, just to satisfy these persons' addiction to overeating.
All they have to do is stop feeding their face! It's anti-social behavior. Their rights end where their fat virus touches me!
DTB -- I'm surreal - and yer "trippin'"?
Rod - "Next time I visit a restaurant, I will ask for the Non-Obese section." Oh Gawd... I'm LMAO
All they need now, of course, is 220 dead Old Country Buffet workers...
But seriously - this study is so useful for demonstrating the silliness of the SHS "research" to people.
GDF
And DTB...
CONGRATS!!!
Rod: "Obesity is Contagious"....the "weight of evidence" argues for this conclusion.
****ROFLMAO!!!!!****
The funniest part is that...I got it! One wonders about the WEIGHT of evidence in OBESITY studies. LOL..I got it...*snorts milk outta nose*
GDF--*cursty* Thank ye very much. Funny how I have another quant psych article coming out--we're extracting maximal (cardinality-wise) subsets in seriation problems with perfect form--but I get kinda excited about real stuff im the real world. Still, the academic stuff has its place, I suppose.
GDF - Rod - "Next time I visit a restaurant, I will ask for the Non-Obese section." Oh Gawd... I'm LMAO
All they need now, of course, is 220 dead Old Country Buffet workers...
.......
GDF,
The missing 220? They were ambushed and absorbed by the obese.
Remember, energy cannot be destroyed - it can only be transformed. Now you know why nobody has been able to find the bodies of all those millions of victims of smoking/SHS.
"But seriously - this study is so useful for demonstrating the silliness of the SHS "research" to people."
DTB/editor is gonna whack me for that sentence... *ducking*
Over the years there've been several groups of studies indicating that obesity is physically (not just "socially") contagious. In the mid (or late) 90s, it was found ti be related to a transmissable respiratory virus (don't let a fat person sneeze on you on a bus); a few years ago, it was a stomach virus. Try a Google. And watch for Later Bulletins as the war heats up.
Yeah Walt -- but I think this is different. The previous studies, I think, had a different spin. They were "it's-not-your-fault-you-are-obese-it's-a virus." This study has a "you're-obese-because-of-associating-with-other-
(bad)-people spin. Other people (not some value-neutral "virus") are making you obese.
The abc news coverage has (to me) a we must harrass each other tone that feels oddly like SHS. Along with a picture that rivals the ol' ashtray full of butts pics.
Study: Obese Friends Could Make You Fat
Obesity May Spread Through Social Networks, New Research Suggests
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Die...=3413751&
page=1
Freedom redefined in Britain. Semi-satirical piece with a serious message.
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/3673/
GreatScot
Lynda---'At least we work from a place of fairness and honesty. You can't make that claim, not with a straight face anyway.'
Perhaps Bill has OD'd on Botox injections and can indeed say it with a straight face.
How far are we from eating ratburgers with Edgar Friendly?
Thanks for the heads-up in the obesity virus. That one slipped under my radar.
I remember when I became "obese." It was around 1995, when they changed the BMI criteria.
My height/weight shifted from the "overweight" column to the "obese" column, and I didn't have to eat a thing!
Reminds me of when they expanded the diagnostic criteria for autism and shrieked, "Oh my God! It's an epidemic!"
Or when the rAntis moved the RR goalposts and screamed, "1.19! Oh my God! It's deadly!"
Is it possible to secede my house from the United States? I may have to do that before I get rounded up and interned in a non-smoking fat camp.
I don't know about you guys, but I'm beginning to despair.
More medical research madness:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/0...s.ap/
index.html
Toss that one in with drinking one soda a day poses a greather health risk for heart desease then SHS.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...lY&
refer=canada
And we should start contacting our lawmakers asking for obese free sections in resteraunts and bars as well as obese free work places. These obese are worse for your health then SHS.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...4B&
chanID=sa007
Doc, is it any wonder many no longer take the medical sciences seriously. To follow, Bill's advice, I will be contacting my legislators (the ones who voted for the smoking ban in Maryland) asking to be protected from sodas and fat people. Oh, and Bill, I also wrote all Maryland legislators to no effect. Surprizingly the only doctor in the senate voted against the ban on property rights issues.
Some sites:
http://www.bigfatblog.com/
~has a reference to when BMI changed.
That one is very hard to find on the web.
http://www.naafa.org/fatf/
Fat Activist Task Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sizeism
Wikipedia page
Bill,
I thought we were bullies (specifically "smokerbullies", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean); now we're crybabies.
