Nothing like beating a dead horse!
I find it ironic that here we now have evidence of the one thing that the FDA legislation could potentially do that would actually make a dent in youth smoking
For the last time Doc.....18 year olds are considered LEGAL ADULTS, young adults yes, but still considered legal for MOST things (except drinking and some adult themed clubs). Many adults, most over the age of 21 I might add, happen to like menthol cigarettes, and other flavors as well. So tell me WHY do they have to suffer losing their favorite flavor of cigarette just because no one wants to enforce the already existing laws prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from buying cigarettes? OH that's right, because it's really total prohibition you cretins are really after.
You need to get off this schtick already, it's old news and like LadyTeal said....talk about beating a dead horse. And isn't illegal to beat any animal....dead or alive?
And for the record, why should we smokers believe something coming from a public health journal? We've already shown how you all lie. I also notice they don't provide any real source for us to actually check, just their word that they examined actual tobacco company documents? What a joke.
Lynda wrote:
"And for the record, why should we smokers believe something coming from a public health journal? We've already shown how you all lie."
So true. And how someone with intimate knowledge of these kind of people can take their word on something doesn't show naivete, but complicity.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"An article...concludes that tobacco companies use menthol to enhance addiction of smokers, especially adolescents and young adults. The study, which reviewed tobacco industry documents..."
I looked at the link provided and saw this about adolescents: Nothing.
They made that up and Dr. Siegel is repeating it. The document said this in the summary:
PRELIMINARY TARGET CONSUMER : 18-Zy YEAR OLD SMOKERS BOTH MALE AND
FEMALE WHO SMOKE NON-MENTHOL BRANDS
PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
• Low LEVEL MENTHOL - MUST HAVE HIGH RATIO
OF TOBACCO TO MENTHOL TASTE
MENTHOL PROVIDES HERITAGE CREDIBILITY
AMONG YOUNGER ADULT SMOKERS THAT ALTERNATE
FLAVORS CANNOT ACHIEVE [Comment from me: Would that be kiddie flavors?]
TESTED AMONG 18-24 YEAR OLD MALE AND
FEMALE SMOKERS OF NON-MENTHOL BRANDS
These people already smoke so why would they be worried about as far as addicting them? They're just trying to get them to smoke menthols. And what did the tobacco document analysis find?
THE ANALYSIS FOUND :
1) YOUNGER ADULT SMOKERS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST OF THE
INCREASED SALES PERFORMANCE OF THE THREE KEY BRANDS
WHEN THEY WERE GROWING•
2) FOR THE MOST PART, THESE YOUNGER ADULT SMOKERS WERE
SWITCHERS FROM NON-MENTHOL BRANDS
Back to Dr. Siegel:
"For example, an R.J. Reynolds document notes that: "First-time smoker reaction is generally negative. . . . Initial negatives can be alleviated with a low level of menthol."
Just as we were all telling you before. Menthol is harsh on its own.
"Thus, manipulation of menthol levels in cigarettes plays a substantial role in sustaining addiction to cigarettes as smokers become older and more experienced."
No it doesn't. The "manipulation" plays a role in keeping those smokers to keep smoking their brands.
Btw, what do 50 year 3 pack a day menthol smokers smoke, pure menthol?
"The article concludes:.....'Although menthol is not addictive, it may contribute to tobacco addiction by promoting initiation and facilitating inhalation of smoke.'"
If you look at the first quote I have from Dr. Siegel near the top, their "may contribute to" transformed in his mind to, "tobacco companies use menthol to enhance addiction of smokers."
One throws out guesses and the next one changes them a bit and turns them into facts.
Complicit.
Doc this proves nothing. It says YOUNGER ADULT smokers.
Specifically: 18 - 24+. Not 10!
"Concludes" or "MAY?"
Have you forgotten what qualifies as SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE too? Tell me how they could get scientific evidence one way or the other no matter what flavoring is in there? Surveys and counting sales is not science.
Is your "solid evidence" from the old document where they state that by adding menthol they will increase sales and get more smokers? So what? It's a legal product. They have that right to add ingredients as they wish, and yes, to get more smokers enjoying the product and to get more smokers. THAT IS WHAT A BUSINESS IS ALL ABOUT. You sound like this is news to you. Why?
How many times a day do you see\hear\read an ad selling a product? When is the last time you heard a manufacturer say "we've made no changes to our product, as a matter of fact it's worse than it was before, but please buy it anyhow." What do you think BT is supposed to do? Marketing their product does not make them wrong. Keep reminding yourself, this is a legal product. I'd suspect that makers of cookies also have a template just like BTs.
If only thirty-percent of sales is menthol, and you have no proof whatsoever that all those sales are going to "children" why do you say banning menthol "would actually make a dent in youth smoking"? What proof, Doctor?
"All of the other measures are not going to do a thing?" Why not? Because they don't advocate calling us names? Hiding us in the woods? Refusing to give us jobs? Spreading lies that we are killers?
What, exactly, do you want?
Harvard reviewed old, old documents that specifically, specifically, states 18 - 24+ but publish their "research" to make it sound like it's a new horrific tactic that BT is using on YOUNG people. Eighteen is an adult. These are not children and this news is old. You are implying "we now have..." And if I recall, a "scientific study" by Harvard was debunked in this Blog.
http://
goodhealth.freeservers.co...amson_Kool.html
Ludo Cremers , Brown &Williamson's divisional VP brand marketing, indicated that although demographics show that Kool smokers are a diverse group - 50% Caucasian, 40% African American, 10% Hispanic - the advertising will be aimed at a hip, urban audience.
Part of the strategy was to see how Brown & Williamson could enhance the Kool brand to smokers ages 21 and 30 The Kool brand had lost leadership in the menthol category, since primarily it has been unable to attract customers in their 20s and 30s while many of its faithful older buyers are no longer around. B&W needed a plan for Kool again to appeal to younger adult smokers who tend to be most loyal and least sensitive to rising prices of smokes.
They needed to come up with a strategy that was capable of turning things around, but caution had to be exercised because B&W wanted to be a responsible commercial organization. Yet their profitability depended on the sales of cigarettes to young adult smoker.
But at what expense did this occur. We're sure Mrs. Ivey would be the first to tell you their advertisements are not intended to target youths. But as Dr. Siegel points out, "from a public health perspective, which matters is whether adolescents are exposed to cigarette advertising that leads to begin smoking, whether that exposure was intentional or not."
I heard this on the news tonight and wondered if you would touch on it. Didn't you once or twice say that you were not in favor of removing menthol? Why the bandwagon now? Why are your friends at Harvard considered "researchers"? Shouldn't they be called "experts" by now? Everyone here has debunked the menthol theory, yet the very "experts", the smokers are not to be believed nor heard, yet you yell and scream it is fact when Harvard writes a fake study and calls it fact? I can no longer imagine how low any of you are willing to go any more. Pathetic is the only word I can come up with at this late time of the night.
Again, Doc, I invite you to the world of empirical experiment. In fact, you could perform both of my suggested experiments at once: smoke a few puffs of a menthol and then a nonmenthal cigarette--and tho I'd originally suggested your pretending to be a smoker by leaving all premises at inconvenient times and just standing around the street, you could use two of these occasions to do the menthol experiment.
All you're doing here is repeating jiggered academic science and abstract elite paternalistic sociology.
Why are you so afraid to jump into the pool and actually get a clue of what you're talking about?
