Still don't quite get it yet do you Herr Doktor?
CTFK's actions are the NORM for AntismokeR groups, not an abnormality, this is how your precious movement has acted for over a decade now, time to take your head out of the sand and see the terrible things your precious movement has wrought, and it certainly is not limited to CTFK.
Sorry about the bold, apparently I missed something in closing the "bold" type out.
It's a shame, because it really taints the honesty and integrity of the entire tobacco control movement.
CTFK is the EPITOME of the entire anti-smoker cult in that there is NO and has NEVER been any honesty or integrity.
That you refuse to acknowlege this FACT, and you have been given ample proof over time, never ceases to amaze me.
Here's how far it has gone...from Perth Australia
"Perth Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi says the move has widespread support.
"There is nothing more annoying than having to endure cigarette smoke wafting under your nose when you're trying to enjoy a meal," she said.
"I think, given that smokers are in the greater minority group these days, that really people should be able to enjoy the social pleasure of an alfresco area."
City rangers will enforce the ban, but the city is yet to discuss penalties for non-compliance."
Social engineering and fascism at its finest here in Perth. So, according to your zealots, smoking bans are vital so that the MAJORITY can enjoy dining outside where it is possible to get that elusive whiff of tobacco that will drop them to their death on the spot, face down in a plate of spaghetti.
Dr. Siegal in an earlier thread was challenged by Anon to rethink testimony given in the past and asked for Caveats which were not presented in his testimony. Michael asked what he could possibly have offered in securing the validity and honesty of that testimony.
Although I am not that same anon, I would like to offer a simple and straightforward caveat and ask Dr. Siegal if he can find fault in what is offered and agree this explanation should, or at least could, be offered to help increase the understanding of the numbers being presented.
The problem of comprehension lies with the failure of most to understand the vast difference between a proportion and correlation. Confusing the two, works well for advocacy while inversely distances the audience from true understanding of the actual weight which should be given to the numbers found.
Given two variables x and y, y is (directly) proportional to x if there is a non-zero constant k such that proportion or X is found by applying a constant. In example, a pie cut into four equal pieces would have four equal proportions and each would be 25% of the whole.
In mathematical terms
Y=XK
were K is a constant
similarly Y/X = K
or Y/K = X.
Alternately we could say;
Y = K times X
so;
X = [1/K]times Y
and
K = [1/X] times Y
Make note; you can test all proportional relationships consistently, by testing reverse proportions which are always consistent.
Correlation is a measure of deviation [or hopefully of a standard deviation] from the norm by statistical and most profoundly by theoretical means.
The process of epidemiology attempts to create a constant; however your result can never be a constant, because of two highly significant factors;
First, the Data is almost always variable, the complexity of that variability is the very reason the process is employed, in the absence of alternate means of finding an understanding. It is most precise when the data is naturally consistent and least precise proportionate to included data variation and the level of linear regression applied.
Secondly the methods employed in moving multidimensional data to fit into a two dimensional X versus Y chart, are more often than not decided by personal opinion, which adds the human element of error [or Bias] into the mix. The more similar the assumptions guiding the process, the higher the probability you will find similar conclusions.
The resulting number is not a constant but a variable which is not consistently reproducible. What you have created is in fact a snapshot of only the exact data employed, at a particular instant in time, by a custom built process of evaluation which was designed to support the arguments of a theory, and no matter how exacting you are in reproducing a similar data set, it would be highly unlikely you would ever find the same results, utilizing very similar data in the same process design. The test of that assumption as an absolute proof is found in replacing K in the above with the result of your calculation. The lack of consistency illustrates the lack of equal or true proportion.
Most in the audience who hear the 220 number would make that mistake and assume a proportion or constant exists; for every so many bartenders exposed, you would find the same proportion of disease or mortality, when in fact it would be rare you would ever see a replication of what you had actually found. Proportion is not the same as a correlation or an association. The true popularity or validity of TC is currently found almost exclusively in corrupted science, which claims the two perspectives are equal or even similar.
References;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro...y_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
Doc, there are laws against beating dead horses. Wake up and smell the damned cigarette smoke already. YOUR movement has been nothing but deceitful and lying from day one. Acknowledge it, accept it, and move on.
They say acknowledging the addiction (to your movement) is the first step to recovery.
From the American Heritage Dictionary: stub·born, - Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded.
Seriously Doctor, ...Are you EVER going to "get it"?
You're precious "movement" couldn't be any more dishonest, deceitful, arrogant, or just plain ugly in their campaign to get their way.