You serve no purpose; God (or his/her secular equivalent) knows once a law is passed it is NEVER repealed.
Sad little man.
Bill,
Eric mentions the factory workers in Allentown. How about the coal miners? I recall several accidents in those mines and once recovery was completed and the surviving miners were brought up, what was the first thing they asked for? A beer and a cigarette. These people work in YOUR State. You would do much better for your neighbors if you lobbyied for safer mines, a true proven cause of death. Miners are also more likely to have a condition called black lung.
As for the letters, who has time to sit and write 2400 letters like you do and sign other peoples names without their knowledge? Phone books do come in handy, huh? I know it happened and I know it happened in New York. My mom recieved a letter at her address which was sent to me using my maiden name from Senator Joe Bruno. The letter thanked me in my interest in a smokefree New York and it assured me that they were working on it and would be in place soon. Trouble is, I never wrote a letter asking for a smokefree State, I hadn't lived at that address in over 30 years and my last name had changed on that day 30 years prior when I moved away from that address. Sure, I think I know who actually wrote it and when the time is right for me, I will confront her. I wonder how many people in PA will want to confront you once they find out their names were used too.
Dear Dr. Siegel,
I was just curious whether when you did you studies with regard to the harms of SHS if you took into account whether the people drank soda? If not could it be that soda was cause of the increase in RR for heart desease and not SHS? How do you know since the RRs for each are about the same and the effects of soda were not known when you did your studies?
Dan,
Don't be silly. The doctor feels no need to answer questions about his methodology. He is above that. His job is to take other people to task for their work, and to use the results for top-ten lists and challenges.
Geez. What do you think this is? A place where consistency matters?
Pshaw.
220?
220?
Here's one that cites a study from 1994:
http://www.halls.md/bmi/nhanes3.htm
That's when I remember going *poof* and becoming "obese" while reading the paper.
I've never understood how height and weight could be the determining factors. How do they know what that weight is made of?
I recall several accidents in those mines and once recovery was completed and the surviving miners were brought up, what was the first thing they asked for? A beer and a cigarette.
I remember that. They gave them the cigs, but not the beer.
I asked, "Why not?" out loud, and my Sig said, "Hello! They're not allowed to serve miners."
Restaurants raising prices.
They mention the cost of labor, the food and transport---but never mention the fact that they now have NO ACCOMODATIONS for about 1/4 of their customer base: The Filty Smoker!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/
...jectid=10453854
.
From GreatScots link:
"....lines the pockets of criminals instead of funding public services."
Public Services, my foot. I'd certainly rather see the money go to 'criminals' than 'Public Services'.
Dan,
I'm not aware that any of the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke took account of the amount of soda drinking. som edid adjust for diet in general, but I don't think that they specifically measured soda drinking.
What did Julia Child Say?
"Everything in Moderation"
The Senate site for S.625
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...d?bill=s110-
625
Apparently people can link their blog comments to the senate site via Technorati [see right of this page link]
Michael Siegel - I'm not aware that any of the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke took account of the amount of soda drinking. som edid adjust for diet in general, but I don't think that they specifically measured soda drinking.
............
I also doubt the studies took into account the very large percentage of bar and restaurant workers that use illegal drugs (mostly pot).
That percentage is reported as 17%, the highest of all the occupational classes.
Of course, the above figures came from another recent study.
Soon, "studies" will account for a subtantial portion of our Gross Domestic Product.
GDF: "But seriously - this study is so useful for demonstrating the silliness of the SHS "research" to people."
DTB/editor is gonna whack me for that sentence... *ducking*
Nah. Well, okay, I might have worded it a bit differently, but I save my editorial yapping for the Doc. *grin-duck-and-run*
FYI, in my formative teen years, I attended Sprayberry High School. *Now* I hear that SHS is deadly. Sheesh. It's too late.
And just so you know, I'm having nightmares about pink flamingos being strangled by a noodly appendage. Tonight, my psyche will be wrestling with Freedom toiletpaper.
