Must be some strong coffee you are drinking this morning! You are finally waking up to their lies. Lies that we have been telling you for the past how many years? Maybe now you will begin to understand why some of us will no longer donate to their very questionable charity or non-profit if that is what you want to call it. Non-profit, another lie. They all make a darn good profit by lying and more by covering it up. These people and their coverups are the very reason why no one in public health will ever save a life.
Here's some urban insight to Marlboro Blend No 54
Check out what 54 means at the Urban Dictionary site:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/d...ine.php?
term=54
Now that's some Kool Marketing
I read the post then looked in the mirror only to find that I am still not black. Despite that, I love menthol. I did not start smoking menthols until I was over 25 years old, so another myth about the reason smokers begin smoking menthol is dispelled. Another interesting tidbit from this column is that I had never heard of Marloro Blend No 54 until I read of it here. Tobacco companies get most of their advertising from anti-smokers....another clever and cost effective ploy I might say. I think I'll try them. I am currently a Marlboro Smooth smoker, but I was never loyal to either a brand or a type of cigarette. Oh, and did I mention again, if menthols go, I would simply smoke non-menthols, just like every other smoker out there. It's not about the menthol. It is about the defiant spirit of the smoker. It is one of the reasons I continue to smoke cigarettes even though I use my e cigarette more often these days. Without the anti-smoking campaign, I would not feel the compulsion to light up.
20 years ago next month , I testified in Congress that when I asked the tobacco executive from R.J. Reynolds why he didn't smoke he said to at least 15 of us, "we don't smoke the shit...we just sell it", we reserve the right to smoke for the young, the poor, the black and the stuupid". If tobacco companies were that arrogant 20 years ago, I can't imagine the power they are feeling as of yesterday. FYI, I too use to represent the ACS in my programs, back when they were new to this Tobacco Control thing. I think they were trying to latch on to the new cash cow with the influx of money. The more money they got, the bigger the lies. Being in competition for the same dollars being given out to American Cancer, American Lung and American Heart the ACS became the more aggressive of the 3 (profitalble) non-profits. ALA was not far behind. Lying is commonplace in "big Business" as almost everyone knows. You would think that the ACS would be above that hypocrisy, but from MY personal experience they weren't. So, I am not surprised by what is being said Diane. Same old crap....just a different day.
We know that legacy wa looking for money not too long ago from the tobacco companies. Now we need to ask ourselves how much did campaign for tobacco Free Kids and ACS get from Philip Morris for thier support of the FDA regulation bill.
Michelle
Michael one can't avoid the implications of what you are saying here.
In the new enlightened view among medical professionals smokers cost the healthcare system an inordinate burden in healthcare dollars and increased smoking related incidence.
From your post;
"After all, our nation's youths will no longer be seduced by flavored cigarettes. I guess African American youths are not considered a part of our national community of youths by the ACS. (Obviously, I'm being sarcastic here but my point is that first, the ACS is telling a pretty significant lie and second, that there is a notable tinge of institutional racial discrimination in the ACS' statements and actions)."
Is it now your contention the ACS and public health in maintaining a consistency with their promotions, should be telling us that Blacks impose a greater burden on the healthcare system and the costs to the community than other races who don't smoke menthols?
You can dance around the logistics as long as you like, but as Hitler demonstrated when a burden of health is attributed to measure personal virtue, it eventually leads to measuring the burden of cultural groups and is always discriminatory with the heaviest weight applied to those most at risk by socioeconomic standing and those least able to defend themselves against the hatred that will surely follow.
Hi Sheri, I posted before I read yours. You are right. Not all menthol smokers are black. But alot are. Marketing is a numbers game and if 75-80 % (and thats the %) the high school students report. How accurate is that %? I just don't know for sure. Nobody really does know. Also, again you are 100 % on when you say the best advertisement for the tobacco companies is coming from the anti-smoking side. It's a brilliant strategy. I have never heard of Marlboro 54 either. I don't know many young people who were smoking flavored cigarettes. The most popular brands for kids were/are Marlboro of course, Camels, then Newports.
More than anything else, I share your philosphy that it is the defiant spirit of the smoker. As the Winston Man, I always smoked Marlboros. Go figure.
From the title of todays Rest of the Story, "American Cancer Society Lies to American Public ..."
It was way back in 1950 that the ACS, in a very risky "leap of faith", funded Ernst Wynders copycat study that "objectively" discovered an association between tobacco consumption and lung cancer.
