Dr. Siegel, I'd really like your thoughts on something I posted yesterday. It may be an uncomfortable question to answer, but I do think it's a reasonable one to ask.
" 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?
Josh | 07.19.07 - 12:08 am | # "
Say it isn't so, Josh. As much as none of us want to believe that any organization professing to improve public health would ever put the organization's survival above the health interest it purports to champion, with TFK opposing giving FDA authority to save millions of youth from a lifetime of battling to break nicotine's grip upon their brain reward pathways, one has to wonder. This is sick.
TFK, if you're reading this please, please carefully read this 1972 paper by R.J. Reynolds - http://whyquit.com/whyquit/
Nicot...n_Industry.html
Josh,
I do believe that money has become an important motivating factor in tobacco control these days, but I don't believe that these health groups are concerned that if smoking disappears, they will be out of jobs. I don't doubt the sincerity of their overall goals. What I challenge are the tactics that they are using to promote those goals. Using deception and not informing their constituents about the truth is not appropriate for a public health organization, not matter how noble or unnoble its goals are. With that said, I do think that the desire to put a feather in their caps, to be able to say that they accomplished something (we finally got cigarettes in the hands of the FDA, after all these years) is perhaps clouding their judgment, and this is perhaps why they have deluded themselves into believing that this legislation would save millions of lives, while my analysis reveals that the bill would actually do little more than protect the financial interests of Philip Morris by freezing the current market, and it would harm, rather than improve, the public's health.
Michael Siegel,
Are smokers just milk cows? You talk in front of us as if we were animals that don't understand human talk, as if we were livestock to be exploited and have zero voice in the matter.
You and others in BTC have become accustomed to treating us as "addicted disease carriers" that deserve to be taxed, spit on and...oh, I forgot,kept alive somehow so we can continue to be milked.
After all, the smart virus or leech doesn't kill the host, does it?
John R. Polito--From the 1972 RJR document, "We have deliberately played down the role of nicotine, hence the non-smoker has little or no knowledge of what satisfactions it may offer him, and no desire to try it. Instead, we somehow must convince him with wholly irrational reasons that he should try smoking, in the hope that he will for himself then discover the real "satisfactions" obtainable. "
But isn't that what ACS, the Surgeon General and Big PhRMA have now done? They've very forcefully informed the public--including youth--that nicotine is addictive, delivers a "high," and satisfies those reward pathways in the ol' brain? So, in effect, tobacco control has done RJRs marketing for them. Oh, well done. *snort*
Rod, with all respect to you, I wouldn't get too worked-up over it. In all honesty, sometimes we talk as though the Doc isn't here. (Hi, doc! *waves*) No, I suppose it isn't very nice, but sometimes we do it like we're at a party talking to a circle of friends and not neccessarily noticing others in the room.
I do believe that money has become an important motivating factor in tobacco control these days, but I don't believe that these health groups are concerned that if smoking disappears, they will be out of jobs.--Dr. Siegel
I can't blame you Doc for not wanting to believe it. You've been disillusioned enough for 20 lifetimes.
Why aren't they calling for an outright ban on tobacco? Nobody would be able to light up on any street or bar even in Wyoming any more than you can smoke pot in public.
Smoking rates would drop to well below 10%, which is the stated goal. Sure there would be a black market, but hardly the orgy of smoking outside buildings in broad daylight.
You're colleagues won't make $300,000 per year and receive millions in research grant money from the Gubmint, but it's for the greater good right? They would gladly give up their paychecks as a benevolent service to their fellow man. You know them, they're honest and caring people who are doing this for altruistic humanitarian motives.
Don't get back to me right away. Just think about it.
I wish I could agree, DTB, as the only authority I've seen that's leveling with youth regarding dependency is Health Canada (see http://whyquit.com/whyquit/1addi...1addictlow.jpg)
, where youth rates may possibly be the lowest anywhere. When I became hooked back in 1969/70 we knew that smoking was "habit forming" but like using too many cuss words felt fully capable of controlling how deeply we let ourselves sink.
I have yet to see any pharmaceutical or health organization recommending NRT or nicotine gum reveal GSK's Nov. 2003 study finding that nearly 40% of gum users are chronic long-term users of at least 6 months. To the contrary, they almost pretent that pharmaceutical grade nicotine isn't really mined from the tobacco plant and identical to nicotine in cigarettes. But then I don't think it's any secret that Big Pharm shares its nicotine profits with a number of public health organizations.
In quickly glancing at TFK's site (see http://tobaccofreekids.org/ ) there is amazingly little on its front that would capture any teen's attention and warn them about this amazing chemical or how to get off of it. Like Dr. Siegel says, the page oozes that TFK is searching for a feather in its cap regardless of truth about the feather's benefit or harm. It's clearly not aimed and warning youth about the greatest single risk of messing with tobacco, true chemical dependency.
Kids are smarter than we give them credit for, John.
They've seen that they can't smoke anywhere and have decided to start doing ecstasy instead. It's probably a lot more fun than Marlboro Lights and they can do it freely in any club or bar they want.
Pretty soon, if it hasn't already happened, the "public health authorities" will be longing for the days when smoking in the boys room was the worst thing teenagers did.
PS: I do admire your work. I read your piece on Chantix and the miserable success rates of NRT products.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
" Josh,
I do believe that money has become an important motivating factor in tobacco control these days, but I don't believe that these health groups are concerned that if smoking disappears, they will be out of jobs. I don't doubt the sincerity of their overall goals. "
With all due respect, then, I think you are naive. I think it's very hard for you to admit the moral bankruptcy of a movement you've committed yourself to. That doesn't change the facts. It's high time you did some serious soul-searching, Dr. Siegel. You've started down that path, but you're unwilling to draw the logical conclusions. Maybe because of emotional commitments or something else - I don't know. But the truth is staring you in the face. You're going to have to deal with it, sooner or later.
And to John Polito - on this issue, I think we agree. The duplicity is obvious. But make no mistake: I recognize that you're morally committed to your position, but I am assuredly *not* on your side. I'm a smoker, and I will not apologize. I am not one of your exemplary "brainwashed victims." I make my own choices about smoking, thank you very much. I don't pretend it's healthy - its' not - but that's my decision, not yours. I recognize your commitment to your cause, but I am my own man and I don't need or want you to preach on my behalf. If I choose to smoke or to quit, I'll do it on my own terms, not yours. You go on preaching and helping those who want to be helped (and they do exist) but don't you dare presume to speak for me.
Finally, I agree with Rod's comment above. I think anyone (Nota Bene, Dr. Siegel) who doesn't recognize that smokers are being pulled against the middle - we are at once "scum," "dupes," "hopeless addicts" "abused by Big Tobacco" and "politically expedient cash cows" - is being deliberately naive or is lying to himself about the antismoking movement. Pray tell, how do you justify the shifting characterizations of tobacco users? Even the infamous Madonna/Whore dichotomy of the Catholic faith looks humane and compassionate compared to the ways Tobacco Control uses and abuses smokers for its political and economic ends.
In your fervor you all may have forgotten it, but we are *people.*
Josh, you know as well as I do that liberals love victims. They justify their discrimination and crusade by believing that smokers are simply mindless victims of evil capitalist Big Tobacco companies.
You, me and everyone here are in need of the wiser and cooler heads in our Gubmint to help us. We are simply idiots and "addicts" who are helpless without them.
Thanks Eric. The only thing I know is how little I still know. There's vastly more questions than answers.
I couldn't agree more about youth being smarter than given credit, Eric. Providing accurate risk info is a critical tool in making informed decisions. Compare Health Canada's warning to that of Philip Morris. Canada teaches them that, "Cigarettes are highly addictive - Studies have shown that tobacco can be harder to quit than heroin or cocaine" while Philip Morris teaches them "the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus [is] that cigarette smoking is addictive. It can be very difficult to quit smoking, but this should not deter smokers who want to quit from trying to do so."
How addictive? As addictive as cola or tea or alcohol or will 10% of youth who smoke nicotine twice exhibit loss of autonomy symptoms as Dr. DeFranza's new study asserts? How difficult to quit? As hard as coffee or crystal meth? Nothing about degree of risk and no relative risk info, allowing them to put this info on their own existing risk scale.
Have you seen the addiction warning label in this bill, that TFK wants the U.S. to adopt? Section 4(a)(1) reads, "WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive."
I wonder who chose this warning, Philip Morris or TFK? Whose interests will the bill's addiction warning serve? Has PM USA's TV addiction warning campaign caused its market share of youth smokers to go up or down? PM wants youth to see toying with cigarettes as a little bit risky as it plays into their desires to be rebel and be more adult. Take a look at PM USA's own documents on how best to hook kids ... http://tobaccodocuments.org/land...46833-
6846.html
Eric -
You're right. As a social liberal myself, I've had a painful break from "my party." I believe in "live and let live." I believe in letting people live their own lives without some moralizing authority telling them who they can and can't sleep with, what they can and can't eat, etc.
