At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.
The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles}the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past,"' ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it; in Newspeak, "doublethink."
Humphrey Bogart never smoked in Casablanca. Tom and Jerry never smoked in the cartoon. Ricky and Lucy Ricardo never smoked in "I Love Lucy".
In the words of that great poet and philosopher Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes":
"This is a Madhouse!! A MADHOUSE!!!!"
As if anyone other than the agenda afflicted have nothing better to worry about than smoking in movies.
At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984)...
Guess it wasn't 1984, after all; it was 2007.
.
I do applaud you for taking a stand against this nonsense, though I think it demands no further cause for dismissal than the fact that it IS nonsense.
I'd make a minor point here since I think when you say--
Movies that previously might have limited smoking would no longer have any incentive to do so. Since a single smoking depiction would generate an R rating anyway, the film might as well depict as much smoking as desired.
-- you misunderstand movies, and almost buy into AT's bizarre notion that movies are ABOUT "depicting smoking." Might we, once again, return to reality. Movies, at their best, are about life and seemingly-living people. Thus, "characters" smoke in movies for the exact same reasons that "people" smoke in life. Characters= people. Writers who write scripts do not write parts to be played by Marlboros. Nobody thinks, "Gee, I'll have this nun smoke so I can work in a cigarette." A character smokes in a script because the person he's (she's) playing would smoke in real life, and would smoke in that circumstance or that particular moment.
It's your team that's trying to politicize smoking and make it somehow seem like an ad or a "product placement." The movie is no more "placing a product" than the guy who's just waiting for the bus (and smoking) is placing a product. There is no ulterior motive.
:
Quite aside from the scariness of seeing yet another example of the sort of thought control that a lobby as powerful as the antismoking lobby can achieve, is the even scarier scarieness of them being able to pull in the power of dozens of Attorney General "bullies" to swing threatening clubs at the film industry.
Take a look at this video of one of the Smokers Club folks, Gary Nolan, debating with the Ohio AG on CNBC.
http://www.smokersclub.com/video...eo/
srvideo.html
(topmost video)
Note the way the AG insists on dominating the time for the interview: if Gary had pushed for equal speaking time he would have had to appear outright obnoxious. Note the slur the AG sends right at the beginning, naming Gary as a Nick Naylor, in other words: a paid shill for the tobacco industry. Note the AG's statement about smoking being glamorized so much on TV (I have NO idea what channel he must be watching... do you?) and how it has increased in the movies (yep... smoking in the movies was virtually unknown back in the days of "Casablanca").
The AGs have done this kind of thing before: back in the early 90s they ganged up on McDonald's to force that chain to ban smoking. This kind of abuse of power by multi-state alliances of Attorney Generals is truly frightening: has it been done outside of the world of the antismoking lobby or are they the only ones who've ever had the power to wield such control in our government?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
That interview is a disappointment in more than a few ways. It's the anti-smokers' wet dream to hear "I'd like to see everyone quit smoking" from the side that's supposedly debating them.
A missed opportunity was not asking what business it is of the Attorney General in the first place. Smoking in the movies is neither illegal or criminal. The Attorneys General are law enforcement. This speaks volumes about the government's police abusing their uniform to intimidate others into complying. There's no other reason for their involvement EXCEPT as a scare tactic.
The public should be apprised of that fact and that kind of thought provoked. THAT'S how you win them over to OUR side.
"The Attorneys General are law enforcement" ... but apparently they themselves don't know what their role is.
I propose an amendment:
"It is simply one of a large number of ways in which youths are exposed to positive images of smoking (which includes advertisements, television movies, television shows, DVDs, Internet, music videos and a variety of other sources),' he told me in an e-mail interview. 'To single out smoking in movies as the cause of youth smoking initiation for a large percentage of kids is ridiculous.'"
Let's say, instead"
"SHS in bars is simply one of a large number of ways in which bartenders are exposed smoking (others include dorm rooms, homes, parks, cars, in fact, many bartenders actually smoke themselves)" he told me in an e-mail interview. "To single out smoking in bars as the cause of smoke-related deaths for a large percentage of bartenders is ridiculous.'"
It is just as probable that a youngster who smokes, would be more likely to recall somebody smoking in a film, than a youngster who does not smoke. To a non-smoker, smoking carries no value of recognition. It does to a smoker.
