Doc, you mention all the alphabet soups, the government, other orgs and PM all involved or having their input with this legislation. What or is it who has been left out again are the most important aspect of things. The 70 million tobacco users in this country. No one ever seems to ask our opinion. How can any type of legislation possibly be succesful without the input of the 70 million people that actually use the product?
Why don't you come out and state it, Dr. Siegel? The real reason they're opposing this. You know what it is. Let me help: any measures that would substantially cut down on the number of smokers would cut down on the money that's been flowing into these organizations coffers. Money that comes from smokers in the form of taxes, settlement money, etc.
Oh, if all smokers all quit, they'd have one less campaign to use to justify their existence and fundraising.
Is there a reason you're so ostentatiously avoiding the Elephant in the Room?
Dr. Siegel, these group's rationale are all screwy. There's no doubt about it. But then, so are yours. Please see my comment about your own case of exploiting and punishing black smokers in a previous thread (which also included someone else's addition about taste (flavor) being no one's business anyway.
While fighting over "flavors" "for the children" the adults are made to be forever infantilized. Maybe I WANT a cherry flavored cigarette. I just smoked a cherry flavored cigar and it was the most delicious one I ever smoked.
Have they ever considered to remove tobacco flavor from cigarettes?
"The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have sold out the public's health to protect tobacco industry profits. What a sad chapter in tobacco control and public health history."
Their entire history is sad in that it is corrupt without comparison in 'public health'. They have sold out to line their own wallets and to stroke their egos.
Think of where the 'war on cancer' might be had this money been spent on research toward a cure and not on political agendas.
They make me sick.
.
All of the above is correct. All of this is about nothing more than money. Why can't you understand that? Can you imagine what their life would be like if tobacco was no longer the issue and they had to join the obesity, fast food, what your children watch on tv movement for their weekly paycheck? They make a good living calling themselves non-profit we care so much for your health people, so what makes you think they want to upset the applecart?
"They have sold out to line their own wallets and to stroke their egos." It could not have been said more clearly.
All of these groups and others in this country thrive on controversy. If it's not there they create it (SHS). If smoking goes away they go away or find another crusade.
There is too much money involved in tobacco for them ban it. I am sure all know that the government collects half of the price per pack. The companies get around 5% after expenses. To date the states have collected 218 billion in MSA payments. How much has gone to curb smoking? Ted and the rest want to keep the dollars flowing.
But beware, PM just bought another 30% stake in their Mexican operation. This brings them to an 80% stake. I beleive most of the industry will eventually transfer operations offshore. What effect will this have as it relates to taxes, FDA control, MSA, smuggling..... We may see a new generation of Al Capones.
As for cancer, I know this sounds cynical, but I don't think they want to find a cure. Think of the billions that are made by big pharma and the health industry. What happens to them if cancer is cured?
OT but with a point.
This is the same poison (Botox) used for facial wrinkles by the 'beautiful people'. Not necessary----but A-Ok with them! Heaven forbid they be exposed to SHS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,289859,00.html
Can anyone say Dose/Poison?
rrgabe23----"As for cancer, I know this sounds cynical, but I don't think they want to find a cure. Think of the billions that are made by big pharma and the health industry. What happens to them if cancer is cured?"
Agreed!!!! (I don't care if it's cynical----IT IS THE TRUTH!!!
.
Calling it what it is: A Religion.
From Cato: (sorry no direct link to this)
http://www.cato.org/
view_ddispat...ewdate=20070717
"Bill Would Give FDA Control Over Tobacco
"The Senate health committee is scheduled on Wednesday to consider a bill that would for the first time allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes," reports The New York Times. "The bill now has 52 sponsors in the Senate, and a top House Republican predicted it would pass there by 2 to 1. Health advocates are predicting that, after more than a decade of debate, this may be the year tobacco regulation is made law."
