Doc,
When one begins to think about what the 1998 Tobacco Settlement was really all about, that could be the date that the war on smoking became a war on smokers.
To boil it down, 46 states alleged that tobacco companies had caused medicaid to spend about 200+ billion more over the previous 50 years, than would have otherwise been spent, and even though states were mostly reimbursed by the US Govt for these expenses, the states decided to sue the tobacco companies, despite all the tax paying jobs, sales taxes, and excise taxes they had recieved over those 50 years.
And who ends up paying the bill? THE SMOKERS. ..who if all the claims are true, were the ones who suffered the most from these allegations.
Worse, those states' attorneys general were representing states comprised of about 25% smokers, and personally, I think engaged in malepractice because so much of the population they were representing, and this includes spouses of smokers who indirectly bear the cost too, acted contrary to the interests of their clients.
I have always felt that it is as illegal as sin to agree that a third innocent party should pay these claims, and really, the tobacco companies just act as the collectors of the debt.
It's also taxation without representation, since smokers were not represented at the bargaining table, and the payments are collected just like any actually legal tobacco tax. This is especially true, when one considers that nonparticipating manufacturers, who were not even in in business over most of that 50 years, and thus did not contribute to the alleged loss, have to pay into the settlement.
So, I'd add the Tobacco Settlement to your list of assults on smokers, along with other excessive excise taxes on tobacco products.
Dave K
Dr. Siegel, thanks for bringing up these questions!
Doctor, Obesity is a public health dilemma, I take offense at your calling them "fat people." Shame on you Doctor, for your use of such insensitive and unprofessional language.
Obesity is a public health dilemma, I take offense at your calling them "fat people."
Tedd, obesity is no more a public health dilemma than smoking is. When you take all their numbers and put them into the proper context against the entire population, the numbers are miniscule at best.
The dilemma/epidemic/serious hazard is nothing more than the creation of the same control-freak zealots that brought you prohibition in the early 20th century and are now trying this new back-door method. They want everyone living as they do, using the same set of standards, and individual desires/choices be damned. The only choices you will be left with will be theirs.
And why take offense at the term "fat people"? Are they not people? Are they not fat? Does the term hit a little too close to home for you? Doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end of the bigotry, does it?
Do you take offense at smokers being labeled child abusers and murderers? I didn't think so. That makes you a hypocrite. You cannot be free as long as someone else isn't. Freedom is only true when ALL are free.
Political correctness is nothing more than censorship. If you are obese you ARE in fact FAT, not just overweight, but fat. Get over it.
What offends me the most are the lies being used to spread this kind of hatred. It's a cancer that is worse than any other kind. And it's a cancer that so many of the brainwashed are actually accepting into their lives. THERE's the real dilemma!
Did you all know that the "war on drugs" began the same way as the first prohibition? The same way the "war on smoking/smokers" is going? My roommate is doing a history on the drug war (though she's not sure why she feels compelled to) and she was appalled to see that this war against smokers is going the same way. I'll post the link when she's done....if nothing else it will give us a clear picture as to where this is leading (though I think we all know already).
So Tedd, take offense all you want....just remember that the next time you find yourself agreeing with the TC zealots....The fat zealots are just around the corner, followed by every other special interest zealot out there.
Doctor Siegel, - "Would the Cancer Society also say that this individual is a poor role model for children?"
Rhetorical question?
Of course they would, and will if it hasn't happened (in print) already.
If it means more money from the government, or their Pharmaceutical Industry benefactors for the "war" effort, then yes I don't believe there can be any doubt. Whatever it takes "to help" these poor misguided souls is the mantra engrained into the Anti-psyche.
"For public health practitioners, the answer is clearly no. For physicians, the answer is also no. For bigots, the answer is yes."
Unfortunately, ....you're wrong as these groups have become almost completely indistinguishable from one another.
"Not the least important of these is that it makes it much less likely that these people are going to want to quit smoking."
I now smoke out of PURE SPITE, which means I enjoy it even more. Thanks for that! Badge of Honor?, ...you bet'cha. SHS smells like Freedom to me, and I KNOW I'm not alone in that particular sentiment.
"People who are stigmatized may internalize society's hateful feelings, resulting in emotional stress and turmoil and a number of adverse health consequences."
I don't internalize the hatefulness.
I shrugg it off as sheer stupidity.
I feel sympathy for a public that's clearly too stupid, or too thoroughly indoctrinated into the sound-byte culture we live in to look up from their Sugar soaked, NIACIN enriched breakfast cereal and notice those shadowy corporate figures stealing their civil liberty right out from under them. It's pathetic.
"We do not refuse to treat smokers or to allow smokers to enjoy privileges and advantages that other members of society enjoy simply on the basis of their having chosen to smoke, unless there are direct medical contraindications."
Unless you are ELECTED, you (Physicians or "public health") to make decisions (AND LAW) on my behalf, I don't give a rats ass about what you will or won't "ALLOW" me to do.
GET A GRIP! Who do you think you are?
This is one of the biggest problems with "Public health". I don't want, need, nor asked for your special brand of "help", and the fact that you think you are somehow in a position of authority over how people CHOOSE to live their lives simply by virtue of possessing a medical degree is a disgusting example of the severe megalomania that permeates your chosen profession.
Smokers are not the problem,..Health-Scare is.
LB
5 minutes ago I was just reading something similar.
"For the anti-Nazi youth movements--the working class Edelweiss Pirates and the bourgeois Hamburg Swing Youth alike--the constant cigarette seems to have been almost a badge of resistance" http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...ll/310/6976/
396
I think it's time I hang up my Anti-Tobacco hat. To have watched and seen all the crap that has been going on with this issue, just shows me how irrelevant an issue it is. Being the former Winstonman, I can assure you that what happens behind closed doors with not only the tobacco industry and our government is real. I can assure you that not one penny of mine will ever be donated to the American Cancer Society, the Lung Association or Heart Association. The Anti-tobacco, so-called experts are even worse than the tobacco industry. At least with Big Tobacco, you have an idea of what you are dealing with. With the lies, the thievery of tobacco funds, and misleading information being put forth to the general population, it's no wonder nobody really gives a crap, including the media. The botton line is nobody really cares about this issue any more, and I for one do not wish to be guilty by association. The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is "bogus", the Office on Smoking and Health is an
absurdity, ASH, CDC, NCI, and any other organization which has stood by and done virtually nothing should be ashamed of themselves. I'm embarrassed to say that for 18 years, I thought I was fighting the "good fight", and boy was I snowed by almost everyone, when they told me they cared. In my opinion they don't care ( and that includes the media). So, if there is anyone who remembers the Winston Man who came to your school and told you what the tobacco industry was capable of doing to get kids hooked, let me apologize for being a part of something that I thought was going to hopefully, be a part of the solution. It looks as though these organizations just want their $ cut, they just want their egoes stroked, and they love to hear themselves talk. I 'm sure they don't care about the truth, nor do they know how to fix the problem. Working with the so-called anti-tobacco movement is like living in a foreign country where nobody speaks English. Everyone is perplexed and confused, but not surprisingly making a "good living" doing it. The anti-tobacco movement is constipated and needs an enema. The anti-tobacco movement flows with the fluid grace of a midtown traffic jam. I can't deal with it anymore and I guess you can't go to war with the Army you got. I thought that being right would always prevail. I guess that's alot BS too. Upon reading this back, it sounds negative and whiny. I know what is going on with both sides and I'm not sure who is more evil any longer.
Dave G.
Dave G., I am not sure exactly what your beef is with the antitobacco movement. What SHOULD they be doing to fight tobacco use? Is your frustration based on the lack of results of the movement, or what?
I think that it is time to return the tobacco control movement to being an anti-smoking movement, rather than an anti-smoker movement.
No, Dr. Siegel it is time you packed up your bags and shut the door on the entire concept. It is too late to salvage anything "good" you may have thought you were doing when you and the rest of the cultists embarked upon this crusade.
What you are finally awakening to about your "movement's" direction has been clear for many of us for many years. Dave K. makes salient points in regard to the '98 MSA being the turning point, although it had started prior to that.
In 1992 I was told point blank, by a state senator no less, that smokers have NO rights. By 2002 he had changed his tune and realized just how wrong he was in that statement, but by then it was too little and far too late. The fearmongers of the anti-smoker movement had convinced far too many people that his was not only the correct position, but the ONLY position one could have in regard to smokers and supporters of smokers.
Y'all have done far too much damage and this little blog posting, just like the senator's change, is far too little and far too late.
The anti-smoker cartel needs to be disbanded and sent to the ash heap, never to be heard from again. And they need to take their anti-fat, anti-alcohol, and anti-gun brethren with them.
"Working with the so-called anti-tobacco movement is like living in a foreign country where nobody speaks English. Everyone is perplexed and confused, but not surprisingly making a "good living" doing it. The anti-tobacco movement is constipated" On Edge,perhaps you have fallen off ?,i would suggest that you re-read the main article and then Dave G's comments again.It is rather self explanatory i would have thought,if you wish to understand of course ?
Lynda, in medical terms obesity is a disease. Calling people with the disease "fat people" isn't how I would expect a medical doctor to refer to someone who is overweight in his publications. I do find it offensive.
Tedd, there is a difference between someone being fat and someone being obese --- Dr. Siegel did not mention obesity, only you brought it up. I have to agree with Lynda and wonder if the Doc's use of the term "fat people" hit just a little bit too close to home for you.
I would hazzard a guess Dr Siegel that you see little need to take to the streets acting out a part as a smoker,in order to see and feel the very real hatred and denormalisation that is being promoted by TC .I still feel though that if you were to do so, as a practical experiment,the insight you would gain would be most valuable.How about it ?
" Lynda, in medical terms obesity is a disease." -- Tedd
Here's someone who believes as you do -- against those who do not:
"You report some doctors argue obesity should be seen exclusively as a social rather than a medical condition.
"As there is a causal link between obesity and 45 core morbidities, if it is not a disease, it is hard to know what is. It is the third most important risk factor in myocardial infarction (heart attack), the cause of 85 per cent of type 2 diabetes cases and linked to seven common cancers. The medical profession can't solve the problem itslf but it can play an important role in trying to reduce it alongside other partners.
"The modern environment fosters obesity. Physical activity has been managed out of people's lives. It is a crucial responsibility of national and local politicians to create safe routes where people can walk and places for children to play, as well as to put pressure on the food industry to manufacture more nutritious, less energy-dense products. It is an issue as important as climate change." -- Dr Colin Waine, chair, National Obesity Forum. Letter, the (London) Evening Standard, July 25th.
Physical activity has been "managed out of" people's lives. Managed? How so?
"It is a crucial responsibility of national and local politicians to create safe routes where people can walk and places for children to play." Does anyone really believe that all that will diminish the number of fat peoplem one iota? Besides, no playing tag on the playgrounds; children might hurt themselves.
But I especially like the "as important as climate change" bit. Because IF there really is a largely man-made climate change problem (and I know most people here think it's a fairy tale), then comparing that with obesity is completely and obviously fatuous.
As to Tedd. he/she is obviously one of those PC-addicted freaks, who shouldn't be heard in public. One of my favorites musicians is "Fats" Waller, who was, well, fat, and self-described as such. But that was in the sensible days before the politically correct brigades got hold of national morals. Which is perhaps where that excess began which ended in anti-smoking and anti-fat fanaticism.
.
Wonderful posts by all, from Dave K's to Lynda, from LigtheningBoy to Gabz. Great words from SuperCAllousSi to Benpal and Rose and may I welcome David Goerlitz? I hope to hear more from you and find out that you really did hang that hat up.
Still, I have this strange urge to beat Bill to the punch. Don't know why, guess it is my mood today. But, "isn't it just like Mike to defend a smoker"? Okay Bill, now come up with something original.
I think that Tobacco control and Big Tobacco are the same organism - the sum of a symbiosis that has developed quickly over a short period of time for mutual benefit. It sole aim is to use fear suck in as much public and private money as it can and it sucks very hard. It has front groups to make it appear that it is two different organisms but it is in fact only one.
Big Pharma + Big Tobacco = Big Tobacco Control
Tedd:
According to my copy of Chambers 21st Century Dictionary, the word 'Obese' means:
adj very or abnormally fat
It is derived from the Latin obesus, which means:
'plump or having eaten oneself fat'
Obese = fat. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Obesity is most categorically not a disease! What a ludicrous concept - and what an excuse for a self-indulgent porker to be able to blame factors other than his/her tendency to eat too much!
To the medical 'authorities', obesity is a simplistic concept, if your BMI is >30, you are deemed to be obese. Yet there are very many people (and I include myself) who have a BMI >30 and who are not fat - never mind 'diseased', (according to your definition).
If anyone called me 'fat', they would end up with an obese lip!
There is no shame on Dr Siegel for using the word 'fat'. In the context of the examples he used, he deliberately used it in a perjorative sense to convey a point. But I also believe it is more physiologically correct to talk about the elevated health risks to fat people, rather than the too simplistic and misleading 'numbers'-based WHO definition of obese.
Methinks, Tedd, you overly dramatic - in the politically correct sense, of course.
Anything you wish to declare?
.
'One of my favorites musicians is "Fats" Waller'
Harry, that would be "Obeses" Waller - shame on you for your use of such insensitive and unprofessional language!
Time for you to get with the program, old chap!
(Am I allowed to say 'old'?)
Harry,
A pic of Jackie Gleason portraying Walter Tevis's "Minnesota Fats" hangs on the wall behind my pool table.
I salute The Great One!
http://
www.classichollywoodbios....ckiegleason.htm
(of course we only shoot at home now.. well because.. you know...)
Oh Brian, excuse me... that would be "Minnstota Weight-Challengeds" -- (May I still say "The Great One"?)
