raising cigarette prices and running aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns. A series of graduated fines would be levied on cigarette companies based on the number of youths smoking their cigarette brands. The allowable levels of youth smokers would decrease over time so that fines would only be levied if companies failed to reduce youth smoking of their brands to specified levels over time. The money raised would be allocated to establish a national anti-smoking media campaign as well as similar campaigns in all 50 states, for the first time in history.
While only an idealist (which I no longer am)
Obviously you ARE delusional? Do you really want to go through THIS again? OK.
raising cigarette prices and running aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns.
So, punishing those in the lower income brackets (those are the ones you claim smoke the most) and then harassing them with 'ads' is YOUR idea of "good"? IF these methods are so good, then kindly explain the fact that smoking declines have slowed since you started doing just that.
A series of graduated fines would be levied on cigarette companies based on the number of youths smoking their cigarette brands.
I'm sorry, I don't believe you ever answered my question the first time you mentioned this idiocy......WHY should ANY company be punished and fined for the "free choices" that human beings make? Tobacco companies have not been allowed to advertise for decades now, and especially have NOT been allowed to market to children. So kindly explain to me WHY you think they should be fined just because rebellious kids who won't cowtow to your rules? Retailers cannot sell to minors, so the kids are NOT buying cigarettes themselves..........obviously they get them from other sources.
Do you also believe that car manufacturers should be fined because some kids cause accidents and death because they wanted to push that speedometer as far as it will go? Should liquor companies be fined because some kids want to drink too much?
Should gun manufacturers be fined because some parent was too careless and their kid got hold of the loaded gun and killed their friend?
I could go on and on here. So kindly tell me why you think cigarette companies that cannot advertise should be fined for the free choices of people? Just because they make the damned product?
The allowable levels of youth smokers would decrease over time so that fines would only be levied if companies failed to reduce youth smoking of their brands to specified levels over time.
"allowable levels of youth smokers"? Are you seriously suggesting that YOU (general you as in TC/nannies) will dictate a number of youth that YOU feel is acceptable? Any kids over that acceptable number who choose to ignore your draconian rule will be what? Criminals? What is the allowable number of youth allowed to drink? Drive? Cross the street alone? Ride bikes? Be exposed to general air pollution? This list too, is endless.
Are you seriously suggesting that a company, any company be fined, punished and held accountable for the free choices people - including youths - make?
The money raised would be allocated to establish a national anti-smoking media campaign as well as similar campaigns in all 50 states, for the first time in history. In addition, a substantial proportion of funds would be used to support programs specifically for smokers, including research into smoking-related diseases, treatment of such diseases, and smoking cessation programs.
Now THIS is totally delusional. You know damned well that money will go everywhere but..........just as the MSA funds have.
While only an idealist (which I no longer am)
Care to retract this lie before it's pointed out to you?
What Lynda said.
Besides the fact that all of these anti-smoker corporations should be forced into bankruptcy -- and their executives jailed, I do believe the US Congress has FAR, FAR more important things to contend with than this kind of nonsense.
It's not like we are at war or our economy is tanking, or illegals invading our country are stealing jobs, identities and lives on a regular basis.........No everything is all hunky dory with the world and thus the whiney selfish crybabies expect to be taken by the hand and swaddled when what they really need is a good swift whack on the bottoms.
Doc,
cig prices are already raised,,,and yet only a few blog postings ago, you blogged the most recent data that our smoking rate has not changed over the last few years...
It has been estimated that one in every five cancer deaths worldwide are related to tobacco use. According to the IARC, 10 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and 8 tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), as well as at least 45 other compounds or substances found in tobacco smoke, are potential human carcinogens."
Beyond the repeated observation that people who fall to cancer are more likely to smoke there is still no experiment yet devised that can measure cancer caused by tobacco smoke.
How can one hope to devise an experiment to measure harm reduction if one can not devise an experiment that demonstrates harm in the first place?
Has anyone seen such an experiment?
Such an approach would be based on the two strategies which have actually been shown to work: raising cigarette prices and running aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns
These strategies may have worked in the past to some extent, they seem to be less effective now and appear to be getting less effective as time goes by.
There comes a point where raising taxes no longer works. People look for alternative sources at lower prices or turn to criminality. (I could give examples but there have been many given already that show this effect).
Agressive antismoking campains seem to be having the opposite effect. In the UK youth smoking is rising. It seems there comes a point where these ads become less effective. They have become intrusive to those that are non-smokers and they are ignored by people who choose to smoke (desensitisation). (If needed do a (unbiased) study on this. Recent results from a number of studies show smoking prevelance to be on the rise, after a decline, although ever more draconian measures have been used.)
Maybe a better strategy is to do a cost/benefit analysis first. (This would be good for both direct and SHS) Stop 'helping' people by imposing more hardship and denormalization upon them, acknowledge that people want to continue smoking and so investigate ways that efectively reduce any potential harm direct tobacco smoking may have.
west
----
Wish I could say it better than Lynda did, but there aren't any better words in the English language to describe your logic here. Reread Lynda's please!
I prefer my New Year's resolution though. Let's just shut TC down completely and let people live the lives they choose. Should you get lost finding your way to freedom to choose, freedom, liberty, dignity and living your life like you prefer and allowing others to live their lives as they prefer, then give me a call. I would be more than happy to draw you the map to happiness! It is an easy road to follow after you have been de-programed!