In "Bootleggers, Baptists, and Tobacco Regulation," in the summer 2007 edition of Regulation Magazine, Joseph A. Rotondi, writes: "FDA chairman Andrew von Eschenbach opposes this legislation. Altria, the largest U.S. cigarette producer with 51 percent of the market, supports it. This seeming paradox grows from and is explained by tobacco roads paved with 'bootlegger-Baptist' coalitions.
"The current bill in Congress has support from Baptists such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the American Heart Association, former FDA chairman Kessler, and 77 percent of American voters. Even the Southern Baptist Convention's president wants the legislation. In contrast, current FDA chairman von Eschenbach seems to have learned from the mistakes of FCC, FTC, and FDA chairmen past. FDA regulation will likely be dominated by the most politically connected tobacco companies, which will be able to increase or at least maintain market share as regulation does what it usually does when bootleggers and Baptists connect: cut competition."
.
As for cancer, I know this sounds cynical, but I don't think they want to find a cure. Think of the billions that are made by big pharma and the health industry. What happens to them if cancer is cured?
rrgabe23
I've been saying that very thing for years now. I also apply that thinking to everything else out there that they claim to want to cure.
The lot of them are nothing but a bunch of con artists and theives, and very good ones until they decided to go after smokers and their faces started cracking under the weight of the lies they speak.
Dr Siegel,as i see it,you are having a lovers spat ,with your partner-tobacco control.You haven't really parted company because you share too many deep rooted ideals,you are merely pissed with them and want to point it out to them rather gratuitously. You state flavoured cigarettes target children specifically,yet you ignore my questions as to supporting evidence,do you have any MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE ? Only recently have you yourself become more open and frank about your true views of SHS,so taking the P out of "your colleagues" for suddenly showing their true colours,as you put it,is entirely apt for you yourself.The anti crew are obviously concerned about ensuring that their funding will remain ringfenced.In your case it seems that ideology is the stronger factor.How you can have such a deep resentment and loathing for both tobacco and its manufacturer's yet feel compelled to speak out regarding scientific fraud,is most strange.It is even more strange when one considers your view of SHS and your sanctimonious need to protect bar workers with highly questionable self serving science.220 BODIES STILL LIE UNACCOUNTED FOR.Your whole stance concerning what you are seeking just doesn't ring true.You seek much of the same results,but explicitly undermine the failings of the rantis credibility,however you still want to retain the vision of the end result. I could understand if you published your views and argued against the position be taken by the rantis,but not in the constant manner that you choose.You seem to be neither arguing for or against things when the bigger picture is looked at.
nemo31 asks---'No one ever seems to ask our opinion. How can any type of legislation possibly be succesful without the input of the 70 million people that actually use the product?'
Just like they ban us from everywhere (including private property), all with their hands stretched out collecting our tax money----- BECAUSE THEY CAN!!!
.
Doc, i support 100% your views against those thieves, but the only places where graphic labels (such as the disgusting ones used in Canada) actually reduce the smoker's rate are in your mind and in the anti-smoker' ones. After a short initial shock, people stop caring about them. They cover the packet or simply get used to them.
nemo: Doc, you mention all the alphabet soups, the government, other orgs and PM all involved or having their input with this legislation. What or is it who has been left out again are the most important aspect of things. The 70 million tobacco users in this country. No one ever seems to ask our opinion. How can any type of legislation possibly be succesful without the input of the 70 million people that actually use the product?
That's what I've been saying for a long time about most of these issues. Blowhards declare the reasons that people start smoking (movies???), people keep smoking (flavor? nicotine?), and all kinds of other nonsense without ever asking people who smoke. The people who have the most interest in regulating tobacco are the *consumers* of tobacco--yet those consumers are never consulted in these matters? Even if I wanted a nanny, I'd want one smarter than these buffoons.
Sunz: Think of where the 'war on cancer' might be had this money been spent on research toward a cure and not on political agendas. They make me sick.
