Regarding Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN),
I have this to say:
Citizens Freedom Alliance? Ha, what a joke. Just goes to show that this is really a template: "citizens' groups" (like Citizens Against Government Encroachment in Quebec, and Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario) promoting Big Tobacco's agenda thinly disguised as issues of "freedom" and "choice". It's the exact same scam.
Today's tobacco promoters know they can no longer argue against the merits of public and workplace smoking bans directly, in light of widespread knowledge of the health effects of cigarettes and public attitudes toward smoking. So they attempt to reframe the debate around issues of "freedom" and "choice." Associating smoking in public indoors with various rights and freedoms instills the idea that this too is a fundamental right which must be defended, and distracts attention from the fact that smoking bans are intended to protect non-smoking workers and the general public from the hazards of an activity they didn't choose.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Michael J McFadden,
Good Luck!! I will begin a novena immediately.
.
I'm starting a new organization called Citizens Against Crap (CAC). There are already two members and Cathy is invited to join.
.
Doctor, I would be FLABBERGASTED if you could explain to me how this is in ANY WAY different than what you did when you reported the 220 number to the board of health.
You admit that the 220 number inflates reality. That the assumptions behind it were false. That 220 bartenders will not, in fact, die. But you defend using the number by saying that you explained that the assumption was false. And that since your audience was well educated with regards to public health, they could extrapolate the real numbers for themselves.
Well, the authors of this study included all the numbers. Astute readers will see the original nicotine level was 1.85, which is exactly where it stands now. And they can easily put in their own regression line, as they are well schooled in the art of public health.
So where's the difference? Both communications strategies are meant to take existing data and present it in a way that argues most clearly for a ban. In both cases, the presenters covered their behinds by "putting all the numbers out there" for people to manipulate for themselves.
Same exact story. If these people were wrong to do it, so were you.
Maybe they are brainwashed, too. Which would explain their actions. That does not impact you anymore, as you are no longer brainwashed and can see these tactics for what they are.
Unless, of course, you look back at what you did. Strange, that.
Dear Michael J ,
You may want to try a young priest and an old priest. Good Luck!!
Thanks for all your posts.
tobaccoscamalysis; What does this latest tantrum have to do with the obviously misguided "study" about increasing nicotine levels?
And once again, nobody describes smoking as a "right" except yourself.
It's a personal preference.
The whole "your rights end where mine begin" argument works both ways.
No one has a “right” to clean air, just as No one has a “right” to smoke.
Everyone has an expectation that the air we breath is reasonably safe, (Smokers and Non-Smokers alike) but there are no “rights” involved.
Contrary to Tobacco Control propaganda, the Rights of Non-smokers do not preempt the rights of ANYONE that disagrees with their false assumptions regarding personal space entitlements on PRIVATE PROPERTY.
According to the US Constitution, the Rights of Non-smokers are no more or less important than the RIGHTS of any other individual regardless of how much you or they may believe, or quite selfishly wish it to be so.
Doc, - "If it is true that relatively minor changes in nicotine do not necessarily alter the product's addictive properties and that the increase (or decrease) in nicotine yields in smoke does not necessarily signify any change in exposure within the population of smokers, then what exactly is the significance of this research?"
Exactly.
The only point of this "research" as you so laughably describe it, is the same point as "Science by press release" except in this case, no one will read the entire "study" and they'll simply jump to the "conclusions", ...(that's just too funny),...but the bottom line is the same.
Only the "useful" parts will be cited to aid in the case against Tobacco whether it's warranted or not.
Still don't recognize the pattern here Doc?
Yes, I must, Michael:
"Today's tobacco promoters." A lie. Who here is promoting tobacco?
"So they attempt to reframe the debate around issues of "freedom" and "choice." Another lie. No one is "reframing" anything here. Freedom and choice are non-negotiable items to anybody who believes in freedom and choice EXCEPT when a compelling argument exists. The fact that this girl has NO compelling argument is shown by her refusal to engage the debate and answer all those questions put to her over these several months.
"... and distracts attention from the fact that smoking bans are intended to protect non-smoking workers and the general public from the hazards of an activity they didn't choose."
You mean the workers didn't CHOOSE to work in a private business that allows smoking? You mean the general public didn't CHOOSE to enter a private business that allows smoking?
What planet?
.
As usual, Sam gets it exactly right. As usual, don't expect a reply from 'the good doctor.'
.
Thanks LighteningBoy, you asked Cathy and told her exactly what I was thinking while reading her rant. I might have gotten mine in first, but I had to pound my head against the wall a few times while trying to figure her out. The lady is unbelievable!
If you don't like the term "tobacco promoters" you can substitute "tobacco defenders" instead. For me, it amounts to the same thing. Those who defend smoking are ultimately promoting the tobacco industry's "right" to produce and sell this amazingly addictive and dangerous product.
Oh yeah, as to the article for today. Looks like nothing has changed as far as the manufacturing stands, but Doctor, didn't your friends at Harvard try to say that the levels did increase not so long ago? Who do you think might be working off someone else's study and changing the wording so much, they acually ended up with pie in their faces? Your friends aren't looking so good right now. A word to the wise, this isn't a study I would repeat.
Once again. Yes Cathy, I do defend the tobacco companies "right" to produce, it is called a free market. I also enjoy a clean house so much, I use alot of Mr. Clean when I go through my normal cleaning routine. I wouldn't consider drinking the stuff though, but would my cleaning with the product be an addiction and should I start a protest to get it off the market? I believe the label says something about what to do should you swallow any of it, yet I can inhale my cig and still clean!
Citizens Freedom Alliance? Ha, what a joke. Just goes to show that this is really a template: "citizens' groups" (like Citizens Against Government Encroachment in Quebec, and Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario) promoting Big Tobacco's agenda thinly disguised as issues of "freedom" and "choice". It's the exact same scam.
You mean like you and yours promoting big pharma and nazi-like agendas? Pot – Kettle – Black.
Today's tobacco promoters know they can no longer argue against the merits of public and workplace smoking bans directly, in light of widespread knowledge of the health effects of cigarettes and public attitudes toward smoking. So they attempt to reframe the debate around issues of "freedom" and "choice."
For someone who has yet to produce one piece of solid, irrefutable, REAL proof of her accusations, I don’t think you are in any position to speak at all dear. And it IS about freedom of choice. You have the freedom to patronize/work in a smoking environment or a non-smoking environment. Apparently making decisions is too difficult for YOU as you are all in favor of bans. You’d probably be first in line to sign the petition to make tobacco completely illegal.
When you tell a business owner that he can no longer allow a legal activity that has always been allowed……………you are stripping that owner of HIS freedom to choose the ambience of HIS privately owned business.
smoking bans are intended to protect non-smoking workers and the general public from the hazards of an activity they didn't choose.
Your proof of these hazards? Remember, absolute, irrefutable proof. Your rantings on your website do NOT constitute real proof.
Those who defend smoking are ultimately promoting the tobacco industry's "right" to produce and sell this amazingly addictive and dangerous product.
And for me, I see you promoting Hitler's agenda (tact for tact, almost word for word). An agenda that was/is more dangerous and deadly than your supposed "tobacco hazards". More dangerous and deadly than anything else (except maybe a nuclear weapon).
And it's been proven too, publicly and historically.