I went to bed one night being moderately okay and the next morning I turned the news on and found out that the CDC had changed the BMI numbers and made me fat while I slept. Since then I could care less what I am considered. I am happy and that is all that matters. Time to break out my package of Vienna Fingers. I will polish that package off while I watch my favorite soap opera. Shame on you Doctor for getting me hooked. I always preferred Chocolate Chips Ahoy or those Fig Newton's.
on the edge. My problem with the anti-tobacco movement is that they can do so much more than argue among themselves. I helped begin the Anti tobacco movement as the new Golden Boy for the movement. I could not get away from telling my story. I testified in Congress and told them that the executives from r.j. reynolds told me the right to smoke was reserved for the "young, the poor, the black and the stupid". Everybody in journalism wanted to talk to me a I did. My story was exciting as a soundbite, but nobody wanted to do more. Itold my story to Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Sam Donaldson, Dan Rather, Harry Smith, Joan Lunden, Bill O'Reily, the Surgeon General, Hillary Clinton, and Attorney Generals, Governors, the CDC, and all the other so-called non profits who at the time said they wanted to do something to stop the marketing to kids and help those who want to quit. I traveled to 7 countries and have spoken to over 6 million kids in schools, promising that I would not stop until I helped raise the level of awareness on tobacco proportionate to the havoc that it wreaks in our society. I testified in 6 lawsuits prior to the master tobacco settlement for the 4 states that got their $$$ before the other 46 states jumped on the bandwagon and now use their tobacco funds for almost everything except for what it was intended. re; road repair, waterfront restoration, balancing the budgets, higher salaries. Granted acouple of states were actuallly making progress, before the state legislators stole the money and put it in the general fund. The facts seem endless to what the United "diffeent " states of America did with their portion. Many states even went so far as to reinvest their portion of tobacco monies back into tobbacco stocks. It's time for the truth to be told and Dr. Mike is not far off the track. I don't agree with everything he says,but by golly, he is alot closer than what some of the anti-tobacco people are saying. We are not making progress the way we should be. The attorney generals who screamed to get their hands on some of the tobacco monies to stop the next generation from becoming addicted are laughing all the way to the bank. Mississippi, the one state that started this awareness has lost most of its tobacco money because Gov. Haley Barbour came into office and shut down the programs that were helping. Gov. Haley B. was also a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Hundreds of stories directly link the anti-tobacco movement and the tobacco industry in bed with each other. The media knows it, and can't discuss it because there is too much pressure from its advertisers. re: companies owned by the toacco industry. Several thousand companies that are owned by the Tobacco companies are in the drivers seats. (similar to the movie, :The Insider". This is not a conspiracy theory or negative thinking or sour grapes. JUST FACTS.
Before you bloggers start whining about someone who is trying to do something for the movement and help to get the truth out, you should get your facts together. I have never met Dr. Mike, but I have to say alot of what he says makes me a "kindred spirit". The Anti-tobacco movement has failed miserably and I'm sorry that we could not do more. Arguing is not the answer, backstabbing is not the answer. Honest communication with those in charge of these funds is the best way to continue this dialogue. I don't see that happening. Too many egoes are in play and I've seen too much with my own eyes over the last 18 years or so. Kids know that tobacco kills,...they just don't know why we the grownups have not done more. The statistics that you hear being talked about, that the movement is making progress and winning the war is the farthest thing from the truth. Little progress is being made, but not the way it coud/should be. Can you believe we still have 20 some states arguing whether the right to smoke is more important than the rights of a child with asthma or breathing problems. The right of smokers is more important than that of a pregnant woman. The right of non-smokers is only trivial and not really a problem. When the smoker becomes the problem, then I'll shut up. The problem is not the smoker...the addicted, but the attitude we all have. This attitude starts at the top...I don't think I've heard G.W. Bush mention our nations #1 cause of premature death and disease EVER. I have heard politicians proclaim their belief that kids should not be targeted and/or marketed and they still are.
I wonder how many fines have been levied against the stores selling tobacco illegally. (a couple???)
My frustration is that everyone seems to know all this , but is not willing to stand up to Big Brother and tell them to get their act togethr. It seems the only people who are winning is the tobacco industry, the state governments, the lawyers and organizations including the non-profits who are recieving the windfall payments over the next 15 or 16 years. (the time left in the settlement payoffs). You have not heard from me before this, because I guess I was hopeful that just maybe I could reach someone who could help me make a difference w/o making this a he said/she said fight.
So far it has not happened...Only a couple people I've met who are willing to walk the walk and talk the talk. The rest are just talking from a different part of their anantomy. Dave G. Maybe I'll go on Youtube!!!!!!!!! Maybe our country is tired of Brittany for a day or two.
Mike wrote:
"it strikes me as odd that we would be declaring war against smokers"
In order to elevate the deadliest drug addiction into a protected civil right cigarette companies (more than two decades ago) created the myth of a "war against smokers" in order to falsely portray smokers as being victimized by health advocates and employers, and in order to portray cigarette companies (whose products addict and kills smokers) as advocates of smokers.
Amazingly, Mike Siegel repeats the PR and silly arguments that the public has soundly rejected ever since the cigarette companies made those same absurd self serving claims.
If Mike was truly concerned about unfair treatment of drug users and addicts, he would criticize drug prohibition policies that have resulted in the incarceration of millions of Americans.
Instead, Mike has defended draconian policies against users and addicts of prohibited substances, while grossly distorting the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking.
I think until TC agrees to sit down and talk with a real living, breathing smoker they will never change their ways. They do not see us as real human beings, just their computer generated numbers. When you've created a non-human it becomes very easy to hate. It becomes easy to say anything and everything bad you can possibly think of. They have been at this for so long that we have become nothing more than the ciggerette we are smoking. For this reason, that is how they can keep coming up with all these stupid claims.
And for this reason Dr Siegel is different. He may not see the real faces but he does see that we are real people. That is why I read his blog.
So if TC could just try talking to us, to see how they are affecting real human beings, it will only get worse. Of course I don't see it happening since they can't even stand the smell of us. That seems to be complaint #1 for them.
Of course we could offer nose plugs for them.
Dr. Siegel: “The tobacco control movement is increasingly violating this tenet of public health practice, and in my opinion, crossing the line from public health to bigotry”.
The Campaign for Tobacco Industry De-normalization sent a letter to Canada’s Minister of Health in November, 2004, soliciting support for a campaign to de-normalize smoking. They secured both the Minister’s support and hundreds of millions of dollar to wage their war on smokers.
The de-normalization campaign has radically altered the public perception of smoking and smokers. Smoking has been transformed from an unhealthy activity which harmed no one but the smoker into a deviant behaviour, practiced only by nicotine addicted abnormal slobs to be ostracized by polite society.
The blatant discrimination you point out in your article, the gross exaggerations and distortions of science you have exposed over the past few years and the constant escalating threat of even more draconian bans are deliberate strategies intended to demoralize smokers and coerce them into quitting.
Readers of this blog have been trying to point out these despicable, end-justifies-the-means tactics for some time.
I honestly don’t mean to offend Doc, but I haven’t been able to make up my mind whether your reluctance to see the tobacco control movement for what it’s become is the result of misguided loyalty or if you’re simply thick-headed.
At any rate, it’s encouraging to see you’re finally willing to give some honest consideration to our side of the story. Hopefully some of your colleagues in tobacco control will find the moral courage to do the same.
......while grossly distorting the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking.
Bill Godshall | 07.28.08 - 1:10 pm | #
I keep telling you, you've missed your calling as a standup comic. There is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, reasonable, responsible, or civilized about ANYTHING you promote against smokers.
You promote hatred and bigotry with every post you make and every soundbite you utter. I can take a shower to remove the odor of sweat from earning an honest living, you can not cleanse yourself of the bigotry and hatred that is bonedeep in you and your kind and the stench of it will never leave you.
And I suppose Bill will (attempt) to again explain how de facto tobacco prohibition will fare any better than the equally stupid war on drugs (or prostitution--hell even I agree with you on some issues).
Instead, Mike has defended draconian policies against users and addicts of prohibited substances, while grossly distorting the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking.
So, we should legalize drugs (fair enough) but prohibit tobacco? That solves what, Bill? Don't try your barnyard lawyer talk--it's clear you despise smokers and are aiming at de facto prohibition.
My bad--first one didn't post so I wrote another one.
Bill Godshall wrote: “Instead, Mike has defended draconian policies against users and addicts of prohibited substances, while grossly distorting the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking”.
Blatant discrimination which deprives people of the means to earn a living, the ability to provide a proper home for their loved ones or which limits access to proper medical care is not reasonable; it adversely impacts not only the victim, but his/her family as well.
Deliberate distortions of science for any reason is not responsible; it reduces the public trust in those institutions on which people rely for accurate, unbiased information to make informed decisions on their personal health related behaviours.
Sowing the seeds of fear and hatred is not civilized; it is a moral abomination, no matter how you perceive your God.
And, finally, it is no longer permissible to shoot the messenger simply because you take umbrage with the message.
Amazingly, Mike Siegel repeats the PR and silly arguments that the public has soundly rejected ever since the cigarette companies made those same absurd self serving claims.
Bill Godshall
If the arguments you're referring to are really so silly and have been soundly rejected by the public, why do we need so many anti smoking laws and why do we so many anti smoking groups exits? You know as well as anyone that the freedom of choice and individual rights arguments supersede the vast majority of illogical and hyperbolic arguments disseminated by the anti smoking movement today. The public is not buying the anti smoking movement's arguments and hasn't for some time, and that's why your group's rhetoric has gotten much more hostile and aggressive recently, and that's why your group has to "change" minds through the legislative and judicial branches of government. Heaven forbid you put all the information out there with honesty and integrity and simply let the people decide if they want to smoke or frequent a place that allows smoking. You might actually know for sure what arguments the public thinks are silly, and you might not like the answer.
WLC wrote:
"So, we should legalize drugs (fair enough) but prohibit tobacco? That solves what, Bill? Don't try your barnyard lawyer talk--it's clear you despise smokers and are aiming at de facto prohibition."
I have consistently opposed prohibition of tobacco products for several decades, and will continue doing so.
Fleawarhol wrote:
"The public is not buying the anti smoking movement's arguments and hasn't for some time"
In fact, public support for smokefree workplace laws and cigarette tax hikes has increased during the past several decades.
Godshall, - "the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking"
What planet are you living on?
REASONABLE!?
FORCING me to deliberately neglect the client base that frequented my business and actually made it profitable just so you can claim you made a difference?
RESPONSIBLE!?
FORCING me to raise prices, lay off employees, and reduce hours of operation in order to keep the business open, just so you can claim fewer people are exposed to SHS when they already had that option all along?
CIVILIZED!!?
Forcing my aforementioned client base that still bothers to frequent my establishment at all to "simply step outside" in any and every kind of weather and into "shelters" that don't offer the same protection to people that is REQUIRED under Ohio law for the ethical and humane treatment of animals!
You really ARE delusional.
How many ways can I keep explaining it to you? Maybe if I write in crayon you would begin to comprehend.
You (even though you are banned) are never, was never, will never be under any obligation to set foot inside my business. It's that simple.
You're not "offering" help, you're dictating your personal preference onto the rest of society.
Get over yourself already.
Don't get me wrong, I know the food is excellent, but you'll just have to live with the fact that you're not welcomed there....ever. Forcing me to adopt your preference over my own just means that you are incapable of thinking for yourself and can't understand why everyone else would want that choice.
You can't possibly be as dense as you protray yourself to be.
Bill,
As I said, de facto (not de jure) prohibition: "...while grossly distorting the far more reasonable, responsible and civilized policies that reduce cigarette smoking."
What part of Doc's post do you not understand? You have defended most, if not all, of those bigoted policies he outlined.
Did anyone else catch the significance of the "Ex Winston Man" and his posting?
"I told my story to [a long list of people] who at the time said they wanted to do something to stop the marketing to kids and help those who want to quit."
You've done all that, David.
I mean seriously, what could possibly be construed these days as "marketing to kids"? The two most powerful media - TV and radio - are completely closed to tobacco advertising and have been for decades. Print media is declining in importance but no major newspaper has accepted tobacco advertising for years. What's left?
Actors smoking in movies who aren't portrayed as bad guys? Point of sale placards? Direct mail? Sheesh.
And as far as "help those who want to quit" what - with nicotine replacement therapy? Ask John Polito how well that works. But with as many former smokers as current smokers in the US, can't you say you've done that by now?
Now, we get policies that are directed to force those who don't want to quit, to quit.
But it really does show that what you are saying is true - anti-tobacco is now nothing more than a group of institutionalized, self-serving ideologues who have nothing left to justify their own existence except perpetually escalating hysterics so they can keep turning the ratchet on their targets.
But eventually, you turn the ratchet one click too far, and it breaks. Anti-tobacco should have learned this lesson in the 1900's. And again in the 1930's. But they seem bound and determined to learn it again in the 2000's...
and all this, and our adult smoking rate is only down three percentage points since 1990. dave G's right, and I'm impressed.
yet Bill G ignores the fact that all these attacks on smokers have done little , if not nothing to reduce smoking.
Dave -
Thanks so much for taking the time to add your helpful, unique, and heartfelt insights into these issues. You truly have a unique perspective to share in that you have to some extent worked on both "sides" of the issue. What it sounds like you've come to realize is that the line between "good" and "evil" is not so solid as we have been led to believe.
The tactics being used by anti-smoking groups these days are not better than those used by the tobacco companies for many years. As I have documented here, they are distorting the truth. The only difference: the tobacco companies have apologized for their behavior while the anti-smoking groups have yet to even admit that they are being dishonest.
The behavior of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids has to take the cake. They negotiated a bill with Philip Morris which creates a virtual cigarette monopoly, while hiding the fact that they negotiated with a tobacco company, and are now pushing the bill as one which ENDS special protections for Big Tobacco. As I said before, with enemies like TFK, the industry really doesn't need friends.
I see where Dave is coming from completely. The groups no longer seem to have any integrity or to be able to stick to any principle.
And I also agree that it is largely about money. My observations from the whole DOJ case confirmed this for me.
So thanks Dave, again, for adding your valuable insights. I really appreciate what you have added to this discussion and hope you know that your expertise is welcome here anytime.
Heh Morgan, You are close to catching my drift. But not quite there yet. My job was to get kids to smoke. Over 90 % of tobacco users start under 14. FACT. Do you know anyone who started to smoke after the crappiest years of their Life? Adolescense.(Like after 20? I WAS TOLD TO GET KIDS TO SMOKE. My job was not to get somebody who is having a bad day over 18 to start. I was TOLD to be a live version of a GI Joe action figure. I was told my market was teenagers, and still I took the job. I was as guilty as my employer and as greedy. For over 18 years I have been trying to make up for that big mistake. It is true that finally we stopped advertising on t.v. It's also true that we finally stopped using outhouses to relieve ourselves. Progress needs to be refined. If you are smart enough to know that kids start smoking and chewing, if you are smart enough to know that stores are looking the other way in most cases< ( It only costs 6 cents to make a pack of cigarettes...lots of profit for mom and pop shops, even more profit than a gallon of milk), If you are smart enough to know that the attitude with the majority of citizens who are too busy to know whats going on with their own kids and just write it off as an adolescent experience and if you are smart enough to know that if everyone thought like you did, that nicotine is as oaddictive as cocaine, it goes above and beyond what the tobacco companies expect from the mentality of our citizenry.They don't have to be on television or radio. All they have to do is keep putting the idea in the heads of alot our citizens that smoking is a right and not a health issue. I have never met a smoker who has claimed that they are glad they started using tobacco. I always hear that it is my right to kill myself if i so choose. I was one of them for a long time. What is so ironic is that smokers don't want government intervention on how to live their lives, but they sure don't mind if the government pays for it when they get cancer, heart disease or enphysema. Tobacco users can't have it both ways. Yes, I have I told a littany of persons my story, but it is the follow up that seems to suck. Some people reserve the " right to be stupid". I do not think you are one of them, but I do believe that you are closed minded with some people who must continue to make ammends that we adults some times make. It is no shame to admit mistakes when you are grown up, but too many people fight for their thoughts that may be illogical to others. Dave G.
