Such a shame that Leonard Glantz and the gentleman from the Phoenix were not in attendance at the meetings in October to speak of their concerns BEFORE the board of health dropped their (unelected) hammer on the public and businesses of Boston.
Exactly how would you go about ensuring that "youths" aren't exposed to tobacco while at the same time making its consumption illegal in the places that are adult-only (like bars), and forcing the smokers onto the "youth-filled" streets?
Aren't the two policies neatly contradictory, or is it just me?
It seems to me that since the amount of money generated from tobacco sales is simply to enormous for the state to institute an all inclusive ban (total prohibition) and because state governments are now so deeply entrenched into the larger fraud surrounding tobacco in general and are now obligated to maintain their rhetoric regarding the health consequences, (less they admit to being victims of TC fraud as well and appearing as the bumbling uninformed idiots they typically are)that Pharmacies are the one place where they would in fact DEMAND that tobacco products be available. In fact they should want pharmacies to be the ONLY place where you could purchase tobacco. (well, perhaps in state owned liquor stores as well)
This is strictly ploitical posturing and pathetic showmanship.
It's a case of;
"Look what we're doing for our constituents because we care so very much,(about the tax revenue generated) that we wanted to make sure that everybody is aware of the consequences of using tobacco without actually prohibiting anyone from making the purchase, (and thereby significantly reducing all that fun money contributed exclusively by smokers)
TC = Traitorous Cons.
Doctor Siegel, when a product like alcohol, tobacco or medication can be used in the presences of youth in the home, does it really matter where it was purchased? Aspirin is wildly available for sale including at pharmacies without any age restrictions.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlinepl...icle/
002542.htm
Taking more than 150mg/kg of aspirin can have serious and even deadly results if untreated. For a small adult, that's roughly equal to taking 20 tablets containing 325mg aspirin. Much lower levels can affect children.
http://www.newsday.com/news/
loca...0,2554837.story
A medical examiner in New York has ruled that a 14-year-old Greenwich girl who died in June committed suicide by overdosing on aspirin.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articl...tional/BO54731/
Arielle Newman was a high school track star who suffered from the typical aches and pains that result from a grueling training regimen. To soothe the aches, she covered her legs with large amounts of muscle cream.
Good news on the front. The general public is beginning to understand why smoking bans in private places are a very bad idea.
Smoking ban idea snuffed at Centennial in Aspen
Condo association considers ashtrays on property instead
Carolyn Sackariason
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO Colorado
Email Print Comment
Recommend
ASPEN — A propertywide smoking ban at Centennial condominiums in Aspen went up in flames Tuesday after an overwhelming number of homeowners voted against the idea.
The “no” vote was so overwhelming, in fact, that the homeowners’ association board of directors didn’t even take an official count of the 22 people who attended the meeting and voted by a show of hands. Proxies also were sent in by homeowners who weren’t present, although it’s unknown how many were submitted.
But it was evident at the beginning of the annual homeowners meeting that the proxies wouldn’t garner the 66 and two-thirds vote needed by the 92 owners at Centennial, said Ed Cross, president of the homeowner’s association.
And of those who were present, including the nine-member board, about a half dozen voted in favor of a smoking ban.
The idea for a smoking ban at Centennial was prompted after two fires, blames on cigarettes, broke out there and at Castle Ridge Apartments, another Aspen affordable-housing complex. Residents began e-mailing Cross expressing concern for their safety, he said.
Aspen Fire Marshall Ed Van Walraven last summer recommended that a ban be put into effect as a prevention mechanism. The American Lung Association also supported the ban, citing dangers of secondhand smoke. ALA representatives argued in front of the board in August that there was no way to prevent secondhand smoke from wafting between units, except to enforce a smoking ban.
But the majority of homeowners who attended Tuesday’s meeting said a ban was too heavy-handed and would do little to prevent people from smoking, especially since candles, incense and any open flame also pose dangers but are allowed.
“Forcing people to do something never works,” said one homeowner. “It just makes me pissed and angry and makes me want to do it more.”
Cross said the board felt an obligation to pursue the idea, based on legal advice from the association’s attorney, Fred Peirce, as well as the recommendation from Van Walraven. The lack of a smoking ban could expose the association to lawsuits if a condo or a building burns down as a result of a burning cigarette, Cross said.
“I feel like we had to go forward with this process,” he said. “I feel like it would have been a progressive move for the association.”
About $3,000 has been spent in legal fees pursuing the ban.
On June 10, a Castle Ridge apartment building burned to the ground after a smoldering cigarette was left in potting soil on a balcony. The fire left 17 people homeless and killed a cat. Subsequently, Castle Ridge, which is owned privately and comprised of rental units, has instituted a smoking ban on the entire property.
Less than two weeks after the Castle Ridge fire, another smoldering cigarette was left in a flower box at Centennial, but the fire was extinguished before it caused any damage.
And last year, a cigarette was left in a flower pot on a second-floor balcony at Centennial, causing extensive damage to a doorway, as well as the building’s siding and common area.
Of the nine board members, one was undecided; four were against the ban; two were for it; and three wanted to grandfather in existing smoking homeowners and ban new owners from smoking when they move in.
“I’m against it because ratting on your neighbors would be an awful situation,” said board member Andrea Karson.
Homeowner Kevin O’Driscoll agreed and said a smoking ban will force people to smoke in their condos, which could be more dangerous.
“It’s going to cause divisions amongst ourselves,” he said, suggesting ashtrays be placed on the property outside.
The board said it will pursue that idea, as well as continual education of homeowners on the risks of smoking, and possibly designating certain areas for smokers.
When the ban was introduced last summer, many observers viewed it as precedent-setting because it would have dictated what people can and cannot do on their own property, raising civil liberty and constitutional issues.
The proposed ban at Centennial was based on a ruling from a judge in Golden, Colo. who recognized that smoking in multifamily units interrupts the quiet enjoyment of one’s home for others. That ruling — based on a homeowner’s association that banned smoking in a four-plex — paved the way for the argument that a ban could be warranted, Cross said at meetings this past summer.
In the Golden case, a Jefferson County District Court judge upheld the nonsmoking ban based on a no-nuisance provision in the condominium association’s declaration. The judge decided secondhand smoke fit the legal definition of nuisance.
The Centennial condominium association last year recognized the quiet enjoyment argument in its rules and regulations.
I thought they said tobacco was a drug. What better place to sell it than a drugstore?
Fighting for the rights of employees in a cigar bar when that right will cause their unemployment is idiotic. It's like banning strip bars so the girls won't have to strip for a living.
