Doc: Even I - who opposes many of the recent cigarette tax increase proposals in many states, as well as the SCHIP bill - think that this proposal is a good one, as it will both save lives and directly benefit smokers by offering them support for smoking cessation services, research to benefit them, and medical treatment.
I have yet to find any decent smoking cessation service. The reasearch would benefit everyone, in theory. Except that the whole idea of pushing people to quit smoking is that it will save lives forty or fifty years hence, which assumes that treatment for "smoking related diseases" won't be any better in fifty years than it is now. So much for faith in research. (The basic assumption of antitobacco makes the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association look...useless.) Finally, people who smoke don't get medical treatment--I thought we covered that a few blogs ago.
As for yet another tax increase...
One more time: Where can I get black market cigarettes?
Here we go again! Proposing legislation for our own good. Most smokers would not support additional taxation. Again the tobacco consumers are not part of the process. Not to mention that many smokers have health care of their own either paying for it out of pocket or through employer programs that cover smoking cessation treatment. As far as cancer reseach it is high time all those billions of $$$s that are collected every year could be shifted into this type of research. The people that are actually shelling out the cash deserve a number of the seats at the table.
In fact my proposal is to set up a commission that would include tobacco producers, tobacco consumers, government. This group could appoint a science advisory group. TC gets no direct seats. TC gets no seat because they do not contribute fiancially. Besides someone from gov't would probobly appoint some to the advisory group. This should not be hard to finance just take some of those tobacco taxes. So lets "level the playing field" Doc! This is about the only way the true and balanced facts could be presented to the public.
A final comment. If this is about public health? When is all of the public going to start to "anti" up?
Is it just me, or did anyone else notice how the breakdown of those favoring an increase vs those who oppose it seems to break down to an exact correlation to the number of smokers vs nonsmokers (as publicized by BTC, with a +/- of 3.1 percoent)?
It certainly appears that the number who oppse this increase equals the number who would have to PAY for it, and those who approve would not pay one single cent?
Amazing isnt it?
Jerry Thomas- Also the fact they poll registered voters only. Many are senior citizens single females and soccer moms and dads from more affluent areas. Those most likely influenced by main stream media.
""The cigarette tax is a proven strategy to protect thousands of kids from tobacco addiction," said William V. Corr, Executive Director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "A higher cigarette tax is a win-win solution - a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives and a financial win that will raise much-needed revenue to fund important programs while also reducing tobacco-caused health care costs." "
This nonsense of a 10% increase creating a 7% drop in consumption is another lie promoted by TC the numbers in Canada are proof no such correlation exists until you reach the point no one can afford to purchase them providing also pf course their are no other sources like organized crime to deal with. DOH
The reality is inflation rates rise and the spending power of a dollar is devalued as costs rise on average 6% every year and sometimes more, the increased costs although a shock when implemented has a lessening effect over time. The cost in Canada rose to over 10.00 in most places yet people still buy them and recent figures show smoking rates are increasing especially among the young.
with cigarette taxes driving costs to 10 dollars a package we should have a surplus of cash in health care and very few smokers yet the CMA recently stated an 8 hour wait in an emergency room was reasonable and justified.
BTW those deliberate delays in emergency rooms here are another form of political lobbying. Torturing those most in need making good use of those in immediate pain and discomfort simply to promote higher funding to be wasted in 7 figure board member salaries while stealing more of what we earn.
The bottom line is this more than politics this is a theft. The promotion of unnecessary taxes among law abiding citizens, promoted because they have different values and consume a legal product. This is beyond theft also organized hatred which succeeds by turning us upon ourselves for various reasons.
Promoted hatred by some of the most useless major charity groups on the planet. Health charities have been leeching off the good intentions of others for far too long, and I believe it is high time we eliminated these groups who provide nothing but self employment for services the Government could be providing with a lot less than we pay them, in spite of the inefficient government processes we would have to put in play.
We subsidize colleges and Universities and should also fund through those investments vital research.