Perhaps it is this recognitional value that the rating is pretending to assault.
"A paid shill for the tobacco industry."
Can there be any doubt that those who work in Big Tobacco Control are "paid shills" of the Tobacco Control Industry?
These people are leeches - in order to survive they must suck the blood of smokers without killing them. Without smokers they would die.
As I have said before, that is why BTC does not push for a ban on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products.
I do not know of any other product, substance or toxin that has been "proved" to kill millions, that has not been banned.
ROFL
It has little to do with movies..just read this article. They put us outside and we look like we're having a good time:
http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/
news...icle2537178.ece
"I don't smoke myself. But I can understand the benefits of going outside and 'smirting' as there is a more relaxed atmosphere and people maybe get a better chance to talk. There tends to be more girls who smoke as well. I've heard it said that some guys have even started smoking - so that they can chat up the girls!"
Quick Notes: Good point from Soren. And, Jalestra, it's too true! I've often used smoking as an excuse to get away from people inside or simply as an excuse to go outside. (In fact, I often just say, "'Scuse me. I need to pop outside and feed my addiction." People never argue back.) BTW, I've added that article to my "funnies" file...which is growing considerably thanks in part to y'all!
Michael J...you know I'm a fan. 
Love the video. Honestly, I thought the TC guy looked like an attention hog. (Did notice the slur on Nolan...also noticed Nolan's appropriate reaction.) The host kept trying to cut-off the TC guy, who just kept going and going. I also thought the host...well, played the Devil's advocate once or twice. In this case, the TC guy came off rather poorly. Nolan did a good job, IMO. I don't believe that's an accident; trying to strong-arm the movie industry isn't a smart move on the part of TC. The Attorneys General...now that's a frightening matter. *shiver*
Okay, for the blog at hand, 'To single out smoking in movies as the cause of youth smoking initiation for a large percentage of kids is ridiculous'
In a way, the TC movement would have more credibility if it acknowledged and condemned all other unhealthy practices such as glamorizing alcohol in front of children. Alas, that would be a more frightening development--TC controling *everything* we do--and would surely turn people off. However, the problem of the single-focus on tobacco is felt in areas in addition to movies for children. See the Bulletin of the History of Medicine (vol. 81, No. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 312-334) As Depressing as It Was Predictable? Lung Cancer, Clinical Trials, and the Medical Research Council in Postwar Britain, "In recent years lung cancer specialists have complained that due to stigma resulting from the association of the disease with smoking, theirs is a neglected field."
(link: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/
j...timmermann.html )
Off-topic, unless you consider going to Church as "entertainment":
Churches incensed by 'stop smoking' signs
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...4/
nchurch14.xml
I think this movement is...nearing its end.
Off-topic, unless you consider going to Church as "entertainment":
Churches incensed by 'stop smoking' signs
I had been pondering, the day the ban went into effect here in Arizona (May 1st); WHY places that were already smoke free (office buildings for example, and many eating establishments), still had to put up the "approved" no smoking signs. Then I realized...........of course.......so everyone can have the snitch line number readily available (because ONLY the SmokeFreeAZ signs are allowed now) just in case someone is standing 19 feet from a door instead of 20 feet or more.
Can we say PATHETIC?
So the reason they are forcing the churches to put the signs up is to get their nazi-like snitch line number up for some hypochondriac to be able to use.
Not only is it pathetic; it IS also VERY nazi-like.
R ratings for films depicting smoking are probably more important to the anti-smoking industry for their denormalization effect than as protective standards for children. It's quite a sophisticated campaign, and the ratings argument is just one small piece of it. It labels smokers as inappropriate for polite society--miscreants who must be out of sight of our children. The campaign is shifting from intolerance of smoke to intolerance of smokers. How else do we explain the public parks that have gone non-smoking to the point where even possession of tobacco is illegal? Officials are fairly open about the argument that children shouldn't be exposed to the sight of smokers.
Anti-smokers (as opposed to reasonable non-smokers) don't want to smell smoke, and they don't even want to see smokers from a distance.
