What right do you Dr Siegel,Public Health and the anti tobacco loonies have to dictate what flavours are added to cigarettes ? The point is if you cannot stop children from purchasing them in the first place why penalise others by having those products removed.I never realised Afro-Americans lived in every country that sells Menthol cigarettes,what's the excuse when there aren't any and they are purchased by other people.Self righteous prigs the lot of you.
I take a bigger exception to: An estimated 1.6 million African-American Americans alive today, who are now under the age of 18, will become regular smokers and about 500,000 of them will die prematurely from a tobacco related disease.
First of all, there is absolutely no way on God's green earth that anyone, no matter of agenda or employment can tell how many new smokers there will be and how many will die. Granted, to cover their butts, they use words like estimated and about, but they use the numbers as gospel. Anyone with half a brain has to know that this is nothing but scare tactics. Having trust in God, I know that premature or old age was determined the day I was born. ACS does not have a monopoly on or when a person leaves the earth. Then again, we all know that if I was smoking a cigarette while driving down a mountain and my brakes goes out and the car goes over the cliff, my death would be smoking related and not mechanical problems or accidental.
Yeah, it looks like they're trying to make a sweep of hitting all the PC buttons, and if someone agrees with them on one issue, well then if they back away on another then it shows they don't want to give the same "protection" to one minority group than another.
The fact is that any form of advertising will disproportionately be favorable to one minority group over others, and we can't control to fix it except to make it all equally bland.
But to be cynical, this is something they can use again in a few years' times once they run out of other things to scare people with, or to let people be scared for others about.
si-
Don't include me in with the "loonies" (at least not for this particular reason). I don't favor the idea of banning flavorings. It doesn't make any sense to me. Ban the flavorings, but allow all the toxic stuff to remain. I'll sure be able to sleep at night knowing that the chocolate and strawberry have been removed from cigarettes, while the carcinogens and other toxins remain.
Off Topic
"Stepford kids"
From Junk Food Science
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ealfu
Once again, when the media gives an inordinate amount of attention to a study, it’s usually a good clue that something other than exemplary science may be at work. Only interests selling a weight loss program would consider under a single pound after one year and several million dollars, to be evidence of success.
Nationwide, the news has been reporting on the entire town that went on a diet, all to conquer childhood obesity, and that the program was a success. After years of talk about an “obesigenic” environment and excuses that the reason no childhood obesity prevention program has ever worked was because the entire environment needed to change, this massive project set out to do just that. Every conceivable facet of society in an entire town of 77,500 people was changed to focus on diet and exercise.
The Associated Press story reported:
City goes on a diet — and it worked
More fruits and vegetables were added to school lunches. Restaurants offered smaller portions. Crosswalks even got a fresh coat of paint to encourage walking and biking. The whole city of Somerville went on a diet to curb childhood obesity. And ...public schoolchildren in this Boston suburb avoided gaining about a pound of excess weight compared with their 8-year-old counterparts in two nearby communities.
With the launch of the “Shape Up Somerville” project, a special task force organized every exercise, sports, healthy eating and weight management program in town to focus adults and kids on losing weight. No one would be able to escape it. It would take a village to get kids slim, they resolved.
The school food service was revamped, food service staff were trained on nutrition, vegetarian recipes were developed, fresh fruits and vegetables became daily standards at every meal, diet educational messages covered school walls and cafeterias, vending machines and classroom snacks were made healthy, and even school teachers were instructed to be good role models. The school curriculum was focused on “healthy eating” with over 90 specially-trained teachers giving lessons on four themes: eating more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy foods; decreasing fats and sugars, increasing exercise and decreasing television viewing. Exercise was incorporated into the classroom hours and PE mandated. After school programs were developed on healthy cooking and physical activity, and each one had a field trip to an organic farm. Parents and adults in the community received outreach education, regular educational newsletters and coupons for healthy foods. Community events and media were devoted to the diet and exercise message. Restaurants got involved with “Shape Up Approved” menu items. City planners gave the entire community a face lift to facilitate walking and biking and safe routes to school; nice sidewalks and biking paths were built, crosswalks repainted, traffic lights were designed to encourage safety, bike racks were installed, and open spaces were created. School nurses and all of the area pediatricians were especially trained to monitor and intervene on childhood overweight.