The liberals have lost me. It's supremely ILLIBERAL to try to control what your neighbors do, to tax them to death, to vilify them to raise your favored taxes, and then to pretend you "care" about them to win votes in the legislature. It sickens me.
I'll have no truck with the Right Wing Republicans who want to control my sex life, or who want to control women's choices about their own bodies. I'll go to the mat against Right Wing fanatics who try to impose their "Judeo-Christian Values" as the law of the land in a country that ought to remember its secular and religion-neutral roots.
I'll also fight the "Caring Liberals" who want to legislate and micro-manage every damned thing people do, so long as it brings them political favor and tax dollars. I'm *supremely* pissed off at people I considered my compatriots now that I've found out that, no, they don't really want to level the playing field and help the least among us. Instead, they've adopted their own faith-based dogma against politically incorrect behaviors. They're willing to get all Hell Fire and Damnation against anything that goes against the current Liberal Religion of Health, so long as it gets them press, votes, and money. If it regressively taxes the poor or demonizes a whole segment of society? Oh, that's just the price we pay to be Good Liberals. No matter if it tramples our "core convictions."
I'm done with the whole lot of them. Sign me up for the liberal leave-me-the-hell-alone wing of the Libertarian Party.
I agree eric. The kids are doing more drugs (weed. alcohol, cough syrup (syrup heads), meth,etc), they're just not admitting it. If you tell them that tobacco is as bad as cocaine to get off of, and they see many people quit smoking with no help. Now why would you compare tobacco to a heavy drug as cocaine, now doesn't that put the whole addiction and ramifications out of perspective? Do I also need to mention the fact that hey have better connections for tobacco then I do? They know where the cheapest people are, and where to get them from their friends on the sidewalk (since theres a property ban on they also go to the forest and have fun).
On Big Brother Brother (right now)one girl actually mentioned they never thought they would get addicted to meth since they see so many people who quit smoking with no help, so the "educators" must have been exaggerating.
From John Politos website.
http://whyquit.com/whyquit/notables.html
How did you arrive at these numbers John?
"A 50% chance of exchanging 5,000 sunrises for 1 chemical. Why?"
Who did you consult to know there were 5000 sunrises left to each of these folks?
Do you have proof of the cause of each of the deaths you have listed?
What is the * for near alot of the listings? (I found no notes at the bottom)
Do you have the permission from the families of all listed to use their relatives on your website in the manner your have?
Interesting to note that no persons listed were non-smokers that have died of these very disease. Each phone you have linked shows them smoking.
Other than that, how is your site funded? I didn't realize there was a 'Cold Turkey Lobby".
.
Dr. Siegel,
How could nicotine ever be completely eliminated from tobacco anyway? It's a naturally occurring substance in the leaf, and the FDA bill doesn't address farming methods, does it?
Quote:
"...Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) accused the administration of "blocking the way" for children, adding that he sees the tobacco tax increase as a public health measure that will save lives.
'When given the choice between standing with big tobacco companies and standing with kids, I stand with America's children,'..."
.....................
What this Senator is actually saying is that the vast majority of Americans, about 75%, could care less about the uninsured children if they have to pay for it.
But, what the hell, since Baucus has a way to cover these kids without that 75% having to pay for it, blame "Big Tobacco" [how smokers got magically transformed into BT, is interesting], discourage smoking, while needing to increase the numbers of smokers [or, ready...increase the tax repeatedly]in the years ahead, and...whew!
That's it! That's the only choice! You're either for the children or for Big Tobacco!
Cigarette taxes to keep teenagers from smoking is stupid. Teenagers don't BUY cigarettes...they steal them or get an adult to buy them. In my case, I stole them until I was 14, then my mom bought them for me.
When are you going to increase the tax of alcohol 200% because there are a large amount of child alcoholics?
DTB, as far as getting black market cigarettes, first thing I'd try is finding a family member of a family friend who went the wrong route. Chances are they know how to get drugs, and they know, or can find out, how to get black market cigarettes. You may have to follow a bit of a line, but eventually you will get to the right person, sooner rather than later.
And check the flea markets LOL
of a family friend should read "or a family friend".
The other place to get cigarettes, is to go onto reserves! Don't forget that the treaties they signed millenniums ago are still in affect, and you state could have no rights to control them on reserves etc. Just like NY right now the first Nations are manufacturing, selling cigarettes and the Attorney General keeps telling the press how he's cracked down; yet legally he is doing exactly the only thing he can. Which is NOTHING!
In Washington the supreme recently ruled that the First Nations have rights to move cigarettes, even off their land. Yeap I need to get the info to get my stats card, for some reason!
Another place to try to get cheap cigarettes is ask a teen that you know, to ask their smoking/ nonsmoking friends to find their "hookups". They have a pretty tight network and its good I bet.
Another idea is to ask the cab drivers in town. The 200 people they meet and talk to every night surely they would know. Take a cab ride sometime and then ask them.
Here in Canada they are so open about it that there are many people who display the tobacco that doesn't sell (the typical tobacco will have dust on what is on the shelves). They even have guys who hang around coffee shops selling the smokes from their coats in every city. There has also been even coffee shops, garden stores, construction companies, etc. selling the tobacco from behind their counter. If I see someone with a different pack I ask them if they know where to get "cheap smokes" and they tell me! Although I live in a small town area, so it might be different. I don't believe that the amount of grey market, black market cigarettes is any different between our 2 countries, I think that unlike Canada the US media hides it better. I'm the rare duck that still smokes the major taxed brands in my area. People ask me why I don't smoke the cheap ones. Its their version of having their say on the passage of bills that parliament has okayed. You see taxing is still a 2 way street, and the people paying it have to agree that its needed, and there's only so much elastic to that magic price that the smokers will put up with without any say or influence on the issue.
John R. Polito: I wish I could agree, DTB, as the only authority I've seen that's leveling with youth regarding dependency is Health Canada (see http://whyquit.com/whyquit/1addi...1addictlow.jpg)
, where youth rates may possibly be the lowest anywhere.
And later..
Canada teaches them that, "Cigarettes are highly addictive - Studies have shown that tobacco can be harder to quit than heroin or cocaine"
I quoted the 1972 RJR stating that, as a result of downplaying the role of nicotine, the tobacco company was not convincing the average nonsmoker to try smoking "in the hope that he will for himself then discover the real 'satisfactions' obtainable." You say that Canada teaches the youth that cigarettes are comparable to drugs (heroin or cocaine)that offer highs and kicks. So, Canada is doing RJRs marketing job for them, which is what I said that tobacco control has done...yet, you wish you could agree?
From the PM document:
It has been noted that smoking is an aid to concentration.
Like when driving?
To occupy oneself before the start of an event over which one has no control, one may smoke a cigarette.
Hmmm...to occupy oneself before the start of an event over which one has no control...like flying?
The entire section on "initiation into adulthood" is...DUH! That's exactly what tobacco control has empahsized by putting an "R" rating on movies that depict smoking. Tobacco-Free Kids had made "no smoking" a kid thing; so, as soon as the kid hits 13 or 14 and wants to assert independence or differentiate himself from "kids", PM has a new customer. So, in addtion to TC doing RJR's marketing for them, they've also done PM's marketing for them. Yet, again, you wish you could agree with me?
John R. Polito, have you ever considered that quitting smoking has made you...disagreeable? Ya know, burning a little tobacco might take the edge off.
lynda: If you tell them that tobacco is as bad as cocaine to get off of, and they see many people quit smoking with no help. Now why would you compare tobacco to a heavy drug as cocaine, now doesn't that put the whole addiction and ramifications out of perspective? Do I also need to mention the fact that hey have better connections for tobacco then I do?
For a long time, I've compared the tobacco control campaign to the old "marijuana is a gateway drug" campaign--which backfired! Kids were told that wacky-tobacky led to hard drugs, but that wasn't what they actually *saw* in marijuana users. A couple decades later the movement tried to backpeddle by taking a shot at that ill-fated campaign: a guy says that he smoked marijuana and nothing happened to him, and the scene shows that he hadn't done much with his life while the narrator says, "Smoke marijuana and nothing will happen to you." The point is that by making extreme/unjustifiable claims, kids throw out the whole message. Remember the little girl the Rods told us about? During an antismoking indoctrination at school, she wanted to know why her 93-year-old grandmother, who smoked, was still living. BS-ing the kids usually backfires.
