Amendment:
"If Dr. Siegel has evidence that there is a huge pile of dead barenders who died from SHS exposure--or even a single bartender--he should put forward that evidence immediately. If not, then he should immediately retract or clarify his false accusation."
220 people would be a big pile. Please attach directions.
If not, then it should immediately retract or clarify its false accusation.
ROFLMAO You really expect them to do that? LOL Haven't you learned by now that your beloved movement isn't interested in the truth? IF they were, they would realize that FORCES is about the freedom to choose in all areas of our lives. They are as against the "war on obesity" as they are against the "war on smokers". FORCES is about the people making their own choices about what legal activities they can and cannot engage in. They are against discrimination (and face it your movement is all about discrimination).
Your movements' problem is that you cannot accept the fact that not everyone agrees with you or believes you. Therefore they have to stress the lies. They get away with it since no one has really challenged their so-called "science" which we all know is really nothing more than "science fiction".
Your movement is about totalitarianism and nothing more. Your movement couldn't care less about anyone's health. They just want to control people and dictate their every movement.
You all can KMLWA IF you can even get that close to me...........because I will stay as far away from you all as I can for fear of catching some mental illness you all seem to possess that appears to be contagious.
Doc says..." It is undoubtably true that there are also some groups out there which are tobacco industry front groups and allies. "
Doc can you name one? I have been serving as Dir. of Research for the Smoker's Club, INC for about 4 years now, and I HAVE NEVER heard of any group, which is currently funded by Big Tobacco...yet you seem assured that such groups actually (still?)exist. ( I do know that in the 1980s-90s that there were some...but they are now defunct. allies? now that's a different story...they may have some unpaid allies...but I can tell you this..I have tried to work with some of the tobacco companies, and have gotten nowhere. Yet, I suppose one could call me an "ally" in that I oppose smoking bans and higher taxes.
There are of course, some scientists still recieving some tobacco funding...but contrary to these nicotine patch salesgroups making all these false claims that you constantly criticize, they do present data and valid scientific arguments.
These claims, made by antitobacco, that many of us are recieving big tobacco funding, or support of any kind are no more solid than the claims that excise tax hikes and bans cut smoking rates, that a nonsmoker can have a heart attack caused by shs within 30 seconds after exposure, that a NS bartender smokes a pack of cigs during a shift, or that secondhand smoke harms anyone.
Dave K
To be fair Dave, mychoice.ca was funded directly by the Tobacco Industry although the organizers swear they industry remained arms length. They have always been open about their budget which was 2.5 million per year, I am not sure if they are still funded. I have not visited the site for quite some time. It also became clear the group always supported the stance in a claim of representing smokers, ETS was known and accepted as a huge public health risk.
What is the larger question in choosing up sides in the debate would be; who is really supporting whom, which should be the truth which needs to be told.
My letter to the editor today surprisingly and quite coincidentally exactly on the mark.
""It is becoming abundantly clear; the anti smoking lobby has been subverted by the much more popular and well financed anti smoker lobby. Around the turn of the century Phillip Morris stock values were trading in the sub 25 dollar range and their spoiled reputation was largely responsible. The formation of a deal known as the MSA settlement, to pay for their foul deeds and what were believed to be the medical costs associated to the damage caused, was thought to be offset at least in part by what amounted to close to 150 Billion dollars, as PM's share of the carnage.
No one seemed to mind or for the most part no one noticed they simply viewed the expense as a cost of operations and promptly passed double that sum on to consumers, with no damage done. Assuming close to 150 billion dollars in unearned profit in the process. Tobacco taxes were similarly doubled and in some cases more than tripled, earning the industry a means of turning punishment into a profit center. Is it any wonder so many industries are now lining up demanding to be punished for the costs of carbon?
Since the time we decided to blame smokers for every rain drop, the fortunes of the Tobacco industry have improved significantly, PM stocks now trade in a range tripled to what they were before smokers became the problem and assumed the spoiled Identity, the smoke demanded we all needed to be protected. The media bought in, the medical community bought in, and all the major medical charities, went to war against smokers. All in process, expressed a diminished confidence in their professions and the science, climbing instead on the bandwagon of witch hunts and propaganda.
What I see is the greater danger in provoking smoker bans with no balance in the media, for what can only be described as irresponsible and very poor science, is we face the danger now in court proceedings, when a damage is thought to be caused by industrial pollutants, of proving our damages, were not self inflicted or merely the result of exposures to tobacco smoke.
They say be careful what you wish for, unfortunately the protections from tobacco smoke are not protecting us nearly as much as they are protecting the industries who are now free to do pretty much as they wish, in regards to polluting our environment. The organizations we know as the partners in Public Health, it seems, have little to do with protecting the publics health, more so, than the health of their largest sponsors.""
