'Actually, the alternative is to establish a meaningful and effective federal tobacco control policy by which we actually use the tried and true methods of reducing smoking: increasing cigarette price and implementing state-of-the-art national and state counter-advertising programs.'
Please explain what good the 'state of the art' anti campaigns have done BESIDES dehumanizing and denormalizing smokers. All they add to the mix is hate and hysteria.
.
Senator Enzi is precisely on the right track,
Oh yes........it's ALWAYS been the governments job to dictate to corporations how many consumers they are allowed to have. It's ALWAYS been the governments job to dictate to the people what legal choices they are and are not allowed to make, what legal products they are allowed to use. And it's about time that tobacco companies were brought to heel and forced to obey the rules like all the other corporations.
You can't honestly believe this crap, can you doc? Do you honestly believe it is YOUR right to dictate what I can and cannot do within the limits of law? Do you honestly believe it is YOUR right to try to coerce me to conform to YOUR standards? Do you honestly believe you have the right to force your beliefs on anyone? Better yet, do you honestly believe that death will be prevented by such control?
And yes, I expect and want honest answers to those questions.
I am so fed up with this BS. There isn't another industry out there, whose products are just as harmful to us, that is under attack this way. And if you don't think that pharmas aren't harmful, you are living in lala land. And if you think that all those pesticides (even when used as directed) don't harm, then you are truly delusional.
What's next doc? After smoking, what other choices will you be going after?
Isn't it amazing with asthma so prevalent and on the rise that the EPA, the same EPA you are so fond of, is working to lessen the standards of air quality.
So, please, tell me again how smoking and SHS are responsible for all the worlds ills? You and your kind are making me ill, literally, and will be the death of me long before anything else, just from the stress you cause me.
How the hell do you sleep at night?
The nazi smoke movement ratchets it up a gear.Dr Siegel is happy again when the smokers are pushed further from society and they get hammered for more tax and more programs,Dr Siegel,you are as bad as the rest of them.When you will discuss how you screwed the figures to arrive at your nirvana and become the saviour of the ranti movement ,is the day i may believe you have integrity.I have no idea what your blog really means to you because i don't comprehend your modus operandi,other than to eliminate smoking whichever way you can.Another little man who needs to control people.
I agree totally with the previous comments.
I would also like to know - precisely how is the government going to "force" the tobacco companies to reduce consumption in a free society?
Or is that the real problem - a free society? A society where adults are actually allowed to make their own decisions, to think for themselves. That's the real threat, isn't it?
I saw a news report this morning that Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda because that bunch of terrorists is posting signs telling them how to dress and not to smoke; if the terrorists catch anybody smoking, they cut off their fingers. I hope the antis don't hear about that - we wouldn't want to give them any ideas.
Yes, I'm angry. I've had enough. I want to know when the protests are going to start. They are long overdue.
Sunz;
The Kennedy bill will decimate the strategy of hate promotion because it limits stakeholder involvement in producing compatible "Science" To promote their strategies. the FDA is bound by science in it's descisions Public Health has no such facilities and relies on population views and decision making processes which do not require science, purveyors of no more than propaganda and collective decisions. I would predict a few not so innocent health scare workers and or agencies are about to be slaughtered at the alter, to quell the noise.
The political cog has been achieved and progress has to settle long enough to become a community norm. Government control rests in a balancing act between promoted compassion inflating their popularity and promoted hatred to keep us bickering amongst ourselves so they can officiate as the harmless referee.
The compassionate stage has been neglected and a lull is needed before advocacy in becomes too loud allowing the market share of leadership to slide. Too many health scare advocates have been deliberately embarrassing politicians those biting at hands that feed them need to be slapped down a peg.
The link I provided in the last post clearly demonstrated how the HIA process driving smoking control advocacy is promoting corruption in its procedural plan.
The convergence of conflicted interests to achieve a common goal affords immunity from the largest howl of their collective; the conflicted cigarette funding. It is no secret many conflicted interests are involved in all HIA strategies. HIA would not be effective if conflicted interests were not involved.
The problem? Industry interests can now not only participate in HIA interventions they can form those same interventions themselves and take them to the relatively defenseless WHO agencies and demand the official stamp of approval to proceed.
Armed with a WHO prediction or two which the advocates themselves supplied, the UN can be used effectively to maximize profits by the officially sanctioned process of "Influencing decision makers" which is not designed to provide perspectives but to dominate them.
In effect HIA undermines the people, all cultures elected officials and silences all opposition. The Who framework convention went beyond the process and actually declared who would be acceptable stakeholders and who would not at its inception.