Honestly, although I find TC rather irritating at times, I'm finding it increasingly laughable as time goes by. 
Jalestra and lynda, thanks for the tips. 
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/
news...t_id=1003614227
Article Title: Reynolds Tobacco Enlists Uncle Sam in Tax Fight
[Great Picture on Link]
Someone, somewhere, posted this today. I'll be a monkeys uncle if I can remember who or where. Sooooooo forgive me it this is a duplicate.
The link was posted with a statement about it being an older piece, but worth the read. I agree:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
rothb...othbard138.html
I particularly love this part:
So low has this group sunk in the public esteem that, in rushing to their defense, I am obliged to point out that I myself am not and never have been a smoker. Can you imagine having to put in such a disclaimer against special pleading in behalf of the rights of blacks, Jews, or gays against oppression?
How, unfortunately, true that is. Could you imagine the uproar if any other group were treated the way we are? I mean they are trying it with fat people, but they at least have champions already defending them.
We really do need to stop being nice and considerate and start to stand up and fight.
I do know one thing, and that is if I have a heart attack my son has instructions to sue TC orgs as it will be THEIR fault that I died. Not my smoking, not someone else's SHS.....but all the STRESS that TC has imposed upon me with their persecution.
You still think you are helping the "public" doc? Or are smokers NOT considered part of the "public"?
Also, Doc, when you do you plan on practicing what you preach by engaging in a real discussion about YOUR studies that several people here have requested you do for months now?
We're not the public Lynda, nor are we worth helping. We're smokers...and remember, our stress is actually from smoking, not really from TC.
Just sent this letter to the L.A. Times (letters@latimes.com):
Re: Senate panel backs youth health plan
I smoke. Perhaps the effects of my addiction to nicotine has so addled my thought processes that I cannot understand the logic that the expansion and continuation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) depends on my smoking addiction.
We are told that the "overwhelming" majority of Americans (about 75%) support an increase in funding for SCHIP. Yet, the "overwhelming" majority don't want to pay a dime for it. So, the "overwhelming" majority wants it, "overwhelmingly" won't pay for it, but "overwhelmingly" does want smokers to pay for it.
Then, to add to my befuddlement, Senator Baucus states "When given the choice between standing with big tobacco companies and standing with kids, I stand with America's children." Say what? Perhaps Senator Baucus was misquoted. "Standing with America's children" by making SCHIP dependent on maintaining and, most probably, increasing the numbers of smokers would indicate just the opposite: "Support America's Children - Keep Smoking."
And surely the Senator understands that so-called "Big Tobacco" doesn't pay one penny of the extra taxes placed on tobacco products. California's tobacco excise tax brings in over a billion dollars a year, not counting the sales taxes. "Big Tobacco" hasn't paid one cent of the over $20 Billion dollars collected by the states since the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement - it just increased the price of cigarettes to cover the cost. California's share of that booty has reached over $6 Billion dollars.
For that river of money to continue, it is imperative that the numbers of smokers must increase to keep pace with inflation and as a valuable resource for further exploitation.
That's "overwhelmingly" clear, isn't it? I think I need a cigarette break now - mustn't let the Senator and America's children down.
Rod Guilmette
Great Post Lynda,
I'm sure you will like this as well.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/co...n/?
id=110002624
It's a gem from many moons ago.
No Second Hand Smoke???
No Second Hand Money, period.
(thanks benpal)
Time to go with the RYO or the Native folks
I am Merely a Smoker
Not a Second-Hand Parent.
.
Raise your own damned children. I will make a adult out of you!!!!
Well, this certainly backs up what many of you have been saying all along:
"Study: Anti-smoking ads have opposite effect on teens."
http://www.ajc.com/metro/
content...0.html#comments
And just to make the point that the study's author still doesn't understand squat on the subject of her study - check out the last line of the article.
From the comment section to Judy's post:
"I was playing guitar for a gospel session once, and while taking a break I recognized one of the singers. She was in a very funny anti-smoking ad that aired for quite a while in LA. She was smoking and a thought popped into my mind, "was any one smoking when you filmed that ad?" I asked her. "Every single person on the set was smoking and laughing, saying the cigarette taxes were employing everyone that day"
Makes you wonder how many smokers were involved in making that dreadful ALA ad on smoking/child abuse.
They laugh all the way to the bank, and the band plays on........
Makes you wonder how many smokers were involved in making that dreadful ALA ad
Actually, I remember being very very shocked finding that both Shannen Doherty and Jason Priestley smoked after seeing a "very special" (ie worse than usual) Beverly Hills 90210 episode against teen smoking.
I was one of those people who watched 90210 occasionally for the irony value. I swear.
But this raises a question, who's the "real" selfish (ex-)smoker (I forget who used the term on this blog before ), the person in the anti-smoking ad vilifying his own habit for personal gain or the person asking questions on this blog nobody else asked in a public forum?
BTW re: the ALA ad----Often wondered exactly what they did to that child in the opening wailing daddy no....to make him sound so convincing.
Makes you wonder just what twisted minds were at work there. Hugggggg gives me the shivers.
.
I am Merely a Smoker
Not a Second-Hand Parent.
Ooh...an excuse for a rant...meanwhile, it's A-OK for kids to see adults being rude all over with cell phones, or listening to walkmen that barely block out the lyrics(sometimes profane). Interrupt that, bad bad. Casually mention how smoking stinks after you pass by a smoker, well, it's just striking back.
I really think we need more studies on secondhand stupidity/rudeness while we're at it. Hell, thirdhand i.e. I am nasty to you, making you want to be nasty to your pals who never met me.
In 10 years, many young adults who make stupid cell phone calls started at a young age, and it is much harder to quit the earlier you start. It's an epidemic in waiting, folks.
I don't suppose there should be laws against cell phone use in places of assembly, but given the relative offense it gives people and the (dis)proportionate criticism directed towards each group, well, it's frustrating, whether or not we consider the legal aspects.
Thanks for the reading of the old article it was interesting to see what some people thought before it became fashionable to "denormalize" smokers in the media. (oopps I guess thats smoking according to their rule book, although every tactic is based on the smoker and not smoking) IE: smoking smells, therefore the smell that smokers have is dangerous -if you can smell smoke its dangerous..........
I'm glad I can help the people who have had their voices taken away, by extreme regulations and no consultation of course they say that the addled mind of addiction is the reason for allowing no say. Suddenly your brain losses its ability due to tobacco, you know.
Yet they still think that smokers don't care how much they have to pay, and even don't know how to grow their own tobacco or even have someone who will grow it for them, its all due to their need for tobacco!
Who would think that many smokers are reaching their line in the sand, and saying enough is enough; I will no longer be you walking plank that you can trod onto when you reach your perceived higher ground.
Yet No extremists, activists etc realize there's a breaking point, even to taxes. Nope, no smuggling, contraband, growing your own, or grey market sales exist anywhere, they are not an issue anywhere. Everyone loves taxes, freely admit they smoke on a survey, and freely and wants to pay the maximum and more when its paying to help the funding on "denormalization campaigns" against smokers, and paving the way for the next ostracized group!
Because of the forced taxation of smokers for practically every disease known to man:
Why would any non-smoker feel the need to donate anything to any organization whose purpose is to "cure" cancer, heart disease, etc.? These organizations keep telling everyone that it's smoking that is the main culprit.
What incentive is there for the non-smoking public to voluntarily donate anything for the health of children since smokers fund it already?
Why should smokers, who are forced to fund everything, voluntarily donate to these causes? If they donate, the money will be used to sponsor measures to tax them more, restrict them more.
Donating, for smokers, becomes an odd form of masochism - donating money to sadists to abuse them.
I don't know about those who post here, but my wife and I, who previously were generous in our giving, have become very selective.
And, (I know it's petty) since according to every BTC site, my lungs/heart etc. are diseased, I've removed the organ donor sticker from my drivers license. Wouldn't want to infect a non-smoker!
Didn't Brittany Spears do an anti ad once, telling kids not to smoke? And what is it she does herself and what has she been up to the past couple of years? Hey if the money is good??!! and it pays the rent so to say.... I remember my parents telling me stories about the depression and what they would be willing to shovel just for a paycheck and food, but people now a days don't have a conscience. Greedy frauds, all of them!
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/a...cles/
7007963344
Senate Committee Postpones FDA regulation Bill to June 25th.
Ooops - I meant July 25th
I have never in my life supported anyone or any party campaigning on a platform of "Hate and Fear."
How can we proudly proclaim and promote the benefits and freedoms enjoyed by Americans as compared to nations ruled by rigid religious dogma when we are becoming more and more like them every year?