Yet, I suppose one could call me an "ally" in that I oppose smoking bans and higher taxes.
I disagree with you there Dave. In my experiencefolks like Dr. Siegel and Bill Godshall are more "allied" with the tobacco industry than folks like you and I. The companies do not oppose smoker bans, nor do they fight higher taxes. In fact here in Virginia Philip Morris actually supported raising the cigarette tax from 25 cents to $3 per carton in exchange for legislative and Gubernatorial support for forcing non-signatory companies to pay into the MSA.
Sounds like a claim that a Big Pharma front Group might make in order to deflect attention from their own questionable sources of funding.
I guess the $5,196,802 "granted" so far to ANR from our good buddies over at RWJF, is acceptable, because after-all, and once again,....it's for our own good.
http://tinyurl.com/2s6l2k
Following the money is the only tact that will expose fraud for fraud, regardless of which side of the equation you may be on.
This is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. Don't you just love it when a person or a group is guilty of doing something, they then turn around and point the finger at someone or something else and places the blame on them? Liars are famous for this and eventually they get caught. Which I tend to think that maybe someone is forcing someone at ANR to prove their existance. Blame Forces instead and take the pressure off. Don't you think that if Big Tobacco was paying Forces, we would be seeing commericials several times a day stating that the anti tobacco movement has no scientific proof of their claims? Or maybe full page ads in newspapers and magazines? Instead, I get to see an actress tell me how she can't count how many times she has tried to quit smoking, or how someone thought that smoking was a way of life, but now know she is an addict. I wish I had counted how many times I have seen this ad and I believe someone is paying someone else to run it and I don't think it is Big Tobacco either. Can anyone say, "Robert Wood Johnson, American Cancer,Lung and Heart Association"? Once again, Pot calling Kettle Black!
Hypocrisy is best word to describe touting oneself as a public health advocate, while defending those who promote the deadliest drug addiction by repeating cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda.
And there you have a classic case of attack is the best form of defence.
Bill, go get an opinion of your own...none of us promote heroin...and I think I'm the only one who promotes tobacco use other than you.
I am glad to see your finally figuring it out Bill.
TC are the largest supporters of the Tobacco Industry, by their support in shifting of the blame and the punishment from the industry, on to those once thought of as their victims.
Considering the other business activities of PM, has anyone looked lately to see how many of these brave and holy Public Health advocates, receive PM funding, from a long list of PM "acceptable" companies selling beer and prepared foods?
Bill, my research is all original, and not industry funded. prove otherwise..... Then while implying that I'm a liar, prove you are not. Dave K
"But ANR doesn't seem concerned about being able to prove its accusations of wrongdoing."
Well, you accuse bar owners of serious wrongdoing by saying they KILL THEIR OWN EMPOYEES.
Please prove your accusations of wrongdoing. Or at least explain how you are any different than the people you criticize here.
At least they aren't accusing themselves of being callous killers. I think you have a much higher standard of proof when you levy the accusation you bring against millions of business owners.
So... proof, please?
Or please retract the accusation.. and our support for all related government intrusions.
Or, you know, ignore it and just keep calling people names.
Boy you don't have to look too hard do you?
This appears for all intents and purposes exactly like one of those sporting events Tobacco industries used to fund;
http://www.kncgolf.com/
Sure, its all about protecting the public isn't it?
Phony as a three dollar "Bill"
Godshall --- just once I would like to see you provide the unvarnished truth, in other words actual proof, of ANY of your insipid parroting of the anti-smoker playbook.
I really dislike insulting parrots but that is all you are a parrot who kows nothing of which he speaks just retitious bilge supplied on a daily basis by his owners.........and you call smokers addicts. HAH --
Here is a participating partner's list;
http://www.betagammasigma.org/
ma...nggiftcorps.htm
A small snippet reveals; "Some groups" are not fussy at all, about who provides their funds.
" Kraft General Foods Foundation
Ladd Furniture, Inc.
Lehman Brothers Inc.
Lotus Development Corporation
The Lubrizol Foundation
Lyondell Pretrochemical Company
Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc.
Massachusetts Financial Services Company & Subsidiaries
McDonald's Corporation
McKesson Foundation, Inc.
The Mead Foundation
Microsoft Matching Gifts Program
.
.
.
.
PepsiCo Inc.
Pfizer Inc.
Pfizer Foundation
Philip Morris Companies Inc."
Hypocrites?
No, just business as usual.
Bill Godshall, you are entitled to your own opinion, as stupid as it may be. Can we have some more?
The evidence seems to indicate Public Health and TC are front groups for big tobacco.