TC is like a spoiled child that simply won't stop crying and continually mis-behaves, and all you seem to be able to do is feign embarrassment and disbelief that it's not what you personally wanted it to be. Your "parental" approach of
"Stop,...or I'll say Stop again" isn't working.
You continue to preach to the choir, but we already know every word of this sermon by heart, and the only "parent" in this instance that can actually make a difference is the U.S. House and Senate.
Tell ALL OF THEM, ....not us.
Afterall,....you're one of the "experts" that created the TC monster.
This is totally off topic.........too bad.
I suggest you all check this video out. Doc, I strongly recommend YOU check it out and maybe then you'll understand why we say that you have NO RIGHT to insist on total bans. You'll actually learn why I insist that you have NO RIGHT to tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
Michael Badnarik Constitution Class Part 1 - 52 min - May 3, 2006
http://www.archive.org/details/
M...ichael_Badnarik
Michael Badnarik (Former Canidate For President) Teaches a class on the Constitution and what Rights Are. Think you own your Car? Think Its ...all » Michael Badnarik (Former Canidate For President) Teaches a class on the Constitution and what Rights Are. Think you own your Car? Think Its Your money? Why do we have to register your car and get plates? Think you own Your Property?
For the rest of the class Videos Please See http://www.archive.org/details/
M...ichael_Badnarik
"Honesty is Just Not Possible from this Organization"
You think too small. Honesty is Just Not Possible from this Industry.
Instead of pointing out the dishonest ones, why don't you change things up a bit and point out one that is honest?
Instead of pointing out the dishonest ones, why don't you change things up a bit and point out one that is honest?
Because then he'd have nothing to blog about as there is NO honesty in the anti-industry. And that applies to ALL anti-[insert your favorite hatred here] orgs/industries. 
James Austin said "Instead of pointing out the dishonest ones, why don't you change things up a bit and point out one that is honest".
A very good question or request that I also would LOVE to see you post, just one truly honest Anti tobacco organization, kind of like name three people who have EVER been PROVEN to have contracted their disease or killed solely by mere temporary, or even repeated exposure to tobacco smoke, I'll bet a contribution to your favorite charity that you can't.
OT - a few threads ago someone asked how long before smokers labeled as monsters became that monster. Doc said not long.
No excuse for this assault, but in a sense understandable. Can we expect this type of incident to increase? As non-smokers become more fearful will they strike first?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ent/
7544748.stm
Woman pushed on to railway tracks
Two men pushed a woman onto railway tracks after she told them to stop smoking, police have said.
The woman, 58, suffered a broken wrist and bruises to her legs at Farningham Road station in Kent but officers said she was lucky to be alive.
She landed inches away from the live third rail, which carries 750 volts.
You will note the open air platform, and this was the second time the woman had asked the men to stop smoking in a week.
GreatScot
GreatScot, I was the one pushing that question to the doc, his answer of "not long" wasn't very insightful was it?
Of course, as with anything else, the difference will be in the individuals balance in life, I truly believe as a whole, smoker's are far more laid back and less stressed out, in general than non smokers, maybe it has to do with the belief that life is worth a few "risks" to enjoy that life, but I do know we all will reach a breaking point, and it is dangerously near to that in a very LARGE segment of smokers, we are just beginning to see the reprisal mode of the smoking outcast victims of this war against us, wait until those so disaffected actually begin to gather and organize, and a lot of the gathering is already taking place as we all get to know each other better through our discussions on these policies of discrimination, quite a few of us already know which are the most volatile among our regular posters here, those most likely to take physical action in a confrontation, how long until some of those begin to actually organize into preventive groups that will do what is neccessary to silence the lies the Anti money(stolen from us no less) allows to be so broadly delivered to the sheeple who will believe the "experts"?
How about it Doc, can I get a grant to study what the effects of this abuse are doing to approximately 1/3 of the population?
GreatScot, there have already been far more examples of Antismokers initiating violence against smokers than the reverse, we have even had some regulars post here about just such experiences of their own, not to mention things like the baseball bat to the head of a smoker that had the temerity to defy the bouncer.
It is already far more dangerous, physically, for smokers than non or even Antismokers, but that ratio, I'm sure will also balance out, and guess who Auntie will blame? Of course it will be the "addicts" due to their "addiction" and will certainly have NOTHING to do with the abuse we have all endured over the last few decades, right? sure, and the easter bunny is hopping to your door as we speak(type in this case LOL).