Raise prices? More aggressive media campaigns?
Shiva H Vishnu Doc!
Are you not paying any attention?
Raising prices certainly does not work in the UK. Every time they do that, smuggling increases. Those who buy black market tobacco have absolutely no idea of the ingredients. By baying for higher prices you inadvertently endorse putting more people in harms way.
And just exactly what do you want the TC freaks to say about smokers now??
Already we aren't good enough to be in the same room with, on the same beach with, we are useless forever-sick employees, we shouldn't have kids, we don't deserve the operations we pay for six times over, we ought to stop smoking while driving, or walking through kiddie parks.
For the love of God, have you not done enough harm?
It's not even as if your methods are working now, and your solution? Intensify them!
More male smokers in the UK, more young smokers in Scotland, a devastated hospitality industry and communities on their knees.
You achieved more when you did nothing!
You've done too much "for" us already.
Now get lost.
We know what we are doing, and we are coping just fine.
No-one asked for your "help" in the first place.
I think the folks at CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA know that all cigarettes are similarly hazardous to smokers and to those who breathe the tobacco smoke pollution.
I suspect they've been claiming that the FDA legislation will require cigarette companies to remove hazardous contaminants in an ongoing attempt to dupe/scare already confused people and members of Congress into supporting the legislation.
Michael your call to science in place of propaganda is well taken.
Can I direct your attention to the fact this study was produced by the CDC? Who are not all that high on my list of credible sources.
For propagandist effect, might I draw your attention to the first line of the study which downgrades it immediately to an opinion piece.
"It has been estimated that one in every five cancer deaths worldwide are related to tobacco use."
It is truly unfortunate such a crucial pieced of scientific discovery is not fully available for public evaluation, although I would guess without reading the full article; non standard evaluations were employed otherwise this political tidbit would have been realized 30 or more years ago.
I have read virtually hundreds of the research studies, outlining the reduced risk potentials and this is the first and only one I am aware of which creates this inverse association between toxic content.
It seems the promotion of no safe cigarette is the most valuable if used to eliminate restrictions and existing regulations regarding what will be allowed to be sold.
If I didn't know better I would say your article which you represent illustrates an absurdity in focus, was written by James Repace who loves to flout the term inverse association around with his own brand of "Science"
Perhaps you should take a step back yourself and try to demonstrate why your "science" which mixes the enthusiasms of linear and non linear association at will, and it's attachment to marketing hatred and exclusions and yes violence, against law abiding citizens, is more valuable than the other lobbooists definitions of "science"
Personally I have seen all sides of the argument and see little I would define as "science" at least not in the simplistic sense of the traditional definition.
It seems from an onslaught of anti tobacco funding advocates, in Edmonton the Hierarchy of TC, has lost the need for support by Bill's smoking ban advocacy.
They all claim to embrace science as well.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/o...ters/
index.html
I liked this letter;
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/o...9703/
story.html
Bill won't like this one; TC has accepted all of his ban promotion work as a stakeholder partner, accepted his research and used it in selling their ban promotions and are now spitting in his face. Just as they did to Michael.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/o...1730/
story.html
"Prof. Carl V. Phillips's unimaginative defence of "new and promising ideas" that can "reduce ... risks by 99 per cent" would be laughable if he wasn't serious. He directs us to his website, TobaccoHarmReduction.org for details, where one can find a link to another website, smokersonly.org, which contains the wisdom of another academic, Dr. Brad Rodu.
Rodu is another proponent of smokeless tobacco and is also joined at the hip with the tobacco industry. Unfortunately for Rodu, he has attracted the attention of the American Cancer Society as well as the American Dental Association.
Greg Connolly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program said, "to say that one form of tobacco is safer than the other at this point in the debate is just irresponsible" and that, "tobacco is tobacco. It's like telling someone to jump from the fifth floor instead of the 10th floor.""
Better to have loved and lost....
Disease management all comes down to developing the perfect model citizen. Promoting that; we adore the human species, you can most align yourself with and hating all others.
Best babies contests have come full circle.
As has the adoration of Fishbein's medical directorship.
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/
The..._Nujol_Started_
"The world of healing has a certain solid something about it now. Those old, highly touted and publicized "now-it-is-and-now-it-ain't" type of new cures which proved as fleeting as a Japanese militarist's apology, are now no longer filling newspaper columns intended for dissemination of real news items. They are amusing curios in the antiquarian's collection of classics about Boobyland.
The barking of Fishbein — who was the Big Fiddle and whose tune was just as bass — has faded into richly deserved nothingness. Instead, the music flows from a cheering and encouraging section which offers up sincere rah-rahs for all the new helps and techniques — emanating from whatever source — which have unquestionably been proved useful."
Some things never change...
Didn't we do this little dance already?
Good idea, lets punish EVERY industry (not just Tobacco companies) because their product is so popular and well received by the consumers using it.
The Coca Cola company would be in serious jeopardy under your "new approach".
McDonalds Franchise owners would likely be facing hard time in prison as a result of their products popularity.