The same research which primarily is dominated by industry investments which of course produces political speak to safeguard those industries for fear of lost funding.
We fund the major medical charities through tax receipts given to industries, through direct donations and collected taxes handed to them by various levels of governments and community efforts Now they are moving into gambling and lotteries the former exclusive domain of other organized crime groups. Continued success of these leeches remains in hoping no one will make the association. and still they scream for more??? All the while the diseases they claim to be battling continue to be ignored as the numbers of mortalities rise, ignored in favor of gala black tie dinners.
Dinners costing millions at which they present awards to those who give them lots of money, to entice others to do the same in a competition to see who will be receiving the next award. Charities who in turn now join with industry dominated groups like the WHO and lobby even more to rake the tax purse clean driving inflation and higher taxes across the board.
Now a call for targeted taxes for smokers, the consumers of unhealthy foods, gasoline, alcohol and a long list of products we as trained consumers are not likely to reduce the use of. As populations rise more products are consumed the cost of production should be going down and reflected in lower prices, yet in key consumer products the prices are skyrocketing. The only substantial reason given "Because we can" is as close to an honest answer you will be given.
This is organized theft and those who promote it through ad agency spin are the greedy who are salivating at the thought of being handed a seal of approval, to steal what others earned.
The recent figures show 46% of what we earn in Canada is taken away in taxes by masive duplicated socialist beuracracies who don't respect any of the efforts it takes for many to earn what they callously take away.
Now with a growing health department being installed in every municipality and at all three levels of government we see a formation of a tali ban style governance. Quietly but deliberately the street corner watchers are being slipped in right under our nose and no one seems to care enough to question why is health care so expensive all of a sudden when only 10 years back it was a highly efficient model.
Of course that was before the days of the media inspired socialist revolution in Canada, and the elimination of the Conservative government, for daring to institute the exact same policies the socialists have only expanded on.
would increase the federal cigarette tax by 78 cents per pack, with 50% of the resulting revenue going to support cancer research at the National Cancer Institute, 25% going to anti-smoking education and smoking cessation programs, and 12.5% going to both health care for the elderly (Medicare) and health care for the poor (Medicaid).
Somebody must be dreaming. Where does the MSA money go? Shouldn't that have been used for the cited purposes?
25% go to smoking cessation programs? This sure will create a lot of jobs for nothing. I'm sure even Stanton Glantz would qualify for a share from this money. In the end, a large percentage of the national working population will be living off cigarette taxes. Second Hand Money (SHM). Won't they loose their jobs if happens what they want to happen ... a decrease in tobacco sales?
"health care for the poor"? The poor smokers who are two steps from starving? How generous!
benpal-----'Second Hand Money (SHM)". LOL
Or OPO= Other People's Money.
Aren't they just so clever?
.
Opps---OPM= Other People's Money.
.
Kevin - ""The cigarette tax is a proven strategy to protect thousands of kids from tobacco addiction," said William V. Corr, Executive Director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "A higher cigarette tax is a win-win solution - a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives and a financial win that will raise much-needed revenue to fund important programs while also reducing tobacco-caused health care costs." "
.............
This sounds suspiciously like a perpetual motion machine.
"A higher cigarette tax is a win-win solution - a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives and a financial win that will raise much-needed revenue to fund important programs while also reducing tobacco-caused health care costs.
Talk about being in denial or delusional. Do these people actually HEAR what they are saying? "Raise the tax to generate revenue and at the same time reduce the number of smokers". Now, I'm no PhD, BUT.....if the number of smokers goes down, does that not also result in LESS money coming in? Then what do you do when the remaining smokers choose to quit OR go underground and buy black market smokes?
Then let's look at the issue of using cigarette tax money to fund children's health care. Someone explain to me how this reduces "tobacco-caused health care costs"? We all know damned well that tobacco taxes NEVER go to anything that might even benefit a smoker.
So this appears to me to be the most obviously ridiculous thing I have ever in my life witnessed.
All this stupidity is coming from so called highly educated people?
And they call smokers delusional?