Matt pondered: "I honestly don’t mean to offend Doc, but I haven’t been able to make up my mind whether your reluctance to see the tobacco control movement for what it’s become is the result of misguided loyalty or if you’re simply thick-headed."
No offense taken since it's hard to deny the truth.
I don't know that I would call it misguided loyalty, but there's no question that when one is part of a movement (and for so many years), one is going to be somewhat reluctant to see negative aspects of that movement. But I received a huge wake-up call (the whole episode where ANR admitted that its political credibility was more important than my scientific integrity) that jolted me out of that reluctance.
The thick-headed part of it I can't deny, but let's just say it's a good thing, because without a thicker head, all this banging my head against a wall would have knocked me out years ago.
Bill-
I don't deny that you are right about 20 years ago the tobacco industry ran public relations campaigns to scare people that there was a war on smokers.
The problem is that it's not 20 years ago - it's 2008, and in 2008, WE in tobacco control are working to deny employment to smokers, deny medical care to smokers, prevent smokers from adopting children, make smokers feel unwelcome at colleges and universities, etc. Not every anti-smoking group supports all of these policies, but I can assure you that very few, if any, speak out against them.
So what has actually happened is that we are proving the tobacco companies' initially ridiculous claims to be correct.
Yes, I agree with you than in the mid-1980s, when the tobacco companies were arguing that this was all about a war on smokers, they were full of crap at the time.
But little did we know, in 2008, it HAS, as I have shown, become a war on smokers. When you support policies to deny employment to smokers because they are smokers, that's a war on smokers.
When you deny a smoker the opportunity to adopt a child and enjoy the privileges and joys of being a parent, that's a war on smokers.
When you deny a smoker the opportunity to be a foster parent and experience the joys of parenthood, that's a war on smokers.
I don't believe any of these policies were being promoted back in the mid-1980s. But they are now.
We should be ashamed of ourselves, because we've taken what was at the time an absurd tobacco company prediction and we've made it come true!!!
That's an astounding "accomplishment."
Bill,
I can only assume that you are indeed a masochist. No one could be as dense as you try to be, so masochist has to be it. So, here is some more pain for you to chew on. People ARE NOT supportive of smokefree workplaces. People actually wants these businesses to stay IN BUSINESS so that they can have a job. Reread LighteningBoy. As for higher taxes, you might have us on that one. Afterall, if the smoker isn't paying it, then something they want might get taxed instead. Isn't that why you bought a Prius, so that you would get better mileage and not have to pay as much for gas? Same logic for cigarettes. I still drive my SUV and do not complain about the gas prices. I want comfort and I pay for it, while my neighbor complains about packing himself into his "little" car that only gets a few more miles than I do.
Still the latest gas crisis has woke even more people up. They are seeing that if they want to travel, they are going to pay more. They also see that if we want to smoke, we pay more and they aren't thinking any of it is fair anymore. They see the 2 as the fraud that it is.
By the way Bill, I was just in Vegas a couple of weeks ago and while Nevada has a smoking ban on it's books, all I can ask is "what smoking ban"? People were smoking all over the place, every where you turned. I felt right at home and the best part? No one was complaining! No hand waving, no coughing. People from all walks of life enjoying each others company.
And to highlight what Dave G. noted, while we're spending a lot of time in our war against smokers, we've squandered opportunities to actually do something about smoking. The Attorney Generals gave the tobacco companies a free pass, simply because they were greedy for money and political prestige. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and all its friends in Washington are about to give Philip Morris a huge gift in unprecedented special protections and protection from liability. If we put 1/10 of the amount of effort we are putting into fighting smokers into fighting the tobacco industry, we'd be saving a lot of lives (countless lives).
Mr Godshall wrote In fact, public support for smokefree workplace laws and cigarette tax hikes has increased during the past several decades.
Apparently not in CA wrt tax.
Nice to see, in the blog, an acknowledgement that there are health effects from the bans.
Obvious question have these effects been studied to determine a_ the precise health effects b) how severe they are and c) how many are affected?
If the effects out weigh the benefits shouldn;t the bans be repealed? First do no harm? Were these health effects factored in by law makers when bringing in SBEs?
west
----
MIke, Thanks for your comments. I have been as close to this issue as anyone can be without being shot or put away for herecy. I know what I'm talking about and I was there. No one can ever take that away from me. Something has to be done to stop this chaos. I need to get my story out there to everyone who will listen and also send their comments, and I don't care if they are PRO or CON. The dialogus has to start now. I think the majority of people will agree. I am not asking them to agree with me all the time. Whether or not they like me or not...your perspective and even mine is worthy of consideration if they just stop and think logically.
I don't have all the answers, but I sure as hell have SOME of the answers that makes sense on what is happening behind the scenes that directly affects 1/3 of our addicted population, who need answers and not rhetoric, anger and frustration to what I feel is the simplest question people need to ask. The question, WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT NOT GIVE A DAMN? They don't give a damn...becaue
they don't give a damn! It's pretty simple and maybe at some point, some of your bloggers will want to know why, and I'll be READY AND ABLE to tell them. Dave G.
In fact, public support for smokefree workplace laws and cigarette tax hikes has increased during the past several decades.
Bill Godshall
If the public really supported smokefree workplace laws, then there would have never been any need for smokefree workplace laws to be passed. The desire of the marketplace would have prompted workplaces to change on their own. Until all these secondhand smoke laws were passed, many workplaces allowed smoking, because that's exactly what the public wanted.
As for your statement that the public supports a cigarette tax hike, very few people who smoke want the taxes on cigarettes to be increased. Since nonsmokers wouldn’t be impacted financially, it’s not surprising they would support a tax hike on cigarettes. But the tax issue is significantly different that the workplace issue on a number of levels. They should be discussed separately.
"WHY DOES OUR GOVERNMENT NOT GIVE A DAMN? They don't give a damn...because
they don't give a damn!"
It's not very lucrative to give a damn.
Anytime I see 'It's for the children' buried in rhetoric, I know it won't be 'for the children' and someone will be making money from it - no matter what side of the aisle you are on.
This isn't just about smoking.
You left out an important example Doctor, ...as you always seem to do when it comes to the civil liberty and Private property rights aspect of Smoking Bans.
"When you support policies to deny employment to smokers because they are smokers, that's a war on smokers."
"When you deny a smoker the opportunity to adopt a child and enjoy the privileges and joys of being a parent, that's a war on smokers."
"When you deny a smoker the opportunity to be a foster parent and experience the joys of parenthood, that's a war on smokers."
"When you deny a business owner the RIGHT to create an environment that is designed SPECIFICALLY to cater to people that have made the choice to smoke,(regardless of whether that owner smokes or not) that's so much more than just "a war on smokers", that's an assault on the Constitution.
Something you routinely avoid discussing.
You don't have to like the fact that this type of establishment exists, but you also don't ever have to set foot inside it either, because afterall, it's for those people that refuse to quit, that didn't ask for, and don't want your special brand of "help".
The whole "for your own good" Bul***t is just that, BS.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Amazingly, Mike Siegel repeats the PR and silly arguments that the public has soundly rejected ever since the cigarette companies made those same absurd self serving claims."
You left out that those silly, absurd, self serving claims were true.
David Goerlitz wrote:
"I testified in Congress and told them that the executives from r.j. reynolds told me the right to smoke was reserved for the "young, the poor, the black and the stupid"."
Could you tell us what the names of those executives were? You see, I find it extremely difficult to believe that executives bothered talking to a model, much less about things like that. Maybe a supermodel with big bazookas, just to meet her, but a guy model?
"[A]nd now use their tobacco funds for almost everything except for what it was intended. re; road repair, waterfront restoration, balancing the budgets, higher salaries."
The money wasn't intended for anti-tobacco campaigns. It was merely reimbursement. The CDC et al. suggested it be spent that way, and even then, only a percentage of it I believe.
"Haley Barbour came into office and shut down the programs that were helping."
He had his priorities in order.
"The right of smokers is more important than that of a pregnant woman."
You're G-D right if it's my property and you're the pregnant woman.
"I don't think I've heard G.W. Bush mention our nations #1 cause of premature death and disease EVER."
Yeah, what a bitch. He hasn't told me how to kill my crabgrass either.
"I have heard politicians proclaim their belief that kids should not be targeted and/or marketed and they still are."
Pray tell, how? The only tobacco ads my kids see are in their school's anti-tobacco classes.
From your next post:
"My job was to get kids to smoke. Over 90 % of tobacco users start under 14. FACT."
No longer a FACT. Currently 80% start smoking under the age of 18.
"I WAS TOLD TO GET KIDS TO SMOKE."
How, by the way you posed in front of the camera?
"I was told my market was teenagers, and still I took the job."
And you were to accomplish this how?
"I have never met a smoker who has claimed that they are glad they started using tobacco."
You've been in anti-tobacco too long. Even my 83 year mother has said she has no regrets ever smoking though she has no wish to smoke anymore. She quit at age 63.
"What is so ironic is that smokers don't want government intervention...but they sure don't mind if the government pays for it when they get cancer...Tobacco users can't have it both ways."
Neither can you. Give us back the Social Security we don't get to spend. That's 13.5 years worth for male smokers and 14.2 back for females. CDC figures.
But if you look at the testimony of the Congressional Research Service (and also others), during the Clinton administration they said current taxes already more than covered smokers' costs. They've only gone up since then.
in medical terms obesity is a disease
They used to call being gay a disease also. They also want to call smoking a disease. Obviously the term "disease" has become somewhat convoluted and so abused it means little these days.
So what's your point? Disease or not, someone who is obese IS fat, and in a good number of people the ONLY 'disease' in their eating habits..........so again, what's your point?
The definition I memorized years ago for "disease" is, A morbid affliction of the body.
So, someone could call obesity and smoking a disease if they see them as morbid. I think it's dumb to call a condition a disease.
And if you look up the definition of "public health" you'll find the same sort of nonsense. Public health, even a hundred years ago, could mean one person's private health.
Maybe that was a gift given by the anti-smokers of old.
In order to elevate the deadliest drug addiction into a protected civil right cigarette companies (more than two decades ago) created the myth of a "war against smokers" in order to falsely portray smokers as being victimized by health advocates and employers, and in order to portray cigarette companies (whose products addict and kills smokers) as advocates of smokers.
That's really interesting Bill. Especially given the fact that I never once heard the term "war against smokers" UNTIL I started noticing TC ads on TV, in print, etc. Do tell, exactly HOW did the tobacco companies actually perpetrate this? Seems to me that WE smokers made the connection the minute you and your ilk started condemning US. And I'm sorry, you're dead wrong on tobacco companies portraying themselves as smokers' advocates. They haven't done one damned thing to fight you and yours. They actually aid and abet, especially PM. The first time I saw an anti ad on TV put out by PM I laughed my ass off at the hypocrisy.
So, the question is this....who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself? Because WE ain't buying!
In order to elevate the deadliest drug addiction into a protected civil right cigarette companies (more than two decades ago) created the myth of a "war against smokers" in order to falsely portray smokers as being victimized by health advocates and employers, and in order to portray cigarette companies (whose products addict and kills smokers) as advocates of smokers.
Bill, tobacco companies started this wording of a "war against smokers"???
Here's an article from 1976:
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,913842,00.html
The leading counterblasting outfits, GASP (for Group Against Smokers' Pollution)
Now Gasp stands for 'group to alleviate smoking pollution' hmmm...
Further down in the article is this group:
Probably the most implacable of the antismokers' groups is S.H.A.M.E.! (Society to Humiliate, Aggravate, Mortify and Embarrass Smokers).
Yeah, tobacco companies started it/sarc
Addiction to alcohol, a substance thought to be physically addictive (although anyone who has had the shakes after a heavy night suspects this might not strictly be true), is classified as a disease, and as such, its sufferers should be exempt from criticism. That is, if one follows the logical strain implied by our portly friend Tedd.
Smoking is physically addictive, yet is not classified as a disease, and as far as I am aware never has been. In fact, as Dr. Siegel has amply demonstrated, a war is being waged against smokers.
Where's the consistency?
*Note: I am not trying to say smoking, alcoholism, or obesity are diseases. They are all lifestyle choices / physical addictions (for the first three days of quitting smoking), or dependencies. There is, however, certainly an inconsistency in how they are demarcated in medical paradigms.
Sorry the above should read, in relation to alcohol "thought not to be physically addictive" ^
I don't deny that you are right about 20 years ago the tobacco industry ran public relations campaigns to scare people that there was a war on smokers.
The problem is that it's not 20 years ago - it's 2008, and in 2008, WE in tobacco control are working to deny employment to smokers, deny medical care to smokers, prevent smokers from adopting children, make smokers feel unwelcome at colleges and universities, etc.
The tobacco industry really did that? I don’t remember that at all. I don’t recall hearing anything about any “war on smokers” until the last 5 years, truth be told. Actually I seem to recall about 2 or 3 years ago that your readers here on this blog were trying to point this ‘war on smokers’ out to you and you weren’t buying it then.
So what has actually happened is that we are proving the tobacco companies' initially ridiculous claims to be correct.
Obviously not so ridiculous. I’m also willing to wager that TC knew all along where it was going and was just pissed off that the tobacco industry spilled the beans. But more importantly, it shows that your readers (smokers) here aren’t as delusional and stupid as Bill tries to claim we are.
Yes, I agree with you than in the mid-1980s, when the tobacco companies were arguing that this was all about a war on smokers, they were full of crap at the time.
I doubt they were full of crap at the time. I still say someone in TC knew what they were going to do, leaked that to TI and then used that to try to prove how devious TI was. YOU may not have been aware, but I’d bet the farm that those heading up TC knew damned well what they were doing. There’s nothing so twisted and devious as an activist pushing a personal agenda.
I don't believe any of these policies were being promoted back in the mid-1980s. But they are now.
They may not have been promoted, but they sure as hell WERE on the agenda.
we've squandered opportunities to actually do something about smoking
And exactly who told you it was your job to DO ANYTHING about smoking? WHO told you that you had some right to TELL OTHERS WHAT CHOICES THEY CAN MAKE?
If we put 1/10 of the amount of effort we are putting into fighting smokers into fighting the tobacco industry,
Fighting the tobacco industry? FOR WHAT? Prohibition? Get rid of tobacco? WHAT?
we'd be saving a lot of lives (countless lives)
Really? COUNTLESS LIVES SAVED? As in they will NEVER die? Now who’s spreading lies? Because in order to actually SAVE a life you have to GUARANTEE they will never die. The best you can do, is tell them they “probably won’t die of lung cancer” and even THAT is iffy as all hell. You are not, and cannot “save” anyone’s life. EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE!!!! And it is NOT up to you or anyone else on this earth to decided when and from what they die.
Get over yourself already.
As a physician, I can tell you that obesity would not be considered to be a "disease." It is certainly a risk factor for disease, but its presence does not indicate disease.