The Somerville Physical Activity Guide instructed residents to get active and every community resource was tasked towards that goal: city parks, playgrounds, after school programs, child care and youth programs, teen centers, toddler programs, special needs gyms, camps, the circus, senior centers, fitness clubs and gyms, wellness centers, prenatal programs, exercise classes, softball and little league, basketball leagues, bicycle tours and clubs, bowling leagues, dance and music lessons and studios, football and cheerleading leagues, community gardens and gardening clubs, gymnastics classes, skating and hockey rinks and classes, martial arts and yoga centers, Oriental academies, boy scouts and eagle scouts, girl scouts and rainbow programs, running clubs, soccer leagues and camps, swimming lessons and water aerobics at community pools, family swim programs, pee wee tennis instructions, volleyball leagues, walking clubs for kids to elderly, countless nutritional classes and weight management programs.
The project was funded with a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and grants from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shields, United Way, the U.S. Potato Board, Dole Food Company and Stoneyfield Farms. There was a lot at stake in showing this role model initiative would work.
The results were just published in Obesity, the journal of the North American Association for the Study of Obesity. It reported that the growing children in the program had gained less weight than children in two control groups in nearby communities. The difference in BMI was 0.1005.
The Tufts University researchers concluded:
In the intervention community, BMI z-score decreased by –0.1005 (p = 0.001, 95% confidence interval, –0.1151 to –0.0859) compared with children in the control communities after controlling for baseline covariates....this study effectively decreased BMI z-score in a group of high-risk children through a community-based environmental change intervention. These results are significant given the obesigenic environmental backdrop against which the intervention occurred. This model demonstrates promise for communities throughout the country confronted with escalating childhood obesity rates.
But two major flaws in this study defuse such optimistic conclusions: the duration and weight loss measures.
As we know, obesity experts and the scientific evidence have resoundly noted that no weight loss program can be evaluated until it demonstrates weight loss for at least five years. Declaring any program a success after such a short time period of one school year is without merit. It’s even less tenable with growing children because they naturally fluctuate in BMI percentiles as they go through growth spurts, making any determinations of obese or overweight inappropriate and premature without a period of watchful waiting.
While 0.1005 points of BMI might seem significant to these researchers, it is every bit as tiny as it sounds — under one pound after a year. But it is also important to recognize that it’s a “calculated intervention effect:” it was not an actual weight loss in the children, but the amount calculated that the growing children didn’t gain as a result of this initiative. It was based on comparing the Somerville children in the program with those in two nearby communities — but those were very different children. The groups were not evenly matched. The Somerville group had more whites and Asians, whereas significantly more blacks and hispanic children were in the control groups. The control groups also had higher percentages of single, unmarried mothers and the Somerville kids had more highly-educated parents, with 4 to 5 times more parents with graduate school educations, reflective of higher socioeconomic status.
It is glaring that the researchers reported results only in terms of overall BMIs and didn’t break down the numbers of children who were underweight, at risk for overweight, and overweight at the end of the program. How many of these children, immersed in such an extremely weight-obsessed environment, had developed eating disorders? Had there been an increase in the numbers who were underweight, as we saw in Arkansas? It is worrisome that the Somerville girls showed more of an “intervention effect” than the boys, which points to more body weight concerns and dieting behaviors among them. Ages 8 to 9 is a period of naturally rapid growth for girls as they enter pre-puberty. Plotting the girls’ overall heights and weights on the CDC growth curve, which pediatricians use to watch that healthy children are growing appropriately, the nonintervention girls stayed right on the growth curve. The intervention group, however, slightly fell off the growth curve during the year-long program. While small, there is no evidence that such a change is healthful, especially if it continues.
Did the program actually reduce rates of overweight or obese? The researchers were mysteriously quiet about that, too. No doubt if they’d been able to show a “significant” impact on reducing the numbers of fat children, they would be shouting those results from the rooftops.
