Kosher 666s anyone? The pack would be blue with a Star of David on one side and an Israeli fighter jet on the other.
Lets not leave the Palistinians out of this. Palistine Fine 47s. This pack would have a picture of the silhouetted arm clutching the AK47 on one side and pictures of the most popular martyrs on the other. Now thats targeting a market!
Now here would be a chance for TC to leave an American Legacy.
To me, they are all the same. They all kill people. They all use advertising. Most of them are successful in getting youths to smoke their brands. They all target specific groups in the population.
What? And the drugs the pharmcos sell are sooooo good? The side effects of most of them are more immediate and serious than with cigarettes. I've been smoking for 39 years with no "side effects".
This is nothing but censorship. Pure and simple. You target a specific group, tobacco companies, with your agenda, why can't cigarette companies advertise?
I see the problem as being that cigarettes are a deadly product.
But not so deadly that parents can't smoke in a car with their children present, or in the same room in the house with their kids?
Make up your mind Doc, they are deadly or they aren't. IF they are deadly, then prohibit the manufacture and sale of cigarettes. If they aren't, how do plan on undoing the damage you've played a large part in causing?
"They all use advertising. Most of them are successful in getting youths to smoke their brands. They all target specific groups in the population."
Oh please, Doctor.
Advertising for tobacco basically consists of point-of-sale placards and magazine layouts, and maybe if you buy into the conspiracy theories, subtle product placement in cinema. No television. No radio. No newspapers. No Internet. All these avenues of powerful media have been restricted to "big tobacco".
Do I need to remind you that tobacco has been smoked in European cultures for hundreds of years prior to the advent of "Big Tobacco" and mass marketing?
Then why do people smoke? Because of the best advertising money can't buy... Simply put: people like it.
Go and re-read John Polito's website about why nicotine replacement therapy is entirely unsuccessful. It doesn't replace the sensual aspects of smoking. The best way to quit smoking is simply to decide to quit for your own reasons, not someone else's.
Then go and re-read Robin Gaison's website about the "Gaison Hypothesis", which I think is a brilliant insight. Attempting to socially punish substance users causes them to entrench and self-reinforce the behaviour.
Getting a youth to smoke is the job of other youth. Getting them to smoke Marlboro versus Camel versus Newport is the job of big tobacco.
Dr. Siegel, please explain marijuana use with no advertising.
"According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 97.5 million Americans aged 12 or older tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 40.1% of the U.S. population in that age group."
"Approximately 49.1% of college students and 57.0% of young adults (ages nineteen to twenty-eight) surveyed in 2005 reported lifetime use of marijuana."
Source: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy....uana/
index.html
Conclusion: Advertising produces less customers
Now that social modification is on the plate how much power in it's association with the named groups will PM have in denormalization of its competitors as well?
We have seen them grow the price of the product to a point they can make more with a reduced client base production and distribution costs are going down. In Canada the ideal situation exists which the Americans seem to be moving toward. They are not allowed to sponsor community events or advertise. The free trade of the Americas deal reduced trade restrictions allowing them to move the labor offshore and bring the finished product back in, enabling even higher profit levels.
"No safe cigarette" allows them to use cheaper tobacco filler. It seems the campaign against smokers is increasing the industry profits enormously.
Now if the competition were narrowed and the product could be federally inspected and approved for sale, the markets would grow with the confidence of that endorsement.
It seems a select number of these companies would have just about everything, they never could have dreamed possible, without the help of Public Health and TC.
Talking about targeting youth:
http://www.miscman.com/posters_g...0&CatID=5&
PID=1
http://www.miscman.com/posters_g...3&CatID=5&
PID=1 (and for the children)
The Army believes the campaign theme of individuality within the Army team reflects the attitudes of the 18- to 24-year-olds it needs to persuade to enlist. - http://www.usatoday.com/money/ad...-track-
army.htm
Recruitement video http://www.blackfive.net/main/
20...rmy_strong.html
They become more and more ridiculous in their attempts to gain market share on the TC market.
Do we live in a society which allows CHOICE OR DO WE WISH TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHICH DICTATES CHOICE ? Dr Siegel you have already stated that low nicotine products are not the best option.In the EEC we have NO OPTION ,other than to stick two fingers up and make our own,which is a growth market.Makes real sense to me to cap the strength of cigarettes BUT then force smokers to make their own thus smoking cigarettes 3 times stronger,back to pre 70's almost.Is this REALLY PROGRESS ?What happened to the FREE MARKET ?
Dr. Siegel wrote: “Don't get me wrong. I'm not calling for the removal of all cigarettes smoked by youths from the market. In fact, I'm not calling on the removal of any cigarettes from the market. To me, they are all the same. They all kill people. They all use advertising. Most of them are successful in getting youths to smoke their brands. They all target specific groups in the population.”
This is where I have a problem with you; Dr. Siegel, as you use the same misleading words as the other TC crusaders. Saying that cigarettes kill people is not technically correct. All people born, live, and die, some sooner then others. What cigarettes do is increase smokers risk factors for getting heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc sooner then others. It is these smoke related diseases that kill not the smoking unless people are dieing from smoke inhalation while smoking. Science can say that there is a high likelihood, based on statistics that for someone who smoked that the disease that kill him was do to smoking. It cannot say, however, that smoking CAUSED the disease. As I have stated in the past, in a perfect world where no one smoked, what diseases would people die from? The likely answer is heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc. So in a perfect smoke free world we would still likely die from smoking related illnesses. Gun do not kill, people who use guns kill. Your statements are political and deceptive just as are your colleagues which you like to criticize.
“It was never clear to me, by the way, why targeting one particular group for death and disease is worse than targeting some other demographic group. Or why targeting the general population for death and disease would somehow make us feel better. Frankly, if cigarette companies only targeted males, it wouldn't make me feel much better.”
Again the cigarettes cause death and disease. Cigarettes are a risk factor for certain diseases which may lead to premature death. Never smokers are still likely to die from the same diseases as tad later. Everyone dies. I ask this question before, but smoking is believed to cause premature death. What is it currently; the average smoker lives “fill in the blank years less” then a never smoker not exposed to SHS? The how much earlier does a never smoker exposed to SHS die? Is it 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 year, 5 years, same as a smoker? The answers to these questions would better answer the real dangers of smoking and SHS. In the past, I heard things like each cigarette reduces life expectancy by 20 minutes. The statement probably is not true but if so, how much would life expectancy be reduced from exposure to SHS from one cigarette? Probably not worth answering unless we assume that the body cannot heal itself and if this is the case we are all doomed and thus there is no reason ever to give up smoking.
Come on Doc, we know that the majority of deaths attributed to primary smoking occur over 65. I refer you back to Robert Levi and Rosalind Marimont's study.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display....php?
pub_id=5472.
As you well know, there is some evidence that it may even be genetic.
http://health.dailynewscentral.c...ent/view/451/
63
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley
I agree with Dan. The bombast seems more suited to a preacher than to a public health professional. But then, in his defense, perhaps Michael just got stuck in the style of his presumed audience for the previous post.
Nonetheless, after I read this post I found myself humming "but if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao...you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow..." Not even sure what that means.
As for the substance -- I guess I risk my status as a card carrying "tobacco shill" by saying this, but it's really hard to CARE so much in a battle between ALF and RJR. 'Cept for that pesky 1st Amendment issue... (Note to RJR -- nice response to ALF but -- I think a better one is simply "Will you please just shut up?")
I keep forgot to say earlier that I found the "The Shining" post by Anon a few threads back -- hugely funny!
OT----Priorities are sure screwy here????
http://www.breitbart.com/article...&
show_article=1
~snip~
"Patients who want a Botox treatment for wrinkles get appointments with US dermatologists much faster than those with potentially cancerous moles, according to a new study"
_______
But they all care soooooooo verrrryyyy much for our health.
But they all care soooooooo verrrryyyy much for our health.
OK, truly brain dead this morning....grrrrr
Sunz, I meant to say to your comment: Of course they care so very much, they care that you look young forever. IF you are already ill or might possibly have cancerous mole on your body, then you are doomed so why should they bother?
Health care my butt...........
How about one completely honest non-double standard admission from you Doc. As stated earlier;
"All people born, live, and die, some sooner then others. What cigarettes do is increase smokers risk factors for getting heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc sooner then others."
TRUE OR NOT?...YES OR NO?
"Science can say that there is a high likelihood, based on statistics that for someone who smoked that the disease that killed him was do to smoking. It cannot say, however, that smoking CAUSED the disease"
TRUE OR NOT?...YES OR NO?
If it's not true, then;
Can you please privde all of us with the definitive, indisputable, absolutely "conclusive", undeniably and demonstrable fact based evidence that it is the smoke from the cigarettes that is the *CAUSE* of the onset of the terminal disease of your choice more commonly referred to as a "smoking related illness"?
I think we would all love to see this FACTUAL evidence rather than the statistical analysis that results from a "consensus" of clearly biased medical opinion and conjecture.
Actually lightningBoy you seem to be quoting me, not Dr. Siegel.
Sorry Dan, I forgot to attribute the comment, and the statement is much more correct than any TC doublespeak.
Doc,
TC has done the same con job on the 400K for primary smoking as they have done with the 53K for SHS. You should alsobe as ashamed of these half truths. I remind you:
" The truth is that smoking-related deaths, even under the generous definitions used by CDC, are associated with old age. Nearly 60 percent of the deaths occur at age 70 or above; nearly 45 percent at age 75 or above; and almost 17 percent at the grand old age of 85 or above! Nevertheless, without the slightest embarrassment, the public health community persists in characterizing those deaths as "premature." Regrettable, yes; premature, no.
Suppose for a moment that all tobacco-related deaths occurred at age 99. Surely the gravity of that problem would be tempered by the fact that the decedents would have died soon from some other cause. Actually, tobacco-related deaths occur at an average age of roughly 72, an age at which mortality is not unusual among smokers and non-smokers alike.
By comparison, car accidents, suicide, and homicide kill nearly 97,000 people annually; but the average age at death is only 39. Contrasted with a 72-year life expectancy for smokers, each of those non-smoking deaths snuffs out 33 years of life -- our most important years from both an economic and parenting perspective. Yet states go to war against nicotine -- which is not an intoxicant, has no causal connection with crime, and poses little danger to young adults or family members. The unvarnished fact is that children do not die of tobacco-related diseases. If they smoke heavily during their teens, they may die of lung cancer, fifty or sixty years from now, assuming lung cancer is still a threat by then. No matter how you slice it, a high-intensity government campaign against tobacco -- in the guise of "protecting children" -- is disingenuous at best.
None of this is to suggest that the attack against cigarettes is entirely dishonest. Without question, the evidence is that cigarettes substantially increase the risk of lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. But most deaths from those diseases occur at an advanced age. The relationship between smoking and other diseases is not nearly so clear; and the scare mongering that has passed for science is quite simply appalling. The unifying bond of all science is that truth is its aim. That goal must not yield to politics, and science must not be corrupted to advance predetermined political ends. Sadly, that is exactly what has transpired as our public officials fabricate evidence to promote their crusade against big tobacco."
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
CTFK began criticizing Reynolds for Camel #9 as a tactic to promote the Philip Morris backed FDA bill (i.e. by inaaccurately claiming that the Camel #9 marketing campaign wouldn't be permitted under the FDA bill).
Just as CTFK manufacturerd its Kids against Big Tobacco and Faith United against Tobacco front gruops to dupe the public about PM protection legislation, CTFK has similarly manufactured the campaign against Camel #9 to dupe the public into believing women's groups are also supporting the PM protection legislation.
Since all the top staff at CTFK are men, I strongly suspect that CTFK urged US Rep. Lois Capps and the Legacy Foundation's Cheryl Healton to public appear as leaders of CTFK's campaign to criticize Reynolds.
CTFK knows that Reynolds won't remove Camel #9 from the market, but that was never CTFK's goal. Rather, the campaign against Camel #9 is just another in a long series of deceitful tactics deployed by CTFK to enact Philip Morris protection legislation that is disguised as public health (and now spiritual) legislation.
I wouldn't be surprised if CTFK deceptively manufacturers other so-called grassroots groups to endorse the PM backed FDA bill (e.g. Republicans against Big Tobacco, Senior Citizens against Big Tobacco, Gays and Lesbians against Big Tobacco, Bikers against Big Tobacco, and perhaps even Responsible Tobacco Dealers against Big Tobacco.
Sorry the above quote is from Robert Levi and Rosalin Marimont
Dr. Siegel--
I don't disagree with your post, but it should be noted that Philip Morris has not used mainstream magazine advertising for almost 5 years. There's no more Marlboro Man in Time, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc.
Even point-of-sale advertising featuring the icon is rare. That's another reason why PM supports the FDA bill's marketing restrictions. It's funneled all its ad money into price discounts and has maintained market share.
I'm not quite understanding you say advertising works for getting kids to the product, then you say this brand (who is marketing presently to youth -supposedly) has no youth market share.
Why exactly is the ban needed, or any ban really because this whole product with no youth enticed to smoke! This I would think make advocates, marketers, courts etc rethink the "science" that print ads work to entice kids to use their product; wouldn't it?
PS I don't think that its advertising at all that start kids to start. I don't remember seeing any ads when I was young; yet I started smoking.
My parents told me that it was addictive and hard to quit, and that I shouldn't start. They even forced me to get a job (which I did) so that I had to buy my own (no weekly allowance in family). All this, and they smoked; and told me they didn't want me to start, and I still don't remember seeing advertising (parents rolled their own). BTW I don't believe that the surveys on Canadian youth initiation rates are correct, I think that (from seeing people walk by the window on main street) there is actually an increase; the reason for the stated decrease "denormalization" (humiliation and guilt poured onto anyone who's a smoker) and lying to surveyors. Who would want to admit they are a smoker when they have advertising out that smokers are stupid (stupid.ca -ON gov't youth targeted site), smokers are the people that hang around the fire barrels in the backyard and wear lumber jackets with no education. Yet they try to say that people would give true responses wen smokers are looked at like this? sure
Here's some examples:
(1)
TITLES: Great Reasons to Smoke: Better Manners/Great Reasons to Smoke: Communication/Great Reasons to Smoke: Save Money 2
http://www.marketingmag.ca/
magaz...329_63131_63131
(2)
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2996
OMG, I can't believe this, but I am actually agreeing with Mr. Godshall. The points he made regarding CTFK and PM all correspond with what I was going to say.
However, Mr. Godshall did ot go quite as far as I had planned, although others have in regard to the 1st Amendment and advertising.
The only tobacco advertising I hear/see on radio/TV in Maryland and Virginia is from the Tobacco Controlfreaks, with the exception of their mouthpieces at PM. It amazes me the absolute blatant LIES these people are so able to get away with on a daily basis.
Doctor,
I too would like Dan's questions addressed.
Where is the truth? It is obviously not in "Smoking CAUSES X" because non smokers get X too.
Where is the truth? It is obviously not in "Smoking CAUSES X" because non smokers get X too.
AND not all smokers get X either. Sometimes they get shot for no reason, or hit by a drunk driver, OR fall off the cliff they were scaling for fun.
So I too, would like an answer, as well as the answers to my other questions, more importantly WHY baby boomers exist today IF what TC claims is so true? We should all be dead according to them, and I'm looking to see who I can sue since I'm NOT dead.
Not that I disagree with Bill Godshall (because we don't really know), but CTFK, ALF, etc., criticises EVERYTHING tobacco companies do. It doesn't matter if it's just a sneeze, they oppose it.
It's what worthless groups do to look relevant.
Cigarettes cause more deaths than cocaine, auto accidents, AIDS, alcohol, heroin, fire, suicide and homicide combined. Why would your government even allow such a product to be advertised, particularly to young people? Only if your lawmakers care less about your well-being than for the corporations who pay for their elections campaigns.
In Canada we've mostly banned tobacco advertising (note that we also have publicly financed elections), and along with other strong tobacco controls this has led to one of the lowest smoking rates anywhere. Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Bill-
I appreciate your adding your perspective on the reasons behind this Camel No. 9 campaign. It certainly appears that there is more here than meets the eye.