I think instead of asking Dr. Siegel to try to ban football to protect its employees, that old hag would do the better job of it.
http://townhall.com/blog/g/
79e7a...tion=Descending
That's for the link salem. How does the Governor get around the smoking ban when he admits that the "smoking tent" is used as his workplace?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis...C2.A0California
Statewide smoking ban: 1994, banned in all workplaces (excepting tobacconists), including all restaurants; in 1998, smoking was banned in bars. Additionally, California prohibits smoking within 20 feet (6.5m) of any door, window or air intake of any government building within the state, including buildings owned or occupied (e.g. leased) by any government entity, including public universities, or public buildings leased to private firms
More good news, epidemiologists will soon be replaced with machines. Public health job losses and prosecutions would soar.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...ure/
7740484.stm
The interviewer asked some good hard questions, making this an interesting segment. I really appreciated what Professor Glantz and the other guy was trying to say though and they made some logical statements, but on the whole, it seems that Dr. what's her name was given a teleprompter and was reading what she was told to say while the 2 gentlemen were left to try to get a word in sideways! Heck, she didn't give them a chance to get a word in letter by letter, let alone say the entire word! This same news station should give these 2 men an entire 15 minute segment without her and let them have the chance to get their message across without being constantly interrupted.
I was very impressed with Leonard Glantz's input. Although he should have been given more time, what time he did have, he expressed himself very well and made some very interesting points.
Doctor Siegel, I think you are very fortunate to having someone like Leonard Glantz place a balance on the issue in Boston. If anything he will always keep you honest - lol and I might add I think this "Glantz" is a keeper.
his same news station should give these 2 men an entire 15 minute segment without her and let them have the chance to get their message across without being constantly interrupted.
diane
It would be great Diane, unfortunately it's a PBS station, I'm surprised they even had the 2 gentlemen on the program at all.
Thanks Gilster, I didn't realize it was only a PBS station. Maybe the networks will pick it up?? Been away from the Boston area for 15 years now, and haven't managed to remember all the call letters. Just am so happy to know that all the restaurants, bars and now pharmacies in the area no longer needs my money. They must all be doing well. That makes me happy to know that everyone there is prospering and doing so good.
To Leonard Glantz, and I apologize for not catching the other gentlemen's name, but great job!
Dr. Siegel, you make the mistake of buying into the antismoking craziness while trying to appear reasonable here: "I agree that like alcohol or guns, cigarettes are dangerous and that you shouldn't be able to buy them anywhere."
Essentially you're granting the insane premise that "Like guns, cigarettes are dangerous."
Now do you really believe that's a reasonable statement? If you wandered into your 18 year old's room one day and saw a Colt .45, an Uzi, and a sawed off shotgun on his bed would you honestly have the same reaction over the dinner table that night as if you'd found a couple of packs of Marlboro?
If you found a corner store a block from a high school that was selling Saturday Night Specials once or twice a week to the local students, would you feel "Well, it's no worse than if they were selling a pack or two of Camels a week to these kids." ?
I could go on with other bizarre examples, but I think you see my point.
In the effort to appear neutral or reasonable, you are allowing yourself to slide over the edge into the Antismokers' psychosis. It's as if you were a psychiatrist treating a patient who was terrified of little green men stealing his eyeballs if he blinked and conceded that "OK, I guess it makes sense to wear sunglasses just to be on the safe side in case you're right."
Anyway.... Aliens don't like to eat smokers you know....
http://www.signs-of-the-times.or...nti-
smoking.htm
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Banning tobacco sales at drugstores makes perfect sense if you view it as a step towards prohibition, which BPHC execurive director Barbara Ferrer does. Antismoking reformers make it clear their goal is a tobacco-less world.
I don't see why Dr. Siegel finds this difficult to understand.
Gilster wrote:
"It would be great Diane, unfortunately it's a PBS station..."
PBS. That's taxpayer funded and only a small minority of people watch PBS.
Where's Bill Godshall when you need him? Forcing nonsmokers to pay for....I'm sorry, I mean forcing everyone to pay for the cost of PBS....It's outrageous!
As far as gun sales being restricted to special places, I don't know about Boston, but anyone in my state can sell their own guns to whomever they like. It's only gun dealers who have to run background checks or make someone wait 5 days for a handgun.
Michael McFadden wrote:
"In the effort to appear neutral or reasonable, you are allowing yourself to slide over the edge into the Antismokers' psychosis."
Michael McFadden's psychosis (i.e. his conspiracy theory that public health advocates reduce smoking because they hate smokers) slid over the edge long ago.
Dr Siegel: "Like guns, cigarettes are dangerous."
Michael McFadden: Now do you really believe that's a reasonable statement? If you wandered into your 18 year old's room one day and saw a Colt .45, an Uzi, and a sawed off shotgun on his bed would you honestly have the same reaction over the dinner table that night as if you'd found a couple of packs of Marlboro?
Technically the statement is correct. "Like" is the right word in this case, and you've shown that cigarettes are nowhere near as dangerous as guns. But you haven't strictly disproved their statement. That's because it's a disprovable, null statement that, while correct(cigarettes carry health risks,) won't really be checked unless in an organized debate forum.
Having said that, Dr Siegel does provide for much less stringent curbs against buying tobacco than guns, but I don't think the general public makes the distinction. I do not think Dr Ferrer makes the same distinction. I will leave the question of intent to others.
Yes, I'm playing grammar police while loathing the smoking police. Irony!
As usual Bill G. distorts the truth in trying to make a point.
He wrote, "Michael McFadden's psychosis (i.e. his conspiracy theory that public health advocates reduce smoking because they hate smokers) slid over the edge long ago."
Bill, go back over my writings. You've got 400 pages of Brains and probably several thousand pages of web pages and postings. Find me one place where I state that "public health advocates (want to) reduce smoking because they hate smokers."
You can't ... simply because I've never said it.
Here's something I have said though, something you probably haven't seen yet since it was just published on Kindle this past week as the postscript to a novelette titled "TobakkoNacht!"
===
Even worse than simply playing the propaganda card in this area though is what they have done with their early education pushes through the schools and massive child-aimed television advertising designed to raise a generation of non-smokers. While that may be a laudable goal it’s yet to be seen whether this intensive sort of DARE-type brainwashing will be any more successful than DARE was itself in the long run. If the only effect was to reduce the number of children who experiment with smoking while under the age of 18, that would be a good thing that few would argue with.
But children do not easily make fine distinctions. A fear of and aversion to smoking all too readily becomes a fear of and aversion to smokers, and that fear and aversion will all too readily become an avoidance of, and eventually a hatred of, the people rather than the custom… And that fear and hatred may well carry over into adult lives and attitudes.
===
Bill, I've never denied that many Antismokers fall into the categories of "Idealists" or "Innocents": people who fear and hate smoke and whose actions may encourage a hatred of smokers but who themselves don't necessarily hate smokers. They believe their end goal, the reduction of smoking, is worth the harm caused by the hatred they ebring about though.