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
P...olog_Factor.pdf
Bottom left, first page, "This study has been aided by a grant from the American Cancer Society"
Really! They had no idea what this study would find before they funded it. They didn't know anything about Dolls identical, but unpublished, study.
The only big diff between his and Dolls study was that Wynder could not find any smokers who didn't inhale. The ACS really only funded this study to test an untested hypothesis. A complete shot in the dark ... a total gamble with money donated in the hope of supporting charitable work. And guess what? Wynder found exactly what the ACS was looking for.
The lying didn't start last week.
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.
I don't mean for this to sound cynical, but from what I've been seeing since the beginning of 1900 is a creeping of federal government into the lives of the American public. That may be obvious enough, but how that creeps is mainly through deception of taking care of the American public. While the legislation does prohibit menthol from being banned and it does prohibit nicotine from being eradicated from cigarettes I do not believe that the federal government is inclined to stick to this agreement.
While I am disappointed in this legislation on grounds of liberty it doesn't seem out of the question that the fed sees this as a stepping stone to rid the country of tobacco all together. I don't believe the government will necessarily stick to the agreement. The Fed takes things inch by inch, not mile by mile.
"Our nation's children – potential first-time smokers – will no longer be seduced by flavored tobacco products, including candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes"
Does anybody know how big this flavored market is? I have never seen anywhere flavored cigarettes on sale, I didn't even know they existed before I read that they should be banned.
If children like fruit flavoring, why would they want to smoke the fruits?
It seems that phrases from yesteryear and glossed over press releases are the latest media blitz that we must deal with currently. Who is the real winner in this FDA legislation? Does it really matter? Email correspondance between some players has been made available for our consumption. I would hate for some of my emails to be made public because depending on my mood I can be a little stinker. Publishing private conversations in the public domain is part and parcel of the anti-tobacco movement and indicative of the lack of integrity I find offensive. Glossed over press releases where players toot their own horn are simply propaganda and should not be viewed as anything but a chance to frame the company line.
But in a world where image is everything...let's deal with the menthol and pick up the race card that has been thrown into the ring. Blacks (or people that define themselves as black) make up about 13.5% of the population, a minority. To proclaim that menthol is a growth industry in declining smoking rates for a minority group is in itself, a lie. It would be more truthful to state that the black minority is resistent to the "majority" rules or cultural mores of current trends. Because they feel outside of the trends and have their own identity. If TC wants to win this group over it must first overcome the distrust that is bred into the bone in our country. You won't do that without getting your hands dirty.
"it is the defiant spirit of the smoker. As the Winston Man, I always smoked Marlboros"
That spirit is exactly what will cause teenagers to continue to take up smoking. The more it is banned; the more it is demonized, the more those teens who live for pissing off adults will love the concept of smoking. I am amazed that these anti-smoking campaigns appear to never have studied or talked to the teens most likely to start smoking. If they had, they would know that their efforts encourage rather than discourage teen smoking.
"While I am disappointed in this legislation on grounds of liberty it doesn't seem out of the question that the fed sees this as a stepping stone to rid the country of tobacco all together. I don't believe the government will necessarily stick to the agreement. The Fed takes things inch by inch, not mile by mile."-Brian
I'm in full agreement with you and I see all this complaining by Public Health as a sign that they will plug the "loopholes". The foot is in the door and they are whining far too loud and long.
In my view...It was never about the children, it was always about the choice of an appropriate sound-byte that would get attention to enlist the adult's natural protectiveness towards children into the tobacco wars. It was a winning campaign.
ES
"As a result of this type of irresponsible propaganda the American Cancer Society took in $13,221,068 in 1948 from deluded Americans. Judging from the high pressure they are putting on now their 1949 'take" should easily beat that. They started in 1937 with a modest $111,230."
"The Drug Trust considers the American Cancer Society so important to a large part of its profits that it has placed on the society's Board of directors none other than Winthrop W. Aldrich, head of the Chase National Bank and Rockefeller's financial hatchet man"
"The American Cancer Society doesn't believe its operations would bear the light of an intelligent investigation. It has refused to cooperate or join with local community chest drives, because some of these local chest groups are rather inquisitive as to where the money they solicit from their townsfolk goes.
Instead, the Society says it wants to reach 75,000,000 contributors and take in all the money themselves. As part of its Fear Technique it claims 22,000,000 living Americans are doomed to die unless it gets this money."