Big Tobacco Control and many politicians encourage calling smokers: "Filthy, addicted butt-suckers" "Baby killers" "Child abusers." I have not heard one person in BTC or politician criticize this behavior. Their silence is approval.
Take a look back...
NAZI Propaganda
SS Publication
The Danger of Americanism
Excerpt:
We do not wish to deny this culture of nothingness its right to exist. It can even, rightly used, be good, just as it is sometimes a pleasure to do nothing. Should a German soldier happen to find a portable record player and jazz records in the deserted quarters of British or American soldiers, he does not smash them against the wall. Instead, he takes them along and thinks he has a great treasure. We don't want to suggest excessive cultural disaster here. There are times when he wants a vacation from himself, from us, from the whole world. He needs to relax, and certainly does not wish to ponder intellectual matters. Nothing is better suited to take him out of the normal world than the complete nonsense of this hot music, this cacophony of animal howls, wild instruments and foot-stomping Negro lust. It takes him away from human concerns back to the depths of pre-human apedom, returning him to the time when people did not need to think because there was no past and no future. Its effect is like that of alcohol, which turns normally rational men into shouting, destructive children. That can sometimes be good for serious and intelligent men. And the soldier certainly does not forget his German mission, nor does he lose his character or honor when he occasionally spends an hour relaxing to entertaining music. He is immune to the danger of confusing this rhythmic pig grunting with good music, much less art or culture. It cannot meet his higher standards.
Others, however, are not as immune. That is what those who deny any appeal of Americanism forget.
Certainly there is no danger that our young boys and girls will fall into sexual frenzy while listening to some Jewish lout blowing on a saxophone. One can introduce them to the high priests of the American jitterbug with no worries at all. At most they will laugh. Our young Luftwaffe aides and working girls would hardly join in a dance marathon. And the winning couple running through the arena in tattered, sweaty clothes would receive not applause, but a beating. But that is our youth. They are made of different stuff, and grew up in a world in which dignity comes from doing one's duty, and both are seen not as a burden but as the joy of life.
Rod note: When will it be acceptable, even encouraged, for "clean, alcohol and smoke-free youths" to beat up a filthy, degenerate lout, a smoker?
Josh---
I'm with you on this...
The liberals have lost me. It's supremely ILLIBERAL to try to control what your neighbors do, to tax them to death, to vilify them to raise your favored taxes, and then to pretend you "care" about them to win votes in the legislature. It sickens me.
I'll have no truck with the Right Wing Republicans who want to control my sex life, or who want to control women's choices about their own bodies. I'll go to the mat against Right Wing fanatics who try to impose their "Judeo-Christian Values" as the law of the land in a country that ought to remember its secular and religion-neutral roots.
I think many of the people who "think" they are conservative or liberal are really libertarians. They want freedom from the fetid breath of Gubmint tyranny. This was a good piece by Jacob Sullum, it was in the NY Post and other papers. In case you missed it....
Who's Your Nanny?
As meddling scolds, Democrats and Republicans are equal offenders.
Several California newspapers recently carried a story about "nanny government" measures in the state legislature that "irk Republicans," including bills that would forbid smoking on state beaches, ban trans fats in restaurant food, and require calorie counts on menu boards. "If somebody wants to go ahead and choose to do something that may not always be in their best interest," said one of those irked Republicans, state Sen. George Runner, "hey, this is America, you get to choose those things."
As long as those things do not involve, say, smoking pot. Runner, despite his defense of the right to do risky things, is a gung-ho drug warrior. Two years ago the Drug Policy Alliance picked him as one of seven "Drug Policy Reform Zeroes" in the California legislature.
Although Democrats frequently are portrayed as meddling do-gooders eager to save you from yourself, they are no worse in this respect than Republicans. The targets may differ, but the basic impulse is the same.
The paternalistic policies that have received the most attention lately have been associated mainly with Democrats. But it's worth remembering that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who brags about pushing smokers to quit by imposing onerous cigarette taxes and banning smoking in bars and restaurants, is officially a Republican. New York Health Commissioner Thomas Friedan, who led the effort to ban trans fats from the city's restaurants by bureaucratic fiat, is a Democrat, though a Bloomberg appointee.
While the spirit of Sullum's points are correct, it is worth noting that Bloomberg, Hugo Chavez or Karl Marx can put R's next to their name, but they are still leftists.
Bloomberg never was and is now officially no longer a Republican. But the point is still salient. Both major parties love Big Gubmint as long as it accomplishes their own agenda.
Anyone want to hazard a guess where the money comes from for this campaign to tax smokers for "America's children?":
"A coalition of health care workers and providers began a $1.2 million television advertising campaign on Thursday to build support for the legislation in a dozen Congressional districts where they believe lawmakers might take a leadership role on the issue. The advertisements encourage House members — eight Democrats and four Republicans — to support higher cigarette taxes as a way to deter smoking and finance health coverage for children."
How in the the bloody hell does menthol "recruit" African-Americans into becoming smokers??
You toss "and others" into parentheses, though the "others" are the vast majority of menthol smokers.
There are a wide variety of reasons why people choose a brand of anything, from toothpaste to shoes.
The term "recruitment" is nastily reminiscent of Anita Bryant and her anti-gay hate speech.
Playing the race card is as repugnant as the "children" card.
...they directly reduce cigarette consumption and save lives by increasing the cigarette tax and by dedicating these revenues to smoking-related programs.
I am profoundly sick of having my own money used to fund programs to demonize me, "denormalize" me, and kick me out of the pub.
I boil with anger every time I see one of those "Don't pass gas" commercials.
Anyone know a good internet site that won't rat you to the taxing authorities?
If not, I am going to actively seek black market cigarettes. I would rather support crime than this pestilential nannyism.
It's really not that difficult to tell the truth. All you have to do is try.
Hark who's talking! You mean all you have to do is avoid the question. Where's the 220? Where's your reply to education over bans?
FEH!
Quote from http://www.lewrockwell.com/
rothb...othbard138.html : So low has this group sunk in the public esteem that, in rushing to their defense, I am obliged to point out that I myself am not and never have been a smoker. Can you imagine having to put in such a disclaimer against special pleading in behalf of the rights of blacks, Jews, or gays against oppression?
Lynda: How, unfortunately, true that is. Could you imagine the uproar if any other group were treated the way we are? I mean they are trying it with fat people, but they at least have champions already defending them.
Actually, Lynda, I noticed a while back that rAntis are learning that they need to preface their comments with disclaimers of not being affiliated with Big Pharm--although many of them are and don't realize it. Also, such disclaimers are required on scientific and academic papers now, ever since the ACS made a stink over Enstrom's funding...which was assinine because most of his funding came from the ACS!
ROD! Brilliant letter to LA Times! Love it!
'Daniel E. Smith, a vice president of the American Cancer Society, hailed the proposed increase in tobacco taxes, saying it would “prevent more than 900,000 Americans from dying prematurely because of smoking.” But Senator Bunning said it would put half the 32,000 tobacco farmers in Kentucky out of business.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/2...r=1&
oref=slogin
Wow the deaths are growing as we continue to breathe. 900,000 lives saved!!! Imagine that.
This must be a miracle occuring right before our eyes---I'll email the Pope.
.
.
Cowbell---
Please email me so I may collect my cigar prize---hurry before they add the 10.00 tax!!! sunny@plateautel.net
Last statement of Doctor--'It's really not that difficult to tell the truth. All you have to do is try.'
There really isn't any "trying" about it Doctor. Either you tell the truth or you don't. Perhaps that's where you keep getting into the train wrecks.
Think about it.
.
Sounds like these folks had a great time!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB...aste_primary_hs
~snip~
'Many of the folks at the institute's, um, policy forum had come from all over the state to have a good time, sure, but they also had a deeper motivation: to stick their tongues out, figuratively, at the tyrant politicians in Washington and Denver who keep enacting rules about how they should run their lives. These people are just dog tired of having the government tell them what to do: Buckle your seat belt, wear your bike helmet, don't smoke, don't shoot, teach your 8-year-olds to wear condoms -- and, most of all, stop complaining and pay your taxes.'
Surprising they were not all arrested when the left the compound to return home!!!
'Daniel E. Smith, a vice president of the American Cancer Society, hailed the proposed increase in tobacco taxes, saying it would “prevent more than 900,000 Americans from dying prematurely because of smoking.”
Oh, boy! The ACS has upgraded our societal status from filthy smokers to… “Americans”.
Gotta love that convenience card. Preventing more than 900,000 filthy smokers from dying prematurely probably wouldn’t sell as well under the circumstances.
Bunch of false faces!