I work for a consumer magazine about pipes and pipe collecting. A reader recently wrote in to explain why he had to quit smoking. He works for a hospital where the administrators insist that even the faint scent of tobacco on an employee's clothing constitutes a health hazard, because to smell something, molecules must necessarily be present, and smoke molecules are a health risk. The hysteria is reaching ludicrous proportions.
Now that the "scientific evidence of the dangers of ETS" has become incontrovertible in the mob mentality, it's time to move to the next stage: the mere visibility of smokers is a danger to society. R ratings for films that include smoking merely constitute part of the groundwork for furthering that agenda.
Lynda F: ONLY the SmokeFreeAZ signs are allowed now
Hmmm...kinda like dog tags. Sometimes I think the state requires dog tags (not just vaccinations tags) because they can generate revenue for selling dog tags. Now, they can sell No Smoking signs, too! Man, getting weaned from tobacco-money addictions is tough! LOL!
Chuck Stanion: smoke molecules are a health risk
Any chance there's an article somewhere with this title? It'd qualify for my "funnies" file. Indeed ludicrous. *shakes head in disbelief*
The Attorney's General are the hired muscle who cynically extort money and intimidate anyone who get's in their way,how else would the antis fund themselves to such an astronomical degree.Money buys power.Every AG SHOULD FACE CHARGES ON CORRUPTION.
Chuck is right. Forcing people outside to smoke, and therefore into full sight of children and non-smokers will be outlawed soon.
So the reason they are forcing the churches to put the signs up is to get their nazi-like snitch line number up for some hypochondriac to be able to use.
Not only is it pathetic; it IS also VERY nazi-like.
Lynda F
100% correct Lynda. Divide and conquer. What's really sad is that intolerance is not only tolerated but encouraged and even sadder the general population of non-smokers are beginning to accept this as the norm.
The signs are TC's own version of advertising.
Literally millions of no smoking signs (as opposed to a few smoking allowed) all over the world will sub-conscientiously reinforce the smokers and smoking are unacceptable message.
Walking down my local high street you see the signs on every shop window and door, on every bus shelter, on every bus and taxi and at the entrance of every bar , hotel and restaurant. Even the shopping center (mall) signs on the way in and then again on every premises inside.
People eventually stop "seeing" them but they don't really. Wasn't that why subliminal advertising was banned? Is this not just a form of brainwashing?
I noted that TC are calling for anti smoking messages being shown before films that depict smoking. How long before they call for the reinstatement of subliminal advertising in the name of health?
GreatScot
"It labels smokers as inappropriate for polite society--miscreants who must be out of sight of our children."
Yes ,and the promoters of such trash, should be held accountable for terrorizing the our kids.
Instilling, false claims into the minds of children, some who may be reluctant at some point to ask for help in time of need, simply because a person smoke’s or smells like smoke. But hey, what are the chances, right? And who will be held accountable? Not the agenda driven for sure. That has to change. I believe it will.
GreatScot,
Subliminal advertising, according to its strict definition, does not work. I remember this from college psychology classes. IIRC the whole thing was in fact a hoax by a movie manager who pretended he sold more popcorn by slipping one such advertisement in. He got more business.
However, seeing nonsmoking signs where social mores already dictate people don't smoke is another matter, and misrepresentative association is yet another one entirely.
For instance, from Dissecting Antismokers' Brains, there's a picture from a Repace brochure saying "the devil is tobacco companies" or something, but the devil is smoking a cigarette. This implies it's ok to link "the tobacco companies are bad" with "just SEEING that smoker enjoy a smoke really hacks me off."
I think the UK "if you smoke, you stink" ads are another example of ads that seem directed at the smoker but can be seen as directed at the nonsmoker to shun the smoker. (thanks to FORCES.)
Or maybe something subtler like an ad I saw at a bus stop wind shelter. A girl is talking on the phone in her bedroom on the left half, and on the right half it says "hey teens, do some good, volunteer for what you would have done anyway" and it shows her working at a helpline in her bedroom...with a no smoking sign prominently displayed along with other "right things to do."
I have no evidence for it but it's easy enough to picture Tobacco Control, profit or not, glomming on to other charities saying, "help spread our message, slip a no smoking sign into the background. If not, you're with big tobacco, or you can't network with us." It'd be similar to the guilt trip I see them put on smokers only--the nonsmokers have an easy way around it.