The opening comment states precisely what ? It is totally irrelevant other than a direct attack on a person who promotes A FREE CHOICE,IE MORE THAN ONE CHOICE UNLIKE THE VINDICTIVE MORON WHO WROTE IT.Is this your version of a debate Dr Siegel,it certainly isn't mine.If this is the level of sanity in the anti movement,no wonder this planet is so f****** up.This nutter scares me.
You are beginning to get it, Michael.
First PM increased the nicotine yield in cigarettes to 'hook' smokers. Then PM decreased the nicotine yield to force 'addicted' smokers to smoke more cigarettes.
Very simple. Tobacco control in a nutshell.
Dr. Siegel asked, " then what exactly is the significance of this research?"
Simple. It put money in the pockets of the antismoking researchers while simultaneously promoting a lie that furthers antismoking goals. Isn't that what all scientific research is supposed to be about?
Heehee... ya gotta love how upset Cathy is! Evidently any group that starts with the word Citizens and doesn't agree with the antismoking agenda is now automatically a "tobacco scam".
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Hmm... my version of the first post on this thread would be...
Today's anti's know they can no longer argue against the merits of freedom and choice directly, in light of widespread knowledge of the effects of prohibitions and public attitudes toward the promotion of intolerance. So they attempt to reframe the debate around issues of "health" and "harm." Associating smoking in public indoors with various negative health effects instills the idea that property rights are no longer fundamental rights which must be defended, and distracts attention from the fact that smoking bans are intended to protect the interests of pharmaceutical companies and control freaks.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "But that raises the question of what the value or importance of this research is. It's not clear to me."
See Michael J. McFadden comments. My comments are this. The researchers probably started with the hypothesis the PM is possibility raising the nicotine levels in their protects to addict more customers. They came up with a null result and had their work published. It is important when doing sound research (I am not claiming this study is) to publish ones results even if they were not what was expected. This includes results that are inconclusive, disprove ones hypothesis, etc. For example, had your bartender study shown a null result, or even that SHS makes previously sick and dieing bartenders healthy again do you not think that it still would be important to publish? Or would you have not published if it had shown a null result? One of the criticisms of science if that null results are unlikely to be published, this includes results that may contradict the current hypothesis that SHS is a risk factor for 'whatever' consensus.
If you don't like the term "tobacco promoters" you can substitute "tobacco defenders" instead. For me, it amounts to the same thing.
That says more about you than the issues at hand.
Counter-example: I loathe the music my downstairs neighbor plays. But he is reasonable about it, and if the music does leak up through the walls I can move. I'd never promote his music, but I'll defend it. Crunching chords are NOT necessary to appreciate music--in fact >1/2 of Americans don't like them and I could make an experiment where they were exposed to far too many chords to show they "don't really like it" and "want to listen to something softer or will eventually."
So, I'll turn your argument around by saying that you are on the side of systematically making big things out of small things(or nothing at all, from some of your reasoning,) and most of us here are against it.
"You admit that the 220 number inflates reality. That the assumptions behind it were false. That 220 bartenders will not, in fact, die. But you defend using the number by saying that you explained that the assumption was false."
Sam,
Can you link to the thread where the doc says this? I must have missed it, and I sure would like to read it.
"Doctor, I would be FLABBERGASTED if you could explain to me how this is in ANY WAY different than what you did when you reported the 220 number to the board of health."
Go ahead, Doctor. Flabbergast me, too.
Despite her comments concerning tobacco company supporters, she blames smokers because they buy their product. Yet is has and will be tobacco control that protects the tobacco industry.
Tobacco control advocates will never admit to supporting the prohibition of the manufacture of cigarettes.
Time after time Tobacco Control has come to the rescue of the major tobacco companies saving them from economic demise at the brunt end of lawsuit judgements. The MSA is a prime example of protecting the old school tobacco industry.
Cathy, do you support the prohibition of the manufacture of cigarettes?
Callous Cowbell,
The post was from September 13. One relevant snippet from the comments:
"The fact of the matter is that I made it very clear to the council members that many bar workers do not work for 40 years and that I was merely presenting an estimate to give them an idea of how serious it would be if they all did work for that long. I made it very clear that I was not estimating the deaths that actually occur, but those that would occur under the specified conditions."
This thread also includes the info about the members of the health board making their own calculations from the info presented.
I'm starting a new organization called Citizens Against Crap (CAC). There are already two members and Cathy is invited to join.
.
Harry | 09.26.07 - 3:44 pm | #
How about (SOS) Save Our Smoke!
Sam, I'd like to make a note in support of Dr. Siegel's 220 figure here that may not have yet been made.
*IF* one accepted the underlying statistics that he used to come up with the figure (which I do NOT!) and *IF* one accepts the "butterfly effect" of death causation (i.e. a one minute dilute exposure at age 23 could be said to "cause" a death at age 76) (which reasoning i also do not accept)
THEN... the 220 figure could be defended by saying that all the partial exposures of many many people working over those 40 years would produce the same number of deaths as if you just had some base number of people working the 40 years consecutively.
I think the REAL weakness of the argument lies in the base stats used to derive the 220 figure, as well as in the complete ignoring of improvements in ventilation and filtration impacting that number. Even if we assumed his base stats were reasonable (which I do not, a tripling of ventilation as compared to 20 years ago and a tripling of filtration use/efficiency (both reasonable assumptions in the present day and age) would reduce that 220 to about 25.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Walt H. wrote:
"Cathy, do you support the prohibition of the manufacture of cigarettes?"
I don't know how she could. Cathy is a tobacco defender. She stated long ago she doesn't care if people smoke.
Doc, you reallly need to point out that the authors of this study Koh and Connelly are anti-tobacco professionals. Koh has dozens of anti-tobacco studies with his name on it and Connelly over 50. Also all the usual funding sources. This in itself deserves a thread of its own.
But isn't Connolly one of Michael's co-authors on the magazine ad study?
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...tract/279/7/
516
And then there's that problem of mixing research and advocacy... As a researcher I always have and will continue to see this duality as a big potential bias problem for public health research.
http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad...2006/05/
47.html
From 1999:
"I'm Gregory Connolly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.
I have been working at Tobacco Control for about 15 years. I research on the dangers of smokeless tobacco use and international trade issues. I was recently appointed to serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors of the American Legacy Foundation and in that capacity, will be assisting the Foundation working with state and local programs."
and...
"I am concerned with the liberalization of world trade and that multi-national tobacco companies will become stronger and have the opportunity to penetrate close markets of the developing world."
Disclaimer -- I am NOT accusing Dr. Connolly of any misconduct, only pointing out the problems with the appearance of bias in public health research.
The role of nicotine?
Maybe it's about time Michael buys a copy of A Critique of Nicotine Addiction to be able to criticize this type of 'research'?
"I think the REAL weakness of the argument lies in the base stats used to derive the 220 figure, as well as in the complete ignoring of improvements in ventilation and filtration impacting that number. Even if we assumed his base stats were reasonable (which I do not, a tripling of ventilation as compared to 20 years ago and a tripling of filtration use/efficiency (both reasonable assumptions in the present day and age) would reduce that 220 to about 25."
What would Bellagio air quality do to that number?
http://www.americangaming.org/as...APER_7-7-
06.pdf
From the Weil link:
"This review concludes that on present evidence, there is every reason to reject the generally accepted theory that nicotine has a major role in cigarette smoking. A critical examination of the criteria for drug addiction demonstrates that none of these criteria is met by nicotine, and that it is much more likely that nicotine in fact limits rather than facilitates smoking."