Cathy Bell (hiding behind the handle of "tobaccoscamalysis" - Cigarettes cause more deaths than cocaine, auto accidents, AIDS, alcohol, heroin, fire, suicide and homicide combined.
......
Provide proof, please, instead of merely making accusations.
Cathy, you have a very bad habit of not providing proof or answering reasonable questions.
That's a pretty big claim there, TC shill. Care to link that to real facts, or do we conclude you're making stuff up again?
From Greece,
Industrial city has 20% higher deaths. The air is laden with carcinogens from industrial plants.
Local Doc blames smoking!! Echo's of Doll.
http://www.helleniccomserve.com/
...reeknews24.html
GreatScot
Well of course it's smoking, GreatScot. The carcinogens in industrial plants have been cleaned out, they are actually releasing healthy air, with NO pollutants whatsoever. Didn't you know industrial plants are not considered as pollution centers because they don't release cigarette smoke?
As long as it's not cigarette smoke, we can actually stand on the vents where that clean healthy industrial air comes out and never ever develop a single tumor. Might get a little high though from the overabundance of sweet oxygen that floats gently up, holding up the clouds of happy fairies and rainbows.
OT but a good read. Found an interesting piece on the SmokersClub newsletter today. Here’s an excerpt with link to full article following:
The basic concept of this thing called "personal accountability / responsibility" says that while you are laying in the hospital bed with broken bones, it is (brace yourself) YOUR FAULT that you are laying there! That's because you knew what highways were, what automobiles were, and the things that can occur should you get hit by one, but yet you decided of your own free will to walk out into oncoming traffic despite your understanding about these things.
To further drive home my point about this, I would like to note that I was living in Washington state when the proposal came up for a state wide smoking ban. At this time I was working with individuals who were categorically "developmentally disabled" or "mentally retarded". One of the individuals I was working with happened to be a smoker. One day, just outside the door of a restaurant we were preparing to go into, I asked this person if they thought they would be able to smoke inside or not. They paused, momentarily reviewed the door and it's surrounding windows, then replied to me, "no". When asked how they came to that conclusion, they pointed to the "no smoking" sign on the door.
I am still baffled to this day how it is that someone who is categorically "mentally retarded" can accurately make the distinction between a smoking and a non-smoking establishment...while grown, rationale adults, of fully functional mental capacity can't seem to do the same, and then make their decision accordingly. (bolded emphasis is mine) I would think that if one were so adverse to cigarette smoke and it's hazards, then they too would be able to look at a door or window of a facility, and say to themselves something along the lines of, "hmm, looks like there might be people smoking inside this building. Ya know, I'm pretty adverse to cigarette smoke. Perhaps I won’t subject myself to this hazard." And then decide to not go in the building.
I am not saying that I feel all establishments should be smoking facilities. I try very hard to review the facts, the concerns, along with the pros and cons of any given issue and then after sorting through all of it, make my decision. Take restaurants for example. I personally very much enjoy a cigarette accompanied by a freshly brewed cup of coffee right after a meal. For me, there is almost a certain state of nirvana that is achieved in that moment. However, after listening to the arguments both for and against a smoking ban in restaurants I have to concede that those assigned to the argument in favor of a ban on restaurant smoking simply have more valid reasons than those taking the opposite end of the debate. Bars however, are a completely different situation. Largely because unlike restaurants, most bars aren't a place you take the kids. Additionally most people don't go to restaurants to:
A) Get in a fight or a possible shoot out
B) Up their chances of going home with someone who will be to drunk to remember to mention they have some form of STD
C) Consume a substance that is proven to permanently kill your brain cells and liver.
Simply put: Bars are not exactly health resorts to begin with, so perhaps we should stop pretending they are.
I side with the non-smoking argument on a number of things. To me it seems beyond belief that we have a majority of adults who have made the decision not to smoke, and yet somehow the majority of venues are smoking establishments (at least where it hasn't been banned outright). Perhaps instead of desecrating the foundational ideals of the Republic in which we live by running rampant with a false idea that it's only the majority that matters, we could instead take a bit more time in our deliberations, striving to achieve something that resembles balance and a respect for the rights and the will of every person. Is there anyone who would argue that it simply makes more sense for the percentage of smoking venues to be acceptably proportionate to the percentage of smokers in each community?
http://tinyurl.com/3xa2al
tobaccoscamalysis inquired:
"Why would your government even allow such a product to be advertised,"
Because Republican Presidents appointed federal court judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices who supported the opinion that corporate advertising deserves the same constitutional protections as the 1st Amendment provides for individual political speech, and because cigarette and other large corporations in the US have lobbied for similar laws and have given huge campaign contributions to most Republican politicians that agreed to appoint/support those judges and laws.
That combination culminated in a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that some forms of tobacco advertising (even if exposed to many youth) is protected by U.S. Constitution's 1st amendment so that tobacco companies can communicate with their adult customers.
A previous US Supreme Court (back in the 1930's I believe) had ruled that states were free to ban tobacco advertising since states were free to ban tobacco products.
The only thing that can/will change the 2001 SCOTUS precedent is if/when the next president(s) are Democrats and if/when he/she/they appoint several Supreme Court Justices who would reverse the 2001 decision.
Since liberal John Paul Stevens is likely going to be the next Supreme Court Justice to be replaced, at least two or three changes in the Supreme Court likely will need to occur before than could happen.
Cigarettes cause more deaths than cocaine, auto accidents, AIDS, alcohol, heroin, fire, suicide and homicide combined. Why would your government even allow such a product to be advertised, particularly to young people? Only if your lawmakers care less about your well-being than for the corporations who pay for their elections campaigns.
Cathy,
Kindly provide the link for the REAL proof to back up your statement. The rest of us are kind enough, AND intelligent enough to provide legitimate back up, it’s the least you can do if you insist on playing in our sandbox.
Bill,
What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't you understand?
Ah, but it's an E-veel Republican plot. Of course.
You know, it's odd that you can show genuine mental agility and flat-out brilliance (at least twice in two days) on some issues, yet be jaw-droppingly stupid on others. I guess it depends on if it suits you, huh?
I disagree that one political party or the other is more or less to blame for smoking bans and TC in general.
One or the other provides enormous support whenever and wherever it's needed. They bend with the wind.
Both major parties profit in nearly equal terms depending on their amount of support to whatever "grass roots" movement will get them the most recognition in any given moment.
Since Smokers cross all boundaries of
Race, religion, sex, and political affiliation included, it's less about your political affiliation or alignment than it is your inability to seperate yourself from it and do what you know is right without becoming an outcast right along side the smokers your basically being paid to "denormalize". Whether that payment is in cash contributions to your next campaign or support for your own personal dislike that you would also like to see banned from existence, profit is profit.
Help "them" get rid of Tobacco, and "they'll" help you ban skateboards, or whatever annoys you personally, and you can bet whatever help you get will be "for the sake of the children"
Now for something more relevant:
"All people born, live, and die, some sooner then others. What cigarettes do is increase smokers risk factors for getting heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc sooner then others."
TRUE OR NOT?...YES OR NO?
"Science can say that there is a high likelihood, based on statistics that for someone who smoked that the disease that killed him was do to with smoking. It cannot say, however, that smoking CAUSED the disease"
TRUE OR NOT?...YES OR NO?
These questions couldn't be any easier to understand, and there is no legitimate reason not to provide a straight answer.
How 'bout it Doc?
Tobaccoscamalysis stated: “Cigarettes cause more deaths than cocaine, auto accidents, AIDS, alcohol, heroin, fire, suicide and homicide combined. Why would your government even allow such a product to be advertised, particularly to young people? Only if your lawmakers care less about your well-being than for the corporations who pay for their elections campaigns.”
You cannot back this up. Cigarette smoking as been established as a serious risk factor for certain diseases, among them lung cancer (very likely), heart disease, stroke, etc. These are collectively termed smoking related. That does NOT mean that smoking caused the disease. For all the diseases attributed to smoking, there are other causes, for example radon for lung cancer. However, currently it is impossible for science to establish causation for any death. Thus is someone who has never smoked or been exposed to SHS dies of lung cancer, TC control will count that death as a smoking related death. The fact is that we all die and the leading cause of death is likely to be heart disease, stroke, cancer etc. Even if no one smoked.
“In Canada we've mostly banned tobacco advertising (note that we also have publicly financed elections), and along with other strong tobacco controls this has led to one of the lowest smoking rates anywhere. Only 14 % of adults in Canada smoke on a daily basis.”
In Canada you do not have a bill of rights. You came up with something of the sort relatively recently, but I cannot remember what it is called. Thank godless you are not from the USA, that in itself is worth something. Ask yourself these questions how was your 14% determined. By poll? If so people lie. By tax revenue? Currently I see lots or articles about black market cigarettes coming into Canada. The higher you raise taxes the more likely this will occur. Please state the source of how the 14% was determined. If I had to guess I would say tax revenue. Please read what happened was alcohol prohibition was tried here in the USA.
Lynda F. provided this copy of an article considered a "good read" that included:
I have to concede that those assigned to the argument in favor of a ban on restaurant smoking simply have more valid reasons than those taking the opposite end of the debate.
I have to humbly beg to differ on the point that this is a good read. Yes, taken in parts there are many points we vigorously agree on. But when the writer devolves to including points such as the one I picked out above it negates the worth of the rest. It does more harm to the cause than good and shouldn't -- again, in my humble opinion -- be given a place in our own libraries.
Lightning Boy - My answer is NO to both of your questions.
Bill - I don't think it's as simple as saying that the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Massachusetts advertising regulations was due to Republican influence. Even the liberal, Democrat-appointed justices tended to agree that these regulations were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Law. A good part of the "blame" lies with the bipartisan support for FCLAA, and with public health groups which supported FCLAA.
The public health groups were outsmarted by the tobacco industry. That was the first time. The FDA legislation is going to be the next time.
In response to this question by one communist:
"Why would your government even allow such a product to be advertised,"
The other communist replies:
Because Republican Presidents appointed federal court judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices who supported the opinion that corporate advertising deserves the same constitutional protections as the 1st Amendment provides for individual political speech...[blah, blah, damn Republicans, blah, blah, blah]
Dr. Siegel may choose to edit the label "communist" that I attached to Cathy and Bill but the fact of the matter is that communism does not allow or abide free speech. It is what it is -- the black and white of it.
Now Bill, as WLC pointed out already, what part of "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" confuses you? Or are you, like the Democrats you like to say would change things, seeing something in there that isn't?? It is NOT confined to JUST "political speech." It's ALL speech (that doesn't cause instantaneous danger or harm). There's a huge difference between what inspired the founders to make that an -- the FIRST -- amendment to the constitution, and what it's supposed to cover.
Anyone listening to you would be left with the impression that Republicans are the ones that WILL protect free speech (the good guys) and that Democrats will fix that (trample on the 1st Amend). Needing no input from me, YOU make the case yourself about which is the better party in this regard.
The 1930s decision was the one that was flawed. Or would you agree that because marijuana is banned that there can be no "advertising" (aka free speech) for its use or for it to be decriminalized?
So again, there you go, reaching back to a 1930s(!!) court decision -- one that appeals to your senses, not constitutional principle -- to support YOUR position. The same could be said for racists who would hold up the Supreme Court decision that upheld slavery.
I'll leave you with this (one of many I could toss out) SCOTUS opinion to ponder:
"The Court recognizes that we have never held that commercial speech may be suppressed in order to further the State's interest in discouraging purchases of the underlying product that is advertised. Ante, at 566, n. 9. Permissible restraints on commercial speech have been limited to measures designed to protect consumers from fraudulent, misleading, or coercive sales techniques. Those designed to deprive consumers of information about products or services that are legally offered for sale consistently have been invalidated."
"If the First Amendment guarantee means anything, it means that, absent clear and present danger, government has no power to restrict expression because of the effect its message is likely to have on the public."
Liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, probably a man you like very much Bill, CONCURRED, with this:
"The justification for the regulation is nothing more than the expressed fear that the audience may find the utility's message persuasive. Without the aid of any coercion, deception, or misinformation, truthful communication may persuade some citizens to consume more electricity than they otherwise would."
-- CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELEC. v. PUBLIC SERV. COMM'N, 447 (1980)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cg...l=447&
invol=557
It was this case that created the Central Hudson test that was applied to the 2001 Lorillard case you refer to.
Lord help us if like-minded people to you, the ones you're rooting for, are elected (who can then make appointments) to office.
Re: First Amendment - Freedom of Speech.
As we all are aware, Freedom of Speech does not allow one to falsely scream "FIRE!" in a packed theater.
That is a classic qualification to that right.
It's too bad that there isn't some case law that makes the same qualification for BTC, PUS and other hate groups that scream "Smoking Kills!," "30 minute of exposure to ETS kills!," etc. Especially when these groups are supported by tax dollars and the Legal Drug Cartel.
Oh, well. Here in America (becoming rare in the UK, Canada and Australia) we cherish the First Amendment, warts and all.
I may hate to view NAZIs, the Cathy Bells, the Godshalls, etc. burn our flag, figuratively or otherwise, but I will not support any law prohibiting that display of their Freedom of Speech.
JustTheFacts good argument.
Indeed, great post JTF. And wouldn't it be interesting to see the standards of truth applied to ads about 30 minutes.
I'd also like to suggest that all of us buy at least one pack of the Camel 9s.
And, just by the way, I thought Youth were forbidden to buy, even as Youth, according to law, gets older and older. So is AT admitting that its laws are a lot of bunk? and its acres of "education" can be trumped by a simple ad?
:
Thanks Dan. More for the lurkers than anything, Bill's dangerous ideas need to be addressed.
See Bill? That's how it works in my country. You say something I don't agree with and I say something counter to it. I don't look to have you censored. And may the best man/argument/advertisement win.
But that's right, you've previously used China as an example to support a policy related to tobacco use. You're sorely out of your element here in the good ole U.S. of A.
From the BBC laugh a day site.
Over to you Kevin,
Dispite smoking prevelance reducing greatly over the last 30 - 40 years COPD is still rising.
Quote
Encouraging people to stop smoking was becoming increasingly important as people were living longer, she concluded.
But she said because of ageing populations "if every smoker in the world were to stop smoking today, the rates of COPD would probably continue to increase for the next 20 years".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6970190.stm
Twisted logic at it's worst.
GreatScot
"Where is the truth? It is obviously not in "Smoking CAUSES X" because non smokers get X too."
The truth is found in thew numbers which they refuse to discuss because the numbers if understood would uncover the fraud.
It has always been unethical and totally unscientific to merge the elderly in with those who are not significantly effected by so called smoking related diseases in order to create fear among those enjoying much less risk.
The groups studied in most of the TC research and defined as dying of smoking related diseases were predominantly over 65 years of age most over 35 in 1960 and all predicted at birth to die by the age of 65.
The majority of them smoked meaning they were the largest population group being studied and most should by predictions, at the time they were born, should be dead already from natural causes, regardless if they had smoked or not.
The groups are confounded for other effects according to current conditions which were drastically different in 1960.
In addition we have to consider the one point never discussed the distinct three life cycles which are a result of biological changes in all of our lives, the first being the growth cycle the second after puberty would be the middle age productive cycle and the final seen in declining years toward the end of life. They try to skew the last one, to begin at 65 when in 1960 that decline actually began around 45-50 years of age. we realize people live longer today than we ever did in times past. The reality of what the medical community holds little water in a sense of blaming smoking for such a large helping of the blame, when actual smoker numbers stayed the same, as population growth produced increased mortality, in specific disease categories.
The benefits of life time longevity enjoyed by smokers and non smokers alike was a benefit of our focussed awareness to the pollutants around us which were causing real disease numbers.
We banned asbestos and lead in gasoline for a reason, found in natural science the lingering results of those effects are still being seen, although they are blamed on smoking.
We saw many coal workers and coal delivery people dying at 45 years of age in 1960 from black lung disease a disease we rarely see anymore although people affected are also included in smoking related disease categories.