Nonsequitur: I guess kids shouldn't start smoking til their eighteen, but that ad shows it is never too early to be gratuitously anti-smoking.
For the curioous, subliminal advertising link about flashing images for 1/20th of a second: here.
The way I see it a lot of these guilt based charities/public funded groups let their targets do the heavy lifting. And it feels like they did subliminal advertising. But the truth is often more pedestrian.
No-smoking signs at the entrances to churches -- is nothing sacred? What next, no-smoking signs at the entrances to houses of ill repute?
Chuck raises a very interesting point (one which I have not previously addressed with respect to smoking in movies) about adding a behavior with merely health implications, not moral implications, to the list of factors considered in rating movies.
Most - perhaps all - of the factors currently considered (e.g., sex, violence, profanity) are issues of moral acceptability in terms of parents not wanting their children to be exposed. Does smoking fit into this category (no, it does not) and thus, does it make any sense to consider it as a factor? And if we do, should we not also consider exposure to other unhealthy behaviors? Otherwise, by singling out smoking, are we suggesting that seeing smokers is a matter of moral concern, not just health? Some provocative questions.
Linda F,
I should think a snitch line could be put out of business with a lot of false snitches. Wouldn't that put an end to all that crap?
.
The doc Saya: Most - perhaps all - of the factors currently considered (e.g., sex, violence, profanity) are issues of moral acceptability in terms of parents not wanting their children to be exposed. Does smoking fit into this category (no, it does not) and thus, does it make any sense to consider it as a factor? ... Otherwise, by singling out smoking, are we suggesting that seeing smokers is a matter of moral concern, not just health? Some provocative questions.
I'm sorry Doc, but I still disagree here. Personally, I was raised around people who didn't drink (alcohol), smoke, etc... for moral/religious reasons. I *do* think that it's a morality question and parents *should* know that content of movies either to prevent their children from seeing it or to use story lines as a means to open discussions with their children. Moreover, I do believe that there is no rational reason to limit the focus of attention to smoking in films.
Okay, fine, it's just my little two cents.
Lynda,
Churches????? I cannot ever remember smoking in a church, can anyone here remember such aan incident?
.
Sunz,
No, therefore the only reason for the anti's to insist those stupid signs be up is so that the "snitch" number is out there.
I mean, really......no one EVER smoked in church anyway; office buildings have been "smoke-free" for at least 10 years now - and most had "no smoking" plastered across all their entrances anyway.....so for what other purpose would they now need these "smoke-free" signs?
And they wonder why we compare them to nazi's?
Sam wrote:
"SHS in bars is simply one of a large number of ways in which bartenders are exposed smoking (others include dorm rooms, homes, parks, cars, in fact, many bartenders actually smoke themselves)" he told me in an e-mail interview. "To single out smoking in bars as the cause of smoke-related deaths for a large percentage of bartenders is ridiculous.'"
I'll add:
SHS in bars is simply one of a large number of ways in which bartenders are exposed to alleged carcinogens and known or suspected risks for heart disease (others-- among thousands of known or suspected risks-- include living in a large, traffic-clogged city, having vinyl carpeting or pet birds, eating high fat diets, getting insufficient exercise, working a night shift, or dallying in the sun); in fact, many bartenders live and pal with smokers, and many bartenders actually smoke themselves. To single out....
:
Along those same lines, the doctor writes:
"Chapman then quotes me, noting my argument that this research cannot possibly isolate a specific effect of movie smoking, as opposed to exposure to smoking in a variety of media."
Is isolating specific effects important?
Can you isolate the specific effects of SHS to a barroom or other workplace?
And Lynda F,
From FORCES site today re: No Smoking signs for churches:
"Rather, the point is that there has to be no place where the smoker can turn his eyes without seeing the 21st century swastikas."
Couldn't have said it any better. 
Well...I snuck in the baptism pool to have a smoke once during a lock in...ok ok, so it may have been wrong...but I was a teenager...
Well...I snuck in the baptism pool to have a smoke once during a lock in...ok ok, so it may have been wrong...but I was a teenager...
Did you need a No Smoking sign to know it was wrong? Above all, did anybody use the snitch number?