Hospitality associations were accused of being tobacco industry stooges, whereas Travel industries were presented as appropriate, with no clear discussion of the differences.
http://www.paho.org/english/gov/.../ce128_16-
e.pdf
The differences are found in the other products the Hospitality industry sells which is the target for further UN lobby campaigns.
From the link describing shortcomings of "New" Public Health strategies and "New" ethical procedures;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1447193
"Financial incentives to researchers and whole institutions may be sufficiently powerful to shape entire research agendas in the developing world, and the developed world. Thus, while an idealized view of IRBs holds that their decision making is always independent of influence, the reality may often be very different.
Some critics have argued that impartiality in ethical review is simply not possible and that claims for impartiality are in fact part of the problem. What enables differences in power to persist, and to insert themselves into institutional review, is largely the lack of explicit recognition of these diverse and often powerful sectoral interests by the review process."
If the fundamental flaw and largest problem in maintaining integrity and more essentially of protecting study group participants, derives from conflicted interests, why then does HIA promote corruption by encouraging the involvement of as many "Stake Holders" as possible?
So basically, (provision 2) the bill seeks to gradually ban tobacco? Why all the fancy language around it? Like no one will notice?
Yeah... bring it on.
Siegel: "Simply put, tobacco kills people. We can do better."
.......
Well, there is no doubt in my mind that if tobacco kills people, the NAZIs did a much better job of killing people. So did Stalin and Mao.
Doctor Siegel, is that what you meant by "we?" I'm sure you couldn't have meant Americans who reject the murderous practices of Socialist regimes.
Socialism (Nazism, fascism, communism) kills people. And guess what? There are millions of real corpses to prove it.
And yes, those millions died very "prematurely" from the effects of Socialism.
Where it leads?
http://rgcombs.blog-city.com/
a_t...smoking_ban.htm
Excerpt
Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had tarnished its name here by publicly attacking and murdering children, videotaping beheadings, all while imposing harsh punishments on Iraqi civilians found guilty of violating morality laws prohibiting activities like smoking. The AQI installed Sharia court had sanctioned the amputation of the two "smoking fingers" for those who violated anti-smoking laws. …
On the evening of the 24th I spoke with a local Iraqi official, Colonel Faik, who said the Muftis would order the severance of the two fingers used to hold a cigarette for any Iraqis caught smoking. Other reports, from here in Diyala and also in Anbar, allege that smokers are murdered by AQI. Most Iraqis smoke and this particular prohibition appeared to have earned the ire of many locals. After an American unit cleared an apartment complex on the 23rd, LTC Smiley, the battalion commander, reported that residents didn't ask for food and water, but cigarettes. In other parts of Baqubah, people have been celebrating the routing of AQI by lighting up and smoking cigarettes.
Other AQI edicts included beatings for men who refused to grow beards, and corporal punishments for obscene sexual suggestiveness, defined by such "loose" behavior as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag. These fatwas were not eagerly embraced by most Iraqi…
And I thought the anti-smoking nazis here were getting out of hand!
This is Great
Tier-Prohibition
Damn, Prohibition worked in the past, just look at Teddy's father, it will work in the future.
How to wake a Sleeping Giant
Tell it NO
Next
The Twinkie-Cap
YeeeHaaawwww
1643
SMOKEFREE: RUSSIA: Tsar Michael of Russia has declared smoking a deadly sin. Arrested smokers are flogged or have their lips slit. A visitor writes, 'Those convicted of taking snuff, both men and women, can expect to have their noses taken away."
http://www.tobacco.org/
resources..._History17.html
2006
Islamic religious police arrested 22 people for smoking in the Somali port of Kismayo, where they will be flogged if found guilty of violating a new tobacco ban, officials said.
http://www.tobacco.org/news/236036.html
Real progress?
"And I thought the anti-smoking Nazis here were getting out of hand!"
It is not well publicized but Islamic extremism is founded in Hitler's Nazi movement. A movement which was not shut down after the war in Fact the Americans conned the Brits into funding many known war criminals in the Arab world to maintain access to the oil.
One has to wonder with the tools at hand to produce media hatred of the extremists among traditional Muslims why they don't simply call a spade a spade? The truth lies in the Globalist mold which seeks to popularize Fascism as an acceptable political advocacy.
Dr Siegel,
Do I understand correctly that you support prohibition? Nicotine is the primary ingredient in tobacco that people enjoy. Could you ban alcohol from beer and say that it is not prohition because you can still buy Klaustaller? What abour removing all caffeine from coffee? Does this mean that only the pharmaceuticals will be able to sell nicotine products? I am trying to understand your reasoning for supporting this piece of the legislation. If you ban nicotine it becomes a controlled substance and people will begin rolling their own smokes of blackmarket(nicotine rich) tobacco. Also does this apply to smokeless tobacco and cigars?