.
Lightningboy;
"No one has a “right” to clean air, just as No one has a “right” to smoke."
Not quite right, there is no specific right to clean air however if cigarettes are legal no one has a right decide for you what you may do with respect to your own body. Meaning you have a right to smoke them. Taxes are collected in an agreement with the government which implies the knowledge; you intend to use them as directed, otherwise you would not likely have purchased them.
The same autonomy rights which allow a woman the right to an abortion allows you to smoke a cigarette. They deliberately twist this around claiming it is they who have the legitimate right to breathe clean air when their only right found is the right to breath. Unless they lay claim to the air which I would have a hard time seeing them enforce.
With a sign on the door all rights are respected. A ban represents an exclusion from shelter, a petty act in anyone's assessment.
dr. mike,
how do bogus articles like this get published? isn't there an impartial peer review process? or is everyone in the tank? 
brandz ---'or is everyone in the tank?'
And if they are, can any of them swim?
Cathy, pray tell, what is your BMI?
And remember, there is a phrase called 'normal weight obese'.[A new study -don't you know]
I will fight for your rights.
Will you watch my back?
Obvious effects of alcohol abuse is likely a confounding factor in the creation and publishing of many such reports.
The Back-fat post was me, Cathy
Michael;
Could you answer how you feel about the evidence carcinogens can be lowered by the manufacturers through simplistic means.
Why are we not insisting they do just that?
Referring specifically to; soil conditions and fertilizers [Nitrates], Selection of tobacco with naturally lowered carcinogenic content[TSNA] and flue curing processes[PAH].
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
site...l=pubmed_docsum
BTW in the news tonight; A woman drinking 3 or more drinks a day, equals the breast cancer risk of smoking a full package of cigarettes.
I can already hear the howls from TC.
Now as for the research connecting smoking and breast cancers how do you define which risk is more predominant.
"I think the REAL weakness of the argument lies in the base stats used to derive the 220 figure, as well as in the complete ignoring of improvements in ventilation and filtration impacting that number"
The interesting thing is that no one, apparently, said 220 people will die. The doctor said he made it clear that that number would only apply IF all bartenders worked 40/40. And he said they wouldn't. So...
This falls into the exact same category as the study he cites here.
Remember, like the doctor, the authors basically come right out and tell readers that the "trend" began at 1.85 mg and ended at 1.85 mg. So they can't be charged with lying.
What they did was make a preposterous claim that looks great in a headline.
Like 220 dead bartenders.
That is, there is no way to "defend" the 220 argument at all. The doctor admits that 220 bartenders did not and will not die. He knows that there will not be 220 dead bartenders. Not nearly enough would be exposed to the full 40/40 treatment.
So why not figure out how long bartenders actually work and use that level of exposure? The doctor says he is not aware of a study showing exactly how long bartenders work.
So he used 40/40. Despite knowing that was the one number we could be certain was wrong. That is, it would have been just as accurate to assume that all bartenders work 0 hours for 0 years, which would yield 0 deaths.
He didn't use 0/0, though.
So what's that mean for the doctor's "220 study"? I'll slightly amend the end of the doctor's post to spell it out:
"Then what exactly does this paper tell us about how many bartenders die from SHS?
The answer is: nothing. And the doctor acknowledges that, quite appropriately. But that raises the question of what the value or importance of this research is. It's not clear to me. However, there's no question that the research has been used to support two things: (1) promotion of a specific policy end - the a ban on smoking in bars; and (2) the opportunity for anti-smoking groups to take a crack at bar owners for allowing patrons to smoke."
The doctor's actions are no worse than those of the people who published this study. But they are no better.
Cathy: "If you don't like the term "tobacco promoters" you can substitute "tobacco defenders" instead. For me, it amounts to the same thing. Those who defend smoking are ultimately promoting the tobacco industry's "right" to produce and sell this amazingly addictive and dangerous product."
God, you're obtuse; are you a complete illiterate? No one here that I know of is either defending smoking OR promoting it (and there's a hell of a lot of difference between 'promoting' and 'defending').
If you can't follow the argument, sweetie, why are you still commenting when your job here is done and you've hitherto provided us all with the enlightment we don't deserve?
.
OT: In the Democrat's debate tonight, all of the candidates (except for those shoo-ins, Kucinich and Gravelle, who provided no answer) eagerly came out for a national ban on smoking. Just so's ya know.
GDF--
Really brilliant take off on Cathy, Brilliant and true.
Sam & Michael J--
Getting totally lost in that valley of death into which rode the 220, is the fact that they even IF they all worked 40/40 they would not die of smoke. Please don't, "for the sake of argument," concede or appear to grant credence to that "fact."
There's a wonderful pointed riff in The Manchurian Candidate, a take-off on Joe McCarthy whose accepted numbers of Communists would vary from day to day. In the novel, Ellie Iselin, the McCarthy character's wife:
"did not bother him with the confusion that had immediately arisen over the differences in the figures she had given him on the two days. She was more than satisfied that the ruse had had people arguing all over the country about how many Communists were in the Defense Department rather than whether there were any there at all."
The Group Cathy refers to although summarized in her ample imagination incorrectly as usual, in the majority could do a fine job of defending their right to choice.
Perhaps that danger is what drives her so crazy.
IE;
http://www.topix.net/forum/
sourc...VPJJ1I8K36HA6GJ
LOL
If kids when swimming stay under water more than 3 minutes, 98 out of a hundred of them will drown.
Therefore, IF there are, say, 450 children in Massachusetts who go swimming in unsafe waters every summer and IF half of them stay under water 3 minutes or more, then statistics show that 220 of those kids will drown.
Unspoken moral: Protect your kids (especially if they tend bar).
.
Harry wrote:
"No one here that I know of is either defending smoking OR promoting it (and there's a hell of a lot of difference between 'promoting' and 'defending').
Exceptions:
Bill Godshall. He promotes smokeless tobacco...albeit just to smokers.
Cathy. Tobacco defender:
"Lastly, given that you have referred to me as "anti-smoking" in at least three different posts now, would you mind pointing out where I ever said I was against smoking? (anti means against, right?) Is it your position that everyone who defends the right of non-smokers and children to breathe smoke-free air must therefore hate smoking? This to me seems very dogmatic, to pick up on your references to religion. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suppose that people can be in favor of the freedom to smoke, just not in ways that harm other people?
Cathy Bell | 02.02.07 - 10:39 am |
and
"Some of the groups which advocate in favor of restrictions on where people may smoke also advocate against smoking in general, but I do not. I support the freedom to smoke as long as smokers are willing to accept that they and only they should pay the price for their habit -- not bar and restaraunt workers, not the general public, and not their children."
Cathy Bell | 02.11.07 - 12:59 pm |
"David and Daniel Romano have written on the Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) website: "Do you believe that although we can sufficiently ventilate underground mines, parking garages, and factories containing all kinds of pollutants, it is impossible to sufficiently ventilate any indoor place where someone may smoke?" [http://www.cagecanada.ca/index.php?
pr=Communications]
The answer to this question is that if the air pollution hazards faced by miners, underground parking attendants and factory workers could be eliminated by something as simple as making people go outside to smoke, such a measure would certainly be adopted immediately. There is no logical reason to deny bar and restaurant workers the same consideration."
tobaccoscamalysis
A logical reason is that the owners, workers and patrons of most bars do not want such consideration, but would welcome air purified of smoke, chemicals, gases, allergens, dust, cooking smoke, avian flu and tuberculosis by available filtration technology:
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/t...com/
tobacco.php
David and Daniel Romano sound like people I need to join forces with. Does anyone have their contact info?