In 1960 heating your home with coal was the norm as it had been for hundreds of years. Those heating with coal saw no reason to fear breathing a good helping of that same coal dust every day while they fed the furnace every couple of hours.
In 1950 hundreds died in England as a result of coal use in homes and industry all again smoking related disease numbers created in those who didn't die for decades.
The working class was much more predominant in 1960 in fact the middle class was hardly even noticed. The same working class smoked in much higher numbers than any other demographic. The time lines of women beginning to smoke causing a delayed effect we see today in explanations of differing gender rates of smoking related diseases are also consistent with women entering the work force, beginning during the war and later in large numbers as a result of the womens rights movements in the 70s moving us into a reality it now takes two working parents to support a home with children.
Many who were not born early enough to witness the world we accepted as normal in 1960 fail to take into effect the vast differences we faced back then, which no longer exist today.
The fact many today live beyond 75 years of age is a testament to cleaning up our environment and the realization we have made tremendous progress in the science of discovery. The lingering effects of a much dirtier world are still being realized in the post 65 age groups and will likely be seen for some time to come.
The stable number of smokers who although reduced in population prevalence demonstrated little effects in extending lives or in promoting additional deaths, the proof of that lies in the research which claims half of smokers die of smoking related diseases coincidental to significant declines in smoking rates without explanation. 20 years delay turned to 30 and today almost 50 years later those declines are still failing to surface in smoking related mortality figures.
Many will claim those post 65 deaths are preventable when they know those deaths we see today were never preventable, and for the future the risks which were predominent in 1960 have already been essentially mitigated regardless of smoking. The numbers reflecting the smoking prevalence and risk we see today, should be understood and obvious; if we stopped everyone from smoking today will have proportionate to population very little effect.
Smoking is only said to be representative of less than a quarter of the population [the advocates are stating less than 20%] and only half of smokers according to the numbers will die of smoking related diseases meaning 12% of population in real numbers, how could that number in total population dying predominantly after the age of 70 create anything above moderate concern? Even if smoking is every bit the risk they state it is.
Future and current risk will change only as an effect of scientific discovery if the philanthropy groups and the other societal leeches involved, allow those advancements to proceed.
OT but of interest.
If smoking bans "don't hurt business" why this campaign by the Hawaii Tourism Board:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Travel...=3509975&
page=1
Just asking.
.
Sunz
They seem to be in a right muddle. They want the tourists and expect them to change. Strange I thought tourism was about providing for the tourist.
Why does Japan have a low rate of lung cancer?
This tale of protest against Camel No. 9 cigarettes is certainly full of sound and fury, but I'm afraid that it really signifies nothing.
Protest by authority is the best form of advertising, especially to younger people!
west
----
OT - Article - The 'Addictions' Racket
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/...s/
s_525002.html
A muddle indeed west2. How they will recapture the 12% drop in tourism is yet to be seen.
Funny they are okay with advertising this in Japan. I guess they'd never get away with that in US!!
Seems the Japanese are living in a freer country these day than America---how ironic.
.
.
Sunz ask "If smoking bans "don't hurt business" why this campaign by the Hawaii Tourism Board:"
Hawaii depends on tourism. I large portion of those tourists come from Japan, where almost half the male population smokes. Oddly enough the life expectancy is higher there then in the US. Diet? Anyways a significant portion of Japanese are taking their tourist dollars elsewhere. I have been watching Hawaii with interest as I expect the TC laws to be scaled back for the simple reason that they are losing a significant portion of their potential tourists. As a smoker, I would not go on vacation to a place I am not welcome.
Great post Gilster. From that link"
~snip~
' the definition of addiction has been manipulated to increase health-care profits by lowering personal responsibility. So, could dark chocolate from Belgium be addictive?'
And these are the same folk who accused BT of lying to keep their jobs.
Amazing.
Dan,
In days past, I spent a ton of money per year in Hawaii. Would not touch the place now. I'll mix a tropical smoothie (virgin, please) put a paper umbrella in it and sit on my portal rather than go where I'm not welcome.
.
Sunz - A muddle indeed west2. How they will recapture the 12% drop in tourism is yet to be seen.
.....
Sunz,
What is left out of the article and the advertising campaign is that the anti-smoking law requires that 80% of the rental units be smoke-free. In actuality, because of the complicated rules, many properties threw up their hands and just banned smoking everywhere on the grounds. So, that means less than 10% of rooms are available to smokers and you can't get a guarantee of a smoking room.
Who is going to commit to spending thousands of dollars to a vacation in Hawaii and then find they can't even smoke in their room or anywhere on the property? This is not the same as not being guaranteed a king-sized bed!
The Hawaii Tourism Bureau is engaging in in false advertising.
I think a few e-mails to Japan-based travel agencies to reveal the lies being told them is in order.
"INGSOC" [In Orwell's 1984, Newspeak for "English Socialism"]
Junkfood Science
August 29, 2007
Ingsoc
Lead in:
The latest issue of Health Freedom Watch, published by the Institute for Health Freedom, has a “this couldn’t happen in America” story.
The IHF reported that “the Minnesota Department of Health has been collecting and storing blood and DNA material on newborn babies without their parents’ consent.” The Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC), a health-policy organization based in Minnesota, discovered that the health department has been illegally collecting DNA material for ten years and has DNA on at least 670,000 babies which it is giving away for genetic research.
Twila Brase, president of CCHC, said this violates the state’s newborn screening and genetic privacy laws. The CCHC has been working to get the health department to comply with state law and, so far, the Governor has failed to act.
Just a few weeks ago the news from the UK reported a similar story. Government law enforcement agencies in England and Wales want expanded powers to collect DNA material on citizens, creating a huge genetic databank. As the Daily Mail reported:
Speeding drivers face DNA swabs under new Big Brother powers
Excerpt:
As one of the public commentators at the Times insightfully noted: “They want your DNA because of all the information it reveals about you. As the human genome is decoded, government, employers, insurance salespersons, banks, and everybody else will be able to read what diseases you are genetically predisposed to and make decisions affecting you without your control. Government et. al. will have this increased power over you, but you will not have any more power over your government. In fact, it is just one more means of rendering you helpless and vulnerable to the whims of bureaucrats who have their own interests in mind, not yours. Eventually all people will be monitored and controlled from cradle to grave - the journey of which is adjustable by those with enough power.”
URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvw7y6
Rod---"The Hawaii Tourism Bureau is engaging in in false advertising."
Thanks for unwinding that more fully.
Interesting that a news story on some of the enviro-wackos want all of food grown to be locally. The women in the piece stated, "why should we ship pineapples from Hawaii, when other fruits grown locally leave no carbon footprint." the dumb bells in Hawaii just don't get where all this will end up for them and the rest of America.
Wonder what Hawaii will do for an economy when these nuts are ruling the roost?
.
OpenMarket.org
FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill Violates Treaty, Indonesia Says
Hans Bader | 8/30/2007 @ 12:11 pm
Indonesia is protesting that the bill to subject the tobacco industry to FDA regulation would violate an international trade treaty. The Jakarta Post reports that the Indonesian government objects to the fact that the bill bans clove cigarettes, which Indonesia produces, while permitting menthol cigarettes. It says that the differential treatment is discriminatory and not justified by health concerns, and thus violates the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Safeguards. More discussion of the FDA tobacco regulation bill can be found here, here, and here.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvbm2b
Three interesting articles at Surreality Times:
Lifestyle Risk-factor Disease Prevention Is A Fantasy
Support For "Still Smoking Seniors"
and
If You Keep Smoking That, You'll Go Blind
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2lvbuf
Doc responds: "My answer is NO to both of your questions."
Dan had asked, and I repeated:
"All people born, live, and die, some sooner then others. What cigarettes do is increase smokers risk factors for getting heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc sooner then others."
And your answer is NO?
This statement is not true?
You're saying that cigarettes DO NOT increase the risk factors for contracting "smoking related diseases"?
In an effort to make sure you understand the question / statement;
That's what NO would mean in this instance. You are aware of that right?
Seems contradictory to your previously oft-repeated position.
Dan had asked, and I repeated again:
"Science can say that there is a high likelihood, based on statistics that for someone who smoked that the disease that killed him was do to with smoking. It cannot say, however, that smoking CAUSED the disease"
And again your answer is NO?
This statement is Not true?
Science CAN say that smoking CAUSED the dieases?,..is that what you're saying?
Just want to be sure (I) we all understand the significance of your answer, so for the sake of clarity:
Statement #1 TRUE or FALSE
Cigarettes increase risk factors for "smoking related" disease.
Statement #2 TRUE or FALSE
Science CAN NOT prove causation of disease by smoking.
I also bought a pack of #9 Camel this morning just because. It must have been the great advertisement that twisted and practically broke my arm to do so. While I'm not the "targeted" consumer for this brand, I simply couldn't resist that ultra cool packaging,...Oh the Horror!
OT--but here's a great article on how the current obesity crisis affects fat people going to the doctor. I would not be above attributing some of that to smoking, tho smokers tend to get angry faster than they get embarassed.
http://tinyurl.com/2l4mq3
Rod - Minnesota, discovered that the health department has been illegally collecting DNA material for ten years and has DNA on at least 670,000 babies which it is giving away for genetic research.
Rod,
have you read Michael Crichton's "NEXT"?
It resonates and has many parallels. Quite scary really.
GreatScot
Since we're slightly o/t here--I stumbled on something else.
I didn't realize New York City had a metal bat ban.
Some of the same issues discussed here are in play in the essay.
For starters there are provable deaths/serious injuries from Cathy Bell's "other activities" (baseball/cheerleading) and also there is a question of 1) how far we can cut down the risks and 2) an industry that changed specifications in an attempt to make things safer, but there was still a law against them. This in particular IS about "hurting other people."
Hi all. I've been lurking here for a little while and find this blog fascinating. Thought this might be appreciated here...
Oops. Sorry, here it is..
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...ewer.php?
id=228
Mike wrote:
"Even the liberal, Democrat-appointed justices tended to agree that these regulations were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Law."
While the FCLAA has protected cigarette companies from more restrictive state cigarette advertising and product labeling restrictions and from potentionally bankrupting litigation for the past three to four decades, the 2001 SCOTUS dramatic expansion of Central Hudson's scope of protection for tobacco advertising not only applies to state governments, but also to U.S. Congress as well.
That's why PM conceded to CTFK's request that for the FDA legislation to repeal the FCLAA's preemption of state cigarette advertising restrictions, as PM lawyers know that the 2001 SCOTUS ruling that expanded the Central Hudson's scope of 1st amendment protection for tobacco advertising would trump not only some of the advertising restrictions in the FDA legislatation, but also would trump most potential future state tobacco advertising restrictions.
In sum, the 2001 SCOTUS expansion of 1st amendment protection for tobacco advertising was/is/will be far more protective of tobacco advertising than the FCLAA.
The person hiding behind the alias LightningBoy wrote:
"I disagree that one political party or the other is more or less to blame for smoking bans and TC in general."
The asked and answered question dealt with tobacco advertising legislation and litigation, not smoking bans or TC in general.
The person hiding behind the alias JustTheFacts wrote:
"Anyone listening to you would be left with the impression that Republicans are the ones that WILL protect free speech (the good guys) and that Democrats will fix that (trample on the 1st Amend)."
Wrong. Republicans have been primarily interested in expanding the 1st amendment rights for corportations (whose PACs and executives give Republicans far more campaign contributions), while the Democrats have been primarily interested in protecting the 1st amendment rights of people (who were the intended benficiaries of the 1st amendment when it was approved by America's founding fathers).
Anyone who believes that Republicans have championed the 1st amendment for the people should try attending a visit or speech by Bush or Cheney with a sign or shirt that says "Save America, Impeach Bush and Cheney"
"I didn't realize New York City had a metal bat ban."
Public health better keep their hands off my graphite golf clubs or their will be hell to pay...
LightningBoy said: “Dan had asked, and I repeated:
"All people born, live, and die, some sooner then others. What cigarettes do is increase smokers risk factors for getting heart disease, stroke, cancer, etc sooner then others."
And your answer is NO?
This statement is not true?
You're saying that cigarettes DO NOT increase the risk factors for contracting "smoking related diseases"?
In an effort to make sure you understand the question / statement;
That's what NO would mean in this instance. You are aware of that right?
Seems contradictory to your previously oft-repeated position.
Dan had asked, and I repeated again:
"Science can say that there is a high likelihood, based on statistics that for someone who smoked that the disease that killed him was do to with smoking. It cannot say, however, that smoking CAUSED the disease"”
I missed Dr. Siegel’s response. I’ll answer here. I believe in science and do not believe science and politics should mix. Dear Dr. Siegel convince me my statements are false and I will be at your side. You know my work Email address; please supply you supporting scientific evidence without your opinion and I will evaluate it. But I am currently not at work and can be reached at wagicalplace@yahoo.com.
The reason why I answered NO to question #1 is that it implies that smoking increases the risk of dying earlier from diseases that people are going to get anyway. This is not true. It is just not the case that we are all destined to get lung cancer and that those who smoke will simply get lung cancer earlier than they otherwise would have. Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked.
The reason I answered NO to question #2 is that epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place.
Almost, Bill. If I remember correctly, corporation are "Juristic Persons" and are treated as such by the law. Therefore, I fail to see why they do not have the same first amendment rights as I do.
So Dr Siegel,the risk factor of 1.19 for SHS IS caused by the tobacco smoke itself.Given your magic number crunching and all of your other smokescreens you hide behind,then i'm afraid to say that your SHS fixation really is blinding you to the science.
Yeah, you tell him Joel.
Bill Godshall - Anyone who believes that Republicans have championed the 1st amendment for the people should try attending a visit or speech by Bush or Cheney with a sign or shirt that says "Save America, Impeach Bush and Cheney"
.......
BG,
Why is it that it's mainly Democrats that threaten to destroy reputations, have credentials stripped, have Nuremberg type tribunals, etc. for those who disagree with them?
Why is it mainly Democrats that are leading the charge to force Socialism on Americans?
Actually, I am unhappy with both parties. As an American, my first loyalty, my allegiance, is to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Too often, both parties find those documents a very large inconvenience.
And Bill, you are a PUS Bag: An adherent to Progress Under Socialism. You would scrap Americans' rights in a heartbeat if it would help institute your personal agenda.
Neither major party, and certainly not the PUS Bags, represents me at this time.
Michael Siegel - The reason I answered NO to question #2 is that epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place.
.......
Dr. Siegel,
Epidemiology can never establish causation. It never has and never will.
Many epidemiologists have drawn the wrong, repeat, wrong conclusion from the results of their studies.
That is why very strong RRs are necessary to even begin to suspect a cause.
Without massive, agenda-driven funding, an RR of 1.19 (and only a 90% CI)wouldn't have caused a ripple.
You and others in BTC have drawn an incorrect conclusion based on evidence so flimsy it would be laughable if you hadn't caused so much damage. The result of this whole tobacco thing is the corruption of science and consequent loss of credibility in the public's mind.
Rod----'And Bill, you are a PUS Bag: An adherent to Progress Under Socialism. You would scrap Americans' rights in a heartbeat if it would help institute your personal agenda.'
Well done Rod. PUS Bag----someone hiding behind the alais of being an American
Incidentally, I don't necessarily think that the tobacco control groups need to discuss the issues I bring up here with me. I just think they need to discuss them, even if amongst themselves. I am not really the issue; the issue is whether or not the movement is willing to discuss these issues, and I do not believe that it is.
I'm getting a little verklempt, so I hope that the tobacco control movement will talk amongst themselves. Let me suggest a few topics:
1. The Citizens' Commission to Protect the Truth is neither a citizens' commission, nor does it protect the truth. Discuss.
2. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act neither prevents smoking nor controls tobacco use, nor does it have anything to do with families. Discuss.
Dr Siegel
Perhaps you can clarify.
Epidemiology would posit that a substance could be causal in some disease, from population studies, yet would be unable to specify that a particular incidence of that disease could be attributed to that substance. Is that a fair comment?
Or to be brief and less wordy....
In Epidemeology:-
Is causal general or specific?