:
To expand less intellectually on Walt's point... The very thing that came to mind when reading all the news articles this "news" generated was that all these nonsmokers (the researchers and those that comment on it in the affirmative) have the audacity to claim what menthol does and does not do as far as attracting customers with not one of them having ever smoked any sort of cigarette in their life.
It's as bad as someone claiming they know what the flavor cherry (nevermind cigarettes, think the fruit) tastes like only because they HEARD what it tastes like.
More than anything though, I stand by my post on an earlier thread on the subject... REMOVING menthol is racist, not the other way around. Once again this particular minority is being picked on for denial of something and used as guinea pigs. It's TC that bears the shame.
How fortuitous, just when the Doc needs evidence to support his agenda and sound bite that menthol reduces tobacco harshness and is used to hook non-smoking youths, up pops "ze proof positive". With luck like that he should play the lottery.
GreatScot
Doctor Siegel, the best way to get white kids in St. Louis not to take up smoking is to outlaw all cigarettes except menthol. Smoking menthol in this town is for blacks and odd white people, not cool white kids. One white friend referred to my smoking menthol cigarettes as "not a gentleman's habit." When people in a bar bum smokes they usually refuse my menthols, unless they are black. But why should black adults be denied their preferred smokes?
Truthfully, I cannot tolerate regular smokes. Why should the government single out the smokes I happen to like?
I am thinking of abstaining permanently from smoking and taking up my old harmful habit of boxing, a habit that is pretty much incompatible with cigarette smoking. So I might train away my desire for smoke with bloody noses, liver punches and headaches that last for a couple days. I would go back to training with this guy. A scary prospect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=H...feature=related
But I am an adult and I can choose the poison I prefer at any point in my life. Why should the government intrude on my life and ban any flavor of something I happen to like?
In my experience, its not the harshness of the smoke, but the incompetance of the beginner, something menthol won't cover.
My first cigarette was a menthol, and when you have never smoked before, you assume that it requires effort.
I asked if I might have a cigarette to try, upon lighting it, I inhaled mightily like sucking a milkshake through a straw,and was immediately convulsed with coughing.
After I recovered, I realised that this was an art that needed practice to master.
Nothing to do with harshness, instead of speculating wildy, it is better to ask someone who knows.
OT
A plaintive and familiar cry from Sioux City
"SIOUX CITY -- We are all wondering where all the non-smokers are at."
"One of the most common excuses I have heard in the past from non-smokers was that it was too smokey. OK, now that the ban is in effect, where are you?"
When will people realise that if someone is not afraid of the health warnings on alcohol, they are hardly likely to be intimidated by a little smoke.
Anyone who was going to go to bars was probably there already. So all they have done is destroy the atmosphere and halve their customer base.
As the prohibitionists seem to hate alcohol even more than they hate smoke,it was probably part of the initial plan.
Forgot the link
http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/
...48700796966.txt
Since when does TC believe what Reynolds writes in a marketing paper without ANY scientific evidence? I see, as long as it supports the views of Tc ....
The tobacco industry attracted new smokers by promoting cigarettes with lower menthol content, which were popular with adolescents and young adults, ...
How do they know they "attracted" new smokers? Menthols have been on the market for more than 60 years, how come not everybody smokes menthol now?
and provided cigarettes with higher menthol content to long-term smokers.
They can even provide cigarettes with horse shit, but that wouldn't convert me, as long as I have the choice.
I still don't understand why Dr. Siegel doesn't promote nicotine free cigarettes, since he wants to take the addiction out of tobacco.
Are you suggesting that this "evidence" RETROSPECTIVELY SUPPORTS your comments that i and several others have sought ?Sorry it does not. This is merely a direct lift from studies undertaken on clove cigarettes which HAVE been shown to numb the throat and allow a higher quantity of tar to be inhaled,along with a higher nicotine content.Since smokers never input into these studies it's a simple fait accompli to present whatever is required.GreatScot you have taken the words right out of my mouth.Sorry Dr Siegel but you appear to be very much a con artist as the rest of them TC loopy land.
I think most of the other poster's have covered the topic well enough, I have only one thing to add.
You Herr Doktor are full of shit.
You have to laugh when the geeks get together and develop a theory about why people smoke menthols. The "study" would have been infinitely cheaper had they simply asked a menthol smoker. They could have even asked me, although I am not an African American and I did not start smoking menthols until 5 years after I started smoking. See, I would have blown two "theories" apart had they asked me why I smoke menthols. I do so because I LIKE them. I also prefer Diet Pepsi over Diet Coke and Burger King over McDonalds. It's a question of taste, with no BT conspiracy...just a legal company with customers who happen to prefer menthol. BTW the movement to ban menthol will not force me to quit smoking. I'll simply return to regular cigarettes...the same ones I smoked when I started.
Ragingly Callous Lynda wrote:: "And for the record, why should we smokers believe something coming from a public health journal? We've already shown how you all lie”
She has a point Doc.
What do we really have here. A “study” conducted by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health which concludes that tobacco companies use menthol to support addiction, especially among adolescents. The “study” is published by the American Journal of Public Health.
It’s being utilized by a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at the Boston University School of Public Health who “is not arguing that menthol products need to be removed from the market”, just that Tobacco Free Kids shouldn’t have accepted a deal which wouldn’t take it off the market.
Geez, I wonder if this study might be just a little bit biased?
James Austin wrote: “One throws out guesses and the next one changes them a bit and turns them into facts”.
The “study” appears to be nothing more than a public health interpretation of an internal tobacco company document. Did the researchers confer with their colleagues in the Harvard School of Business before drawing their conclusions?
The RJR document says merely that existing menthol cigarettes have had menthol content increased over the years to satisfy consumer demand and maintain market share. Because the menthol/tobacco balance in existing brands is too harsh for non-menthol smokers, an opportunity has opened up for a low level menthol cigarette. The target demographic is current non-menthol smokers in the 18 to 24 age group.
It sounds like a perfectly legitimate marketing strategy evaluation to me.
Oh, sorry Doc. I forgot. The tobacco industry is not a normal, legal industry selling a normal, legal product, and is not entitled to operate like any normal mainstream business. And, they certainly shouldn’t be discussing ways and means of supplying consumer demand for their abnormal, degenerate, nicotine addicted customer base.
I must admit though Dr Siegel the way you have built up the menthol issue throughout the period just makes me a little suspicious of your prior knowledge of when this report was due for publication.It has answered the question as to why your reluctance to respond to certain questions always appeared to have fallen on deaf ears.Your ability to manipulate those who are alleged to read your blog and use them to your advantage has proven your continuing value to the Total Control movement.I presume you have little wish to conduct any experimentation that would show that smokers are now treated with such contempt that their basic human rights are now willfully ignored on the instruction of the TC agenda.
I still don't understand why Dr. Siegel doesn't promote nicotine free cigarettes, since he wants to take the addiction out of tobacco.
Benpal, that's because it's NOT the nicotine addiction they want to end, it IS the SMOKE. They don't like the smell, they don't like having to wash their hair, body and clothing after an evening out....they want to wear the same clothes again without washing, they can't be bothered showering regularly either apparently, which might also explain why so many non-smokers literally BATHE themselves in nauseating cologne/perfume odors.