Seriously, someone mentioned the likelihood of nightmares induced by graphic images. Let's see...ah, yes...benpal, "I remember that at the age of around 12, I had nightmares about loosing my parents because I thought they where already "old", when in fact they were less than 40. It was an extremely traumatizing period for me. Imagine that now they give children food for nightmares." For me, those nightmares were real. My dad was 38. Cancer. After more than three decades, you'd think I'd be over it...in fact, I was...until self-righteous goons thought they'd do me a big favor by resurrecting all of those old nightmares when I was trying to QUIT smoking. So, I get tormented by those old ghosts because my family did NOT suffer and die from tobacco--and then I discover that the antitobacco propagandists are full of garbage...all because I tried to QUIT smoking. Did somebody say "callous"? Slightly angry.
Junkfood Science
July 25, 2007
Healthcare Privacy Update: Critical news today
Lead in:
Did you know that federal agencies are in the midst of deciding who will own and control our personal health information? Under a new proposal, a federal agency would be empowered to establish health privacy rights and how our private healthcare information is disclosed and used. Their proposed new national data collection entity would “nationalize ownership and control of private patient data,” said Twila Brase, RN, PHN, president of Citizens’ Council on Health Care.
Excerpt:
"Examining the proposed NHDSE (National Health Data Stewardship Entity), they found that it would eliminate individual privacy, consent and data ownership rights; and abolish the current state medical privacy laws that protect patient privacy, while eliminating the ability of state legislators to enact future medical privacy laws. Worrisomely, it authorizes secondary uses of patient data unrelated to the direct care of patients and expands government access to private medical information. The CCHC review concluded this entity would:
Place control over access to and use of confidential patient medical records data in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, corporate executives, and political appointees in a centralized bureaucracy far from the people whose privacy is violated— and whose access to medical care would be threatened by statistics-based health care rationing decisions."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2qxgrv
When you talk about fat you can't possibly forget to mention ME!ME! Roth...
CC,
I began my despair years ago. I'm well into it now. Welcome to the club.
ROFLMAO on the beer/cigs/miners/minors joke. That was very good and I needed the laugh, thanks.
This is known as the Stanton Glantz Technique
Remember Glantz's attack on Enstrom? That's just one example.
EPA Chief Vows to Probe E-mail Threatening to
‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic
Posted July 26, 2007
Lead in:
During today’s hearing, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted Stephen Johnson, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a threatening e-mail from a group of which EPA is currently a member. The e-mail threatens to “destroy” the career of a climate skeptic. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."
Another excerpt:
Sampling of recent threats and intimidation targeted at climate skeptics:
RFK Jr. Lashes out at skeptics of global warming: 'This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors' (July 8, 2007)
Excerpt: "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors."
Rod note: Please take the time to click on the link below (you too, Doctor Siegel).
URL: http://tinyurl.com/399ggh
I have to admit, I'm not sure who I dislike most..........the anti-anything cartel, busy-body nannies or SPAMMERS.....they should ALL be strung up by their toes. GRRRRRR
Diane: My mom recieved a letter at her address which was sent to me using my maiden name from Senator Joe Bruno. The letter thanked me in my interest in a smokefree New York and it assured me that they were working on it and would be in place soon. Trouble is, I never wrote a letter asking for a smokefree State, I hadn't lived at that address in over 30 years and my last name had changed on that day 30 years prior when I moved away from that address. Sure, I think I know who actually wrote it and when the time is right for me, I will confront her.
oh...oh...ooooooooo Uh, yes, I think a very visible, if not legal, confrontation is in order. How do rAntis get away with ignoring laws? We see it all over the place. Yet, a British pub owner who defies the ban is a "hardened criminal"? How can priorities be so unbalanced?
Sunz: Restaurants raising prices. They mention the cost of labor, the food and transport---but never mention the fact that they now have NO ACCOMODATIONS for about 1/4 of their customer base: The Filthy Smoker!
Interestingly, Sunz, from the link you gave, "Tony Adcock of the Harbourside restaurant in Auckland's Ferry Building said he was looking at both raising prices and cutting the amount and quality of food on each plate to cut costs." This qualifies one of my personal observations. I had personally noticed that food quality went down in my favorite restaurants after smoking bans had been forced on them. But the NZ article blames "the effects of a big wage rise for hospital kitchen staff and cleaners." (Yet, the same article notes that other service sectors are not affected by the hospital wage increase.) Are people really that stupid? Nevermind. Forget I asked.
They don't serve miners...*snicker, giggle*
Lynda F - I have to admit, I'm not sure who I dislike most..........the anti-anything cartel, busy-body nannies or SPAMMERS.....they should ALL be strung up by their toes. GRRRRRR
.......
