"The saddest part of the story is this: now we need something to protect us from the lies being told by our own anti-smoking and health organizations."
Hahaha!
Is the flavoring ban just on cigarettes that are named with a flavor like 'cherry','strawberry','clove' or does it also ban flavor extracts used in the curing process?
Doctor, I still can't figure out why you are not outraged that the bill didn't raise the age to purchase and possess cigarettes to 21, it's for protecting children - isn't it? That's what everyone is saying on the passage of this 'glorious' bill - protecting the youth....21 protects the youth.
Why the hang up on Menthol?
What is this passion to only protect the smoker from menthol?
Doctor, were you traumatized by Mints as a small child?
"Well, the good news is that the honey in Honees menthol honey candy is banned from cigarettes; the bad news is that the menthol flavoring in Honees menthol honey candy is not."
Conversely
Pine aroma is banned from cigarettes and not banned in air fresheners with a much higher toxic load. Pine fragrance is used to addict white American housewives who are more likely to use pine sol than any other ethic grouping.
So, if I want to buy some '54's should I find a store in an African-American neighborhood? Just wondering because the only place I've seen them advertised is on this blog and in other anti-smoking propaganda. Thanks for the lead. I was sick of my pina colada flavored cigs and looking for something new. Without the peeps at TC, I would not have known about '54's and I do love a great menthol.
Michael;
As I have mentioned and linked a number of times. In 1945 when pressed with the question of race the scientific community dispelled the myth by the observation if we all cam from the same primordial ooze we are all the same and only differ by environmental factors.
Your idea that because someone is Black makes them more likely to smoke menthol is only an extension of those environmental factors AKA racist and stereotypical.
Please stop insulting others and deflating your own credibility by continuing down this road of opportunistic trash talk.
Blacks are no more likely to do or prefer anything in the absence of outside influences.
This thread is offensive and I know you are better than this.
"Doctor, were you traumatized by Mints as a small child?"
Gilster, I was wondering about a secret toothpaste addiction, there's got to be something to provoke this extreme reaction.
Happens every time Menthol is mentioned,as you will have noted.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/d...20BLEND%
20No.27
Just figured out the No 54 thing....it's twice as good as 27's apparently.
27+27=54
I had no idea there were Marlboro No. 27's. Guess that's because I'm over 21/sarc.
Rose,
You are on to something, teenagers are fascinated with toothpaste - that must be it.
Is Nicorette like whitening strips?
You are right Doctor, children don't like Pineapple Toothpaste.
"Why the hang up on Menthol?
What is this passion to only protect the smoker from menthol?
Doctor, were you traumatized by Mints as a small child?"
Gilster
WTF? Are you serious? The only flavors of cigarettes I have ever seen are menthol and cloves and the clove cigarettes were imported from India. The fact is the only popular flavor is Menthol. So basically tons of money was spent on creating even more bureaucracy that does essentially nothing.
Gilster
Frankly, I don't understand it, I've spent the last two years carefully explaining the plant science.
The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables
"There is considerable evidence that nicotine is present in certain human foods, especially plants from the family Solanaceae (such as potatoes, tomatoes, and eggplant). Castro and Monji;` Sheen,-' " and Davis et al. have reported on the nicotine content of foods and drinks': We have been able to confirm some of their findings in our laboratory. Gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy-5 were used to determine the nicotine and cotinine content of common vegetables and black tea available from a local supermarket. The vegetables analyzed were tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, and green peppers."
Vegetable Nicotine in ng/g g per 1µg nicotine
Cauliflower 16.8 59.5
Eggplant (Aubergine) 100.0 10
Potatoes 7.1 140
Green tomatoes 42.8 23.4
Ripe tomatoes 4.3 233.0
Pureed tomatoes 52.0 19.2
Society for Risk Analysis 1995
Dietary Contributions to Nicotine Body Burden
"Recent USDA food intake surveys are used to perform a probabilistic analysis of dietary intake of nicotine. Using limited data on nicotine content of foodstuffs (tea, tomato, potato, green pepper, and eggplant) and the 198991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSDII), the absorbed dose of nicotine is shown to be significant compared to present day environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) nicotine exposures
The dietary contributions of absorbed nicotine dose are significant when compared to present ETS exposures. A recent study of workplace ETS exposure results in mean and median absorbed nicotine doses of 11 and 3 mg/d, respectively. Thus, ETS exposure analysis based on total nicotine absorption needs to consider dietary intake. This includes the use of cotinine (a major metabolite of nicotine) which has been a widely used biomarker
http://www.riskworld.com/abstrac...95/
ab5aa174.htm
And now its this mint thing again.
I am sorry, but using mint with nightshades is perfectly normal, and not a dastardly plot by the tobacco companies.
Everybody does it.
Potato Salad with Chopped Mint & Lemon Balm
http://www.vegsoc.org/cordonvert.../bbq/
sizz6.html
There you go Doctor
Look, no mint.
"TOBACCO ICE-CREAM
10g pipe tobacco (I use Condor original);
300ml milk;
300ml double cream;
175g golden caster sugar;
3 large free-range egg yolks
Bring a pan of water to the boil, then add the tobacco and bring back to the boil. Boil for one minute, then drain through a sieve and rinse under the cold tap.
Place the milk and cream in another pan and bring slowly to the boil. Once just about boiling, remove from the heat and add the tobacco, cover and leave to infuse for ten minutes, no more. Sieve the mixture into a jug, discarding the tobacco.