I disagree.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Okay Doc, the table is turned to you again. You are strolling through Quincy Market during the late evening. You are about to be mugged and are threatened with 3 weapons, a knife, a gun or a cigarette. That is if you really want to list cigarettes in the same category as guns. Of these 3 so called weapons, which one scares you the most? Remember, before answering that with a gun, you could be killed instantly. A knife means you could lay on the ground and bleed out in a matter of hours, depending on which part of your body was stabbed and a cigarette could take 40 to 70 years to kill you, if that was even possible!
Wow! I just noted Bill's comment about Michael McFadden's alleged psychosis. My immediate reaction was, "Gosh! Maybe I can get him to call ME psychotic or something one day!" Then I remembered feeling the same about Cathy Bell ramping up the name calling.
And so it is with overzealous name-calling and legislation. People may eventually gain their senses of humor back and blow you off.
To follow on Diane's question for any anti-smokers, you have a choice of 3 alleys. One has several smokers huddling by the dumpsters, slightly upset about the 25 foot rule. One has a person with a knife. One has a person with a gun. Which do you choose? Do you even pause?
Michael McFadden wrote:
"Find me one place where I state that "public health advocates (want to) reduce smoking because they hate smokers.""
One need look no further than the title of McFadden's fictional book.
Bill G. wrote, "One need look no further than the title of McFadden's fictional book."
Heh... evidently Bill hasn't read it yet. I guess I shouldn't be surprised: I've seen the reactions of a few Antismokers who've taken up my invitation to find something wrong with it in person. I've learned to stand far enough back so that when their impatience explodes I have time to duck.
On the flip side, I've read most of the Surgeon General's reports, at least one of Glantz's abominations, a couple of the ASH/GASPy books, and Darwinna's "Target" book. All pretty much garbage in varying degrees, but to be able to give an educated evaluation of what you're doing it's important to have read and understood your opposition's thoughts.
I guess that's the difference between Bill and me.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Here is how tobacco taxes fund the billions in ban damages already recognized.
When the full impact on the hospitality industry and the feeder industries which suply it, is measured MSA will be considered chickenfeed.
And all to sell a couple billion worth of smoking patches?
http://www.tobaccotrustfund.org/...d.org/
about.htm
Per Dr. Siegel, "I thought the most interesting and informative part of the segment was when Dr. Ferrer defended the ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies by arguing that: "It's like alcohol or guns. You shouldn't be able to buy it ANYWHERE."
I agree that like alcohol or guns, cigarettes are dangerous and that you shouldn't be able to buy them ANYWHERE."
Is the word you and Dr. Ferrer mean to use in these sentences EVERYWHERE instead of ANYWHERE? The use of the word "anywhere" in these sentences means that you favor a complete ban on the sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. No one could buy any of them anywhere.
... or is this a Freudian slip and just the next set of problems to be tackeled after the "tobacco problem" is solved?
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
Bill carries forward an insane idea constantly hoping the lies can becone truthful. He believes because he prefers smokeless tobacco it is safer.
Just because..
Reality tells us the poison is in the dose and anything consumed by someone smoking is available in drastically higher volumes with every bit you chew or bag.
Every mouth full of chew and spit has thousands to hundreds of thousands of times by volume measure, of every suspect toxin and carcinogen found in cigarette smoke.
People should know the truth so they are able to make reasonable decisions based in more than incoherent ravings of moralist dictatorship by organized fear mongering.
If smokeless tobacco is safe smoking is harmless.
A miracle waiting for discovery.
Cherry flavoring cures cancer?
J&J loves bans SC Johnson Isn't so enthusiastic all of a sudden.
This is one Ban wagon which seems like poetic justice, and I won't be complaining about it.
Spam email distributed by the company looking for sympathy;
==================================================
The impact of Bill 64
Whether it's a cockroach in your kitchen or a mosquito interrupting outdoor activities, controlling and repelling insects can be the best prevention against these pests - especially insects that carry dangerous diseases such as West Nile Virus or provoke anaphylactic allergic reactions, which could affect your family.
The Government of Ontario is in the process of passing regulations that intend to restrict the sale of select products that you use to control insect pests in and around your home, by making some trusted products such as Raid® and OFF!® (ones that have been used effectively in insect control for years) more difficult to purchase. One result of the proposed regulations will be to remove these select products from stores that can not afford to set up special sections. Rather these products will be put under lock and key, and dispensed by special staff - much like prescription drugs.
While much of what's in Bill 64 is good for Ontarians, as it attempts to reduce the use of non-essential pesticides, we need to get all the bugs out of the proposed regulations now so that the insect control products you rely on, and that follow strict Health Canada regulations, are available to you when and where you need them, not behind a store counter under lock and key.
OFF!® Area Bug Spray Yard & Deck
Have your say
We encourage you to share your thoughts on the ban to help shape the regulations. You can do this by reviewing the draft regulations on the Ministry of the Environment Web site and including your own comments on Bill 64.
To help you get started, we have provided some sample responses, which you are welcome to use.
1. I don't support a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides for lawns and gardens, unless it allows for the use of insect control products to protect me from insects like mosquitoes, and ants, in and around the home.
2. I urge the Ontario government to not restrict the sale of insect control products that will protect me when insects such as mosquitoes, spiders and ants are present, in and around my home.
3. I ask the government to allow full access to all insect control products that will protect me from mosquitoes, wasps, ants, spiders, earwigs and flies, in and around my home.
Raid® House & Garden Bug Killer
What Ontarians think
According to an Ipsos-Reid survey conducted from October 6 to 10, 2008:
* 91% of Ontarians feel mosquito repellants and insect sprays are essential for controlling insects that may carry disease or trigger deadly allergic reactions
* Only 10% of Ontarians would support a ban on the use of insect control products such as Raid® and OFF!®
* 68% of Ontarians use personal mosquito repellants and 58% use insect sprays
Raid® Outdoor Ant Nest Destroyer
About Bill 64
On June 28, 2008, the Cosmetic Pesticides Ban Act, 2008 (Bill 64) was passed in the Ontario legislature and became law. The purpose of Bill 64 is to amend the Pesticides Act & Regulations to prohibit the use and sale of "non-essential" pesticides in Ontario.
The Ministry of the Environment has proposed regulations that will enforce Bill 64. The regulations will identify the products or chemicals that will be included in the ban. The draft regulations are posted for public review and comment from November 7 to December 22, 2008.
Find your M.P.P. here
If you'd like us to stop sending you SC Johnson news, including this e-mail, you can easily unsubscribe at any time.
If you're worried about your personal information, please know that we never sell or share it with other companies. For your peace of mind, we'd like you to read our Privacy Pledge.
© 2008 S. C. Johnson and Son, Limited. All rights reserved.