Anonymous,
I accept your basic point. As I mentioned on the other thread, if I were to testify again, I would not give a single estimate, but would give a range.
Just so Gabz and Lynda don't have a heart attack (or acute coronary syndrome) --> No, I am not surprised any more by this behavior! In fact, I now expect it. I would frankly be shocked if the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids put out an honest communication about the FDA bill.
I also understand about beating a dead horse, but this horse is running and if it's not stopped, it's going to result in what I think is dreadful legislation being enacted into law which will not only give the tobacco industry unprecedented special protections, but will institutionalize fraud of American consumers and will end all prospects for producing a safer cigarette which could save "countless" lives.
Just so Gabz and Lynda don't have a heart attack (or acute coronary syndrome) -->
Sorry Doc, we smoke, we're immune... 
but this horse is running and if it's not stopped,
Then just shoot the damned thing already. The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
could save "countless" lives
You really do know how to bring out the sadist in me Doc. 
"Save counless lives"? Your proof? Your guarantee? Where are these things?
Seriously Doc, look at that link I posted earlier you might realize then that you have NO RIGHT to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. You also have NO RIGHT to play God/dess.
When Bloomberg and Bill Gates made their big announcement that Gates was matching Bloomberg's monetary funding to stomp out tobacco in third world nations, I believe there was a sentence or two in that article saying that Bloomberg also partially funds tobacco free kids. The man is a pathological liar and a wannabe dictator, so why wouldn't you expect them to say and do the thinks they do? Nothing from him and these people surprises me at all.
I find it strange though that no one ever points a finger at Bill Gates and blames him or microsoft's software and game boxes for making them or their kids fat. What with obesity being what it is, you would think someone would be making him pay up for their children's healthcare coverage. Anyone ready for a class action suit against Gates for making us fat? Maybe we can get our friend Banzaff to represent us.
Doctor
Roffo started off the tar thing by reasoning that if coal tar was carcinogenic, then so must tobacco tar be. Destructively distilled this "tar" and apparently gave mice skin cancer, though it appears that no one observed it or managed to reproduce this.
(correct me if I'm wrong)
Is this it?
"Solanesol is a material that is extracted from tobacco leaves. Solanesol is a brown - off-white color liquid. The importance and vitality of Solanesol is recognized by all pharmacies and pharmaceutical companies, as it is a potentiating agent in several medicines"
http://www.phytoextractskp.com/
s...nufacturer.html
Its also in face creams and supplement pills, as advertised on TV.
The only other oil/tar I can find is an apparently nutritious oil in the seeds, comparable to sunflower oil.
BTW RIP cigarettes from Simon Chapman
"It is questionable whether technology and legislation are needed to solve the problem. As smokers know, cigars, pipe tobacco and hand-rolled cigarettes tend to go out on their own.
That's because regular cigarettes contain burning agents to keep them lit.
"The elimination of burning agents in cigarette paper would be a simple and effective means of dramatically reducing the ignition propensity of cigarettes," wrote Simon Chapman, a professor of public health at the University Sydney, in a 2004 Australian medical journal."
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/
articl...3540489,00.html
I quite agree.
More Simon Chapman
Going too far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
toofar.pdf
Dr Siegel said:
"I also understand about beating a dead horse, but this horse is running and if it's not stopped, it's going to result in what I think is dreadful legislation being enacted into law which will not only give the tobacco industry unprecedented special protections, but will institutionalize fraud of American consumers and will end all prospects for producing a safer cigarette which could save "countless" lives." (my emphasis)
Michael, this is not a trick question, I assure you, but could you please explain what form you believe that the "safe cigarette" is likely to take and/or ought to take?
I know what Gio Gori believes (and I have read much of his writings on this subject). Do you share his view, or take a different one?
Personally I believe that the development of a truly "safe cigarette" could turn out to be the best move in the whole area of tobacco and its use for several generations. It is too fundamental an issue to leave it in the hands of people who "don't like the smoke", or worse, the greedy and rapacious self-interested, anti-choice, misanthropic zealots and control freaks. I am not clear whether the FDA, the Democratic Party, or even the Republican Party fall into either category. Over here in the UK, I'm afraid, our own politicians all seem to be too stupid to even ask such a question of them.
Your own views on this will be interesting reading.
Thank you.
.
I find it strange though that no one ever points a finger at Bill Gates and blames him or microsoft's software and game boxes for making them or their kids fat.
That's because tobacco is the ONLY industry that is held to these higher standards. People LIKE their computers and microsoft software and video games, they wouldn't dream of attacking it.