Got a letter to the editor today--top letter printed in the column again. They changed it so badly that it's completely...senseless!! I never really bought into a conspiracy theory--until now. *snort* This is ridiculous. (The only reason I say "ridiculous" is that someone else already used "ludicrous.") I found it on my way for a walk. Even after walking a couple of miles I was still miffed. So, I went to the pipe shop and the guys cheered me up. (Learned how to roll my own today.) I don't know what I can do exactly; maybe it's best to let this thing run its absurd little course. *sigh*
Sam,
I'd say pretty much yes, since most other venues can be avoided, but work is one of those little thing most people have to do in order to eat and have a roof over your head.
Did you need a No Smoking sign to know it was wrong? Above all, did anybody use the snitch number?
Nah, I didn't need a sign...I was a bit mad because Brother Mike's wife had taken away my Steven King book and I caught her reading it...
Snitch number...hey man, don't you know I'm way too cool to get caught?
For my enitre life, the movie ratings system has always been utterly meaingless to me. My parents brought us to see many movies without regard for ratings, and we were waltzing into R-rated films at the age of 12, with no one batting an eyelash.
As a parent, the movie ratings remained utterly meaningless. Star wars is PG for "mild language." What language? Hell and damn? Now they've invented the amorphous "thematic elements."
Before my son was even of school age, I allowed (even encouraged) him to watch Star Wars, Men In Black, The Princess Bride, Starman, E.T, Labyrinth, and many, many more. (On video, not the expurgated drek on TV.) A bit later, The Terminator. All PG and up.
Conversely, I would not allow him to watch "Roots" until he was a little older, and I never let him watch the news. (At age 4, the evening news made him scared of cancer!)
I explained to my own child that some activities are for adults, and some are for children. He came home from school toting anti-smoking pamphlets and spouting propaganda.
I also explained that there are "grown-up" words he is not allowed to use, though he is not prohibited from "exposure" to them.
I simply explained what they meant when he heard them.
The antis simply object to any depiction of smoking as a perfectly normal activity. If they wish to consider smoking, drinking, or pre-marital sex as "immoral" they are free to do so.
They are not free to impose their beliefs on anyone else.
Who needs a sign for the snitch number? Soon it will be stitched on the cuffs of their brown shirts.
DTB:
I don't know what I can do exactly; maybe it's best to let this thing run its absurd little course. *sigh*
A lot of people thought it would 'run its course' a long time ago, didn't happen, empathic *sigh*
west
----
Jalestra: hey man, don't you know I'm way too cool to get caught?
Indeed, you are! And A Steven King book. Double cool.
west: A lot of people thought it would 'run its course' a long time ago, didn't happen, empathic *sigh*
Thanks for the empathy. *smiles* Never, ever lose heart. We have too much reason to be thankful in this life to let anyone else rain on our parade. And this extreme antismoking movement is destined to destroy itself. My personal hope is that, when all is said and done, most people will remember to use a little common sense and good judgement.
Japan, San Marino top longevity lists
From the Associated Press
May 19, 2007
GENEVA — Boys born in San Marino, a tiny republic surrounded by Italy, are expected to live to age 80, the world's longest male life expectancy at birth, but newborn girls in 31 other countries have even better prospects, the World Health Organization said Friday.
Sierra Leone registered the shortest male life expectancy at birth, 37 years — the same as that of girls in Swaziland, who were at the bottom of the female list — in WHO's "World Health Statistics 2007."
Females in Japan, who continue to lead the world tables, have a life expectancy at birth of 86 years, the same as last year's statistics. San Marino men, who tied with Japanese men last year at 79, added a year to get ahead.
Newborn boys in the U.S. have a 75-year life expectancy, U.S. newborn girls 80 — 33rd and 32nd place, respectively.
The life expectancy figures were based on 2005, the latest year available.
Besides Japan, following San Marino on the male side were Australia, Iceland, Sweden and Switzerland at 79 years. Cuba was among the countries that tied the U.S.
Countries with long female life expectancies include Monaco at 85 years. Costa Rica and Denmark tied the United States.
Afghanistan and Sierra Leone are the toughest places for babies, with an infant mortality rate of 165 in 1,000 live births, compared with the two babies who die per 1,000 born in Singapore or Iceland, which shared first place. In the U.S., seven babies die per 1,000, the same rate as in Belarus, Slovakia and Lithuania — a tie for 38th place.