Michael's point is well-taken. I did not intend to be making a comparison of cigarettes to guns in terms of safety. I was merely trying to repeat the comment that was actually made to demonstrate the lack of a logical extension from stating that a product is dangerous and shouldn't be sold in just any store to the policy that the dangerous product should merely not be sold in pharmacies. I didn't mean to endorse the comparison of selling cigarettes to selling guns.
As far as "Antibrains" is concerned, I have to say that the more and more I learn about my colleagues, the more truth I see in a lot of what Michael has written. I don't know if Bill has read the book, but nowhere did I see Michael arguing that anti-smoking advocates are pursuing smoking bans because they hate smokers.
On the other hand, I myself have opined that a hatred of smokers is indeed behind a number of the policies that are being pursued by anti-smoking groups and advocates. One need only peruse ASH's web site to feel the hatred oozing out of the web pages.
For starters, how could anyone possibly argue that the denial of needed foot surgery to John Nuttall (I may be misremembering the name - this story was a while back) was motivated by anything other than hatred for smokers? You just don't do that to a human being if you feel compassion toward that person.
Incidentally, Michael describes a group in his book known as "Idealists." I can see how I fit into that description. I was naive about what the true tactics and intentions of the movement were, largely because of my idealism. But all that changed in 1997 and the years that ensued.
Diane;
From the radio show link posted in a previous thread.
http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/...b9-
ed54bb97e489
I kind of liked the revealing question; would you rather your child were addicted to smoking or alcohol?
It would be interesting to hear a few thoughts on that one.
Michael;
"I was merely trying to repeat the comment that was actually made to demonstrate the lack of a logical extension from stating that a product is dangerous and shouldn't be sold in just any store to the policy that the dangerous product should merely not be sold in pharmacies. I didn't mean to endorse the comparison of selling cigarettes to selling guns."
The explanation of the pharmacy ban originates with Neil Collishaw of Physicians for a smoke free [enter place]
He felt that because pharmacies sell medicine children might get mixed messages. Logically an extension of the doctors not smoking in their offices and in hospitals. It's another moralist "insult by sight" thing.
If we can't see it or hear it; it doesn't exist. See no evil, hear no evil, smell no evil. Or as stated many times on Saturday night live.
La La La La LA La...
Kevin, your homepage is broken.
On Edge;
"Kevin, your homepage is broken."
I know, but then so is the logic behind ETS
Try this link it works pretty well.
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/
Kevin, I may be wrong here but I was under the impression the S.C. Johnson Company was not affiliated with J&J.
I would not wish to falsely accuse you of being wrong, as I find your information so useful, but in this case I really hope I'm right and you're wrong. I do everything I can to avoid buying J&J products, but I do buy SC Johnson products.
Gabz
Your right they are two separate companies, both 120 years old and both with humble beginnings in South Carolina, if you can believe the company history on their websites.
The connection between them is that they are joined at the hip at the UN, where they hide behind tobacco and other myths, manipulating government policies to avoid the well deserved scrutiny of the products they inflict on the rest of us. Protected by the many honors they bestow on each other as corporate philanthropists.
Protecting us from ourselves.
Semantics can be dangerous too and should obviously be kept away from idealists.
The Boston DOH lady seriously says:"It's like alcohol or guns. You shouldn't be able to buy it anywhere." And we gather that she does indeed mean anywhere-- which as Einstein interprets, means "any where at all." For her, then, the pharmacy is simply the first leg of that incremental journey, to be followed predictably by the supermarket leg, and the convenience store leg and so on and so on.
Seigel, the naif, goes on to agree that like alcohol or guns, cigarettes are dangerous and you shouldn't be able to buy them anywhere purposely choosing his "anywhere" to mean "in just any old place." Cuz he still, after all this time, doesn't get it, refusing to admit what his Movement is about.
Personally, I think cigarettes should be sold in just any old place where the seller wants to sell them. Though I wouldn't ordinarily think of a bookstore as a place to buy cigarettes, or aspirin, or milk, the owner should have the right. And the "interests of the state" to infantilize people who can join the marines, get married or abort, is as open as a 6 lane highway to dispute. And the premise itself then further opens the door to protecting Our Teens from the lethal depravities that follow from the mere observation of the sale of cheeseburgers, tanning lotion, condoms and Coke.
Already, please note,colas have been labeled as as "dangerous" as tobacco, which, we now see, is as dangerous as guns.
:
Based on the assumption that passive smoke exposure boosts heart disease risk by 26 percent to 65 percent, for 1999-2004 Lightwood and his colleagues peg the number of heart disease deaths a year due to passive smoking at 21,800 to 75,100, and estimate that second-hand smoke causes 38,100 to 128,900 heart attacks.
If the downward trend in passive smoking exposure observed between 1988 and 2004 continued through to 2008, according to the researchers, deaths and heart attacks due to second-hand smoke would fall by 25 percent to 30 percent.
Continued reduction in second-hand smoke exposure will likely be driven by efforts to ban smoking in public and in the workplace and to promote smoke-free homes, they conclude.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
medlinepl...tory_72931.html
The drop in heart attack rates caused by shs fell 30%. So, 30% of 0 is still 0. I guess to "promote smoke free homes" the article could state that the heart attack rates would fall by 200%, making the number of victims 0 again.
Sheri; I'll see your Repace fashioned negation tactic, and raise you a lobooist claim, Walt Disney. is a shill to big tobacco.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/
ar...parentid=102299
"From 1999 to last year, 171, or 73 percent, of movies and television programming produced by the Walt Disney Company or one of its divisions contained smoking scenes, the study showed.
"Although cigarette smoking scenes are more prevalent in movies than on television, television shows are available 24 hours a day and are able to reach a wide range of audiences," Chung said.
Among the top television shows that contained smoking scenes, four of them were cartoons for children.
"Children may be exposed to [scenes of cigarette smoking] between 3.35 to five times a week, or about 260 times each year. The exposure is long-term and occurs every day," she said."
This is one you see all the time;
From above;
"between 3.35 to five times a week, or about 260 times each year."
Although the range is 3.35 to 5 apparently only the 5 is important 5 X 52 = 260.
If this were a legitimate and unbiased researcher the median would be used, meaning the average times the duration.
I guess 217 times a year wasn't scary enough so the full Monty had to be applied to maximize the impact.
Lobooist identified, add that name to the growing list.
Kevin
Selling petrol as a cure for cancer -from 1949
"Old Bill" opened up a new field for himself. He called his bottled petroleum "Nujol" (meaning new oil) and sold it to those who had cancer and those whom he could make fear they would have it.
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/
The..._Nujol_Started_
BTW Sheri; I wrote a response to the article at Medline;
I am writing in response to the article published;
Drop in second-hand smoke deaths predicted,
Reuters Health, Thursday, December 18, 2008.