This is something else that I've addressed--even back when I wrote letters to the IL politicians. You know, Michael J Mc Fadden said something that I found very interesting--and I keep seeing it in antismoking propaganda. All of these supposed health policies *assume* that treatment will NOT IMPROVE in forty or fifty years, when the health effects supposedly kick-in. Thus, if we accept the antismoking rhetoric, then we need to stop funding the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Asoociation because, by their own admission, they won't do any good in the coming decades.
Makes me sick, too. I see that you also noted gabe's comment:
As for cancer, I know this sounds cynical, but I don't think they want to find a cure. Think of the billions that are made by big pharma and the health industry. What happens to them if cancer is cured?
Gabe, I think that's been pretty well-known for quite a while.
tR1cKy: Doc, i support 100% your views against those thieves, but the only places where graphic labels (such as the disgusting ones used in Canada) actually reduce the smoker's rate are in your mind and in the anti-smoker' ones. After a short initial shock, people stop caring about them. They cover the packet or simply get used to them.
Be careful. Those images can do a great deal do a great deal of harm--it's known as a witch doctor effect, a hex effect or a psychological curse. In other words, those images can do more harm to your health than tobacco ever could. Surround yourself with healthy images to combat the negative effect.
Excellent post Mike.
The goal of CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA on the FDA tobacco legislation has not been to effectively regulate tobacco products, but rather has been to simply satisfy Matt Myers' enormous ego and to enact Myers' backroom deal with Philip Morris in 2004.
The link below is to an AP article about the proposed FDA regulation of cigarettes. Dr. Seigel is quoted in this piece, btw. I know the dateline is Jul 16, but I just ran across it today and haven't seen it posted here yet. Anyway, I just love the title:
"U.S. Congress looks to legislate a safer - but still not safe - cigarette"
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/
capre...er_cigarettes_1
Bill----Mike Myers' enormous ego???
POT, KETTLE, B L A C K!!!!
Like a racoon that slinks into the darkness----only to emerge when he turns rabid.
Fine group you all are.
.
Sunz~ The 'Bootlegger....article:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulat...n2-
merccomm.pdf
Thanks so much Gilster.
Doctor----'What a sad chapter in tobacco control and public health history.'
You may see it as only a chapter Doctor, the rest of us have read the entire sorry book. We are living the consequences of these do-gooders.
The Senate Finance Committee voted on the tobacco tax issue. It was overwhelmingly approved...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...ren_s_insurance
Hopefully, the president will stand by his convictions and veto this bill if it makes it to his desk.
Julie,
Thanks for the update.
said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered."
Vapid cowards everyone of them---and all for 'the children'
.
OOPS above was me.
said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered."
Of course they are. And not one of them is willing to have their taxes increased to do just that either. Their mantra is "support the kids, but not with my money"
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E-S
Thanks Julie for the article. Trent Lott is correct when he calls it a Robin Hood effect. Rob from the rich and give to the poor. What I don't understand though is I thought smoking was a poor man's choice, so I guess we smokers are really the higher class of folks, right? Not sure about the bottom line of any of yours checkbook, but I do know that morally, you are all much richer than the poor pathetic tobacco control folks. I welcome each of you as my friend and I feel richer already for having said that!
President Bush has said that he will veto it and I hope he does. Will they try to override the veto? They threaten to do so, but I think his plan is much fairer to all American's and anyone with half a brain should support it, but then again, here I am talking about half a brain and you know that tobacco control doesn't have half a brain so they will be lobbying against it!
"There are more kids without health insurance than there are kids in the first and second grades," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman. "Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered."
.............
Yes, no doubt Americans overwhelmingly support getting kids covered as long as only tobacco users (mainly low SES who have no say in the matter) pay for it!
What kind of warped thinking is this? How does this pass the moral and ethical test? This is the new American way?
That being the case, I suggest a heavy tax on instant baby formula to encourage breast feeding. The money collected would be used to subsidize the purchase of cigarettes for low income families.
That makes sense doesn't it?