It's ONLY tobacco that suffers this double standard.
Brian
Seconded.
I would wish to keep this plant for the future,not rendered extinct,genetically modified or messed about in anyway.
Diane -- it's more than that.
As this Gates/Bloomberg program has been described in all the PR releases...
"The campaign will lobby governments to raise tobacco taxes, stop smoking in public places, ban advertising to children, promote anti-smoking initiatives, and give tools and resourcers to help people quit."
What I believe Gates is doing (I'm not as familiar with Bloomberg) is spending money to lobby governments to tax someone ELSE -- not him (directly, or indirectly as taxes on computers and related services). The rest is cover. The idea that the richest guy around funds lobbying efforts to convince politicians to increase the taxes paid by (mostly) working class folks...
I'm sure there's a word for that. Slick -- yeah, that's the word.
For example, Maryland raised its tobacco tax last year -- also enacted a tax on computer services -- HOWEVER...
"Lawmakers ended up taking about $50 million of the new transportation money to help make up for a ***repeal*** of an extension of the sales tax to computer services"
http://www.examiner.com/a-
151335...nt_bridges.html
Ya see?
GDF, Gotcha. One other question though. Is anyone honest anymore? Other than those lowly smokers that is. I can remember in my youth people would say that our parents generation was really screwing up the world. Now that they are in power, I am really embarrassed and think my parent's generation was doing a fine job. There may have been some corruption and fraud but never at this level.
Diane -- I tend to agree. Obviously, there has always been dishonesty and corruption. But it does seem to be growing ever more vicious. Especially in the financial sector --where the fall-out of greed is that folks are likely to lose their homes, their retirement savings etc. Seems that greedy people who found themselves in positions of trust used to be content to just "skim off the top". Now they seem to want the whole darned bucket. But.. perhaps I'm just geezing.
"You really do know how to bring out the sadist in me Doc. "Save countless lives"? Your proof? Your guarantee? Where are these things?"
Lynda, does it matter if the "countless lives" saved are real or bogus? If they believe that the development of a "safer" cigarette will save "countless lives", and if the "safer" cigarette is an acceptable consumer product (this is, I accept, a mighty big IF - but let's suppose it possible), then isn't there a possibility of a real 'win-win' situation here?
We - the consumer - win, because we can take a more relaxed approach to our product of choice, without being constantly hectored into believeing that our instant demise lies just round the corner.
They - Public Health (the real ones) win, because they can bask in the reflected glory of the wonderful job done.
The only losers in all of this would then be the rest of the anti-smoking lobby - the greedy, the witless, the scared shitless and the control freaks. Because there would be nothing left for them to campaign about.
This is all a game. If we go along with the rules of the game, no matter how much we disagree with them, who knows?
We may just win in the end!
(I suppose I am an idealistic old fart!)
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medi...m-Vets-25120-2/
The American Cancer society appear to suggest that because this study relies on self reporting that this detracts from its findings.Why do they treat self reporting in studies on SHS exposure as positive proof ? As kids you break the rules by smoking,as adults the rules are broken to condemn you for smoking.Strange old world.
"Anonymous,
I accept your basic point. As I mentioned on the other thread, if I were to testify again, I would not give a single estimate, but would give a range."
I fear your first reaction may be more damaging than the original number in confusing the audience, because as you may be compelled to express in the "range" the lower boundaries, you will also [and I would agree quite legitimately] inevitably include the highest boundary of your estimates.
Unfortunately without proper framing, the predictable result will be to take your assessments out of context, attached to a "could be as high as" framing, allowing more power to deceptive fear promotions, giving rise to more escalations of ridiculous claims, by groups you have already identified as deceptively misrepresenting the facts at hand.
With all due respect;
I think your presentation is never complete without an explanation with real world examples, describing the significance of the numbers and how they are important, balanced in cautioning against confusing the numbers with something they are not.
Life imitating art?
http://www.stansdad.com/season7/...son7/episode13/
Thanks Rose on the link to Simon Chapman
Going too far? Exploring the Limits of Smoking Regulations
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/ toofar.pdf
"We don’t read much about the dangers of inhaling campfire smoke, smoke from incense or candles or cooking, but we read a lot about the dangers of secondhand cigarette smoke"
lol - he sounds just like "our" good doctor. Can anyone tell me if Mr. Chapman has also been booted out of TC community?
Ann;
Simon Chapman is or was the Editor of TC at the British Medical Journal.