The heading immediately above the article clearly states Medline Plus "Trusted Health information"
Does it fall to any of your editors intelligence, when promoting fear mongering, such as this article can be best described, that the readers trust is breached? Statistical gymnastics presentations in regard to health reliant information, has to carry at least a suggestion of biological plausibility or it looses all hope of legitimacy. This is not research this is another of many presentations I refer to as Lobooing as opposed to lobbying or the sales and exchange of fear for profit. The numbers presented have; the casual exposure of second hand smoke, exceeding the risk of smoking or pretty much any other dangerous toxin in our environment. Can you honestly state the numbers represent anything more than political promotion, with a preordained goal almost dripping from every sentence.
The sheer gaul of the conflicts and protections of toxin load industries, involved in these controversial studies does not bode well for the health of the public, as they do for public health as an organization.
A mother who would be frightened to push her baby carriage past a person smoking, would sit for hours in a bus or train station heavily burdened with diesel exhaust or dose her home with air fresheners and scented candle smoke confident her baby is safe. People who smoke are being encouraged to use smokeless products containing thousands to hundreds of thousands of times the volume of the very toxins said to make smoking and second hand smoke dangerous.
Have you all gone so insane you have lost all perspective of common sense and integrity.
Trust? Sorry your starting to sound more like a programed cult much more than professionals. It is not the public being duped by the myths of second hand smoke, nearly as much as those who should know better.
Regards;
No conflicts, just disgusted.
Rose that a long read but pretty interesting. Too bad more don't take the time to see the whole story.
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/
The..._Nujol_Started_
""I firmly believe that if the whole materia medica could be sunk to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind and all the worse for the fishes."
— Oliver Wendell Holmes, M. D.
Professor of Medicine at Harvard"
Judging by what I have been seeing of late, I would wholeheartedly second that thought... Lobooists rule medicine.
Off Topic but completely relevant;
"Annoying ordinance passed in Brighton"
http://tinyurl.com/4co6tk
An ordinance that makes it illegal to "annoy" someone else.
"City Manager Dana Foster said enforcement would be a subjective call made by
police officers. However, Foster said the rules are aimed at those who interfere in public areas as opposed to residents who are simply annoying for annoyance’s sake."
If there are any TC groups in this town, they could be in serious trouble.
"Benzo[a]pyrene was determined in 1933 to be the component of coal tar responsible for the first recognized occupation-associated cancers, the sooty warts (cancers of the scrotum) suffered by chimney sweeps in 18th century England.
In the 19th century, high incidences of skin cancers were noted among fuel industry workers. By the early 20th century, the toxicity of benzo[a]pyrene was demonstrated when malignant skin tumors were produced in laboratory animals by repeatedly painting them with coal tar"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzopyrene
More good news for freedom of choice, civil liberties and property rights.
LANSING -- Another year, another crushing disappointment for anti-smoking advocates, who are vowing to rekindle their fight to ban workplace smoking after state lawmakers failed to reach a compromise Friday.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs...ITICS/
812200396
More good news for the old-fashioned notion of personal responsibility:
NEW YORK, Dec 16 (Reuters) - New York State's top court on Tuesday rejected a product liability claim against tobacco companies by smokers who said they should have used lower levels of tar and nicotine.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/
go...625971920081216
More good news for those "right to smoke and pollute my air" people, Iro. Thanks for the posts and while it is good news it is no sign to rest as "we aren't finished with those antis yet"!
From Iro’s link: ”Gov. Jennifer Granholm . . . said she believes the Legislature will conform to "overwhelming" public sentiment next year and pass the ban. But if not, a petition drive is possible.”
Sounds like the folks in Michigan can expect a small population explosion next year as anti-smoker fanatics pour into the state to reinforce a new initiative to pass a ban.
Strange, isn’t it, the big three auto makers in Detroit are begging for a bailout to save jobs? At the same time, the anti-smoker crowd is begging for a ban to eliminate jobs. Of course, maybe the Governor's "overwhelming" support comes from the casino and bar owners in Windsor, who would probably appreciate a ban in Michigan which would “level the playing field”. Misery does love company.
From MJM’s link:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) applauded the strong warnings on cigarette packages and the eventual ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship laid down in the world's first international public health treaty. ... The treaty, known as the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, gives members three years to slap strong health warnings on tobacco packages and five years to ban advertising, promotion and sponsorship.”
These people’s understanding might be improved – though that remains a question – by reading “Buy-ology” by Martin Lindstrom.
If Dr. Siegel likes science (at least he gives lip service to it), this should be of interest. A group of 32 smokers were given fMRI scans (as well as SST scans) by a research team overseen by Dr. Gemma Calvert, who holds the Chair in Applied Neuroimaging at the University of Warwick, England, and here were the results (emphases in original):
“Cigarette warnings – whether they informed smokers they were at risk of contracting emphysema, heart disease, or a host of other chronic conditions – had in fact STIMULATED an area of the smokers’ brains called the nucleus accumbens, otherwise know as ‘the craving spot.’ This region is a chain-link of specialized neurons that lights up when the body desires something – whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco, sex, or gambling. When stimulated, the nucleus accumbens requires higher and higher doses to get its fix.
“In short, the fMRI results showed that cigarette warning labels not only failed to deter smoking, but by activating the nucleus accumbens, it appeared they actually ENCOURAGED smokers to light up. We couldn’t help but conclude that those same cigarette warning labels intended to curb smoking, reduce cancer, and save lives had instead become a killer marketing tool for the tobacco industry.”
(Don’t mess with Mother Nature.)
Of course, this whole thing delighted me no end – even as I felt no shame whatsoever in BEING delighted, such is the reflexive consequences of the Great Campaign of Strangers to order our lives as they see fit, using whatever methods they see fit, including a barrelful of lies meant to control us. (“Tobacco Control,” doctor; does that term mean the Control of tobacco or the Control of those who use it?)
Item from the book: In China, 60% of all male doctors smoke. Oops!
Author’s anecdote (re those graphic images on cigarette packs): “I was once in an Australian convenience store where I overheard the clerk asking a smoker, ‘Do you want the pack with the picture of the lungs, the heart or the feet?’ How often did this happen, I asked the clerk? Fifty percent of the time that customers asked for cigarettes, he told me.”
Great post, Walt.
.
Walt wrote, "Already, please note,colas have been labeled as as "dangerous" as tobacco, which, we now see, is as dangerous as guns."
Such labeling is clearly needed in today's dangerous world...
===
It was a dark and stormy night. The glaring lights of the 7-11 Qwickie Mart on the corner sputtered and sparked, casting an eerie glow over the sordid neighborhood around it.