Your headline asks,"Who wrote this"? My guess would be someone from ACS, ALS, AHS or anyone in BTC. What this all comes down to is more money. Money is drying up and their hands are out for more and you got to bet that any new taxes will be funneled to all the non-profits before anyone else see's a dime of it. They are all thief's! But let them dig their holes, they will all be falling in soon enough anyway!
Hi, guys.
With reference to scapegoating, to the point of 'worker safety concerns' resulting only in smoking bans imposed even on workers who'd had completely separate smoking rooms, see below.
Many people have been crying for real workplace/environmental safety measures for decades, at least those have who can see below the industry PR/government-knitted veil of secrecy protecting toxic producers.
So much for 'protection' - try distraction.
Talk about smoke and mirrors.
Meanwhile, the typically poorest segment of society is expected to pay for the health issues resulting from corporate profiteering with more than their health and lives.
The poisoning of children, as with all else, is blamed on free choice long pre-existing the increasing disease/dysfunction rates easily identifiable as beginning to explode about 3 decades back; and the scapegoats pay.
http://www.cancerpreventionsociety.org/
Global unions call for “zero cancer” in the workplace
A global “zero cancer” campaign aimed at tackling the number one workplace killer was launched today, one day prior to April 28 Workers’ International Memorial Day. Speaking at a World Health Organisation seminar on the prevention of occupational and environment cancer in Geneva, Anita Normark, General Secretary of the Building Workers’ International launched the global “zero cancer” campaign and called on workplace regulators and employers to do more to end the worldwide epidemic of occupational cancer, which claims at least one life every 52 seconds.” Bad, and often illegal, working conditions cause ill health that mean disaster for hundreds of thousands of families every year,” said Normark. “The social invisibility of the impact of working conditions on our health creates a vicious circle where diseases are not recognised as occupational, so they are not recorded, notified, treated or compensated and, worst of all, they are not prevented,” said Normark. A coalition of 11 global unions together representing over 300 million members in more than 150 countries has produced a new cancer prevention guide, which reveals that over 600,000 deaths a year – one death every 52 seconds – are caused by occupational cancer, making up almost one-third of all work-related deaths. Occupational Cancer/Zero Cancer: a union guide to prevention, available at www.imfmetal.org/cancer , provides information about workplace cancer risks and advice on practical steps workers and unions can take to make workplaces safer.
(My comment - unidentified and ignored because the true causes are concealed behind tobacco and other personal choice blame.)
International Metalworkers’ Federation, 27 April 2007
Bringing Cancer to the Dinner Table: Breast Cancer Cells Grow Under Influence of Fish Flesh
Tests of river fish indicate their flesh carries enough estrogen-mimicking chemicals to cause breast cancer cells to grow. Many streams, rivers and lakes already bear warning signs that the fish caught within them may contain dangerously high levels of mercury, which can cause brain damage. But, according to a new study, these fish may also be carrying enough chemicals that mimic the female hormone estrogen to cause breast cancer cells to grow. “Fish are really a sentinel, just like canaries in the coal mine 100 years ago,” says Conrad Volz, co-director of exposure assessment at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. “We need to pay attention to chemicals that are estrogenic in nature, because they find their way back into the water we all use.” Volz and colleagues, including biochemist Patricia Eagon, took samples from 21 catfish and six white bass donated by local anglers as part of a study presented at the American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Los Angeles this week. The fish were caught in five places: a relatively unpolluted site 36 miles upstream from Pittsburgh on the Allegheny River; an industrial site on the Monongahela River; an Allegheny site downstream from several industries that release toxic chemicals; and the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, where Pittsburgh dumps much of its treated sewage and sewer outflows. “This is the largest concentration of combined sewer outflows in the U.S.,” Volz notes, about the confluence, known as the Point. The researchers also bought several fish at the store as controls.
(The food supply is neither safe nor nourishing by the standards of health. Yet disease is blamed on our diet choices.)