Doc,
Smoking rates have decreased by more than 50% since the 50's. In time it will dwindle to less than 10% of the population. This legislation only serves to hasten the illegal trade of tobacco.
Billions can be made from this trade. To believe anything else is removing yourself from reality. Cigarettes are easy to produce and easy to transport. Think about it, we cannot stop the flood of illegal substances, yet we will add another to the list Thus creating another criminal endevor. The difference with this one is that 25% of the public will be involved. It will probably even be fashionable.
I am in favor of allowing the companies the freedom to research and market reduced risk products. In the meantime we should continue education aimed at reduction.
Lastly, I am offended when someone tries to dictate what they believe is the proper lifestyle. Who appointed thses people the final judgement on my and others freedoms? Oh, by the way, I do not smoke and never have. However, I see a dangerous precedent evolving.
How do you feel about socialized medicine? Maybe it's time. What about price regulation of Big Pharma? we should stop all these pharma sales people from invading doctor's offices. You talk about a despicable bunch, doctors, lawyers, big pharma amd the health insurance industry. The only group I know that thrive upon the misery of others.
Freedom: Yes, I'm angry. I've had enough. I want to know when the protests are going to start. They are long overdue.
I’m right there with you, Freedom. The protests will start when ALL smokers STOP buying ready made cigarettes and start making their own, while waiting for their own personal first crop of tobacco plants to be ready to smoke. As long as the majority of smokers are too lazy to make their own, and look into forming co-ops to grow their own, we will lose this battle. We have to start by hitting them where it will hurt most……..PROFITS (MONEY). We have to stop being considerate, as we have been with the various restrictions and private property decisions up to now. We have as much right to our pleasure as every car owner on the road today – polluting and poisoning the air we all breathe.
Until then, we are doomed to be stomped all over.
It appears with the bickering connected with the FDA bills Michael is not really alone in his isolation.
Many other stakeholders are swallowing a bitter pill repeatedly due to voluntary involvement with HIA interventions.
The plan calls for a united front of participating stakeholders who agree as the terms of involvement not to speak out in a way which could damage the credibility of the collective.
What this does in a sense it leaves credible voices [included only to give the process credibility] silent in any ability to speak when their own principles are abused by outrageous statements they are duty bound to support.
Think of it, If the front men like the TFK group or RWJF make erroneous statements others who agreed to participate are bound by agreement to stay silent and in that silence new flat earth science is created.
In a sense credibility is purchased and used up while the victim is powerless to state views more in line with personal integrity.
The groups for the most part are remaining bound by agreement although many personal statements and exasperations portrayed to the public do not sit well with the now barely ethical members who would not normally put things quite as are being described by the ad agencies even to promote the greater good.
If the term "the deadly effects of tobacco smoke" are repeated enough times, it relinquishes the urge to complete the statement; adding and roasting marshmallows over a camp fire with the kids or burning incense and candles which are obviously more toxic by measured toxin content.
The fear promotion abilities are entirely reduced with public disclosures of all the facts.
I notice the latest iteration of the bill supports the "No safe cigarette" rekindled once more as a hollow egg statement, lacking any sense of integrity in its use. The statement affording no valuable knowledge but hiding the reality they could obviously be safer.
Smokers are denied valuable knowledge they are owed by law and "No safe cigarette" destroys any sense of trust if it was ever deserved.
Hopefully the experience of those conned into participation is relayed to colleagues and the lobbying of science fades away under much stricter guidelines.
Otherwise we will be bound by international agreements to eventual slavery and limits of our enjoyment to that found consuming the daily replenishments, from the communal porridge.
A new world with certainly very little in the way of subversive speech discussing the horrors of personal autonomy.
The plan calls for a united front of participating stakeholders who agree as the terms of involvement not to speak out in a way which could damage the credibility of the collective.
Sounds an awful lot like censorship to me. Isn't that a violation of our constitutional right to "free speech"?
Apparently this violation is also just coming out of the closet, along with the real agenda this movement has always been about.
I truly don't know how these people can look themselves in the mirror and actually like what they see there. No one with any ethics or morals could.