Beat the sugar and yolks together, then add some of the warm cream, stirring well. Pour into the jug and stir until combined. Return to a clean pan and cook over a low heat, stirring, until thickened to the consistency of single cream (it thickens as it cools). This will take ten to 15 minutes.
Pour into a jug, cover tightly and cool. Once cold, churn in a machine - or pour into a plastic container and place in the freezer, whisking every couple of hours until it sets."
http://living.scotsman.com/
recip...nday.2559555.jp
Tobacco coffee with biscotti foam
Ingredients
For the biscotti foam
100 ml water
150g Almonds
100g ground roasted Hazelnuts
25ml sugar syrup
15 leaves Rosemary
1 sheet leaf gelatine
5g whey powder
For the ganache
1.6g fresh leaf tobacco, cut for pipe smoking
30g single cream
25g Chocolate
4 x 25ml shots espresso coffee
http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aI...ipe/aID/594536/
Gilster-
You got me. I have a thing for the Vick's cherry menthol cough drops.
Why is menthol so important? It's because of the propaganda (a.k.a. lies) that the anti-smoking groups are spewing. If they weren't boasting about how all candy flavorings are banned, then I wouldn't be making anything of this. My point is simply that they are lying: they're telling us that all candy flavorings are banned and then we find out the truth that menthol is exempt and Philip Morris is laughing all the way to the bank. This post is not so much about what we should or should not be regulating. It's about the fact that anti-smoking groups are now lying to us. They are doing EXACTLY the thing that we have for years accused the tobacco companies of doing. I find that ironic and unfortunate. Not to mention unethical. And finally, those cherry menthol cough drops are awesome.
Dr. Siegel and Gilster:
To answer Gilster's question, the FDA law only bans "characterizing" flavorings, excluding menthol.
Burly tobacco, used in most US cigarettes, has a bunch of flavorings added designed to remove the harshness naturally found in that leaf: Chocolate, cinammon, etc. But if you smoke them, they do not taste like any flavor other than tobacco. Those additives are still permitted.
And Dr. Siegel, didn't RJR get rid of the "Mocha," "scotch" and other flavored cigarettes back in 2006 or 2007 in an agreement with state AGs?
There are not any such flavored cigarettes sold in the US at this time (a fact the CFTFK, etc., doesn't mention). So I don't even think candy-flavored cigarettes account for 0.001% of the market.
There are still flavored "little cigars," which the FDA bill does not ban.
Per Dr. Siegel, "where I come from, public health is about social justice..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pub...i/
Public_health
"Since the 1980s, the growing field of population health has broadened the focus of public health from individual behaviors and risk factors to population-level issues such as inequality, poverty, and education."
(I don't know how to "broaden" a "focus". But I do know how to expand influence and power.)
So it isn't a mistake after all to equate contemporary "public health" with "socialism", "communism", "national socialism" or even to the religions of western civilization.
Where I come from "religion" is about "social justice".
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.
"There are still flavored "little cigars," which the FDA bill does not ban."-M
And we know what the youngsters use those for
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K...BzvamTC_Bo&
NR=1
I also would like to remind everyone that this was done in the name of children.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
Jeez Doc, Perhaps you didn't notice in the link to the urban dictionary that #4 on the list was a negative...but #5 you may not want associated with your name!-Ruth
Are clove cigarettes actually banned?
Thanks M. Your interpretation of the law is right on the mark. Indeed, flavorings are not banned; it's just if a flavor is the characterizing flavor of a cigarette that it is banned. You're also correct that RJR pulled its flavored cigarettes several years ago, so today, flavored (other than menthol) cigarettes probably make up less than 0.001% of the market.
Thus, what the anti-smoking groups have accomplished is NOTHING.
Again, this is all a scam. It's a way for the groups to be able to say that they've done something, when really they haven't had to go up against Big Tobacco at all. In fact, they are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the tobacco company that has the lion's share of the market!
Doctor
And what purpose would there be in an anti-tobacco movement if there were no tobacco products to be anti about?
The most important thing in a parasites life is not to kill its host.
Unless of course its a very fast and mobile parasite
'Passive drinking crusade' starts here
"Medical chief likens the new war on alcohol to the battle to ban smoking
A top doctor has likened the health lobby’s new ‘war on alcohol’ to the crusade against tobacco which resulted in the smoking ban.
But Professor Ian Gilmore, president of the Royal College of Physicians, admitted the fight for action on booze would be a more difficult proposition than getting smoking banned.
During a conference on alcohol harm, Gilmore said: “It’s not as straightforward as the smoking issue. Smoking being bad for you was not even a discussion, alcohol is more complex.
“It’s not easy. We know we are up against probably the most powerful lobby there is – the drinks industry.”
http://www.thepublican.com/
story...storycode=57696
Are clove cigarettes actually banned?
Jerry
I am from the baby boom generation and the only clove cigarettes were imported from india and it was used to cover up the inferior tobacco. As Michael Siegel points out the only flavoring that has ever been popular is Menthol which is the flavor that is protected. So a lot of time and taxpayer money is wasted on a bill that does absolutely nothing. What part of that is everybody missing. It would be like banning a liquor that tasted like horse manure and exempting peppermint. Kind of silly to ban flavors that no one wanted in the first place isn't it.
"What part of that is everybody missing"
None of it, but its not for us, its for the nonsmoking public's benefit.
Banning fictitious products, that are alleged to attract phantom children, is apparently to justify their funding and position.