Scientific American, April 17, 2007
Increase in breast cancer linked to pollution levels
Exposure to everyday environmental pollution could be a factor in the rising rates of breast cancer, new research suggests. A study carried out at Aberdeen University found evidence that subjecting female sheep to a "real-life" cocktail of chemicals triggered abnormalities in the mammary glands, including in some types of proteins associated with breast cancer in humans. The researchers, who admit they were surprised by the effects shown, say that further work should now be carried out to see whether environmental pollution could be a factor in the steady increase in rates of breast cancer among women in the past few decades. Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the UK, with more than 41,000 new cases being diagnosed each year. The research, which is being unveiled at the Fertility 2007 conference in York this week, involved grazing sheep for up to five years on a field treated with processed human sewage sludge, used to represent the everyday mix of chemicals present in the environment, such as pesticides and synthetic oestrogen, found in the contraceptive pill. Dr Paul Fowler, senior lecturer in reproductive physiology at Aberdeen University, said the model of "real-life" exposure was a vital element of the work, instead of using extremely high doses of chemicals which are often used in other toxicology studies.
(Using processed sewage sludge as fertilizer and even toxic waste as fertilizer saves money for toxic industry.
And guess who takes the blame and pays the health costs?
While the poorest and most vulnerable segment of society bears the brunt, all of society does - excepting, of course, giant, polluting industry.)
Environmental Science and Technology, April 11, 2007
Residential pesticide exposure may be an independent risk factor for cutaneous melanoma
Occupational pesticide exposure has been linked to cutaneous melanoma in epidemiological studies. We studied the association between cutaneous melanoma and the residential use of pesticides. This is a case-control study of cutaneous melanoma (287 incident cases; 299 controls). Data on pesticide use was obtained with a standardised interview. An increased risk of melanoma was found for high use (4 times annually) of indoor pesticides (odds ratio (OR)=2.18; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.07-4.43) compared to low use (1 times annually), after adjustment for sex, age, education, sun exposure and pigmentary characteristics. Subjects exposed for 10 years or more had two and a half times the risk (OR=2.46; 95% CI 1.23-4.94) of those exposed for less than 10 years. A dose response was observed for the intensity of pesticides use (p(trend)=0.027). The results indicate that residential pesticide exposure may be an independent risk factor for cutaneous melanoma
(Diesel exhaust is another suspect in skin cancers as well - but sunshine is a carcinogen?
Man, how'd life survive once it (or most of us) crawled out of the primordial muck?)
Eur J Cancer. 2007 Apr;43(6):1066-75.
Quarter 1 News (Jan-March 2007)
MEPs back huge water pollutant list expansion
MEPs have voted to almost double in length a list of pollutants earmarked for priority control action under the EU's water framework directive. Environmentalists and the water industry welcomed the move but the decision will disappoint industry sectors that produce or use the chemicals affected.
The European parliament's environment committee said EU maximum concentration limits should be set for 28 new substances and that a tougher phase-out objective should apply more widely to the list. If backed by the parliament's plenary body it would almost certainly spark a confrontation with governments.
Voting on the plans at first reading in Brussels on Tuesday, the committee said the priority list should be expanded by 28 substances, including major industrial chemicals such as the pesticide glyphosate, plastics intermediate bisphenol-A and flame retardant TBBPA. This would require the commission to develop EU quality standards for each pollutant. On top of this the committee said a further 11 of the original 33 chemicals – including the plasticiser DEHP and lead. ENDS Europe DAILY 2292, 28/03/07
(Poor industry, to be so disappointed, even though most of the health effects produced by their products, processes and pollution are attributed to freedom of choice in smoking, eating, drinking, activity, this tactic long sparing such industry public approbation and the need to produce safer products and dispose more carefully of toxic waste, etc.)
(TBC)
(Con't)
Hidden cancer epidemic kills hundreds of thousands each year
A worldwide epidemic of occupational cancer is claiming at least one life every 52 seconds, but this tragedy is being ignored by both official regulators and employers. This stark warning comes from a global union coalition, which this week launched stage one of a “zero cancer” campaign to tackle what it says is the No.1 workplace killer worldwide.