Everyone so far is so right and I agree with it all. I am also very disgusted with it all too. When I think of your safety, I think of a firemen who put their lives on the line when your house is on fire. Or that accident you were in and it was your fault. They are using the jaws of life so to extract you and your family from the vehicle before the gas tank explodes. The Police who comes to your home during the night when you call to say that someone has broken into your home, or comforts your daughter when she reports a rape. The military guy who gives you freedom everyday of your life, in wartime or peacetime. You would be surprised to know where these people go off to for temporary duty so to keep you free and safe. Then you go and support a bill like this? Fine, but I now firmly vow that should I ever be your neighbor or in a passing car I will not be stopping to help any of you antis. I am fed up with you supporting a choice that I make and a freedom that I enjoy.
I believe it was freedom who asked when the protest were going to start. Set the date and time freedom and I promise to be there with everyone else. Just remember that the people writing these bills and laws are only elected officials who was voted in and can very easily be voted out. Impeachment can be a simple process once we get the rest of the the world to wake up, which won't be long. They already see what you are doing to us and they are in fear of being the next target. We will grow and anyone supporting this legislation will be wishing they were working at a garage pumping gas rather than dreaming up and supporting this nonsense!
Put on the armor folks, it is time to fight back!
How about it Michael;
After the research is in, and the undeniable success is demonstrated in public floggings and removal of fingers as an effective strategy to reduce smoking. Will you join with your dedicated colleagues in singing the praises for new legislation?
Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.
How do you propose counting the number of smokers in the target year?
The same way you counted the 220 dead bartenders? If so, could you please let us in on how you did that? I mean, this is a pertinent question, right? One that deserves, finally, an answer? Because your proposed regulation requires a complex task of counting heads. And that always leads to controversy.
Please let us know how you did that in the past.
BTW: Where do you think the tobacco companies might get the $3.5 billion you are talking about?
That's right. From the remaining smokers.
But I thought you said before that using government force to pry money away from smokers was regressive and counterproductive.
Cuckoo.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot: The 220?
Do the "tobacco control" programs in question include anti-tobacco advertising? If so, that might make reducing the number of smokers difficult. Because, er... the more anti-tobacco ads kids see, the more likely they are to smoke.
I'm not kidding.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/
121538.html
Weird.
The FDA tobacco police arrested 22 people for smoking at a BBQ picnic in a local park. If found guilty under the Enzi/Siegel Act, they will be flogged.
A second conviction under the Enzi/Siegel Act could lead to placement in one of the six Mengele Behavior Modification facilities as provided in a later amendment of the E/S Act.
There, proven cessation techniques will be applied to help nicotine addicts. Should those techniques fail, authorities have discretionary power to use experimental methods.
Wait wait, they are going to tax us for smoking tobacco they will REMOVE????
I got a question for the marchers..we have had actual people KILLED for smoking...are they going to have to line us up in the streets and hold execution hours before everyone gets it? Truth and reason aren't an option anymore. Even Doc here thinks it's completely reasonable to tax ONLY smokers for things that don't affect ONLY smokers. Even Doc supports a bill that doesn't actually ELIMINATE smoking, but puts in place prohibition while again STEALING OUR MONEY. Notice how they won't remove cigarettes so they can continue to tax them while removing the thing about them that makes them cigarettes. Quite frankly, the whole nation can KMA. If I'm being singled out as a smoker for theft and abuse, well, they can lay dying in the streets and I'll step over them. I've done my duty as a citizen and I'm done. My money took the place of my compassion, just like my money took the place of their compassion.
Who's up for hijacking a PM shipment and dropping it in the ocean?
Decreasing nicotine not ok -people will smoke more---now ok
Giving Bit T advantage not ok -costs-removing nicotine costs big bucks small companies like RYO & MYO -Now ok to protect Big T
Taxing lower income not ok-now ok
Protecting the anti tobacco money machine -now ok
Doc, did you forget to take your anti double speak medication today.
Jalestra: Who's up for hijacking a PM shipment and dropping it in the ocean?
Count me in, Jalestra. I'm done being nice and reasonable. I'm fighting for my life now (and yes, MY free will IS my life), and I'll be damned if these wuusses will take it from me without a fight. "Over my dead body" springs to mind as an appropriate cliche for how I feel right now (which means I'm not afraid of dying like the rest of the rAntis).
Sam;
We can't hold Michael completely responsible for producing the figures.
DALY s were simply part of the process which in turn were used to produce the costs according to process. He didn't invent DALY s he just did the calculations.
TC along with many other advocacy groups were simply annexed by a larger Industrial initiative in HIA promotion which whined and dined them into involvement.
HIA is corrupted by a lack of evaluation or even recognition of obviously and entirely conflicted interests.
Those interests are in the drivers seat of the process so they are above reproach. Why with all the mention of RWJF to journalists as profiteering is there no mention in the press of the financing of advertising with public funds?