Its the same in nature.
"Some species of ants "farm" aphids, protecting them on the plants they eat, and eating the honeydew that the aphids release from the terminations of their alimentary canals. This is a " mutualistic relationship".
These "dairying ants" "milk" the aphids by stroking them with their antennae. Therefore, sometimes aphids are called "ant cows".
Some of these farming ants gather and store the aphid eggs in their nests over the winter. In the spring, the ants carry the newly-hatched aphids back to the plants. Some species of dairying ants (such as the European yellow meadow ant, or Lasius flavus) manage large "herds" of aphids that feed on roots of plants in the ant colony. Queens that are leaving to start a new colony will take an aphid egg with them to found a new herd of underground aphids in the new colony. These farming ants protect the aphids by fighting off aphid predators"
http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/.../wp/a/
Aphid.htm
I'll go with Coburn's take on this bill:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/
opinio...G1_SenTom290436
"Various news reports took statements I recently made on the floor out of context and suggested that I wanted to ban tobacco products," Coburn says in a statement he issued. "That is not my goal or intent. I was arguing that the bill now being debated by the Senate to place tobacco products under the regulation of the Food and Drug Administration, an agency charged with ensuring the safety of food and medicine, is a clever attempt to stop tobacco use altogether either through government regulation or trial attorney lawsuits. I was suggesting that those who oppose tobacco should simply have the courage to propose a total ban, which is their ultimate goal.
"We already have several government agencies that are focused on regulating tobacco products and educating the public about the dangers of tobacco use," the statement continues. "As a physician, I agree that it is in the best interest of public health that tobacco use be discouraged, prevented, and treated, but I do not believe that new regulations or taxes imposed by the federal government are the answer. I also do not believe that tobacco use by adults should be banned."
That's pretty clear, but the lie keeps running.
Hey Rose, wonderful analogy!
"Why the hang up on Menthol? Doctor, were you traumatized by Mints as a small child?"
Gilster
LMAO - my coworkers must think I'm nuts!
Jerry--
Yes, clove cigarettes are banned, starting in about 3 months. The best-known ones are Djarum, sold by Kretek Intl.
Indonesia, where they are made, says it will file a World Trade Organization suit over the ban, since they have been sold in the US for decades and the FDA law gives special consideration to menthol-flavored smokes.
I don't know how WTO dispuites play out, but kreteks account for a very, very tiny part of the U.S. cigarette market.
Eagle councilman has a change of heart and derails proposed smoking ban
"Huffaker said the American Cancer Society brought the proposed ordinance to the city in the spring. The issue is essentially dead in Eagle, unless the council decides at some later date to revisit the proposal"
http://www.idahostatesman.com/we...ory/
812658.html
I was thinking 54 might refer to the erstwhile discotheque Studio 54 as a source of decadence and doing what you want and not caring what others want. Although I don't think it's helpful to dabble in numerology too much.
I wouldn't be surprised if Philip Morris were doing it just to make the more visible anti-tobacco groups read too much into a number. After all, RJR has already done it with all black packaging, intentionally or not("blah blah too sexy!")
The Internet is an amazing thing. I was looking for something completely different when I found this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-
...feature=channel
"The Science of Profit"
Watching this video in light of the recent FDA Tobacco Legislation brings a whole new meaning to the experience. I wouldn't be surprised to see the FDA transformed into the official Philip Morris R&D Department in a few short years.
PS The FDA and PM have absolutely no interest in "social justice" and that's a good thing.
Show me the money!
"For the children" is a bunch of crap!
Let's look at just how long a 10 year would have to smoke in order to reach the age at which about 50% of the 'smoking related' deaths would have occurred.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulat...gv21n4/
lies.pdf
Page 29,table 4
We see that a 10 year old would have to smoke for 25 years to reach the age at which the CDC says such deaths start to occur.
At age 50,after 40 years of smoking,the child will have reached the age at which 95% of those deaths have NOT yet occurred.
At the age of 70,after 60 years of smoking, the child will have reached the age where over 50% of those deaths have yet to occur.
Look back 60 years at the advances that medicine has made and then try to quess what advances will be made over the coming 60 years.
I wonder what will be the leading cause of death in 2070?
Probably the govt!!!
"Doctor, I still can't figure out why you are not outraged that the bill didn't raise the age to purchase and possess cigarettes to 21, it's for protecting children - isn't it? That's what everyone is saying on the passage of this 'glorious' bill - protecting the youth....21 protects the youth."
That is because in the United States of America, the age of majority is 18. The only discrepancy with this standard is the drinking age which is still improperly set at 21. If you are old enough in the eyes of the law to sign a contract, get married, make medical decisions, or get shot in Iraq, then surely you should be able to choose whether or not to drink and smoke.
Ryan,
You left out sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Age...n_North_America
State laws
Each US state has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18.
The most common age is 16:< (more than half of the states have this age limit), however the five most populous states all have a higher age of consent (California-18, Texas-17, New York-17, Florida-18 and Illinois-17).
age of consent 16: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia
age of consent 17: Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Texas
age of consent 18: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
While scoundrels and thieves identifying themselves as "Public Health authoritarians" create any number of excuses to bypass or recognize our basic rights and freedoms, one needs only look to the streets of Iran to understand the cost of those freedoms when they are squandered and allotted to the "protections" of liars and scolds.
Public Health is an outrage that requires convictions and mitigation for the victims of their crimes.