He once told me to stop writing him emails, or he would take appropriate steps. [Draw from that what you will] All I had asked him was; if he felt his opinions regarding the so called "dangers" of second hand smoke were balanced?
Anonymous, did you read the article Rose posted the link to? Chapman is trying to put the brakes on TC just like Dr. Siegel is.
TC is going too far; outside bans, smoker's breath is toxic, and so on.
Chapman fears that TC will lose the ground they have already captured and their credibility if they continue in this manner.
Does this not sound like "our" good doctor?
Rose--a couple of questions.
Not asking you to do new research, just if you already know the answers
Looking at a bottle of Vitamin B complex, I note it says "Niacin (as niacinamide)" How-- other than semantically-- is niacinamide different from nicotinic acid?
Second: This supplement contains 50 mgs of the stuff, which is said to be 250% of the recommended daily dose so I'd guess the RDA is 20 mgs. Q: if a cigarette contains 1 mg of nicotine, how much (what %) of that nicotine is transformed into niacin (as nicotinic acid) in a usable form? On a one-to-one basis, a pack of 1 mg nicotine cigarettes would meet the RDA, but I'd have to imagine it's not one to one.
:
"Does this not sound like "our" good doctor?"
Chapman has been cautioning his cohorts for many years not to go too far afield, although in the article he endorses the 30 minute fear factor "restricting coronary blood flow" [did you catch it?]as well as empowering the morality issue of having to endure the smell of smoke while eating outdoors. While admitting no health circumstance is involved. Smokers should be segregated to protect him from a smell not unlike the other smoke smells he lists which he finds less offensive.
The man is no fool he hears the increased use of terms such as paternalist and Nazi in reference to health scare.
He can hear the drums on the horizon and senses the end is near and people are becoming less forgiving, while every two bit hustler on a late night infomercial has adapted TC soundbites and euphemisms to sell their get rich quick schemes.
The comedians and authors are picking up the rights issues being ignored by those who should know better. They have a lot more at risk than what was gained in controlling tobacco, their very credibility is coming under ridicule by anyone with more than a grade five education, who know when they are being lied to.
You can expect Chapman and many like him to be distancing themselves from groups like ASH in the near future. ASH's latest promotions were almost listed in this article and denounced, more out of fear of association, than any defense of ethics or principles, which Chapman turned his back on the day he became involved in promoting disease management.
Managing those he believes below him, the millions he never understood, or took the time to consider.
It's now proposed in the UK to fine smokers £75 ($150) for drooping ash, not butts, ash. can someone tell me the litter problem caused by cigarette ash? Reasonable Doc?
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/...55578-21467892/
I wonder how much the bereaved will be fined for scattering their loved ones ashes?
GreatScot
Can't turn out the light without posting this link-- the definitive statement on the corruption of science and the death of liberty. Having it all said so perfectly will gladden the hearts of most posters here even as its content is depressing as hell--
but I especially commend it to Dr Siegel as food for a lot of serious thought:
http://nzclimatescience.net/inde...id=321&
Itemid=1
I believe John Brignell, the presumed author, is the guy who does the Numbers Watch blog
:
Walt
Just from reading about this, it appears that the original experiment was just to see what happened, and possibly of no further relevance until Dr Goldberger did his pellagra experiments.
Pellagra was originally thought to be caused by a germ and he got some serious flak for saying it was caused by a nutritional deficiency.
Turns out that the corn they had been eating was full of niacin but not in a form that humans can absorb, which is why further south they traditionally cooked it with lime.
However, in the 30's its significance was recognised, but it was still thought to be one entity.
It was also found in yeast and a synthetic form made from coal tar.But who by I don't know.
This was all very exciting, public health in America, wanted to put it in the bread.
I have found one instance where the German pharmaceutical companies used it in a tonic, whilst busily making smoking cessation products!
Naturally the tobacco manufacturers had tests done and sure enough, it was there in the smoke.
It was only later that it was found to be in just about everything in greater or smaller amounts.
Then it was discovered that it wasn't one entity at all, but how they discovered that I have no idea.
Bearing in mind that I haven't researched this, there's my best guess.
The tests on smoke are confusing I can't work out if they mean .8 over 10 or per cigarette. So 0.08 or 0.8 per 1mg of nicotine.
Without a laboratory we won't know.
I am beginning to favour the 0.08 but lets not forget, this is zero effort for the body and as solanesol is supposed to magnify the effects, that 0.08 may punch above its weight.
Perhaps I should add that as far as I can see, tobacco delivers the greatest amount per weight of material, so if you believe nicotine is a drug and don't know to substitute,I would guess that your body will try to replace the loss with sources from food.