Thanks James Austin for highlighting the main points of Dave G.'s testimonial, and to Dave himself for laying it all on the line. Dave seems upset that the crusade did not work out the way he wanted it, and that people still fail to bend to the will of the antitobacco warriers. His posts here show that he is enraged that the whole world hasn't turned around and joined the heroic anti movement. He is not concerned about the movement tuning into a war on smokers, he is just irate that they haven't just quit and the entire tobacco industry shut down.
"The problem is that this process can take years. Declaring obesity a disease would be a strong first step toward accelerating our response to the epidemic of excess fat in our diets, on our bodies and in our body politic.
We are earth's richest nation and in many ways its most creative. Let's not be its fattest."
Steven Findlay is a health policy analyst in Washington.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opi...sity-
edit_x.htm
Doctor, if there's money in it and the government 'thinks' they can con(vince) people they can 'fix' it.
So let it be written, so let it be done.
An interesting editorial in my local paper today and just so no one misses it. Note that it says "smokers" not smoking.
"Maybe they, or you, are sick of the constant backlash against smokers."
http://news.therecord.com/Opinio.../article/
390352
It is strange that otherwise law-abiding folk who usually subscribe to Canada's trademark "peace, order and good government'' think nothing of rushing to a place like the Six Nations reserve, a native community an hour's drive south of Waterloo Region, to buy cheap, contraband smokes. But they are all around us -- friends, family, neighbours, co-workers. Maybe even yourself. Maybe you, or they, are fed up paying high taxes on cigarettes and prefer handing over $8 for a carton of illegal smokes that would, with all the taxes paid, normally cost $75 to $85. Maybe they, or you, are sick of the constant backlash against smokers.
In fact, public support for smokefree workplace laws and cigarette tax hikes has increased during the past several decades.
Bill Godshall | 07.28.08 - 3:30 pm | #
Bravo Sierra. You are full of manure Godshall and you know damned well if an HONEST survey was done of the public your imbecile stance would be shot down in a heartbeat.
Every single one of you anti-smoker control freaks is a LIAR and a PAID LIAR at that.
My Pastor has less sanctimony in his entire body than you have on your shirt sleeve. All of you disgust me.
We should be ashamed of ourselves, because we've taken what was at the time an absurd tobacco company prediction and we've made it come true!!!
That's an astounding "accomplishment."
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.28.08 - 4:42 pm |
It was NEVER an absurd prediction, Dr. Siegel, and you know it. Why do you insist on denying how correct the majority of us were even as little as 10 years ago, let alone 20?
The only things you have accomplished in the past 20 years have done NOTHING to promote public health or protect anyone. All you have done is create death and destruction in your path. THAT is your accomplishment.
You applaud the use of lies, deceit, and junk science, you applaud the abuse of punative taxes, you applaud the destruction of private businesses, you applaud putting people on the unemployment line, you applaud those who deny employment, housing and children, you applaud hatred and bigotry, and you applaud the fact that smokers are the only group of people it is politically correct to discriminate against. That is the accomplishment of your precious "movement."
I know you oppose most of those things here on your blog, but what good does that do? You movement supports it all, up to and including blaming the victim when a smoker is assaulted just for smoking. As long as you claim to be part of the "movement" you are condoning the behavior.
I probably have more disdain for the tobacco industry than you do, or your new friend Dave G., but I have even less use for the self proclaimed control freaks of "tobacco control." The tobacco industry never told me your ultimate goal, anyone with an above room temperature IQ figured it out long ago. That so many have fallen for all of your propaganda tells me there are far less people on this planet with an above room temperature IQ than I thought.
Building on James Austins excellent post but taking it a different direction:
David Goerlitz wrote:"I testified in Congress and told them that the executives from r.j. reynolds told me the right to smoke was reserved for the "young, the poor, the black and the stupid"." ... "My job was to get kids to smoke." ... "I WAS TOLD TO GET KIDS TO SMOKE."... "I was told my market was teenagers, and still I took the job."
This sounds like sarcastic humor. It even sounds immature and like something a low level tobacco type serving his marketing internship would tease or taunt a company outsider with.
Even with all of their resources, tobacco companies have never been able to find the magic wand that they could just wave over a young adults head and turn them into a smoker. The anti-smoker cartel can't find the magic wand that would prevent them from starting to smoke either.
It would be a waste of money to market tobacco to young non-smoking adults in a effort to get them started. They would be considered experimenters who wouldn't care which tobacco companys brand they experimented with. If it did work, and it doesn't, Reynolds could spend millions and only create a lot of new Marlboro or Kool smokers.
Why does it look, to the unintiated, that tobacco is marketed to youthful non-smokers. The Winston Man, the Marlboro Man, and Virginia Slim were all youthful models. Why? Because the image of a bald headed old man in baggie shorts with a metal detector at the beach puffing on a Winston won't convince a Camel smoker to switch to Winstons.
It was always about brand loyalty and brand switching. The message would convey the impression that smoking my brand, or switching to my brand is a smart thing to do because ... fill in the blank. (You'll grow your hair back, lose weight, have women younger than you asking you for your autograph, show the world just how far you've come, get a brand new sports car with your Marlboro miles or Raleigh coupons, or just recapture your youth.) It's all stupid but many times it really worked.
None of this stupid stuff is of any interest to non-smoking young adults. But it is easy for non-smoking older adults to misunderstand, or exagerate, the message.
Welcome to the blog Dave G. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH - But will work for Vienna Fingers without exagerating
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
"My job was to get kids to smoke. Over 90 % of tobacco users start under 14. FACT." 90% of tobacco users,that is to say that 90% of people who smoke today,started before their 14th birthday ? That really sounds like a TC figure with added warp factor built into it to shock and impress.Smokers who started way back in the fifties may have been able to purchase tobacco products then,but now ? You would be stating that an incredible number of tobacco sales are to underage kids,simply an ILLEGAL activity.Without providing a breakdown of age range,smoker prevalence etc etc,you're just providing a soundbite,which has no real meaning.Sex ed starts in the UK around 12 nowadays.Kids know all about condoms,should the condom industry push to make sales illegal until a person is 18,or 16 with parental consent ? Hide them under the counter like fags,before long the below counter shelf will cover the entire floorspace of the shop,with bugger all being sold on the shelves.The legal issue is not always identical to the moral issue.Advertising to kids does precisely what ? Makes them want a product,or engage in an activity ? But the law states no chance,come back when you're the legal age.Why not blame sports car manufacturers for advertising sports cars that few people will ever be able to afford,Perhaps the theft of such vehicles would be reduced if advertising didn't occur,BUT IT'S A LEGAL PRODUCT ! TC are disappearing up their own tailpipes in solving this quandary that they have made for themselves,Murad,had the right idea,chop a smokers hands off,or even their heads if they were caught smoking.How about it TC ? How about an answer Dr Siegel,fancy walking the streets of Boston with a chesterfield in your hand ?
James Austin, You find it difficult to believe that the tobacco executive Dale Zane would tell me the right to smoke was reserved for the young, the poor, the black and the stupid. He also said when asked why he didn't smoke, as I was on oxygen at 11,000 ft. on top of Mt. Evans, he said,"we don't smoke the shit..we just sell it". I testified to this in Congress in July of 1989. Look it up. Funny how you people have time to criticize others and you weren't even there. After testifying it was corroborated by 4 other people including the ad agency.
With regard to stats, The attorney generals looking for free money told their constituents the money was needed to develop the new programs from getting new smokers hooked. The CDC gives information that has not been accurate nor have the states recommended the guidelines brought forth by the CDC. I think one state was close. Hmmm ...49 others just do what they want. Glad your mom quit. The truth of the matter is I know what the Tobacco Industry is capable of. I also know what the other side is capable of. Point in fact, the Anti-tobacco movement is not lily white either. If everyone who started to use tobacco was 18 or older, you would not hear a peep out of me, but when all the documents show Mr. Claude Teagues from R.J. Reynolds saying the market they need is 14-17year olds, sombody should speak up. Actually, I don't care if an adult eats and swallows their cigarettes, just don't tell me what you find hard to believe. It may be your perogative, but go online and check all the marketing strategies available that proves what you find difficult to believe is FACT. These papers are all available for your review. Maybe you should check them out. As far as the other writers are concerned, I am in no way enraged that the Tobacco Control movement didn't turn out the way I wanted. The truth is, in my opinion, TC went from hopeful in the late 80's to the disappointing, then finally to the absurd. It's out of control. G.W. Bush wouldn't know crabgrass from Kentuck Bluegrass, so I wouldn't look to him for your answers. The media won't fix this, the government won't fix this and neither will I fix it. Too many people out there who are allowed to reproduce and have children of their own. I'm sure tobacco will be around for a long long time.
Using the argument that 80% of kids who now smoke started before their 18th birthday,80% of what ? 100 kids.1000 kids,10,000 kids ? So, so many kids start smoking.To be big,grown up ? So they become hooked and can't stop.But if they wait until they're older,millions of people worldwide have stopped smoking.Perhaps it's just age related ?Or they could start because they want to.This is more problematic,since they may not want to stop.Perhaps had they waited until they were 18,their wish to start smoking may have disappeared.I know we'll ban smoking on TV,in films,hey even in real life.We don't really want or need the law to stop kids from buying tobacco.As a parent i am shit scared that my kids will try crack,meth and a whole host of other readily available drugs.If they want to smoke tobacco instead,they can do so.Bill as an ex 60 a day fagman,how about showing me that using the mentioned illegal drugs are more harmless,as you seem to constantly try to argue for their inclusion in your ground breaking arguments.Another practical experiment to be conducted.
DAVID G. IS PISSING ME OFF!
In the 1970's, I was 15 years old! Orphaned. Not one single "adult" stepped up to the plate and offered me a place to live or even twenty bucks for a bus ticket out of town. I was "old enough" to take of myself! So off to work I went. No welfare or government hand-outs for me!
Not one single person asked how I was - where I was going to get my next meal or how I was going to get an education.
But I did get my next meal and my education through my own efforts because I was an ADULT!!!!
Now this hopped up anti with a GOD complex, who thinks he knows what is best for everybody, wants tells me that I wasn't "old enough" to make the decision about whether I wanted to smoke or not????
Lets tell it like it is folks! Those "kids" the tobacco companies were marketing to were considered "old enough" to get married at 16!
Besides in the 1970s, 40 million smokers decided to quit. All on their own and without pharmaceutical aids. Who were these people? People who started smoking in their teens and decided to quit in their 20s and 30s for their own reasons.
The same people who started drinking in their teens and decided to tone it down after they hit their mid-20s.
David G - get a life of your own and leave mine and those of my children ALONE! The way you talk, you'd think that deciding to smoke in your teens is the worst thing that can happen. Never mind that smoking prevalence decreases with age!
Further, of course I expect the government to pay if I get lung cancer! THAT IS WHY I PAY OVER $6,000 PER YEAR FOR HEALTH CARE!!! AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE TOBACCO TAXES!
Government pays for nothing!
Saying that smokers expect to get "free health care" in such a tone implies that it is "unreasonable" expectation.
Why do skiers expect "free health care" if they are going to undertake the risks of skiing? Why do joggers expect free joint replacement surgery after a lifetime of jogging.
AND THEY DON'T EVEN PAY "EXTRA TAXES" FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE.
How dare you treat smokers who pay for their health care twice - once upfront like everyone else - twice through increased tobacco taxes and in the United States - thrice through the MSA ?
If it wasn't for smokers, what state would the health care system be in!!
Just who do you think you are?
Michelle
"but when all the documents show Mr. Claude Teagues from R.J. Reynolds saying the market they need is 14-17year olds, somebody should speak up." What "they need" and what the LAW will allow them is two totally different things.Or are you suggesting that the Government is complicit in allowing these sales to continue ?
Dave,
What I find hard to believe is that a tobacco executive (sourcewatch calls Dale Zane an ad agency employee, not executive) would call you stupid to your face. You weren't young, black or poor. That leaves stupid...and hard to believe.
You'll have to forgive me for doubting your story. I think it was The Truth campaign that recreated that famous quote in one of their commercials, but it was in the executive board room at HQ, not on some mountain peak. Do tobacco execs often sit on top of mountains?
"Funny how you people have time to criticize others and you weren't even there. After testifying it was corroborated by 4 other people including the ad agency."
So was it a tobacco exec or an ad agency? To put things in my perspective, my brother was once a VP of a very large bank. When I congratulated him on his promotion he told me there were 20 other VPs. Not as impressive after he said that.
"It may be your perogative, but go online and check all the marketing strategies available that proves what you find difficult to believe is FACT."
I've looked at countless tobacco documents. And one after another, despite the claims that "Here's one that proves they're evil," they were all huge disappointments. And I mean it when I say I was disappointed.
"G.W. Bush wouldn't know crabgrass from Kentuck Bluegrass, so I wouldn't look to him for your answers."
I'm sure you know what I meant by that. I don't think the president should waste his time on smoking.
"Too many people out there who are allowed to reproduce and have children of their own."
Wow. Practicing to be a tobacco executive? LOL
"I'm sure tobacco will be around for a long long time."
Let's all pray you're right.
excellent commentary, folks. i just love this site and all the people who cogently participate! great reading.
brandz
Si,
The 80% figure is of those who become smokers, that's how many of them start smoking before they're 18.
If someone still wants to use 90%, all they have to do is change the age to 19. (The last time I saw the numbers anyway.)
To Dave,
I left one part out of my response to you. It wasn't just the tobacco exec part of your story that made me doubt you. I found the "I was told to target children" even harder to believe. Combined, well, that sort of cinched it.
To try to make the entire tobacco industry look bad because one guy (of questionable standing to me) said something idiotic, is wrong. Not blaming you on that one, but it really shows how little AT has/had on them.
Also, since when has BT been content to just have the young, black, poor, and stupid as their customers?
Michelle Gervais and James Austin should be running mates for high office. Talk about cutting through the crap!
I think Mr. Godshall should take a bow for his role in furthering the perceptions of a war on smokers, as many of the strategies he promotes depend on stigmatizing smokers, and forcing them to sacrifice what most would consider basic rights, because of their participation in what he believes is the deadliest of drug addictions.
While he denies he promotes prohibition, he promotes policies make the drug legal to sell, but it's use the criminal act. Abstinence is required for employment, and child raising, where people must steal because of his promotion of tax policies to price the product out of the reach of consumers but still available to the elite. He defends the denial of medical care to those that don't abstain, and must remain "clean" in order to receive medical care. Very few of his policies are directed at the makers of cigarettes, instead the consumers. Truly his war is with smokers. His battleplan is to prevent smokers from being able to participate as a part of society. To make smokers an outcast, to stigmatize them. To force them into choosing between smoking OR being able to have money, get medical care, raise a family, have a job. But to him this isn't prohibition, just who does he think he's fooling besides himself.