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/
The...Cancer_Control_
I don't think Mr Beale was tremendously impressed.
Presumably thats where the money came from for the study.
I don't know of ANY candy flavored cigarettes (or cigarettes with candy brand names) that are on the market, and neither does CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA or others who tout the bill for banning these cigarettes.
About 5 years ago, Reynolds introduced several on the market, but they were all withdrawn 3 or 4 years ago after Reynolds signed an agreement with several dozen state AGs. For the year or so they were on the market, these cigarettes never came close to 1% of the cigarette market share, and very few youth ever smoked them (compared to 50% of youth smokers smoking Marlboro).
Meanwhile, the US market share for menthol cigarettes has fluctuated between 25%-28% since 1973 (Table 7 at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/tobac...te2004-
2005.pdf )
If menthol cigarettes were more addictive than nonmenthol (as menthol opponents claim), why hasn't the market share for menthols increased during he past 35 years?
Sweet begeesus... your make-pretend surprise really makes me sick.
Newsflash!
ACS, ALA, AHA, EPA, CDC, WHO, etc. have been lying to American and global public for decades now.
You were and still are a part of it. And you know it. Some people here seem to be nice and gently imply what I am about to say: Liar! Plain dishonest liar! Stop playing freakin' dumb.
You and the likes of you have taken away my freedom of expression. I have zero sympathy for you. Zero.
"If menthol cigarettes were more addictive than nonmenthol (as menthol opponents claim), why hasn't the market share for menthols increased during he past 35 years?"-Bill Godshall
Great find Mr Bill and thanks for the link. This link blows the theory of menthol fostering addiction by making tobacco less harsh out the window!!!
I suspect that the cancer organizations use the 75-80% of all "black" teens who smoke, smoke menthols simply because...the number is larger. It would carry less weight to claim that 20% (or thereabouts) of 13.5% (less for teen population) are targeted by evil tobacco via menthol. It is so much easier to use larger percentages to further an agenda.
I personally would love to see TC directly go after the Afro-American smoking groups. Could you imagine the public relations campaign this would involve.
Thanks, Bill, for answering my question.
Does Bill's numbers and percentages include reservation sales, internet sales, black market sales and roll your own?
There is no way you can quote those numbers in all honesty, which makes you no better than the ACS and the lies that are being reported here today.
Those 220 bartenders and the 400,000 deaths per year are also right up there with these groups claiming victory today.
President Obama did another release today on the stimulus package and how it is not working. During the question and answer period at the end, a reporter asked him about the Legislation and asked him if he had been able to quit his "habit" for good. After a chuckle, he said that first of all, this legislation is not to help him quit, but rather is to make sure the new generation of teens do not become smokers. Like that is going to happen! What is going to happen though is all the TC in power today will be retired, long gone from the scene and a whole crew of replacements will be in charge and it will be them who will have to admit that the people before them pulled the biggest scam on the planet. Today's TC will never have to pay the piper so to speak, which is why they are singing, dancing and banging the tamporine today. Being arrogant today blinds them as to what is in store for their "children" tomorrow.
OT- (thanks Mr Bill for the link)
What will this bill cost we smokers per pack of ciggies?
Page 8 of 20: (can't post the pdf)
Financial Impact of the FDA “User Fee”:
Roughly $0.07 per Pack by 2019
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act calls for the tobacco
industry and other “users” of FDA Regulation to fund the regulatory entity
through “user fee” payments, payments designed to offset the administrative
costs of regulating the industry as well as some of the State and Federal tax
revenues expected to be lost by lower consumption of tobacco products.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in a March 16 report, estimated that
the user fee levied on the tobacco industry would start at $85 M in 2009,
growing to $505 M in 2013, and $712 by 2019. The table below shows the costs
to the industry, as estimated by the CBO based on estimates that FDA regulation
will reduce overall tobacco consumption by 2% over the next 10 years (or 20
bps by year). We estimate, using a 5% annualized cigarette decline rate, that the
tax to the entire industry would range from $0.01 (at the beginning of
regulation) to $0.07 when calculated on a per cigarette pack basis. These
estimates are not adjusted to present value.
Raising taxes on smokers again!
"In 1950, before he had conducted any mice experiments and before anyone else claimed to have identified minute amounts of mouseskin carcinogens in cigarette smoke, Ernest Wynder declared there were cancer-causing substances'in smoke and that he could find ways to remove or reduce them.