Me again. I just visited Bill's website and there is an article that states that a survey was done in NY State and 47% of New Yorker have quit smoking. Sorry but I was just in New York a couple of months ago and I can and will testify with my hand on a Bible that study is false. Smokers were everywhere. By the way Bill, New York is made up of more than just the people in the city so maybe these surveys should be done upstate instead of New York City where they pick and choose who they call. Like PA, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg isn't all there is to the State when you are trying to pass a smoking ban! Lots of folks out there in the big country Bill, so that little survey isn't worth the paper it is written on!
Diane,
As smokers are portrayed as worse than Al Queda, who in a g9% damned stupid poll question on the phone would admit to smoking. Hell they may be at you door to arrest you, or throw you off of the school board for such an admission.
The media spreads this garbage people listen to it OF COURSE anyone they would deny it.
AAAAARRRGGGG!!!!
.
Julie: The Senate Finance Committee voted on the tobacco tax issue. It was overwhelmingly approved...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20070...ren_s_insurance
Hopefully, the president will stand by his convictions and veto this bill if it makes it to his desk.
Where do I get black market cigarettes?
I always enjoy his take on this subject:
El Rushbo:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
home...5114.guest.html
enjoy.
.
Sunz, on the Rush link:
we've already got how many damn children's health programs do we have? I know that taxes on cigarettes already are going to a lot of this. That's why I've said for years, the cigarette smokers of this country deserve our thanks. They deserve congressional medals of honor because they continue to buy these things and their taxes are funding children's health programs already. What I think ought to happen here, I think the products that these itty-bitty children use ought to be taxed....Diaper tax, absolutely. And if you get throw-away diapers to save the environment, tax those at ten bucks a diaper...If the itty-bitty children are going to be the beneficiaries of this, why in the hell is somebody that has nothing to do with the itty-bitty children paying for it? How come big government's going to come around -- and I know they think this is going to succeed because they have created such hatred for cigarette smokers in this country. They have successfully over the years created such hatred, secondhand smoke kills. It doesn't. Firsthand smoke doesn't universally kill. I see these numbers, 400,000 cigarette related deaths a year. They don' t know that. Prove it. But the number's out there, just like three million homeless were out there.
LOL. I've never been a big Rush fan but...he's making sense here. I thought he was on drugs? Or maybe that was back in the early nineties when he was yapping about FemiNAZIs. Well, sobriety seems to have gevin him a little sense. He's pretty funny, LOL.
Diaper tax. *snort* But it makes sense!
Scapegoating.
If they fail to meet their targets for teen smoking reduction, because the personal and social dynamics involved in "becoming a smoker" are complex, different for each individual and may even change over time - thereby frustrating all prevention measures aimed at "at-risk-to-smoke youth" enough of the time that new teen smokers continue to develop - Health Promotion must (and will) find new scapegoats to blame. It's the cigarette powerwall displays in stores - so retailers are to blame! It's scenes with smoking in movies - so the movie industry is to blame! It's the apparently irresistible allure caused by seeing someone (anyone) smoke - so smoking must be banned everywhere including the outdoors and smokers must be rendered invisible...the remaining adult smokers are to blame! - http://www.surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/
Diaper tax-start by adding up all the shit these antis keep coming out with.Glantz should end up repaying most of grant money back,along with all the other specialists in the biggest con ever perpetrated.Who knows Dr Siegel may have to pay out for his initial studies too.But don't stop there,what about global warming from the added wind ? Smokers not only pay their own healthcare costs,but non smokers as well.They fund all the crackpot garbage payouts from the MSA tax following the scam pulled by the Attorneys General.What financial element DON'T THEY CONTRIBUTE TO ?How about the emergency relief fund for the numerous countries reliant on tobacco or cigar exportation .It is supposed to read IN GOD WE TRUST isn't it,some people appear to have big ideas,that are unfortunately too big for their little brains to cope with.Perhaps the Finance Committee should have taxed themselves with an easier problem like how to organise a piss up in a brewery,but alas,i think that would be beyond their abilities as well.