Marcello Malentacchi, General Secretary of the International Metalworkers’ Federation, says: “Occupational cancer is the most common work-related cause of death, ahead of other work-related diseases and accidents, but it is not taken seriously by regulators or employers.
”A new cancer prevention guide, reveals that over 600,000 deaths a year – one death every 52 seconds – are caused by occupational cancer, making up almost one-third of all work-related deaths. The guide was produced as part of the first ever international zero occupational cancer campaign, involving 11 global trade union organisations together representing over 300 million members in more than 150 countries. International Metalworkers’ Federation, 23 March 2007
(Without the personal choice scapegoating, most especially that of smoking blame, the health effects would have long since been recognised as industry responsibilities to be dealt with, and actual risks of working with toxic substances could have been known by those most at risk from them.)
Diabetes and pollutants
An analysis of CDC data reveals elevated risk of insulin resistance associated with several persistent organic pollutants. Exposures were to background levels within the general population. The odds ratio rose from 1.8 to 4.4 to 7.5 for being above the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles of exposure, respectively. The research team concludes that organochlorine pesticides and some PCBs may act through increasing insulin resistance to heighten the risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care
(As with other diseases, diabetes rates have exploded over the past three decades - first attributed to 'too much prosperity' on the part of predominately impoverished sufferers.
Any PR victim will do in a potential media/legal storm...)
Chemicals May Play Role in Rise in Obesity
Too many calories and too little exercise are undeniably the major factors contributing to the obesity epidemic, but several recent animal studies suggest that environmental exposure to widely used chemicals may also help make people fat.
The evidence is preliminary, but a number of researchers are pursuing indications that the chemicals, which have been shown to cause abnormal changes in animals' sexual development, can also trigger fat-cell activity -- a process scientists call adipogenesis.
The chemicals under scrutiny are used in products from marine paints and pesticides to food and beverage containers. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one chemical, bisphenol A, in 95 percent of the people tested, at levels at or above those that affected development in animals. The Washington Post, March 12, 2007
(Over the past few decades, people have been overall tending to eat less and exercise specifically for weight-loss/fitness more than ever before.
Even our cats and dogs are said to have developed an obesity problem supposedly because of overeating and laziness.
Yet the global obesity epidemic is projected to continue to worsen even more drastically, evidently regardless of anything done by individuals; only totalitarian industry control can save us.
The same industries subjecting us to hormones, drugs and chemicals creating such problems as our systems break down from toxic disruption.)
......
Chemicals May Play Role in Rise in Obesity
Too many calories and too little exercise are undeniably the major factors contributing to the obesity epidemic, but several recent animal studies suggest that environmental exposure to widely used chemicals may also help make people fat.
The evidence is preliminary, but a number of researchers are pursuing indications that the chemicals, which have been shown to cause abnormal changes in animals' sexual development, can also trigger fat-cell activity -- a process scientists call adipogenesis.
The chemicals under scrutiny are used in products from marine paints and pesticides to food and beverage containers. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found one chemical, bisphenol A, in 95 percent of the people tested, at levels at or above those that affected development in animals. The Washington Post, March 12, 2007
(Over the past few decades, people have been overall tending to eat less and exercise specifically for weight-loss/fitness more than ever before.
Even our cats and dogs are said to have developed an obesity problem supposedly because of overeating and laziness.
Yet the global obesity epidemic is projected to continue worsen even more drastically, regardless of anything done by individuals; only totalitarian industry control can save us.
The same industries subjecting us to hormones, drugs and chemicals creating such problems as our systems break down from toxic disruption.)
......
Exposure in the womb to certain chemicals may lead to obesity
“Is the environment making us fat?” That is the intriguing question posed by Bruce Blumberg of the University of California, Irvine. His research into endocrine disrupters—chemical compounds that interfere with the body's normal processing of hormones such as oestrogen—has led him to conclude that some of them may well encourage obesity. The Economist, February 22nd 2007
(That would be a yupper, by Gumby.