Testing nicotinic acid on rabbits 1939
Page 2
Complete with a description of Mullers study on the other side
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness.../ness/
4164.html
Rumour has it that under the Codex niacin will be reduced to 10mg and only flush free available.
Flushing appears to be considered a toxic reaction.
So no vasodillation effects allowed.
Hopefully this is just a rumour.
Incidentally, here is a piece I was rereading last night.
See how the strangled science and disinformation coagulates in the general mind.
The Other Side Of The Coin For Nicotine
"One can in fact find it interesting to know that the substance is a natural part of the food chain. Without even realizing it, a majority actually have a regular intake of the element as it is generally found in trace elements in common foods as well as in vegetables such as bell peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, eggplant, cauliflower, chili peppers and some teas. Being a common substance in such common foods, one should well consider that nicotine merely has a bad reputation."
"This common misconception ought to be rectified as one might actually be surprised that nicotine has a plethora of health rewards, but only in its pure form. It can be reasonable to say that the substance may have been desecrated as it is predominantly connoted with smoking."
"Suffice it to say that the benefits of nicotine may have well been abused and incorporated by manufacturers into cigarettes giving the public a malign and mistaken belief when it comes to the use of the substance."
http://www.healthzine.org/Quit-s...moking/
nicotine
See, those wicked tobacco companies had the cheek to put nicotine in the tobacco.
Another favourite was someone who was genuinely amazed to find that the "thick black tar" had not been purposely put in cigarettes by the tobacco companies as an additive.
Walt thanks for sharing your link.
http://nzclimatescience.net/inde...id=321&
Itemid=1
I believe it to be an important piece of Journalism which should not go unnoticed. I have therefore decided to send it to every news outlet I can think of and in the future as a response to every puff piece created in support of what the article describes. It would be admittedly rare any editors would find the courage to publish it or describe it, and take responsibility for their own actions however you can make them read it, and make them aware we know the rules of the game and we are watching.
Therefore I would encourage others to do the same and tell all of them the truth of the situation, along with the cautionary information; the article is being sent while keeping a record of those who were so informed.
Just as the schema of licensing human activity, after proving competence works, no one can claim later they had no idea. And none can avoid personal responsibility for their own actions after the tide shifts.
Please go to http://www.newsnow.co.uk/
contact...ources_add.html
to submit sites for inclusion in this huge news portal.
More evidence on the effect of smoking bans:
http://www.thepublican.com/
story...storycode=60635
.
Harry
10 best outdoor dancefloors in the UK
"Since the smoking ban, UK punters have embraced outdoor nightlife like never before. So dance beneath the stars at one of these alfresco venues"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel.../aug/07/
uk.bars
Lynda, does it matter if the "countless lives" saved are real or bogus? If they believe that the development of a "safer" cigarette will save "countless lives", and if the "safer" cigarette is an acceptable consumer product (this is, I accept, a mighty big IF - but let's suppose it possible), then isn't there a possibility of a real 'win-win' situation here?
Brian, I suppose it really doesn’t matter. MY point with the Doc is his continual mis-use of words and phrases that he knows the general public takes differently. I have noticed he’s cut down on the “serious health hazard”, “causes” (as IF ‘possibly increases the risk’ equals ‘will definitely cause’), etc. But he continuously uses this “saves lives” line as IF these people will never die, as IF he can guarantee they will never get any of these so-called “smoking related” diseases. You tell me you will save countless lives I take that to mean you can guarantee me that none of those people will die from these specific diseases. I’m willing to bet most of the general public believes the same thing.
The reality is that he can’t make that guarantee anymore than he can guarantee that I will definitely contract lung cancer or emphysema. He also can’t guarantee that anyone will never die. My point is he has NO right to play God or pretend that he has some right to dictate when, where, how and from what anyone else DOES die.
He pushes for honesty and transparency here, and I push him for the same.
I also don’t believe they will come up with a ‘safer cigarette’ as long as their solution is to use even more chemicals in the process – which they will. Like the ‘fire safe’ cigs (that spark like mad when you light them) that are chemically laced to make them go out.
Or maybe I’m too much of a pessimist now to believe a single thing they can come up with, but I don’t see any win-win situation outside of FREE CHOICE.
Walt,
GREAT link, thank you for sharing it!!
Thinking about it, I would trust neither the tobacco companies nor the anti tobacco people to design a safer cigarette.
Commenting by HaloScan