Is causal a judgement rather than a fact?
thanks,
west
----
GreatScot -Rod, have you read Michael Crichton's "NEXT"?
It resonates and has many parallels. Quite scary really.
........
GreatScot,
Not yet. But I have read most of his stuff.
I also like the first three books of the Dune series by Frank Herbert (the subsequent books in the series were just so-so for me). And, I have read most of Jared Diamond's books (Guns, Germs and Steel).
The person hiding behind the alias WLC wrote:
"Almost, Bill. If I remember correctly, corporation are "Juristic Persons" and are treated as such by the law. Therefore, I fail to see why they do not have the same first amendment rights as I do."
Please cite one federal or Supreme Court decision that recognized corporations as persons during the first eight decades following ratification of the Bill of Rights.
My understanding of Constitutional Law is that Constitutional protections only applied to individuals until the robber barons of the late 1800's paid off Presidents to appoint judges and Justices who extended Constitutional protections to corporations.
Many of those corporate protections were reversed by Republican Teddy Roosevelt after many businesses became monopolies (including Buck Duke's American Tobacco Company).
But the rights of corporations have been greatly expanded again since Ronald Reagan became president, while the rights of individuals have been diminished.
Doc said: "It is just not the case that we are all destined to get lung cancer and that those who smoke will simply get lung cancer earlier than they otherwise would have. Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked."
Nor does smoking clearly cause lung cancer in a large number of people who are also lifetime smokers either. It has become a matter of routine in "public health" to attribute any death as "smoking related" regardless of the actual cause if the subject EVER smoked at all. If they die at ninety years old from a heart attack, the fact that they smoked is now not only the cited as the reason for the heart attack and listed as a "smoking related" death, but that it was "preventable" and "premature",....at NINETY!
Doc said; "It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place."
Is there any real point to it?
I mean beyond the ability to use it in such a way as to sway public opinion in favor of a particular TC position despite all common sense pointing the other way?
As in; Shouldn't everybody born before 1960 and exposed to ETS be dead by now?
As in; Shouldn't I be stepping over bodies on my way in and out of the restaurant from all the heart attacks occuring within 30 minutes of exposure to ETS from patrons FORCED to stand outside my business property while they smoke?
Insurance industry actuarial tables allow conclusions to be drawn as well, but they're not mistaken for holy grail of science the way epidemiology is.
As a tool for studying any particular pattern of disease, I'm sure it is indeed useful.
The real problem however seems to be that once those "conclusions" are drawn, that's it. There is no investigation, no further study of any real merit, nothing to verify that the conclusion is in fact, fact. No proof of the conjecture.
It becomes a "consensus of opinion" which is routinely portrayed by TC as scientifically proven evidence based on fact, when clearly it is not. It's statistics, it's not science. It's fun with numbers, but it's not proof of anything other than the existence of a pattern.
Patterns can, and clearly do cause hysteria, not disease.
Allowing conclusions to be drawn is the primary purpose of epidemiology,..ok, but that's not what it is routinely used for. Those conclusions are more often than not used to persuade the public, and more specifically the government that the "consensus of opinion" (not fact) should be the basis of law, and is a better sounding substitutional phrase for unproven assumptions and associations because the "experts" say it is so. "Consensus of Opinion" does certainly sound better than "our best guess is", "the pattern seems to indicate", or "all numbers point to,.. but we're just not certain"
Epidemiology is not PROOF of causation.
Epidemiology proves only one thing, that most people are gullible and easily confused when it comes to seperating fractions, factions, and fact.
LB -- we have a language issue here.
Epidemiology -- The scientific study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations.
Lots of definitions to choose from --but I liked that one.
I think your points mostly speak to statistical association, not the field of epidemiology in general.
As such -- some of what you said and some of what Linda Richman up there said is true.
Easy to sort this all out... like buttah!
I mean, the good folks who trace your local salmonella outbreak are epidemiologists...
Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked.
Wow, so you have found, definitively, that smoking was the cause of their particular lung cancer. How? I mean, if we found the cure for lung cancer, I would not only support a ban,but I'd get on national television and insist on one. Not just a public ban, but on a complete elimination. It's clear that the lung cancer came from NO other thing than smoking? ONLY smoking? Why are YOU not insisting on a ban? How do you know they'd never have lung cancer? Are you sure about that? What kind of information led you to KNOW they'd never have lung cancer. I'm really curious here, doc. If you can back that statement up with NO reasonable doubt, then I'll change my mind, throw my cigarettes out, and french kiss Bill.
But you also have to explain why many smokers NEVER get lung cancer.
Bill,
You're right--in fact I've read where the post civil war amendments, ostensibly aimed at protecting freedmen, were actually passed by the Republican post war majority in order to expressly grant those rights to corporations.
Actually, I don't believe Teddy R. was that much of a "Trust Buster" or anything else anti-corporate. He's quite overrated on that.
I absolutely agree that individual rights have been diminished in recent decades; that's why I'm here. Again, however, we're coming at it from two different angles: Negative Liberty (me) vs Positive Liberty (you). It seems that you mix the two principles to your own advantage.
William Leroy Cook (aka WLC)
Bill,
At any rate, until a court decides to do some serious revising of past opinions, corporations do have the same protections as I do under the Bill of Rights.
I don't think either major party is interested in doing that, so good luck.
"Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked."
As LB argues -- IF that's true, you can't prove it merely by statistical association.
Although of course, the smoking experimental design would be well... frowned upon...
The last smoking rats study I looked at -- the (tumor bred, I believe) smoking rats did get tumors -- but oddly, they outlived the non-smoking rats. Fascinating. But this does speak in an interesting way to the we all die of something argument. Could some smokers both get cancer AND live longer than they otherwise would have...?
So many questions...
GDF, - You're right, it is definitely a language, or terminology issue. This is a good definition: Epidemiology -- The scientific study of the causes, distribution, and control of disease in populations.
It's just unfortunate that it's not the definition used by TC.
They prefer statistical associations to support the "conclusions" that are substituted for fact.
Epidemiology is still not PROOF of causation.
"and french kiss Bill"
Jalestra! Ewww.... Yuck!
Although I admit I've found myself agreeing with Bill a couple of times in the last couple of days.
But... they'd have to cure cancer AND declare world peace!
(just joking at ya Bill..)
Michael Siegel wrote: "The reason why I answered NO to question #1 is that it implies that smoking increases the risk of dying earlier from diseases that people are going to get anyway. This is not true. It is just not the case that we are all destined to get lung cancer and that those who smoke will simply get lung cancer earlier than they otherwise would have. Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked."
OK. I agree with lung cancer. Though that is not what I meant. I was not limiting myself to one disease. My comments were directed to heart disease, not lung cancer. I understand the lung cancer has very few risk factors. Among them smoking, radon, environmental polution, etc. But as you point out the risk of heart disease as many risk factors, including eating a burger a Mc Donald's.
Link for the mice (sorry rats, mice...whatever)
"At the end of the study (918–930 days) 19.9% of sham-exposed control mice were alive compared with 47.3% of CS-exposed mice (P < 0.001)."
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org...full/26/11/1999
but here's one I just found for rats
Looks like the light smoking female rats lived longest.
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org...t/full/81/2/280
Not saying these are conclusive in any way -- especially for humans -- just that they are interesting.
And then I saw this…. (sorry this post is getting long)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescie...sescancerinpets
“Making the leap from the effects of secondhand smoke on humans to their effects on pets isn't a big one, says veterinarian Carolynn MacAllister of Oklahoma State University”
Of course it isn’t, Carolynn, if you're a leaping sort of scientist…. My last dog lived 17 years.
Michael Siegel said “The reason I answered NO to question #2 is that epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place.”
From wikipedia.org: “Although epidemiology is sometimes viewed as a collection of statistical tools used to elucidate the associations of exposures to health outcomes, a deeper understanding of this science is that of discovering causal relationships. It is nearly impossible to say with perfect accuracy how even the most simple physical systems behave beyond the immediate future, much less the complex field of epidemiology, which draws on biology, sociology, mathematics, statistics, anthropology, psychology, and policy; "Correlation does not equal causation," is a common theme to much of the epidemiologic literature. For the epidemiologist, the key is in the term inference. Epidemiologists use gathered data and a broad range of biomedical and psychosocial theories in an iterative way to generate or expand theory, to test hypotheses, and to make educated, informed assertions about which relationships are causal, and about exactly how they are causal. Epidemiologists Rothman and Greenland emphasize that the "one cause - one effect" understanding is a simplistic misbelief. Most outcomes — whether disease or death — are caused by a chain or web consisting of many component causes.” -Wikepedia.
Again using the above I was state you, meaning epidemiolists, have found a weak correlation between SHS and the diseases caused by smoking. My point was that you cannot determine whether a smoker who dies of heart disease actually died as a result of his smoking. There are many causes for hearth disease, being obese being a major one. Let us not focus on lung cancer here. But if we were to, you still cannot say that a person who died of lung cancer, even a smoker, was due to smoking. It could have been radon, environmental pollution, or whatever. I will give you the most likely cause would be smoking. But you could never prove it.
Michael Siegel wrote: "I'm getting a little verklempt"
He he. The doc knows German.
Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked.
And where is the proof of this? Where is your irrefutable proof that smoking absolutely causes lung cancer, and nothing else even comes close to being a confounding factor? WHERE is your proof that someone who doesn’t smoke and isn’t exposed to SHS will NEVER get lung cancer?
Dan said; "I will give you the most likely cause would be smoking. But you could never prove it."
And it apparently doesn't matter if the proof continues to elude the multi-talented / cross-trained statisticians. As long as there is a "consensus of opinion" predjudicial and discriminatory laws are justified.
Here's one for you Bill,
Well.....because it's gross. Before long it will be nationwide.
Ark. Lawmaker Wants Capitol Ban on Snuff
http://ap.google.com/article/
ALe...nhwdtBATuG9sg_Q
"At the Arkansas Legislature, it's against the rules for a lawmaker to have even a cup of water sitting on his or her desk. That cup of spittle with a day's worth of tobacco juice is fine, though"
.
LightningBoy said: "Dan said; "I will give you the most likely cause would be smoking. But you could never prove it.""
What I meant to say is that if someone died of lung cancer, that most likely cause, if someone is a smoker, is smoking. But it is not the only cause. Thus if someone died from lung cancer it could not be PROVEN that smoker is the cause. But the doc is right with lung cancer everything points to smoking, but it also could be radon, polution, etc.
If everything points to smoking, how can radon, pollution, etc be factors? Because obviously everything doesn't point to smoking. It also doesn't explain why never smokers and anti-smokers (who would refuse to be around SHS) get lung cancer.
Jalestra said "If everything points to smoking, how can radon, pollution, etc be factors? Because obviously everything doesn't point to smoking. It also doesn't explain why never smokers and anti-smokers (who would refuse to be around SHS) get lung cancer."
No some people get lung cancer but never smoked or were exposed to SHS. But with lung cancer, the overwhelming reason is smoking. While possible that SHS is a reason, I would think that the other factors, like radon, chest xrays, exposure to other radeation etc would be equally important. I still stand by the fact that there is no way to say for sure. Thus no bodies.
Rod and Kevin, could you guys email me privately please? I have something I want to run by you both and need your input on. Thanks.
mslynnyc@gmail.com
Sunz - "At the Arkansas Legislature, it's against the rules for a lawmaker to have even a cup of water sitting on his or her desk. That cup of spittle with a day's worth of tobacco juice is fine, though"
....
Sunz,
I am of that age that when I was in the Army a fair percentage of the veteran NCOs chewed tobacco.
When huddling (in the field) to discuss tactics, etc., the ground in the center of the huddle was quite interesting...not to mention my learning experience of putting out my hand to make a point and bringing it back with an even more interesting "birthmark."
Nothing like "ground truth," as opposed to book learning!
Just in time for the bans on smoking in cars:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70830102608.htm
"The current study was funded by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute."
.
The did this testing at Stanford in the PDR of NoCal. The average PM2.5 for the counties in that area is around 30 micrograms. I wonder what it was on the testing days? From reading the abstract it would seem those two cigarettes thay are talking about would need to be smoked over a 24 hour period or around 248 cigarettes. Not to mention dust particles that had already contaminated the testing vehicle (2005 Ford Taures). Sunz! The old half truths of the antis just never stop!
Sunz - "The current study was funded by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute."
...
Sunz,
Oh yes, FAMRI...the group that gave $600,000 to Doctor Siegel (200 grand for three years for services rendered) and the same to James "Plume of Doom" Repace. Lotta money here. Maybe Glantz got to dip into the Honey Pot, too...I don't remember. Too much money to keep track of.
The Honey Pot provided by...smokers!
snip~Smokers Deemed Unsuitable for Employment at the Cleveland Clinic
Beginning September 1, all applicants for jobs with the Cleveland Clinic - a health system that is Ohio's second largest employer - will be tested for cotinine and rejected for employment automatically if the test indicates that they smoke or use smokeless tobacco.~
Well, here I go it's Sept. 1. (Doc's response to above sent me to this blog.)
I just wish I would have bought Camel # 9 instead of Marlboro Lights.
Yup, today is THE day the Cleveland Clinic implements it's no hire of smokers. Amazing how clueless people are about what's all at stake here.
Any bets on staffing sinking ohhhh, say 12% for starters? Idiots! But hey I'm not the CEO just a lowly employee. (I would quit my job if I could.)
Pufff pufff, aahhhh the smell of freedom. Just my own personal little statement. My husband thinks I'm nuts, but he didn't live under communism...Now I think I'll go watch "Thank You For Smoking".
God bless you all. Let freedom riiiinnng!
(By the way, this blog is addicting.)
back to the hawaiian tourist board and japanese smokers. so 45% of japanese men smoke yet japanese men have the second-longest male life span (behind icelanic men) on planet earth. can someone please explain that to me?
i didn't think so.
and on top of that, japanese women have the longest female life span on the planet (taiwanese women have second longest). certainly these longest living japanese women are exposed to high amounts of SHS from the 45% of smoking japanese men. how is this to be explained?
this is why i do not believe ANYTHING the healthists shove down our throats.
btw, i will never visit hawaii again, as beautiful as it is. why would i spend my hard earned money there if i can't even enjoy myself.
the home is next people. they'll be knocking on our doors any day now. where does this nonsense come from?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20518027/
I am stunned by the last post. Is there any biologically plausible connection between parental smoking exposure and later miscarriage? Speaking as an ordinary citizen new to epidemiology, this study seems like vicious contrived junk.
Dan--
Without arguing that smoking correlates impressively with lung cancer, be aware that a lot of other things do too. Somewhere I've got a list replete with RRs and I'll eventually hunt it up. IIRC, a history of having pneumonia and of owning a pet bird were a 4.0 and a 6.0.
Just FYI, Siegel's knowledge of "German" is actually his knowledge of SNL (Saturday Night Live) and-- hats off, Doc-- a nice parody, (or parody of a parody.)
Now to business:
FTR, my own dictionary defines epidemiology as "a branch of science that deals with the incidence, distribution and possible control of disease." Nothing about "causation" let alone "causation" in the existential sense.
When epidemiology sticks to what it's good at -- and occasionally brilliant at doing, which is tracking the source of an epidemic (the root of the word), as for instance it tracked Legionnaire's Disease to a particular duct in a particular hotel-- it's on solid intuitive + empirical ground.
When it tries to play around with determining "causation" in chronic diseases or diseases with "multi-factorial" origins, it descends into easily agenda-driven voodoo.
Dr Siegel informs us that ... epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place.
First, I disagree that there would be no point. See the old movie "Panic in the Streets." Or else, just consider Legionnaire's disease. Or tracking that virus a couple of months ago to a particular organic spinach field in CA.
Second, when it comes to inferring causation from statistical association (the method used in all the other studies we're discussing), it can only infer it with any prayer of accuracy when the numbers and the methods meet the reasonable standards of Bradford-Hill.
IIRC, the smoking and lung cancer studies do (tho I'm open to correction) but virtually none of studies on secondhand smoke come anywhere close.