Yes, terrific letter, Rod. And because it's terrific, odds of their publishing it are discouraging. The world mustn't know that articulate onto-them smokers exist. The only smokers allowed in print are the ones expressing gratitude for bans that'll "help them quit," or who claim how much nicer their hair smells now.
Somebody--sorry, forgot by now who-- Josh? Andrew?-- really nailed it about BT doing tobacco a favor in tempting teens. Anti-Everything shot its wad with Reefer Madness. Telling glue-sniffers in mosh pits that smoking is "addictive" is just sooo scary...
Madonna/ Whore (pretty sure that was Josh's) is right on too. When there's money in it (for Them) we're hapless victims of Big T. The rest of the time we;re killers, child abusers and scum. And there's money in that, too.
John Polito--I understand that, as they go, you're a decent sort of anti. Sorry your experience with smoking was so unpleasant but when you come out with lines like "sinking so low" I find I want to punch you.
Then, too, I have no idea any longer where Dr S stands. Does he really favor the "for our own good" 78c tax? The removal of nicotine? Too tired and getting too disgusted to figure it out. Disgusted with everything. Lies, hysteria, hatred, politics, my fellow Americans and the ways of the world.
:
Walt | 07.21.07 - 2:30 am | #
I went to Chili's tonight. We have two within about 25 miles. One is inside Beaumont, where there is a smoking ban. One is in Port Neches, where there is no smoking ban. At 8 pm there was still a line at the PN Chili's. Something that before the ban was unheard of. Usually by 7:30 there's hardly any wait at all. I sat in the smoking section, looking around and smoking, and saw that at least half of the people on the smoking side of the restaurant weren't smokers. Some of them weren't even with smokers. We were all having our cigarettes and just..well, enjoying the company of one another. I found myself really just basking in the ambience of a group of people getting along, enjoying one another's company. We even stayed a half hour after finishing our food! Usually, IF my husband can drag me into a non-smoking restaurant, it's order something quick and get the hell out. But tonight was a real dinner, and it was nice. And I'm willing to lay money down that the Chili's in Beaumont, probably didn't have much of a line at all tonight.
I leave you with this:
It's sad that some of the human race do not feel tall unless they're standing on someone else's face.--Edith Freisner
Walt- Disgusted with everything. Lies, hysteria, hatred, politics, my fellow Americans and the ways of the world.
Me too Walt and perhaps your confusion is because our host is duplicitous.
GreatScot
I came across another instance in a blog of someone calling Jakob Sulliman a "smoke denier" today and it occurred to me this was not the first time I have seen the term smoke denier used especially when dialog involved a disagreement with the views of a Jew.
It seems to me the testing of the waters happens a lot, supporters of TC prodding and probing to see what they can make acceptable next.
The deliberate baiting technique is the highest form of ignorance it is meant to deliberately dispense racist emotional pain and should not be tolerated in what amounts to a political debate.
I was wondering if anyone else got the feeling TC is attempting to expand what is socially acceptable in order to dictate what is not [smoking]
CC;
"If not, I am going to actively seek black market cigarettes. I would rather support crime than this pestilential nannyism.?
The way I see it; what is the difference between supporting one organized crime group over another?
Industry controlled government agencies or the guy in the bar. Both sell the same product and the similarity ends there.
It all boils down to who gives you the better deal and doesn't play head games taunting and belittling you while milking the situation for everything it is worth.
Some criminals respect those they do business with, they know mutual respect grows relationships, and some criminals who will do anything for a buck, just can't be trusted.
Kevin---'I was wondering if anyone else got the feeling TC is attempting to expand what is socially acceptable in order to dictate what is not [smoking]'
I think you'll enjoy this
http://jimbovard.com/blog/2007/0...cracy-dementia/
“Deliberative Democracy” Dementia
~snip~
'Deliberative Democracy would be a No Political Scientist Left Behind Act. The Deliberative-Democracy fad is a reminder of the circular nature of much of political science. Someone comes up with a phrase—others watch and see that it “flies”—and then the race is on to milk the slogan for as many journal articles and books as possible—to use it to snare funding for conferences and, ideally, even for research institutes dedicated to the notion.'
~snip~It is absurd to expect that discussions will resolve differences between people who wish to live as they please and others who demand the power to bring them to their knees. The more power government possesses, the more fruitless deliberations become between aggressors and victims'
'
The long arm of Big Pharma. The FDA not a vitamin they did like unless they can find a way to make it cost more. Another bit of legislation sponsered by Senator Enzi.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ric...rds/
byron36.htm
Walt,
Yesterday was the 38th anniversary of the first moonwalk. The thought of it (and what my life was like at the time) brought so many memories of carefree times. Gosh, remember those?
You sound so down today, so I thought this post would bring a smile to you and all here: (this is really funny!!!)
http://www.forces.org/humor/file...iles/
gorsky.htm
This story makes you realize any dream CAN come true!!!
nemo31
I had posted about that legisation a bit ago. Try this link for a really good explantation of this:
http://www.augustreview.com/news...pse_2007042556/
This is way futher reaching then dietary supplement---very dangerous stuff indeed. Again all for our good.
.
Forgot to add Senator Kennedy to my above post.
Sunz, to bad they could not get an interview with Mrs. Gorskey. I wonder if Mr. Gorskey was able to kick back and enjoy a nice smoke after the event.
nemo31,
Wonder that very thing myself.
"I do believe that money has become an important motivating factor in tobacco control these days, but I don't believe that these health groups are concerned that if smoking disappears, they will be out of jobs. I don't doubt the sincerity of their overall goals. What I challenge are the tactics that they are using to promote those goals."
Bingo. I don't think it matters to them if they eliminate smoking or not. It is a win-win for cynical members of the movement and a lose-lose for the zealots.
From the cynical point of view, if smoking is eliminated, they have proven their worth and can move onto something else (alcohol, fast food, etc.) If smoking is never eliminated, well they still get jobs because the tobacco is still being consumed.
For the zealots, if smoking is never eliminated, it is like a smack in the face and they must continue fighting this evil weed and continue using anthromorphic rhetoric. If it is eliminated, that is all well and good, but there is still plenty more evil that needs to be fought.
I recieved a reply from Senator Byron Dorgan yesterday about this particular Bill, he sure had some interesting words in it, words such as "we" "children" "Protect", etc, etc.
"In North Dakota, SCHIP covers 6,318 kids. However, we must do more because there are now over 14,000 uninsured children in North Dakota-two-thirds of whom are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid, but who have not enrolled.".
A part of my reply to him follows -
That sure was a liberal use of the term "we", wasn't it? Funny how it's "we", when "you" aren't going to have to pay one damn cent for this, isn't it? Why not raise the federal tax on gasoline by $0.61 a gallon? It certainly wouldn't make much difference as gas prices continue to grow at a fast pace, and at least then it would be funded by everyone who uses a vehicle, instead of a minority group that is already paying far more than it's "fair" share in taxation, and where does my representation come from in this new federal tax scheme? I am so disgusted with this action of your's that I am printing this on every blog and website I can find, I am also printing it out for distribution to all smokers I meet, you may not believe we hold much political clout, but I can tell you it IS growing, and we will be heard, we will not take this taxation without representation any longer, it is coming upon the time for our "Boston Tea Party".
Sincerely,
Jerry Thomas
By the way, I just ordered my tobacco seeds yesterday as well, I'll not be contributing to this new scheme of theirs in the least way, I have purchased smoking materials that dont need renewal (Ask Lynda about that eye opener), and am now beginning to grow my own path out of their taxation schemes. It turns out there is a LOT of info on growing curing, storing your own tobacco available on the web, we must all start using this knowledge, make their coffer's dry up, and they will move on to more "profitable" ventures. I say to hell with them, lets start a tobacco afficionado club, grow and swap our own, try different blends, we can win this war, it is just going to take a different tack than we might have thought originally.
Jerry Thomas----'we must do more because there are now over 14,000 uninsured children in North Dakota-two-thirds of whom are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid, but who have not enrolled.".
Perhaps they are Not enrolledy by choice????? Maybe their parents WANT to raise their own children.
.
Opps--Should have said Jerry Thomas--- in his quote from Sen Dorgan
.
Bill has always been one to volunteer smokers to additional taxes. As noted earlier, it's quite amazing the percentage of people opposed to the tax seems to be the ones that would have to pay it. Last year, Mr. Godshall claimed not enough was being done to reduce air pollution due to the combustion of petroleum products. I very generously offered to accept payment of a voluntary tax on Bill's own gas consumption which would be given to a charity to which Bill opposed as a means to encourage him to conserve his petroleum purchases. Needless to say, Bill didn't accept this voluntary tax. I doubt the public would accept the 61 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, but then again, they aren't a minority either.