Lynda F,
It is a problem. I have found it very difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
However, we have seen how it isn't the science, it's how to gain control of those agencies/panels that have been empowered to issue rules and regulations...and make sure the opposition is silenced.
When you find several cases of corruption, it makes you doubt the whole system. We have plenty of instances of agenda-driven, pseudo-science policy implementations.
Now I heed my mother's advice: Believe none of what you hear (and read) and only half of what you see.
Rod-- "Soon, "studies" will account for a subtantial portion of our Gross Domestic Product."
This is the quote of the week for me. Funny...and so true.
Peter-- "I welcome and support this decision with full heart.Few people may felt really bad about this, but the fact is this is good for the people who against the decision rather than who welcoming it..."
I confuse and itch my elbow your comment with empty bladder.
Dan,
Could you please ask the doctor how he came up with 220 dead bartenders. He seems to be willing to answer questions when you ask them.
Weird. It's almost like he's... inconsistent.
This is known as the Stanton Glantz Technique
Remember Glantz's attack on Enstrom? That's just one example.
Awww..look, they can take notes....
Now I heed my mother's advice: Believe none of what you hear (and read) and only half of what you see.
Hell, even believing half of what you see is believing half too much these days. *Thinks of the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of anti-smoking letters written by a few people*
Way Off-topic, but I know the Doc also opposes drunk driving soooo...
Astronauts Flew While Drunk, Report Says
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/
ast...S00010000000001
I wonder if they ever swerve into the wrong lane/galaxy?
Judy---"I confuse and itch my elbow your comment with empty bladder.'
LOL---all of I could think of in response to his statement was, huh??
Is it a full moon?
.
about fraudulent letters sent under your name:
It's really important to (irately) inform the legislator's office of what happened, tell them that you do, in fact, hold the opposite view, and to remind them that it's more than likely that a great deal of the mail they're getting on the subject that takes the forger's position is probably fraud and that they ought to investigate.
a) I did that once and was thanked by the office and b) it helps to make them (correctly) suspicious of all similar mail, especially when you explain about the well oiled movement that's pulling this trick.
Do it.
:
Walt - about fraudulent letters sent under your name:
It's really important to (irately) inform the legislator's office of what happened, tell them that you do, in fact, hold the opposite view, and to remind them that it's more than likely that a great deal of the mail they're getting on the subject that takes the forger's position is probably fraud and that they ought to investigate.
a) I did that once and was thanked by the office and b) it helps to make them (correctly) suspicious of all similar mail, especially when you explain about the well oiled movement that's pulling this trick.
Do it.
.........
I uncovered another trick by accident during a controversial issue here in Burbank. A developer claimed the correspondence received by the city council showed an overwhelming majority of the residents were for the project.
The claim didn't ring true, so I checked the files. A city staffer had copied the "pro" postcards, then shuffled them and copied them once more to almost double that count.
Also, all communications are counted without any verification as to residence. I noticed most of the "pro" developer e-mails had no address included, while the "against" did.
In the end, the correct correspondence count showed the majority did not favor the developer.
Not enough space here to describe the other things I discovered.
It was an eye-opener.
Rod to Walt: Walt - about fraudulent letters sent under your name:
It's really important to (irately) inform the legislator's office of what happened, tell them that you do, in fact, hold the opposite view, and to remind them that it's more than likely that a great deal of the mail they're getting on the subject that takes the forger's position is probably fraud and that they ought to investigate.
a) I did that once and was thanked by the office and b) it helps to make them (correctly) suspicious of all similar mail, especially when you explain about the well oiled movement that's pulling this trick.
Do it.
And then write a letter to the editor about the incident.
Is it a full moon?
Almost, not just yet, but almost....
You all realize that this "R" rating crap over smoking in the film is just the first step to censorship, don't you? This is the first baby step to test the waters regarding more control over what we can see. Think about it....they've pretty much managed to control what we can read in the newspapers and hear on the news.
How no one sees any of this is mind boggling.
And Doc, unless your kids are under school age, what is so awful about sexual insinuations? It's a perfect thing to spark them to asking questions, so you can teach them properly and give them real answers versus learning on the streets in their teens because the parent is too shy or embarrassed to discuss life with their own children.
You can't expect your kids to know about life IF you never talk with them about it. YOU are their first source of information.........well you are supposed to be anyway.
Thank Goddess my son as me for his mother, because his father was like you.