Studying under pioneer lung cancer surgeon Evarts Graham in St. Louis, he reported more smoking among Dr. Graham's lung cancer patients than in noncancer patients in the same hospital and concluded in a 1950 published paper that "excessive and prolonged use of tobacco, especially cigarettes, seems to be an important factor in the induction of bronchogenic carcinoma."
He and his coauthors did not report on other findings from their study questionnaire on previous pulmonary disease, alcohol habits, residence, educational levels, cause of death of parents and siblings, or occupation and industrial exposures. Wynder's first reports on his mouseskin experiments claimed 44 percent incidence of skin tumors in half a mouse lifetime of severe painting -- shaving mouse backs once weekly and painting them thrice weekly -- a dosage of condensate later described as the equivalent of a man's smoking 100,000 cigarettes.
Several years later Wynder concluded his skin-painting work after the chief at Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research announced that it wasn't necessary to demonstrate what the carcinogen in ciga- rette smoke was; the fact that mouseskin cancers were produced with whole "tar" was all the evidence necessary."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/T...14554-
4557.html
Angel H Roffo
"the forgotten father of experimental tobacco carcinogenesis"
In 1931, writing in the Zeitschrift für Krebsforschung (he published much of his work in German), he noted that while there were cases in which tobacco was clearly to blame for the onset of certain malignancies (from clinical observations) it was nonetheless useful to document the phenomenon more generally by animal experiments.
Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars, he argued that the carcinogens in tobacco smoke must be the complex, tarry, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, rather than the (chemically simpler) inorganic constituents or the alkaloid nicotine"
"Among these last-mentioned compounds was 1:2 benzopyrene — the subject of the paper reproduced here3 — which Roffo was apparently the first to identify in tobacco smoke (on the basis of spectrographic signatures)"
http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.p...&lng=en&
nrm=iso
"Some, however, had been sufficiently impressed to try to produce cancer with tobacco tar on the skin of laboratory animals. Roffo succeeded in doing so in the Argentine in 1931, using rabbits, but his results were generally dismissed in the UK and the US on the grounds that the tobacco had been burnt at unrealistically high temperatures. "
Doll
"The findings, in combination with knowledge that the use of tobacco had increased five-fold since 1907 and the results of Roffo's (1937) experiments, led Müller to conclude that tobacco was an important cause of lung cancer and the single most important cause of the rising incidence of the disease. The weakness of the epidemiological method is evident and the conclusion hardly justified; but the results should certainly have stimulated research and might have done so in Britain (which, at that time, had the highest lung cancer rates in the world) had the war not intervened."
Deposition of Wilhelm C. Hueper
"That means that the experimental findings once reported by Dr Wynder and previously reported by Dr Roffo in which they reported that a very high percentage of their mice developed cancer of the skin when they were treated with tobacco tar, was not confirmed by any other investigator.
In fact some of the investigators could not produce any cancer of the skin in mice with tobacco tars.
That observation indicates that tobacco tars of various derivation differ obviously a great deal in their carcinogenic potency to the skin of mice.
What the situation is in regard to men I don't think anyone can even venture a guess.
All experiments which have been done with tobacco tar produced artificially are based on artefacts. That is based on materials or obtained with materials which may or may not be identical chemically with tobacco smoke that enters the human mouth, and we know that the chemical constitution and particularly the content of any carcinogenic material in the combustion production of carbonaceous materials, and that applies also to tobacco, can be fundamentally influenced by the conditions under which that tar is produced.That is the heat and the oxygen supply mostly. http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...d&
start_page=31
RESEARCH FINDINGS from the Institute of Experimental: Medicine for Cancer Research and Treatment, Buenos Aires
Director: Prof. A.H. Roffo 1939
Carcinogenic Element in Various Tobacco Tars
"tobacco smoking can be included among the other toxico-manias that can have serious consequences and tobacco itself can be considered as a carcinogenic substance that, through its hydrocarbon content works like the benzopyrene derivatives of coal"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/lor/...69514-
9521.html
I wonder what happens to the delicate skin on a mouse's back when the skin is not allowed to breathe, except for the few moments when it is being shaved once a week?
"content works LIKE the benzopyrene derivatives of coal"
Time has moved on
Chinese turn cigarettes into medicine
"Beijing - A city in China, a country that's home to the world's most enthusiastic smokers, is crushing fake cigarettes to make medicine, Xinhua news agency said on Sunday.