Why has this group not been investigated for obvious racketeering and Rico violations?
The answer lies in the unbridled power of American Philanthropy. Rockefeller's revenge.
Charity foundations who have been given the new tools and partnership with UN agencies to assert their power above the ability of any country to stop them.
Fascism rules the roost and the same medical groups industry has dominated for a century through philanthropy are giving them more license to steal while we pay all the taxes to fund th4e bulk of their operations and even provide corporate welfare when they rattle the chain of the politicians they helped to promote into power positions.
The Medical community naively, or so it seems, believes, any one industry like cigarette companies stand alone? American philanthropy exists as a team who work to compliment each other if one plays good cop and the other plays bad cop and they all make huge profits playing with us. Our consumer choices are driven to were they want them.
If you want to sell a couple million gallons of gasoline this week, lower the price minimally for 3 days and on the fourth you advise all the stations at 6 pm to raise the price by 10 cents with the exception of a select few who raise their prices at 10 am. The scurrying lasts the entire day as consumers fight for a place in line to fill up their tanks before the price goes up.
On the fifth day allow a few stations to avoid the increase just to make sure everyone gets a full tank whether they need it or not.
Consumers go away happy and content they made a great deal and the sellers are happier knowing even at the lowest price they made a fortune. And we continue to play the game as the numbers keep going up.
Industry connected government regulators who know the higher the price the more taxes will be secured keep telling us no collusion is involved and we are all getting a bargain considering the situation.
In the 70s they predicted we would run out of gasoline before the turn of the century, in order to sell us on world pricing and OPEC now we see surpluses and untapped reserves which even with rising production and consumption levels according to the experts will see us well into the next century.
Anyone think of the media's portrayal of the peaceful Christmas mood at Rockefeller square, and find yourself moved to vengeful thoughts?
you should.
Socialism ala Cool Hand Luke:
Warden: "What we have here is failure to communicate."
At which point, the Warden pulls out his sap and clobbers Newman.
SAP: Socialism and Paternalism: Without a sap, it cannot be implemented.
Dr Siegel, how about going into a darkened room, having a lie down and a little think about what it is you are actually supporting here.
Of course it's the smoke not the smoker's, right?
This is appalling.
west
----
A most interesting piece, after you begin to see what is really going on here.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe...l%2FOp-
ed+pages
~snip~
'Attenta! as the Italians say, when they see a friend crossing a street. Careful! Even in a great nation, given a few bad decisions, a few loud and convincing voices counseling hatred, so much can change so fast.
.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/ 121538.html
From Sam's link , due to the profound and decisive to the point nature, wasting no words.
The comment by Marcus seems to carry the day.
Well said sir..
Wow Sunz, Great piece indeed.
"Much stronger cigarette and smokeless tobacco warning labels would be required (such as "Smoking kills" and "Cigarettes cause fatal lung cancer"). In addition to the text warning, a color graphic depicting the negative health consequences of smoking and occupying at least 50% of the pack would be required."
Well, OK. There we have it. Not so long ago, the doctor said that he would back away from bans if someone could come up with a way to sufficiently warn bartenders about the dangers of SHS. Well, if these warnings are sufficient for active smoking, surely they will do the trick for environmental tobacco smoke.
I eagerly await a post in which the doctor endorses such warning and swears off legislative bans.
Unless, of course, he didn't mean what he said.
I might also point out that a while back, as I recall, the doctor slammed a 60-something-cent tax on cigarettes as regressive. Then Bill Godshall took him to task for slamming that tax. How did the doctor respond?
"Perhaps Bill was not listening. I didn't say that I think the 61 cents per pack cigarette tax increase is EXCESSIVE. I said I don't think ANY cigarette tax increase to support children's health insurance is warranted. It's not the AMOUNT of the tax that is in dispute."
And now the doctor supports a 10 cent excise.
I guess the difference is that the money would go to tobacco cessation programs instead of healthcare.
But what's the difference? The doctor said children's healthcare is too important to tie to smoking. Isn't anti-smoking propoganda just as important?
I guess not. And I guess it is fine to tax cigarettes--as long as doctor Siegel approves of how the money gets spent.
Ah, consistency.
Ha!
I didn't even notice that the 10-cent tax would go for more than propoganda. A full 75 percent would go for...
Wait for it...
Wait for it...
Health care!
Even though the doc said that he was against the larger tax, the revenues of which would go for... health care.
Brilliant.
Diane and Lynda, you want a date? How 'bout July 1, 2008 - in honor of the Brits Day of Defiance started this year?