'normal weight obese' - Yep, that sounds like me (19 stone prop-forward), the only way I could get my BMI into the "normal" range would be to amputate one of my legs.
At the hip.
Found this on my semi-random wanderings:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/site...0&
dopt=Citation
It seems that drinking whole milk three or more times a day has a relative risk for lung cancer of 2.14. Perhaps I should start a pressure group - Citezens Against Whole Fat Milk?
Or as it contains the word Citizens at the start would it automatically become a "tobacco front group"? Oh, sorry, they don't use that term any more after the groups threatened to sue them for libel, "tobacco promoter" or "tobacco defender" if you prefer.
Sorry all, I'm trying not to take the mickey (it's not sporting to shoot at stationary targets) but this one keeps moving into my metaphorical line of fire...
Kevin Re: your last link
"Judging by what you wrote, if you are a Doctor I would take my dog for a second opinion."
Toooooo funny. L 
L !!!
Walt,
"Getting totally lost in that valley of death into which rode the 220, is the fact that they even IF they all worked 40/40 they would not die of smoke."
Agreed. But I do think it's worthwhile to consider the question of rhetoric in addition to the science. And this is a good launching point for that discussion.
But to your point: With regard to the 220, the doctor admits that knowing how long bartenders actually work would be a crucial factor in determining a "death toll." But even he, a public health official with more than 20-years of experience researching the dangers of SHS, says he is not aware of any study indicating how long bartenders work. (Seems odd that neither he nor any of his collegues have undertaken such a study given their lust for accuracy coupled with their constant braying about bartender safety, but that's neither here nor there.)
What is important here is that by admitting this, the doctor is saying, flat out, that he has no idea how many lives a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants would or could save. Because the time exposure is key to assessing risk. And no one know what the time exposure really is, on average, in the median or by any other measure.
So you tell me, if time exposure is crucial in assessing risk, and no one know the time exposure, how can you develop an accurate RR, or any other measure of risk?
"So you tell me, if time exposure is crucial in assessing risk"
Sam that is at the root of one of the favorite TC tactics. Support is behind the "no safe level" which indicates a non linear association, which does not require time line or even dosage as a factor. The snake in the grass which eliminates ventilation as a solution and empowers the political speeches. As Michael states a risk assessment can be quite useful. Totally risky is more useful again.
An RR and through it, known safe levels can be created although they deliberately avoid it, Risk can then be compared for adjusted perspectives with Linear associations, to mess up any hope for honest comparison by slanting the tables. Comparing Apples to Oranges.
They get away with it because people assume far too much when reading the propaganda being distributed.
The medical community wouldn't actually deceive us in respect to health reliant information, It is simply not done, at least it never was in the past before they became politicians, abandoning their scientific integrity.
Why wouldn't PM reduce the nicotine? It will allow them to sell more Marlboros.
These guys aren't stupid. They have been playing both ends against the middle since MSA. They play ads on TV promoting smoking cessation and education,post all sorts of agreements with "The Public Health Authorities", work behind the scenes to cement their market dominance with FDA regulation.
Rather than expecting them to increase the nicotine to reduce exposure(sell less cigarettes), I would expect them to be trying to reduce the nicotine per FDA so they can come into compliance quiker and sell more smokes to fill the coffers of MSA and fund SCHIP.
I don't purchase anything from PM. There are too many other brands made by companies that have not sold out their customers.
BTW; The research to date overwhelmingly supports a linear association. Otherwise there would be no point in a smoker quiting, with the damage already done and defined as permanent.
By supporting non linearity the Health Scare movement is deliberately deceiving the public to support a political cult movement with no scientific credibility.
Fear the bogey man he is coming, floating on a wisp of smoke, he only travels on cigarette smoke so we have no need to fear any other kind of smoke.
Look at the research it always defines risk in a linear model of dose response.
Find a study which takes a perspective of a non linear association in the "Cannon of proof" there are none. Think about the consequences of non linear risk if it were applied to those survey numbers.
Considering how many were exposed, the calculations would determine we are already extinct.
And they claim this is not a religion.
""We often find our greatest calling where we've been wounded most," he said"
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/
a..._A15_spanc81036
.
Sunz, from Patrick Reynolds statement about Big Tobacco spending almost $250 million on marketing. No wonder they did not want him in the family business. Reducing the price of cigs (buy one get one or buy two get three) is hardly spending anything. If he doesn't know the difference I wouldn't want him in the family business either. I guess selling his stock in RJR to become a movie producer did not work out so well. Anyway its just another TC ploy to confuse marketing with actual dollars spent for advertising. Main stream media plays right along by not explaining the difference.
Kevin, "With a sign on the door all rights are respected. A ban represents an exclusion from shelter, a petty act in anyone's assessment."
This all I would expect. Respect of my autonomy as a business owner to set the rules for conduct of "potential" patrons who CHOOSE to enter my private property.
This is easily achieved by placement of appropriate signage on the entry (in as many languages as deemed necessary by those who fail to recognize ENGLISH as the OFFICIAL language of the USA, and wish to give away the country) in order to clearly notify, and "sufficiently warn" the potential patrons that smoking is permitted on the premises.
Really now, how hard could this possibly be to understand?
tobaccoscamalysis, - "There is no logical reason to deny bar and restaurant workers the same consideration."
What part of; YOU have nothing invested in my business, the property it sits on, nor the product, service or stock contained within.
YOU and every other POTENTIAL patron, employee and individual that may consider entering, are under no obligation to EVER be an actual patron, employee, or enter at all, for any reason whatsoever. Because YOU haveABSOLUTELY NOTHING invested; Why on earth do you think you get to dictate the environment that I graciously make available for you to DECLINE to enter. YOU have a choice, and in your specific case, I believe it would be a rather easy one to make.
Bill Hannegan, -"A logical reason is that the owners, workers and patrons of most bars do not want such consideration, but would welcome air purified of smoke, chemicals, gases, allergens, dust, cooking smoke, avian flu and tuberculosis by available filtration technology"
Quite Right Bill, but it's still the OWNERS decision alone.
If TC is really concerned, then they should allocate some of the tax money previously extorted from smokers to PAY for the retro-fit of such purification technology.
Owners would likely not object if it meant that the TC whining would stop, and business OWNERS could get back to work without spending ANYTHING in order to simply appease the local health Gestapo.
Implementation of Smoking Bans are somehow supposed to be made palatable through the paternalistic endorsement of extremely wealthy Non-profit entities telling business owners and their patrons that it’s “for their own good”, and
“In the interest of public health” It is most assuredly not in the best interest of independent business, when the prescribed method of protection is one of coercion, and punitive measures enforced against business owners in order to FORCE them to prohibit the activity it purports to protect them from. The ongoing campaign of hate against individuals for a personal choice they have made is palatable, and inescapable. It is promoted at every turn, and in every conceivable form from tax funded highly insulting “truth” commercials, to media organizations that are too lazy to research for themselves, and rather parrot the same vile discriminatory junk science that lacks any trace of common sense and that would be easily exposed as fraud upon even a cursory inspection of all the available facts.