What about cell phone manufacturers?... those guys should be publicly flogged for making their products rediculously popular, and while we're at it, just for good measure and to demonstrate that there is no industry bias going on here; lets add a $0.45 excise tax on every 2X4 used in the new home construction industry, ...that'll teach em!
Good plan.
Could you possibly be any more opposed to the concept of the Free Market?
How 'bout introducing a series of escalating fines for every lie or gross distortion of the truth published by the "scientific community".
This is far more harmful to everyone (smokers and non-smokers alike) than tobacco smoke could ever be.
Who's watching the watchers Doc?
You guys are completely out of control.
Too true LB,even the one who likes to think himself as enlightened ,sways every time the wind blows.Let's tax the poor bastards to death,eh Dr Siegel ? You really resemble the rhetoric of Nulabour in the UK,different speech,good spin,same bollocks.Hope one day to see the back of them and you and your ilk and a return to what Public Health was all about,not your brand of health ideology and fanaticism.How you have the temerity to state you saw the writing on the wall in 1997 did i read ?
A sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect new and different outcome.
Has anyone seen such an experiment?
Fredrik Eich | 12.22.08 - 11:39 am | #
I published http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
t...sonsmoking.html
and in it explain that much of the disease smokers get more than nonsmokers is likely due to other risks they more commonly have aside from smoking.
The 1964 surgeon generals report is also of value to answer your question, because up til then, smokers and nonsmokers demographic, occupational and social status differences varied little from each other. That report found a five fold increase for laryngeal and lung cancer, and a weak effect for heart disease, but nothing else.
The current estimate of a 15-20 fold increase in laryngeal and lung cancers and the higher estimates for other diseases, do not take into account the demographic differences mentioned above.
Since my own study detected no changes aside from lung and laryngeal cancers over the last 30 years, which otherwise should have occurred ,due to the large change in smokign rates, it becomes more likely myself, and 1964 surgeon general, Luther Terry are correct.
Epi textbooks teach that matched cohort studys are best, and modern studies measuring health effects of smoking are not matched.
Ditto, Lynda, Gabz, Dave, Fredrik, West, Diane, Colin, Kevin, Lightningboy. Even Bill, "all cigarettes are similarly hazardous". Yes, cigarettes are equally harmless. Mark those words!
I hardly know what to say. All of the science is meaningless - all of it! Who bothers to study what keeps people healthy despite so-called hazards?
After the total failures of the war on alcohol and the war on drugs, the wars on tobacco and terror should be declared not only a complete failure, but astoundingly counterproductive. Wars against anything at all are the cause of an increase in the thing opposed. "an inverse relation exists between" attempts to suppress and refusal to be suppressed.
TC will disband entirely or it will sink from the weight of its own ignorance and crimes against humanity.
In the meantime, they should be heavily taxed, so the government can swallow up the proceeds in red tape before giving a pittance back to TC for their doomed efforts. CTFK and the rest of TC should be fined for every child who smokes and that money can be sent back to them much diminished for their continued blind intrusions.
They should be fined for every adult who smokes and the money given back to each tobacco user.
The backlash has begun and gains strength with every TC move. It is no virtue to lay down and let ourselves be walked over and worse.
And SCSi and Gilster! 
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"Such an approach would be based on the two strategies which have actually been shown to work: raising cigarette prices and running aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns."
Hey Doc, I heard anti-semitism is on the rise. Some don't think it's going fast enough. Do you have any strategies they could use?
What an asinine study.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/d...tionary/
asinine
Dr. Siegels link to the study ...
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi...ract/17/12/
3366
Here are the givens or assumptions.
"It has been estimated that one in every five cancer deaths worldwide are related to tobacco use. According to the IARC, 10 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and 8 tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), as well as at least 45 other compounds or substances found in tobacco smoke, are potential human carcinogens. The levels of these carcinogens in contents of tobacco and smoke emissions vary between different tobacco products."
Here's what they did.
" We evaluated mainstream smoke emissions from cigarettes made with different types of tobacco to examine the relation between their deliveries of TSNAs and PAHs and any possible influence from tobacco nitrate content. To investigate the contribution of tobacco content to mainstream cigarette smoke deliveries without confounders such as filter design, filter ventilation, and paper porosity, we used custom-made, research-grade, unfiltered cigarettes that contained bright, burley, oriental, reconstituted, or mixtures of these tobaccos."
Here's what they "discovered".
"Our findings confirm results from other researchers that tobacco type can influence the mainstream smoke delivery of nicotine, TSNAs, and PAHs ... Our results tend to indicate an inverse relation exists between NNK and PAH deliveries when considering different tobacco blends."
Who said that the FDA legislation will result in "new blends" of old tobacco?
For those who don't enjoy tobacco every blend can have a different taste.
Many brands of tobacco products are differentiated by their taste. If one kind of tobacco produces more of "A" when it is burned and another produces more of "B" then it follows that you can change the relationships of "A" and "B" by changing the recipe of the blend of the different tobaccos.
Points
Per Dr. Siegel, "The researchers attempted to reduce the levels of nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons..."
No they didn't. They just measured the constituents of different blends.
From the authors of the study, "tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAH), and aromatic amines likely play important roles in causing cancer ... "Whether such reductions [in both the TSNAs and PAHs] would reduce the health risk associated with smoking is unknown."