Their efforts in turning anti smoking into anti smoker Via the legend of second hand smoke, was the best thing that ever could of ever happened to the tobacco industry considering the faltering position they were in, a mere 8 years ago.
The tobacco industry have now successfully shifted the burden to smokers and made a tidy profit in the process while making absolute asses of their opponents the so called "professionals" in Public health.
It is all built around the previously posted claims of ASH and the ANR a defense of integrity provided inexplicably by PM no less?
A list which outlines the perceived actions any "allies" of big tobacco might pursue. Attaching the most significant arguments regardless of their substance, to a tobacco industry taint, an act which couldn't be designed better to silence all opposing views. At the same time accusing anyone who provides an argument against their actions, in the taint of that same mythical dragon.
Cult worship and witch hunts don't need good arguments. Once a victim has been taken in, they make excuses up themselves, to account for actions they might otherwise, if they were thinking, be quite ashamed of.
Hypocrisy is best word to describe touting oneself as a public health advocate, while defending those who promote the deadliest drug addiction by repeating cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda.
Bill Godshall | 03.18.08 - 12:35 pm |
Damn…………that was the best you could Bill? Looks like the Doc hit a little close to home? Here’s a thought for you, Hypocrisy is best word to describe touting oneself as a public health advocate, while defending the use of smokless tobacco and all its KNOWN damages by repeating tobacco (smokeless or not it’s still a tobacco) industry propaganda.
This appears for all intents and purposes exactly like one of those sporting events Tobacco industries used to fund;
Actually, that event is STILL getting tobacco industry funding as Kraft/Nabisco are owned by PM. Kraft may now be an independent publicly held company, but 88.1% of its shares are in owned by PM shareholders. Guess that means they are still affiliated with tobacco money then eh?
Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE: KFT) is the largest food and beverage company headquartered in North America and the second largest in the world after Nestlé SA.
The Philip Morris Company (now known as Altria Group), acquired Kraft for $12.9 billion in 1988, eventually merging it with another food subsidiary, General Foods, which it had acquired in 1985. In 2000, Philip Morris acquired Nabisco and merged it with Kraft. Altria sold 280 million Kraft shares via an initial public offering in 2001, retaining an 88.1% stake. On January 31, 2007, after months of speculation, the company announced that its 88.1% stake would be spun off to Altria shareholders at the end of March 2007. Kraft is now an independent publicly held company.
RJR Nabisco, Inc., was an American conglomerate formed in 1985 by the merger of Nabisco Brands and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. RJR Nabisco was purchased in 1988 by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. in the second largest leveraged buyout in history, adjusted for inflation.
In 1999, due to concerns about tobacco lawsuit liabilities, the tobacco business was spun off into a separate company, and RJR Nabisco was renamed Nabisco Holdings Corporation. Nabisco is currently owned by Kraft Foods
There appear to still be ties to the dreaded tobacco companies.
Bill said: "Hypocrisy is best word to describe touting oneself as a public health advocate, while defending those who promote the deadliest drug addiction by repeating cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda."
Bill - I'm not defending anyone here. I'm simply stating that FORCES is not a Big Tobacco front group and therefore, that ANR is making a false accusation.
Moreover, the strongest promoter of tobacco use on this blog is yourself. Albeit, smokeless tobacco, but it's still tobacco. I have no problem with that by the way - I think you make some very good and important arguments - but I also don't go around calling you a hypocrite or saying that you're not an anti-tobacco advocate.
Bottom line: How do you defend ANR for making a false accusation? Is it OK to make a false accusation, as long as you are on the "right" side of the issue?
cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda
Like this?
Whats in a cigarette.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
worldservic...nacigarette.htm
Or like this?
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/toba...11400/
11461.txt
Sorry I didn't have much time to search, I thought the second one was a real find until I read it.
How disappointing, time and science and especially our chief medical officer saying that smokers lungs are suitable for transplant, have taken the horror out of the deceptions.
Mind you, I still refuse to read anything more recent, antismoking science is bad enough.
Dr. Siegel:
Won't you respond to your (sworn?) testimony that there are 4,000 toxins in tobacco smoke?
Who's really the bully on the block?
Big Tobacco, - OR - Big Pharma?
Who's really bigger?
C'mon, ...you now the answer.
Mr. Godshall wrote:
"Since smokeless tobacco products are clearly less hazardous than cigarettes, why shouldn't the manufacturer be permitted to truthfully claim that the product is a less hazardous alternative to cigarettes (as that's not only true, but it can save smoker's lives)?"
Mr. Godshall wrote:
"Hypocrisy is best word to describe touting oneself as a public health advocate, while defending those who promote the deadliest drug addiction by repeating cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda."
Uh?!?