With due respect to posters in this blog, I don’t believe Dr Siegel is advocating to remove menthol from cigarettes. Whether it is true or not true that menthol attracts youngsters to addict them is hardly the point here. It is the hypocrisy of Tobacco Free Kids and the AMA that he’s denouncing. If they in fact believe what the ‘’pseudo-scientific’’ evidence this study produced i.e. that menthol is strategically added to tobacco by BT to attract new smokers and keep them hooked, then it should be the first ingredient that they should be demanding to be banned and not doing the exact opposite by advocating to exempt it for the one and only purpose to get the FDA legislation passed by hook or by crook.
Again IMHO, he’s attempting to illustrate here that TFK and AMA are completely inconsistent (read hypocritical) in their advocacy, not that he agrees that menthol should be banned.
Do I take it from reading these comments that all posters here agree with the FDA legislation and therefore support TFK to get it passed by any means possible including total hypocrisy and manipulation while pretending to be doing it for the ‘’greater good’’ of the public and particularly the children ? From reading the comments here, this is what I am led to conclude.
Again, whether this study is true or not is completely irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that TFK and AMA believe both the study and generally that flavoring is strategically added to hook youngsters and yet they want to exempt the most popular flavoring while banning insignificant others. Now that’s blatant hypocrisy and scandalous for a TC group that pretends to care for the health of the public.
"The loopholes in the bill, which preclude it from taking exactly those actions for which there is evidence that a dent in cigarette use would occur -- including the menthol exemption --" I think that your view is erroneous Iro,courtesy of the comment by Dr Siegel.The question regarding menthol and its suggested addictive nature is very much relevant unless one wishes to see the option of purchasing menthol cigarettes abolished.This is clearly the intent if FDA legislation can be halted.Perhaps i am merely more suspicious of TC motivation and that of our host.
Iro, I commented on the Doc's own remark about why the bill is flawed and it obviously as nothing to do with hypocrisy when he states "that here we now have evidence of the one thing that the FDA legislation could potentially do that would actually make a dent in youth smoking".
That remark tells me that he DOES believe menthol should be banned also. For the children of course.....ignoring the fact that 'the children' can NOT buy cigarettes in the first place.
Then there's the fact that he's preaching to the choir here as we all know about the hypocrisy and outright lies of his movement. He seems to be the one who needs to be convinced. We already know.
"Congressional leaders themselves have demanded that the loopholes be removed and after research has been presented demonstrating why the loopholes are critical to the protection of cigarette sales ..." Dr Siegel speak for WE NEED TO BAN MENTHOL BECAUSE THE ABOVE STUDY HAS NOW PROVED WHAT WE WANTED IT TO PROVE. QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM. Dr Siegel has never lied about his view on menthol,he has just never told the full truth of his views it appears.Using one arguement to promote and force the issue on another,yet denying that issue exists,isn't really being open in my books,but it is politically acceptable parlance.
Iro wrote:
"Whether it is true or not true that menthol attracts youngsters to addict them is hardly the point here."
It may not have been the original point, but it rated discussion IMO. Nothing in the cited tobacco document was there anything about adolescents, etc. etc.
"It is the hypocrisy of Tobacco Free Kids and the AMA that he’s denouncing."
True, but maybe TFK didn't know this alleged evil manipulation of menthol was happening or that menthol is now considered a kiddie flavor. Many of us here have said menthol is pretty damned harsh to inhale. Hardly what I'd use to hook kids. I'd give them non menthol Lights if that was my intent. LOL
"Do I take it from reading these comments that all posters here agree with the FDA legislation..."
No.
"What is relevant is that TFK and AMA believe both the study"
That article was has a publishing date of July 16, 2008. That was yesterday where I live. TFK has been spouting their exemption crap for a lot longer than a day.
What is TFK's stance on Brussel Sprout Flavored Cigarettes?
It's all flavors except menthol, right?
What were the names of the cigarettes with the lower amount of menthol that attracted kids? Were there little signs throughout the store saying that they were manufactured just for kids up to age 24 and suggest a stronger menthol for adults over that age? Highly unlikely, which means this so called study was written in a men's room somewhere in Boston. Oh yeah, I have never heard anyone say, "In 3 more months I can try those Marlboro Menthols or For my 24th birthday, I want a carton of those adult menthol cigs". What rubbish!
"menthol is now considered a kiddie flavor"
Then they should sack their researchers.
THE 15 MOST POPULAR ICE CREAM FLAVORS
(Flavor, percent preferring)
1. Vanilla, 29%
2. Chocolate, 8.9%
3. Butter pecan, 5.3%
4. Strawberry, 5.3%
5. Neapolitan, 4.2%
6. Chocolate chip, 3.9%
7. French vanilla, 3.8%
8. Cookies and cream, 3.6%
9. Vanilla fudge ripple, 2.6%
10. Praline pecan, 1.7%
11. Cherry, 1.6%
12. Chocolate almond, 1.6%
13. Coffee, 1.6%
14. Rocky road, 1.5%
15. Chocolate marshmallow, 1.3%
All others, 23.7%
Source: International Ice Cream Association, 888 16th St., Washington, D.C., 20006.
Mint is not even mentioned.
I smoke either Golden Virginia or Amber Leaf Rolling tobacco with menthol filters.
I started smoking when I was 17, but didn't try a menthol 'roll-up' until I was nearly 20 (I'm 22 now). I preferred them.
I hate pre-packed menthol cigarettes - it's like smoking fresh air.
Interestingly, a friend of my dad's, who is in his mid-late fifties tried a menthol filter for the first time the other night (provided by me). He really liked them - and this is from someone who has smoked 'roll-ups' for years - without a filter!!!!
Of course, this is just my own personal experience, but menthol brands, accoutrements, etc., don't get young people smoking. If the first cigarette I'd ever had was a pre-packed menthol cigarette, I'd probably never have smoked again. They're absolutely pointless.
Iro,
do you think if TFK were demanding that all flavours were protected by the bill, the Doc would support the bill because it was consistent?
I believe he has stated previously that he would support the proposal,if it prohibited all added flavours. So what is his real beef? Excluding menthol? Including all other flavours? or simply the fact that PM had a hand in the wording and exceptions?
I have a suspicion that we are all being played like a fiddle and the maestro is going to get his wish without the inconvenience of advertising his bigotry.
GreatScot
Happy Birthday Jack!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...h-
birthday.html
"Jack Priestly claims he has suffered no serious health problems related to his tobacco and alcohol habit.
Mr Priestly, a widower and former baker, began smoking cigarettes when he was nine and claims to have smoked every day since"
or simply the fact that PM had a hand in the wording and exceptions?
Great Scot, I do believe you have hit the nail on the head. The REVRUUND Siegel does not believe tobacco companies, smokers, or anyone else impacted by regulations on tobacco and its use has any place at the table nor a voice in such discussions. Remember, it's for our own good.........
Of course we really know that all of this crapola is for the non-smokers who are just too damned stupid to read and understand simple concepts like "smoking permitted" or it "may be harmful if you start." The Revruuuuuuund Siegel, as well as Bill God(almighty)shall have repeatedly informed us of that.
I have a suspicion that we are all being played like a fiddle and the maestro is going to get his wish without the inconvenience of advertising his bigotry.
I do believe that is what the Revruuuuuuund Siegel is hoping for, but he seems to have forgotten that smokers are a whole heck of a lot smarter than his cult followers in TC and he is going to be in for a rude awakening.
Iro has got it exactly right.