A hooded teen pushed in through the doors. The place was empty aside from two store clerks who were jabbering at each other in Lithuanian or Zimbaweum or French or VietnoMongolian or something and the teen headed back to the Soda Safes.
He pulled out a cold can of Coke 45 and ran up to the clerk at the cash register. The clerk started to ring it up while calling out the price when the kid suddenly started shaking the deadly can, priming it to blow before the befuddled bejabbererer could reach under the counter for his sawed-off shotgun.
"HANDS IN THE AIR!! NOW!!!! " the kid shouted!
The merchants of death reached for the sky and backed away as the cold-blooded psycho-killer, a veteran of the Fizz Wars of the 90s, reached into the open register and grabbed the cash.
At that point the braver of the clerks reached for a Camel, intending to light it and cast a toxic cloud toward the armed teen but the kid was fast, too fast, and his loaded can went off with a BANG!
Frothing Fizzling Foozzelling Fantails of Coke 45 suddenly spewed sizzlingly across the intervening feet and sent both clerks reeling toward an early grave as the sociopathserial serial sodarer dashed out and back into the night.
Another sad tale from the Naked City.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Harry mentioned Martin Lindstrom's book Buyology, which includes a study showing that cigarette warning labels do not deter smoking, but actually stimulate the part of the brain involved in smoking cravings. I actually have read the whole book, and it is outstanding. It does make a convincing case that cigarette warning labels are basically useless. This is yet another reason why the proposed FDA tobacco legislation is not what it's cracked up to be.
Michael;
"It does make a convincing case that cigarette warning labels are basically useless."
When they first introduced the warnings in Canada, the reaction was virtually unanimous.
People rolled their eyes and asked what next. The kids collected them and traded them for a while and eventually lost interest.
I find it more surprising that a person who sees them daily has any reaction at all, positive or negative. I don't even notice them unless someone brings it up.
If you asked me five minutes away from the package, which label was on it, I honestly couldn't tell you.
The promotion of the labels describing them as effective in accomplishing anything, is more a case of ego stroking than reality.
"It does make a convincing case that cigarette warning labels are basically useless. This is yet another reason why the proposed FDA tobacco legislation is not what it's cracked up to be."
It is a shame that the "scientists" who study this stuff never consult smokers when designing campaigns against them. I remember a tv news show that discussed using criminals to learn how to catch other criminals....very effective. Sometimes the FBI will use child predators to learn how to catch child predators. But, where smoking is concerned, they just make up things because it sounds like it might work. It is similar to predicting how many smokers will die of smoking related disease in 2035 or those studies that claim 200 bartender died from shs exposure. Of course there is not one dead body produced out of the 200, but that doesn't stop the claim that there are 200 bodies somewhere...perhaps hidden in the same spot as the WMD in Iraq. It might make sense to use real smokers and real bartenders to prove or disprove points about smokers and smoking, but then what would be the fun of that? TC would not get to have all of those press conferences if they actually had to rely on life studies rather than spitting out a computer printout as "proof" Had they studied the warning label issue, they would have realized that few people ever read such things. It's much like buying a new electronic toy and tossing the directions in our haste to use it. Directions, warnings, and other propaganda tools just become cliches a short while after they are introduced. As a smoker, I can tell you that I NEVER look at the warnings. I did when they first appeared, but now they are just a part of the package. That
is why TC in its infinite lack of wisdom just never gets it and will continue to fail in their efforts to force smokers to quit.
Sheri, I agree that they do not understand how smokers think or even how they smoke. In the report "UPDATE ON SMOKING COSTS TO SOCIETY" they have calculate that there is one cigarette not accounted for, therefore it must have occurred during non scheduled working hours. Most people that I know that smoke will have one at the beginning of their lunch break and one right after.
http://www.smokefreeottawa.com/
2...outtabaceng.pdf
2.2. Decreased Productivity
...the average Canadian smoker has a daily consumption of about 16 cigarettes (approximately 17 cigarettes daily for men and 15 cigarettes daily for women).If we assume, as in the Conference Board of Canada study, that an individual sleeps for 8 hours, the period of eight hours of work represents half the time an employees is awake. When an employee is not allowed to smoke in the workplace, there is usually a tendency to smoke more outside of work hours. We assume therefore, that only one quarter of cigarettes smoked during the day (4) are consumed during work hours. If an employee smokes one cigarette at each of two breaks and one at lunch-time, there remains one to be smoked during time that is not designated as a break period.
Ann w.;
Exactly how credible can you consider a study provided by;
The Québec Coalition for Tobacco Control
titled;
"UPDATE ON SMOKING COSTS TO SOCIETY"
Alternatively;
If we saw a study by
The anti lobooist society
Titled;
Determining the economic and emotional costs of medical lobbies on society.
Would anyone have to read it to know what it contains?
Kevin
Now that it seems the green leaf has no carcinogens, but bathing the crop in fuel oil fumes for up to 6 weeks,those toxins would be expected to show up on tobacco smoke spectrometer tests, I thought I'd have a look at other sources of the time.
"In 1963, a phenomenon called thermal inversion occurred in New York City’s atmosphere. Warm air trapped cooler air below it. Pollutants were trapped in the lower layer and 405 people died, mainly from carbon monoxide poisoning. Inversion struck again in November 1966, with 168 fatalities.
The worst incident of thermal inversion happened in London in December 1952, resulting in 4,000 ( 12,000 at the final count )deaths. Thermal inversion spurred the swift passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963."
"However according to the same NYPA assessment, each 44-megawatt, gas-burning turbine could produce as much 61 tons per year of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds such as benzopyrene and formaldehyde"
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007.../01/
82308.shtml
So a product that has been contaminated with the original suspect for the rising death toll,appears to have been held up as the culprit, because both products make smoke.
No wonder the environmental scientists of the time were so upset.
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
"The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive."
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...ung_cancer.html
The question is,did they know about the fuel oil contamination?
Its rather like the approved food additives that are used in cigarettes presumably made by chemical companies,which then become "toxins" when other chemical companies make "beneficial" nicotine as a supposed replacement.
Confused? Me too
Of course ''right to kill the free market'' advocates will tell you that smoking bans are good for business:
Casinos get burned by smoking ban this year
(...) All year, monthly reports from the Illinois Gaming Board showed a sharp decline in the amount the state’s gamblers were putting on the line at casinos. So far this year, the state’s boats have seen about a 20 percent drop.
http://www.pantagraph.com/
articl...09396475565.txt
This is indeed a great example of why anti-smoking advocates should consult with smokers about public health programs rather than spend their time insulting them (you know who you are).
As Kevin wrote: "The promotion of the labels describing them as effective in accomplishing anything, is more a case of ego stroking than reality."