Smokers across the nation are EXPECTED to suffer through the parading crusade of paper victims, and the effort of “public health” and their puritanical campaign financiers, the pharmaceutical industry to readily accept the second class citizenship so graciously afforded to them without comment or objection because, after-all it’s “For the children”.
This new class of citizenry is also now expected to fund the next big step in socialized medicine through their continued purchase of tobacco products, as well as provide the necessary funding used to promote the campaign for prohibition that is a result of the same measures that supports Tobacco Control in the first place; continued tobacco purchases.
It is a shameful, vicious, discriminatory, prejudicial circle, and TC can not be allowed to continue to have it both ways!
But hey, ...that's just me.
What about respect for those of us, who as parents believe smoking and ETS might be beneficial in reducing allergies and hypersensitivities.
What if the med community is wrong about ETS and as demonstrated in the WHO research it is beneficial to expose children to ETS?
How will you now convince the public or even the med community they are on the wrong track.
There is a growing field of evidence the pristine environments envisioned by the anti smoker brigade may prove to be much more risky than ones without the smoke.
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/
articl...1031002421.html
"The immune system is there for a reason, said Dr. Kugathasan. "It's there to recognize 'the bad guys.' The immune system allows your body to kill those bad guys and allows you to survive. In order to harden the immune system, the immune system requests some kind of stimuli all the time."
"The hygiene hypothesis suggests that the more hygienic one becomes, the more susceptible one is to various autoimmune diseases. The autoimmune diseases, the diseases that result from all the activation of your immune system, are increasing. The hygiene hypothesis - and we don't yet have a proof of it - acknowledges that the maturation of the immune system needs some kind of hardening, some kind of resistance. Put another way, you cannot really build up good muscles without doing exercise."
Way off topic, but wow. Is this even legal?
"Cigarette surveillance program begins today"
NASHVILLE — Starting today, state Department of Revenue agents will begin stopping Tennessee motorists spotted buying large quantities of cigarettes in border states, then charging them with a crime and, in some cases, seizing their cars.
~snip~
Under state law, bringing more than two cartons of cigarettes into the state without paying Tennessee taxes is a “Class B” misdemeanor, carrying punishment of up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. Bringing 25 or more cartons is a “Class E” felony, with minimum penalty of one year in prison and a maximum of six years plus a fine of up to $3,000.
In addition, the specific state statute dealing with untaxed cigarettes provides that vehicles used to transport more than two cartons “are considered contraband and are subject to seizure,” says a Department of Revenue statement.
(more here) http://www.knoxnews.com/news/200...m-begins-today/
LightningBoy, we need to get you to write the Pennsylvania Senate.
Are Docs and hospitals surragates to Big Pharma?
http://
www.advancedhealthplan.co...useofdeath.html
Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?"20 Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science.
She warned that, "When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways." She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.
Angell left the NEMJ in June 2000. Two years later, in June 2002, the NEJM announced that it would now accept biased journalists (those who accept money from drug companies) because it is too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was just not the case, that there are plenty of researchers who don’t work for drug companies.21 The ABC report said that one measurable tie between pharmaceutical companies and doctors amounts to over $2 billion a year spent for over 314,000 events that doctors attend.
The ABC report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90 percent chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug company-funded study will show favorable results 50 percent of the time.
It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy you any "scientific" result you want.
http://skepdic.com/news/
newslett...er41.html#smoke
"Hookah lounges exempt from bylaw"
Vancouver's hookah-parlour owners are celebrating after winning an exemption Thursday from a proposed new bylaw that will ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial districts, in bus shelters and even in taxis passing through Vancouver.
In giving the bylaw unanimous approval-in-principle, Vancouver city council members bowed to arguments that hookah lounges provide an important cultural space for the city's Muslims and granted them a temporary exemption.
~snip~
"We are very happy because this is our culture. I have one customer, 75 years old, who said 'I will have no other place to go if you close,'" he said.
Mohammadian brought two hookah pipes to show council. They included a 600-year-old model with a ceramic mosaic on the outside, fruit-flavoured tobacco, and charcoal to the meeting to show councillors what was at stake.
~snip~
But Vancouver's planned new bylaw will prohibit smoking in any taxi travelling through Vancouver, even if the driver and all the passengers don't have a problem with it and even if the taxi is licensed in another municipality.
It will also prohibit smoking within six metres of any entryway, window or air intake for a public building, which will effectively ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial areas, since sidewalks are only three metres wide and doors are often less than six metres apart.
And it will prohibit smoking on restaurant patios and at bus shelters.
The one foggy point in the new bylaw was whether it will apply to crack cocaine and crystal-meth smoking.
~snip~
But health-protection director Domenic Losito said he didn't think so, since the bylaw is aimed at cigarette smoke.[!?!]
http://www.canada.com/vancouvers...48e95d565d3&
p=2
Bill Hannegan, - "LightningBoy, we need to get you to write the Pennsylvania Senate."
I hope there not as slow witted as the members of the General Assembly in Ohio.
From those that actually answer, all I have received is the usual plattitudes and cliche statements generated by the truckload by their staff members.
It appears that, unlike my opponents, I don't have anything to offer them that could enhance their positions, wealth, or power.
I hate the Nazi/Communist comparisons, but this is like something out of 1984: 2+2=5
There's no need to ban tobacco outright because with strong tobacco control laws it will all but disappear anyway, and sooner than you might think. That's because there's no great appeal for young people to stick this burning thing in their mouths without the social acceptability and the perception that smoking is cool or glamorous.
If you take a close look at these self-proclaimed "citizens' groups" that pop up out of nowhere when smoking bans are put forward -- as I have with Citizens Against Government Encroachment here in Quebec -- you will find that they're really all about opposing tobacco control laws of every variety, despite the lip service they often give to promoting "freedom" and "choice" on a number of other issues. Which is to say that they are in reality promoting Big Tobacco's political agenda: no tobacco control regulations, hands off.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Some people here seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me and comments I have made in the past. I still support the freedom to smoke, as long as smokers accept the premise that others should not have to pay for that choice with their health.
At the same time, it would be crazy for me not to advocate against smoking, given the genocide that is being produced as a result. So you may now feel free to call me anti-smoking, or even an "anti" for those who get gratification out of calling people names (a not so subtle effort to compare their opponents to insects). So this is indeed a change in my perspective.
Also feel free to call me anti-genocide, anti-drug pusher, anti death and disease, you get the picture.
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
Cathy under the disguise of tobaccoscamalysis wrote: "you get the picture"
Can we have it? The picture I mean. Yours.
Cathy--
"I still support the freedom to smoke..."
.
"At the same time, it would be crazy for me not to advocate against smoking..."
You're never alone with a schizophrenic!
Cathy
What about anti-abortion???
I guess I'm not alone because this blog's host calls himself an anti-smoking advocate yet also supports the right to smoke.
Cathy,
You must also be against Doctors who take money from Big Pharma. I'll repeat this just for you.
"Former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Dr. Marcia Angell, struggled to bring the attention of the world to the problem of commercializing scientific research in her outgoing editorial titled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?"20 Angell called for stronger restrictions on pharmaceutical stock ownership and other financial incentives for researchers. She said that growing conflicts of interest are tainting science.