To repeat what Iro said, so insightfully: "I don’t believe Dr Siegel is advocating to remove menthol from cigarettes. Whether it is true or not true that menthol attracts youngsters to addict them is hardly the point here. It is the hypocrisy of Tobacco Free Kids and the AMA that he’s denouncing. If they in fact believe what the ‘’pseudo-scientific’’ evidence this study produced i.e. that menthol is strategically added to tobacco by BT to attract new smokers and keep them hooked, then it should be the first ingredient that they should be demanding to be banned and not doing the exact opposite by advocating to exempt it for the one and only purpose to get the FDA legislation passed by hook or by crook."
That is precisely the point. It doesn't matter whether this research is accurate or not. The point is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids BELIEVES that it is accurate. It also doesn't matter whether I support banning menthol or not. The point is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids believes that banning cigarette flavorings is the appropriate way to deal with this product.
So if you put those two together, then why isn't the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids calling on the removal of menthol from cigarettes? It is simply hypocrisy (or inconsistency) for TFK to argue, on the one hand, that chocolate needs to be removed, but on the other hand, then menthol has to stay.
The story here is not really about menthol at all - it is about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the anti-smoking movement.
Personally, I don't support ANY FDA regulation of tobacco, and if Congress were to vote to remove the menthol exemption, I would STILL vigorously oppose the bill.
What I'm looking for here is not a ban on menthol or any other constituent (in fact, I think we should leave the cigarette companies alone and let them produce and tailor the product to meet the demands of their adult consumers). What I'm looking for is some sense of consistency, integrity, and principle among the leading tobacco control groups.
And right now, I'm not seeing any and that's disturbing to me.
Just to make my point clear, because some readers seem to have the wrong impression, I OPPOSE the idea of the FDA regulating the tobacco product. I don't think it's appropriate for the government to start meddling with what the product can or cannot contain. I think the way to deal with this problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. What the federal government should be doing is not trying to regulate the content of the cigarettes, it should be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes. And not by forcing anyone not to smoke, by but educating them and trying to encourage them to make that decision for themselves.
One final point - my personal opinion is not relevant to my criticism of the anti-smoking groups. I am NOT criticizing them here because I don't agree with them that the product regulation approach is inappropriate (although I do think so). I am criticizing them because they are not being consistent with THEIR OWN stated beliefs and propaganda.
It's the talking out of both sides of their mouth that bothers me, not which side of their mouth they choose to speak from. At this point, I'd settle for one side or the other. I don't even care any more. I would just like some integrity, adherence to some sort of principles, and consistency.
Your explanation is somewhat at odds with your choice of words used in your commentary and your seeming reluctance to answer questions that seek to clarify your position.As to your final sentence,wouldn't we all Dr Siegel,but who is going to fight to obtain it ? TC is no longer capable of providing the truth,your attempts at doing so,often leave us second guessing your motives.Whose fault is that ?
What the federal government should be doing is not trying to regulate the content of the cigarettes, it should be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes. And not by forcing anyone not to smoke, by but educating them and trying to encourage them to make that decision for themselves.
And yet your own personal choice of "education" is to FORCE, by law, private business owners to ALL be smoke free, removing any choice at all for the owner who might prefer smokers over non-smokers and smokers who have nowhere to go to enjoy socializing AND smoking IN COMFORT AND SAFETY. NOW whose not being consistent?
I understand where you are coming from regarding this FDA stuff; yet also contradict yourself. Anytime reasonable compromise is mentioned you pull out and very small minority of ill people and call us callous for thinking they should be able to read a sign that says "smoking allowed" and make the decision to go elsewhere.
Sorry Doc, your concept of "education" is a little too similar to the re-education camps of communist nations.
And then, in your own words here: "Second, I find it ironic that here we now have evidence of the one thing that the FDA legislation could potentially do that would actually make a dent in youth smoking," Leaving CTFK out of the equation, you just stated boldly that "we now have evidence of the one thing that the FDA legislation could potentially do that would actually make a dent in youth smoking". And now you want to try to convince us that you actually STILL oppose removing anything from cigarettes?
I don't if I'm confused or if you are.
Doc -That is precisely the point. It doesn't matter whether this research is accurate or not.
Topic headline.
New Research Confirms that Tobacco Companies Use Menthol to Support Addiction, Especially Among Adolescents;
For an intelligent, educated man, you have a persistent, unfortunate habit of writing ambiguously. Your headline , subsequent commentary and previous posts can easily be, and was (by me anyway),interpreted as a call for banning menthol. You have quoted this research as gospel, you have jumped on the ridiculous racist bandwagon, lambasted TFK's hypocrisy for not including menthol and having the gaul to negotiate with PM, and I am sure previously in one of the related topic discussions, you stated that you would be supportive of the bill if it consistently called for all flavours to be banned (I am too tired to trawl back and find it, please accept my apologies if my recollection is flawed).
Perhaps instead of opposing the bill by subterfuge you could just stand up and oppose it on principle, because it is wrong, legitimate business have the right to act in the best interest of that business?
GreatScot
BTW how is your new research study going? You know the one about the negative affects on smokers caused by TC and the ongoing persecution?
I wondered where todays headline was pointing. "New Research Confirms that Tobacco Companies Use Menthol to Support Addiction,"
Here's the "new research."
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/
...H.2007.125542v1
It's a meta-analysis of documents from various sources and from various points in time.
Here's the tobacco document.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
t...0140D49FD077454
It's about a low level menthol product opportunity. When was this written? Probably in the late 1950's. when R.J. Reynolds, manufacturer of KOOLs, developed the Belair brand which is no longer considered to be an important brand.
http://www.rjrt.com/company/
prof...ileFactBook.asp
It was advertised on Bob Barker's show sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?
v=7o...feature=related
Touted by Bob as the light menthol with the true tobacco taste.
It would appear that 50 years ago the KOOL brand was losing market share to Newport. Belair was introduced as a light version of KOOLs to compete with Newports.
As others here have already noted this is Harvards way of packaging a conclusion in a headline and then spending the 30 minutes of time that it took to document their work.
CASH, the Campaign Against Smoker Harassment, issued this statement today.
"What would you expect from Harvard?"
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Y'know Doc, if you had started your article with this simple line, you would have had an entirely different response to this particular article.
"The story here is not really about menthol at all - it is about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the anti-smoking movement.".
After all, isn't THIS what we have been telling you for years now?
Y'know Doc, if you had started your article with this simple line, you would have had an entirely different response to this particular article.
"The story here is not really about menthol at all - it is about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the anti-smoking movement.".
After all, isn't THIS what we have been telling you for years now?
Yeah, I agree. There'd be over 100 "we told you so's"..........LOL 
Doctor
As a person slandered and put under virtual house arrest by TC's activities as far as a social life goes, I have been trying for at least 5 minutes to feel some sympathy and share your displeasure that your movement has been betrayed by two of its members....... its an interesting mental challenge
its an interesting mental challenge
Thank you Rose!!! I needed that chuckle today......hehehehehe
Lynda -
Just because I state that we know something that we could do which would make a dent in youth smoking does not mean that I support taking that action. I think it is pretty clear, for example, that if we banned smoking in all outdoors places, like they proposed in Belmont originally, we would greatly reduce youth smoking. But that doesn't mean I support such laws (I don't). It is possible to report the results of research showing that a particular intervention would be effective, yet not support that intervention.