While this massive program, which they hope to replicate across the country, was focused on weight, there was no attempt to determine if it made a lick of difference in the school children’s health. Parents and the public might also ask if these incredible resources could have been directed in areas that might have a greater importance in bettering the children’s futures. While the school year was absorbed in diet and exercise, (after the Shape Up program was completed in 2005) the average reading test scores among Somerville kids are 15.4% below state average, and their math test scores are a whopping 26% below those of kids in the rest of the state.
But, heh, they’re a little thinner and I guess that’s all that counts.
ACS has its nerve along with Big tobacco control. When was the last time anyone has seen or heard a tobacco advertisement on TV, radio, billboards or mainstream magaizines. Where are all these billions being spent by the cigarette companies? These days the tobacco control allies are doing more to promote tobacco with all of their quit smoking advertisments. It seems if anyone is targetinging minorities it is ACS and "public health". Which brings us to another point. National socialized medicene and socialism has failed drastically in these communities. Infant death is high along with other diseases. The results of the government socialized "War on Poverty" which seems to have the same type of success in these communities as the governments "War on Drugs". Talk about screwed up priorities.
Since tobacco use is lawful for all adults - whether they are members of a racial/ethnic minority group or not - ...
IMO, this is getting down to brass tacks. Legal product...why is it legal if it is known to cause cancer, emphyzema (sp?), COPD, middle-ear infections.... If we believe that red dye causes cancer, then don't we take it off the market? That's how we got the Society to Bring Back Red M&Ms. So, why don't all of these clean-the-art-and-whine-about-SHS groups calling to shutdown tobacco companies? There's no excuse. You know, if somebody like Forces went after Phillip Morris, I think it might take the wind out of the antis for a while.
Who will they take advantage of next week?
Uh...I'm getting a little tired of being characterized as someone who can/should be taken advantage of. *sigh* But the point is well-taken. Frankly, given the setup of how they likely catalogue responses (simply record the # of e-mails shot-off from their site in connection to one of these promotions), it looks almost like *someone* is trying to determine which demographic really can be taken advantage of (in the name of health at least).
Doc says: I'll sure be able to sleep at night knowing that the chocolate and strawberry have been removed from cigarettes, while the carcinogens and other toxins remain.
At first, this made me smile a bit. Light sarcasm, Doc? But then...hey, hang on a mo, isn't chocolate an antioxidant? Would adding choclate to tobacco make it less carcinogenic? (Yes, I'm being quite silly because I find the notion of strawberry flavored tobacco...get real.) FWIW, I started with menthols.
Doctor,
You continually tell us how these charities are being deceitful. Why do you not just call them what they are: OUTRIGHT FRAUDS.
Last week, the ACS took advantage of women to support the legislation. This week, they are taking advantage of racial/ethnic minority groups. Who will they take advantage of next week?
That last question should be "Who did they take advantage of LAST week?"
You talk about how these groups are being exploited. Well, "last week" was no different -- and the exploited group was "the children."
Doesn't matter "under false pretenses" or not. The M.O. is the same and it's all equal in its purpose: "... to try to garner support for its political agenda."
I suppose JTF the next group must be the kids,well we keep being told there are a substantial quantity of them who smoke.If you microwave them they don't.
i suppose this might interest the group. pot calling kettle black.
http://
www.chattanoogahealth.com...e_of_Death.aspx
But it'll still be Ok to add strawberry and chocolate flavors to cigar and pipe tobaccos?
and the ACS doesnt care if BT targets white males?
i feel left out.... the ACS is discriminating against me...who do I sue? Dave K
". Prohibiting the marketing of tobacco products to racial/ethnic minority groups - as long as that marketing is targeting adults - would clearly be unconstitutional because it would violate the First Amendment to the Constitution."
and yet is is not unconstitutional to prohibit bar and restaurant owners from marketing smoking space in hospitality establishments to smokers??????????
I'm getting mixed up here..... Dave K
I guess the market doesn't work after all. Best let others comment on this choice item:
http://www.newsday.com/news/loca...egion-
apnewyork
Richt there with you Dave K.
Richt=Right
Harry - I guess the market doesn't work after all. Best let others comment on this choice item:"
...............