She warned that, "When the boundaries between industry and academic medicine become as blurred as they are now, the business goals of industry influence the mission of medical schools in multiple ways." She did not discount the benefits of research but said a Faustian bargain now existed between medical schools and the pharmaceutical industry.
Angell left the NEMJ in June 2000. Two years later, in June 2002, the NEJM announced that it would now accept biased journalists (those who accept money from drug companies) because it is too difficult to find ones who have no ties. Another former editor of the journal, Dr. Jerome Kassirer, said that was just not the case, that there are plenty of researchers who don’t work for drug companies.21 The ABC report said that one measurable tie between pharmaceutical companies and doctors amounts to over $2 billion a year spent for over 314,000 events that doctors attend.
The ABC report also noted that a survey of clinical trials revealed that when a drug company funds a study, there is a 90 percent chance that the drug will be perceived as effective whereas a non-drug company-funded study will show favorable results 50 percent of the time.
It appears that money can’t buy you love but it can buy you any "scientific" result you want. "
Is the medical industry really interested in protecting us or making money??? Why do you think Doc says he gave up his career for ethics? He could have continued to lie and get the money. I assume the Doc could live with the continual lies.
There is a difference between anti-smoking and what you do. You can be against it, but by doing so you don't have to scheme to find ways to socially engineer anothers life. Examples are bans derived from suspect science (can you name one person who was documented do have died from SHS?. Just because you don't like the smell does not give you or the government to tell a private business owner who he may serve. Second is the negative press and perception of anyone who chooses to use tobacco. It is akin to the misinformation during the 50's used by racist against blacks. Smokers are ignorant, poor, dirty ...... These words are not directly used, but when you talk of an ashtray mouth, show the person that smokes as slow minded, you have gotten your point across.
Do you advocate these tactics? You must and this is what seperates you from the Doc.
Again, prove us wrong. Show us at least one person who has died from exposure to SHS. No you won't because you made it clear what your agenda is.
Cathy said: "There's no need to ban tobacco outright because with strong tobacco control laws it will all but disappear anyway, and sooner than you might think."
That says it all. You are so fanatical that you will falsify science, limit personal freedom and choice, and promote bigotry against smokers to achieve your means.
So you may now feel free to call me anti-smoking, or even an "anti" for those who get gratification out of calling people names (a not so subtle effort to compare their opponents to insects). So this is indeed a change in my perspective.
You flatter yourself scammer spammer.
I have long called control freaks such as yourself "gnatzies" the definition of which is "small minds buzzing in others business that need to be SWATTED"
Sorry Kathy we had the terminology all wrong, "Hypocritical Bigot" is much more appropriate.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Smokers are not enacting a genocide, they are supposed to be the ones you are helping to find the light, remember?
Hitler got it confused as well, and just look how that went...
over 6 Million people smoke in Canada and they all speak as promoters of big tobacco or they all stand silent, amazing!
I still remain un-flabbergasted.
"It will also prohibit smoking within six metres of any entryway, window or air intake for a public building, which will effectively ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial areas, since sidewalks are only three metres wide and doors are often less than six metres apart."
In other words, they've got smokers standing and walking in the gutters. Or maybe, with parking in the commercial areas, smokers could put money in the parking meters and claim the space for a smoke? But guess you have to be a car to claim a space. Maybe you could put on a car suit that makes you look like a car and fake it. Somebody should research that.
.
But are you discombobulated?
He's un-discombobulated.
.
Look guys I am getting pretty ticked. Canada once burned down the White House and when Bush formed his axis of evil list; no mention of Canada.
Considering who is in charge and the limited options of who we can elect to replace them.
I think it is well past the time you Americans returned the favor.
In Ohio the rule-making committee which included representatives from the ACS decided not to add a specific smoking distance to the rules. This would in most instances have smokers standing in front of someones elses business, or more likely in the middle of the street. Where of course they could then be cited for disrupting the flow of traffic, creating a public nuisance, or just plain 'ol Disorderly Conduct.
Oh, so YOU'RE the guys that burned down our White House! That gives me an entirely different picture of Canadians, who someone once described as 'decaffinated Americans.'
.
They obviously want smokers to disobey the rules, so they can point the crooked finger once more. Separating a smoker from the rest of the human race.
In tomorrows news; smokers more likely to J-walk, New research study shows...bla bla bla
It is futile to resist you will be UN-assimilated...bla bla bla
I beg your pardon Harry, I would never consider Kevin decaffinated.
He sounds rather like you---A live wire.
Sam: So you tell me, if time exposure is crucial in assessing risk, and no one know the time exposure, how can you develop an accurate RR...?
Ok. This isn't an argument since you know we agree and that I appreciate, and also agree with, your points. My comment is is simply this: if time exposure is crucial in assessing a hypothetical/ nonexistent risk...how you can you develop an accurate (hypothetical nonexistent) RR....?
Any way you conjure them, the stats are bound to be wrong if they're based on a false premise.
Or to put that another way: IF pigs could fly, one could calculate that 220 a year would crash-- killing 57 innocent bystanders as they drop. IF pigs could fly.
Cathy: there's no great appeal for young people to stick this burning thing in their mouths w/o social acceptability and the perception that smoking is cool and glamourous.
Cathy, do you know why the Berlin Wall fell? Or why the Russians created samizdat for 30 or more years, risking death, hard labor or mental rape at a jail/ asylum? It sure didn't have any "social acceptability" or the "perception of being cool."
You have no comprehension of that the burning-est thing" for mankind, at least in the western world, is simply to be free from all heavy-handed repression.
And no comprehension of The Pleasure Principle, either.
And as for Vancouver, how different from old Berlin which forced its Jews to walk in the gutter?
:
tobaccocathyalysis wrote:
"Some people here seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me and comments I have made in the past."
Merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments/labelling.
"I still support the freedom to smoke...advocate against smoking...So you may now feel free to call me anti-smoking...anti-genocide, anti-drug pusher, anti death and disease..."
You left out tobacco defender.
"Some people here seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me and comments I have made in the past."
Can anyone think of a more appropriate person, we could all have an unhealthy obsession about
">"
{{{Shudder}}}
Unfortunately Cathy will never see her own obsession with slandering David Romano and Dr Siegel as unhealthy, just as she will never see by her own acclamations she too is a tobacco defender.
Vancouver:
But Vancouver's planned new bylaw will prohibit smoking in any taxi travelling through Vancouver, even if the driver and all the passengers don't have a problem with it and even if the taxi is licensed in another municipality.
It will also prohibit smoking within six metres of any entryway, window or air intake for a public building, which will effectively ban smoking on most sidewalks in commercial areas, since sidewalks are only three metres wide and doors are often less than six metres apart.
And it will prohibit smoking on restaurant patios and at bus shelters.
i guess i can cross off vancouver from my travel list. fortunately i visited back in the early 1990s when vancouver was an interesting city to visit. nobody wants rules (laws) when they're on vacation. no more travel dollars from me.
Do you guys remember when (and we all do, it wasn't that long ago) everyone who had a problem with the Iraqi war was labeled unpatriotic and a terrorist supporter? I believe the word "traitor" was alluded to constantly.
You're either with us or against us.
May I comment on worthless studies?