I hope this clarifies some of the confusion.
Jerry wrote: "Y'know Doc, if you had started your article with this simple line, you would have had an entirely different response to this particular article.
"The story here is not really about menthol at all - it is about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the anti-smoking movement.".
After all, isn't THIS what we have been telling you for years now?"
Jerry - Yes, you told me so. And yes, you're right: it would have made my point clearer if I had stated that up front. However, my style in this blog has been to first report the story, then to start my commentary when it says "The Rest of the Story." I can change that approach if readers would simply prefer a commentary. But I kind of like the idea of first presenting the relevant news or story, and then providing my commentary on it. But I can change it if readers prefer.
Like I changed my color infatuation, which is now gone from the blog, and I admit, the posts are much easier to read.
Dr Siegel ,do you happen to have Repace measuring the velocity of the hurricane you are creating by twisting so violently ? I again ask why you chose the words you did and present them in such a way if not to cause confusion as you would have us believe ? There is an organisation which promotes the use of PLAIN ENGLISH,may be advantageous.
Doctor
For me, the layout is fine as it is, it was the meaning of the text that originally confused me.
EinsteinSmoked wrote:
"It was advertised on Bob Barker's show sometime in the late 1950's or early 1960's."
Speaking of advertising back in those days, I'm not an expert on tv viewership, but I dare say it was whites who were the target of these ads and not blacks. What age group was the target, I don't know.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"I think it is pretty clear, for example, that if we banned smoking in all outdoors places, like they proposed in Belmont originally, we would greatly reduce youth smoking."
You never smoked as a kid, did you?
Kids don't start out by smoking in public. Something about the fear of being caught.
As they get older, they're already breaking the law by smoking so what difference does it make if a park is smoke-free? They weren't legally allowed to smoke there anyway.
I do believe the following is something the good Revruuuuuuuund Siegel and the rest of the anti-smoker should read, read well, and then meditate (maybe even pray) about it.
United States Code
TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER I - GENERALLY
U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
.
.
Doctor,
You say you want to tackle the demand side of smoking through education.
Should we educate people to believe that smoking is good or bad?
The last 50 years of epidemiology shows a clear relationship between many diseases and tobacco smoke, so it is hard to think it is neither good nor bad.
Should we educate people to believe that the presence of damaging compounds in tobacco smoke
is enough to cause net harm or should we argue that compensating healing compounds in tobacco smoke cause net benefit?
Should we explain to people that cooking food does produce bad compounds but it has net benefit because energy is saved with in the body and that this is analogous to smoking? Or should we say that there is no benefit to smoking, it is not analogous to cooking food and that it is merely a pointless addiction which causes diseases?
Should we educate people to believe that the epidemiology shows that sick people are more likely to smoke or that people are more likely to by sick from smoking?
What I'm looking for is some sense of consistency, integrity, and principle among the leading tobacco control groups.
And right now, I'm not seeing any and that's disturbing to me.
Michael Siegel
Oh for crying out loud, get off that BS. Integrity? Principle? You're out of your gourd. No such thing has EVER existied in the anti-smoker cult. NEVER. And you damned well know it.
The anti-smoker cult --- yes you are a CULT --- is currently the last group able to promote bigotry and discrimination along with hatred and violence against a minority group of citizens with not only no consequences, but the full force of the government guns behind them.
If I promoted the type of bigotry, discrimination, and or hatred that your and your kind promote I would find myself before a judge so damned fast my head would spin. But you people do it every day with impugnity. You want our kids taken away from us, you want us fired from our jobs, driven out of our homes, denied medical services, our businesses bankrupted, taunted and harrassed on the street.......all because we use a LEGAL PRODUCT that you don't like and have to make up lies about.
Right now you have the media on your side, and thus the gullible public (including those too stupid to understand a smoking permitted sign), and the government --- but some things you do NOT have on your side is honesty, integrity or even your precious science.
I think the way to deal with this problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. What the federal government should be doing is not trying to regulate the content of the cigarettes, it should be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes. And not by forcing anyone not to smoke, by but educating them and trying to encourage them to make that decision for themselves.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.17.08 - 2:51 pm | #
WHAT part of the US Constitution do you not UNDERSTAND????????? Obviously ALL of it. The federal government has no business in this debate whatsoever.
Please tell me WHERE in the Constitution it states the federal government is permitted to regulate ANY product? Rrohibition comes to mind, but even that was done through the Amendment process and was susequently repealed.
You and your cronies ARE infringing upon our rights by usurping the Constitution and using Congress to dictate that which is the jurisdiction of the states (and of course we all know that is up for question.)
Re-read the document, and especially the 1st 10 amendments, commmonly known as the Bill of Rights.
"New Research Confirms that Tobacco Companies Use Menthol to Support Addiction, Especially Among Adolescents; Results Reveal Hypocrisy of TFK Actions "
What an absolute crock.
Anyone who took an unbiased look at the "Evidence" Would see a marketing department doing what they are paid to do. The attachment of some devious motivation, in conjunction with an entirely out of context example, is more indicative of a very bad case of denials, to support the more obvious racist and bigoted behavior we see before us today, among the very people who should know better.
They claim smokers live in denial? TC sets the standard and it obviously takes one to know one, or should I say misery loves company?
The same marketing principles can be seen in the round table discussions of tobacco control, which were created and repeated around the globe. The same identification of markets the same racial of "demographic" targets with custom made strategies, to target each group, The same measures of slogan impact with focus groups surveys and test markets. The same evaluations in play and at predetermined intervals, after time has lapsed and the same adjustments with focus on what is working and what you are able to get away with by the myths you create.
The same corporate execs who are attacked wearing their tobacco company hats are saintly when selling social marketing. The exact same sales people and executives when working for Altera and selling processed foods are "welcomed members of our corporate community" when the throw a few dollars back into community events. Money they are not allowed to contribute under the PM hat, however as Kraft the perspective abruptly changes.
Once again the TC monarchy has no clothes and once again they hope to sell their dynasty with story book fantasies depicting knights and dragons.
Sorry TC when people mature they leave the witches and dragons behind, the realities of life are quite enough to keep most of us occupied.
The growing up stage may be a place those with wealth and privilege never have to go, which keeps the rest of us bewildered by your preoccupations with ignorance, in dealing with human relations or inability in predicting how people not like yourselves will react to your inhumane experimentation.
Dr. Siegel stated his preference, "What the federal government should be doing is not trying to regulate the content of the cigarettes, it should be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes. And not by forcing anyone not to smoke, by but educating them and trying to encourage them to make that decision for themselves."
I have been nothing but impressed with the intelligence of the posters to this blog since I first got here; especially the smokers.
It has been about 44 years since the 1964 SG Report and during all of those years there have been barrages of educational campaigns to get smokers to quit. There is even a special day set aside for all smokers to stop for one day.
What new magical message do you propose? The people who post here are all educated and they have all heard these messages about smoking most of their lives.
We don't believe that the "education" we've been offered all of these years is true. For many years all that smokers had to go on was their own personal experience with smoking.
The internet has changed that. We can read these studies ourselves and we see time and again that the conclusions are wrong or the studies are flawed. We learn more everyday to justify our conclusions that we have been right all along.
But if you have a new magical message to overcome all of this we'd love to hear it.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Dr. Siegel wrote: “It doesn't matter whether this research is accurate or not”.