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Hypocrisy...public health advocate...defending those who promote the deadliest drug addiction by repeating cigarette industry funded junk science and propaganda."
You're a self-admitted public health advocate. If you had your way, the deadliest drug addictions would be smokeless tobacco and the drugs you want decriminalized. Does that make you a hypocrite now or in the future if you get your way?
Btw, if we follow Bill's logic; anyone in tobacco control who stops promoting further bans or tax hikes is no longer a part of tobacco control. That means then that prohibition must be on the list as only that can be the real end.
Which means that Bill Godshall is not really a member of tobacco control as he's stated he's against prohibition.
Stephen,
After looking up the definition of "toxin" in a number of dictionaries, you are correct that I did not use the term correctly, in a technical sense. The word toxin refers to "a specific poison, usually of an albuminous nature, especially one produced by a microbe, which causes a particular disease when present in the system of a human or animal body."
That is, toxins are specifically poisonous substances that are produced by organisms.
So you are absolutely correct in suggesting that it is not technically accurate to state that there are over 4,000 toxins in tobacco smoke. What I should have said was: "There are more than 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke, many of which are toxic or carcinogenic."
My testimony was not under oath - it was a written statement that was submitted for the record. Nevertheless, I should have been more careful.
There is a non-technical use of the term "toxin" - which was the way I intended to use it - described on Wikipedia as follows: "When used non-technically, the term "toxin" is often applied to any toxic substances. Toxic substances not of biological origin are more properly termed poisons. Many non-technical and lifestyle journalists also follow this usage to refer to toxic substances in general, though some specialist journalists at publishers such as BBC and The Guardian maintain the distinction that toxins are only those produced by living organisms."
However, since people might interpret my usage as being in the technical sense, I agree that it would have been better to avoid that usage. I will certainly do that in the future, using language similar to what I wrote above.
Mike wrote:
"I'm simply stating that FORCES is not a Big Tobacco front group"
Mike seems to forget that a Philip Morris lawyer filed FORCES 501(c)3 application with the IRS, and that FORCES has publicized hundreds of junk science studies and other propaganda funded and/or produced by cigarette companies.
Also, various members and affiliates of FORCES have acknowledged receiving funding from cigarette companies.
Just because an organization hasn't recently received funding from the cigarette industry doesn't mean it is no longer a front group.
Dr Siegel, you should make that correction now, in writing, to the panel. Will you do that? That would be one step in correcting the lies, wouldn't it?
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Mike seems to forget that a Philip Morris lawyer filed FORCES 501(c)3 application with the IRS"
That does not make FORCES a front group.
"and that FORCES has publicized hundreds of junk science studies and other propaganda funded and/or produced by cigarette companies."
That doesn't either by any stretch of the imagination.
Your pro-smokeless study was funded by Big Smokeless. Are you a front group for them?
"Also, various members and affiliates of FORCES have acknowledged receiving funding from cigarette companies."
Short list please. And what amount of funding they received.
I believe Gian Turci said he once got a free meal from a tobacco company. You can leave that one off.
"Just because an organization hasn't recently received funding from the cigarette industry doesn't mean it is no longer a front group."
FORCES has stated many times they've NEVER received any funding. I believe they did run a paid tobacco ad for a short while though. Kind of like what you do here for Big Smokeless except you run them here for free.
Bill:
"Also, various members and affiliates of FORCES have acknowledged receiving funding from
cigarette companies."
Bill,
Are you saying that FORCES gain a pecuniary advantage from cigarette companies?
Are you saying that FORCES are partly funded by the cigarette companies?
Or are you saying that "FORCES have acknowledged receiving funding from
cigarette companies."
Please clarify.
Lazy Fredrik
"There is a non-technical use of the term "toxin" - which was the way I intended to use it - described on Wikipedia as follows: "When used non-technically, the term "toxin" is often applied to any toxic substances. Toxic substances not of biological origin are more properly termed poisons."
Changing "4,000 chemicals" to "4,000 poisons" isn't any better than saying "toxins."
"Chemicals" is a prejudicial enough term for the average person, who thinks chemicals=bad.
A more accurate term would be "4,000 substances," but that wouldn't scare anyone, would it.
You also neglected to mention that most of these substances in the 4,000 are innocuous and found in every breath we take, everything we eat, smell, and touch.
People might look at it a bit differently once they know that the dreaded 4,000 includes oxygen and water vapor. "Technically" speaking, water is a toxin. And a "chemical."
We can't have that, can we? Then the list would get smaller and smaller until your list of "poisons" isn't much different than a glass of cola.
You're either about scientific integrity or you're not. If you're simply changing your wildly exaggerated claim from "toxin" to "poison," then you're not.