Pharmacy Times - October 2006
BMI as Health Gauge Flawed
Body mass index (BMI), the standard measure of obesity, has been deemed badly flawed, say US physicians following results of a data analysis recently published in The Lancet.
http://pharmacytimes.com/Article...?Menu=1&
ID=4003
.
Lynda: You can't expect your kids to know about life IF you never talk with them about it. YOU are their first source of information.........well you are supposed to be anyway.
Thank Goddess my son as me for his mother, because his father was like you.
I'm having a flashback to 1975...
I was at camp. We're were in devotions and we got to the part about Joseph'a master's wife wanting to have sex with him. So, I asked, "What's sex?" Npot surprisingly, the counselors weren't comfortable answering. A week or so later, I got home and asked my mom. The look on her face was priceless. (In retrospect, it was shortly after my dad had died. The look was probably as much "I'm trying to remember" as anything.) Nope. I didn't learn from the streets or from movies. I got the inside scoop from *devotions*! Maybe the bible should have an R-rating?
Odd the Doctor doesn't like it when an outsider starts filling his childs head with ideas he doesn't agree with. Yet it is fine with him to have re-education camps set up in public schools to propogandize "the publics" children. Oh but it's all for their own good to know what rat their parents who smoke are to live with.
HA
Odd the Doctor doesn't like it when an outsider starts filling his childs head with ideas he doesn't agree with. Yet it is fine with him to have re-education camps set up in public schools to propogandize "the publics" children. Oh but it's all for their own good to know what rat their parents who smoke are to live with.
I noticed that too. Talk about double standards. Talk about parental autonomy....but only when it's convenient of course, and MIGHT affect me.
Hi, guys.
As this ranks certainly among the top determinents of ill health and premature death, the issue of poverty has certainly been mentioned before in conjunction with avoidable causes.
However,who pays for the mental and physical damage we sustain as a group while being bled into greater poverty than would otherwise have been imaginable?
And the following result is used against a group noted as being disproportionately poor, by those claiming 'health' and 'health costs' as motivation.
'Socioeconomic status and lung cancer risk in Canada'
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cg...t/full/30/4/
809
'Background Several epidemiological studies have found that lung cancer is inversely related to socioeconomic status (SES) and suggest it as a possible risk factor for lung cancer. 'This study examines SES and lung cancer risk in Canada.
'Methods Mailed questionnaires with telephone follow-up were used to obtain data on 3280 newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed lung cancer cases and 5073 population controls, between 1994 and 1997, in eight Canadian provinces. Measurement included information on SES, smoking habits, alcohol use, diet, residential and occupational histories and both residential and occupational exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). 'Odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI were derived from unconditional logistic regression analysis.
'Results Compared with high income adequacy, an increased risk was found among low income males and females, with adjusted OR of 1.7 (95% CI : 1.3–2.2) and 1.5 (95% CI : 1.1–2.0), respectively. Compared with 8 years of education, the adjusted OR were 0.6 (95% CI : 0.5–0.7) and 0.6 (95% CI : 0.5–0. for 14 years education among males and females, respectively. Lung cancer risk was significantly increased for males of some social classes. The population attributable risk for income adequacy, education and social class was 24%, 25% and 21% among males, respectively, and 14% and 19% for income adequacy and education among females, respectively, in this Canadian population.
'Conclusions A statistically significant association between income adequacy, education social class and lung cancer risk was found. ......
'Conclusion
'We found a significant inverse association between education, income adequacy, social class and lung cancer risk. These findings were examined by sex and smoking status. Social inequalities in Canada appear to influence the development of lung cancer. In terms of PAR, 25%, 24% and 21% of the cases of male lung cancer and 19% and 14% of the cases of female lung cancer in this Canadian population may be attributed to low level of education, income adequacy and social class.'
To reiterate - 'Social inequalities in Canada appear to influence the development of lung cancer.'
What greater social inequity has been so far encouraged globally than that inflicted on smokers in the name of 'public health?'
Is grinding them down as far as possible and destroying any hope of having what legal surcease they choose likely to improve their health?
But if you phrase the assault on smokers as picking on predominately the poor and vulnerable in seeking an anodyne essential to some if not all (albeit bringing profit to the 'wrong people') in coping with an otherwise possibly miserable life, the claims of public health and cost concern as a motivator kinda leak.
Commenting by HaloScan