It's amazing how little science there is here. They don't even know if these compounds play any role that is important or whether removing them would change anything.
Didn't I see this as an exhibit at a seventh grade science fair?
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion...?skin=text-
only
Ignore meaningless public health studies? I'll drink to that
Date: December 21 2008
and Cayce, who said " Ditto, Lynda, Gabz, Dave, Fredrik, West, Diane, Colin, Kevin, Lightningboy. Even Bill, "all cigarettes are similarly hazardous". Yes, cigarettes are equally harmless. Mark those words!"
if cigs cause a lot less health problems than claimed, then studies of lights would yield the same results as regulars ( apparantly many do). or studies of co-called safer cigs as being discussed here.
Bottom line...the FDA regulation won't work if the cigs are not the problem, but instead due to other lifestyle choices more commonly engaged in by smokers.
The most unsurprising element of this "research" and commentary is that when (i believe it was Kevin) sought to discuss the very subject of TSN's and conceivable ways to reduce them,Dr Siegel remained (as always) silent.Apologies if it wasn't Kevin,but this topic has been brought to Dr Siegel's attention on several occasions and has been ignored.Now,IMHO,either Dr Siegel is such an expert,and as such TC should be totally guided by his views OR being drawn into a discussion will reduce his options and positional arguments ,possibly to a smoker's detriment.The alleged inverse relationship between the two "offending" elements of tobacco smoke seems to be irrelevant when it comes to the promotion of his action plan primarily forcing lower income smokers to choose to smoke or possibly eat.A euphemistic force majeure ? Would Dr Siegel's mouthpiece to the media ,this blog,generate more or less favourable publicity if we all agreed with his stated views ?
With the price of a pack of cigarettes averaging $10.00, an anti-tobacco campaign that has cost millions if not billions of dollars in the last few years, with Big Pharma buying anti-smoking ads in all media ad nauseam and with a comprehensive smoking ban where in most provinces smoking is banned even in cigar lounges, private clubs, old age homes, psychiatric facilities among all hospitals, here’s what Canada has accomplished:
- In 2007, one in five Canadians reported smoking either every day or occasionally, the same proportion as in 2005 and 2006. In addition, smoking prevalence across all age groups remained stable. (smoking rates were declining steadily prior to that)
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-q...080825b-
eng.htm
- Canadians smoked an estimated 10 billion contraband cigarettes last year and the problem is costing the government as much as $4 million a day in lost tax revenue.
(not counting all the losses in the gov’t ran casinos, job losses costing gov’t unemployment insurance premiums, losses in tax revenue from the hospitality industry closures, tobacco farmers’ gov’t buyouts etc…)
http://www.thespec.com/News/Disc.../article/
405455
Are you sure you want to go that route Doctor ?
Hot Off the Wire!!!!!
"OTTAWA — A 23-year-old Cornwall man faces charges after police seized a truck and 2,550 resealable bags of contraband cigarettes following a traffic stop near St. Andrews on Dec. 18."
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Pol...5312/
story.html
In case the Cornwall man needs a good lawyer here is one with experience in these matters.
http://www.theblanchlawfirm.com/....html?
newsid=94
"Politicians continue to use the health of smokers as their excuse for higher cigarette taxes. This view is myopic. As Gov. Wilson argued three decades ago, high cigarette taxes are bad public policy because of their effect on the rest of us. In the 1960s and '70s, organized crime exploited high cigarette taxes at our expense. Today we face an even deadlier adversary."
And now, in European News ...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/n...news/entry/890/
" renegade network of Russian and Eastern European factories is behind at least $1 billion worth of contraband “Jin Ling” cigarettes pouring into Europe, according to a five-month investigation ..."
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
"meaningless public health studies"
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion...?skin=text-
only
LOL, Gilster! That is a great article. I've lived through a lot of media health scares. So far, they were all debunked, including how much they [didn't] cost anyone.
Glister;
"Ignore meaningless public health studies? I'll drink to that"
On that note, and in favor of an excellent link; I believe I might join you.
I have a few Heinekens stuffed in the back of the vegetable crisper [a hiding place my wife dare not go] my private stash, tucked away in anticipation of just such an occasion.
Best of the season and good will to all, especially to those I don't agree with.
Damn she found them!!!
I guess Molson's Export will have to do.
Cheers.
Lynda, I fully subscribe to your comments at the top this page. I couldn't have said it better.
Dr. Siegel, what world do you live in? What world would you like to live in? Sacrifice human, social and economic rights and freedom for dried leaves?
How insane can you get?
How about taking the focus off tobacco altogether? Isn't there anything else you could spend your time with? Are you so addicted to tobacco control that you can't get your mind off for more important things in YOUR life, instead of less important things in other peoples lives? Tobacco and smoking was never important in my life, it was just an ingredient, now it has become a major topic, because it is about my freedom to decide how I want to live my life.
Doctor Siegel, you want to make a difference? Why not start with quality control for harm reduction.
One would think that rodent droppings, insects, mold, insecticides, floor sweepings, seeds, stocks and an assortment of other impurities mixed into the tobacco would be a major source of concern to both smoker and non smoker.
From an article I read:
"Gay rights advocates note that hate crimes based on sexual orientation have increased nationwide as of late. There were 1,415 such crimes in 2006 and 1,460 in 2007, both times making up about 16 percent of the total, according to the FBI."