:
Sunz wrote:
"Just in time for the bans on smoking in cars:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ rele...70830102608.htm "
Klepeis and Ott. The same two guys that said being near a smoker outdoors is worse than sitting in a smoky bar.
You go, utopia!!!
My spirit is with you today!
(And I'll get back to Bill's nonsense later)
James Austin, Science Daily they need to start selling that at the supermarket check-out. You look through some of the articles and it reads more like Science Tabloid, SHS, Global Warming, vaccinations for young boys because of oral sex, and all it seems to be is tabloid science. What will be the next article a bridge in Minnasota fails because of smokers. Cause, the "twin cities smoking bans forced people outside to smoke, and SHS caused early bridge failure. I am sure there is a study in the works. Maybe its time to really go back to the way we were a few centuries back. Excuse me while I go make a Doctors appt with my Barber!
“The reason why I answered NO to question #1 is that it implies that smoking increases the risk of dying earlier from diseases that people are going to get anyway. This is not true. It is just not the case that we are all destined to get lung cancer and that those who smoke will simply get lung cancer earlier than they otherwise would have. Smoking clearly causes lung cancer in a large number of people who would NOT have gotten lung cancer had they not smoked.
The reason I answered NO to question #2 is that epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place.”
I would disagree on both counts for the following reasons;
In the first opinion no such implication is necessary although the possibility remains albeit unlikely. The same can be said for Michael’s opinion which is a possible conclusion where others also exist. Smoking can only be a contributing factor with other factors being required in order to sustain smoking is implicated at all. For the simple reason it does not cause cancer universally.
It may be possible smoking is the sole cause and those who do not get cancer are protected or cured in some way, however it also by inverse logic is possible there are multiple causes and smoking is a part of a combination of required factors which may cause cancer or a sequence which is possible to mirror by other means. When we examine the effects of diesel exhaust for instance we know cancer growth is a direct result of exposures with no other factors required, smoking however in biological assay in the dosages we experience in real life has no such result. It could be that those who smoke are also more likely to be exposed more to certain other cancer agents than non smokers such as Bic lighters, Butane or matches or even that they are more likely to drive a car exposing them to traffic exposures of a sole cause or other multiple factors.
To draw a conclusion and distribute it to the public in such definitive means is premature and irresponsible in light of the fears and economic circumstances being promoted with little more than opinions to offer in support with so much left unknown.
On the second count;
Epidemiology does not produce facts only good guesses or opinions. It is the formation of direction and not conclusive evidence which requires a lot more investigation to eliminate other possibilities. It in no way could ever be more than a device to guide direction. In a single factor tracking of disease it is an excellent tool to follow disease outbreaks back to source however in a multifactor chase we have to adjust the data in order to comply with the linearity of the method. The ways we do those adjustments is dependant on ethics, knowledge and available information at that time.
Further discussion;
It stands to reason biases play an important role in assessing the value placed on the linearization of the confounded factors. The same judgements are necessary in forming conclusions in the numbers found. No one could ever deny the influence of education which teaches a student “smoking is the root of all evils” on a daily basis is a bias in itself. As a bias it could not help but produce opinion with bias as a predominant determining factor in a belief smoking should always be given the most weight. You are therefore not challenging the null but forcefully making the numbers balance the predominant opinion.
Something I have observed is an almost universality in smoking and especially ETS studies; what can only be described as prefabricated [Meaning; pieces are already assembled. Not indicative of any deceit, is being implied] methodology plugging grown borrowed statements in, to form a, fast food chain style, preparation of a report. The fast food method serves only to avoid the work, we see evident in other epidemiology research. Challenging the null requires exactness and preoccupation with detail not a solving a puzzle by simply rejoining the same pieces, but finding all the pieces and evaluating whether they belong with this puzzle at all.
To elaborate take a look at the original Surgeon General’s report on smoking or Doll’s research and observe the exactness of detail and amount of information provided, now compare that to the reports being produced by the gross today. The reports are more confusing than helpful by what is missing, which seems a deliberate attempt to provide political misdirection, to evolve for use by the spin doctors who are being supported in their efforts to create fear and hatred in the general public. I see reported in the media regularly, research which focussed much more on opinion than observation yet the media fails to balance the discussion in support of their own sales teams.. Has Repace ever discussed his preoccupation for PPAH and in his opinion the resultant levels of harmful toxins associated with PAH or his believed direct proportions attributed to cigarette smoke alone. His obvious bias negates opinions balanced in observational science or timeline perspectives? Other researchers by his evaluations are influenced and further draw conclusions without evaluation of the validity of what they produce. Conversely anyone who reports evidence which does not follow the norm is chastised and attacked personally for simple demonstration of what they observed. How can anyone state considering the factors enslaving the answers, by political means; epidemiology is a valid means of even determining direction with so many directions restricted in where one may be allowed to go?
Have we any studies comparing the relative risk of one brand to another? I have seen many reports which evaluate a single brand sold in different countries which demonstrates a huge variation of nitrosamines depending on where it is sold. Unfortunately we saw no logical follow-up to determine if these variations resulted in more [or dare I go there?] less cancers as a result. This demonstrates smoking as a single element is flawed in perspective because of the millions of combinations of what may be contained in a cigarette the elusion of cigarette smoke is further marred when we consider the diluting “fresh air” which contains a multitude of ingredients in itself which are not evaluated to determine which ingredient s produce more harms or mitigate harms in reaction with what they mix with.
The simplistic opinion smoking causes cancers is a brave one, however hardly representative of the truth or the facts. To further exaggerate and state ETS causes anything is consistent with a complete loss of credibility and reason. To say conclusions drawn from epidemiology are anything beyond a direction which could lead to facts, is also poorly considered.
In the laziness sloppiness cutting corners, what have you, which describes the preclusion of all the detail, which should be included in these reports, you only promote controversy and invite suspicion in your conclusions. By avoiding the factors which do not match those conclusions, you demonstrate doubt; you have, in those conclusions, which allow others to doubt your integrity. By cherry picking the similar opinions of others to promote reasoning as your only explanation of alternate facts, you demonstrate determination and bias is all which can be found in anything you present. Your self incrimination; by cutting corners, in making statements while avoiding the work which has not been completed, can always be demonstrated in your advocacy involvement or associations with others who will profit from the conclusions you promote.
By chastising others for accepting tobacco money for instance you only demonstrate internalized guilt and projections are driving your opinions. Further you attack the credibility of your methods and provide evidence of a flawed methodology and any association to facts in your own protests presented against others.
snip~7. Pursuit of the good. The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions. One should never underestimate the amount of evil caused by people thinking they were doing good. Far more evil has been perpetrated by idealistic people than by cynical criminals.~
http://www.townhall.com/columnis...1/
creators_oped
Thank you Kevin for the elaboration, but here's my short version again;
"As a tool for studying any particular pattern of disease, I'm sure it is indeed useful.
The real problem however seems to be that once those "conclusions" are drawn, that's it. There is no investigation, no further study of any real merit, nothing to verify that the conclusion is in fact, fact. No proof of the conjecture.
It becomes a "consensus of opinion" which is routinely portrayed by TC as scientifically proven evidence based on fact, when clearly it is not. It's statistics, it's not science. It's fun with numbers, but it's not proof of anything other than the existence of a pattern."
And as a result of your well written elaboration, allow me to make a slight correction to my earlier statement; "Epidemiology is not PROOF of causation"
Epidemiology is STILL not PROOF of causation, BUT can be an invaluable tool for proof of origin of INFECTIOUS DISEASES which is supposed to be the primary purpose of this pseudo-science in the first place.
Simply identifying a disease, and then assigning a reason for it's prevelance based only on the most sensationalized cause dujour is not at all the same, ...not even close.
But it apparently pays really well.
Here's a real bright note for the weekend.
Apparently, observed differences in expression of certain genes persist even after quitting smoking. This may account for the differences between certain risk factors that do not decline to never-smoker levels after smoking cessation.
The big question is: why quit then?
The damage cannot be undone.
Consequently, former smokers such as Bill Godshall need to be forced to pay for their past transgressions, since even quitting doesn't make things right again.
"Smoking stays in your genes after you quit" nature.com, 30 August 2007 by Heidi Ledford
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/...l/070827-
5.html
This article confirms my belief in filtration technology as a solution to bar ETS problem. Just send the health inspector into bars with a sidepack. If the air doesn't meet the EPA standard for outside air, then make the bar clean it up with a CM-12 or a SmokeMaster. No need to hassle businesses further. Why won't this work?
http://www.wpxi.com/health/92187...l.html?
rss=burg
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/c-12.php
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/cm-12.php
Regarding dan's question #2 and Doc's response, yes the intrepretation of epidemiological results is still a matter of debate, however, the approach I used at
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
t...sonsmoking.html
was to examine the prevalence of active smoking by various age groups in the periods 1973, 1985, and 1995-6.
and here's what I found out: smoking was a good predictor of lung cancer and laryngeal cancer rates in all male and female age groups in the USA. but smoking did not predict the rates of any other major disease
Here's an overview of what Cancer Epidemiology, Principles and Procedures teaches:
"all the evidence has to agree with the hypothesis. that includes population studies." along with a lot of other things ( the bradford Hill Cirteria)
So, i agree with doc that smoking not only elevates the RISK of getting LC, it actually CAUSES LC.
However, when getting into the MECHANISM of how smoking causes LC, I think we have a situation that Dan and Doc disagree on the use of the word "cause"
To clear this up, here's what I think is going on.
1) there are likely instances where LC death was caused by smoinkg alone.
2) there are likley instances where smoking IN CONJUNCTION with other risk factors for LC caused LC deaths.
So the definition of the word 'cause' becomes very important, and I have said this before on these threads.
For Dr Siegel, "cause" means the death would not ahve occurred if smoking had not occurred. and this is a good definition, because we know nonsmokers exposed to radon, traffic fumes, etc do not die of LC nearly as often as smokers exposed to the same amounts over a lifetime.
Dan is also correct, we cannot know if the smokers would ahve died of LC in a world free of all other risk factors.
The way, i circumvented the whole question was just by looking at the time-trends....and yes, it really does look like 40 years after smoking ceases to exist in the world, that lung cancer rates will diminish significantly. But I aslo believe LC will never completely disappear.
I also looked at international smoking and LC rates. Here, major differences in how smoking rates affect lung cancer rates crop up. However developed nations with lower pollution problems seem to have lower LC rates even if their smoking rates are higher than the USA's or Scotland, etc. and yes, sufficient lag time since smoking became popular exists to null any claims that eventually LC rates in these nations will catch up to the USA's
The sum of all this, is that smoking appears to act not only as a primary carcinogen, but also as a co-carcinogen. and I think probably half the LC cases, smoking is a primary carcinogen, and in the other half a co-carcinogen.
From all this, I conclude that even though dan is technically correct, one can never know with certainity, that any individual case was caused by smoking, that that is not a necessary criteria to be able to know if it EVER does.
Applying all the above to shs, a completely different conclusion exists, nonsmokers time trend exposures to shs are NOT good predictors of nonsmokers' LC rates. This is a whole different situation that the time trends with respect to first-hand smoking.
Dave K
Klepeis and Ott Demonstrate their own lack of education in their premise with the windows closed you provide a containment for the smoke.
Does anyone consider what would happen if you continue to pump conditioned air into a sealed car? The dangers of second hand smoke would be indeed secondary to the pressure and eventual explosion which would occur.
Being obviously ignorant to the situation both fail to recognize a driver when smoke becomes concentrated will open a window because it becomes difficult to see the road when your ayes are watering.
Further the resulting risk of a couple of hours defined by the total smoke from even a half dozen cigarettes smoked during that time is far from dangerous or even a level we could consider a health risk, Irregardless of the protections of an immune system most of us would have.
These two are spin doctors and in no way represent natural science Just a couple of tambourine bangers looking for a soap box.
Part II
so the next question is "what do we expect to accomplish once we have established a hypothesis through epidemiology?"
If epidemiology is just going to be used to play the blame game, then Dan is right, we can't do that.
If epidemiology is being used to identify ideas on how to make populations ehalthier, then in those situations where there is clear cut evidence that populations which carry less of the risk exhibit less of the disease, then the use of epidemiology to influcence public policy becomes justified.
However, since in the case of shs, it is extremely clear, that populations exposed to less shs do not exhibit less lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc, one cannot conclude that epidemology sould be used to influence public policy.
This is my primary point of disagreement with Dr. siegel. This is even a point recognized by glantz, INC where he claims 40% heart attack declines, post ban, etc, in an effort to claim that shs bans DO result in health improvements in populations. So, this shows that actually all epidemiologists are united in the beleif that epi SHOULD be used to improve public ehalth.
My study with Mcfadden tried to answer this question, we looked at the first health impact which SHOULD occur if shs declines have a positive impact on public ehalt, and of course, we found this is not the case, at all...it does not.
Myself and others have argued countless times, citing data on children's asthma rates in California, etc. that shs declines do not impact public ehalth positively, therefore it is moot to argue if any individual stuides on shs are valid or not. we ahve sufficient large populations with 10 -year old bans to answer the question 'do bans improve public health"? without referring to the epi literature.
Epidemiology is a tool, not a product, in itself. The product is public health, the tool is epi studies. The tool is no longer necessary when we can examine the rpoduct. For example, by now, californai bartenders, waitstaff, and other hospitality employees should be having substantially lower rates of heart didease than they did 12 years ago, and somewhat of a small decline in lung cancer too. the same goes for flight attendants.
Yet no one, has ever undertaken such a study. yes, we do have some respiratory function studies, but no one has examined serious health conditions in an effort to confirm if bans really DO positively impact health of nonsmoking hosptality employees, which is the reaons doc and many others cite to justify bans to begin with.
Yes, they all seem to be afraid to look and see if hospitality workers are really helahtier when the postulated risk has been removed for more that 10 years.
Why didn't glantz do a study on hospitality workers in the state of Fl which went from a totally smoking state to a totally nonsmoing state literally overnight? Wheres the 40% decline in heart attacks glantz claims happens among those ten of thousands of FL hospitality workers who became "protected" suddenly on July 1, 2003?
If anyone really cared if bans protect hospitality workers, these kinds of studies would be commonly done.
dave K
Lighningboy;
"It becomes a "consensus of opinion" which is routinely portrayed by TC as scientifically proven evidence based on fact, when clearly it is not. It's statistics, it's not science. It's fun with numbers, but it's not proof of anything other than the existence of a pattern."
Another possibility exists; if smokers are risk takers their own casual approach to risk leaves them open to other risks, most non smokers who are more strictly guided by fear would not be exposed to some risks so readily. In addition if smokers are taught to believe their bodies are now so damaged, a little risk from other more immediate sources of danger will not really make much difference.
The association between smoking and disease may well be explained in large proportion; due to the common trait of those who smoke, to make decisions not guided by fear.
The ridiculous promotion of those fears in transparent methods could well increase the number of those who will start smoking, simply because of a lack of credibility in the sources of information, selling their integrity for just money.
The avoidance by some, of every exposure, will lead to reduced efficiencies in immune systems leaving them more at risk not from the exposures but caused by their own preoccupation with fear.
Time to take responsibility for your own actions, takes on a new meaning in this sense. Who is being selfish now? As a smoker if requested I would be more than willing to challenge someone's immune system and give it a workout, however they would really have to ask nicely.
I agree with LB and Kevin.
With all due respect, correlation is not causation no matter how strong or frequently found. When I was a student (and a teacher) the classic example used in stats class was babies dying correlating with tar melting in NY City (or you could use the presence of ice cream vendors in NYC - even better). Anyway, students would twist themselves into pretzels trying to give explanations for the toxic effects on babies of melting tar or ice cream vendors. Turns out, infant mortality increased in summer (tar or no tar, ice cream or not).
I don't even know if this correlation is *true* by the way -- but it certainly illustrates our ability to go far down some strange explanatory paths. ("The ice cream vendors release toxic ice cream fumes...)
Well, you all probably have you favorite examples of odd associations.