This article was written three years ago although still relevant, sanity seems to have diminished considerably while "denormalization" survives. Go figure?
http://www.iapm.ca/newsmanager/a...r.asp?a=489&
z=8
The Smokers
"But as the week progressed it became clear that this was not an isolated case of pressure from some blue-haired ladies temperance group. What became clear was that this was another manifestation of our society’s surrender to state-sponsored mind control. A rampaging army of bureaucrats, acting without restraint of consequence or the oversight of compassionate elected authority, whose over-riding imperative is to produce citizens as perfectly contoured as baking dough formed with cookie cutters.
On Thursday of this same week one Yves Archambault, a professional with the Quebec government agency responsible for implementing tobacco policy, stated quite openly that it is the aim of the new anti-smoking law to “denormalize” smoking. “Denormalize”? Where did they come up with that one? Where is George Orwell when you need him? This sure as hell wasn’t in the Liberals’ policy book. Who voted for this?
Archambault went on to explain that “denormalize” means “changing social norms so that it is not normal to smoke”. Who elected politicians to decide what’s normal? And even if they had, what idiots could possibly assume that bureaucrats could enforce “normality”? And if it is not “normal” to smoke, then why is the government still taking in billions from tobacco sales? But what is more insidious about Archambault’s words is the slippery slope we ‘re sliding down. Does anyone really think that it is more than a hop, skip and a jump for government apparatchiks to decide how much we should eat; or drink; or play; or love or even speak depending on their “normality”? We’ll soon have more inspectors running amok up our collectives asses than the bulls at Pamplona."
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—
for ever...And remember that it is for ever.”
~ George Orwell
http://www.worldhum.com/travel-b...oltan-20090623/
OT-Pentagram Rebrands Cigarettes, to Make Deadliness a Virtue
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/...adliness-
virtue
The graphic cigarette warning labels are starting to make sense all of a sudden; please don't throw TC into the brier patch...it will cost them a fortune if anyone actually did quit.
http://www.empressr.com/View.asp...=RfBvO5Ozse4%
3d
http://www.empressr.com/View.asp...=RfBvO5Ozse4%
3d
Hanging on in Quiet Desperation
It wasn't that I encountered nobody who looked forward to the smoking ban. At one bar, when I asked if anyone was looking forward to it, the old man beside me said, "I am." He had, it emerged, been waiting for 60 years, ever since as a soldier he'd had to endure watching films in smoke-filled cinemas in North Africa. But when I left, I realised I'd neglected to ask on which side he'd been fighting.
Nobody at the River wanted a smoking ban. But nobody complained about it either. Most people seemed to see it as just another impending fact of life, just like any other fact of life. It was something to take in one's stride. Some saw it as an opportunity to give up smoking. The landlord of the River was one of these, loudly declaring that he was going to stop smoking when the ban came into force. Magnanimously, he was going to set up a large covered area outside for the smokers.
"It'll be no bother," another customer told me brightly. "You'll just nip outside for a quick fag now and then."
Others were not so sanguine. Some of the older people said they'd stop coming. As for me, I couldn't see myself enjoying any more afternoons of quiet contemplation inside the River, sans cigarettes. But I really didn't know how I'd feel about it.
In the months leading up to the ban, the River's landlord started gradually closing down the large smoking area, and shepherding the smokers into a smaller bar. Evicted from my familar seat, and with too few bar stools for the throng, I started taking my pint outside to a table by the river.
The day the ban came into force was rather unreal. Everyone was outside. And once inside, it felt like I was being watched, and the welcoming landlord and his staff had become law enforcers. The No Smoking signs plastered everywhere may as well have said No Smokers. I felt unwelcome.
"It's not a free country any more," someone said to me outside.
"There's nothing that can be done about it," said another. "Except to wonder what they'll do next."
They. They were the faceless powers to whom there was no appeal. They were the MPs to whom there was no point writing.
"There's no point. Nothing's going to change. They don't listen."
And I started to feel angry. Angry at the ban. But also angry that nobody was revolting. And angry that I was myself so docile.
But what could be done? I think that if it had just been that smokers who flouted the ban were liable to get a £50 fine slapped on them, more would have been encouraged to revolt. Some were certainly angry enough. But the law would also punish landlords in whose pubs smoking was discovered to be fined £2500. An individual smoker who dared to smoke inside would be making his landlord liable to a far heavier fine than he. It was a sort of collective punishment. A bit like punishing partisans by shooting entire villages. Only this wasn't Oradour, but England.
I never had another drink inside the River. On dry and windless or sunny days, I'd buy a pint and sit outside by the river, like one expelled or banished. My sense of being a member of a little pub community began to die. I no longer felt at home inside the pub. I no longer lingered to chat and pick up the local news. I no longer nodded to familiar faces. I'd buy my pint, and head straight outside. The once welcoming pub had become an unwelcoming place. And when winter set in, and it became too cold to sit outside, I ceased to go at all.
Months later I encountered one of the River's non-smoking regulars.
"We never see you at the River," he said. "Have you been away?"
"No. It's just that if I can't have a cigarette with my pint, I don't want to go."
"It's a bad law," he sighed. "They ought to change it. The bar's empty these days. A few nights back, when I went in, I was the only one there."
And I began to encounter strange denials of reality.
One day the following summer, I'd walked into the River, and ordered a pint, but the barrel needed changing, and the barmaid said, "Would you like me to bring it to your table?"
"And where am I sitting?" I enquired.
"Why, where you always sit," she said. "On the table in the corner."