I wonder how many strategies are being used to get those results?
I'm only guessing, but I'll bet some kind of gay tax and running aggressive anti-gay media campaigns would really get those numbers higher.
There is now a new quit smoking drug available in the market. This latest breakthrough is known as Chantix. It is able to help smokers snub out their addiction by working on the brain.
adelen, before recommending a product based only on hearsay, how about trying Chantix yourself and then give us a first person report on the experience.
Everything Lynda and Colin (and practically everybody else) said unbeatably well.
But here's the thing that gets me. Wasn't it only yesterday that Siegel was rather eagerly and unctuously agreeing that smokers should be consulted- or at any rate, listened to- on matters such as this? Yet clearly he ignores anything and everything that smokers have ever said (and said, said, and said) right into his very ear (or eyeball, as it were). We've been through this repeatedly, dozens of times before and said everything Lynda said.
Either he's incapable of absorbing a new thought that doesn't fit his paradigm, or thinks he's already thought any thought that's worth the thinking, or listens to what we say-- and the facts and the attitudes and experience we present-- merely to patronize or to claim that he's listened, so then he can grunt, "Uh=huh. Now as I was saying..."
Ladies and Gentlemen, we deal with a closed mind. Occasionally, it flirtatiously lifts the Venetian blinds and apparently peers out and may even, from some perspectives, appear to be nodding slowly in a tacit form of agreement, but the window remains sealed. And ayone who thinks he can pry the thing open is, unhappily, ill-advised. The Doc knows what he knows and only what he knows and he knows that he knows enough.
These threads here are an excellent way to exchange information... but only among ourselves.
:
:
These threads here are an excellent way to exchange information... but only among ourselves. - Walt
Couldn't agree more.
I love finding out the real science and rely on you all to correct me if I get it wrong.
After all, we are the ones who have the real interest in what is in the smoke.
I'm sure that even the Doctor finds the odd snippet interesting.
What worries me is if they are going to make all these new medicines from tobacco, they need to follow the real science rather than the horribly corrupted "anti-science" that has infested the subject since 1950.
Otherwise they simply won't work.
I may prefer to enjoy the herb in a more traditional way with a cup of coffee, but done right, it could bring benefits to all.
Headlines like this -
Researchers Light Up for Nicotine, the Wonder Drug
http://www.wired.com/science/dis...007/06/
nicotine
Are both promising and a worry
Go on the old propaganda and you end up with horrors like this -
Nicotine patches may boost intensive care risk
"Surprisingly, they found that 18 of the patients on NRT died, compared with just three of the smokers that did not receive nicotine.
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...-care-
risk.html
Of course admitting that its as much nicotine as my dining room table is a fully functioning tree, would ruin the denormalization campaign.
"The new name was found to be necessary because some anti-tobacco groups warned against enriched bread because it would foster the cigarette habit." ["Cooperative Consumer," Feb. 28, 1942]
In other words, the prohibitionists of the time, would rather let thousands die sick and demented in asylums in the South than risk them taking up smoking.
Rather puts things in perspective don't you think?
Ann W,
I should think that adelen is a spambot.
These spambots should keep their dirty little addictions to themselves!
More good news;
For the first time in more than a decade a major cigarette manufacturer in Canada has purchased a major poster board campaign aiding a new product launch. Since the cigarette wall law came in passed in a number of provinces, it allows them the right to advertise new products in venues such as bars which are restricted to people above the age of 19 years.
They can not be accused of advertising to children, the print and outdoor ads are not allowed supposedly for that reason. The cigarette walls prevent a consumer from comparison shopping either from a health or comfort perspective, it stands to reason the manufacturers have every right to convey information to their adult clientele and now it comes back to the lobbies to find a way to restrict them once again without treading into lawsuit territory.
It is really encouraging somehow, to see the tobacco industry finally standing up for themselves and taking on the fight, which should be between them and the lobbies and not strictly a matter of lobbies punishing anyone who uses the product willingly.
Perhaps a little encouragement could have the tobacco industry focusing themselves as a separate player here. Allowing someone who is an adult who chooses to use cigarettes a voice, independent of the classic "shill" descriptor attached by fanatics and guilty consciences.
"Since my own study detected no changes aside from lung and laryngeal cancers over the last 30 years, which otherwise should have occurred ,due to the large change in smokign rates, it becomes more likely myself, and 1964 surgeon general, Luther Terry are correct."
Dave,
this is the problem that I see with the harm theory. Beyond the 50 year old observation that there is a relationship between smoking and chronic diseases we seem to be stuck in this ground hog day loop of "some stuff in tobacco" must work synergistically "with some other stuff" to precipitate a dose
response and that because lung cancer rates don't fluctuate that much in never smokers the theory is sound!! But the 1964 surgeon general did not have 44 years of animal data to look at.
Now, if it were not possible to precipitate lung cancer in animals at all - that would be a different matter. But we can give animals lung cancer but not with whole tobacco smoke.