While Godshall touts his "deadliest of addictions" and tobacco control insists on smoking being a disease, they fail to uphold the basic rights against discrimination offered to the sick and disabled. ADA will protect an alcoholic from workplace discrimination provided they are not intoxicated on the clock, yet supports employers who keep ex-smokers on NRT from being hired through urine testing.
Tobacco control has been more then willing to bargained away the rights of smokers to offer protection to the tobacco industry in exchange for the tobacco industries financial support of tobacco control. With advocates like this, who needs enemies.
To those that say (snottily) Show me where in the constitution there's a right to smoke...
Amendment IX: The enumation in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The FFs decided on this amendment after legislators at the convention brought up all manner of everyday things (from clothes to bedtime) that government might try to regulate, outlaw, deny or disparage. The possible list of things it might try to mess into not only became unwieldy but was correctly foreseen as potentially infinite; therefore, the clean catchall amendment. And not btw, in the 1780s, smoking was a widespread and naturally presumed right. No one had yet concieved (in a nation of fireplaces and open wood stoves) any such right as to smokeless air, and the Founders would have laughed at anyone suggesting a right to never have to smell something you don't like or to never be annoyed.
So, Dave G--
I don't give a damn whether the government gives a damn. It's none of its damn business to give a damn or not. And I somehow find it hard to feel a lot of pity for your "anger and frustration" because unless you're a smoker subjected to the crap we're increasingly being faced with, you don't know what anger and frustration really are.
And speaking of all those unintended (?) consequences that are "bad for the health--" try a steady diet of anger and frustration. mixed with a heavy dose of stigmatization and ostracism and nowhere to go to get drunk so's to blow off steam with your friends.
Doc, you should think about that one, too.
How healthy is it for folks to be cut off from every facet of "public" life? And, just FTR, none of us here has "internalized the hatred" that's spewn at us daily, from media, legislators and, yeah, Public Health. We either get roilingly angry or withdraw. Is that "good for our health"?
Another thing, Doc, perhaps more germane.
You keep referring back to the start of your Movement as tho, back then, it was actually pure. But just the other day, I posted a quote from an AT document from 1990 insisting that employers must be allowed to discriminate against smokers in their hiring policies and attempting to get this codified into law. I can go through my files and find a lot more like it, affecting almost all areas of life, including the right to parent, and all of it coming from your "good old days."
LYNDA--
I'd suggest that your roommate look up a 2 part article from the mid 90s in, I believe, The New Republic (if not, the Atlantic) titled "Reefer Madness." It's the whole history of the war on marijuana. I'd also recommend a book on the history of liquor Prohibition called "Deliver Us From Evil," which is likely in the library or else Amazon. Both are comprehensive and the parallels pop out.
And as long as I'm shooting buckshot, smoking has already been called a disease. That same commercial for some quit drug that LB was commenting on, has it in writing that "smoking is a curable disease." IOW, the mere act of smoking is a disease. Maybe eating Vienna Fingers is too?
:
Dave G,
"Too many people out there who are allowed to reproduce and have children of their own."
Dave what do you mean by this?
"Si,
The 80% figure is of those who become smokers, that's how many of them start smoking before they're 18.
If someone still wants to use 90%, all they have to do is change the age to 19. (The last time I saw the numbers anyway.)" Sorry James i wasn't so much questioning the accuracy of the quote more the accuracy of what the figures are supposed to be saying.So are the 80% kids who have tried smoking and stick with it ? But is that 80% of 100 kids,1000 kids ? It still needs quantifying to make sense.But it must prove if 80% stick with it,smoking sure does offer some mighty fine incentives.My question as to those who start smoking for image etc above remains open,should anyone wish to answer.Dr Siegel,can you provide the actual figures,since it seems to me nothing more than a shock horror headline grabber to me,but without any substantiation .
David G;
“I know what is going on with both sides and I'm not sure who is more evil any longer.”
There never were any “sides” it is just industry and advertising dividing people and profiting, while we bicker amongst ourselves.
I would like to offer some sense of understanding to your plight; however as a smoker you would likely see this as misguided and delusional as you have been conditioned over the years to believe. You stated further, your frustration with smoker rights being seen as above those of others such as non smokers and asthmatics which to me seems to be the root of your frustration.
No one should be taken in by the misguided idea; anyone’s rights can be more essential than anyone else’s. Your categorization of people does not remove from the fact they are all people and should have equal rights or none of us will have any. If you understand the basic tenets and importance of those rights and what makes them strong, your rail in favour of depreciating smoker’s rights is the last thing you should be advocating if you wish to strengthen the rights of those you listed.
The HIA campaign strategy which drives TC and a number of other Industrial processes of advocacy, is what you never understood, this is a process of creating wealth by capturing the high ground or simply reinventing it. The process attracts membership because of its power to turn sincere humanitarian efforts, into unpaid labour to build profit and enhance power. Largely those processes are always captured by the largest investors, attracted only because they have the most to gain. Human rights and communities are the victim of these processes and will never be enhanced by participation. That is were you were duped by the promotional hype and why you are frustrated today. They never cared if people quit smoking, quite the opposite, if everyone or even a substantial number did quit the investments of groups like RWJF, the insurance companies’, a host of government agencies and many others, would have seriously depreciated capitol returns. You are right in sensing big tobacco and the larger voices in TC are aligned, because in order to sell alternatives, smoking has to remain a strong force within society it is a symbiotic relationship of power and greed. Set on a grand media stage we call the six o’clock news, we get to watch the daily drama of dragons and slayers, while our attentions are diverted away from the real issues so essential to our needs which always remain unattended. Have you even noticed how much soot is forming on the walls of our cities and considered how much more deadly that soot is, in comparison to second hand smoke. Again Industry will be protected against all liability because as we all know second hand smoke is now the culprit.
This is not the first time grassroots advocates have been cashed out. Look at Greenpeace and the MADD programs whose founders have now distanced themselves from the groups after industrialization took hold. TC is already a dead issue, purchased by its industry partners who fully expect to cash out on the public image. Which seems to be, in hindsight, the very essence of advertising in profiting from corporate branding.
If you wish to see stronger non smokers rights it takes real work and it can never be accomplished by the seemingly easy road of denying the rights of smokers, because if you really look; by agreeing to participate in decreasing the rights of any group within society you have given your proxy over to those who are most profitable when human rights and autonomy are less of an obstacle.
"As a physician, I can tell you that obesity would not be considered to be a "disease." It is certainly a risk factor for disease, but its presence does not indicate disease."
There was a time not so long ago and not so far away, when a full figure was considered the mark of attraction and excellence in high society, ["Rubanesque" ring any bells?]before the Glam world set the standard of waif as a mark of excellence.
In elderly people those most healthy seem to be those who have a few ponds accumulated, not to the point of obesity but simply rounded out. The thin ones are the more likely to suffer joint and bone damages and are the least likely to survive infections and fever.
Just my opinion, but being over weight is simply a matter of perspective, because no one truly knows what we should be and why should we adjust to the wishes of anyone above ourselves.
Your comfort level is much more important in protecting your longevity and happiness, than the opinions of dress makers in Rome, who prefer to buy less fabric to create fantasy wear for the runways, chances are your never going to purchase anyway.
Banned Kevin
Banned anonomous
Still slammin
Banned Kevin
Banned anonomous
Still slammin
Anonymous | 07.29.08 - 7:46 am | # Have i missed something ?
"Another thing, Doc, perhaps more germane.
You keep referring back to the start of your Movement as tho, back then, it was actually pure " Just expanding on Walt's point,you have ALWAYS refrained from answering my question asking you,Dr Siegel,when you view the LAST piece of credible scientifically sound piece of evidence was provided by the TC movement.Why not set the record straight for all of your readers,so they can appreciate the bollocks that they have been fed ? It's high time the public realise just how bent TC actually is.Where have the billions gone that were provided for research and genuine smoker cessation programmes ? How much has dear old Glans scammed under the anti smoking banner ?Oh,i forgot ,it's for the chilren.........
Michael's world is limited by what he will allow as legitimate opinions and those he doesn't want to consider.
Something connected to; knowing all you need to know.
I told him what I though of what I saw as an ignorant statement he made, reacting in non diplomatic terms and he didn't want to hear it.
Banned Kevin via proxy server
Anonymous, Your insights are far more thought provoking than some of the other comments offered in this communique. I have, in the past avoided these blogs, because the majority of responders sound angry, frustrated, annoyed, stressed out, and overall provoked and feel the need to defend their choices which may or may not be socially acceptable any longer. That is the whole problem....what is acceptable.
While you explain the workings of Tobacco Control and the Tobacco Indusrty and how they are aligned, all I can say is ...It shouldn't be that way. Simple... One reader commented that she pays $6000.00 for her Health Care and she not only expects, but demands free health care. Kudos to her...she IS paying her share. Anybody know how many people don't have health care and not only expects but demands free health care? To Si. What I meant by... people are allowed to legally reproduce and have children of their own....Children are what they are taught....and many kids don't stand a chance coming out of the womb. As I'm sure you are aware many people should not be able to raise children and that goes for lots of things,not just smoking. The attitudes that we have toward tobacco is what confuses the hell out of me. Tobacco is the only thing we hold a child accountable for, for the rest of their lives after tehy start smoking or chewing or dipping. The explanations you are offering as to why the TC movement failed are not clear to me. I know what you are saying in theory, but isn't that explanation more of the same old...same old???The other movements you mentioned failed, so therefore lets move on. Maybe you can explain what we can/should do. I know I have avoided telling people how to live their lives. I know I've tried to tell people what I KNOW and SAW, and still some people just don't get it. Even in this commentary, the responses to MY TRUTHS are seen as evil. HOW DARE I TELL THE TRUTH ?
I don't care if James Austin does not believe me. I've allowed myself to know that I am above the opinion that others have of me. James, by the way Dale Zane was a tobacco executive from RJR. Yes, he was on top of the mountain with me and Corbin Bernson and many others while we were shooting 36,000 pictures over a 4 day period. The executive also took some of the leather coats that he and RJR paid for. The many VP's at the tobacco exec. level are probably in the hundreds. The 15 Billion $$ annually spent to show smoking to be healthy and fun loving and exciting was their goal. These are just two of the ways the tobacco companies attempt to sell their product, and being America lets just do whatever we want and call it "free speech". There is no way that people can adjust their thinking when they are so angry...so you readers who think I'm angry, irate, over the hill, please don't put me in your category. Those who think I'm full of crap, fine...You be you and I'll be me. All I can do is tell my story (when asked) and maybe somebody will see what is going on without using hate, anger, bigotry, and their sense of entitlement to maybe be openminded enough to see a different perspective from what they are use to reading, and hearing in these enjoyable banters of he said/she said. Michelle, glad you're an adult and sorry you were orphaned and no one was there for you. James Austin...you seem pretty smart and educated enough to see what I am saying. I certainly know what you are saying and some of it makes sense,but if you don't give someone a chance to tell the truth without letting them tell the whole story, than these comments on this blog become soundbites and not helpful at all. I don't bicker . I certainly don't want to explain myself to some people who think that I'm the new kid in elementary school and can be bullied. I've been bullied my whole life and I'm use to it. Does not bother me a bit. What does bother me Anonymous is that no one out there is offering an alternative to communicate reasonably, and with some banter that can be effective. This is not effective because of the likes of Michelle, on the edge and not quite sure about James. (Seems to have his head on right). Fear not, James, as I'm sure that out there somewhere in tobaccoland, or anti-tobaccoland you'll come across somebody you will believe. Anonymous, I'll give some thought to your words. Dave
Mr. Goerlitz,
I've just re-read all of your posts again for the third time.
What exactly is your point?
Aside from the excessive name dropping, and posting a quasi-resume of Tobacco advertising gigs, and promotions you have been involved with , ...what exactly is that you want, expect, or demand to be done?
I own and operate 3 different businesses. One of those is a restaurant that's open to the public, and therefore by definition, extends an invitation to that public,...of which there is no obligation to accept. Potential employees are also under no obligation to seek employment in this particular establishment, yet as a result of the TC hysterics (paid for with my tobacco excise tax dollars) I am forced to create an environment that specifically caters to non-smokers, but without any obligation, or guarantee that they will accept the invitation anyway.
My sense of entitlement as you call it is more than justified. Specifically when it comes to Smoking Bans and the forfeiture of my rights as a property owner that results from their implementation.
I'm not talking about smoking in the new and improved socialist definition of "Public Places" as defined by the TC Gestapo. I'm talking about smoking on MY own business property, and allowing my patrons to do the same if they so desire.
Don't smoke?,..don't come in. It doesn't get any easier than that.
Don't want to work in a Smoking permitted environment?; don't apply.
It doesn't get any easier than that.
You seem to be advocating the same call for comprimise as every other Anti-Tobacco proponent that has come down the pike in the last 10 years and desires to be perceived as "reasonable".
The problem is that the comprimise you seek, is expected to be made on the part of people that smoke without baring any personal responsibility of your own. In fact, more often than not, it is exactly that, the desire to not take personal responsibility for your own poor decision making skills in entering environments that allow smoking that is the real cruxt of the issue.
It is just so much easier to force me to give up my rights in order for you to not have to excersice your own.
Unless you're going to petition the government and demand full blown prohibition, then you're wasting your time because anything else just doesn't meet the criteria necessary to match the Tobacco Control demonstrated hysterics when expressing "concern" for how dangerous tobacco smoke is supposed to be.
If it's really the deadly, drop dead in 30 minutes, worse than heroin, productivity losing, leading cause of premature death and disease, ...then anything less than full blown immediate implementation of prohibition, is just pure Bull***t.
You know it, and we certainly understand it all too well.
because the majority of responders sound angry, frustrated, annoyed, stressed out, and overall provoked and feel the need to defend their choices which may or may not be socially acceptable any longer.
What the hell do you expect when you shove people into a corner. They have only two options then: submit or fight. WE choose to fight. We are NOT passive sheep who quietly submit to someone else telling us what legal products we may or may not use.
We were relatively polite and quiet in the earlier years when the 'restrictions' still resemble reasonable. We had no problem being courteous then. Unfortunately you and yours got greedy and then got nasty when we didn't submit to your will.
So you tell me, what the hell do you expect? We should welcome you with open arms?
When you get a life of your own and stop trying to force me into living as YOU think I should live, I'll consider that, until then you can KMFWA.
Anybody know how many people don't have health care and not only expects but demands free health care?
Better question, and more accurate, would be "anybody know how many people don't have health care insurance, expect and demand free health care, AND are NON-SMOKERS?
I work in an office of 8 people. All are non-smokers, all eat healthy, and one is total vegan. I'm the only smoker, I'm only bad eater. I'm also the only one who never uses her health insurance, never calls in sick (take planned days off only). So you tell me........who really costs more here.
I pay my share of my company offered health insurance. I also used to pay TC's extortion (cigarette taxes) until I started making my own. So what if I die younger (I'm not afraid of death), that means LESS health care being used, LESS social security to pay out.
So tell me...........who is REALLY the costly burden?
