Iocaine powder huh?
Well -
The battle of wits has begun...
He nicely explains the many reasons why...
*argh*
In light of this article and its revelations, it looks like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is going to have a little explaining to do.
Once upon a time, I had a discrete math prof who kept a wooden figure of "IT" on his desk. Every time a student used "it" as an indefinite pronoun, he would say, "No, IT is on my desk." Moreover, using "it" tends to soften the statement--the same happens in Givel's first point, although those weren't your words. I am suggesting stronger language. "In light of this article and its revelations, the people in charge of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids have some explaining to do." Don't you believe that having people finally recognize the importance of what your position on this matter is important enough to make the best use of language?
2. "Another significant problem with the bill is that it requires a scientifically unproved claim that removing ingredients will makes cigarettes ‘‘safer.’’ There is currently little conclusive evidence on what ingredients are linked to particular morbidities and mortalities and at what level. In fact proponents have not shown any scientifically reviewed evidence at all as to how this bill would save any lives. Also, the requirement prohibiting nicotine reduction to zero could actually force smokers to smoke more and inhale more deeply.
Any chance you could stop having these nicotine fits? Probably not. I will refer to these outbursts as "Doc's nic fits". Any chance you might want to start making cigarettes safer? Try "Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers" at http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cg.../11/suppl_1/
i51 In case any doubt remains, I do NOT like PM. I would be just as happy to see PM run into the ground--or, rather, run into "the arsenic drenched soil of tobacco plantations," as Rachel Carson put it.
While we're at it...let's take a look at "There is currently little conclusive evidence on what ingredients are linked to particular morbidities and mortalities and at what level." All those 4000 chemicals and you still can't make a definite link. That should cause people to wonder about whether or not there is any real link. Well, you can always try to blame asbestos and plutonium. 
GDF--Wits? In the rAnti camp? They are unarmed. The best they can do is a battle of rhetoric. (Geez, I'm cranky today. Must've been blog withdrawal. I wasn't this cranky when I was withdrawing from nicotine. *snort* And, no, I'm not snorting any powder.)
"Dr. Givel makes many of the same arguments I have been making on this blog over the past two years. He nicely explains the many reasons why this legislation actually protects the profits of the nation's largest cigarette manufacturer at the expense of the public's health."
I'll bet you didn't notice any top ten lists in Dr. Givel's article or contests to come up with the best slogan to make fun of his anti-smoking colleagues.
Dr. Siegel, I hope you'll consider taking a cure from Dr. Givel. There are serious points to be made here and literally thousands of lives at stake. Maybe now is the time to stop with the infighting and become more of a source of SUNLIGHT and less of an instigator.
Quabba: I'll bet you didn't notice any top ten lists in Dr. Givel's article or contests to come up with the best slogan to make fun of his anti-smoking colleagues.
Siegel paved the way, Quabba. Those hypocrisy awards said the same things that Givel and others are now saying. Moreover, the Doc's occassional sense of humor and even bouts of sarcasm have gone a long way toward effectively getting his ideas into the mainstream. He's been wrong about some things--bad wrong--but you are way off-base on this one. Now, he's spreading the word about Givel's article. Geez, you're just never satisfied, are you, Quabba?
Ya know, Doc, that last line about becoming a source of SUNLIGHT could almost be an invitation. Doesn't "source of sunlight" sound eerily cult-ish? And the all-caps looks like an acronym for something--I used to see that in Mary Kay pep talk materials. Hmmm...no more infighting in the antismoking camps? Seems like even Bill was warming up to you not so long ago. You can do what you believe is good, but I re-iterate my warning that these people have fangs.
DTB---'Seems like even Bill was warming up to you not so long ago. You can do what you believe is good, but I re-iterate my warning that these people have fangs.'
I've noticed the Doctor has his own set of sharpened fangs.
.
Dr. Siegel, I hope you'll consider taking a cure from Dr. Givel. There are serious points to be made here and literally thousands of lives at stake. Maybe now is the time to stop with the infighting and become more of a source of SUNLIGHT and less of an instigator.
Making serious points in several different ways--first serious, next joking--helps people remember it better.
But I think you know this, and the problem I have here is that anti-tobacco advertisers use "humor" i.e. "Smokers stink" or "Don't pass gas" and so if you want to criticize use of humor, then you have to do it on both counts--none of this "only good guys have a right to use humor."
Oh wait. That's not infighting in a movement. That's insulting someone else. That's a-ok!
Also, ditto DTB's comments above about Dr Siegel's lists possibly helping other people bring these issues out. It's a chicken and egg thing. Some of us smokers here have made a mention that the anti smoking camp rushes a bit too much to claim causation but here you may be rushing a bit too much to claim no possible causation.
Dr. Siegel, I hope you'll consider taking a cure from Dr. Givel. There are serious points to be made here and literally thousands of lives at stake. Maybe now is the time to stop with the infighting and become more of a source of SUNLIGHT and less of an instigator.
Making serious points in several different ways--first serious, next joking--helps people remember it better.
But I think you know this, and the problem I have here is that anti-tobacco advertisers use "humor" i.e. "Smokers stink" or "Don't pass gas" and so if you want to criticize use of humor, then you have to do it on both counts--none of this "only good guys have a right to use humor."
Oh wait. That's not infighting in a movement. That's insulting someone else. That's a-ok!
Also, ditto DTB's comments above about Dr Siegel's lists possibly helping other people bring these issues out. It's a chicken and egg thing. Some of us smokers here have made a mention that the anti smoking camp rushes a bit too much to claim causation but here you may be rushing a bit too much to claim no possible causation.
Commenting by HaloScan