Say we had situation where smoke induced lung cancer can be demonstrated in rats, mice, hamsters(golden or otherwise) and monkeys. What would the chances then be that smoke does not induce lung cancer in humans? It is possible that smoke induces lung cancer in rats, mice, hamsters, monkeys and not humans but it would be a very slim chance. So given that the reverse
is true (we can not induce lung cancer in animals with whole tobacco smoke) why do we not now say that, while it is possible that smoke does induce lung cancer in humans and not rats, mice, hamsters, monkeys but that this is a very slim chance?
Why do we give more weight to the observation that lung cancer in never smokers does not fluctuate much, than the fact, that after fifty years of trying we can not induce lung cancer with animal testing when it is animal testing that we have such a high level of confidence in for all other purposes?
Some points to ponder over the holidays for those promoting the TC demonologies;
Surprisingly from the church, comes a call to allow loosened principles, in opposition to a radical dictate demanding too tightly principled behavior. Again that maligned comparison to Nazi Germany rears it's ugly head.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme...ed-is-
love.html
"What Barth saw beginning to take its grip on Germany in 1931 was a system of "principle" that worked quite consistently once you accepted that quite a lot of people that you might have thought mattered as human beings actually didn't.
As the nightmare decade unfolded, the implications of this became clearer and clearer. And what he was warning against was the temptation of unconditional loyalty to a system, a programme, a "cause" which was essentially about "me and people like me". It's about the danger of my agenda, our needs, the programme of this particular group, its safety and prosperity."
Any of this sound even vaguely familiar?
More;
http://www.thespec.com/News/Cana.../article/
486023
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...zi-
Germany.html
Fredrik
How many million years have rats, mice, hamsters and monkeys spent tending a cooking fire in a confined space, inhaling the same vapours?
Evolution takes a while
"The ability to control fire was a major change in the habits of early humans. Making fire to generate heat and light made it possible for people to cook food, increasing the variety and availability of nutrients. Fire also kept nocturnal predators at bay.
Archaeology indicates that ancestors or relatives of modern humans might have controlled fire as early as 790,000 years ago. The Cradle of Humankind site has evidence for controlled fire from 1 to 1.8 million years ago"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire
http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid...=31&
id_site=915
Or to put it another way we would not throw away our animal data on the observation that heart problems do not fluctuate
so much in people who don't use heart drugs over time!
Ladies and Gentlemen, we deal with a closed mind. Occasionally, it flirtatiously lifts the Venetian blinds and apparently peers out and may even, from some perspectives, appear to be nodding slowly in a tacit form of agreement, but the window remains sealed.
Walt, your visuals are spot on!
I see him.....I see him...
Doctor, how's your Pellet Stove doing this year?
Did you buy tons of the soft wood or hard wood pellets?
I heard soft wood pellets emit more carcinogenic smoke - I hope you bought the hard wood variety - It may say 'premium' on the bags but you should have someone analyse them for harm reduction of your innocent neighbors.
If they are soft pellets - you should throw them out.
Kevin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gle...Gleichschaltung
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...81217075134.htm
Online Register Created To Flag Scientific Papers That May Be Tainted By Fraud Or Misconduct
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008 ) — A group of French research students is launching an online register to flag up scientific papers that have been tainted by fraud and other types of scientific misconduct.~snip~
~interesting~
This one is timely;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme...-to-
Labour.html
"Perhaps you are ignorant of the dangers of scissors, or the perils of falling off a bike. Help, though is at hand. The Government, in its infinite bossiness, has dipped into the bottomless pit of yours and my money to produce a Yuletide leaflet that wins this year's star prize for 'elf 'n' safety madness. "
From Rose's link;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Gle...Gleichschaltung
This got me wondering if the CTFK ever specifies the ages of the Kids over whom they claim a proxy;
"The Gleichschaltung also included the formation of various organisations with compulsory membership for segments of the population, in particular the youth. Boys served as apprentices in the Pimpfen ("cubs") beginning at the age of six, and at age 10, entered the Deutsches Jungvolk ("Young German Boys") and served there until entering the Hitler Youth proper at age 14. Boys remained there until age 18, at which time they entered into the Arbeitsdienst ("Labor Service") and the armed forces (Wehrmacht). Girls became part of the Jungmädel ("Young Maidens") at age 10, and at age 14 were enrolled in the Bund Deutscher Mädel ("League of German Maidens"). At 18 BDM members went generally to the eastern territory for their Pflichtdienst, or Landjahr, – a year of labor on a farm. In 1936 membership of the Hitler Youth numbered just under 6 million."
Why do we give more weight to the observation that lung cancer in never smokers does not fluctuate much, than the fact, that after fifty years of trying we can not induce lung cancer with animal testing when it is animal testing that we have such a high level of confidence in for all other purposes?
Fredrik Eich | 12.23.08 - 7:28 am | #
the 1992 epa report ws a joke when it discussed animal testing; saying essentially that smoke did not cause LC in any animal except the syerian golden hampster.
making it much more likely nonsmoking hmans fit in the former category than the syerian golden hampster category.
smoke is smoke. tobacco smoke and wood smoke contain the same ingredients apart from nicotine.... humans began using wood fires about 100,000 years ago- even inside caves which were poorly ventilated.
it would seem if wood smoke originally did cause LC, then selective breeding would have eventually eliminated those genes which were susceptible to mutations from smoke, from the human genome.
add modern nontobbaco smoke ( such as diesel & coal) and a whole plethora of other new pollutants which our genome has not had time to breed out,,,and lung cancer would again become commonplace among humans.
this is indeed what has happened.
and one other thing....a hypothesis has to explain all the observed phenomena--- that's the scientific method.
the hypothesis that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer, does not explain all the observable phenomena such as historical and etiological observations, as others here, and myslef have been pointing out.