The northwestern city of Xian is using the counterfeit cigarettes to extract Solanesol, a compound found in tobacco which is used to treat cardiovascular disease, it said"
http://www.int.iol.co.za/
index.p...42752142391B232
Powerful Health Agent
Solanesol, extracted from tobacco leaves, is used in synthesis of high-value bio-chemicals such as vitamin-K analogues and Co-enzyme Q10 (Co Q10). Solanesol, the starting material used in the synthesis of Co Q 10 and Vitamin K analogues, is also a potentiating agent in these medicines. Studies indicate that by introducing solanesol radical into the structure of some medicines, the effects increase noticeably. With solanesol as its primary material, Co-enzyme Q 10 is useful in the treatment of heart diseases, cancers and ulcers.
http://www.novoagri.com/
prod_sol..._solanesol.html
ladyraj,
Federal Retirement Reform Act of 2009 and the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act of 2009 is in this bill. That's the bulk of the cost of the bill - and smokers will foot those acts that were placed in the FDA bill.
Hey Gilster, TSP feathering slipped right under everyone's nose. Matching percentage payments begin 6 months after enactment (or Oct 1st). That helps 3 of my family members so I can take comfort that my fees are recycled back into the fold. What does government do when the economic downturn has robbed some people of their pensions, discontinued matching funds, social security is bankrupt, and the market is in shambles...they get freebies from the tobacco companies. Go figure!
menthol is a cigarette flavoring whose primary purpose is to help addict youths by making cigarette smoke less harsh.
As we've reminded you again and again, this is academic bull. I'm betting neither you nor any of these idiots who make these pronouncements has ever smoked at all, let alone a menthol. Try one ,Doc. One in your lifetime really won't kill you. And then tell us how unharsh you found it. And how it enslaved you.
The majority (75+%) of smokers DON"T smoke menthol and most of them will tell you it's BECAUSE they're harsh. And irritate the throat. And If menthol were "addictive" then why aren't smokers simultaneously addicted to mint flavored Lifesavers? And why aren't mint flavored Lifesavers banned? Or, for that matter, used as MRT (menthol replacement therapy)?
The second thing you blindly and insistently miss is that young smokers start with the brand they see around them-- mostly what their friends and their family smoke and secondarily (but only secondarily and way down the list) a brand they've heard of (mostly through advertising). My first brand was what my family smoked; at college, what my friends smoked. That's how it goes-- in real, as opposed to academic, life.
As for the race thing you keep on pushing and insist is because of "targeting," BS to that too.
If Jews happen to eat more latkes than Christians, it's not because the evil potato manufacturers are targeting Jews, it's because it's a family or neighborhood custom. And if most of your friends and family eat latkes from Bernstein's (as opposed to Goldman's) Deli, chances are, you will too.
There is no racial trait for specifically selecting either menthol or latkes, let alone for selecting Bernstein over Goldman or Newport over Kool. Or even Newport over Camels, Parliament or Kent. You've been locked in your (smoke-free) ivory tower too long. Get out into the street.
:
OT
"PATIENTS AT an Angus psychiatric hospital have launched a campaign against plans they fear could lead to a ban on the sale of cigarettes at the hospital and closure of their smoking room."
"At present psychiatric hospitals and units are allowed to set aside rooms where patients can smoke—one of the few exceptions to the Scotland-wide indoor smoking ban,
But government ministers are thinking about changing the rules and are considering the responses from mental health professionals during a period of consultation.
Many are strongly in favour of moving towards a smoke-free environment for mental health patients. But Frances Carnegie (31) a long-term sufferer of mental health problems and frequent in-patient at Sunnyside, fears doing without cigarettes will be harmful to her well-being."
"“People can be feeling scared and isolated, with not even families and friends visiting because of the stigma that still surrounds mental illness.
“Certainly for me and many others the smoking room is a kind of refuge. When I am ill it is the only place where I can socialise.
“Many of us can’t get out for cigarettes. People detained under the Mental Health Act can’t get out at all and many of the rest of us can’t go out unattended and the staff don’t have the time to take us to the shops for cigarettes.
“They are still selling cigarettes in the hospital. But we’ve been told there won’t be any new stock. After the current stock runs out they will close the smoking room.”
"Evidence shows people with mental health problems are more likely to smoke than others, but research also suggests many can and do quit successfully, especially when provided with appropriate help such as NICOTINE REPLACEMENT THERAPY!!!, and medics and health campaigners across Tayside and Fife are calling for them to be given more support to kick the habit."