"I haven't sat inside this pub for a year or more," I replied. "I always sit outside now. Had you not noticed?"
One afternoon I encountered some of the regulars sitting outside, and joined them in conversation. They were talking about the numbers of pubs that were closing. They listed five or six pubs that had closed.
"The smoking ban?" I suggested.
"Oh no, " they replied. "It's got nothing to do with that. It's the bad weather. And nobody's got any money. And there's the credit crunch."
I mentioned one pub that I knew was still open.
"That one's doing really well," they said.
"Why's that?" I asked.
"Because it's got a large covered smoking area."
The landlords I spoke to were uniformly upbeat, and strangely oblivious to what was happening in front of their noses. One afternoon I dropped into a little town pub which I knew quite well, and which would usually have had a dozen customers or more on its bar stools and its tables. It was completely empty.
"A bit empty today," I remarked to the landlady as she filled the half pint that I intended to gulp down before leaving.
"It's always been like this at this time of day," she said. "It fills up at night."
No, it's not always been like this, my lips would not say, as I felt for loose change in my pocket.
It was as if all concerned were in complete denial. The pub had always been empty like this, when it had not been. The smoking ban was not the cause of pub closures, but was the reason why some pubs thrived. And I had been sitting at my customary table for an entire year, when I had not been. It was always possible to pop outside for a quick drag, even when it was impossible.
All concerned had just bitten their lips, and tried to make the best of the new situation, about which nothing could be done anyway. The customers had kept soldiering on uncomplainingly, hanging on in quiet desperation. And because their customers weren't complaining, the pub landlords did not complain either. And because the landlords weren't complaining, the pubcos that ran them didn't know what was happening. And they put their catastrophic collapse of sales down to the weather, or the credit crunch, or the fact that nobody had any money. Anything but the smoking ban, which had been declared to be a great success.
When the landlady had said, "It's always been like this," I had bitten my lip and left the truth unsaid, just like everyone else in this strange conspiracy of silence. I had not wanted to shatter her illusions. I had not wanted to break the news to her that the army of non-smokers who were supposed to fill the pubs after the smoking ban were never going to arrive.
Outside the River, the landlord did indeed set up a covered smoking area. It was not large. It was a sort of tent, with seats inside sufficient for about four exiled souls. I never saw anybody sat inside it. A few months after it appeared, it abruptly vanished.
http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot...n-by-
frank.html
Is there any documentation showing that heavy advertisement of Non menthol cigs in African American communities, decreases smoking rates?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b...h?
v=bs4y5si8DGs
"where I come from, public health is about social justice..."
What Einstein said.
Public health is, or should be, or used to be, about... public health. "Social justice" is a squishy and entirely political term and usually used by the likes of Al Sharpton as code for something like Screw Whitey and a Robin Hood mentality. It's a highly subjective idea of "justice' that has nothing to do with equality of either dignity or opportunity or equality before the law, or, in economic terms, with reasonable safety nets, but instead condones a forceable taking from the Haves, which leads to nothing but an equality of misery that parades as "justice." But at least you're correct in that BOTH terms have now become equally squishy.
The extra joke is that in this particular context what you seem to be advocating as "social justice" is indeed the aforementioned equality of misery. After all, if we're going to make white smokers miserable, "social justice" demands that we do the same to blacks.
And, just to make it clear, I don't believe the hypothesis that premises your statement, i.e., that menthol is a racial trait.
:
I dunno... but I never (from childhood to now) equated menthol with candy. And that includes peppermint and spearmint and the like. Those were always a taste for the "older" folk. Any kid that did like them were of the nerd variety. And the examples Dr. Siegel gives are a mix -- menthol AND honey, menthol AND cherry. I'd say the candy part had nothing to do with the menthol and that the menthol in them just gave the candy flavor a certain different "kick" that some kids might find interesting.
And actually, having never even heard of any mentholated candy flavors I took a look at the examples Dr. Siegel provided. They're not candy, they're cough drops! The menthol is the prime medicinal ingredient (to open up breathing and soothe throats)and the candy flavor is just to make it taste better! AHA! This illustrates perfectly that menthol is disliked and needs to be covered up.
Forgetting the point of the CTFK's hypocrisy in the flavor ban by the FDA... historically all antis have asserted that menthol is a "kiddy" (aka candy) flavor. I've alwayyyyys felt that was complete b.s.
Ooooh, applause Walt.
A very good piece Sheri
I feel like that about the smoking signs,by law they are plastered all over the country often in unnecessary places deliberately to make you feel unwelcome everywhere you go in your own country.
So I simply don't go anywhere any more unless its absolutely necessary.
Still, looking on the upside, its given me lots and lots of time to study, something that I should have done years ago.
Flavour ban, day late and a dollar short?
I've got few problems with this flavour ban. First of all. Camel came out with those nice flavoured cigarettes a few years back. Izmarie stingers, Crema and the like. I loved them. The problem is this. After a few years I COULD NO LONGER FIND THEM. Ya, even a store next to where I worked, that had sold them previously, said they didn't have them when I asked for some a few months later. And this was years ago. I never see flavoured cigarettes in any of my local gas stations. They may be available at speciality smoke shops but they're the least likely to sell to minors as the agencies that enforce regulations hit them the most often. Also, kids don't stand in front of smoke shops asking you to buy them cigarettes because the traffic in and out isn't high enough. They stand in front of gas stations and, as I've already established, they don't seem to sell flavoured smokes any more.