If FORCES is a tobacco front group, then it's doing a really piss poor job. FORCES has lambasted Big Tobacco in countless occasions, and Philip Morris is one of their favorite targets.
Perhaps the FORCES' folks should start taking advice from Mr. Godshall on how to be a good tobacco front group. He's doing a fine job in promoting smokeless tobacco.
Dr. Siegel, about the 'chemicals' issue, you're somewhat disappointing. Since you claim to be caring about correct scientific information (and truth in general), you should be well aware that it's the dose that makes the poison, and this is true for every known toxic compound. Even plutonium has a safe level, although in the order of micro or nanograms.
Therefore, the simple saying that 'there are some 4.000 chemicals on cigarette smoke' is actually meaningless. What is important is the amount of those chemicals being inhaled by smoking, and their relative thresold levels for toxicity. And you don't have to be a scientist to realize that. It's just common sense.
Bill-
You stated: "Just because an organization hasn't RECENTLY received funding from the cigarette industry doesn't mean it is no longer a front group."
So are you accusing FORCES of PREVIOUSLY receiving funding from the cigarette industry?
Just because an organization hasn't recently received funding from the cigarette industry doesn't mean it is no longer a front group.
Bill Godshall | 03.18.08 - 6:34 pm | #
Bill...actually it does.... Dave k
tR1cKy,
"Even plutonium has a safe level"
I don't think J W Gofman would agree
but the "There is no safe threshold ..." is now a TC soundbite!
Who knows!?!
http://www.ratical.org/radiation...NR/
synapse.html
By using the same (lack of) logic being used by Mr. Godshall I have been able to prove that Mr. Godshall is a tobacco company front. In fact, Mr. Godshall is far more of a tobacco industry front than FORCES or any of the other free choice groups could ever be. Mr. Godshall actively promotes the use of specific tobacco products, something none of the free choice folks do.
Mr. Godshall has repeatedly proven that not only is he a blatant LIAR, but he has never had an original idea in his time with the anti-smoker cartel.
I believe Gian Turci said he once got a free meal from a tobacco company. You can leave that one off.
Heck James, I've had more than one on their tab. A few of those times I was on the same side as they were, but the majority occurred when I was fighting them and the anti-smoker cartel tooth and nail.
I also personally know of highly paid lobbyists for groups such as the Cancer Society and local Medical Societies who have also enjoyed the hospitality of the tobacco industry. Are they also actually front groups?
Both Godshall and Glantz have a bee in their bonnet when it comes to FORCES because they know FORCES has the entire anti-smoker cartel by the shorthairs.
If ANR and Godshall are willing to make pronouncements without a single shred of evidence, and this represents the elite of the tobacco control movement, what does this say about the other messages these groups profess. If they will mislead the public with the malice demonstrated by their virtually baseless allogations, one must question their message regarding tobacco smoke, as they appear to lie in order to forward their agenda.
Farewell Mr. Clarke and thank you.
Hold on, by Bill's logic, we can now also say that ASH, the ACS, ALA, etc are all tobacco front groups.
tR1cKy,
"Even plutonium has a safe level"
I don't think J W Gofman would agree
but the "There is no safe threshold ..." is now a TC soundbite!
Who knows!?!
http://www.ratical.org/radiation...NR/ synapse.html
Fredrik Eich | 03.18.08 - 8:49 pm | #
I have to ask(since plutonium has no safe level); how come not everyone in the eastern Europe now is not dead? How is it that plutonium can be stored; yet smoking is said to be causing most cancers? How come all those nuclear bombs that were blew up in the Nevada desert during the 50-late sixties, not affecting everyone that lived in the area? Now those are just a few of the questions that don't add up with the theory that you linked to (as a few examples of the agenda not science running agenda), OH I almost forgot; why isn't paper workers (since the plutonium used is the same that killed the Russian spy) not killed automatically?
I can find information too, its just that it must be reliable and thought out; not based on my agenda. Science of toxicology is a proven, due to reality that no chemical, toxin, substance is isolated to one type place of exposure.
Doc--
There's also a technical vs non-tech use of the simple English word "cause." Seems you switch dictionaries whenever it's convenient.
Then too, you say: The rest of the story is that ANR has descended to an unethical level.
Descended? They were right there at that very level about 12 years ago when they tried to smear Levy and Marimont the exact same way. You remember the incident, since you were involved and once claimed it was the seed of your disillusionment. How can you continue to a) be surprised and b) think they're any worse now than they ever were? Sorry; the Movement was corrupt from the start.
On the subject of front groups:
That's where Big Aunt seems to have us by the short ones. If SR groups or Libertarian groups, or Nightlife groups don't take money, they haven't got the money to counter all the multi-megabuck promotions of local and state bans, or the nasty propaganda leveled against smokers. AND they're accused of taking it anyway! (And, of course, if they take it, they're "outed" as a "front.")