Let's see...Cause and effect...
Lack of fresh fruit and vegetables caused the ghetto/slum/barrio/etc. and the lower socioeconomic group that occupies that area. Right?
Oops!
That was my post above.
Rod
It looks like the ACS is trying to say Menthol cigarettes create visible miniorities and lower your socioeconomic status.
Can we expect the next ACS campaign to have a heading like;
Dont smoke menthols they will change your ancestory and force you into a lower paying career.
I always thought higher taxes and low wages were at the root of socioeconomic issues. TC seems to support both higher taxes and lost employment for smokers.
Population views allow them to moralize the targeting of those most affected by smoking bans, the same visible minorities account for the largest proportionate numbers.
We can now confidently say;
according to ACS numbers TC is a racist movement which deliberately targetrs minorities.
You can of course expand on that and state Tobacco taxation unfairly targets minorities and the poor. The unfair taxation is much more abusive to those who can least afford to pay. Supporting the difficulty of a smoker having an ability to quit, while solidifying derogatory stereotypes of smokers only enforces the maintenance of smoker numbers, and through that crime rates and violence will predictably increase along with the fear and hatred these groups promote.
Kevin - You can of course expand on that and state Tobacco taxation unfairly targets minorities and the poor. The unfair taxation is much more abusive to those who can least afford to pay. Supporting the difficulty of a smoker having an ability to quit, while solidifying derogatory stereotypes of smokers only enforces the maintenance of smoker numbers, and through that crime rates and violence will predictably increase along with the fear and hatred these groups promote.
........................
Kevin,
The goal of Big Tobacco Control is to be very careful of not reducing too far the numbers of smokers.
You are are right. By placing smokers in an American version of India's caste system - "Untouchables" - there is nothing you can't do them. Tax, castigate, spit on them.
But, you dare not eliminate them.
That is where the NAZIs made a big mistake. They should have maintained the filthy, disease-ridden Jews in ghettos, taxed the hell out of them, used the taxes to support a huge bureaucracy to fund studies and propaganda to maintain that Der Fuhrer (Herr Doktor Glantz today)is correct and will protect the purity of the Aryan race.
The very profitable Big Tobacco Control industry has learned from NAZI Germany's mistakes.
Note: Please do not conclude that the above racial/ethnic characterizations I have written above reflect my personal beliefs - far from it.
"Lack of fresh fruit and vegetables caused the ghetto/slum/barrio/etc. and the lower socioeconomic group that occupies that area. Right?" -- Rod
Exactly right: post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
Illustrated best, perhaps, by the anthropologist visiting an Indian tribe which every morning before dawn trudges up a hill and faces east in order to make the sun rise. The anthropologist says, "Why not see what would happen if you DIDN'T go up on the hill every morning to make the sun rise?" To which the Indians reply, "What -- you'd destroy the world for the sake of an experiment?"
.
Two possibilities:
1. Ghetto/slum/barrio people never heard of fruits and vegetables. Or,
2. Their mothers never made them eat their spinach.
The article says that Bloomberg is watching his waistline. Too bad he doesn't spend more time watching his waistline and less time sticking his nose into other people's business.
.
WORLD ENDS: WOMEN AND MINORITIES HIT HARDEST.
Kevin was right on when he deductively observed that: TC is a racist movement which deliberately targets minorities.
Aside from the fact that "smokers" are themselves a minority, there's something racist about all aspects of this particular argument-- and from the points of view of everyone, gov't included, involved. The assumption that menthol was specifically (and perhaps genocidally?) designed to entice blacks; the assumption there's a Black menthol gene; the assumption that Blacks will support the legislation as long as their (menthol) ox isn't gored; the assumption that Blacks need special protection. These people are all shameless in their patronization.
All that's needed next on the racist/healthist front is for Bloomberg to propose banning all fried food-- except fried chicken. Argh.