Dave G, it was Fredrik who queried your comment.I would like to know however,how the Tobacco Company saw their market of illegal teenagers getting past the problem of obtaining the products in any quantity to make the advertising cost effective ? Did they expect parents to buy the goods for their children,surely a safer investment in terms of continuity and content ? Kids rarely have the necessary purchasing power to indulge in premium branded cigarettes on a continual basis,even with US prices.I would also like to clarify the scale of the problem,as highlighted in my above comments.
"and feel the need to defend their choices which may or may not be socially acceptable any longer. That is the whole problem....what is acceptable."
So that's the whole problem, is it? You've got a whole industry pouring out lies and propaganda about the supposed dangers of secondhand smoke, and in the process brainwashing the population with lies, and the whole problem is what's acceptable?
"One reader commented that she pays $6000.00 for her Health Care and she not only expects, but demands free health care. Kudos to her...she IS paying her share. Anybody know how many people don't have health care and not only expects but demands free health care?"
There's no comment I could possibly make that could possibly top the vileness of that comment itself. Or its ignorance.
And as far as your having told your story, you talk as though the posters on this blog had no inkling of the swinishness of big tobacco before you came along with your 'TRUTHS'! The only thing you've added is illustration, not essence. So stop patting yourself on back.
"I certainly don't want to explain myself to some people who think that I'm the new kid in elementary school and can be bullied. I've been bullied my whole life and I'm use to it. Does not bother me a bit."
Hurray! Put it in your notebook, fellow posters: the guy can't be bullied! He's a model for us all.
"What does bother me Anonymous is that no one out there is offering an alternative to communicate reasonably, and with some banter that can be effective."
So what is that supposed to mean? Hell (if I understand you correctly), Dr. Siegel has been trying to communicate reasonably to Tobacco Control for months now without it being effective. Please clarify.
But above all, gird up your loins and answer this from Lynda's posting:
"'we've squandered opportunities to actually do something about smoking'
"And exactly who told you it was your job to DO ANYTHING about smoking? WHO told you that you had some right to TELL OTHERS WHAT CHOICES THEY CAN MAKE?"
Answer that question please, or just go quietly off into the sunset.
.
Mr. Lightning boy, If you read my posts 3 x, then by now you should see I am on your side and not tobacco control. Again, Tobacco Control is out of control and has failed miserably and putting the blame on smokers. The blame has to be put at the top. My quasi resume is simple..For all you Einsteins out there, I'll explain once again. If some of you are having these posts read to them, hopefully you are not getting the readers digest version.
Here is my point. 1. Smokers are not the problem. 2. The anti-tobacco control movement is the problem. 3. No one will make a difference. 4. Lawsuits and money is the only thing that gets attention. 5. People who choose to smoke,are well aware of health risks.
It's sad that when they were young, and vulnerable going through there right of passage into young adulthood, some Big people, who I worked for were smarter and found a way to take a product that has in most peoples opinion at the very least is a " little harmful",and make it look good. The ad execs hired to come up with this campaign were in my opinion, brilliant. They could have been hired to make ghonnorea look good and you know as well as I do that some people would fall for it as we have dumbed down quite a bit. If most people know it's kids who start using this product, If most people know they were enticed, encouraged, and lured with billions of dollars of ads, and we find out later that the tobacco industry knew what was causing premature death and disease associated with this product and they LIED about it, as they have done so much in the past, If I heard them say, as I did, kids were their replacment market, how difficult is it for the public to at least accept the fact that this is going on and I'm not saying anything can/will be/ or even should be done about it anymore. It's too late.
What I'm saying Lightning Boy is leave the smokers alone ( if you took the Evelyn Wood speed reading course, go back and review this so you are not confused). If you don't smoke don't go to public places where it is allowed. Why are some of you confused. I AM ON YOUR SIDE AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN. THE ANTI-TOBACCO MOVEMENT (ALLEGED) SHOULD CEASE AND ALL THE MSA $$$ SHOULD GO BACK TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. My fight has been with my employer R.J.Reynolds and the tactics they used, and I was a part of. (That's my quasi resume). Let me have a little redemption here people. Keep fighting for your rights if you really believe in this. I don't believe in "My fight"
anymore. That is all that I am saying. Why is this so difficult that you have to read it 3x. Smokers get angry when they are picked on AND they get upset and angry when someone comes to their side and says..."you have a point".
I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I have just read what I just wrote and it makes sense to me. Lightning boy, I don't want, expect or demand anything. Lastly, the TC Gestapo that I have watched for over 20 years has done more harm than good, in what most people would view as a no brainer. If I choose to smoke, leave me alone, get out of my face, hit the pike, take a pill, and talk to the hand. As I said in my first post, It's about the Attitude and it's a shame that some poor schnooks are treated like lepers and have no where to turn. I could go on and on, but I'm sure it would not make a difference.
David Goerlitz - I think your posts here have been incredibly poignant and articulate, and I totally get what you're saying. I'm 41 and I realized a long time ago that the vast majority of people in this world are self centered, egotistical, disingenuous and opportunistic. I think you've come to that realization, and it's obviously very disheartening. The line between good and evil has been blurred in most cases beyond recognition. At best, the most we can hope for in most cases is a dark knight, so to speak. I'm old enough to remember when honor and integrity were important to the majority of people. That's not the case today in a lot of areas, including the anti tobacco movement.
Si wrote:
"So are the 80% kids who have tried smoking and stick with it ? But is that 80% of 100 kids,1000 kids ? It still needs quantifying to make sense."
Using USA numbers, of the 100 million current and formers, 80% started smoking before they reached the age of 18.
Actually that's wrong because many of those 100 million started smoking back when the percentage was 90%. But I hope you get what I mean.
dave goerlitz wrote:
"Anybody know how many people don't have health care and not only expects but demands free health care?"
95% of 43 million?
We had this discussion here before. I believe the consensus was why single out smokers when other lifestyle choices have costs too.
The anti-smoker side though is content with stopping at smokers because this argument isn't really about costs, but merely one device to try to denormalize smoking, to call smokers parasites. Dr. Siegel edited a post of mine yesterday in which I called you (nonsmokers) parasites.
Speaking of parasites, I don't think married couples or people with children should get tax breaks. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
"Tobacco is the only thing we hold a child accountable for, for the rest of their lives after tehy start smoking or chewing or dipping."
Even if true, and whatever that's supposed to mean, although I think I understand, so what?
But I think we can add school sports to the list. I'm sure I can find one or two kids permanently disabled every year.
"Even in this commentary, the responses to MY TRUTHS are seen as evil. HOW DARE I TELL THE TRUTH ?"
Not true (at least for me).
"I don't care if James Austin does not believe me."
Let's say I do believe you. And let's also say I've heard a car salesman talk bad about the make of car he sells and he said he wouldn't drive one. How does that translate into the manufacturer being nefarious?
That exec didn't smoke and disparaged the product. So what? Do you really think that's worthy of congressional testimony? I believe, as I believe you said, you were used by anti-tobacco.
"The 15 Billion $$ annually spent to show smoking to be healthy and fun loving and exciting was their goal."
I've seen commercials make housecleaning look fun. But that hasn't gotten me to buy a Swiffer yet. LOL
"James Austin...if you don't give someone a chance to tell the truth without letting them tell the whole story, than these comments on this blog become soundbites.."
I didn't, don't want to, and can't stop you from telling the whole story. I'm one person on here that appreciates not singing to the choir. I do apologize for being rude. And that also goes for everyone else I've been rude to on here. Except Bill. LOL
You still haven't said how you were to get kids to smoke with your ads. Facial expressions? The way your hair was combed?
David,
If you used paragraphs you'd be much easier to read.
Fleawarhol, Thanks and i could not agree with you more. Time to move on to less important things....As I stated earlier it would be nice to go to war with a better Army, but sometimes you have fight with what you have. For those who want to know who elected me as some quasi speokesperson, I was forced with congressional subpoenas and legal action to force me to tell what I saw, heard and witnessed at the time.
No heroism, just thought it was the right thing to do. Not too many words of encouragement out there in a world where telling the truth somehow becomes revolutionary. Lastly, be careful for what you wish for....because you probably will never get it. Hope is not a strategy, but too many people live by those words in my opinion and feel
that both sides need to do more to "ger er done". Dave G.
"Si wrote:
"So are the 80% kids who have tried smoking and stick with it ? But is that 80% of 100 kids,1000 kids ? It still needs quantifying to make sense."
Using USA numbers, of the 100 million current and formers, 80% started smoking before they reached the age of 18.
Actually that's wrong because many of those 100 million started smoking back when the percentage was 90%. But I hope you get what I mean." So it could be that in 2007 a very small percentage of kids started smoking.That the Law which is designed to stop the sale of Tobacco goods to those who are underage IS actually achieving what it set out to do.Without an accurate figure to substantiate the rhetoric ,it could very well be that the number of kids taking up the art of smoking is negligible.The 80%or even 90% is a total historical figure,examining the make up of current smokers,it doesn't say in what year an individual started smoking .Its for the children,BUT DO THEY REALLY NEED IT OR IS THIS A TOTAL RED HERRING.
David G,
I have to say your first few posts were a little rambling and difficult to decipher. Your meaning was unclear. Perhaps you simply tried to cover too many ideas, thoughts and emotions in one long paragraph.
Thank you for your last post as this helped clarify your previous posts.
GreatScot
James, I'm not Grisham or James Patterson. Just spilling my guts and I have a tendency to go on. To answer your question. I worked for them for over 7 years. I sat in strategy meetings and I was told to be a "live version of a GI Joe Action figure". Make it look macho, tough , rugged, robust and virile. The goal was to get young boys as Winston was a male cigarette as Newport and Kool is the cigarette of choice for African Americans. Again, being told this, puts it in perspective when most people know replacment smokers are teens. My congressional testimony was made public and that is what started my little jaunt into this fun filled education . Don't think you were rude
...no harm...no foul....Dave G.
Again, being told this, puts it in perspective when most people know replacment smokers are teens. Dave G.
Not to be rude or anything here, but teens are the replacement customers for ALL products. Additionally back when you were doing those ads few states had age restrictions on the sale of tobacco products. I remembr going to the store for cigarettes for my parents when I was about 10.
I have major disdain for the tobacco industry and have for years.
Enough disdain that I have told more than my fair share of RJR and PM executives EXACTLY what I think about them and their anti-smoker cartel cronies. And those execs are long time friends -- or at least were
James, I'm not Grisham or James Patterson.
You don't have to be, it's just basic grammar school writing skills he's talking about here, not Pulitzer prize writing.
And how tricky of you to use two of my favorite authors...so next time use them in the right order...LOL
The goal was to get young boys as Winston was a male cigarette as Newport and Kool is the cigarette of choice for African Americans.
And this is different from what the cereal, candy, snack, ice cream, soda, clothing, personal hygiene industries do......how?
I started smoking at 15. I have no regrets that I started smoking. Back in the '60s I could also buy my own smokes at 15. Therefore why shouldn't they have been allowed to market to me? The Food/Snack/Beverage industries market to kids all the time.
Personally I think ALL exploitation of children should be banned. This emotional blackmail is really low.
You all act that the tobacco companies are the worst thing to happen to mankind. Do you hold car manufacturers responsible for marketing to young people making teens want their product so bad they steal them?
Think about it.
Do you hold car manufacturers responsible for marketing to young people making teens want their product so bad they steal them?
Excellent point, Lynda!!!!!
I'll take it even a step further. Now that RJR no longer sponsors NASCAR there are more alcohol beverage sponsors than ever before. And there is no doubt that NASCAR argets kids, specificaly male teens.
I guess in the bizarro world of the anti-smoker cartel a tobacco company sponsorship of car racing entices young people to smoke, but beer advertising does not entice young people to drink and drive.
FAR more young people die because of alcohol than smoking and EVERYONE knows this, including the entire anti-smoker cult. I am appalled that RWJF, who pays for all of the smoker bans and now owns MADD, is not pushing to eliminate alcoholic beverage sponsorship from NASCAR.
There is not a single documented case of a non-smoker being killed by SHS, but there is a plethora of documented cases of non-drinkers being killed by a drunk driver. Yet smoking in bars is now forbidden in many places.
Talk about a disconnect.
"Here is my point. 1. Smokers are not the problem. 2. The anti-tobacco control movement is the problem. 3. No one will make a difference. 4. Lawsuits and money is the only thing that gets attention. 5. People who choose to smoke,are well aware of health risks."
-AND-
"THE ANTI-TOBACCO MOVEMENT (ALLEGED) SHOULD CEASE AND ALL THE MSA $$$ SHOULD GO BACK TO THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY."
You could've saved yourself a lot of wear and tear on your keyboard if you had simply stated this in your first post, but I do understand a certain frustration level when it comes to the topic.
Am I skeptical?, ..yes,..of course, absolutely I am, but I have historical and practical reason to be.
You state that Smokers are not the problem, ...of course you're correct.
You state that TC IS the problem,..and again,..you couldn't be any MORE correct.(though I'm sure the good Doctor won't concurr 100% on this)
But throughout all of your text, you continually place blame for the current state of TC at the feet of the Tobacco Companies.
This is where you lose me.
BigT has already apologized in the form of the obvious MSA extortion payments. They have even stopped fighting back in most instances where "some" smokers are still looking for a payday and claim stupidity, deception, or outright fraud when it comes to Tobacco warnings (whether those warnings are true and accurate or not) BigT has even started their own various QUIT campaigns as a result of their acquiescence and allignment with the TC roundtable of "Public Health" officials that desire nothing more than to me my nanny. BigT is responsible for the popularity of the product and in no small part thanks to you and others like you, but it's not their fault that pre-existing individual state and federal laws regarding the availability, sale and use of tobacco were not, are not routinely enforced in order to curb the teen smoking "problem" that is more often than not cited as the primary reason for the existence of those laws to begin with.
Statewide, ALL or Nothing, Blanket bans on smoking accomplish nothing more than reducing the amount of liberty I AM ENTITLED TO, and for no more reason than the lack of willingness to enforce preexisting prohibitory options.
"protecting employees" is just a ploy.
"For the children" is just an emotional challenge to garner your attention.
'To level the playing field" is simply a socialist cliche used as justification for rescinding civil liberty.
Tobacco is a product for sale and marketing is a necessity if you wish to stay in business.
TC is the problem. period.
Any allignment with BigT is simply so BigT can remain in business because we are capitalist first and foremost.
This is why smoking on my property should be my decision. I either profit by that choice, or I don't.
If every cent of the billions that has been given to TC were to be used to provide Healthcare ,just think what could be achieved.As LB suggests protecting employees" is just a ploy.
"For the children" is just an emotional challenge to garner your attention.
'To level the playing field" is simply a socialist cliche used as justification for rescinding civil liberty.