Meanwhile, without the necessary funding, they're doomed to lose the fight. (Somewhere I've got a list of how many millions of taxpayer, "charity" and Big Pharma bucks have gone into promoting the various local bans with multi-media ad blitzes and high-paid lobbies.
Meanwhile, Big Aunt flips its coins on the corner: heads, it wins; tails, we lose.
:
This mornings news
"CARBON monoxide, that notorious killer, could also be a life-saver. A small quantity of the gas given to people with a potentially fatal lung disease led to signs of improvement in their condition. It is also showing promise for treating other chronic and acute inflammatory conditions"
"Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide," says Huib Kerstjens
http://www.newscientist.com/
chan...Id=health_rss20
Well thats another study to add to my rapidly growing collection of studies on the health benefits of carbon monoxide.
How very awkward,perhaps a few more websites need amending.
Non-smoker jailed for attacking deaf smoker
"Robert Russo, 35, asked Glyn Robbins to stop smoking while they were waiting at a bus stop. But he didn’t realise Mr Robbins, 56, couldn’t hear him, and thought he was being rude"
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n...91466-20643154/
The original attack
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/n...-
name_page.html
Costs and benefits?
Rose,
If the media keep referring to vicious thugs as "non-smokers" they too will start to suffer a "Spoiled identity".
If I was a non-smoker I would be asking the paper to be more precise, perhaps
"anti-smoker" or
"brainwashed man terrified out of his wits by anti-smoker and tobacco control lies, deceit and scare mongering resorts to violence in the mistaken belief that ETS poses any form of risk" or even
"vicious sociopath uses anti-smoker and tobacco control lies, deceit and scare mongering to justify unprovoked assault"
GreatScot
I don't know about this Gofman character, but i think he needs to take an extra course of two.
The reason why even plutonium has a safe level is that a low level of radioactivity is found everywhere on earth. You're exposed to it since your birth and will be exposed to it even in the grave. You just can't escape it, and the same happens for every living being since the dawn of life on earth.
So there must be some built-in defenses in every living body that is able to withstand small quantities of it, or else we would be all dead - actually, life couldn't have emerged on Earth at first.
This is not just speculation, it's actual science. Radioactivity mainly kills by breaking the DNA chains, thus causing cellular death or genetic mutation leading to cancer, and the cellular mechanisms, up to a certain point, have the ability to repair the damaged DNA and neglect this effect.
Some organisms (typically bugs and rats) have a better DNA reparation system than humans, and that's the reason why they can thrive in radiactive environment where a human being would die in days.
So it's makes absolutely no sense to say that plutonium can't have a safe level. Just lower the dose until a certain, non-zero point and you won't be able to distinguish anymore its effects from those caused by environmental radiactivity.
Rose,
"If the media keep referring to vicious thugs as "non-smokers" they too will start to suffer a "Spoiled identity"."
I have always suspected there is a method in their madness, as we know and the facts are irrefutable; TC are well known to be shills to big tobacco.
The non smokers moniker was deliberately designed, to make others wanting. By publicizing the fact they are not smokers, it puts community based pressures on them to change.
No one wants to be seen in a negative light after all, the heard mentality will drive them toward smoking so they can be thought of as normal once again.
The TC crowd are just trying to promote smoking, serving their corporate masters as usual.
Think about the tittle "American non smokers rights association.[ANR]" If they really want to smoke, no level of yellow journalism or tabloid ready laws should stop them.
They have a right to smoke if they want to. just like any other normal person in a free country.
Anon,
on the bright side, our welsh non-smoker thug has 2 years to convince his fellow inmates that smoking is bad for his health. I wonder how many prisoners he will attack for lighting up? Not many I would bet, there is a world of difference between beating up a 56 year old deaf man and taking on some career criminal. I hope he gets banged up with a chain smoking psychopath.
Greatscot
Greatscot
The bizarre thing is that the aforementioned thug was standing at a bus stop in Cardiff central bus station surrounded by a fog of diesel fumes.
tR1cKy wrote:
"If FORCES is a tobacco front group, then it's doing a really piss poor job."
I agree that FORCES has done a piss poor job in trying to convince the public that tobacco smoke pollution is harmless, that property rights supercede public health and safety policies, that public health advocates are Nazis, and many other lies.
Had FORCES chosen to misrepresent just one or two facts, instead of many, it would have been a more effective cigarette industry front group.
Bill, doesn't get it..if FORCES had a budget like the antis do, they would be more successful than the antis who claim that smokers live an average life span of 77 years, yet those exposed to secondhand smoke do not.