But, it does matter, Doc. Suspect scientific studies, propaganda and outright lies are at the heart of the whole issue. These are the weapons of choice for the tobacco control movement in their war on smokers. And it is a war, with a growing number of casualties and a lot of collateral damage.
In your blog you’ve criticized a lot of the misrepresentations and exaggerations of your colleagues, but you’ve never stated your stand on the root cause of the lies (they are lies Doc, not simply falsehoods or inaccuracies). The root cause is denormalization.
Forced behavioural modification in the form of denormalization is a morally bankrupt concept. Smokers are human beings. Don’t expect us to react well when we’re treated like Pavlov’s dogs. And don’t expect us to kiss the collective ass of tobacco control when they ring their bloody bell.
And, if some of your readers question your motivation, you have only yourself to blame.
I’ve only been reading this blog for a few months, but you’ve written half a dozen or more articles taking Tobacco Free Kids to task for their stand on menthol cigarettes. But, I can’t recall a single article which stated simply and unequivocally, “I oppose the FDA legislation because . . . “
Instead, you attacked Tobacco Free Kids (and the AMA) and even played the race card. Then you brought up a suspect study to make your point. If all the documents reviewed by the Harvard researchers are as innocuous as the one linked to in your article, the “study” is unlikely to be seen as legitimate by anyone outside the tobacco control movement who will simply use it as another propaganda tool.
Doc, you’re doing a great job of providing those of us without a voice the opportunity to speak our mind. But, let’s face it. Given your position on tobacco control, you’re not always going to like what you hear.
Dr. Siegel wrote: “The story here is not really about menthol at all - it is about the hypocrisy and inconsistency in the anti-smoking movement”.
Exactly! I don’t think you’ll get a lot of flack on that one Doc. But, it’s not an anti-smoking movement; it’s an anti-smoker movement. And when you’re walking on our side of the street, there’s a hell of a difference.
thanks for expanding on my post from yesterday, mike.
brandz
From a discussion of marketing to young adult smokers (as per the tobacco document linked in the blog) to Michael's "youth" and "adolescents" to Banzaf's "young children". Such age regression in just one day...
http://www.pr-inside.com/menthol...ill-
r707476.htm
"2008-07-16 23:40:52 - A new study showing that the tobacco industry manipulated menthol levels in an effort to attract young children into smoking (by masking the harsh taste of smoke for first time smokers), and to increase the addictive hold of nicotine on smokers, could delay a bill to give the Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over cigarettes."
And the timing is just so... convenient.
Also of interest in this month's AJPH
Framing Health Matters
Project Cerberus: Tobacco Industry Strategy to Create an Alternative to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Hadii M. Mamudu 1, Ross Hammond 2, Stanton A. Glantz 1*
1 University of California San Francisco
2 Independent Consultant (working for UCSF on this project)
Abstract
Between 1999 and 2001, British American Tobacco, Philip Morris, and Japan Tobacco International executed Project Cerberus to develop a global voluntary regulatory regime as an alternative to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). They aimed to develop a global voluntary regulatory code to be overseen by an independent audit body and to focus attention on youth smoking prevention. The International Tobacco Products Marketing Standards announced in September 2001, however, did not have the independent audit body. Although the companies did not stop the FCTC, they continue to promote the International Tobacco Products Marketing Standards youth smoking prevention as an alternative to the FCTC. Public health civil society groups should help policymakers and governments understand the importance of not working with the tobacco industry"
GDF- From a dream about phone calls to ASH.
"oops, sorry, there was no intent to deceive, I just misread the research, I did not deliberately change the "young adult smokers" of the research paper into "young children" in my press release, of course I regret the error, I will immediately consider redrafting and reissue the press release and perhaps a full and frank apology for possibly misleading the public."
Later
"What, it's not changed yet? Gee, I don't know whats happened, I instructed it to be changed. Someone will pay for this, I will make someone really suffer. Find me a smoker, I'm mad."
GreatScot
GreatScot--what is it Michael calls those things... mis-statements... umm... mistakes... umm.. inaccuracies...?
And now for the REAL rest of the story
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/...68%7D&
dist=hppr
GREENSBORO, N.C., July 16, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- While Lorillard Tobacco Company (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lorillard, Inc. (NYSE: LO)) has not yet had the opportunity to fully review the latest report from the Harvard School of Public Health...
...However the report's conclusion that Lorillard controls or alters the menthol levels in its products to promote smoking initiation or addiction is categorically false.
Lorillard does not control levels of menthol to promote smoking among adolescents and young adults. Furthermore, Lorillard does not engineer any of its cigarettes to promote smoking initiation or nicotine addiction. Importantly, the target menthol specifications for Newport have not changed at all since 2000.
Lorillard is in the business of manufacturing cigarettes for sale to adult smokers. The company wants every adult smoker who prefers menthol cigarettes to choose its Newport product. This is why Lorillard strives to make a product with superior taste and consistency.
The company also rejects the report's conclusion that Lorillard targets youth smokers. The authors should know that pursuant to an agreement with the state's Attorneys General, Lorillard does not advertise in magazines that have a youth readership of 15 percent or greater and/or a circulation of two million or more readers under 18 years of age. This is not a new policy and has been in effect for years. Contrary to the report's assertion, while the magazine advertising expenditures for Newport may fluctuate from year to year, overall spending on magazine advertising has decreased over the last 10 years."
Not that I care one bit about menthol levels. People do and will smoke what they want to smoke. Legal or illegal, menthol or non, ban or no ban, people will smoke tobacco because it is a healthful activity.
http://www.healthiertalk.com/vie...er=asc&
start=30
"On the other hand, we now have solid evidence that menthol is actually being used by cigarette companies to recruit and support addiction among literally millions of young smokers."
This is what you call solid evidence? The undated tobacco document you link to refers to adults who already smoke.
"First-time smoker reaction is generally negative. . . . Initial negatives can be alleviated with a low level of menthol."
The context in which you place this quote is completely wrong. It does not mean menthol will alleviate the harshness of plain tobacco for a non-smoker.
It means that a low level of menthol will be less harsh to a plain-tobacco smoker than a high level of menthol.
Got that? It's about the harshness of menthol!
You own integrity comes into question when you support your argument with junk science such as this. In light of you own denunciation of others' use of junk science, it makes you an astoundingly arrogant hypocrite.
I suspect the reason for the lack of clarity in the Doctor's writing is a lack of clarity in the Doctor's thinking. Dreams die hard and he's in push-pull mode. Evidence piles up-- and up and up--about the slipperiness, dishonesty, even viciousness of his Movement but apparently it still hasn't reached a critical mass. So it's easier to nit-pick than to squarly face the fact that the Movement itself is lousy (pun intended). This article seems to be part of the vascillation-- so of course it's unclear. And it is. Very.
Not about whether menthol should be removed; I think he's stated often enough that he doesn't think it should be. The lack of clarity slithers in, first, in his credulousness at the Harvard "study", and second, in his outrage at the horrible mortal consequences of NOT removing the menthol that he personally wouldn't remove, and the ostensible racism inherent therein.
The outrage appears to be directed at the awfulness of not removing menthol, tho when some of the smoke clears, it's apparently just about his quarrel with TFK. Or is it? Who knows? ( Maybe not even he. )
Einstein and Matt seem to have covered the general innocuousness of the tobacco marketing plans (dating back to the fifties) and it seems pretty clear that Harvard's just twisting things to fit with its (fifty years later) agenda. One question is: why would the doc so automatically believe this Harvard thesis? Brought to him by the folks who bring 30 minute heart attacks and Helena miracles.