The second problem I have with this is name recognition. Kids don't ask you to buy them obscure brands. They ask for Camel wides or Marb reds. Either that or whatever is cheapest. As for name brand, Camel quit producing theirs in like '06.
The "whatever is cheapest", this includes most kids who are just starting to smoke, leads me into another problem I have with this. The flavoured were always a lot more (saw them from .50 to 1.00 more then regular) than regular brands smokes. Kids just never seemed willing to spend that kind of money in the first place.
My final problem with this is including cloves. Other than real goth kids, with makes up about .01% of the population, what kids have heard about, let alone would enjoy, clove cigarettes? This is further compounded by the price issue. I'm not aware of a single clove cigarette that's produced in the US. Being imported, they're all at least 1.00 more than their regular name brand counter parts.
Do you people in TC put any thought into where you put your efforts?
O ya, of all the flavoured cigarettes I've seen, past and present, the amount of menthol cigarettes sold in the next week will amount to probably 99.9% of all flavoured cigarettes ever sold, when you exclude the menthols previously sold, so what is really the point of this?
So what is the result of so many medical institutions continually wrapping themselves in lies and half truths and so few of them interested in protecting a human right to full disclosures?
First of all it redevelops the school systems and course materials and the next generation of graduate experts are less than they could be. The downward spiral continues into disaster.
Secondarily we see a new opportunity for the competition in hucksterville, with a flood of infomercial bound practitioners, relying on the new "enlightened" public health reputation, coming forward with alternatives which afford themselves value by claims that they stand aside of traditional medicine. TC and other Public Health groups who replicate the TC propaganda action plan, are like the wet dream come true for the sellers of the new and improved, four dollar a month variety of do it yourself medicine.
http://w3.newsmax.com/blaylock/9...omo_code=29F5-
1
That is because in the United States of America, the age of majority is 18. The only discrepancy with this standard is the drinking age which is still improperly set at 21. Ryan
I'm in full agreement, however if you put your brain in 'anti' mode - why wouldn't you construct the 'save the family/children FDA bill' to raise the purchase and possession rate to 21? The whole bill is peppered with figurative bodies of dead children.
TC has no problem in rough-shodding private property rights, why the complete dismissal of age 21?
There is only a couple of sentences in the bill that states the gov't must create a department within 5 years to 'look at the effects of age 21'
The effect of raising the age would be that it would be illegal for anyone under 21 to smoke. Why that's the way to cut legal underage smoking!
Why didn't they do it? More importantly, why doesn't the Doctor push for it instead of this Menthol-crazed crusade?
Why hasn't Tobacco Control, that has been slashing and burning the Constitution for the 'greater good', not taken this simple right away of those under 21? How many of their studies say most smokers start before age 21?
I believe they are protecting their tax base, therefore they are hypocrites in their quest for a tobacco free world. A tobacco free world is a word free of Tobacco Control personnel.
Once TC stripped property rights they lost a revenue stream in their prevention activities and fees - it shifted to law enforcement. What would they lose in age 21? Why wasn't it raised 'to protect the children'?
"I feel like that about the smoking signs,by law they are plastered all over the country often in unnecessary places"
Last fall, I attended a memorial service inside a mausoleum. There were NO SMOKING signs in there, and I could just not shake the irony of that.
Sheri,
Didn't you know that we can't have that third hand smoke in the clothing of the deceased for all eternity? ;o)
Sheri
DEANS of the English cathedrals have accepted “with great reluctance and under protest” the advice that they should conform with the smoke-free signage law which comes into force on Sunday, .
All signs must read: “No smoking. It is against the law to smoke in these premises”. They must be A5-sized, and display the no-smoking symbol at least 70 mm in diameter. Places of worship and church and parish halls will have to display the sign in a prominent position at every entrance.
York Minster reported no difficulty: a spokeswoman said it had glass doors where a notice could be placed. Anni Holden, speaking for Hereford diocese, said that, despite concerns, the churches there would be conforming.
They are less compliant in parts of Suffolk. “Anyone trying to put up a notice on a medieval church would need a faculty to do so, and wouldn’t be granted one,” said a spokesman for the diocese of St Edmundsbury & Ipswich on Tuesday." http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/con...nt.asp?
id=41230
Holy smoke: Tongue-in-cheek blessing for ‘unsightly’ sign
"A VICAR blessed his church's new No Smoking sign in a "protest against excessive bureaucracy".
Canon David Garlick, the vicar of St Mary's Church in Lewisham High Street, led a procession to bless the sign on the church door at the start of a 10am mass.
The sign, described by Canon Garlick as "unsightly", is now required by law at the entrance to all churches following the smoking ban introduced on July 1.
Canon Garlick says the blessing with incense and holy water was made to mock the law and because all new items in churches must be blessed"
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/new...sign/?
act=login
"The Bishop of Fulham describes the new rules as "stark, staring mad," and the Dean of Southwark, the Very Rev Colin Slee, says the legislation is "daft"." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magaz...ine/
6700117.stm
The Church people did try, one vicar walked into a police station and lit his pipe, in hopes of being the first to be prosecuted.
But the Police wouldn't do it.
"A PART of the smoking ban which could see people who work from home having to put up no smoking' signs has been branded as "the nanny state gone mad" by a local politician.
Sandy, who also uses the office, said: "I don't want to put up a No Smoking sign in my own house - it is a listed building and we are not required to put up signs saying no murder', or instructions not to commit any other crimes."
http://www.stalbansreview.co.uk/...ain&
cid=5513315
Britain's Queen Elizabeth has been reluctant to conform to the country's new smoking ban.