Oh, sure, by then the politicians will already be picking our pockets and demanding we live according to their dictates (while they celebrate by downing their deadly, addictive drug of choice, alcohol), but, hey, we have to start somewhere.
It would be in time for the 2008 elections. And, personally, I think it's payback time for a lot of politicians. 50 million smokers could be a lot of payback.
Provided, of course, we still have sufficient fingers left to use the touch-screen voting machines.
Dr Siegel We should not be spending our precious time and resources in a futile effort to try to develop a safer cigarette, when the product contains over 4,000 chemicals and we have no idea which of those chemicals is responsible for the diseases caused by cigarette smoke.
Then maybe ya'll should get off your lazy asses and figure it out rather than spending all your time and research money on studies about the "effectiveness of advertising" and "whether taxes decrease youth smoking". I mean, you've had 40 years...are you really ALL that incompetent? Or is the reality just that you don't care to try? Funny how every time the cigarette companies try to make progress on safe(r) cigarettes, they get vilified even more isn't it?
The second is a need to allocate a significant portion of the revenues derived from the penalties for smoking prevention and cessation programs.
No sir, the need is to decide whether tobacco is going to be legal or not. Period. "Penalties" applied to the companies for not "reducing" the number of users of a legal product are illegal restriction of the companies right to do business. Put up or shut up. If you want tobacco banned then say so and do it, otherwise get your nose out of my personal life.
Just don't expect me not to fight you and your brethren every inch of the way, with any and all means at my disposal.
But the basic idea behind the HEALTH Act is exactly where the federal government should be in terms of a national tobacco control policy
Wrong. Where the federal government should be is at arms length, out of my personal life.
As for this being a "national tobacco policy", what it really is, is a direct declaration of war on smokers. Hope ya'll aren't surprised when we start treating it the same way, with all that goes with it.
Senator Enzi is right. These are the tried and true programs for smoking prevention.
Um, no. These are the tried and true routes to prohibition, something that's worked oh so well in the past.
Many thanks for this post, by the way.
You've now made abundantly clear that those warning that your intentions could not be trusted were right all along.
Freedom: How 'bout July 1, 2008
Agreed. Name the place and I'll be there.
Freedom: How 'bout July 1, 2008
Count me in. Hopefully by then they'll not have taken away our right to protest, speech, assemble.
Sam;
The proposal also included a larger payment as a penalty for failure to reduce their client list. Guess how that one will work and ultimately who will pay the bill?
Excessive and regressive taxes to punish the underlings with no brain of their own into right headed thinking. Is this supposed to represent actions which are protective of the research subjects who contributed to the information on which these impositions are based? If we go back and ask the research subjects if they knew the studies they contributed too would be used against them to force decisions on them do you think it reasonable they would have participated had they known?
No matter how you slice it arguments for the Kennedy piece of crap if nothing else slime or not at least they are being upfront with their actions.
Not veiled in "no safe level" hypocritical double speak which borrows from the same corruption process which sell ETS as a deadly toxin at any level of exposure.
The Taxes the ads and the pretty pictures on the packages have all failed to produce claimed results other than increased smoking among the kids who are likely starting because of all the harassment and they will now find new effectiveness because?
Replication of the same actions and expecting different results about sums it up.
Industrial processes keep them spending vast resources contributing to what amounts to insanity.
Funds which actually be quite useful for communities who are being ignored and hurting at the moment, instead of growing and consolidating the media who make far too much for what little they produce already.
How many in the future knowing how they will be abused in place of gratitude will be voluntarily participating?
If anyone here is handed a questioneer when entering a medical institution in the future or asked to participate in a survey or poll or the worst of the lot a medical trial process, I hope you can all take a lesson from this.
My advice; refuse to co-operate with strong abusive attitudes. Letting them know you are insulted by the prospect so others in the room will follow your lead.
Mike Walsh, great post, and I second everything you said there.
The Doc has been extremely quiet lately and has totally ignored all the questions put to him regarding discussing the science (something he often claims to want to do).
They are no longer hiding the true agenda, and will probably act all surprised when we stand up and fight. But then greedy people never figure that they go too far.
I hope the media and politicians are reading this, and I pray they realize we are NOT sheep and will NOT lie down and tolerate this specific persecution. I hope they take all that is said here seriously, and actually look at the path we are on right now.
Jalestra, I am with you. I don't think I have ever been so mad as I am now and I don't plan on letting it go for a long long time.
Freedom, July 1st sounds good to me. We all need to get together somehow and do some planning. What and when is good for the rest of you all?