Walt wrote:
"Wasn't it only yesterday that Siegel was...agreeing that smokers should be consulted...Yet clearly he ignores anything...smokers have ever said..."
Dr. Siegel only means smokers who agree with him on taxes (how high they should go) and bans (how far is too far).
He's much like Bill Godshall. Godshall professes love for smokers, but clearly this love extends only to the ones trying to quit smoking, and agree that bans and taxes are a good thing.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, we deal with a closed mind."
Don't forget brainwashed. (self-admitted)
PS to Dr. Siegel:
Now that the US will soon have a black president there is a renewed effort to send ******* back to Africa.
The groups pushing it are wondering if you think some sort of tax break to get them to leave voluntarily will work? Or will a two-pronged effort like you suggest for eliminating smokers be needed?
"add modern nontobbaco smoke ( such as diesel & coal) and a whole plethora of other new pollutants which our genome has not had time to breed out,,,and lung cancer would again become commonplace among humans." - DaveK
In my opinion, for what its worth, the "science" doesn't work, because it was never meant to work, it was meant to be believed.
If the truth had come out the workers would have fled the industrial towns.If people thought they had some measure of control over such things, they were more likely to stay in place.
We must never alarm the public! ( until it works to our advantage )
Rose....
the lung cancer that Henry Ford built... LOL
and oh yes! according to science, a change in the independant variable ( smoking) should lead to a predictable and reproducible change in the dependant variable (public health)
now I agree some LC is caused by smoking,,,,, BUT when 1/2 of the proclaimed leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA is eliminated, (and smoking blamed for 1/4th of all deaths) and VERY Little public health changes, ya gotta ask "DO WE HAVE SCIENCE?"
DaveK
I would suggest that filling tobacco barns with diesel fumes for so many years would be more likely to be the contributary factor, rather than the act of smoking itself.
Not the most brilliant idea in the circumstances.
Rose...huh?
do tobacco barns get filled with diesel fumes? well, if the FDA would eliminate that...it'd support it.
I don't know if I'll be back online here before Christmas, SO:
I do wish all of you- and yours, the Happiest of the Holiday Season. Dave K
My two cents worth:
Ditto what Lynda said. But you gotta love the guy. In an obscene perversion of the social contract and an individual’s personal freedom, this thug wants to put his hand in smokers’ pockets in order to subtract from their funds – often their household funds – an amount sufficient to make them think twice about the costs of a perfectly legal and pleasurable indulgence. And then, adding effrontery to insult, he wants to take the money he’s extorted and apply it to a national anti-smoking advertising campaign (“such as the ‘truth’ campaign”!) meant to correct the behavior of the very people he’s extorted the money from!
But no, this isn’t a “coercive” measure; it’s an “intervention,” an “encouraging” of people to change their lifestyles. And Dr. Siegel is not a thief advocating thievery by an Orwellian state; he’s a fine, upstanding citizen using methods legislated in a free republic by the people’s representatives for reasons of public health. Because when you steal from a person with the intent of doing that person a favor with the money you’ve stolen from him, then that’s not an evil act; it’s a benign and laudable act, a simple act of “encouraging” behavior that will benefit that person. And that’s how twisted the mind of the doctor has become.
But there’s this juxtaposition: “ In response to LightningBoy's comment that: ‘Advocating for increases in already exorbitant tobacco excise taxes is in fact enacting a policy to control a particular lifestyle,’ I would point out that the federal tax rate of 39 cents per pack hardly seems exorbitant. My proposal calls for a modest increase in the federal tax rate.”
(Get the flummery! So there’s an amount – benignly not reached by the doctor’s “modest increase” – where in fact it can be said that the added tax CAN be called coercive, but not here, not with this modest sum. And the modest increase of the final straw that broke the camel’s back? Modest.)
But remember his “proposal” posted on November 11th; it didn’t call for a “modest increase,” it called for this: “INCREASING THE PRICE OF CIGARETTES THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES” (my emphasis). “Substantial” isn’t “modest,” doctor. Are you now, with this shilly-shallying, trying to back off from coercion into a more modest “encouraging” because it’s finally dawned upon you that your November proposal was, er, obscenely coercive?
Plus everything that everybody else has said. And echoing Colin especially: "For the love of God, have you not done enough harm?"
.
Thinking about what Harry wrote:
"But remember his “proposal” posted on November 11th; it didn’t call for a “modest increase,” it called for this: “INCREASING THE PRICE OF CIGARETTES THROUGH SUBSTANTIAL CIGARETTE TAX INCREASES” (my emphasis)."
Maybe the doc uses different phrases depending on who he's thinking of at the time:
Poor people = substantial
Rich people = modest
I think it needs repeating to all the caring folks in tobacco control. If tobacco is as addictive as you say, raising taxes on this product will not stop most users.
What it will do is make some children wear old clothes to school, go to bed hungry at night, and a host of other things.
It may also turn their mommies into the equivalent of crack whores.