Take a good look at Harvard's "conclusion"--
Tobacco companies manipulate the sensory characteristics of cigarettes, including menthol content, thereby facilitating smoking initiation and nicotine dependence....
In other words, they make their products taste good so that people will want to use them and they try to appeal to a variety of tastes so that more people use them. Same as when Kellogg's puts frost on (some, but not all of of) its wheat.
So why believe this is some wicked conspiracy? Except that it's fuel for the internecene spat. IOW, it's simply expedient to believe it; a nice hard snowball to toss across the schoolyard.
As though that were actually the only issue.
While the thrust of Dr. Siegel's blog entry is the hypocrisy it still trails along with it his belief (nevermind that this belief is not intended -- by him -- to be used as a reason to regulate it) that menthol IS the culprit that TC claims it to be.
And I believe it's THAT ride-along belief which has us up in arms, making the primary point of the entry secondary.
So we're not off topic, we just picked up on something else that offends US more.
As quoted from a Boston Globe article
http://www.boston.com/news/
healt...rchers_tob.html
Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco control researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health, said it "really demonstrates that menthol is playing a major role in maintaining cigarette consumption and especially in recruiting and supporting addiction among youth and young adults."
And the majority of posts here are intended to reject THAT conclusion.
Sorry I missed your post, Cowbell. It wasn;t there before I posted.
I can only wish our host will pay attention to your analysis, go back to the source, and re-evaluate this example of drive-by science from his friends across the Charles.
:
From Brandrepublic
Agencies line up for EU anti-smoking job
LONDON - The European Union is seeking an agency to handle a pan-European ad campaign on the dangers of smoking.
The winning agency will create a push to run across 27 member states next year. At this stage, the pitch does not include media planning and buying.
Agencies will be asked to create advertising for three briefs: one to dissuade young people from starting to smoke; another to persuade young smokers to give up; and a third to push the dangers of passive smoking.
http://www.brandrepublic.com/New...ti-smoking-job/
Like a mass campaign for a new soap powder.
Meanwhile
Pharma is cutting the legs from under you by announcing new medicines based on the beneficial components of tobacco,like they said, its not the plant chemicals that are bad, its the method of delivery.
The experimental fields are already growing.
Tobacco Promising "Factory" for Biopharmaceuticals
http://www.plantpharma.org/ials/...ndex.php?
id=156
Researchers Light Up for Nicotine, the Wonder Drug
"Smoking may be bad for you, but researchers and biotech companies are quietly developing pharmaceuticals that are decidedly good for brains, bowels, blood vessels and even immune systems -- and they're inspired by tobacco's deadly active ingredient: nicotine."
http://www.wired.com/science/dis...007/06/
nicotine
BTW
Science in action - human experiment!
The other day, I had a very nasty gardening accident, I smashed my right thumb nail half off, there was lots of blood.
As I stood there in silent agony, it flashed into my mind, Mayan battlefield medicine for wounds,wrap the wound with green tobacco leaves to stop the bleeding.
So I ripped of the leaf and wrapped it round my thumb.
As we know, unburnt nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, and the bleeding did stop quite quickly. Though every time I took it off it started to bleed again.
Real science, instant observable results!
Dr Siegel,how many people READ YOUR COMMENTARY ? How many READ THE COMMENTS ,ALL OF THEM ? So how many people have "misunderstood" what you have now corrected mainly in response to the comments left ? Are you suggesting that you are not aware of how the press react with these headline studies ? Your blog is different ? Is all of this good advertising for Boston University,has the admission rates gone up at all since you started ?
Rose,
After reading your links,
It seems pretty clear that the pharma/WHO are trying to develop alternative delivery systems for the rich west while actively seeking to deny third world smokers any net benefit from smoking.
They may as well tell them to stop cooking their food while they work out a cleaner way of cooking.
It’s a global public health disaster promoted by greed.
And Doll wondered why his cancer wards were full of smokers and why his doctors dropped like flies – what a joke. I am surprised he did not blame cough mixture for coughing while he was at it.
I agree with GreatScot and others upthread about the direction of the headlines above Michael Siegel's pieces. You can go back and read a few (in bold) recent ones, and add (in italic) the sort of thing you'd expect to find written under them
New York County Legislator Seeking to Ban Smoking Outdoors Because It Sets a Bad Example
Well, it does, doesn't it? Whoopee, a brand new reason to ban smoking outdoors!
Scene Smoking Still Claims that Tobacco Kills 124,000 Young People A Year; We Can Safely Conclude that They Do Not Care About the Facts
Yeah. It's well known that far more young people than that are killed by tobacco every year.
ASH Reiterates its Claim that 30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Increases a Nonsmokers' Risk of a Heart Attack to that of an Active Smoker
Actually, it only takes 10 minutes.
IN MY VIEW: Study on Effect of England's Smoking Ban on Quit Rates Not Only Represents Science by Press Release; It Also Appears to Be Shoddy Science
But that's just my view, so it doesn't matter. Go ahead and publish the stuff.
Special "Independence" Day Post: Australians May Need a License to Smoke
And about time too.
And so on. It's a variant form of science by press release. People will mostly just read the headline, and take that message away, not bothering to read what's underneath it, thinking they know what it will say.
The headline should summarize the text beneath it. Instead, Siegel's headlines usually repeat some wild claim, which he goes on to refute in the text beneath the headline. The result is that Siegel does a great job hauling water for antismokers. No big surprise there - he is an antismoker after all.
I think I'm going to try writing a few spoof Michael Siegel pieces, with scary headlines at the top, and lengthy refutations underneath.
Rose;
The better mousetrap?
"So I ripped of the leaf and wrapped it round my thumb.
As we know, unburnt nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, and the bleeding did stop quite quickly. Though every time I took it off it started to bleed again.
Real science, instant observable results!"
You may be on to something there Rose tobacco woven into band aids and surgical dressings?
Trouble is the entire "medical" and "scientific" community would attack any suggestion of trying to market them, regardless of their efficiency.
After all the wailing and all the money they spent, creating the evil dragon, they would heavily resist any product which allowed tobacco to be seen in a positive light.
Fredrik
I think I may just have found another missing link.See what you make of it.
Smoke Rings
"Many varieties of tobacco plant contain more than 10% of active ingredients, called nicotinia alkaloids. These are based on a pyridine ring, with a side group. Pyridine is an unpleasant-smelling liquid present in coal tar"
http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/rzepa/
mim...cotine_text.htm
Coal tar yet again, class1 carcinogen, rose to prominence around the 1900's, widespread use in cities 20 years before the cancer rate started to rise.
Plenty of documentation on cancer risks including lung cancer.
"Besides dye, many other coal tar byproducts are still in use, although similar materials derived from petroleum and natural gas have joined them, and replaced some. Here are some of coal's byproducts:
Benzene is a light, very flammable solvent, which is used in such different applications as perfume-making, dry cleaning, and gasoline production (where it cleans grease out of petroleum).
Creosote (CREE-oh-soat) can be made from coal tar, as well as from the wood tar that is a byproduct of charcoal making. Used to preserve wood exposed to the elements, it has been soaked into every telephone or power pole, and railroad tie, in sight. It also can be a component of cough syrup!