They happen. Lots of people publish fluff and garbage and...well, nonsense. Looks to me like this was--or should have been--a simple regression model but the authors messed with figures until nobody could tell what was going on. Then, they published a conclusion that didn't *really* jibe with their data. So...it's just a matter of some people getting funding from tobacco control--or trying to get published by giving the journal "desirable" results--but they couldn't find any actual evidence for bashing tobacco so they published this.
Sounds...I dunno. Academic?
i guess i can cross off vancouver from my travel list. fortunately i visited back in the early 1990s when vancouver was an interesting city to visit. nobody wants rules (laws) when they're on vacation. no more travel dollars from me.
brandz
Me too brandz, my wife's adopted dad was raised in Vancouver. We always planned a sentimental visit there, just like we did to Gibraltar and Southern Spain where her adopted mum lived and worked. (they actually met in Gib during the war). Sad to say Canada will not be seeing any of my hard earned cash anytime soon.
GreatScot, brandz,
Here is a great post from Mark Steyn on Vancouver:
http://
corner.nationalreview.com...DdjYzRmNjFhYzE=
(hint) be sure to click on the Jay Currie link toward the bottom.
.
Sunz--From your article: Smoking is Essential for immigrants from hookah smoking cultures…right, well, England was a cigarette and pipe smoking culture. Working class Canada was a cigarette smoking culture. A bunch of Greek guys I know who own restaurants in Vancouver come from cigarette smoking cultures. Punk rockers are a cigarette smoking culture But, hey, they are not Muslims and are unlikely to, in the midst of their depression, blow something up....One of the problems with multi-cult posturing and cultural sensitivity is that it leads to such brilliantly racist outcomes. By creating a special exemption for Muslims - who do seem to be the only immigrant group actively demanding these sorts of “cultural accommodations” we are basically declaring our Muslim citizens worthy of special treatment and, at the same time, unworthy of the health concerns which are purported to be the basis of general smoking bans. But the bigger problem is that we are granting to noisy newcomers the rights which we have taken away from men who fought for Canada or England. And that should worry all of us a lot.
Honestly, the mentality is almost frightening. Looks like people wanted to turn this antismoking crusade into an emotional issue and they got their wish. *Everybody* is...very emotional about it. Like the guy said, that should worry all of us a lot.
Tobacco companies do indeed have a right to produce and sell cigarettes. On the face of it, that's a completely absurd situation. Something as harmful and dangerous as cigarettes which provides no meaningful benefits to society could never be approved for sale today. This right is essentially a holdover from the early days of tobacco when little was known about its effects, and when the majority of adults were addicted to it.
Even with all that is known about tobacco, a significant but steadily decreasing number of people still smoke. The fact that 85% of smokers had their first cigarette by age 18 tells the tale.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/
tob...000youth_e.html
Smoking continues because tobacco companies have been able to convince children, teenagers and young adults that smoking is cool and glamorous, adult and sophisticated, or at least normal and socially acceptable. While smokers' rights advocates often decry "social engineering" in the form of tobacco control regulations, it is actually the tobacco companies that have carried out social engineering by marketing an incredibly addictive product to children and teenagers before they are able to make an informed, rational decision about whether or not to start smoking.
http://geocities.com/corporate_o...?pg=8&cnt=1&
t=a
So for these reasons, and to protect non-smoking adults and children from the health hazards of an activity they didn't choose, tobacco needs to be strictly controlled by government to the greatest extent that is feasible. Contrary to the cynical agruments of people like Michael Siegel, each individual law must be judged on its own merit, and laws do not have to make the world a perfect place to have merit.
What I really meant to say in my earlier comment is that to defend Big Tobacco's agenda -- oppose regulations that would tend to reduce smoking -- is ultimately equivalent to promoting tobacco use, even if you never explicitly tell people they should smoke.
Hmm...oppose regulations that would tend to reduce smoking...does that sound familiar to regular readers of this blog?
http://www.geocities.com/
corpora...rate_opposition
it is actually the tobacco companies that have carried out social engineering by marketing an incredibly addictive product to children and teenagers before they are able to make an informed, rational decision about whether or not to start smoking.
Because smoking didn't exist before Phillip Morris.
I believe in encouraging those with a lesser ability, but really...
Cathy, have any proof that isn't your own rantings and ravings on your own website? No? Keep talking. You do realize your extreme fanatical view only makes those that lurk here at least consider changing their anti-smoking position to a pro-smoking one, or just even back down from their position? No? Good, keep talking.
Cathy, I hate to tell you, but *I* like Joe Camel. WOW, an ADULT that likes cartoons. I must be the only one in the world..no wait, there's actual cartoons that ARE GEARED TO ADULTS...there must actually be a goodly number of adults that like animation. Drawn Together, Robot Chicken, South Park, FAmily Guy, Boondocks, The Oblongs, Futurama, King of the Hill, The Simpsons (which, btw, has enjoyed like 10 years at least), American Dad, Beavis and Butthead, ADULT Swim, boy could I go on...It's not encouraging children just to have a cartoon...now, if it was showing Joe Camel dancing around on Nickolodean at 3 in the afternoon, I might agree with you. Except some of these cartoons come on a channel generally considered adult oriented (Comedy Central) and one comes on at 11 pm, when all little ones ought to be in bed. I'm not sure why the Marlboro man got such a bad rap as he's not a cartoon, and I can assure you, the things I used to think about that man were definitely NOT childish, hehe. I haven't seen any ads in Teen (even when the ads weren't catching so much crap), Highlights, Electronic GAming Monthly, Playstation, or Teenbeat (I've read the gaming magazines since they came out, NEVER a smoking ad). Cosmo, just so you know is a WOMAN's (thus ADULT) magazine, so is MEN's Health, as is Redbook, Rolling Stone, etc. So any real proof that BT is targeting children? No? Oops again.
It's called MARKETING. Get a clue.
tobaccodefender wrote:
"Tobacco companies do indeed have a right to produce and sell cigarettes. On the face of it, that's a completely absurd situation. Something as harmful and dangerous as cigarettes which provides no meaningful benefits to society"
Were you raised in the Soviet Union or North Korea? Have you ever heard the word, individual? Meaningful benefits to society? My God.
"could never be approved for sale today. This right is essentially a holdover from the early days of tobacco when little was known about its effects, and when the majority of adults were addicted to it."
Let's see. Alcohol is equivalent to a Class B narcotic. If it appeared on the market tomorrow...oh wait, it wouldn't be approved for sale either.
I doubt motorcycles would meet approval either. Not when you're 35x more likely to die riding one.
"Even with all that is known about tobacco, a significant but steadily decreasing number of people still smoke. The fact that 85% of smokers had their first cigarette by age 18 tells the tale."
Do you know the percentage for first drink of alcohol? IOW, of course most people have their cigarette by 18. Also their first drink, sexual contact, their drivers license...we're talking an 18 year span here.
"Smoking continues because tobacco companies have been able to convince children, teenagers and young adults that smoking is cool and glamorous, adult and sophisticated, or at least normal and socially acceptable."
And with almost zero advertising in today's world. Fascinating.
Anti-tobacco claims smoking in movies is responsible for half. Then, let's not forget the old stand-bys, peer pressure and parental smoking. Oh, and a sizeable number of girls take up smoking to control their weight. And yet you claim it's the tobacco companies.