There is no shortage of information including SAMMEC and Seer Stat numbers, which demonstrate upper middle class whites with higher education, are much less likely to smoke than Blacks, Hispanics, North American Indians and Gays. The targeting of these groups who smoke in higher percentage numbers is paralleled with the fact they are also much more likely to be obese or eat properly and less likely to have an ability to afford medical treatment or healthy food or even to appreciate what advantages they would gain if it were possible to acquire them. This is like double-edged sword, which increases the stereotypes and increases their poverty. This also in the myth of big tobacco having the only voice opposed to smoking bans and the targeted taxes of health scare, reduced their voice in public response along with any hope they will be defended. The reverse onus on helping them quit will improve their lot in life is self defeating as a realistic or consistent argument.
You tell someone they will have an impossible task unless you buy alternate products they can't afford, increases the likelihood they will reject all thoughts to assimilate with the new norm. This keeps them impoverished and promotes taking more cash from their pockets to keep them where they are economically. Frustration and poverty is self-perpetuating and TC just moves it along. Lobby advantages gained with the use of charity dollars to sell the nanny state has been invigorated by amalgamation of the media groups using health lobby campaign money to make the acquisitions happen at a much higher rate. Fortunes both in market share and old money buying stocks is growing the international voice of the one sided debate.
For the elitists a return to what once was an old boy network with new subordinates now rekindled in a dominant voice, which speaks alone. The health movement is growing at an ever-increasing rate toward the thought Hillary or Bloomberg may soon sit in the Whitehouse. This is a truly scary proposal, the world should be very afraid. Not of the mortality numbers but of the reality we see on the horizon, which is sure to increase them.
This has all been said before but Joe
Harris says it well
http://blogcritics.org/archives/...5/19/
020446.php
"Despite what some organizations would have you believe the positive side of smoking is real. Truer still is our inherent right to indulge and abstain without regard to Hitlerian trends, political correctness and personal health. Those who would have it otherwise are a blight to free society. Increasingly, one-fourth of America is treated with disdain and intolerance merely for lighting up."
Book review
Smoking out an ugly truth
Professor traces the deadly dishonesty of America's tobacco industry
http://www.charlotte.com/146/sto...ory/
127392.html
I wonder when the dear Professor will get around to tracing the deadly dishonesty of America's tobacco control industry?
I won't hold my breath.
.
I read the Sullum article this week and can't remember if I posted it here. So from SurrealiyTimes:
http://
surrealitytimes.blogspot....ning.html#links
Enjoy.
More from Surreality Times:
Note that this highlights the fact that Big Tobacco Control is unregulated by any state or federal agency.
The interlocking relationships, the corruption, the production of fraudulent studies to maintain its income and the ability to exercise police state power to excommunicate, destroy those who get in its way have all the earmarks of an illegal racket.
I have no knowledge of any entity like this one in U.S. History.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Regulating Tobacco Control
Lloyd Carr, the head of AADAC's Tobacco Control program for the last five years, has been accused by the Auditor General of Alberta of stealing $640,000 of the programs funds. The RCMP is investigating.
The stolen monies were funnelled to accounts controlled by Carr, through phony consulting contracts for teen smoking reduction campaigns that never existed. The contracts were "processed" by Action on Smoking and Health (Canada), the Alberta Lung Association and a consulting firm - all of which retained a 20% "fee" for accepting the monies and then redirecting them to Carr's accounts. Effectively, these organizations "laundered" the stolen cash on Carr's behalf. The Auditor General stated that he believed these organizations were "naive" "dupes" in the scam.
The Auditor General did a fantastic job in detecting the misuse of public funds and in investigating and getting to the bottom of the situation.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that Tobacco Control is not capable of regulating itself. Lloyd Carr had lied about his qualifications for the position he held - falsely claiming to hold a degree in social work that he never held - and hid a prior criminal record. He held a high position in Tobacco Control, attended Tobacco Control conferences and made presentations at them, and worked closely with prominent anti-smoking advocates from various organizations - yet none of these Tobacco Control "professionals" ever detected that he was a fraud.
If our Tobacco Control pros are truly so naive (i.e. - ignorant and gullible), how can they possibly be qualified to handle tens of millions of dollars in public monies? How can they be capable of evaluating proposals for consulting contracts and program grants - if they are so naive and gullible?