That is a great way to describe what the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is doing. When I previously stated that it's all about money, I was wrong. For groups like the Campaign, it's all about money and ego.
Don't forget "power". It brings the money and strokes the ego at the same time.....
"This is indeed a great example of why anti-smoking advocates should consult with smokers about public health programs rather than spend their time insulting them"
So are you asking?
Smoking was going quietly out of fashion, it was a thing that older people did.
In my teens,I had no intention of taking it up any more than wearing pearls or stilettos or wearing a beehive hairstyle.
Then when we started getting constantly lectured and posters plastered on the school walls with what was obviously used engine oil dripping from a test tube,I naturally began to suspect that authority was lying.
It seemed at that time everything that sounded interesting or fun was being thoroughly disapproved of, by the very people you least wanted to grow up to be.
Rose your link elaborates on a point I have been convinced of, for a very long time.
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...ung_cancer.html
Yet for most people the immediate reaction would be; only a lunatic could believe such a thing.
""Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself". "
In spite of this;
" If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive."
Internalized belief systems are very hard to challenge, even within ourselves. It is almost an unimaginable task to convince a significant number of others to look again. For most of us it is simply easier to follow the crowd, which compounds the task even more.
Kevin
Never mind the consensus
The point is, having been stirred out of my complacency, now "I" want to know.
This illustrates the problem.
Policemen on point duty to get gas masks - 1999
"The 300 odd traffic policemen in the city will soon have gas-masks to guard against inhalation of emission laden air while on point duty."
"The Indian Oil Corporation will provide the masks in a week, said Assistant Commissioner Siddharth Khatri on Wednesday"
"He said that the sharp increase in use of vehicles has increased emission levels in the air, especially in cities. Every year, 52,000 air-pollution related deaths take place in India. ``It is worst at crossings, and the man on point duty is exposed to emissions for long hours,'' he said"
http://www.expressindia.com/news.../
ige02097p.html
But from the doctors -
Sharp Rise in Number of Lung Cancer Patients 2001
"Dr Pathak said there has been a considerable rise in the incidence of lung cancer as more and more people have taken to smoking. IRCH chief Dr Vinod Kochupillai said, ``The worst thing about smoking is that it has become a fashion statement. The young are specially gullible to fall for such things.'
http://www.tobacco.org/news/59780.html
Perhaps the people who live and work in the city might be better advised to wear masks too?
It might save thousands of lives and possibly quite a few heart attacks as well.
Heavy traffic bad for your heart
"A German study has found people caught in traffic are three times more likely to have a heart attack within the hour than those who are not stuck in a jam"
""Nevertheless, patients who are at risk for acute coronary events are likely to profit from recent efforts to improve the air quality in urban areas with the use of cleaner vehicles and improved city planning."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
3761012.stm
Per kevin quoting the link, " It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 ..."
It all started in 1947 and Doll didn't publish it until 1950.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=4223
"Two main causes have from time to time been put forward: (1) a general atmospheric pollution from the exhaust fumes of cars, from the surface dust of tarred roads, and from gas-works, industrial plants, and coal fires; and (2) the smoking of tobacco. Some characteristics of the former have certainly become more prevalent in the last 50 years, and there is also no doubt that the smoking of cigarettes has greatly increased. Such associated changes in time can, however, be no more than suggestive, and until recently there has been singularly little more direct evidence."
And then later in his report, " The present investigation was planned in 1947, to be carried out on a sufficiently large scale to determine whether patients with carcinoma of the lung differed materially from other persons in respect of their smoking habits or in some other way which might be related to the atmospheric theory. Patients with carcinoma of the stomach, colon, or rectum were also incorporated in the inquiry, as one of the contrasting groups, and special attention was therefore givin at the same time to factors which might bear upon the etiology of these forms of malignant disease. A separate report will be made upon these inquiries. The present study is confined to the question of smoking in relation to carcinoma of the lung."
No separate report was ever published. I don't think one was ever intended but he made the promise to deflect potential criticism that his research was done to support a predetermined conclusion that tobacco consumption, and nothing else, was the cause of the increase in the number of cases of lung cancer.
Rumor has it that the whole study was undertaken to support a proposed ban on the importation of tobacco from the US after WWII because the British economy was so badly damaged by the war. The Marshall Plan was implemented during the years that the study was conducted. Since no import ban was necessary because of the Marshall Plan there was no reason to publish the report.
When the finished report, finished in the Fall of 1949, went unpublished the American Cancer Society funded Ernst Wynder to duplicate the study in the US. When Doll learned of Wynders publication he submitted his research for publication and it was published in the BMJ September 30, 1950. After that tobacco research developed a life of its own.
"Atmospheric" research was never again considered because it couldn't garner the funding that the "prohibitionist crusaders" would give to fund anti-tobacco research.
Advocate for CASH
It's the smoke you can't smell that is the most dangerous.
It is curious that TC believes Doll on his studies of smoking and lung cancer, yet ignores what he had to say about shs.
"In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.
In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
In February 2004, he hit the headlines after saying he would be willing to go to prison because of new rules on medical research."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/healt...lth/
3826939.stm
More confusingly still, he was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation while he was doing it, if Denial and Delay is to be trusted.
I did wonder why everyone who objects to freezing pensioners was accused of being in league with tobacco.
"As to ‘medical supervision . . . I shall have a Rockefeller Scholar in my department who might be used on it at little cost. A much better alternative would be Richard Doll who has been employed by the Council in the survey of peptic ulcer (sic) in industry and which is coming to an end I believe"
http://www.denialdelay.org.uk/pr...uk/
prologue.htm
Tobacco and the Marshall Plan are mentioned in the prologue
Sheri
Some of his other studies
http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/new...anies-
231161138
""I did wonder why everyone who objects to freezing pensioners was accused of being in league with tobacco.""
The answer to that one is simple; it is guilt making excuses for deplorable acts.
Smoking bans are not an act of benevolence or kindness, they are violent abusive acts, candy coated in political fast talk.
We know they are wrong, just as those who created them do. It is almost instinctive if you have an ounce of compassion for others around you, deep down even if you can't explain it you just know.
We can never allow government or institutions which garner control over our lives, to believe they can get away with targeting individuals with abuse, for any reason.
The Taxes are theft and the bans are exclusionary. We know it and so do those promoting this trash. The guilty conscience of those who create phrases like "helping people to quit" demonstrates a knowledge of that injustice.
The other person’s name in this "debate" is ; Steven Mindich . Just thought of it as worthwhile to mention.
Violence is an absolutely accurate description, in case anyone believes I was not clear.
Consider the following and compare the description to what is being done with an endorsement of the entire medical community. The facts speak for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
"Violence is the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse. The word is used broadly to describe the destructive action of natural phenomena like storms and earthquakes. More frequently the word describes forceful and intentional injury to people, and verbal and emotional abuse towards others."