Doctor, you and your buddies sure have taken a whack at that hornets nest. You have gotten many riled up already and if you were smart, you would be forwarding this blog and the remarks to all your friends in Washington. Once the word spreads, there is going to be alot more people than just us in the streets. You are taking your life in your own hands and I will no longer be there to protect you now. I know that I will not be the one to personnally harm another person, but I can not and will not speak for what someone else might do.
Wasn't it Jalestra who mentioned something about hijacking a PM shipment and dropping it in the ocean? If it would be the beginning of another Tea Party, I will pay for the shipment (before taxes) so therefore, no hijacking is needed. We need to be above all others and do it legally. Let TC be the criminals in this crime against humanity!
I still say pushing for them to leave us alone at this late date is not going to work....push for complete illegalization, I'm really fond of the yank their money out from under them route. Yeah, we have to quit smoking, but hey feelings change when you ain't got no money. We can get the support for that from the rest of the people faster than we would since we're now THE ENEMY.
It's either yank their money out or shoot them.
Wasn't it Jalestra who mentioned something about hijacking a PM shipment and dropping it in the ocean? If it would be the beginning of another Tea Party, I will pay for the shipment (before taxes) so therefore, no hijacking is needed. We need to be above all others and do it legally. Let TC be the criminals in this crime against humanity!
The only problem with that Diane is that no one feels the pain of it. You would have paid for them, therefore no one loses except you (your money).
The Boston Tea Party was done with the tea the colonists already paid for, they dumped the stuff that was sitting on the ship to be unloaded and sold.
Since I'm really into harming none, actually perhaps having a bonfire would be more appropriate, instead of dumping it into the ocean (I mean the fish aren't out to get us are they, so lets not litter their home).
That'll teach me to not preview first. The above should read: The Boston Tea Party wasn't done
I doubt it will ever come to armed resistance. Heck, I doubt anyone will even manage to dump a barge-load of Nicorette into Boston Harbor. Which is probably all for the best.
At the same time, I do not think that excuses the Doctor from explaining his numbers and being at least as forthcoming as the people he criticizes.
Nor does it excuse him from explaining why Bill Godshall is a jerk for proposing to fund healthcare with a cigarette tax, but Senator Enzi is a Philosopher King for doing the same.
Remember doctor, "It's not the AMOUNT of the tax that is in dispute." Your words. Not mine.
All I am asking you to do is stand behind them. Things that you have said. It's simple, really.
Fine. You lied--I mean, told a fib--when you said you would back away from bans. I guess we could chalk that up to rhetorical excess. But in the past few weeks, it seems that you have been crawling in reverse on four or five direct statements. And that you have refused to explain your reasoning, divulge your methodology or follow through on your own committments.
Your readers deserve better than that.
From what I can tell, CTFK has been one of the more honest anti-tobacco outlets over since about July 5.
An organized campaign signifying contempt, could be promoted in a much simpler way whenever there are cameras around hold up a smoking patch with a swastika and the words Pubic Health across it and burn it for the cameras.
Is anyone here capable of making a U tube protest video informing smokers of the significance? we could link to it as often as possible and spread the word the old fashioned way by word of mouth.
In an organized protest similar to the burning of the bras this one could carry a lot more weight[So to speak lol], with close to 60 million smokers to speak to in North America alone a considerable nightmare for the political class to deal with.
Perhaps it is time for the tobacco industry to pony up some of their tainted money to protect their clients from the irrepressible hatred of the HIA [Healthscare In Action] Nazi movement.
Without even reading the previous comments - now we know why Dr. Siegal started this blog. the 256 billion in settlement fees that smokers already pay in the MSA was spent too rapidly.
Dr. Siegal wants to make sure that there is an unending pot of funds for himself and tobacco control.
Way to milk smokers Dr. Siegal and please don't ever speak of having integrity again.
Michelle
Has anybody noticed how the wind has turned? Out is the protection from SHS, in are coercion and penalites for those who light up.
Make no mistake: prohibition via the backdoor is in its way.
nemo 31 asks----'Doc, did you forget to take your anti double speak medication today'
I think he is way beyond meds at this point---I do believe the Doctor has flipped is lid.
Perhaps that's what he's planning on using as his defense when the prosecution of these criminals begins.
Hey y'all.
No - I have not flipped my lid (at least not in my professional life).
I'm simply trying to point out that there is a far more effective approach to reducing smoking than the proposed FDA legislation, which if anything, would increase smoking by giving a seal of approval to cigarettes and making the public think that they are now miraculously safer.