Quite frankly, this is like 3 wolves and a sheep democratically deciding what's for dinner. This is why our forefathers believed in a republic rather than a democracy when drafting our constitution.
SCHIP Dorgan (Sen from ND which gave us the Lighter Ban) has always twisted legislation to stick it to smokers where he could. Smoking voters in North Dakota need to give him the single fingered salute at election time. At least some sanity has returned and the lighter ban looks to finally be rescinded to where the TSA no longer needs waste it's time dealing with lighters to which they seemed inept at finding in the first place.
Don't know if this has been posted:
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/h..._it_multiplies/
John,
For the most part I agree with what you say, however I do not agree with your comparison to heroin and nicotine. But such comparisons are quite subjective in nature and for the most part meaningless. Rather than waste our time discussing such rhetorical issues as which one is most addictive, let me say that I believe such propaganda as nicotine being more addictive then heroin has a very negative effect on people trying to quit. It becomes a crutch, and it designed to encourage NRT sales instead. I should know.
What is frequently missing is a desire to quit, and as there is always tomorrow. Being told it's harder than cocaine or heroin to quit only encourages people to put it off another day after all what's one more day in terms of a lifetime of smoking.
As for kids taking up the habit, it seemed paradoxical how someone could become so hooked on cigarettes that they couldn't give it up at will "just like that" while hacking through their first few months of attempting to smoke. This is where most kids are sucked into the sublime, as they do not notice they are growing a dependence on smoking. It's quite difficult for them to see that they need a cigarette to calm their nerves and relax, they need a cigarette to concentrate on an exam, yet they do not go into convulsions like a heroin addict on withdrawal, nor have they seen their friends do so either. So they conclude it's all just more BS put out by the establishment to discourage smoking. After all it's only a "nicotine fit", and soon they find themselves in the "I'll quit when I'm ... " except "..." never arrives, but the number only grows larger as the years tick off.
To be honest I quit going cold turkey, and without NRT, as NRT never gave the satisfaction that smoking did. What was needed was, the motivation to quit, and the time away from family and work to be dysfunctional for a few days as I was unable to concentrate on anything. The rest was filled with occasional anxious moments of the habitualizations that are answered by "Oh yea, I don't smoke anymore.. Oh well."
My next battle is with caffeine, and the migraines from it's weaning. To be honest, it's tougher then cigarettes especially since it doesn't have near the motivations that quitting smoking did.
Rod writes:
"Michael Siegel,
"Are smokers just milk cows? You talk in front of us as if we were animals that don't understand human talk, as if we were livestock to be exploited and have zero voice in the matter."
That's right, Rod, we're animals and should have no voice because we're ADDICTED animals:
"I also spent two years working in a methadone maintenance clinic and observed the difficulty my clients had overcoming their addiction to cigarettes, which was every bit as strong as their addiction to heroin, cocaine, alcohol, or other drugs." -- Dr. Siegel
Ponder it.
Dear Dr Siegel,
Regarding your response to Josh, I've got just two words to say to people who want to save millions of lives: Mother Teresa. People who want to help others go to Calcutta, get their hands dirty and do something. People who want to sit in ivory towers and direct the traffic down below have a problem: their heads got stuck in the first stage of egocentric infancy. They see themselves as God either being unable to find God, or being unable to accept the greater-ness of a Creator. You and I both know the annals abound with stories of passers-by who just kept right on walking when someone was really in trouble.
Let me ask all you life-savers this: now that this antismoking hysteria is starting to take hold in third-world countries where human rights are not as prized (notwithstanding smoker harassment) as they are in the west, do you think that will save millions of lives? Does it occur to you that the translation of your ideals in countries where the language of tyranny is spoken could result in the imprisonment, torture, and execution of smokers? Or did you all think you could just start something employing Nazi-like tactics and have it not end up in Nazi-like Holocaust? I can only say that I pray to the God that I am not so proud to believe in that it will not be so. Maybe you and others so self-righteously convinced of their good intentions should do the same.
Meanwhile, when you talk about saving millions of lives, your own blogs on lung cancer rates in former smokers refute this. Unless of course you want to talk about COPD. Do you? Since you are at least a righteous enough human being to care about truth, tell me why do you all never talk about how COPD has been on the rise? If you don't mind my asking, actually how could this be the case when primary smoking has decreased? I know a few extremists will try to attribute this to second-hand smoke, but that has also decreased. These days if you want secondhand smoke, you practically have to pay a smoker to come to your house and give you some.
About four weeks ago I saw the strangest thing: a person smoking while riding a bicycle. It struck me as a tad circus-like, a little silly if you will; but two weeks later I saw the same thing. Leaving a local supermarket about 7:30 PM there it was again. A smoker -- and I'm very sure it was a different one -- got on his bicycle, lit up a cigarette, and went on his way.
I had never seen anything like this before 1990. In fact, you might say this could be a post-TC behavior. Maybe these smokers had no time running about between smoke-free places. So they just tried to get in a few drags while having a few minutes to themselves on their bicycles.
I don't know if the strange rise in COPD has been caused by two smokers smoking while riding bicycles; but common sense says that if something is up, we need to look at other things which could be related and have gone UP (not down) at the same time, things which we see now which were not common before the rise started to occur.
Now I know COPD doesn't have the sex appeal that cancer has -- so speaks the values of this nation -- but how come none of you ever want to take a shot at this one? You all talk and talk from your ivory towers and have all the answers for every little thing smokers think and do and you say could be at risk for. So, how come none of you ever have even one thing to say about this?
Walt
I found it funny when I went to the smokers rights conference 2 summers ago. I was packing stuff and I guess I put 3 different lighters in my purse (not in my luggage). Now if you have seen my purse its just big enough to carry a wallet, and my appointment book that is 8x 6. Now I landed and after getting landed I was going to go for a cigarette, then I realized I didn't have a lighter in my purse (or matches).
I though well Ill go out and see how many people just left their lighter sitting on the window sill (like they did in Vegas). I went to grab my pack, and right on top of the pack was a lighter! Later that day I went into a zippered area, and I found my matches that I left there from the Flamingo.
In other words this isn't anything new, and actually the Transit assoc. has told the gov't its hopeless for more then a year!
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=1048
Wow I just realized that the amount of lighters nabbed every Day from people is 5X the height of the empire state building (If you put them end to end)! Isn't it amazing that 22,978 people who need lighters fly daily? Here I thought smokers were so few that there was no need for a smoking plane! I can now see I was wrong, I only have to wonder how many lighters they missed.
Walt H.: My next battle is with caffeine, and the migraines from it's weaning. To be honest, it's tougher then cigarettes especially since it doesn't have near the motivations that quitting smoking did.
I know those headaches. I was a *HUGE* coffee drinker. Seriously, with caffeine, I did taper. Switch to decaf, which still has about 1% caffeine. (But don't switch to tea or Coke.) Eventually, you'll find alternative drinks very satisfying. Eventually, I found that easing out of caffeine alleviated the probelms of headaches and severe migraines. You can do it, I know you can!
And, Walt, no worries. You won't become an anti-coffee or anti-chocolate person, sneering at those people who still enjoy their caffinated highs (and lows). On cold days, be careful of the steam coming from a cuppa hot coffee. That's secondhand caffeine, you know. LOL!!
I was toying with a few non believers in another blog [They called me a conspiracy nut again, can you imagine me a conspiracy nut? I do so enjoy that, LOL]in search of ammunition to fend off the personal attack I came across this review of ethical processes in what is called "new public health" discussions also mentioned "New ethical practices" [I guess the old ones are boring all of a sudden] It would appear TC has been doing their thing for some time now and the ethics guidelines haven't even been worked out yet.
No wonder Michael is having so much trouble with his peers they didn't get the latest memo; ethics are still considered a vital part of the process and the check is in the mail.
The study has some surprisingly direct dialog of case studies and stakeholder bias.
Michael; you may find this of particular interest as the review is not exactly promotional of; case research and a strong correlation with ethical practices.
I found a new quote of the day
"In examining challenges facing public health in developing countries, the strongest evidence for people-driven development in public health is often to be found in case studies,
replete with internally subjective assessments of success.
Yet such evidence rarely meets traditional standards for scientific objectivity."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1447193
Alas the piece is from 5 years ago if they haven't received the memo by now it got lost in the bureaucracy.
I know that the social engineering experiment known as Tobacco Control will fail.
I wasn't exactly sure how or why.
I just know that fascism has failed everywhere it has ever been tried. It's difficult to know how it will be defeated when the forces opposing Freedom look invincible.
Reading this thread, and your comments, now I know. We all know.