Sierra Leone is worse than Afghanistan for mothers' survival, with the worst maternal mortality rate: 2,000 per 100,000 live births in 2000, the latest year for which statistics were available. The rate for Afghanistan, second-worst, was 1,900. Ireland did best at four deaths. The U.S. was in 29th place with 14 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births.
Entry to WHO's statistical database: http://www.who.int/whosis/en/
Difficult to assess the accuracy of the data, the definitions and the assumptions.
Because this is a tobacco blog, I will highlight the fact that Japan has one of the highest smoking rates in the "developed" world, yet longevity is also at the top.
There have been links to articles by Dr. Simon Chapman before on this blog, but I don't think this one has appeared.
Note that there are some passages that were used by Dr. Chapman in another article.
Evidence, ethics, hubris and the future of second-hand smoke policy
By Dr. Simon Chapman
Excerpt:
"Those with claimed hypersensitivity to even homeopathic-like strength exposures to SHS claim that tobacco smoke is a special case which, unlike other environmental carbon particle pollution, would satisfy the criteria for toxicogenic theories of IEI. Such exceptionalism is highly unlikely to be the case.
In tobacco control's armoury, there are few more potent weapons in driving down tobacco use than restrictions on smoking premised on evidence of harm to others.10 If this evidence base is not vigilantly respected and the arguments for tobacco control are allowed to haemorrhage into the moralism that characterised tobacco control of previous centuries, globalised communication will rapidly pass news of this regression and risk undermining the global adoption of the policies we now take for granted in many western nations. Equally, if anyone in tobacco control believes that untethered paternalism that abandons ethical respect for smokers to harm themselves has broad appeal, their hubris awaits its inevitable fate."
URL for the whole piece (PDF file):
http://tinyurl.com/2utwr4
"I'd say pretty much yes, since most other venues can be avoided, but work is one of those little thing most people have to do in order to eat and have a roof over your head."
Well, are we sticking to the science or not? If, in judging the impact that movies have on smoking, it is important to ISOLATE the specific impact movies have, then surely that is true in other cases. No?
Not a value judgement. Not an argument. Just a question: Generically speaking, in measuring a public health impact is it important to be able to isolate a specific exposure from other exposures?
Or is it only important in some cases? Which cases? In which cases is it not important?
If it is important, even critical, what does that do to the reliability of the science when that isolation is not possible?
If that makes the science less reliable, what impact should that have on efforts to use that science to proscribe certain activites, such as making a movie that depicts a smoker?
Should the inability to isolate cause and effect have a different impact on other activities? Why?
Rod--
See http://www.lcolby.com/addendum2.htm in regard to life expentancy vs. smoking percentage
/S
DancingTigerBait - Rod--
See http://www.lcolby.com/addendum2.htm in regard to life expentancy vs. smoking percentage
...............
DTB,
You get it, I get it, but Big Tobacco Control cannot afford to get it.
When one's income is almost totally dependent on proving that smoking and ETS are responsible for every ill of mankind...what do you do?
These paid stooges and shills of the multi-billion dollar TC industry cannot rid themselves of their addiction.
Rod--
These paid stooges and shills of the multi-billion dollar TC industry cannot rid themselves of their addiction.
Hmmm...maybe we should develop a patch to wean them from their tobacco--money addiction? LOL, we'll make it very expensive--and increase the cost over time. That way, they'll gradually get used to having less money! I can think of other patches to invent to wean antismokers from their unhealthy addictions to self-righteous hypocrisy, arrogance, fraud... (I still think the best bet is to put a muzzle on Glantz.)
Actually, I took a few things to the pipe shop today. (What I took was some of my funnies, a few articles and a couple of med journal articles...not that all of these things are mutually exclusive.) I asked him to keep the "World's Oldest--All Smokers" from Forces on the counter to combat the witch doctor effect. I did see someone come inside and take a look at it. Maybe the people who really need to start "getting it" are other smokers.