Dave K
Hey Bill.
1 if FORCES are a tobacco industry front as you claim (repeatedly) show your proof.
2 If "FORCES has done a piss poor job" why do you get your knickers in a twist about them? Why do malign them at every opportunity?
GreatScot
Bill has absolutely NO CLUE at all about FORCES and really should stop repeating his ridiculous lies.
I can't speak of other groups in other countries, but I would venture to say that any one anti-smoker group in the US gets far more tobacco money than all of the free choice groups combined. Those of us in the free choice groups have to earn a living in the real world, unlike the rarified taxpayer funded world of the anti-smoker cartel.
BTW, Bill -- unfunded real people killed another one of the smoking ordinances just yesterday. The proponents of that have so much money they were taking out full page ads in the biggest newspaper in the area as well as local TV and radio.........all that money and they still couldn't overcome hardwork, common sense and the TRUTH.
MrGodshall
Heres a link to the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
Look at the comments on any subject you choose.
Real people are disgusted and frightened by all the bullying, its not a movement and funded by no one. People are now starting to say enough, we stayed silent and waited for commonsense to prevail, but it didn't, now we are learning to shout before it gets any worse.
57 pubs a month are shutting thanks to the smoking ban, some of them hundreds of years old. I don't even go to pubs but I still want them to be there, you may not care about people losing their livelihoods or the social fabric of the country being destroyed , but I do.
Had FORCES chosen to misrepresent just one or two facts, instead of many, it would have been a more effective cigarette industry front group.
Bill you've been asked several times to produce some evidence of these "misrepresentations". We are still waiting.
Put up or shut up; as the saying goes.
Mr. Goodshall wrote:
"I agree that FORCES has done a piss poor job in trying to convince the public that tobacco smoke pollution is harmless, that property rights supercede public health and safety policies, that public health advocates are Nazis, and many other lies.
Had FORCES chosen to misrepresent just one or two facts, instead of many, it would have been a more effective cigarette industry front group."
Then i don't see why you feel the urge to smear them everytime there's a chance to do so.
If they're just a bunch of incompetents and liars, why wasting so much time on them? It makes no sense. You can just leave them alone, let them do their ineffective job and not bother at all.
Things just don't sum up, Mr. Godshall. The mere fact that an anti-smoking extremist like you doesn't miss a chance to call BS on the FORCES' folks is a strong hint that *perhaps* they're not so incompetent and lying as you want to make us believe.
Bill-
I'm still waiting for your evidence that FORCES is, or has ever been, funded by the tobacco industry.
The long delay suggests to me that...
...maybe you don't have any?
Mike wrote:
"I'm still waiting for your evidence that FORCES is, or has ever been, funded by the tobacco industry."
Perhaps Mike forgot that a Philip Morris lawyer provided legal services to FORCES.
Then again, I don't recall stating that FORCES is funded by the tobacco industry (which Mike has, among other things, falsely accused me of claiming).
Besides, an organization can provide a front for another entity without receiving funding from that entity.
Without cigarette industry junk science and propaganda, FORCES wouldn't have been created, nor exist.
You're walking on very thin ice Bill. You would be wise to stop digging the hole.
Bill-
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. All I can say is that I wouldn't want to have to defend the accusation of FORCES being a tobacco industry front group in court.
Well, Bill, I suppose one could then say that ASH and such are nothing more than front groups for pharma companies...and there's more proof of that based on their funding than there is that FORCES is a front group for tobacco companies.
I gotta ask though, if you are considered to be a "front group" based on sharing the same lawyer, I'd like your lawyer's name. I'm sure you'd object to being called "embezzler", "murderer", etc just because ONCE your lawyer defended such a person.
Bill, your arguments are ridiculous. As Blad suggests, throw away your shovel.
Does SHS contain 30, 40, 50 substances causing cancer ... in humans?
At long last, federal risk assessors and regulators have come around to the view that administering chemicals to rodents in super-high doses does not reliably predict human risk -- of cancer, or anything else -- and that a better method needs to be employed, if we are to avoid more unnecessary bans, anti-chemical media hysteria, and activist crusades.
High dose animal tests on one rodent species don't reliably predict cancer risk in another rodent type, much less in humans. The same tests for "carcinogens" that are used to condemn synthetic chemicals also give false positive findings for a whole spectrum of natural substances that we safely eat, breathe, and drink every day. - http://www.acsh.org/
healthissues...ssue_detail.asp
Bill seems to be in desperation.
Concerning Mr. Bagatelos, he just happened to be an excellent lawyer who did a good job for a good price. The job? Getting us the non-profit status in the US. What about him being a “Philip Morris man?” We did not know, but even if we did, so what? Connections between FORCES and PM? Impossible: who wants to have connections with a company without balls? THEY would be too afraid! http://www.forces.org/writers/
tu...iserability.htm
Bill G - Without cigarette industry junk science and propaganda, FORCES wouldn't have been created, nor exist.