Babies are being born obese - from failing to work out in the womb and overeating?
Each new batch of 2 year olds is said to be significantly fatter in five-year increments - and this is from progressively larger sugary snacks and lazy lack of PC crawling?
When infants and even the almost-born, when housepets! are accused of creating their own obesity and other health issues through lack of control, of greed, of laziness, all in the interest of protecting toxic industry - actually, I'll bet small children and domestic animals turn out to be presented as 'tobacco stooges' unworthy of attention and deserving their fate, too.
That one's worked so well so far in situations almost as ridiculous.)
......
(TBC)
(Con't - with a big, fat 'oops' over doubling on an article above. Sort of like fat cells...)
Plastics chemical harms eggs in unborn mice
Female mice exposed to a common chemical found in plastics while in the womb develop abnormal eggs, according to a new study. Based on this finding, researchers speculate that the chemical, bisphenol A, might increase the risk of spontaneous abortion and genetic disorders in humans, such as Down's syndrome.
Bisphenol A, or BPA, is commonly found in hard plastics and the lining of tin cans. The chemical has come under scrutiny before because it can mimic the hormone oestrogen. Patricia Hunt at Washington State University in Pullman, US, and colleagues exposed pregnant mice to 20 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of their bodyweight each day over a one-week period. During this same period, the reproductive cells of female mice developing inside in the womb begin a process of division known as meiosis. New Scientist, 12 January 2007
(But the mothers smoking or ETS exposure is the problem - the effects merely skipping previous decades or centuries in evasive action determined by magic.)
A population-level decline in serum testosterone levels in American men.
In one of the largest study of its kind, Travison et al. report a population-wide decline in Massachusetts's men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years that is not related to normal aging or to health and lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels.
They found that testosterone concentrations dropped about 1.2% per year, or about 17% overall, from 1987 to 2004. The downward trend was seen in both the population and in individuals over time. The decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, including decreases in sperm quality and increases in testicular cancer, hypospadias and cryptorchidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 92:196–202. 2007
Top
Norwegian crack-down on ecotoxins in products
Norway's pollution control authority (SFT) has proposed banning ten previously unregulated substances used in consumer products, and restricting more tightly a further eleven. The proposals will lead to the banning of some products "even if they are permitted in other EU/EEA countries", the agency said.
The first group, comprising compounds for which alternatives are available, covers MCCPs, biphenyl A, musk xylene and musk ketone, triclosan, PFOS and PFOA, and the brominated flame retardants deca-BDE, HBCDD and TBBPA.More stringent limits will apply to the phthalate DEHP, the organic tin compounds TBT and TFT, pentachlorophenyl, the tensides DTDMAC, DODMAC/DSDMAC and DHTDMAC, and the heavy metals lead, cadmium, mercury arsenic and their compounds. ENDS Europe DAILY 2234, 05/01/07
Canada's politicians carry chemical cocktail
Tests conducted on four prominent federal politicians, including Health Minister Tony Clement, have found all of them carry in their bodies trace levels of dozens of potentially dangerous pollutants.
The testing, which was also done on NDP leader Jack Layton, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, and Liberal environment critic John Godfrey, found a bewildering cocktail of contaminants in the elected officials. They all had residues from stain repellants, flame retardants, and insecticides, among other deleterious substances.
The results came from an unusual chemical check up organized by Environmental Defence, an activist group that had previously tested ordinary Canadians and found extensive contaminant burdens in everyone evaluated. Based on this finding, it challenged the elected leaders to see how they stacked up and the four volunteered to do so.
For reasons that are unclear, the politicians had a significantly higher burden of chemical contaminates in their bodies than other Canadians the group has tested. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, 22nd December 2006
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici...1-6765%
28198302
My comment - how much of the anti-smoking outcry is due to the documented effects of toxin-induced brain dysfunction?
And how much more real pollution can the world stand, if the personal choice scapegoat is not removed to show the real problems?
Commenting by HaloScan