Honestly, the best way to combat the higher taxes is to start rolling your own. The best way to handle these smoking bans is to eat-in more often. Saves a bundle anyway--and better for your diet no doubt! Shoot, have a bunch of smoking friends over for a good time and everyone can save a bundle! Alas, the only downer about having dinner parties is that I feel like I should replace my "Peace To All Who Enter" front sign with "Smoking Permitted--Enter At Your Own Risk". Not quite as socialable, eh?
A match made in heaven: science and hollywood.
http://
www.hollywoodreporter.com...ee8bde055a360d1
Fear Mongering and Fantacy at it's best!
~snip~
Yes, a lot of the science is very hard to wrap your head around. But I was very clear in the movie. I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future. I want them to feel disillusioned halfway through and feel hopeless. And then when we get into the entire section in the second half when we talk about cultural transformation and a new way of looking at things and the alternatives or green technology and all these things, you realize there is great hope and there are options on the table. And hopefully the audience is moved and galvanized to do something about it. Hopefully
See Doctor the TC methods can be put to work worldwide for any issue.
About life expectancy: clearly the death toll in Sierra Leone is due to menthol....And why is that if a male American smoker dies of a heart attack at , say, 82 (7 yrs past the US "expectancy") it's counted as a premature "tobacco relared" death?
Rod, how I wish that Chapman piece was really like the last bit you excerpted sounded. But when read in full I find it very hard to give him credit. It would be like thanking your jailer for not executing you.
Here's what I mean:
As smoking becomes exiled outdoors, reasonable debates have emerged about banning smoking in outdoor, roofless areas where lots of people gather in sardine-tin-like densities.5 Sports stadia are now increasingly smoke free, with little protest occurring because what is being regulated is so reasonable. The unpleasant and sometimes distressing experience of sitting for hours next to smokers at sports events and concerts is a common experience. Smokers can see the distress they cause, and few are keen to defend the indefensible when moving well away to smoke has now become routine etiquette.
Note not just "reasonable" but "SO reasonable." And he promotes that it's good enough to ban just for the smell factor alone. Then it's no damn smoker would dare defend the "INDEFENSIBLE." So he's quite all right with what WE perceive to be the indefensible (banning smoking in outdoor stadiums or on dining patios) until it meets HIS personal measure of "too far." Once again, an anti who thinks they are the ultimate authority to hand out the permission slips.
http://www.scenesmoking.org/clas...g/
classroom.htm
Check out this website from Anti-Tobacco
They even rate movies on a tobacco scale
http://www.scenesmoking.org/enter.cfm
You can find out ahead of time if the movie has smoking scenes or not. They rate the movies "Pink" lung to 'Black' lung.
There are also sections on the site where you can get a breakdown of smoking scenes in each movie:
good guy-bad guy
Incidents counted- avenues...
Percieved reasons for smoking - stress-cool-power-etc.
I will now use this site to choose movies to view - in the opposite way as intended by the site.
I wonder how many students - which this site is geared to - will do the same...
JustTheFacts - Rod, how I wish that Chapman piece was really like the last bit you excerpted sounded. But when read in full I find it very hard to give him credit. It would be like thanking your jailer for not executing you.
...............
JTF,
Oh, I agree with what you said. But, at this time we have to start somewhere to shine a light on the nonsense, non-science propaganda these racketeers employ to maintain its control to keep the money flowing.
It's amazing, isn't it that in the United States a group can take power without being answerable to anyone but itself?
Walt--
And why is that if a male American smoker dies of a heart attack at , say, 82 (7 yrs past the US "expectancy") it's counted as a premature "tobacco relared" death?
All deaths are premature. There's an article at Forces about this but I don't recall exactly where to find it on their site.
The recording of deaths is bizarre. Consider a cancer patient who has an adverse reaction to meds or treatment. If the patient doesn't die of the *cancer*, then it can be recorded as a "partial remission"--sounding like the treatment helped.
DancingTigerBait - The recording of deaths is bizarre. Consider a cancer patient who has an adverse reaction to meds or treatment. If the patient doesn't die of the *cancer*, then it can be recorded as a "partial remission"--sounding like the treatment helped.
---------
"The operation was a success, but the patient died."
"The village had to be destroyed in order to save it."
WWII: On the danger of Japanese-Americans engaging in sabotage to justify "relocation" camps:
"The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken."
Commenting by HaloScan