Tobacco is a product for sale and marketing is a necessity if you wish to stay in business. Dr Siegel remains mute on many issues,how many questions have been asked in this thread alone ? Some go to the very root of TC's agenda,yet no answers are forthcoming.With the following thread advising of the total smoking ban in lalaland,an expose of the many confidence tricks and fraudulent statistics would surely be of substantial benefit in showing that the suggested ban is based on precisely F*** ALL other than the views of some egotistical maniacs who have been let loose from the local funny farm it appears.Dr Siegel,it seems to me,that you are content to plod your way through the vagaries of TC's current activities BUT allow the very life blood of its lies and deceit to remain intact .Presumably this is because you still hold out hope of turning TC back into the movement that you want it to be ? Half truths are still lies when there is an agenda attached.Are we wasting our time in asking genuine questions in the vain hope of being given genuine truthful answers.I for one feel that your politics are still dictating your views,and until you really want to spill the beans and dish the dirt on the TC movement,the truth will suffer.
OMG! Being fat is a disease? Give me a break TED! Who told you that? The pharmaceutical companies? “Oh it’s not your fault you’re fat Ted, it’s a disease, here take these pills, which we make billions of dollars on every year and we’ll cure your fat disease.” I think I heard everything now! Ted FYI, aside from a small section of the population who have to take medication for another ailment that would make them gain weight, people are fat out of sheer laziness! Too lazy to get off the sofa, too lazy to get out of their cars and too lazy to prepare their own meals!
And before you get your panties in a wad and become “offended”, I too used to be extremely fat 5’6 and 300lbs, I was more than double what I should have weighed. I didn’t get that way because I had some sort of disease Ted, I got that way due to of years of being LAZY. Too lazy to do any sort of exercise, I would drive to the store, which was only a few blocks away. I was too lazy to cook proper meals, always eating out or bringing some processed crap home from the grocery store to put in the oven or microwave. Sound familiar Ted?
I got out of my car and started walking to work, which is a mile and a half each way. Yes sometimes it’s cold and sometimes it’s raining and sometimes it’s hot, but hey, I’m not sugar, I won’t melt! Wait let me guess, you work too far away from work to walk back and forth. I too used to live too far away from work to walk but every evening when I got home, before I did anything else, I went for a 2-mile walk. And I only eat food in its natural form. Real meat, real fish, real poultry, real fruit and real vegetables, no additives no preservatives.
One more thing Ted, I’m a dirty nasty filthy smoker. And just like the pharmaceutical companies are leading their money making crusade to discriminate against smokers, you mark my words Ted, they’ll be coming after you next! And as there are a lot more fat people than there are smokers, it’s going to be a blood bath! Welcome to my world Ted!
dave goerlitz,
I have a collection of Road&Track magazines from the late 60s to early 90s. Were any of your ads run in that magazine?
Every now and then I dig one out to look up a car and I remember looking at the cigarette ads last time.
I might not get it totally right, but I recall a guy with a moustache sitting on a rock looking slightly up somewhat towards the camera. He had a rope near him or on his shoulder. I don't recall what brand smoke it was though. Anyway, could that have been you?
James,
I am old enough to remember "Winston man", "Marlboro man", the "silk cut" and "Hamlet" comedy adverts and you know what? I have never smoked any of them. If these were designed to get non-smoking kids to start smoking and buy their brands, they failed miserably.
Similarly I used to race motorbikes and as a kid I thought the "Rothmans" rotary engined bike, rode by Ron Haslam, was stunning. The "John Players Special" F1 car was also superb. I have never smoked them either.
Perhaps Dave G can lose some of his guilt, this kid thought nothing about the Tobacco models and most certainly did not start smoking because of a picture of a man on a horse or a pretty boy on a mountain.
Greatscot
Okay, Dave G,
I begin to understand a little bit (maybe) but if what you said in your latest posts is true, none of it was reflected in your earlier posts. So I have to conclude that you're still not entirely sure where you stand or what hat you're wearing. What I get is that you were used-- or feel you were used-- by both sides of the game, Big T and Big AT. And both sides sucked.
However, going back to what you said earlier:
You said what's "acceptable" is what's important. Huh? Acceptable to whom? You say that YOU rise above others' opinions and can't be "bullied," implying you don't care what others may find "acceptable" but the smokers here don't give an RA either, so what do you think the role or even the point of acceptablility is?
Also, you appeared to rail against "entitlement" which had something to do with the rights of nonsmokers, pregnant and otherwise, trumping a smoker's apparently mistaken "entitlement" to smoke. If you didn't mean that, what did you mean in that whole passage? As LB said: I feel we're all equally entitled to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as each of us sees it.
Then too, the following seemed to be loaded. You said:
Children are what they are taught....and many kids don't stand a chance coming out of the womb. As I'm sure you are aware many people should not be able to raise children and that goes for lots of things,not just smoking.
Your sentence implies that though there are many reasons you personally believe people should not be able (presumably meaning should not be allowed) to raise children, smoking is, in fact, one of those reasons. Would you like to clarify that? Would you also like to clarify who should decide what reasons are sufficient to not allow parents to raise their children?
Finally, I was a creative dept. ad exec in the long long ago and once worked briefly on a cigarette account-- the launch of a new brand-- a menthol cigarette with a campaign that was aimed at middle class (and based on the casting, white) married couples. The point about the brand was the fact that it tasted "fresh" and the images had to do with general relaxation at the end of a hard day. I seem vaguely to remember that the company was Lorillard, but the point is I met at least a dozen of the company's really top executives (not just the guys who go out on a shoot) every one of whom smoked. And further, it seemed everyone in their company smoked
So while I won't doubt your tale, it's hardly emblematic or macrocosmic.
New topic:
An NYC AT group, which appears to exist under the aegis of our DOH is now running a commercial attempting to get tenants to demand, and landlords to provide, smoker-free apartment buildings. On the one hand, telling tenants that deadly SHS can seep through baseboards, and on the other, assuring all that ejecting smokers is perfectly legal.
And Doc, if you think that's new, you're again dead wrong. Banzaf et al have been advocating this for at least 20 years; it's just now become acceptable to start promoting it widely, the public, by now, having been sufficiently brainwashed and terrified by 30 minute heart attacks to maybe accept it. Textbook fascism and how it grows.
:
Greatscot wrote:
"Similarly I used to race motorbikes and as a kid I thought the "Rothmans" rotary engined bike, rode by Ron Haslam, was stunning. The "John Players Special" F1 car was also superb. I have never smoked them either."
Off and on throughout my life I've built plastic cars. It wasn't until maybe 5 years ago that I found out my Rothmans Porsche 956 (or 962) was a cigarette car. I had always thought Rothmans was a candy company. LOL
I took pictures of the JPS F1 car at the 1978 Grand Prix at Long Beach, CA. Beautiful car. I didn't know that was a cigarette car either. I thought JP was just some egotistical rich guy. ROFL
(I also took a picture of Niki Lauda while he sat in his car in the pit. He was looking right at me.)
"Perhaps Dave G can lose some of his guilt, this kid thought nothing about the Tobacco models and most certainly did not start smoking because of a picture of a man on a horse or a pretty boy on a mountain."
Same here. It wasn't until I had already started smoking (thanks older brother and sis-LOL) that I looked at ads to see what other brands to try.
Ragingly Callous Lynda F, I hear where you're coming from. Although we all eat pretty healthy in my office, I'm the only smoker out of 15 people. My sick record is exemplary, wish I could say the same for the other 14! While they're all off being sick, guess who gets to pick up the slack?!
James, I was in 43 different ads fron 1981-1988 always . We were mountain clinmbing (don't know many smoking mountain climbers??) helicopter pilots, search and rescuers. There were 6 of us usually in the actual mission ad. The ads told a story in sequence. If you weren't a smoker you probably would not have made the connection. We would fly in as rescuers, mountain climb and repel, throw ropes over canyon walls, and then after the mission, Miller Time ( by that I mean we would sit around and smoke). There were sometimes 4 ads in the series and then sometimes 6 to the ad. In as much as I was a 3 pack a day smoker, I could not do as much of the strenuos stuff as some of the other "fit" models. That was it/ We travelled all over the country, to do these ads over my run as the "Winston Man". You have to admit that I do have a different perspective than other people.
My first post was to vent frustration at the bickering that was going on as I, after 20 years of trying to figure my own crap out choose not to give a dam anymore. I have seen too many lies from the people who I thought were my friends in what I thought was
going to maybe, just maybe help a kid who MAY be leaning toward smoking. Hoping that He/she may want to think twice with what back then was sound information and some speculation and some science that directly links smoking with "bad health".
Every person who reads this stuff has their own story. The person who claims to have an exemplary work record and is never sick and is still smoking. The person who had a grandmother and she smoked until she was 80. The person who was never lured by tobacco ads, the person who says cars are advertised and they kill too you know., the person who thinks gov't. should not care if she smokes while she is pregnant, the person who believes their right to smoke around a kid or anyone for that matter with asthma or bronchitus is more important than that persons rights. All I was trying to say in my rambling way is that the bickering and opinions have to have merit.
I never said that all kids will start smoking, just because of the ads. I never said that all smokers are lepers, and should be considered 2nd class citizens. I was merely trying to point out that this is exactly what the tobacco companies want. James, I think it was you who said you were confused as to what hat I am wearing. I'm not wearing any hat any longer because the so called anti-tobacco movement, played right into the hands of a very powerful industry that has more control over people and this country than you will ever know. Some of you will call it capitalism, free speech, free to be etc. I call it sad and I don't wish to participate. I'm not even going to vote ( I won't bitch anymore either, as I willingly give up that right)
I think with what most people know, the side that keeps defending their rights to smoke have to, at the very least consider the fact as teens they were targeted by a group of people who don't give crap about them,( whether or not it is 80 or 90% of ALL smokers started as Kids.) If you say, "so what", there is not much more to say to that person. If when you look at the numbers being touted that over 430,000 americans die every year from tobacco and someone from the tobacco companies say it's only 386,000, confusion, anger, frustration, and every other emotion takes over as it did with me.
I have met some people who are sorry that started when they were 15. I have met many people who hope their kids don't start. I have met some parents who DO buy their kids at 15 and 16 smokes, believing it is better than marijuana. I have met many people who argue as some of the readers of this blog that alcohol kills so many more people than tobacco. True, drunk drivers kill more teens than tobacco does while they are addicted as teens, but if you look at the numbers the way I have their is no comparison. Before you all get PISSED off, these are not my stats , I looked them up. Not sure if they are totally accurate, but just passing it on.
This is only my opinion, and almost 20 years of observations and education, None of us can have it both ways. The Drunk drivers who want their own driving lane sounds absurd. Well, if even 30% of what you hear about tobacco is true, living in the society of litigation
and tort reform, get ready for even more crap coming. You all know as well as I do that it is going to get worse for smokers before it gets better. Not quite sure how to say all this in a paragraph or two, so forgive me for entering your world and pissing some of you off. I do not wear hats anymore. I do not now care anymore. I think I'll take a course on writing and learn how to use proper grammar and use paragraphs .I'm taking the cowards way out, because it's energy that I no longer wish to expel, by singing to the choir, or arguing with Uncle Lou about not smoking when my 3 year grandaughter who has asthma is on his lap. It would be nice if all smokers were as courteous as some of the posters of this blog, but that's not how it is.
Good luck to you all. There are really no winners here. It's a lose ,lose proposition. Dave G.
"Perhaps Dave G can lose some of his guilt, this kid thought nothing about the Tobacco models and most certainly did not start smoking because of a picture of a man on a horse or a pretty boy on a mountain."
Same here. I tend to ignore all ads for products I do not use, unless they're funny. I have a mad crush on the free credit report guy. He's adorable, but I have no plans to visit the site. A crazy cute guitar boy or a gecko isn't enough to make me buy something. Even a free sample isn't enough to make me try something.
I can be aware of brands just by going to a place where cigarettes are sold and looking around. I've changed brands three times. Once I found the shape and size that was just right for my taste, I had no need to change brands. If my current brand changes its taste, I may change again, and it will have nothing to do with advertising.
My son has never seen a cigarette ad, other than the ones where the actual cigarettes are.
If he starts smoking, it will probably be because of the obvious enjoyment he sees in his friends who smoke.
He has a big, fat rebellious streak, so annoying The Powers That Be can be a strong motivation.
That might be something to remember when preaching to a bunch of high school students. An anti-smoking speech on top of life-long bombardment with anti propaganda may create as many smokers as it prevents.
Dave G., - "I do not now care anymore. I think I'll take a course on writing and learn how to use proper grammar and use paragraphs .I'm taking the cowards way out, because it's energy that I no longer wish to expel, by singing to the choir,...."
This is why socialism spreads.
It's extremely tiring, and it's a thankless task,....but you either believe in your convictions, ..or you succumb to the state.
I'm right, I know I'm right, and even if we ultimatley lose the fight to preserve our liberty, and the United Socialist States of America becomes a reality, I'll never, ...ever be in agreement with the concept.
Surrender if you must, ....but I will not.
"There are really no winners here"
Of course there are, Dave G. Dr. Siegel won his victory, but at the expense of LightningBoy's business.
Of course we can have it both ways. One place allows smoking, one doesn't. By choice.
One person chooses to smoke, one doesn't. One person hears a speech about how the tobacco companies lie, smoking is bad for you and chooses not to smoke. Someone else doesn't care.
Yet another hears endless propaganda and decides to smoke just to annoy the purveyors of it.
One person hears a pile of statistics and repeats them. Someone else does some more research to see if the stats are true. No one puts forth statistics without an agenda. The ease with which they are manipulated makes them absolutely meaningless.
You would be amazed at the breadth and depth of the research done by the people here. They've heard it all before.
One of the hardest things to do is to leave other people alone when you don't like what they're doing.
Dr. Siegel has yet to master it. He wants more and more laws to prevent adults from voluntarily exposing themselves to tobacco smoke.
Your disillusionment is a good sign. Let's hope it's contagious.
"the person who thinks gov't. should not care if she smokes while she is pregnant."
What goes on in my body is not the governments business, and I find the very thought horrifying. They want to run a PSA, fine, but what goes on in my uterus is between me and my doctor.
"the person who believes their right to smoke around a kid or anyone for that matter with asthma or bronchitus is more important than that persons rights."
No one here will ever say that one person's rights trump another's. That's exactly what we're arguing against.
Not all asthmatics are sensitive to smoke. If they are, I personally believe a person with asthma should avoid places where smoking is allowed, if smoke triggers an attack. That's called personal responsibility.
I have a study that says smoking around my kid will protect him from cancer. Isn't it my duty to protect my child? I have a moral obligation to smoke around kids.
These are valid stats. I looked them up. (Statistics aren't looking so good now, are they?)
Can't help it because of the comments:
It was Winstons for me, totally by chance, summer before 16th. First one got me high. The one-a-day thereafter was pure relaxation.
No peer pressure, was secret smoker for a year. Then everyone evidently out of the closet by senior year.
Didn't have a menthol (gag) til college, when I had to bum one (from a woman in the dorm). Avoided them since then, only when no choice (as someone mentioned, a good way to keep people from bumming).