Furthermore, no one in AADAC or Alberta Health ministry was able to clue in to Carr's fraudulence and theft of funds - so those agencies cannot be trusted to regulate Tobacco Control in our province either. For obvious reasons, those agencies are loaded with Tobacco Control's cronies anyway and are too biased toward their buddies to be capable of objectively evaluating the activities of their friends/colleagues.
We call upon the Alberta government to create an independent agency charged with overseeing Tobacco Control and other areas of health promotion. This agency should be composed of citizens with a range of backgrounds - medical practitioners, research scientists, accountants, law enforcement professionals, businesspersons and ordinary working class folk - none of whom have ever had any financial relationship with Tobacco Control or health promotion.
This independent agency should exercise a tight oversight on where all the monies go - to prevent any more blatant theft of public monies, to ensure we are receiving value for the monies spent on Tobacco Control, and to stop the misuse of Tobacco Control funds that have been used to build a network of political lobbyists across the province.
This independent agency should draft a code of ethics for all areas of health promotion. People who call themselves Tobacco Control professionals or advocates should have to be licensed through this agency and be subject to having their license revoked if they violate the code of ethics set out for them.
Setting up independent regulation of the Tobacco Control industry should be a priority for the Stelmach government, because the Lloyd Carr case has demonstrated that:
Tobacco Control Is Out Of Control !
Clean up the mess:
We note that Dave Rodney has been replaced as Chairman of AADAC, and that's a good start, but only a thorough house-cleaning of the government's relationships with the old Tobacco Control cabal can restore public confidence in Health Promotion.
The Alberta government needs to cut all financial relationships with Lloyd Carr's former associates. Most urgently, the Stelmach government needs to stop the flow of Alberta public monies to the persons and organizations that "naively" "laundered" misappropriated funds for Lloyd Carr.
The Alberta government should have NO financial relationship with Action on Smoking and Health or any of it's "fronts" - including Smoke-free Alberta and Tobacco-free Campus, nor with any of the sub-groups those organizations are composed of.
The Alberta government should have NO financial relationship with the Alberta Lung Association or the consulting contractor named by Auditor general Fred Dunn in his report.
It is imperative that the slate be wiped clean. Dump everyone who had anything to do with Lloyd Carr, professionally, and build a Tobacco Control agency that people can trust and put their faith in - composed of genuine professionals who never had a financial relationship with any of the old cabal.
Sunz--Thanks for the links! 
Rod--I noticed that artcile link at the bottom of the Surealty Times, too. Wow. Wonder if anyone will do anything about it?
Today's Parade Magazine: You're gonna love it. Like all "epidemic" articles, it starts out with a scare. Then we get some balanced stuff. But, here we go:
Excerpt:
"So, ask the question again from that perspective: Is all this gambling really a good idea?
The Toll Gambling Takes
“No,” say critics. The costs, they insist, are enormous—more than three times any perceived benefit, argues Earl L. Grinols, the distinguished professor of economics at Baylor University. “Gambling leads to increased crime, to suicides and to people ruining their lives when they get caught up in it,” he says. “If the damage were spread evenly among all of us, there’d be no gambling.”
URL for entire article: http://tinyurl.com/2e3sb2
"Is Gambling Good For America?
By Sean Flynn
Published: May 20, 2007
In casinos from coast to coast, in slot parlors from the Great Lakes to the Gulf Shore, at racetracks and in lotteries across the country, Americans will legally gamble away—that is, lose—nearly $90 billion this year.
How times change. A hundred years ago, gambling was a national vice almost universally outlawed. A mere 30 years ago, Americans could only gamble legally in Nevada and Atlantic City. Yet, since the early 1990s, state-sanctioned gambling has exploded. Rural Connecticut and a once-backwater patch of Mississippi are gambling oases, Iowa has a small fleet of riverboat casinos, and a gambling parlor has been proposed for Buffalo, N.Y. There are casinos in 32 states, and every state except Hawaii and Utah offers some form of legal betting. The public seems eager to play: The take for commercial casinos alone has more than doubled since 1995, from $16 billion to nearly $33 billion last year."
Possible Future?