"I also spent two years working in a methadone maintenance clinic and observed the difficulty my clients had overcoming their addiction to cigarettes, which was every bit as strong as their addiction to heroin, cocaine, alcohol, or other drugs." -- Dr. Siegel
So, where's tobacco rehab?
A smoker can become absorbed in an activity, like a movie or a good book, and "forget" to smoke.
Cold turkey cigarette quitters don't puke. They don't get shakes, hallucinations, or delirium tremens.
They get grumpy. Where's the 28-day program for grumpiness? Perhaps a nurse would come every couple of hours with a fresh toothpick or piece of gum.
My own dumbass brother said it was harder to quit heroin than his unfiltered Camels.
When I asked him why, he said "Because I didn't want to."
Duh.
PS: The Mr. Gorsky thing is a myth. Still funny, tho.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mrg...es/
mrgorsky.htm
Cowbell
Thanks for the correction about Mr. Gorsky. Now if we could only find the the whole social engineering experiment thing known as TC were merely a myth!!
.
Taxing the Joy Out of Life
http://www.newmediajournal.us/st...ba/
07202007.htm
~snip~
'There is a reason we celebrate living in “the land of the free” and that is, presumably, that the government designed by the Founding Fathers was supposed to leave us alone. The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to determine what or how much we eat, whether or not we become obese, whether we smoke, whether attending too many rock concerts can harm one’s hearing, or any other aspect of our presumably private lives.'
~snip~
'If it seems to you that the federal government is totally out of control and detached from any sense of reality or common sense, you’d be right. It just keeps getting worse. A single phrase in the preamble of the Constitution, “promote the general welfare”, has been so totally misappropriated and distorted that government is now able to justify any idiotic, job-killing, industry-destroying law it wants to pass.'
Sunz;
The problem here, one which most refuse to face is the Government you elect is no longer controlling the situation. The scold we as smokers face is small in comparison to the international media who would destroy any politician's career who bucked the trends effectively, societal controls are imposed by the "New Public Health" lobby.
The World health organization although they changed it recently on their home page, declared dominion over all participating states in it's Globalist pseudo nation. Self parody by the UN is the reality few choose to recognize, although the evidence is in plain sight. Michael described it as brain washing he was not alone we are all affected.
We are all [Regardless of smoking status] viewed now as lab animals, specimens to be manipulated, get used to your lab rat designation and you can start to see the way clear to the cage door.
Take a closer look at the link I posted and the truth might set you free.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1447193
The first problem with psychological conditioning; the subject can not be allowed to know what is going on or the effort is wasted.
Josh, you are not alone in being reformed 'liberal' or reformed 'socialist'. I recognise your sentiments.
Being 'socialist' is driven by a desire to 'give' everybody the chance to live as he pleases. What good is that when it results in the 'regulation' of everybody? As far as this 'regulation' goes, the right is only a step behind the left.
I hope that reformed 'socialists' are more understanding than reformed smokers. I would not like to be seen as ill behaved as the latter.
Kevin,
Thanks for your thoughts. I look foward reading your link when I get done feeding the cattle. I just glimpsed at it when you first posted it.
BTW Kevin, did you catch my post about this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8...g8/
rodney1.html
~snip~
'In an effort to make the cause of freedom more appealing, I have collaborated with the Mackinac Center to establish the Freedom in Fiction Prize. This international contest will offer a prize of up to $100,000 and create an incentive for authors to write the next best-selling book championing values necessary for a free, productive and truly compassionate society.'
You'd do really well with this.
.
Junkfood Science
July 21, 2007
Magical fruits and vegetables: Does “healthy eating” improve breast cancer outcomes?
Lead in:
Sadly, our culture loves to blame victims of illnesses for failing to follow virtuous diets and lifestyles, and many victims feel guilty when a health problem befalls them, believing they are at fault for failing to do something right. The blame game is mostly based on pop science. Time and again what seems intuitively correct, looks promising in the laboratory, or appears right in observational studies, doesn’t prove to be true when it’s actually tested in a well-designed clinical trial on real people.
Until now, cancer survivors have had “to rely on folklore, rumor and hearsay,” as they try desperately to do everything possible to prevent the recurrence of their cancers. This tragedy is what sparked a private philanthropist to initiate scientific research to find out the facts. The resulting ten-year clinical trial funded by the National Cancer Institute, which took place in seven cancer centers across the country and involved 3,088 breast cancer survivors, just released its findings. They should help put a stop to beliefs causing needless guilt and condemnation for countless women.
Excerpt:
Findings
"There was a great deal of enthusiasm about this study and the researchers felt confident that they would see a notable improvement in the recurrence and survival rates among the women following the “super healthy” diet and lifestyle, according to the principal investigator at M.D. Anderson, Dr. Lowell Jones, Ph.D. Earlier observational studies, including an interim one of their own study population, had found the diet associated with increased survival and lower recurrence rates, he said.
But after 7.3 years of follow-up, they found “no evidence that adoption of a dietary pattern very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat versus a 5-a-day fruit and vegetable diet prevents breast cancer recurrence or death among women with previously treated early stage breast cancer.” Regardless of how hard the women tried to eat more produce and less fat, it made no difference."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2o274j
"But after 7.3 years of follow-up, they found “no evidence that adoption of a dietary pattern very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat versus a 5-a-day fruit and vegetable diet prevents breast cancer recurrence or death among women with previously treated early stage breast cancer.” Regardless of how hard the women tried to eat more produce and less fat, it made no difference."
I saw no mention of organic about the produce. Also because of depletion of the soil, vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be. And, from the research I'm doing, we shouldn't eat less fat but the right kind of fat--from grass-fed animals that haven't been given hormones and antibiotics instead of grain-fed. (And the grass needs to be pesticide and herbicide free.)
There seems to be a lot more to it than just eating more veggies and less fat.
In a way, we're on our way back to being a hunter-gatherer society: hunting down the sources for whole, raw, natural foods and gathering them in from many places instead of one-stop shopping at the local supermarket.
.
tnsmoker,
The Organic Sham
The organic food market is bigger than ever, and that's not necessarily a good thing
~snip~
'After all, once some of the money generated by organic products percolate to the top, Phillip Morris walks with your dollar—whether you smoke or not.'
http://www.slweekly.com/editoria..._2006-12-
07.cfm
United States regulations governing federally supported research with human subjects derive in part from 2 international codes, the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki.
The Declaration of Helsinki states that "concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society"
Now consider the implications of a researcher knowing exactly how the collaborative research agenda is being used. In vilifying smokers by use of smoker research are ethical limitations respected?
The helping or making smokers quit as an excuse, places a researcher in a proactive position tailoring changes to the subjects under review without the authority of the subjects.
Where is the license to take such actions which undermine deliberately both the confidentiality and the agreement between researcher and subject which generally includes via informed consent the subject will not be harmed by the researchers activities without prior explanation and acceptance of that harm.
People are being deliberately abused and vilified by the researchers in public dissertations and the crafted conclusions they dispense to the general public, in order to move forward an openly collusive effort to make the subjects actions socially unacceptable in hopes of forcing a decision upon them.
How, with a loss of trust so obvious and considering the emense presure to find willing participants for future study, will the new recruits be found?
Are we willing to accept the Helsinki and Nuremberg rules no longer apply? Already science is dipping into the research of the infirm and of those children who are wards of the state in New York. The use of subjects in the third world in many instances against their will is well documented new research demands subjects from the developed world as well.
Just how far will Public Health go to secure the knowledge they need to push forward the current Fascist modeled Globalist agenda?
Say what you will about CTFK. At least they take a position and explain it. Right or wrong, they explain their reasoning.
I am still waiting for an explanation of the "220 dead bartenders" statistic.
And for the supposedly possible warning to bartenders that would make the good doctor back away from bans.
Just saying.
Kevin - Just how far will Public Health go to secure the knowledge they need to push forward the current Fascist modeled Globalist agenda?
.......
Kevin,
We already know. The evidence, the proof, is there for the world to see:
-- The gas chambers of the concentration camps.
-- The experiments of Doktor Mengele.
-- The Eugenics movement that had legal authority to remove children from their parents, sterilize the underclass and commit them to insane asylums.
All the labels that were used to justify the persecution and liquidation of blacks, Jews, Gypsies and "subhumans" is being used today by Big Tobacco Control and the Neo-Nazis to justify vilification of smokers, the obese, etc.
Even Doctor Siegel has not made one single protest against this propaganda campaign.
He is not alone. I have not seen or heard one word from any senator, representative, minister...anyone condemning this barrage of hate.
Silence is approval. If they are good men and women, they would speak up. They haven't. Why not?
Think carefully about this. Why not?
Doctor Siegel - Why not?
Rod;
If they can convince human beings as a duty[Pardon the pun] to society to faithfully pick up the excrement of dogs, they can pretty well convince us anything is reasonable.