Except when forced for one year, 1969, to quit (ex) (some cheating with Winstons), after which I was "allowed" to smoke max 5 a day of pure Virginia, handrolled, which I managed to segue into Vantages as a step back to Winston.
Moved to Switz. 31 years ago, took up Swiss brand (Parisienne) - cheaper and I liked them. Some flirtation with Gauloise filters (liked the package til the ugly labels). Also realized don't like flip-top boxes. Handrolled again for a couple of years but then they seemed too harsh. Normal brand: Parisienne "Jaune" when in CH. 2 weeks away (Turkey-Greece, conditions for smokers humane and dignified and prices good - ban next year, I've read) got Marlboro lights (on the run and didn't have time to check out other brands). Warning much more aesthetic in Greek!
Would like to switch to American Spirit turquoise, don't like the yellows, and smoke fewer (friend who does that - same friend refuses to sit outside at our meeting place because of traffic pollution, inside with smoke - high ceilings and ceiling fans - much better). Except naturally needing to have extra to smoke for rebellion's sake.
If this is any help to Dr. Mike in "Dissecting Smokers' Brains."
Smoking will always be attractive to certain kids - especially if forbidden. This is exactly what makes it cool. A bunch of Percys saying otherwise won't change that. I repeat - hid it for a whole year, it was not cool for 15 year old girls who were not greasers or jock-dykes to smoke then.
Dave G.: "I think with what most people know, the side that keeps defending their rights to smoke have to, at the very least consider the fact as teens they were targeted by a group of people who don't give crap about them,( whether or not it is 80 or 90% of ALL smokers started as Kids.) If you say, "so what", there is not much more to say to that person."
The comment wouldn't be "so what," it would be, "what's the goddam point?" since what you're saying is nothing but a painful elaboration of the obvious. Next thing, you'll be instructing us -- and making a big point of it -- that the earth circles the sun.
"the person who thinks gov't. should not care if she smokes while she is pregnant, the person who believes their right to smoke around a kid or anyone for that matter with asthma or bronchitus is more important than that persons rights. All I was trying to say in my rambling way is that the bickering and opinions have to have merit."
This question has been asked here repeatedly -- especially to Dr. Siegel, who refuses to answer it --but, again, just who in the hell is the government? If you're going to tell us that the government should be concerned, you have to tell us who the government is. And as for a smoker believing his rights trump the rights of a person with asthma or bronchitus, that's just plain crap, and right out of the TC playbook.
And as for, "All I was trying to say in my rambling way is that the bickering and opinions have to have merit": no kidding. Please instruct us further.
.
Contrary to Tobacco Control propaganda, the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of Non-smokers do not preempt the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of anyone that disagrees with their false assumption of a Right to a Smoke Free environment on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and least of all the Freedoms, Rights, and Civil Liberties of the property owner.
According to the US Constitution, the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of Non-smokers are no more or less important than the Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties of any other individual regardless of how much they may believe, or selfishly wish it to be so. Non-smokers are clearly in the majority, but this does not give license to mandate the personal choices of the minority, nor of the business owners that prefer to cater to that group. Non-smokers Freedoms, Rights and Civil Liberties end precisely where these things begin for everyone else; when those intangibles infringe on the well-being of others. This of course includes people that have made the personal choice to smoke, and more importantly the property owners that would allow that legal activity to occur on Private Property.
The only issue of "merit" involves rescinding LIBERTY, and unlike "RIGHTS" which are nearly always conditional, LIBERTY is not. You either have it, or you don't.
I think with what most people know, the side that keeps defending their rights to smoke have to, at the very least consider the fact as teens they were targeted by a group of people who don't give crap about them
We've already at the very least considered it. Some of us even believed it totally, because we never considered the other side. Now we've flat out rejected it as irrelevant.
Most advertisers don't give a you know what about me. In fact, we'd probably dislike each other intensely if I met them. But eventually, I'm going to buy something that is advertised and barring gross proven human rights violation by the company in question, I don't care how nice the advertisers/VPs of a company selling stuff are.
Perhaps we need more anti-tobacco people at the least considering they've been fed a line too. It might make for fairness in debates.
Heh Callous Cowbell, What goes on in your uterus is between you and your Dr. as long as you don't expect your local Health Dep't. to give you vitamins and other free services to your extremely well planned pregnancy or give you welfare and WIC benefits. Assuming you are not on the welfare payrolls,please, please,please keep it between you and your Dr. I agree with you totally. The second some young lady cries for help and expects others to care for her, because of an error in judgment in her free will, just like 7 million unmarried pregnant women are doing everyday in this country, expect the people who pay taxes to cry foul. I'm not saying you are one of those people, but you surely can understand why people are fed up with paying the way for people who can't fix their own mistakes financially and find it extremely difficult to have compassion for that unfortunate individual who had a right to do what she wanted with her body. Please DO keep your uterus to yourself. Amazing, how someone who you don't even know can bring out the worst in people.
note: probably pissed somebody else off. DG
note: probably pissed somebody else off. DG
Damned right you did.
So tell me, WHEN is it acceptable to help a woman who got pregnant and can't financially support herself let alone herself and a baby? Is is ONLY non-smoking, non-drinking, vegan ladies you are willing to support?
How dare you. Do you know how many women do everything right and STILL give birth to babies with problems? WHAT about all the health nuts with their sterile homes whose child develops asthma?
You don't get to pick and choose who you will feel deserves basic necessities in life. ALL deserve it.
I sure do hope you don't eat anything that is bad for you, or drink anything bad for you, or engage in ANY risky behaviour at all.............because someone just might NOT want to pay for you.
Ah, Dave. You just proved you still don't know what hat you're wearing. So women who don't smoke can get vitamins from the state but women who do can't? or shouldn't? Seems to me there's a whole list of anti-smoker assumptions going on there. First, that the smoker is actually damaging her fetus. Plenty of hard evidence to the contrary (you can look it up) and most of the alleged evidence for your position has been easily deconstructed. Second, do you or not want to protect the baby (for whom the vitamins etc are meant) or do you believe in Greek (curse the House) or Biblical (unto the 7th generation) punishment for "sins."? Somewhere in there too is the insulting assumption that smoking is a trait of irresponsible, unwed, welfare mothers. And a general promotion of Balkanizing health care, in which anyone with any disaapproved-of lifestyles should therefore be excluded, If you stop to consider that there are somewhere between 250 and 1000 known "risk factors" for heart trouble, only some of them genetic, you'll quickly get down to providing health care for 17 people.
And hey, you apparently smoked 3 packs a day and you're apparently still here.
:
So true Walt he is around posting, well hard to understand to say the least but nonethess has some good points.
probably pissed somebody else off. DG
You're damned right. Who the HELL do you think you are?
Half the anti-smoker control freaks I know pop Valium the way my 10 year old pops M&M's. Most of them can't get through an 8 hour day without 2 or 3 or 4, but I'm some evil creature because I would like a cigarette or 2 while I'm serving beer for those same 8 hours.
I don't trust anyone who worked for any industry and then turns on the industy for additional profit. Whistle blowers are needed, for-profit pirateers are an entirely different story. You fall into the latter category.
Dave G.,
That was someone else who wondered what hat you wore. I WAS hoping you were an anti-smoker (and you're not really disappointing me) because they're aren't enough of them here to argue with most the time.
You mentioned sometime back about how few adults take up smoking, implying either they're not targeted by tobacco companies or they're now too smart to take up smoking. I seem to recall someone amswering you, but in case it wasn't this answer, here's mine:
The reason so few adults take up smoking is because they took up smoking before they could be counted as adults.
Don't assume they'd have never smoked if you could've kept kids from trying one. As I said, (only) 80% (vs 90%) of smokers now start smoking before age 18. But college age smoking rates are quite high.
Anti-tobacco campaigns appear to have kept some kids from taking up smoking while they're under age 18, but they're just taking it up later.
You didn't say if your ads ran in Road&Track or not. If they did I'll dig through my magazines and try to find them.
Dave,
You can only bring out the worst in people if the worst is already there to bring out.
I'll say this: you are the reason we have welfare programs in the first place. Why is that?
You believe the poor are only deserving of aid if they have no habits of which you disapprove, so you're certainly not going to voluntarily donate anything.
Thomas Paine said, and I paraphrase, we only need government because human beings are fundamentally incapable of doing the right thing. If we looked after the widow, the orphan, and the impoverished we wouldn't need to be "governed" at all.
If you really believe that paying a few bucks each week for Medicaid gives gives you the right to peer into the bodies of the recipients, to the point of denying care to the unborn, makes you an absolute horror of a human being.
Dave Goerlitz
I have read all of your posts, and I think I can understand some of your frustrations. However I remain deeply puzzled about something you keep droning on and on about.
Specifically, I don't understand why you (and other anti-smokers) are getting so animated about the fact that the Tobacco Companies choose to market to teenagers as their 'replacement' customer base. This seems a pretty intelligent marketing approach to me. If any product can only legally be sold to people after a certain age (18 here in the UK, but was 16 until last year), then it is logical to start to target the cohort which is approaching that certain age - ie those aged (say) 16-17. With this approach they would be expecting to get them to buy their particular product brand when they reach legal age.
Now I suppose you will start screaming that they were (are?) targetting younger kids than this, but I would need to be convinced about such a claim. After all, the fact that they were using a stud-muffin such as yourself as their poster boy, shows they were targeting the testosterone-filled late teens, rather than younger kids who would be more likely to be persuaded by Barney the Dinosaur or the Thunderbirds Tracey puppets.
I don't see why such a marketing technique should be seen as reprehensible. It wouldn't be for any other company as far as I am aware, and it surely would constitute an illegal restraint of trade if only the Tobacco Companies were denied the freedom to market their products.
From my own experience, I had my first cigarette on my 18th birthday (2 years after it was legal for me to) - and we were bombarded by cigarette ads in those days - they were everywhere! What got me to start smoking was peer pressure - from my friends and school colleagues who all 'suggested' that I was a bit of a non-comformist wuss!
But adverts did absolutely nothing for me - and I would have laughed at any 'poster boys' trying to get me to smoke 'their' brand.
.
Brian,
maybe the poster boy adverts are /were actually aimed at middle aged, mid life crises adults.
You know "smoke Winston's and you will be associated with a pretty boy mountaineer,swinging through the rocks with the greatest of ease, the young ladies will be fighting each other to drape themselves all over your middle age beer paunch, running their fingers through your bald pate" You can finish the fantasy by necking a bottle of Miller's without a glass, wearing your shirt outside your trousers and not tying your shoe laces.
As a teenager I considered anyone over 20 to be ancient and never wanted to be like that, as a teenager I was king. Only the old want to be young, if you get my drift.
GreatScot
GreatScot wrote:
"maybe the poster boy adverts are /were actually aimed at middle aged, mid life crises adults.
As a teenager I considered anyone over 20 to be ancient and never wanted to be like that..."
I'm sure companies do their homework before spending millions on advertising, but I agree with GreatScot.
If I was a young kid I'd see the guy rappelling out of a helicopter as some old guy. Or worse, some old guy having to work for a living. But worst of all, some old guy with a wife and kids.
Yeah, >20 is ancient to a young teenager. 30 is prehistoric. I thought kids one grade higher than me were old. LOL
Goerlitz seems like he just has a problem with conveying his thoughts and seems confused as to whom he should blame for the current anti-tobacco mess. It seems to me that he knows he is part of the problem, and is curing his guilt by blaming Tobacco companies. See it from his point of view - he thinks he is responsible for loads of kids dying early as he helped them to start, and also thinks he is responsible for the witch-hunt by anti-tobacco after helping them on the road to their current bigoted 'cleansing' policy.The logical target in his mind is the ad company that got him into it to begin with, hence the constant references to this Zane character (who sounds like a right twat ... did anyone else visualise him as the executive in Die Hard that tried to pally up to the terrorists? lol)
"did anyone else visualise him as the executive in Die Hard that tried to pally up to the terrorists? lol)"
No, but I know who you're talking about. LOL
FWIW, I think the guy does "mean well" tho I'm inclined to agree with Vettefan's analysis and feel some sympathy for the geographic position: rock/hard place.
Apparently he himself started smoking at 13, did well as a model smoker, wrote a book when he turned state's evidence, and gets (or got) 2200 bucks a day for lecturing others to do what he says not what he did.
Spurred by Brian's comments, I googled and got this:
http://premierespeakers.com/dave...ve_goerlitz/
bio
:
I have been thinking about this, and though I at first, thought that it was because of the continual lectures by sincere do-gooders, and my own decision.
I have now decided it is more PC to blame The Nashville Teens some 10 years earlier.
Walt wrote:
"Spurred by Brian's comments, I googled and got this:
http://premierespeakers.com/dave......ve_goerlitz/
bio "
I googled Dale Zane (the "We don't smoke this ****" guy) and found this on the tobacco document website Glantz? started.
The below paragraph or two is from a letter written by RJR.
Re : Chapter 93A & 9 Demand Letter Response
"Advertising strategy was not
developed and not discussed with models during advertising
shoots, contrary to his claims . Further, Reynolds did not employ
an advertising executive named Don Lane or Don Kane or (more
recently) Dale Zane, the supposed author of the words
Mr. Goerlitz attributes to Reynolds. Finally, on the only
occasion on which Mr. Goerlitz was identified as a prospective
witness in litigation, he refused to submit to cross-examination
about these allegations."
Interesting stuff. I don't know who's telling the truth in this instance.
On one hand, David said there were other witnesses. And this also brought to mind when I was in the Marine Corps a retarded recruit was beaten to death during pugil stick training and the drill instructor was immediately shipped overseas (to avoid the investigation).
But on the other hand, I can't see RJR really giving a big crap about this, much less to the point of hiding all traces of the guy.
AKRON-- Akron Children's Hospital is joining the ranks of about 6,000 other companies nationwide by establishing a new nicotine-free hiring policy.
The policy, which will be implemented incrementally beginning Aug. 1, will add a nicotine test to the hospital's existing health and wellness screenings for new hires.
Two years ago, Akron Children's adopted a tobacco-free policy that bans the use of cigarettes and other tobacco products on hospital property, including parking areas, outdoor grounds and off-site locations.
Between Aug. 1 and Oct. 31, job applicants who are newly hired at Akron Children's will be tested for nicotine as part of the pre-employment panel of medical tests performed by employee health nurses. Applicants who test positive for nicotine will be encouraged to take advantage of the free smoking cessation services already available to existing employees.
Beginning Nov. 1, however, applicants who test positive for nicotine will have their offer of employment rescinded and be given information about smoking cessation. They may reapply for employment after 90 days. The new policy does not apply to current employees. For them, Akron Children's will continue to offer free smoking cessation services, including the distribution of free nicotine patches.
© 2008 WKYC-TV
I can't get this link:
http://premierespeakers.com/dave...ve_goerlitz/
bio
Maybe it's temporary, I'll try later too.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