Even changes over time Dave, are subject to a multitude of confounders. I don't deny that such data is suggestive (that's why we collect it), or that it can tend to support a theory. But I do suggest that the use of the word *cause* is misleading.
It's not so much that I wish to deny connections, it IS that I wish we had a little more humility in science about what we do or do not know for sure about the physical world and the human body.
Sunz wrote: "Just in time for the bans on smoking in cars:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/ rele...70830102608.htm
"The current study was funded by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute.""
Other then the dubious funding source, this report is flawed. It starts with this premise that people who smoke in cars do so with their windows closed. While I do not have any data, except anecdotal, I have never seen any smoker smoking with their windows closed. Usually the smoker has the window crack open or fully open while smoking. They can often be seen flicking their ashes out of the window. Also most smokers realize that with the window cracked the SHS coming from the cigarette exits the car immediately. I should be noted, for you non-smokers, that smokers themselves cannot stand a complete enclosed smoke filled room. As I have stated earlier, I have been in poorly ventilated airport smoking lounges where you just had to still in the room and inhale to get one’s fix. I could not stand to be in them, but smoked a cigarette and got out as quickly as possible.
While on the surface, the findings of the report, maybe accurate given the conditions, the report is useless in that the authors premise does not match conditions experience in the real world. Kind of like the good doctors 40/40 bartenders. I could design a study with the assumption that the average smoker smokes four cigarettes an hour in a car with their window closed. Since buying a car for the test is too expensive, I determine the average volume of a car and create a box test chamber to represent that volume, and the light four cigarettes over an hour and then test conditions in the chamber. I state my experimental setup conditions, my assumptions (four cigarettes and hour in a car simulator), etc. Then base conclusions on the findings. The paper would be accurate based on the conditions stated. However, the test is flawed because the assumptions of four cigarettes an hour are in a small volume to not reflect any real world conditions.
This study is an obvious attempt to generate flawed data in support of car smoking bans.
One further comment on my first post. In the era when smoking on airplanes was allowed, my wife and I who are both smokers, quit sitting in the smoking section of airplanes because at times in was unbearable for us. So we would request non-smoking seats, and then go to the back of the plane for a cigarette when needed. I seem to recall a study on non-smoking flight attendants that showed the incidence of smoking related diseases among them was no different than the non-smoking general population. I could be my memory is flawed and my recollection of the findings is false. If anyone could point me to the study it would be appreciated.
Bill Hannegan:
I have a question about the air filter units you describe in your post.
Does the unit intake from the bottom, and exhaust from the sides?
Might it work better if the exhaust was ducted, say, down the side of the wall to the floor? That way you'd create an greater degree of updraft in the room which might create further improvement in measurable air quality.
Also, I find the results of the Channel 11 air quality study interesting. All of the non-smoking sections were within the "good" or "moderate" category.
http://www.wpxi.com/health/92184...461/
detail.html
For Dan: We found a rather remarkably low SMR for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cg...t/156/6/
556.pdf
From the link by brandz above we also see the reach for not just the children----but for the grandchildren.
~snip~
There is “more than enough” evidence from medical studies to tell us that children need to be shielded from secondhand smoke, according to Meeker.
"Our results,” he said, “suggest that we should prevent these exposures not only for the health of our children, but perhaps our grandchildren as well.”
How in god's name how in hell were any of us born?
Smoking and exposure to SHS is so much lower that ever and has been going that direction for 50 years, I just don't get it.
BTW---Of course 'more research is needed'
More:
"The findings are based on pregnancy outcomes of 2,162 women who underwent assisted reproduction treatments at one of three Boston fertility clinics"
Did the fertility clinics take into account the near starvation diets many young women are encouraged to partake of? How about the women who excercise to the point of stopping their monthly cycle, all in a quest to be "fit" and to fit the ideals of perfection? Those are just starter questions.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20518027/
this is tooo tiring for a holiday weekend.
.
.
"The reason I answered NO to question #2 is that epidemiology is the study of disease CAUSATION. Epidemiology does not merely identify risk factors. It allows us to draw conclusions about the actual CAUSES of disease. That's what epidemiology is all about. If it didn't allow us to draw conclusions about causation, then there would be no point to it in the first place." ~ Dr. Siegel
If Dr. Siegel believes that, then he must alao believe that:
. Ice cream sales cause crime.
. Wearing a brassiere causes breast cancer.
. Faster computers cause asthma.
. Doctors cause disease.
. Fire trucks cause fires.
Epidemiology never proves causation. Its usefullness is limited to providing increased likelihood of causation, for which more research is required.
In the example of the salmonella outbreak, epidemiology can determine the most likely source of infection.
If all the sick people ate the tuna salad, and none of the ones who did not get sick ate the tuna salad, it does not mean the tuna salad caused the outbreak.
It means the tuna salad needs to be tested for salmonella.
Otherwise, the contamination could be elsewhere. For example, the forks were washed in tainted water. The tuna salad was the only food served that required a fork.
It's the sink that needs cleaning, not the tuna salad.
"It's the sink that needs cleaning, not the tuna salad."
Well said!
benpal thanks for the link for the flight attendant study. This is the one I remember and the conclusions that I remember are the same. In other words SHS did not play and important role. Seems like a lot of male fight attendants were gay as the biggest different between male and female deaths was AIDS. Thanks again benpal.
Dave K said: "If epidemiology is being used to identify ideas on how to make populations healthier, then in those situations where there is clear cut evidence that populations which carry less of the risk exhibit less of the disease, then the use of epidemiology to influcence public policy becomes justified.
I AGREE, but in those situations it should be only used in the most limited way possible, and only as a last resort or as necessary.
When all other individual medical disciplines have failed to answer the question, or solve the problem.
A consensus of opinion in this situation would be justified.
"However, since in the case of shs, it is extremely clear, that populations exposed to less shs do not exhibit less lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc, one cannot conclude that epidemology sould be used to influence public policy."
I absolutely agree with this as well....BUT!
HISTORICALLY, TC is ONLY interested in using the pseudo-science of epidemology, and without the noticibly absent, but critically and absolutely necessary follow-up studies specifically because it DOES NOT demonstrate cause, but it DOES support the pre-determined outcome which is based on a consensus of opinion in an effort to justify the agenda. YES, there IS an agenda.
Epidemology IS a tool, but it's not the scalpel it's routinely purported to be by the proponents of it's use. It's much more akin to the perverbial monkey wrench.
If you're going to attempt to rescind liberty, promote discrimination, and generally piss on the constitution in exchange for grants, publishing rights, or simply for your own personal comfort, and since you lack actual PROOF of CAUSE, then the tendency to couch your argument in favor of this traitorous behavior needs be as scientifically vague as possible, but just scientifically plausible sounding enough to impress people that don't have a clue about what you just said.
Do politicians actually read these studies?,...yeah right.
They ask the "experts" for the cliff notes.
"Experts in pseudo-science",...that's almost funny.
LightningBoy writes: “HISTORICALLY, TC is ONLY interested in using the pseudo-science of epidemology, and without the noticibly absent, but critically and absolutely necessary follow-up studies specifically because it DOES NOT demonstrate cause, but it DOES support the pre-determined outcome which is based on a consensus of opinion in an effort to justify the agenda. YES, there IS an agenda.”
Scientific papers are published in peer reviewed journals. That usually means that they are scientifically correct. But as shown by the paper funded by Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, a group that has an agenda, an experiment was created where the outcome before hand was already known. They created a condition, smoking in a closed container, a car, and showed that the smoke lingers. But there premise was false as smokers do not normally smoke in cars without cracking or opening the windows. Thus we have a study, funded by people with an agenda, to show a ridicules premise leads to scientifically plausible conclusion given the conditions described. But the conditions described have nothing to do with real life conditions. I am not aware of any smokers who would actually smoke in a car without cracking or opening a window. So what is the point of the study? A press release? This is an example of a study with only one purpose and the purpose is political. The people that conduct these can of studies should be ashamed to call themselves scientists. This would include Dr. Glantz who came up with the Hellena study.
I have a question about the air filter units you describe in your post.
Does the unit intake from the bottom, and exhaust from the sides?
Might it work better if the exhaust was ducted, say, down the side of the wall to the floor? That way you'd create an greater degree of updraft in the room which might create further improvement in measurable air quality.
Also, I find the results of the Channel 11 air quality study interesting. All of the non-smoking sections were within the "good" or "moderate" category.
http://www.wpxi.com/health/92184...461/ detail.html
Morgan Toal | 09.01.07 - 7:05 pm | #
Quite possibly. I'll check your suggestion out and post what I find. But I think part of the appeal of these machines is that you can install them to solve an ETS problem without the need for permits or concern about building codes. Ductwork adds expense and might bring in a building inspector. A CM-12 is $2200-2600 installed.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/cm-12.php
Thanks for the sharp reading of that study. I don't think the antismoker who originally posted it on another forum thougt about the implications of the good readings.
IMHO;
Epidemiology provides the direction science provides the facts.
Agreed?
"That usually means that they are scientifically correct."
Wrong! One has to understand the peer-reviewing process. Peer-reviewers can easily be biased as well. In most cases peer-reviewers don't have the time or knowledge to go down to the roots of a study. They cannot reproduce all the steps used to come to the conclusion, they cannot verify the basic data. Also personal (professional) relationships between reviewers and author might play a role.
Eventually each peer-review is a process which aims at reaching a "consensus".
Wasn't the Helena study peer-reviewed?
Take the very recent example where an independent (and skeptical) amateur reviewer - Steve McIntyre- found a calculation error in the temperature anomalies published by the IPCC, which were supposedly peer-reviewed.
Despite the fact that the debate was declared closed! And there is more to come!
Bill,
I thought of this when I came upon an article by Rush Limbaugh as he describes the ventilation system he uses in his personal smoking lounge.
Here is a link to an excerpt from of all places Tobacco.org:
http://www.tobacco.org/news/235169.html
I can't seem to find the original article by Mr. Limbaugh.
Here's my response to the WPXI news story.
----------
Mr. Loesch:
I would like to take exception to some of the statements made
in the recent story "Channel 11 uncovers second-hand smoke dangers,"
http://www.wpxi.com/health/92187...l.html?
rss=burg
I believe you are mistaken when you state "since there is no indoor air standard Channel 11 used the EPA's outdoor air quality index for the survey, adjusting the data to compare." There is indeed an indoor air quality standard for workplaces, and it is established by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Specifically, the standard for 2.5 micron particulate matter (PM2.5) not otherwise regulated (referred to as PNOR) by OSHA is 15 milligrams per cubic meter. Note that 1 milligram is equivalent to 1000 micrograms, and may thus be expressed as 15000 micrograms per cubic meter. The definition of PNOR includes any forms of smoke and dust not specified elsewhere by OSHA, and includes the particulates found in tobacco smoke. The OSHA official documentation for this regulation may be found here:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/...DARDS&
p_id=9992
While some of the establishments you visited may have indeed been obnoxiously smoky, the measurements you took demonstrate compliance with OSHA permissible exposure levels. Even the worst establishment you measured at a level of 1545 ug/m3 is but one tenth of the OSHA permissible level of 15000/ug/m3.
Your story implies that the smoke found in these establishments is dangerous. Yet, OSHA permissible levels of exposure exist for smoke from things like cooking grills, welding machines, internal combustion engines and even laser printers in workplaces. Do you really mean for your audience to believe that, measure for measure, tobacco smoke is somehow more dangerous than these other sources of indoor air pollution? Why should tobacco smoke be held to a tougher standard than smoke produced by a welding machine? Because you don't like it? That's hardly objective.
Further, I propose that it is disingenuous to apply a standard for measurement of air pollution throughout a wide geographic area to an indoor establishment. When the airspace of an entire metropolitan area has a PM2.5 level in excess of 100ug/m3 this is a serious problem, as it represents an enormous amount of pollution that nobody can escape from. But when you're in a bar with a PM2.5 level in excess of 100ug/m3, you can always step outside, open a window, or maybe even decide to go somewhere else that suits your preferences better.
Thank you for your time.
Morgan Toal
Burlington, IA
I declare that I am not employed by, nor do I report to, nor do I have any direct personal financial interest in any tobacco industry related company whatsoever.
benpal wrote: "Wrong! One has to understand the peer-reviewing process. Peer-reviewers can easily be biased as well. In most cases peer-reviewers don't have the time or knowledge to go down to the roots of a study. They cannot reproduce all the steps used to come to the conclusion, they cannot verify the basic data. Also personal (professional) relationships between reviewers and author might play a role.
Eventually each peer-review is a process which aims at reaching a "consensus"."
I do understand the peer review process. I am often a referee for technical papers in journals and well as an author (most often in the International Journal of Impact Engineering). Within my field, while admittedly a small one, I am internationally known. Though I am not a medical doctor nor a expert in the medical sciences so any comments I make in that field should be taken with a grain of salt. I will address the Helena study hopefully later today. I promised to address to other papers which I still have not gotten around to. After all it is a holiday weekend in the US.
Dan;
"This is an example of a study with only one purpose and the purpose is political. The people that conduct these can of studies should be ashamed to call themselves scientists. This would include Dr. Glantz who came up with the Hellena study."
I will try to find it if I can but among the most self serving studies [which deserve a wall of shame] one stands out which would be right up there with Helena. That being the reduced child cognitive abilities study which actually found the opposite of what was reported. News released through the wire services it found it's way into the mainstream international press.
The highest losses were found to be among the children not believed to be exposed. The not exposed group were also consistently in higher socioeconomic standing. The lowest losses were among the most exposed and the poorest children. The conclusions penned the terms; We could not find a level where no effects could be found.
The researcher actually took the data from another published study she had done involving lead exposures, which she actually noted; found an identical tendency of reversed, exposure to cognitive loss levels.
If a reporter had even glanced at the numbers they would not have given the study the stark raving approvals it never deserved, the study was also peer reviewed and apparently none of the experts noticed either.
The Surgeon Generals report was so embarrassing to the TC movement in it's laugh a minute credibility void The TC members tried to stay clear of involvement with the report, until the dust settled Because no one shot it down, now they are actually citing it as a credible resource.
Ideology produces snow blindness when evaluating information not consistent with your religious fervor.
Morgan;
Great letter BTW.
I would have to question the methods used to find these extremely high measurements. The moralists dressed as reporters, are demonstrating their incompetence reporting levels which would put even Repace to shame.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2...e=1&
end_page=27
"In 1980, Repace and Lowrey published a description of a model for predicting and estimating ETS exposures based on the use of respirable suspended particulate (RSP) as a marker for ETS.1 The authors also sampled the air of meeting and game rooms, bars, sandwich shops and similar venues for RSP. They claimed that the average level of RSP measured in the various locations verified their predictive model (approximately 250 micrograms per cubic meter of air (ug/m') ) 1
•2 The sampling procedures used by the authors were challenged, as was their assumption that all RSP in the air is attributable to ETS.3-6 Dust indoors contributes substantially to RSP. Chemical analyses have been developed for estimating the relative contribution of ETS to total RSP indoor•s. Field studies indicate that ETS-RSP comprises from 10% to 50% of total indoor air RSP, and typically contributes 25 to 35% of the RSP present in an environment in which smoking takes place.13 Actual measurements of RSP in hundreds of offices and similar workplaces reveal that source-apportioned RSP due to ETS is typically 5 to 10 times lower than the "average" level reported by Repace and Lowrey.14-19 • One recent investigation reported that average levels of RSP in 330 offices in which smoking was permitted was 46 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3), compared with an average of 20 ug/m' reported for 254 nonsmoking offices;ls • Four studies on the measurement of RSP from ETS in the workplace were reviewed by scientists from Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) in their 1992 monograph on the chemistry and measurement of ETS.13 The four, studies reported average RSP concentrations from ETS of: 27 ug/m' for 131 offices; 32 ug/m' for 22 offices; 28 ug/m' for 194 offices and 44 ug/m' for 31 offices; • Auttiors of a 1988 survey of 31 offices in Ottawa, Canada, cited by Repace and Lowrey (Reference No. 70), noted that: "based on the results of this survey, the average office worker.was exposed to 0.0039 cigarette equivalent per hour (using nicotine as a marker), 0.0010 cigarette equivalent per hour [for ETS-related RSP] "
How in god's name how in hell were any of us born?