I can't describe what I see, in more accurate terms.
The entire medical community understands accidental death. So where is the “ethics” and “justification” for making a person (who happens to smoke) life as miserable as possible?
(Got cut short )
Is this the tough luck part of the TC movement?
One thing that I rarely see mentioned is the plant itself.
If tobacco is eradicated as they hope to do, how long is it going to be before some other bright sparks with lots of cash decide to go for the rest of the nightshade vegetables?
Impossible?
Well I thought that about tobacco.
Potatoes belong to the Nightshade family (Solanaceae), which includes about 150 species that bear tubers. Most members of this family produce alkaloids in the roots:
Potato – solanine, chaconine, etc
Tobacco – nicotine
Deadly nightshade - scopolamine
Tomato – tomatine
Petunia
Pepper
Eggplant
Jimsom Weed
Most of these species are graft compatible, so one could develop a nicotine-free tobacco plant by grafting a tobacco scion onto potato rootstock.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/.../css/330/eight/
The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/
cont...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
"I realized that these are all members of the Solanaceae family of plants, historically referred to as "nightshades". It is thought the name originated among the Romans who ground up a so-called deadly black nightshade and put it in an alcoholic drink intended for an enemy. The shade came down for a long night: they died. The botanical name for the black nightshade is Atropa belladonna L.
Tobacco is also a member of this family of drug plants, which includes tomato, potato, eggplant, and peppers of all kinds (except black pepper). We know what tobacco can do to our health by comparing smokers to non-smokers."
http://www.noarthritis.com/
night...nightshades.htm
I would hate to be heavily taxed, on the same plant chemicals, with virtually the same studies to protect myself and others from eating our current staple foods, especially if this turned out to based on some ancient oil company scam.
"In fact the first observations on an appreciable rise in the frequency of lung cancer were reported from the highly industrialized cities of densely populated Saxony during the first two decades of this century.
Some years later it was found that high lung cancer rates existed for the population of the industrialized territory of the Ruhr valley, while they were below average for the agricultural region of the Main valley."
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/...eprint/30/2/
141
To help with your food addiction
"Alongside patients addicted to drugs and alcohol they are now treating people dependent on certain foods.
Founder of the group, Dr Robert Lefever says food addiction is caused by chemicals in food, which create a mood-altering effect.
'Some foods, such as sugar and refined, white flour, have a mood-altering effect which act as a drug in some people,' he said.
'Food addiction is no different from any other addiction, such as to alcohol or gambling. People with an addictive nature commonly discover a whole range of mood-altering substances and processes and may choose several at once because they find them equally effective.'
"Foods such as potatoes - and even tomatoes and peppers - contain a natural poison called solanine just underneath their skin. In some people this chemical causes a natural high - and can therefore be addictive"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/healt...-
addiction.html
Protest all you like, we will only assume that its the "drug" speaking.
http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...wer.php?
id=1630 So if it is deemed that the risks of lung cancer are increased by smoking untipped cigarettes,then these tossers are looking to INCREASE the risk to smokers.This is not health,this is downright anti SMOKER.May these individuals rot in hell.
"Smoking bans are ...violent abusive acts, candy coated in political fast talk.
We know they are wrong, ...It is almost instinctive if you have an ounce of compassion for others around you, deep down even if you can't explain it you just know.
The Taxes are theft and the bans are exclusionary." ~Kevin
I thought it bore repeating, Kevin. Well said.
It is sometimes a chore to remind myself that another cannot marginalize me without my permission. They may think they have, but my value and the value of my choices exist outside of their opinion of it. Most of the time I easily feel that value. I've also noticed that in my area no one seems to know that persons who smoke are supposed to feel un-normal.
Just remember the celebration we will have when the bans are lifted and the current fascist movements are recognized to actually de-value the fascists.
Bingo!
Cure of Experimental Canine Blacktongue with Optimal and Minimal Doses of Nicotinic Acid
The expenses of this work were covered in part by grants from the Rockefeller Foundation of New York and the Lederle Biological Laboratories, Pearl River, New York.
Manuscript received 29 July 1938.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/cont...stract/16/6/
541
And its been in the bread ever since.
Objectives
"We evaluated the possible role of niacin fortification of the US food supply.."
Conclusions
"Food fortification that is designed to restore amounts of nutrients lost through grain milling was an effective tool in preventing pellagra, a classical nutritional deficiency disease, during the 1930s and 1940's."
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/...nt/90/5/
727.pdf
"Nicotinic acid was first made by the oxidation of nicotine and Whiffens operate a commercial process in this country starting with tobacco.
Later they were supplied with nicotine by the British Nicotine Company and continued the oxidation.
Finally- before the Second World War - they found they were unable to compete with manufacturers starting from quinoline and the nicotine process ceased"
http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guil...07/
00000711.pdf
niacin
"pellagra-preventing vitamin in enriched bread," 1942, coined from ni(cotinic) ac(id) + -in, chemical suffix; suggested by the merican Medical Association as a more commercially viable name than nicotinic acid.
"The new name was found to be necessary because some anti-tobacco groups warned against enriched bread because it would foster the cigarette habit." ["Cooperative Consumer," Feb. 28, 1942]
http://dictionary.reference.com/...m/browse/
niacin
Nicotinic acid
"In other words, we analyzed the saliva, which would have otherwise been swallowed. No nicotinic Acid occurred in the smoker's saliva before smoking. We feel that we have made this report sufficiently long to cover the discoveries, which we regard as quite remarkable."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65489-
5491.html
Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis
Abstract
"Rationale The view of smoking as an addiction to nicotine implies that nicotine is an addictive drug and a primary reinforcer. However, nicotine other than in tobacco does not appear to be very rewarding for smokers"
"Conclusions This review indicates that the wide endorsement of the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis is unjustified. Critical research is required to resolve the anomalies within the nicotine addiction theory of smoking." http://www.springerlink.com/
cont...42g31h613301821
Thats because its not nicotine when its "oxidized"
And niacin / vitamin B3 / nicotinic acid is not addictive.
Warming makes oil the 'new tobacco'
"Oil companies could find themselves facing multi-billion pound legal suits - similar to those facing tobacco firms - if they ignore the potential consequences of global warming, a report claimed yesterday"
"The report, by Mark Mansley, former Chase Manhattan analyst and head of Claros Consulting, claims ExxonMobil risks losing up to $50bn (£34bn) worth of stock market value as a result of damage to its reputation and trade.
ExxonMobil is urging shareholders to reject demands that it move into renewable energy"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
enviro...warming.smoking
"I agree that like alcohol or guns, cigarettes are dangerous and that you shouldn't be able to buy them anywhere."
Wow, that's a revealing statement.
Commenting by HaloScan