A smoking ban came into effect in all public places in England on Sunday (01.07.07), including her majesty's official Buckingham Palace residence.
Although Elizabeth has consented to putting up no-smoking signs in the public areas of the palace she has made it clear to courtiers she would have preferred to continue offering ash trays to visitors and allow them to indulge in their habit
A palace source said: "Her majesty is a confirmed non-smoker but she is also a great libertarian and has no time for political correctness.
"She has agreed to comply, but can't bear the government meddling with every aspect of an individual's life. She always made cigarettes available to her guests"
http://www.exposay.com/queen-eli...ng-ban/v/11871/
I feel like we have been invaded, we just don't do this sort of thing.
Speaking of signs....
Public Opinion Sought For Graphic Anti-Smoking Measure
The new Health Code amendment would require tobacco retailers to put graphic warnings in their stores
http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-
an...0,4800425.story
Excerpt: "...require the city's 12,000 tobacco retailers to display these large "point-of-sale warnings and cessations messages" at eye-level wherever tobacco products are displayed and at the point of purchase is made, such as a cash register. It is also described as the first regulation of its kind in the nation."
So not only7 is government trying to regulate if smoking is allowed in your business...now they will tell you where and how to display your wares... as well as more signage required to feed the anti-smoking rhetoric!!!
The world has gone mad...for our own good!!! Ruth
This blog is ridiculous - your nothing more than a consipiracy theorist with whining overtones. I work for a big bad tobacco company and can tell you that everything you insinuate is totally false. We actively try and keep our advertisements away from children. We elect not to advertise in magazines because someone who isn't of age to buy tobacco could buy them. It makes us less competitive but we accept that's the price we must pay to align with society's opinion of smokings place within it. There are people however who want to be communicated to about tobacco products - and we do that only through channels that have immense amounts of age verification infrastructure in place.
With regard to the FDA legislation - it does it fact have the power to cripple the industry. I'm astounded you think it does nothing to deter smoking (specifically youth). Half of the cigarette pack will now have a huge warning...HALF on both sides! Tobacco ads will no longer have color or graphics. Yes that's correct - they will be going back in time and contain nothing but black and white text....text.
The menthol issue is a tricky one. If you read the text of the legislation (which you probably didn't) it says the FDA retains the power to ban menthol flavorings. The FDA has already set forward a plan to conduct much more research on menthol prior to an outright ban - which seems pretty resonable to me. The unresonable action would be for the government to ban a substantial part of a large industry - for some reason I don't think it would prudent for our government to ban the "Diet" segment of the soft drink industry because it contains aspartane which has been linked to cancer.
Finally, I think it merits saying smoking is dangerous and everyone knows it. No government regulation will stop people from smoking and other people starting to smoke. Education and personal responsibility are the greatest tools to fight any problem.
You are a racist and an imbecile.
To anonymous and Kyle, When one believes that a company seeks to kill their clientele and addict the nation's children for money...it takes a heavy duty "desensitization" program to let the conspiracy fade away. One rarely will gain insight into something believed to be true unless the lies become more, and more prominent.-Ruth
I guess I'll have to start stocking up on Djarum black for my wife, or maybe she'll just smoke regular cigarettes now. Way to go doc.
Anon, There are people however who want to be communicated to about tobacco products - and we do that only through channels that have immense amounts of age verification infrastructure in place.
The only advertising of new products I find are on Tobacco-Control websites.
***********
As to the graphic warnings on the packs, one poster on another site has a great idea - Since these packs are now essentially TC informational packets, they should be strewn about to educate the public - tossing them in the bin/garbage would be a waste of a valuable teaching moment.
''Education and personal responsibility are the greatest tools to fight any problem.''
Yup! Except that as far as education goes, public health has become so unethical and deceiving that there is noone left to be trusted with the education of the public. I am more tempted to believe more of what Big Tobacco has to say than public health. It is a sad sad state of affairs when the public is caught between the hammer and the anvil in such a despicable way. And the very rare people that some of us would be tempted to trust and believe, persist in repeating the ''no safe level'', ''400,000 deaths'', ''4,000-10,000 chemicals/toxins'', ''causes'', ''siginficant risk'', mantra that makes it that all in all the only education one can trust is their own research and common sense.
Anonymous,
No what is ridiculous is putting the burden of regulating tobacco on an agency who does not even have the resources to control their primary function, food which we all need whereas tobacco mainly only affects those who voluntarily use the products. I can't find it now but I read that the FDA only inspects about 2% of the food which results in 1/3 of the population getting food poisoning in one form or another.
Incidence (annual) of Food poisoning: about 76 million cases annually in USA (NIDDK)
Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 3 or 27.94% or 76 million people in USA [about data]
Incidence extrapolations for USA for Food poisoning: 76,000,000 per year, 6,333,333 per month, 1,461,538 per week, 208,219 per day, 8,675 per hour, 144 per minute, 2 per second. Note: this extrapolation calculation uses the incidence statistic: about 76 million cases annually in USA (NIDDK)
Prevalance of Food poisoning: Although most foodborne infections are undiagnosed and unreported, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that every year about 76 million people in the United States become ill from pathogens in food. Of these, up to 5,000 die. (Source: excerpt from Bacteria and Foodborne Illness: NIDDK) ... An estimated 76 million cases of foodborne disease occur each year in the United States. (Source: excerpt from Foodborne Infections General: DBMD) ... Estimated to cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,200 deaths in the United States each year. (Source: excerpt from Foodborne Infections: DBMD)
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/...oning/
stats.htm
OT
This disturbing.