Smoking and exposure to SHS is so much lower that ever and has been going that direction for 50 years, I just don't get it.
Sunz, this is the same question I’ve been asking the TC crowd, and not one of them has an answer for it. Not only how in hell we were born, but how come we had FEWER health problems as children, than do the children of today, when WE were MORE exposed on an almost constant basis than any child of today.
How come AFTER almost 55 years of NON-STOP exposure to SHS and almost 40 of those years my own smoking, I’m still here, alive AND healthy? How come I’m not wheezing with asthma and other respiratory illnesses IF their claims are indeed true?
Then there's also the question of how come my teeth aren't all yellow and rotten, my fingers are NOT yellow, and my skin is NOT all yellow and wrinkly? How come when someone asks my age and I tell them I'm now 54 they demand proof of my age and when given proof (drivers license) they remark that they didn't take me for older than "early 40's.
Seriously, these guys need to start answering these questions to THEIR OWN CLAIMS.
Still NO answer from the “know-it-all” crowd (TC). They can't answer without exposing and admitting to their exaggerations AND lies.
"Still NO answer from the “know-it-all” crowd (TC)."
The latest excuse for that seems to be we are all hiding behing alais'. Though many of us have posed our own information and email address on occasion.
This coming from one who claims '
'while the rights of individuals have been diminished.'
It really is funny to watch. If it weren't all so dangerous.
Reference material;
http://
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...tid=1350952#R17
Here is an epidemiology report done old school which investigates not just exposures but makes evaluations of what those exposures are in physical terms. Try to find a study discussing ETS with this kind of precision. You can find a lot of cross reference information in the study which applies to surface descriptions of Particulate PM2.5 [measured less than 2.5 Microns diameter]and PM10
Shocking new research indicating endothelial dysfunction as a result of ETS exposures, apparently found its origins a few years back, in a significantly higher risk factor, we experience in ever increasing amounts every day, A risk which we can not avoid in non smoking environments.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Articl...1219?
hub=Health
From Simon Chapman; TC has it;s achiles heel and it seems to be expanding of late to find itself knee deep in a soap box with a weak moralist foundation.
http://www.theaustralian.news.co...30-
7583,00.html
"The evidence base for public health policy must be vigilantly respected and the arguments for tobacco control never allowed to haemorrhage into the moralism that characterised tobacco control of previous centuries. For enthusiasts of untethered paternalism that abandons respect for smokers' choice to harm themselves, their hubris awaits its inevitable fate."
Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney.
Kevin good article about morality. This is why I have begun discribing the TC movement as a religion. The good doctor himself admits he was brainwashed. I still do not think he is cured. Reason does not matter.
Dan
If you click on the link to my URL, and scroll all the way to the bottom, you will find 4 studies on flight attendants. all found no increased rate of any alleged shs related disease.
Lightening boy,
all branches of science start out with hypotheses based on associations. but scientists in those disciplines take further steps to confirm that the hypothesis is real before drawing any conclusions. Epidemiology appears to be the exception to that rule, and shs epidemiology is the worst offender.
Lets' take a look at CA bartenders and waitstaff for an example:
almost all ( there are some violations) have been unexposed to workplace smoke fro 10 years.
Now, when considering the well established convention that 3 years after a smoker quits that their risk of heart attack returns to that of a never smoker, and after 10 years of abstenence, the remaining risk of lung cancer is 30% of what it would ahve been if the smoker had not quit,
we should be able to apply those same expectations to the bar and rest workers in CA.
This is because the 1992 EPA report and the 2006 SG report, and most other claims about shs employ the supposition that shs increases risk by the same mechanisms as first-hand smoking, it's just that the disiease occur less frequently because the dose is lower.
Now, let's look at what Dr. siegel's bar and rest workers study should predict would happen:
Dr Siegel says that the LC risk of these nonsmooking workers is 50% higher because of shs. What this means is that one out of every three cases of heart disease or LC in Ns bar and rest workers is due to shs when shs is not banned.
Then 10 years later, in Ca, for example, the incidence of heart attack in NS bar and rest workers should be only 2/3 rds of the incidence in 1994. This is because there is almost universal agreement that 10 years after a smoker quits, his/her heart attack risk is the same as a never smoker. The same should be true of an ex secondhand smoker.
Similarly, the expected drop in LC's in Ca bar and rest workers , based on the claim that 10 years after a smoker quits only a 30% risk remains, becomes 30% of the 1/3 excess number of lung cancers Dr Segel claims are caused by shs in bars and rest.
So, today, in CA, those NS bar and rest workers who worked before the bans should have only about 9% higher incidence of LC when compared to nonsmokers in other professions, or, about 30% less incidence of LC than similar workers had in 1994.
Among those NS bar and rest workers who first entered employment in CA post ban, the incidence of heart disease and lung cancer should be exactly the same as nonsmokers in other profssions.
But neither Dr Siegel, nor anyone else who claims shs causes a 50% greater risk in bar and rest workers has ever bothered to take a look at health insurance claims of CA bar and rest workers to find out if their hypothesis worked when tested.
and althogh in some of the mom and pop establishements in CA, this would be ahrd to do, chain restaurants like Denney's TGI's etc, which operate as smoking establishments in places without bans, but are all compliant in CA, should easily be able to pick up differences in heart attack and lung cancer rates in nonsmoking workers if smoking bans really do protect these workers, and if Dr. Siegel is really correct when he claims here and elsewhere, that shs eleaves the risk in these workers, one would think he would do that to confirm his hpyothesis.
If Dr. Siegel, who has been willing to debate to some extent with us here, came back at us and posted the ehalth insurance claim rates of CA chain restautants and compared them to those in nonban areas, and did indeed show all of us that heart disease and lung cancer rates are 1/3 lower in CA, then I think we'd all shut up. and, i might add agree with Dr. Siegel.
But all these sicentists who claim to know shs causes dieease continue to utilize the most indirect and error prone methods to make those claims.
We don't need to even discuss shs epidemiology anymore, all we need to do is take a look at the ehalth of these employees in places where bans have been in force for 10 years and see if the bans really were effective in protecting public health. dave K
More from Chapman:
"Bar staff, the most exposed of all workers, will be the last to get legislative protection from second-hand smoke in July this year, when the final states introduce indoor bans at least 10 years after office workers were accorded the same protection. Lobbying from the tobacco and hotel industry effectively shredded the occupational health rights of bar staff over this time."
Does it matter to this Chapman that most bar staff feel a smoking ban ruins the bar experience and resent his protection? Chapman is too much a part of a smelly, little orthodoxy to know how silly he sounds to ordinary people.
Morgan Toal, city councils that have not passed smoking bans are under pressure to do something about bar and restaurant ETS beyond OSHA standards. Does any legislation exist that sets an indoor air quality standard for bars that can be readily measured by a local health department and achieved through the ventilation/filtration machines I earlier posted. Any suggestions or comments from anyone would be appreciated.
Dave K said: "If Dr. Siegel, who has been willing to debate to some extent with us here, came back at us and posted the health insurance claim rates of CA chain restautants and compared them to those in nonban areas, and did indeed show all of us that heart disease and lung cancer rates are 1/3 lower in CA, then I think we'd all shut up. and, i might add agree with Dr. Siegel."
This might very well add some useful information to the debate, however there would still need to be serious consideration in the details for the likely truckload of confounders that would surely exist over such a date range in any information provided.
For such a comparrison to have any hope of credibility to Smokers and Non-smokers alike, or be of any merit whatsoever it would have to be an "apples to apples" comparrison. Meaning; It can't be for just "any" non-ban area.
Why not compare CA health insurance claim rates for chain restaurants and bars for the 10 years leading up to the ban, against the date range since?
Also in doing so, consideration for "other causes of disease" is still required, as well as a litny of other factors such as each business location due to such things as a higher percentage of claims being made due to say, a McDonalds location sitting across the street from the local steel plant, foundry, or maybe a local chemical company. Consideration of the average age range of employees before and since.
(were there more or less seniors working before or since, more or less teens, or more or less women, or men as well?) There is also the type and scope of coverage provided by the insurer before and since, as many "cause for claims" were not covered then, but may be now, or were then and are not allowed now.
Ambient environmental air quality before and since would also be an obvious issue as well.
These are just a few of the "possible" confounders to be considered in any such comparrison, but above all else, the comparrison should be for the same area, not a similar non-ban area.
If a genuine effort isn't made to provide some clarity without the usual trickery, and doublespeak this kind of comparrison remains useless as well.
Such a comparrison would have to be EXTREMELY specific, and not just another general statistical analysis.
We already have enough vagueness in the information available.
This level of detail is (I believe) simply too much work for TC to undertake with (I believe) the odds being against them in proving their point.
In short, this kind of "apples to apples" comparrison won't be done because 1, it's not the kind of study comparrisons they have employed to date so the truth would be something new to deal with, and 2, the chances are really, REALLY,....REALLY high that TC is wrong, ....and they know it.
If Epidemiology really is what it's cracked up to be, then here's an opportunity for it to shine.
Lighteningboy....
yep, you said it all. Agreed, that other changes in confounders would ahve to be included, but this same problem plagues the studies done to date.
Nevertheless, enough Mc donalds outlets exist in CA to offset the impact of located near a steel plant, or etc.
age adjusted health claim data are also commonly available.
Lastly, I agree
the real reason this kind of research is not done, is it would prove to be a real embarassment to the antis.
Suppose, the studies did not find any real ehalth improvement is CA hosp workers? then i suppose Glantz, INC would claim there were too amny other factors which concealed the assumed results that the data SHOULD have showed an improvement, However, in doing so, he would ahve to admit those counfounders were worse than the previous claims about shs, which would beg the question..."how could any valid conclusions been drawn about shs and hosp workers to begin with?
In Cancer Epdemiology, Principles and Proceedures, in Chapter one, the text book tells a story about how in London, there was once a cholera outbreak, which upon investigation occured in every other house on residental streets in London.
as it turns out, the city water supply was through 2 separate water mains and each main was hooked up staggered to every other house in that area.
So, we certainly have plausibility that we have located the problem, and when repars and cleaning were done on the suspected water main, the cholera epidemic ended.
BUT WHAT IF THOSE ACTIONS HAD NOT ENDED THE EPIDEMIC???????
Ya can have all the plausibility in the world, but if the epi studies do not clear up the incidence of the supposed risk, when the findings are applied, then what use were the epi studies to begin with?
So, if some statistivcally significant lowering of ehalth claims of CA hospitality workers, or flight attendants, for that matter were actually found to have occurred, then at least that would add to the likely hood Doc is correct.
and studying flight attendants would probably be better since the airliners don't have counfounding risk factors any different than 20 years ago. (except the idiots turned down the ventilation)
Dave K
Dave;
To be fair, the migration of labor forces increasingly into offices in the past 50 years, would likely be another scewed picture when observing the numbers alone in a population view. The time line graphs will likely be quite impressive in their ability to promote fears, due to the lessened physical labor percentages which would likely show a significant increase of heart attack risk aligned with sedentary lives and aging populations.
The fat pandemic sits on a demographic which is ideal for setting up the numbers, even more ideally placed than the smoking campaign was, to take advantage of a population bubble known as the baby boomers.
The only problem with the TC campaign was the predictions did not match history, because many who were supposed to die, didn't
Kevin, Dave
I find this link of interest re: LC rates in California.
http://www.lcolby.com/calif.htm
~snip~
" California authorities have recently claimed that, as a result of their anti-smoking campaigns, there has been a marked reduction in lung cancer death rates (LCDRs) in California. No doubt, there's been a reduction, but I suggest that it's entirely unrelated to smoking!'
It's just another thought.
.
Lynda--
You don't understand. You're statistically dead.
Morgan-
Great letter indeed. Keep it on file for a letter to the ed when the newspapers once again bang on the subject. And
Kevin--
An extremely useful link (the one shredding Repace) Useful to all of us in making rebuttals, and, handily, we can quote from its bibliography.
LB/ Dave--
On that model never-to-be-done study: Seems to me a simple Before and After in, say, California wouldn't quite work w/o using controls in places w/o bans. At least not for heart attacks. The secular trend across the nation is down and w/o using controls, the antis would credit all the "down" to the ban.
:
It would completely discredit all credibility of TC in the public eye to claim; recent bans could see an effect in reduced cancers, when they have always contended it takes decades for those cancers to develop. Promoting an entrenching of the cancer mystery, while hiding the effects of other more immediate causes in protections of industry.
Let them do their bragging, and when they have been given enough rope, they will be easy prey to common sense.
Lynda--
You don't understand. You're statistically dead.
Walt,
Very cool, guess I can STOP paying taxes then.........hehehe
I though many here might enjoy this letter I wrote for distribution locally to a number of venues.
Copy it and send it along to others who need to be educated in a balancing perspective of an alternative view in support of communities.
So few of those perspectives are out there, if we can believe what we read in the news lately...
A few years back; Health Canada replaced the head scientist with a political scientist and set out to replace natural science as a form of protection, with the political flavour. What followed was an installation Province by Province of new health information bureaucracies placed like the watchers of the Taliban regime in every community across the country dedicated to nothing more than political propaganda to protect us from ourselves and the choices we may make. The placements empowered our National government to set new rules; a governing by imposed moralist authority; issues restricting and ignoring our freedoms, with healthy bodies and minds limited by the description of normalcy defined at the UN, health as an obligation to the state.
We are now under orders; be healthy [mind and body] or pay the price with punishments, as once again our rights are diminished or perhaps eliminated altogether. Those who don’t smoke will also pay the price as a precedent is being established for comparative wisdom, to affect other demands. Established by tobacco control as an absolute example, in measuring the rights of the individual. It should be obvious to those of us who simply don't like the smell, what we loose as the cost in eliminating it, is a possession much more valuable, we will not be able to go back without a huge cost to all of us.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGivney’s henchmen announced in a published article a while back with the forcing of his anti smoker policies “smokers should get out the carrot sticks and quit or be punished”. When requesting a voice in tobacco control policies in Quebec, smokers were told by the head health scare hatchet man there; “if you smoke you are under the influence of your addiction so you have no right to speak.” The Ontario Premier had to one up that statement, with the formation of a website to encourage children to express government sanctioned hatred, with an appropriately named Stupid.ca The Global warming and fat pandemic campaigns are now calling for stakeholders to see Tobacco Control as an excellent example of how you get things done.
De-normalization is the foundation of the Tobacco control campaign. The moralists decided over prune juice and caviar at one of their many tax paid seasonal events, to make smoking an unacceptable community taboo.
The smoking ban is only one of many insults lodged against those who smoke to force a moralist restriction on them. This is not a reflection of community values but a top down imposition rallying the worst, in and among us, in an attempt by those in power to control community values top down, as a statement of arrogance among politicians, confusing who actually works for whom.
The trash science created to empower the campaign is obvious and blatant political spin, in place of health relevant information. Health relevant information presented by a health department which no longer has the resources to investigate the legitimacy of the claims being made.
The imposition of chemically treated fire safe cigarette paper is an excellent example of lobby borne incompetence; in a compassionate world this is known to be medical experimentation, which by international Law requires consent or at least education and choice.
While reviewing the larger issue of Tobacco control and a number of other World Health Organization campaigns designed to modify how we think, I came across a number of ways different demographics are to be treated, because they realized in the planning stages; different groups will react to manipulations in different ways.
It was not so long ago we heard the announcement Canadian taxes were going to be compensating a similar moral adjustment in our past among the native people. A reprehensible re-education plan now known to be crimes by government against the native people a shameful mistake, borne of promoted cowardice. Native children were taken from their homes and forced to integrate with so called right headed morality at that time. They were beaten for speaking in their native tongue, wearing traditional clothing or for any sign their personalities refused to abandon the old ways associating them with their own culture. We hear about land claims today and mostly believe they no longer have a right to the property taken from them more than a century ago, despite holding legal documents to that land which would be recognized in international law. Many feel they have no rights to the land again because of the process of denormalization along with its associated and necessary component of discrimination, controlling how the story is told to us in the media.