On the contrary Bill, if it was not for the lying, deceitful, self serving interests of the Tobacco Control / Anti-Smoker Industry and their Big Pharma paymaster's junk science and propaganda, FORCES would not have needed to be created or exist.
GreatScot
GreatScot,
You beat me to it. Bill's short sighted attempts at casting aspersions are illogical in reasoning, and smell of desperation and malice.
One simply needs to look at the tax records to decide which groups are truly grassroot, and which are corporate funded astroturf lobby organizations with six figure paydays for it's officers. Banzhaf for example $220,000/year.
Or ANRF's Hallett who claims to work 4 hours a week, and gets a paycheck of $74,976/year and $13,631 in bennies. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocu...-02ab5bdd-
9.pdf
Amazing what you can find at this website.
And what is FORCES up against?
ALF has over 1 billion dollars of assets. http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocu...-039a850d-
9.pdf
There's gold in them thar smokefree hills.
Perhaps Mike forgot that a Philip Morris lawyer provided legal services to FORCES.
ROFLMSS! That's your PROOF???? WTF?
For your information Mr. Bill your phrasing is generally used to indicate no monetary exchange. Had you said "Forces paid a lawyer who had also doen work for PM" you would have been correct.
The attorney who handled my husband's workers comp claim had also testified in favor of ant-discrimination legislation on behalf of PM. Does that mean my husband is a tobacco front? By your logic it does.
As has been said by others, when you find yourself in a whole it is time to stop digging.
Mr. Godshall wrote:
"Besides, an organization can provide a front for another entity without receiving funding from that entity."
So please tell me why *you* shouldn't be considered a tobacco industry front.
You have sponsored many times the use of smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to cigarettes and, by your words, it doesn't make difference if you took money from them or not.
Good point tR1cKy. Bill spouts out smokeless tobacco industry propaganda all the time. Does that make him a smokeless tobacco industry front group?
Does that make him a smokeless tobacco industry front group?
By Bill's own words and logic......YES
I assure everyone that Forces, Inc., (DBA Forces International) has never accepted money from a tobacco company, unlike some antitobacco groups such as FAMRI and the tobacco-Free Kids Campaign. To state that Forces International has accepted money from any tobacco compnay is fallacious at best, which is the reason that groups like ANR cannot produce evidence that it has accepted such funding. This accusation has been hurled in the past, for example, "Another Anti-Smoking Group Accusing FORCES of Being a Big Tobacco Front Group" (Wednesday, April 18, 2007) and "Challenge Issued to Document that FORCES is a Tobacco Front Group" (Tuesday, February 28, 2006). And today is March 20, 2008? Indeed, I do see an annual trend.
I have also noted an incorrect statement made here: http://www.haloscan.com/comments...8088721/
#154274
"I agree that FORCES has done a piss poor job in trying to convince the public that tobacco smoke pollution is harmless, that property rights supercede public health and safety policies, that public health advocates are Nazis," (Bill Godshall, 03.19.08, 12:55 pm )
First, Forces International presents scientific studies proving that ETS/SHS is harmless. Whether or not all members of the public are aware of those studies is a separate matter, although we do try to educate the public. Second, to state that Forces International holds property rights above the health of the public is, again, incorrect. If secondhand smoke were harmful, then property, parental and personal rights issues would be moot. However, because there is no proven harm, the government has over-stepped its bounds to violate property, parental and personal rights. The references to Nazis is historical and the basis of predictions of a "slippery slope" into further government intrusions based on what has become known as "junk science", which has sadly come to pass in recent years. I will certainly keep the reference to Bill Godshall's full remark on file for future reference.
To clarify, Forces International is an educational organization. At the risk of being (rightfully) accused of making a shameless plug, our scientific and library portals are almost completely revamped, which we find quite exciting!
Stephanie Stahl
President
Forces, Inc.
forces.org
It is curious that this accusation by ANR continues to surface, since it appears that they continue to promulgate the lie of SHS being a deadly hazard, as a condition of accepting $3 million+ from Nicoderm / Johnson & Johnson interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-source-
of.html
So their accusation seems to be that being a stooge of big tobacco is bad because BT is only concerned about selling tobacco.....well isn't J & J / RWJF / American Non-Smoker's Rights Foundation simply promoting smoking bans to sell Nicoderm and related products?
Thanks, marcus. 
BTW, I know some people who are trying to get ahold of you, for various reasons. What's the best way to do that? Leave a message on one of your blogs?
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