Lung cancer in nonsmokers
Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer:
qualitative study
"Doctors as well as friends and family seemed to assume that a patient’s lung cancer was caused by smoking even if he or she had stopped smoking years ago or never smoked.
One man, despite never smoking, recalled negative attitudes at the hospital when he had his operation:
I think cancer does have a stigma attached to it. . . I think all lung cancer patients are stigmatised because of smoking. . . When I went to see an oncologist for further treatments because I’d had an operation and I’d had half of my left lung removed, I asked them what he thought had caused it and he just laughed and said,
“That’s obvious, through smoking.”
And my wife who was with me at the time, and we’ve been together since we were 14, she just said, “Well he’s never smoked.” So right away what annoyed me as well as that, on my medical records I’m classed as a smoker and every time I ever went for review after that they would ask me, “Are you still smoking?” because that’s down there. And no matter how I told them, I’d say, “Look I don’t want that on there, I never smoked,”
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/328/7454/
1470
Los Angeles
Equality and better treatment sought for lung cancer patients
"Yet even for those with lung cancer who have never smoked, the condition comes with a negative stereotype. They often are asked, "Did you smoke?"
It's a perception health advocates say needs to be shattered. Why, they ask, should state or federal funding toward the detection and treatment of lung cancer be any different than, say, for illnesses associated with obesity, alcoholism or other kinds of cancer?
"We have to get to the point of saying it doesn't matter," said Kim Norris, a Los Angeles resident who founded the Lung Cancer Foundation of America.
The foundation's goal is to raise enough funds to lead to lung cancer research and treatment. The five-year survival rates for all stages of lung cancer haven't changed in decades, a result of little progress toward finding better treatments, Norris said.
Norris and others note that research for lung cancer treatment remains "under-funded, under-researched and under-reported," because government funders view it as the "the black sheep" of cancers.
"Efforts to study the disease in never-smokers have been limited, and no screening tests or approaches for identifying individuals at increased risk are available today," Dr. Samir Hanash, M.D., Ph.D., of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, said in a statement. "This inability to recognize nonsmokers who are at risk often leads to delays in diagnosis and results in cancer identification at an advanced stage."
As many as 25 percent of all lung cancers worldwide - 15 percent of those in men and 50 percent of those in women - are not attributable to smoking.
http://www.dailynews.com/lalife/...ife/
ci_12680005
Los Angeles
Dr. Murray Jarvik, 1923-2008: He helped invent nicotine patch
"The ironic twist is that he never smoked a day in his life. He was one of the most rabid anti-smokers you can imagine," Jarvik said
"He also battled lung cancer about 15 years ago, probably due to "bad genetics" or inhaling the air in Los Angeles. Doctors caught the disease early enough that he quickly recovered and literally went from his hospital bed to attending his son's wedding, Jeffrey Jarvik said."
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/
3...1_jarvik12.html
From older research on air pollution -
Diesel fumes from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are elevating the risk of cancer not only adjacent to the ports but many miles inland, a new study shows.
It is the first state study that shows that air pollution from the ports is increasing cancer risk in the Los Angeles Basin, said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which released a draft of the study Tuesday.
The study concludes that potential cancer risk from port-related diesel fumes exceeds 50 additional cases of cancer per million people for residents within 15 miles of the two ports.
Two million people live within the study area, which includes southern Los Angeles County and western Orange County."
"Earlier research had found that diesel fumes accounted for 71% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in the Los Angeles region."
"One surprise in the study is that pollution from within the two ports extends so far inland, Ospital said."
http://articles.latimes.com/2005...5/local/me-
air4
AMERICAN GROUND TRANSPORT
1974
"Thirty-five years ago Los Angeles was a beautiful city of lush palm trees, fragrant orange groves and ocean-clean air. It was served then b the world’s largest electric railway network.
In the late 1930’s General Motors and allied highway interests acquired the local transit companies, scrapped their pollution-free electric trains, tore down their power transmission lines, ripped up their tracks, and placed GM buses on already congested Los Angeles streets.
The noisy, foul-smelling buses turned earlier patrons of the high-speed rail system away from public transit and, in effect, sold millions of private automobiles.
Largely as a result, this city is today an ecological wasteland: the palm trees are dying of petrochemical smog; the orange groves have been paved over by 300 miles of freeways; the air is a septic tank into which 4 million cars, half of them built by General Motors, pump 13,000 tons of pollutants daily. Furthermore, a shortage of motor vehicle fuel and an absence of adequate public transport now threatens to disrupt the entire auto-dependent region."
http://www.worldcarfree.net/reso...es/
American.htm
Anonymous,
I appreciate your sharing your perspective. I simply don't think that the warning labels will be as effective as you suggest. After a short period of adjustment, smokers will go right back to ignoring the warnings. And the bulk of the advertising restrictions will, I believe, be overturned by the Supreme Court. I honestly believe that the ramifications of this legislation in terms of its effects on youth smoking have been exaggerated. Only time will tell. But I do want to say that I agree with your final point about education being the real way to reduce youth smoking, and that legislation can't really do it.
No more blunts im guessing, I dont smoke that nasty flavored tobacco but I do like rolling up a nice blunt to smoke, cant do that with a honey dutch anymore
Commenting by HaloScan