(Kerosine, also miscalled "coal oil," is actually a petroleum product. The name stuck, though, after Canadian geologist Abraham Gesner first extracted it from coal in 1854. In short order, kerosine was made from petroleum. It was the major source of lighting through the mid- to late19th century.)
Naphtha, a very flammable liquid, is used as a spot remover and as the solvent in varnish.
Paraffin, odorless, wax-like, and solid at room temperature but easy to melt, comes from coal tar as well as from crude oil. It is molded into candles, and poured atop jars of jam and jelly to seal them.
Toluene (TALL-you-ween), another flammable light solvent, is a component in an amazing array of products: explosives like TNT (trinitrotoluene), antiseptic, paint, saccharin, cosmetics, and textile dye."
http://www.lewis-clark.org/conte...p?
ArticleID=550
Roffo thought tobacco tar must be carcinogenic because coal tar was.
You just blame tobacco for the effects of coal tar and industry rolls on.
Take a look
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc...es/
s048coal.pdf
Anonymous
Theres that small problem of nicotine poisoning, my cut was only small, so I didn't get it.
Anonymous
I was reading a study some while back, where they tested the alleged effects of smoking on rabbits.
They injured the animals ears then injected the poor animals with fresh nicotine to see how well they healed, naturally having restricted the blood flow to the entire body, the rabbits didn't do too well.
The same appears to have happened with NRT patches in surgery.
And thats why the medical profession thinks that smokers heal badly.
Lets see that once again -
niacin
"pellagra-preventing vitamin in enriched bread," 1942, coined from ni(cotinic) ac(id) + -in, chemical suffix; suggested by the American Medical Association as a more commercially viable name than nicotinic acid.
"The new name was found to be necessary because some anti-tobacco groups warned against enriched bread because it would foster the cigarette habit." ["Cooperative Consumer," Feb. 28, 1942]
Really really OT, but worth a look: apparently the Dutch have come up with a way round their millstone/smoking ban here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...Holy-
smoke.html
'Dutch smokers are flocking to a religious movement known as "The Only and Universal Smokers Church of God" following a ban on tobacco smoking indoors.
Michiel Eijsbouts, founder and "Smokelighter" of the church he founded in 2001, has insisted that the Dutch smoking ban in place does not apply to members of his church under national and European human rights legislation.
"We think we have all the marks of a religion," he said.
"We will have to find out what the secular powers-that-be think. For us the constitution and European rules say we have the right to express our religion and we express our religion through smoking."
Article continuesadvertisement
Church members receive a card, for a fee of £3, to prove their religious denomination as a "Holy Smoker" to the authorities.
Believers sign up to a creed asserting a trinity of smoke, fire and ash. In terms of holy rites their god is honoured by smoking.
The Smokers Church or Rokerskerk has over 2000 members including a "missionary" in Britain, Mr Eijsbouts told The Daily Telegraph.
"For a smoker with a small s it is just a bodily need. For a smoker with a capital S it is a spiritual need, you have to have a religious experience. When you are lighting up you have to think of God," he said.
"Converting people was not easy until the smoking ban started but now people are flocking to the church."
Smoking has been banned in Dutch bars since July 1 and over 100 cafés have applied to the Church so as to be counted as religious institutions.
"We stand firmly behind the church's teachings and that is smoking," said Cor Busch, owner of the Lindeboom bar in the northern Dutch town of Alkmaar.
"Smokers are being discriminated against, a beer and a cigarette belong together."
A spokeswoman for the Dutch health ministry said: "Whether they call it church or not, it is still a bar or café and smoking is still prohibited." '
Might be worth joining them?
cancer wards were full of smokers
Fredrik
Muller observed the same in 1939, so it may well be that many of the smokers in hospital beds were victims of mustard gas for which lung cancers of the respiratory tract are an expected outcome.
Chemically damaged lungs but they continued to smoke?
Really , it all depends which end you look down the telescope, doesn't it.
Idlex,
While I agree with your point regarding newspapers (I do think that people sometimes just read the headlines of news articles), I've never heard of anyone who goes to a blog simply to read the headlines. Also, I've never seen anyone reprint just my blog post headlines, without the actual text.
But I do agree that with newspaper headlines, there could be a serious concern, because many people do just browse quickly through the headlines. I don't think anyone comes to my site to just read the headlines.
"I don't think " "I do think " is this what Tobacco Control rests upon ? since you don't KNOW Dr Siegel i'm most surprised that you are prepared to suggest that your thinking is the just option to defray the quite correct condemnation from many of your regular commentators.Why can't you just accept valid criticism for a change instead of playing a game of wriggly worms ?
According to annual cigarette manufacturer reports to US Federal Trade Commission, the market share for menthol cigarettes has fluctuated between 25%-28% from 1975-2005. See table 8 at: http://www.ftc.gov/reports/tobac...te2004-
2005.pdf
If "tobacco companies use menthol to enhance addiction of smokers, especially adolescents and young adults," as claimed by some anti tobacco activists at Harvard School of Public Health, why has the market share for menthol cigarettes remained flat during the past thirty years?
Please note that these same folks from HSPH have been advocating congressional enactment of the Philip Morris/CTFK negoatiated FDA tobacco regulatory legislation.
Also please note that these same folks from HSPH also wrote and heavily publicized so-called research (the data for which they have refused to provide to me to analyze their data and research methods) claiming that tobacco companies have increased/manipulated nicotine levels during the past decade to make cigarettes more addictive (to youth and young adults), as well as a recent piece in JAMA claiming that their campaign to reduce tobacco use has failed during the past decade because the decline in cigarette consumption has been largely offset by increases consumption of smokeless tobacco and cigars (while failing to acknowledge that switching from cigarettes to smokeless tobacco sharply reduces morbidity and mortality risks).
"I suspect the reason for the lack of clarity in the Doctor's writing is a lack of clarity in the Doctor's thinking."
Very well said, Walt.
"I can only wish our host will pay attention to your analysis, go back to the source, and re-evaluate this example of drive-by science from his friends across the Charles."
If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. Of course, we all know that Dr. Siegel's definition of "junk science" is science that does not support his position.
Any piece of scientific trash that does support his position is deemed sound.
"What the federal government should be doing is not trying to regulate the content of the cigarettes, it should be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes."
WHY should the government be trying to decrease the demand for cigarettes, doctor? I believe you have NEVER answered that question. How is any of all that any of the damn government's business in the first place? How is it any of YOUR business?
This goes to the very heart of our quarrel. So please, once and for all, justify your stand that it's somehow the government's business. Or YOUR business.
Justify it. Just who in hell IS the government, anyway?
.
Harry, what is not understood by not only tobacco control, but every other busy body who thinks they know better is that Government is "We the People". It is not Doctors, Lawyers or Politicians. It is every citizen no matter who you are or who you want to be!
Is the Government the legislative arm of Tobacco Control ?
Harry,
excellent questions, the answers (if forthcoming) will be telling.
Loved this one- "Justify it. Just who in hell IS the government, anyway?"
A question that every man, woman and child should ask themselves regularly.
Along with asking themselves how and why "popular laws" are enacted. How did the driving popularity become popular, have we been bombarded with propaganda to manipulate popular belief. Who really benefits, what will they cost (not just financially) follow the money, have I really investigated the topic and formed an independent opinion or am I parroting media and single issue fan