DaveK
"Nitrosamines are formed in flue-cured tobacco when the tobacco is exposed to combustion gases produced during the curing process"
"After World War II, Boyette added, tobacco growers began to switch from wood to fuel oil as a heating source, but they still used flues that carried the combustion gases through the barn."
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/...nter01/
back.htm
Tobacco Barn Retrofit Required
"As if flue-cured tobacco growers didn’t have enough worries, they now must retrofit their curing barns by the end of June 2001 in order to stay in business"
"Between 30,000 and 35,000 barns must be retrofitted to reduce tobacco-specific nitrosamines in flue-cured tobacco, says Dr. Mike Boyette, Philip Morris associate professor of biological and agricultural engineering at N.C. State University"
"Research shows that if such direct-fired systems are retrofitted with heat exchangers, tobacco-specific nitrosamines are reduced dramatically"
http://archives.thepilot.com/
Mar...rnRetrofit.html
The "safer cigarette" is where it has always been, in the hands of the grower.
In spite of evidence to the contrary, Mike Siegel still wants us to believe so-called "second-hand smoke" is a danger to non-smokers. If there were any truth in it, he and his colleagues wouldn't have to make up ridiculous lies. So much for a "science based approach".
Here's an idea for a new approach: Educate children to the dangers of smoking, then learn to mind your own business.
THERE ARE CIGARETTES THAT CUT DOWN PAHs AND NITROSAMINES BY 95% AND MORE
Sorry, Doctor, there are harm reduction products –as the Eclipse cigarette (RJ Reynolds) or the Electrically Heated Cigarette/Accord (Philip Morris)- which not only considerably lower PAHs and tobacco-specific nitrosamines levels, but, also, and as the hookah does, do NOT generate side-stream smoke. this should have drawn the attention of anti-smoking organisations, no ?
As in hookahs, the tobacco rod is only heated so the yields of toxicants that were mentioned (taken by groups or on an individual basis) are cut down by 95% and more (see DeBethizy et al, 1990).
Two decades back, independent researchers as prestigious as Sutherland, Russell, Stapleton and Feyerabend had welcome the precursor of these harm cigarettes and noted how the particles of their smoke, in which nicotine is transported, are comprised mainly of glycerol and water rather than tar. They noted that glycerol is harmless, easily absorbed, and metabolised as a source of energy. They encouraged the development of these new products [1]. The anti-smoking organisations did not.
As for raising prices, I am afraid this has failed everywhere [2].
[1] Sutherland G, Russell MA, Stapleton JA, Feyerabend C. Glycerol particle cigarettes: a less harmful option for chronic smokers. Thorax. 1993 Apr;48(4):385-7.
See also seminal articles by Gio Batta GORI and Eclipse Expert Panel in Inhalation Toxicology (2000).
[2] Molimard R, Amrioui F, Martin C, Carles P. Poids des mégots et contraintes économiques [Weight of Cigarette Butts and and Economical Constraints]. La Presse Médicale 1994;23:824-6.
Happy New Chinese Year with the coming E-Cigarettes, E-Cigars, E-Pipes and E-Hookahs
Investigation of the evidence at hand demonstrates conclusively, there was never a moral or physiological benefit found or expressed by the implementation of smoking bans or cigarette taxes.
The bully approach by the me first cabal, simply illuminates the hateful nature and lack of integrity of all who promoted these strategies.
Promotion of smoking bans are a violent act, which seek comfort for the supporters at the expense and indignity of others. To simply claim they are an effort to "help someone quit" while ignoring the fact many are not seeking to quit, is a childish attempt to quell inner guilt, or to make excuses for a failure or refusal, to look at ones self to understand why support was given.
There was always another option as we have seen with other hazardous warnings, placing a sign on the door allows choices, both of employment and of potential clientele in a free market society, which will allow comfort for all with not loss of dignity or cohesive communities. The same communities when left to their own devices have always found the means to get along.
When the State stoops so low as to dictate personal behaviors and dole out assessments of personal worth, by means of a presumption of guilt. That government defiles their office, the tenets of personal freedom and democracy but most significantly they defile all of people they serve.
As the year progressed we saw new innovations in physical treatments put on the back burner, for possible implementation only after stringent investigation. While the antagonists sat on the edge of their seats all to eager to immediately accept; any theory, method or statement which endorsed their comfort.
The lack of principles by those who earn a living enforcing and restricting the principles of others, has grown beyond all reasonable proportion and the time for their regulation is well past due.
It is time to beat them with their own stick of morality.
My New Year's resolution is if it takes the last breath in my body, I am going to make 2009 the year of the scandals.
The money, the fraud, the tax fraud, the stock fraud, the whole bloody thing.
They've taken ownership of our business by deciding how we accomodate our customers in our bar.
Now they're moving on to our homes with their BS no safe exposure to THIRD hand smoke.
We now have draconian bans for less COMPUTER GENERATED deaths from SHS than from the flu and pneumonia (59,664 in 2004 according to the CDC)
If they think they've worn down those of us who fight the lies, they don't know us. Every day with each new lie and non-sourced study du jour we grow angrier and more determined.
To Tobacco Control: BRING IT ON! You're in for one hell of a war.
Pam & Kevin, Amen to that!
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