"While smokers' rights advocates often decry "social engineering" in the form of tobacco control regulations, it is actually the tobacco companies that have carried out social engineering by marketing an incredibly addictive product to children and teenagers before they are able to make an informed, rational decision about whether or not to start smoking."
That would be illegal (in the USA anyway). You may want to call the police.
Btw, why can't it be that both BT and AT have their own social engineering plans? They're not mutually exclusive.
"So for these reasons, and to protect non-smoking adults and children from the health hazards of an activity they didn't choose, tobacco needs to be strictly controlled by government to the greatest extent that is feasible."
That would be prohibition. Anything less would not be the greatest extent. Especially when you consider your idea that there's no meaningful benefit to society.
"What I really meant to say in my earlier comment is that to defend Big Tobacco's agenda -- oppose regulations that would tend to reduce smoking -- is ultimately equivalent to promoting tobacco use, even if you never explicitly tell people they should smoke."
BT's agenda is to make money by selling cigarettes to people who smoke or want to smoke. You support the freedom to smoke, which is how they make money. You are a defender of Big Tobacco's agenda. You are a tobacco defender. You just don't agree with them on all points.
Jalestra wrote:
"I believe in encouraging those with a lesser ability, but really..."
ROFL
I'd like to 2nd on Joe Camel. I must've been in my 30s when Joe Camel came out. I had his hats, his t-shirts, etched glass mugs, plastic mugs, beer cup holder, six pack insulated things, travel bags, and two director's chairs with my name on them, all courtesy of Joe.
James A: I'd like to 2nd on Joe Camel. I must've been in my 30s when Joe Camel came out. I had his hats, his t-shirts, etched glass mugs, plastic mugs, beer cup holder, six pack insulated things, travel bags, and two director's chairs with my name on them, all courtesy of Joe.
And you live to tell about it!!! I feel so deceived!
We feel so lied to by our album covers.
-- Bill and Ted upon their descent into the netherworld Bogus! Totally.
Don't even get me started on Mr. Clean, the Snuggle teddy bear, the angels with the toilet paper, the roadrunner insurance commercial (and the roadrunner IS a kids' cartoon), the Energizer bunny...not all those are animated, but they all appeal to children. Is Mr. Clean trying to get kids to buy the product? A product that specifically says "Keep out of reach of children"? Perhaps there's a demand out there for children buying health insurance (the roadrunner cartoon, and how they could afford it I have no idea)? My children have never demanded I buy Energizer batteries or Snuggle fabric softener or Angel Soft toilet paper. But if this type of advertising is so special to children, why aren't they? According to some idiots, they should be falling all over themselves for these characters....
I thought Cathy said they weren't trying to ban smoking in the home in CAnada? I thought that was just overreacting?
Some Edmonton MyChoice members propose a picket-line style protest to be held in Edmonton on September 30 and October 1, 2007, against:
- anti-smoking & tobacco control excesses; including the Lloyd Carr theft of over $640,000 in public monies from AADAC's Tobacco Control program (still unresolved - no charges laid), 100% workplace smoking bans, attempts to ban smoking in your own home, attempts to criminalize smoking in private cars,
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4649
OT: Jalestra what type of game is your fav? shooter, rpg, or puzzle? I love RPG (IE zelda, Mario, Jak & Daxter etc) Now I think I will go home and tour the Hyrule field in order to make sure I got my poes in Zelda! LOL
Oh I forgot I'm not suppose to like cartoons, have enough money for 5 systems, a bigscreen TV, and a bookcase of games! I'm a poor uneducated smoker; don't ya know!
I'm a huge fan of epic RPG, I have every FF since Nintendo, every Suikoden, Xenosaga, lots of kids games for my kids of course, some driver simulation, 2 or 3 strategy games, and I love the Harvest Moon games LOL I was a devout fan of Sony and Playstation until the PS3 and it's obscene price range. It's not that I can't afford it, but that thing should do ALOT for $600 that other systems can't do.
Wii bowling is awesome too! Yeap ps3 did it for me too; although I don't bother with xboxes either. Bill Gates gets enough money from me. I never got into FF, thank George, cause 14 of those is too good a epic.
Its good to still have the kid in our heart though. Kids love talking to me still.
PS: National Forum
on Drifting Second-Hand Smoke
in Multi-Unit Dwellings March 20-21/07
& Second-hand Smoke in Multi-Unit Dwellings
http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/page1433.cfm
Hmm...oppose regulations that would tend to reduce smoking...does that sound familiar to regular readers of this blog?
When Al Qaeda took over in Anbar Province, as a matter of public policy, they cut off the fingers of people who were caught with cigarettes in their hands. This policy would "tend to reduce smoking." if only on purely mechanical grounds.
So if Siegel were to oppose it, he's pro-smoking, right?
"Feasibility," Cathy, is all about context. In the world that you're wishing for, all would be feasible. Occasionally, I think that the REAL social experiment isn't about smoking. It's more about seeing how manipulable people are and how far they can be goaded into tribal barbarity by a randomly chosen pre-fabricated hate. The results are discouraging. Tho from your point of view--at least for the moment--a cause for celebration.
:
While over 100 comments were posted on this thread, only two or three of them had anything to do with the topic of the thread.
Since most posters on this blog have no interest in keeping their comments related to the subject matter (but rather try changing the subject matter), I suggest that Mike begin deleting all comments that are irrelevant to the subject matter of his blog postings.
Also delete everything you don't agree with, and don't forget to ban the antis.
Bill, couldn't you have done this in a private email to Dr. Siegel? You're not only off-topic, but you've caused at least two off-topic replies.
You're as bad as Cathy.
Christ, we've heard all this before from Godshall, who apparently has Roberts Rules of Order stuck up his darkest places -- and probably the Christian Bible to boot. This ain't a courtroom or a town meeting, Godshall; we're all free posters here (which Dr. Siegel graciously allows); otherwise, we'd be as tight-arsed, obsessive compulsive, and anal-retentive as you are.
If that's the kind of world you choose to live in, then don't try to impose it on real people. Our take on Dr. Siegel's blog is that it affords an opportunity for argument and getting information out, and not restricting it strictly to on-topic subjects, where information and argument would be broken up and get lost. But that's something you seem incapable of understanding (unless, of course, you understand it all too well!). Are you offended, then, because the postings here make mincemeat of your position?
And don't forget that none of us has forgotten that creature we all love and admire: Fade-Away Godshall. Every time Godshall is asked a question, he fades away. Faaades awaaay.
You're winning, Godshall; why not just calm your affronted prissiness down a bit and settle in with a warm glass of milk and a Twinky? You understand NOTHING.
.
Dear Bill "I Hate To See Anyone Having Fun" Godshall,
Last I checked, this was Dr. Siegel's blog, not yours. Just because he invites the public in, doesn't mean it isn't his to run as he sees fit.
Simply deleting might be enough, since I read somewhere that it takes hurricane force winds to eradicate polite, but off-topic comments from a blog.
Now, off you go to dig up a study to prove that off-topic posts are dangerous and should be banned.
Love,
Epstein's Mother
Cowbell--"Simply deleting might be enough..."
Prehaps a speech on the Floor of the Senate will stop this outrage of OT posting. s/
.
Oops, another anon posting without Si's permission.
Yikes! 5:44 post was mine.
Commenting by HaloScan