Everyone, of course, has different tastes, but the movie Demolition Man (action/comedy/futuristic) is both entertaining and presents a possible future where (Excerpt):
Physical contact was recognized as causing the spread of disease and is now seen as unusual. "Sex" is no longer a physical act for the same reasons, and even kissing is not condoned. Instead, 'Vir-Sex' is performed by using sex simulators worn on the participants' heads to replace physical intercourse. Procreation is done in a laboratory when granted a license.
It is explained that anything deemed "bad for you" is now illegal, including:
Abortion
Alcohol
Caffeine
Contact sports
Gasoline
Meat and unhealthy food
Non-educational toys
Obscenity
Pregnancy without a license
Spicy Food
Table Salt
Tobacco
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2kd29e
One of my favorite lines from the movie Demolition Man:
Edgar Friendly, leader of the rebels:
"You see, according to Cocteau's plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener."
.............
Frankly, I'm with him.
Sunz/
Comment at your BC link
There seems to be a belief personal rights extend privileges as to what you might expect from others. The reverse is actually true “I have a right not to” meaning actions of an individual cannot be forced.
Smoking bans will undermine as an example in litigation any claim to personal rights designating personal rights forever as secondary to communal rights undermining constitutional rights on most issues. All things affect health care as they tell us, so what issue cannot undermine your rights.
The foolish presumption I have a right to not breathe another’s smoke is ridiculous in theory and actual rights you enjoy.
You have a right to not be here while I enjoy a smoke within my rights in the fulfillment of the contract with the manufacturer and government who I paid for my pleasure, with all parties understanding how I would be using that product.
If you feel you are injured by my actions even if I exhale cigarette smoke in your face, you are free to pursue a civil case and prove injury however don’t forget to name all parties who profit from the purchase of cigarettes including those who promote the hatred against those who choose to smoke.
The only justification for smoking bans is the inept actions of ignorance among embarrassing public officials who failed to develop regulation suitable to all and instead employed legislation an imposition on the rights of the same all.
If you desire cherry pink lungs buy a respirator bubble. Indoor environments could be much more comfortable for the hypochondriac fans by reversing the smoking room mindset and making it a non smoking room which would filter out other contaminants and create an inclusive atmosphere without kneeling to the extremists, who are focused on the cash paid to promote alternative products above any public health concerns.
Non smokers and smokers are all being duped flushing their rights in process.
For a quote, you should find some understanding of Mussolini’s he once said Fascism is an industrial socialism, and what is political correctness if not a doctorate to emphasize that control?
Rod says...' composed of genuine professionals who never had a financial relationship with any of the old cabal'
Looks like Bill something along those lines up his sleeve:
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247639.html
~snip~
They include suggestions for changes
in the findings of the legislation; clarification on issues pertaining to the
production of tobacco; modifications in the definition of tobacco products;
modification in how performance standards are set; modification of the reduced
risk section of the legislation that is more in line with the recommendations,
wording and spirit of the IOM report (Clearing the Smoke) and the presidential
commission report (Tobacco at a Crossroad); and modification of the Tobacco
Products Scientific Advisory Committee to include several other important
members."
HHHMMMMMMM "and modification of the Tobacco
Products Scientific Advisory Committee to include several other important members"
So I guess Dr you will probably be 'modified out'---welcome to the club.
Not such a big deal, you are only a small group of TC who have spoken out, too small a group to have your considerations thought of.
~snip~
"We encourage all stakeholders, policy makers Congressional staff and others
interested in this issue to work cooperatively to craft legislation that will
serve the public health, producers, consumers, and responsible manufacturers
(broadly speaking) now and into the future. "
So now they admit they are 'stakeholders'. And BTW since when has Bill and cohorts EVER considered 'consumers' in his plans---except that we fund them.
Sunz asked a question Bill, care to comment?
This Calif ninny out nannied herself. (see comments too) 9)
http://www.timesheraldonline.com....com/
ci_5937218
Makes you wonder if someday we'll hear about old Bill, sucking on something from Brown and Williamson (menthol) in a Hummer speeding down and Interstate, windows rolled up tight with an infant strapped in a seat.