The 60s Liberals were determined to change the world. Now they are more restricted than the authority they sought to change.
Think about the good liberal rule book.
Socialism
Abortion
dead beat dads
Gay rights and marriage
Health care
The death penalty
Children's rights
animal rights
Hate speech
and a host of other issues which are not topics for discussion if you support the party line.
Issues which once solved can not be revisited in fear of "going back and opening up old wounds" or in fear of being classed as a dinosaur a week after the non debate was ended.
People in general have no rights above those of society and through the media mysterious beings who remain nameless dictate what is acceptable in society enforced with furrowed brows and taunts for those examples found out to be ignorant of the rules. they called it Politically correct?
All wrapped up in a group which celebrates diversity culture and the arts. Diversified to the point everyone needs to have a hyphenated country of origin before the country of residence, which serves to eliminate any pride in the culture associated with the second name.
We are all simply multicultural ghetto builders. Smokers as a threat to society are part of a separate subversive grouping along with the obese, the drinkers and many others divided and conquered in fear distributions delivered in haste before any time consuming discussion starts. Threat subcategories are eliminated from inclusion in any other grouping until they comply and get right headed like the rest of the flower power revolutionaries who sought to change the world.
Well it certainly changed and is continuing to change, it just seems to me people used to laugh and actually stopped to smell the roses a lot more.
I know people made love a lot more back then, now all we hear about is the promotion of wars.
Congratulations Doc.
Deaf man attacked for smoking at bus station
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0...-
name_page.html
GreatScot,
Very disturbing post.
I am suprised that one individual did report the suspect that he realised was on the bus. One tiny bit of hope that there may still be some decency left.
.
.
Another wad of money spent telling us the obvious.
Study: Anti-smoking ads have opposite effect on teens
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content...0720.html?
imw=Y
Could not get any cut and paste from this article???? But do read the last line----IOW when all else fails, LIE.That should do the trick!!
What idiots.
.
Sunz;
This one needs be shown on Leno's Dumb Ads segment
"Paek said the data showed middle school students are more like to be influenced by the perception of what their friends are doing, and that anti-smoking campaigns should be more focused on peer relations.
"Rather than saying, 'don't smoke,' it is better to say, "your friends are listening to this message and not smoking," she said. "It doesn't really matter what their peers are actually doing."
And the teens she is discussing won't read or understand her plan to lie to them because???
Kevin,
I think it just might be possible that these mid-school teenagers will know what their friends are doing (or not doing)better than Paek
Sunz,
Those anti ads and all the so called education in schools are what is responsible for 90% of teen smoking. Just ask any teen or anyone in their early 20's why they started, then listen to what they say. Really listen!!! They are so fed up with hearing it day after day and they decide to smoke just to tick an adult who thinks they are the authority off. They have parents and don't want the teachers thinking they can replace them. Though they love those little dog and pony skits that the antis do, traveling from school to school. This took them out of the classroom and gave them a chance for a smoke without being caught. One boy once told me that he use to stand behind the curtains on the stage in the auditorium and smoked during these performances!
I was out to dinner on Saturday night and sat in the popular smoking section of the restaurant. Most tables were people in their early 20's. Looks like we have another whole new generation of smokers.
Ah! The "Your friends know that we have always been at war with Eastasia" Method.
Do they really think if they tell their kids their peers do not smoke, they will believe it, no matter who lights up under their noses?
That reminds me of the look on Meadow Soprano's face when Tony said, "There is no mafia."
My good-hearted parents told me so much crap when I was a kid, I was soundly skeptical of anything I heard as a teenager.
It raises a lot of other risks, too.
Living near freeway 'raises heart risks'
Reuters - July 17, 2007
Living near a busy highway may be bad for your heart, according to German researchers.
Lead in:
Long-term exposure to air pollution from a nearby freeway or busy road can raise the risk of hardening of the arteries, which can lead to heart disease and stroke, the researchers reported.
"The most important finding of our study is that living close to high traffic, a major source of urban air pollution, is associated with atherosclerosis in the coronary arteries - the blood vessels that supply the heart," Dr Barbara Hoffmann, who led the study, said in a statement.
"This is the first study to actually show a relationship between long-term traffic exposure and coronary atherosclerosis," Hoffmann, of the University of Duisburg-Essen, said.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/yvtl7y
I love that "It doesn't really matter what their peers are actually doing". Do they really think teenagers slink off to some dark place alone to smoke? We used to slink off together as a group to smoke our cigarettes. We all knew our entire gang smoked, was one of the reasons we all hung out together. We had the same interests LOL
And Cowbell has a wonderful point. We spend so much time telling them NOT to do things, that teenagers kind of expect us to lie to them. So they'll do it regardless. I know my friends and I were convinced our parents couldn't open their mouths without lying about something. Or our teachers..or anyone else for that matter (adult).
"This is the first study to actually show a relationship between long-term traffic exposure and coronary atherosclerosis," Hoffmann, of the University of Duisburg-Essen, said."
Doll started to look but was drawn away by conflicted interests who felt it necessary to leave it alone in order to protect profits.
Casual exposure to Second hand smoke is less dangerous than roasting marshmallows with the kids that is if we can trust science beyond "con"jecture.
Something Dave K sent me explains what is being avoided in an effort to keep us looking else where.
Bait and switch.
" and yes, your statements about asphalt are very important.
If you examine an asphalt roadway, you will notice when it is freshly paved, it is black, and of uniform thickness. As traffic wears it out, you will notice the road surface becomes 'trenched' where most of the tires of the vehicles pass over it.
Now, asphalt has a density about equal to water, while the limestone mixed with it to make pavement has a density about 4 times water. This is important because it rules out the possibility that over time the stones are working their way up to the surface. This leaves the only to the possibility to be that the asphalt component is actually wearing down, and that would have to be by a mechanism whereby very fine particles are being dispersed off of the tires and into the air.
Now, how is asphalt made? They take the first substance ever identified as a carcinogen, which is coal tar, and they melt it and blow air through it to harden it. What they are in fact doing, is adding oxygen to it which makes it have more affinity for human tissue.
Now, ( and I'm sorry if I'm doing this backwards, but it seems the best way at the moment)... what is coal tar? Cola tar is polynucleraromatic hydocarbons. As you already know, these belong to the same class as the PAh's in tobacco or wood smoke. But there is a difference...the ones in coal tar are higher members of the PAH series. Let me explain. First, there is the benzene molecule, which has been shown a carcinogen. then napthalyene which is 2 fused benzenes, is slightly more carcinogenic. then anthracene which is 3 benzenes fused, which is more carcinogenic than naphthalene. and so the series continues, each time another benzene is fused into a condensed ring with other benzene molecules, the result is more carcinogenic than it's predecessor.
Now, when you get to 5 benzenes fused, you have the PAH's in cig smoke.
Here's the main point, the coal tar components contain fused rings consisting of even more fused rings than the pah's in cig smoke, so they are even more carcinogenic than the ones in cig smoke.
Now, remember, i said they blow air into the hot mix of coal tar to make asphalt? Here's what that does: it adds hydroxyl groups to the PAH's in coal tar.
Now, I have a book published by the American Chemical Society, titled Chemical carcinogens, symposium series #173, and it talks about the PAH's in cig smoke, and how they cause lung cancer, and it says that, in essence the PAh's themselves do not cause lung cancer, but there is an enzyme called arylhydrocarbon hydorxylase which converts the PAh's in cig smoke to dihydroxyPAh's which do cause smokers to get lung cancer. How do they know that? Simple...smokers who have inherited a genetic defect which limits production of arylhydrocarbon hydroxylase hardly even develop lung cancer.
But remember, i said during the process which converts coal tar to asphalt they blow in air which actually makes the dihydroxy derivatives? so really, aside from the fact these are already more carcinogenic, they make the dihydorxy derivatives for us, so that our bodies don't even need the enzyme to cause lung cancer.
and thanks to the guy driving in front of you, and the lack of devotion by our public health officials to actually find out what causes LC in nonsmokers, nonsmokers will continue to get lung cancer long after every source of secondhand smoke , and every smoker has been eliminated."
Sunz: The Organic Sham
The organic food market is bigger than ever, and that's not necessarily a good thing
Oh, yeah, whenever something becomes trendy and there's money to be made (a la smoking bans), the big boys jump on the bandwagon.
The best thing is find a locally grown source of organic, if possible. In many places that's not possible, but hopefully, that will change, too.
.
BTW Orec isn't all that...
Taken down in his own house.
http://scienceblogs.com/
insolenc...and_smoke_1.php
LOL
Commenting by HaloScan