I hope along with others that President Bush sees this for what it is and vetos the bill. What a sham! In any case these guys will not stop. As we all know, they are well financed and connected.
Again, this is a dangerous precedent. Do we really want to go down this slippery slope? What's happened to our country? It is coming down to neighbor against neighbor. It really concerns me. We need to discard our apathy and begin to speak out.
Lastly, it appears we really stirred up Orec. Did you guys see the link on forces?
Orac is a twit of the first class. Same as Stanton Glantz and James Repace: doesn't know crap and appeals on emotionalism. Sure signs of an idiot.
I'm not sure why the President is thinking of vetoing the bill. I hope it's for the RIGHT reason, that it's stupid to tax something you're trying to eliminate to fund something so important. Or perhaps because it's wrong to fund something that affects many with the money of a few. Unfortunately, as far as I'm concerned the ends do not justify the means, and if he's just vetoing it because of party politics or some other obscure reason, then it's a hollow victory at best.
Si,
I think we could get Glanz and the rest of them double time as they'd all require a diaper at each end!
Is Orac the "genius" over at that wacked-out blog? I admired those who tried to have a go there. Frankly, the last thing that I put on that blog was a message saying that I felt sorry for [one of] them. They appear to me as lost causes being eaten away by their own venom. Y'all are the best thing since sliced bread; please don't go that route and become...well, disturbed. Almost everything there smelled of "plants". The "Aussie" was clearly BS-ing and pulling psycho-garbage; the author of the blog tried to pass himself off as an impartial evaluator of the "evidence". These people are not as they present themselves. Diaper time--or, for our friends from across the great waters, the Orac team needs adult nappies...highly taxed adult nappies.
Bush will veto the bill because he doesn't want to upset the cigar lobby. I don't know whether or not the supposrt for the bill is strong enough to override the veto.
Sunz,even better idea,i should have known Glantz would need two at a time.
Orac, I see, also believes in Man Made Global Warming.
I don't know how many people read those 'science' boards over there, but the posts definitely hit another audience, some of whom may research the studies again and say 'Hmm'
Probably won't get the support it needs...how many of our politicians smoke cigars?
I am a liberal and wholeheartedly agree with Rush Limbaugh. Let me go wash my mouth out now. But I'm not surprised that a tax was proposed. Just...$10 per cigar? I mean, when I saw cigarette taxes go up I thought, I'd certainly be furious if the same thing happened with cigar taxes, and all the same when this is proposed it's ridiculous.
This may be more rejection and retreat by the anti-tobacco lobby, who know they can get something out of the tobacco-guilt ATM they've established.
I think about 5-10% of congressmen were cigar smokers. I remember a link. However they probably have the connections to buy up a lot before taxes skyrocket. Sort of like Kennedy stocking up on Cubans before signing the trade embargo.
I can't count the number of jokers I've talked to who say cigars give you a nicotine fix you know. Also can't count the # of times I've heard the argument cigarettes have nothing good & can't taste good(because they, like, smell) though now apparently we need to ban flavorings anyway!
some people like liver and that stuff stinks like a sewer...if we're basing it on odor, liver is sooooo out of here
some people like liver and that stuff stinks like a sewer...if we're basing it on odor, liver is sooooo out of here
Oh Geeeeeze, Jalestra........leave something that I actually like. Pretty please?
Yes, I really do like liver, especially with bacon and onions. But I can eat it plain too.
My grandpa loves liver and onions lol I wouldn't deny you, I just said if it's a bout smell, that's gotta go too lol
I just said if it's a bout smell, that's gotta go too lol
OH OK, I'll give you the onions. Liver doesn't smell.........hehehehehe
Cowbell---
Please email me so I may collect my cigar prize---hurry before they add the 10.00 tax!!! sunny@plateautel.net
Commenting by HaloScan