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/
outp...y13349183t0.asp
Truly, I never thought I'd see such routine and casual cruelty in this country.
More about Wynder
Making Cigarettes Safe?
Time 1957
"Although the major cancer-causing substance in cigarette tar has not yet been identified, so much is now known about it that smoking could be rendered relatively harmless—without waiting for the substance to be isolated. This reassurance came last week from the man who, since his student days, has been busy amassing proof that heavy, long-continued cigarette smoking is the main cause of the recent dramatic increase in lung cancer: Dr. Ernest L. Wynder, 34, of Manhattan's Sloan-Kettering Institute."
"Dr. Wynder told the American Association for Cancer Research, meeting in Chicago, that the villain is not present in tobacco leaves in their natural, unburned state"
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,824810,00.html
Public Health in the 1950s:The Watershed of Smoking and LungCancer
"Doubts about the scientific objectivity of Wynder, who visited the Ministry in 1953, also compounded the issue.
He is a young man ‘far gone in enthusiasm’ for the causal relationship between
tobacco smoking and lung cancer. (I had been told when I was in New York this spring that he was the son of a revivalist preacher and had inherited his father’s antipathy to tobacco and alcohol. The American Cancer Society was very suspicious of his early work for this reason.)
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk...19-926030-
3.pdf
Ideal candidate.
Sheri hit it right on the head. The so called activists all study the wrong things, advertising,movies? Anyone remember the preachers children who ran wild because of the repressive lifestyle they were raised in? The baby boomers used drugs instead of alcohol, why? Because it was taboo, the forbidden fruit. Teens tend to want to brand themselves different then their parents and rebel to show those differences. Like our grandparents flocked to the speakeasies to get their forbidden fruit our youth will flock to the smokeasies to get theirs. The more repressive the laws the more attractive it will be.
Having come from a teetotaling, anti-smoking family, I can offer first-hand evidence that smoking is much more attractive when it is forbidden....as are drinking, sex, and a host of other "sins." Having gone to a private, Christian college with an abundance of preachers' kids, I can also testify to that population's obsession with chasing temptation.
Walt,
Even if the hypothesis about menthol's use is not true, the point here is that the American Cancer Society TOLD US it is true. So THEY BELIEVE that menthol is used to entice kids. The point is: this demonstrates that they are lying.
The issue here isn't so much about menthol. It's about the truth and the fact that a major anti-smoking and health group - the ACS - is intentionally lying to the public for political purposes.
I find that to be despicable and unethical.
Sheri and Marshall, Like I don't have enough crap going on in my life....here's another little tidbit for you. My father was a Baptist Minister for 48 years. All three of his sons smoked from the time we were 12 or 13. Just thought I'd acknowledge how right you both are. (forbidden fruit, peer pressure, self esteem, curiosity, defiance, not to mention preachers kids in many cases are the most trouble.
Even if the hypothesis about menthol's use is not true, the point here is that the American Cancer Society TOLD US it is true.
But that's not the point of your own posted screed in which you accept and repeat that "hypothesis" as Gospel Truth and (in high dudgeon, yet) embrace it as your own.
Once again I'm forced to conclude that, like many academics, you either don't know how to express yourself clearly (and, cockily, never bother to reread what you wrote), or b) purposely obfuscate or, alas, most likely, c) attempt an after-the-fact semantic slither.
I repeat: your article accepts the "hypothesis" and uses that acceptance as the grounds on which to attack ACS. Nor does it treat the hypothesis as hypothesis. And your other posts here have never treated it as anything other than "fact." Or as Rick would have it Fact®,
:
Oh, very well said Walt.
The funniest thing, when its not extremely irritating, is they are all speculating wildly on motivation, when they really have no clue, perhaps they should show a spot of humility and ask, but that would imply that we have minds of our own.
I come from a family that is not religious, has the attitude of all things in moderation, with dignity and at the correct time.
I have never thought tobacco or spirits alluring and dangerous, certainly not forbidden fruit.
I have never been influenced by an advert for a product because I was taught to interpret them at an early age.
I am influenced by personal recommendation but not by actors or glossy advertising.
It informs me that certain products are available should I wish to purchase them, that's all.
David
I have never smoked a Winston, but I did once taste a Marlboro, I thought it tasted like straw and never repeated the experiment.
There's heresy! 
I think i prefer your description of Marlboro Rose,i thought they tasted and smelled like sweaty socks.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