"to craft legislation that will
serve the public health"
Something about that phrase makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up
Am I hallucinating or was Billy Boy opposed to this legislation. He must have found a new 'ka-ching' in the bill. 
This is from a description of an educational DVD available for school children Grades K-3:
No Puff Superheroes Lance, Sasha and Max uncover a plot by the wicked Big Tobacco, Inc. executives, who are plotting to trick children into using tobacco products. The evil company plans to use slick advertising and peer pressure to convince the children of Cleanfield that smoking and using chewing tobacco is fun and glamorous.
..............
For my entire post on another thread on this blog, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2oker5
..............
The stuff on this site intended for school children is right out of NAZI and Communist Russia's youth programs.
Hitler Jugend
Young Pioneers
And, oh yes, "Spies," a youth group in 1984.
Sunz: Makes you wonder if someday we'll hear about old Bill, sucking on something from Brown and Williamson (menthol) in a Hummer speeding down and Interstate, windows rolled up tight with an infant strapped in a seat.
Thanks, Sunz! I've put it in my "hypocrisy" file. I wonder if others at Forces, SADIreland or the others would like to see this?
"Her SUV, which she recently swapped for her taxpayer-funded 2005 Cadillac STS..."
"Migden last year voted for a new law that takes effect in July 2008 that will impose a minimum fine of $20 for anyone caught using a cell phone while driving without a headset, ear bud or other technology that frees both hands."
Rod--You have the spookiest posts! *shiver* "Spies"? A youth group? Yikes.
Here is one of the most important tools in the TC tool kit. What they knew all along and manipulated in what the public was lead to believe.
" Recently, there has been increasing interest from epidemiologists on the subject of economic inequality and its relation to the health of populations. There is a very robust correlation between socioeconomic status and health. This correlation suggests that it is not only the poor who tend to be sick when everyone else is healthy, but that there is a continual gradient, from the top to the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, relating status to health. This phenomenon is often called the "SES Gradient". Lower socioeconomic status has been linked to chronic stress, heart disease, ulcers, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and premature aging. "
It was right there in plain sight all along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pop...pulation_health
I still contend that the "lower socioeconomic status" of smokers as a group is greatly overstated. For a good canny reason. The more that the Yuppie climbers are encouraged to be convinced that it's a "lower" kinda thing, the more likely they are to lie on any questionnaires. And the more they lie when asked, the more it seems to confirm the truth of the proposition.
Anecdote: I was, not long ago, at one of those formal Award Dinners (in a state that has so far resisted Reform) at one of those big round tables for 10, with ashtrays scattered about, along with several bottles of a fine single malt. The last to arrive, I noted nobody smoking, double-checked the ashtrays, thought, What the hell, and lit up a cigarette. Immediately thereafter, 7 of the 9 other people lit up. It was later admitted that no one had wanted to "admit" that they smoked, or at least were afraid to be the first to admit it.
That, for example.
I can pretty well assure you that had they been "lower class" they wouldn't have given a damn.
Then, too, I think the presumption that the folks in the "lower classes" don't "get with the program" either only out of ignorance or the high cost of Replacement, is also a tad elite. Why wouldn't a poor man also and equally want the nannies off his back and want to do what he wants to do?
:
Walt:Then, too, I think the presumption that the folks in the "lower classes" don't "get with the program" either only out of ignorance or the high cost of Replacement, is also a tad elite. Why wouldn't a poor man also and equally want the nannies off his back and want to do what he wants to do?
I'll add that many people in the lower economic classes are aware of the fact that the nanny state tends to be designed to *keep* them in the lower economic class. It's one argument against dependence on welfare.
I wholeheartedly agree that many people don't want to readily *admit* that they are smokers. That's the reason that only 20 to 25 percent of the population admits to smoking. I guarantee that the number of closet (and occassional) smokers is very high right now. On the political scene, I've read that some politicians who pushed through a smoking ban--after being told by antis that it would be a popular move--were subsequently voted out of office. That's what happened here in Champaign. If a politican really wanted to get an easy win, he/she would just advocate repealing a smoking ban. In fact, there's a GoP presidential candidate who is *not* in favor of these bans, although that is not his primary platform.
Commenting by HaloScan