One has to ask how the current assault on their culture with a similar ideological tact applied to our own cultures in different ways could be seen as any different, than the forced “cultural adjustments” we imposed upon them in the past. And the horrors we inflicted to set the standards, they would be forced to accept.
We are compensating today our mistakes of the past and incredibly set out to repeat those same acts we recently apologised for. Repeated ignorance promoted today with Health Scare and Social Marketing described at Health Canada. It could be argued the horrors the Native People faced in the past were a lot more vigorous and physical, however one has to ask in response; is torture of the mind any less painful than a torturing of the body?. Further what gives the tambourine banging crowd the right to impose their will on the rest of us by coercive means, we who only wish to live a very short life on this planet, enjoying a simple right to live that life guided by the ethics we alone should decide?
Every night when our national broadcaster the CBC signs off and again in the morning when they sign back on we are given a video production with a tune called “never again” played to the images of war scenes denoting the tragedy of war. We are reminded of a time when we the people, in support of our government, stood against the ideals of eugenics and prejudice which gave tyrants their power. We are being encouraged to rise up in support now, of that same ideologically in support of those same principles we once stood against. We are asked now to stand against the forces promoted to be evil. That evil is now known to be ourselves.
A sense of a national culture which multicultural heritage in our constitution and its current description denies us, is promotional of the reality; as a divided and subdivided country we await the chaos which is inevitable. History demonstrates many times an eventuality seen consistently, when governments seek to replace community voices, in support of self important ambitions and personal finances.
The stakeholder system manipulating our elected voice, stems from a lobby process known as “HIA health intervention” promoted at the WHO, a process of corruption and manipulation in service only of its stakeholder investors to the peril of us all. Imposition of power by a UN agency which describes us as a state under it’s authority, a position surrendered to by the former corrupted Liberal party, while the Conservatives as we see in political discussions in the media will still require some convincing.
Now we have to wonder; considering where we are going, why was health care reform or the Romanov commission for that matter necessary at all? If not to simply condense the power of a small UN agency wracked with failures in its history, which claims dominion over us all, Fear is the norm in its promotions, describing doom and gloom. Predictions encourage unnecessary fear, promoted by theoretic research announcements in the media daily. Promotional of Global authority as an irresistible collectivist eventuality of assimilation by the new religion which serves its Industrial masters.
Political science is the new norm consensus opinion is the only allowed opinion a consensus we no longer control. What is blatantly promoted in politically corrected terms is; WHO self autonomy over all nations, unilateralist views corrupted by incredibly efficient industry lobbies, paid promotions with tax exempted funds found in big business philanthropy and ultimately the lobbied domination over the public purse promoting larger industry profits, with taxes subsidizing the majority of the cost.
A paid voice in the media heard over the un-tethered voices of democracies, guided by community values and personal freedom. If all things can be seen to result health effects, health scare should denote the most power in our guidance. We heard these moralizations before, in support of eugenics principles. Ideology which would eventually control; in the perspectives of the elitists empowered by birthright, what “right headed” genetic ancestries’ will be allowed to survive.
And they say “it doesn’t matter who you vote for” We will have to wait and see if they are right, as the battle for the once forbidden political center continues, and as forward going or progressive strategies continue to mirror the centrist German third direction we once opposed so vehemently in the past. How soon we did forget.
"I actually agree with R.J. Reynolds when it argues that it should be targeting whatever adult customers it wants to."
Now you're a medical doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath. You are aware that tobacco companies are basically 'legal' drug dealers. You also understand that tobacco industry advertising amounts to drug pushing. And that under the term "adult" the industry means teenagers and college students as well as older adults. And you must know that 'advertising' increases smoking initiation (in spite of the industries cover line that the industry only advertises to encourage brand switching).
And not only is it OK with you that they do this, you feel that they should be doing it.
How do you square your support for industry advertising and its known effects on smoking initiation with your responsibility as a medical doctor in public health?
Quilogn Mondack wrote:
"Now you're a medical doctor who has taken the hippocratic oath."
Do they still take that? I heard they don't. Besides, I don't think advertising falls under that oath.
"You are aware that tobacco companies are basically 'legal' drug dealers."
Just like doctors, huh? The biggest difference between them is you have to pay a doctor 150 bucks just to have access to his drugs.
"You also understand that tobacco industry advertising amounts to drug pushing."
Just like Coca-Cola and pharma advertising.
"And that under the term "adult" the industry means teenagers and college students as well as older adults."
Yeah. Adults. Just like you said.
"And you must know that 'advertising' increases smoking initiation (in spite of the industries cover line that the industry only advertises to encourage brand switching)."
So what? Ban Twinkie commercials too? How about Mazda "Zoom Zoom" commercials?
"And not only is it OK with you that they do this, you feel that they should be doing it."
Look under the Bill of Rights.
"How do you square your support for industry advertising and its known effects on smoking initiation with your responsibility as a medical doctor in public health?"
Are doctors supposed to oppose everything that doesn't have green beans in it?
What a sad, pathetic world you'd like to live in.
How do you square your support for industry advertising and its known effects on smoking initiation with your responsibility as a medical doctor in public health?
Quilogn Mondack
Probably the same way he squares his support for pharmco advertising of drugs that they invent diseases for.
It's called "freedom of speech" in case you haven't heard, and it IS a guaranteed right under the constitution, as long as the product is legal AND you are NOT inciting riots.
Using your logic, we'd have to ban just about every advertisement out there, for they all promote a product or activity that can cause harm, and I'm talking about real, immediate, and verifiable harm or death, not some statistical incident conjured up from some computer program.
The Drug companies promote MORE harm and death than do the cigarette companies. They push drugs for one thing (usually a disease they invented from some pill they came up with) that has side effects a mile long. So the "cure" causes other harm that requires MORE drugs that create further damage.
Yeah, your way is sooooo much better.
And I also hate to tell you this, but anyone reaching the age of 18 IS considered to be of LEGAL ADULT AGE. IF they can vote and go to war, they are old enough to decide for themselves AND old enough to see advertising (or porn movies) that you feel ONLY adults should see.
Are you suggesting we raise the age of 'adulthood' so that you don't become an adult, say until you are about 50?
You need some serious help there.
Well done, James Austin and Lynda F!!
---------------
But...but...but smoking bans are soooooo good for the economy!
Hawaii Allows Japanese Tourists To Smoke Without Facing Fines
*snip* Now, Hawaii Tourism Japan has a new marketing campaign called "Smoking with Aloha."
Aloha is a greeting in Hawaiian language but its use in smoking could also mean directly "breath of life," it said.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/a...cles/
7008360790
"Smoking with Aloha" = "Smoking with breath of life"
Love it!
.
One would have to wonder what is left to encourage brand switching?
Light cigarettes we knew to represent a less harsh smoke was twisted to mean they were safer. Brands with pink packages which would appeal to some or red packages appealing to others are usually produced in response to the same system TC uses, to find the most offensive things possible they can say about smokers. Market research is now under the gun, depicting a resource TC can use as they please and others cannot. Much like the so called research, any findings which don't agree with the TC religious chants is automatically supportive of a huge conspiracy by the all knowing all powerful Tobacco industry, which while under the microscope still manages to accomplish so much to offset the thousands of organizations, most of which were invented and named overnight to appease advocacy of any Organ, Disease, thought or theory.
The self righteous have laid claims to all the moral high ground and others who don't worship the tripe are obviously tobacco industry promoters.
The thing missing in that opinion is, where are the voices of tens of millions of smokers in all this? are you of a mind they have nothing to say? or by some twisted logic you have a right to speak for them?
Grow up Monduck, and think for yourself, you may find there is a whole other world out there, than the one you can only produce within your own small mind.
Of interest from Waterbury CT, no less.
Now Who is Addicted to What???
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2...nion/
281879.txt
~snip~
'In other words, in fiscal 2005, money from smoking, gambling and booze made the difference between Connecticut showing a profit and running a deficit of more than $400 million.'
'Here's another way of looking at it: By committing "sin-tax" revenues to ongoing programs, the legislature has deliberately turned Connecticut's government into a gambling, nicotine and alcohol junkie. Lawmakers would be well advised to start weaning the state from such addictions before an unforeseen crisis forces the state to go cold turkey.'
So nice to know we are all keeping these @%&%#$ afloat.
Free Society v. controlled one?
http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/
g...individual.html
~snip~'A majority vote of the populous cannot decide what is best for society without taking away individual inalienable rights. In a free society, the majority cannot dictate who smokes, ingests drugs, gets married, obtains an education or receives health care without taking away the right of the individual to exercise those activities. Only in a government-controlled society does the majority rule.'
Sad to say we no longer live in a free society.
.
'
Back to the Freedom of Speech debate...
Bill wrote: Because Republican Presidents appointed federal court judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices who supported the opinion that corporate advertising deserves the same constitutional protections as the 1st Amendment provides for individual political speech...
Part of my answer (found above) included this quote from the Central Hudson decision: "The Court recognizes that we have never held that commercial speech may be suppressed in order to further the State's interest in discouraging purchases of the underlying product that is advertised.
To which Bill replied, in part: Republicans have been primarily interested in expanding the 1st amendment rights for corportations... while the Democrats have been primarily interested in protecting the 1st amendment rights of people (who were the intended benficiaries of the 1st amendment when it was approved by America's founding fathers).
To which I now find myself needing to repeat (in bold and capitalized, for the sighted but who are blind): "The Court recognizes that we have NEVER HELD that commercial speech may be suppressed in order to further the State's interest in discouraging purchases of the underlying product that is advertised.
That "we", Bill, means in the justice's history of the Supreme Court, not the currently sitting court. Thus "never" by all.
Bill went on to ask WLC: Please cite one federal or Supreme Court decision that recognized corporations as persons during the first eight decades following ratification of the Bill of Rights. My understanding of Constitutional Law is that Constitutional protections only applied to individuals...
What does corporations versus people have to do with SPEECH?? There is no distinction between people and corporations in regard to protection of SPEECH. Or PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, or COMMERCE -- which was to protect (GASP) trade (aka businesses).
It's quite apparent (again) that you're an anti-corporation idealogue across the board. Figures, all communists are anti-capitalists.
Evidenced more here, where you say: My understanding of Constitutional Law is that Constitutional protections only applied to individuals until the robber barons of the late 1800's paid off Presidents to appoint judges and Justices who extended Constitutional protections to corporations.
Many of those corporate protections were reversed by Republican Teddy Roosevelt after many businesses became monopolies (including Buck Duke's American Tobacco Company).
This is what Bill's mind -- that twists itself to fit in where it can't -- is really thinking... "My understanding of socialism is that Constitutional protections..."
Because here's how Judge Andrew Napolitano's book entitled "Constitution in EXILE" sees it (pg. 87):
"For one hundred years after [Chief Justice] Marshall died... The Court safeguarded the Constitution against assaults by Congress. Free enterprise and federalism saw a resurgence that lasted, by and large, until the constitutional MONSTROSITY known as the New Deal."
New Deal = Teddy Roosevelt.
In other words, protection of trade (aka "corporations") was shaky at first and then was PROTECTED, as it was supposed to be, UNTIL Teddy Roosevelt's time -- who YOU champion in his "reversal" of that protection!! What we're seeing now is only a tiny glimmer of A RETURN to how it should be. And YOU denounce it. Freakin' unbelievable.
Let it be understood that I've strayed from the narrow issue of SPEECH in order to lift Bill's skirts higher, even though his tactic of speaking in generalities was one of diversion that didn't get past me. It was an invitation I couldn't resist. But back to the SPEECH aspect:
While the COURT (the branch of government you think runs the country, Bill) has experienced a crisis in what constitutes meriting protection of speech at times in our history it does not mean that they had it right when they acted that way! They had it WRONG. What you call "greatly expanded" is a return to the Constitution for God's sake.
The First Amendment does not distinguish between commercial and other speech. (and for some more support of that go here)
But never let it be said that Bill can't top his own hubris in one breath. He finishes: Anyone who believes that Republicans have championed the 1st amendment for the people should try attending a visit or speech by Bush or Cheney with a sign or shirt that says "Save America, Impeach Bush and Cheney"
It took me three days to stop rolling around on the floor laughing at that one. Always the ONLY victim, Bill, huh?
For argument's sake, that's been the rumor. But it is ALSO true that invited Conservative speakers have had pies and other objects thrown at them while they spoke. Or were physically charged at while on stage. Or who could forget:
"[Columbia University]Students stormed the stage at Columbia University's Roone auditorium yesterday, knocking over chairs and tables and attacking Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minutemen. The student protesters... booed and shouted the speakers down throughout.
"The protesters remained standing, turned their backs on [Minutemen member] Mr. Stewart for the remainder of his remarks, and drowned him out by chanting, "Wrap it up, wrap it up!"
The side you detest escorts people out. But the side you stand with act violently to silence the other side.
I'll leave you here, Bill, with Mr. Stewart's remarks echoing my sentiment about you:
Mr. Stewart appeared unfazed by their behavior. He simply smiled and bellowed, "No wonder you don't know what you're talking about."
*
JTF -- I don't know much about the issue of the constitutional status of corporations - but the New Deal, technically speaking, was Franklin Roosevelt. Although Teddy Roosevelt, as a progressive, with his "Square Deal", seems to have set the stage.
I think if we looked at the chain restaurants located in Ca, and compared the health ins claims with the same chain restaurants located where smoking is still allowed, any secular changes in heart attacks and lung cancer among the NS employees would already be controlled for. All one would need do, is see if the CA workers changes were better than the same NS workers where smoking is still permitted.
the beauty of my idea, is although other kinds of workers do have more sedinitary jobs today than in the past, workers in chain restaurants and flight attendants still have physically active jbs much like pre ban.
I have examoined the claim CA LC rates fell faster than the USA, but that fails to control for smokers moving out of CA and into those other 49 states.( they did) In addition, CA lost population aged 65-74 while the whole USA imcreased pop aged 65-74.
The wall Street journal tracks movements of retirees, and CA was second to I think MA in retirees leaving the state.( probably cost of living) Dave K
GDF, indeed you are correct. I goofed on my Roosevelts.
Twas a case of too many points wrestling for my attention and needing to be made at one time.
Bill's pointing to a time ("A previous US Supreme Court (back in the 1930's I believe) had ruled that states were free to ban tobacco advertising since states were free to ban tobacco products.") that already had my feathers in a ruffle tripped me up when I also then came across the Roosevelt name (FDR is 1930s)and thought I was given the gift of killing two birds with one stone.
Though I can say that the time Bill looks back on fondly was considered the time the Constitution in regard to commerce, among many other things, was disrespected.
Thanks for the correction, GDF 
JustTheFacts wrote:
"Thanks for the correction, GDF"
Still, a very nice job.
Well, relax. JTF. Bill got his Roosevelts mixed up too.
Teddy was known as the "trust buster" on account of he broke up corporate monopolies, most notably Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and a lot of other biggies like railroads and steel.. He also promulgated government regulation of all kinds of business, backed unionization, and established Bill's much-beloved FDA. So to call him a lackey of big business is another example of the weird kind of thinking you'll get from a lackey of Big TC.
And btw, it was Nixon who launched the EPA. Without whom, Bill would still be a shoe salesman at Payless.
As for Dems always fighting for the li'l guy's speech, shall we take another look at 2004's campaign finance "reform,"-- that Democrats' darling,--which goes to the very heart of the First Amendment by curtailing political speech by any group of citizens even close to any election.
Even the speech of, say, "SmokeFree Pennsylvania."
Too bad he'll never read any of this thread. Or if he does, let on to it.
:
If people give in to clever marketing they should pay the price, maybe their family would learn from it and spread a positive message. If you smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, smoke crack/meth, shoot up heroin or douse yourself in pills without a sense of fatality you probably have no self respect or realize what damage you are doing to yourself. Anyone that falls into doing drugs of any kind because of marketing or peer pressure deserves the hell they put themselves through. Addicts rarely think of what they are doing that might hurt others.
Commenting by HaloScan