As I have said repeatedly, I oppose any cigarette tax increase UNLESS a substantial proportion of the money is used directly for smoking-related costs, including prevention and treatment of smoking-related diseases, research into better treatments, and smoking cessation programs and services. For this reason, I think the SCHIP cigarette tax proposal is unfair and regressive, while the idea of increasing the tax to fund smoking-related programs, as Senator Enzi has proposed, makes sense. While it's true that the available funds would decline if smoking drops, that is appropriate, since as smoking drops, less funds would be needed. This is not the case with the SCHIP proposal, where as smoking drops, children lose their health insurance coverage. Also, it is far less regressive because smokers stand to benefit if the money is going to services specifically for smokers.
The Enzi proposal would not take choice away from smokers. They would still make any choices they want to. It would put the burden on the tobacco industry, however, to put their money where their mouth is and do something to reduce youth smoking (which they say is their goal anyway). If they don't do this, then they would pay penalties which would be used to reduce youth smoking. I think it's a pretty sensible idea actually.
As far as banning nicotine in cigarettes, I don't believe that Congress will pass such a provision. But the other aspects of the program are, I think, very politically feasible and workable.
A very interesting blog entry Dr. Siegel.
I agree that it will be interesting to see if the Philip Morris front group, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (I think it's been shown pretty clearly that they have a better claim to such a label than Forces or the Smokers Club so I'll go with it... ;> ) supports the Enzi proposal.
HOWEVER... I disagree with at least four of the five major Enzi points as outlined by you. Specifically:
1) An increase in the cigarette tax, *however* allocated (Tax allocation is simply a cheap legislative trick to make taxes palatable and should simply itself be outlawed. Expenditures should be judged and allocated from all taxes available.) (Taxes on cigarettes have been pretty clearly shown to already be far beyond excess/uninsured/governmental medical costs: fairness dictates their DEcrease, not their INcrease.)
2) Tobacco companies paying extra if people keep smoking: (The people and, arguably, the government should be in charge of what people do in their lives. Private companies have no business getting involved beyond what private businesses are intended to do: produce and market their products. This provision leaves a wide open doorway for IMMENSE government-approved profits for PM and others who can simply hike their profit margins from 50 cents or so a pack up to $5 a pack while claiming they are being "forced" to do it by the government in order to reduce smoking.)
3) Stronger warning labels: (The labels should be commensurate with labeling of other products and fairly worded: Smoking does NOT kill... I believe it *can* kill, but many who smoke for long periods are NOT killed by it. And I can only begin to imagine what strengthening some of the nonsensical secondary smoke warnings might look like! Should there be warning labels? Yes. How can we arrive at a fair judgement as to what they say and show? Sorry... that's something I just don't know. Should we demand that Big Macs come wrapped in packaging covered with pictures of hugely fat bloated corpses and diseased hearts?)
4) Removal of nicotine: (Absolutely not. Many smokers smoke because they enjoy the nicotine in cigarettes just as many beer drinkers enjoy the alcohol in their beer or coffee drinkers enjoy the caffeine in their coffee. The government should NOT have the right to dictate that private individuals can not make that choice in their lives. Plus, once you get into elimination or drastic reduction in nicotine you end up with Prohibition/BlackMarket problems.)
5) Spending MSA for tobacco control: (First of all, the MSA was a deal made between cigarette companies and a very clearly unconstitutional pact made between state governments to take money from a population subgroup by a tax that would simply not be called a tax. Imagine if the Anti-Milk folks at PETA got the money and power to force Kraft Foods et al to charge an extra $1 per gallon on milk and turn it all over to the government as an "agreement" for protection from consumer lawsuits.) (Secondly, even if one accepts the idea of the MSA being legal, it was supposed to be for covering the cost of sick smokers: that was the rationale under which it was sold and justified to the American people.)
So while I agree with you Dr. Siegel that it may be fun to watch CTFK hopping on hot coals, I do *not* feel that the Enzi bill is really any real improvement over the PM/CTFK bill.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
I'm simply trying to point out that there is a far more effective approach to reducing smoking than the proposed FDA legislation, which if anything, would increase smoking by giving a seal of approval to cigarettes and making the public think that they are now miraculously safer.
Again, Doc, what gives you the right to decide that smoking rates must be reduced until there are no smokers left? What gives you the right to determine what legal products I am allowed to choose to use?
As I have said repeatedly, I oppose any cigarette tax increase UNLESS a substantial proportion of the money is used directly for smoking-related costs, including prevention and treatment of smoking-related diseases, research into better treatments, and smoking cessation programs and services.
And WHAT “smoking-related” costs are you referring to? Where is the guarantee that these costs are caused ONLY by smoking? Your smoking related costs increased with the population increase, which in essence lowered the smoking rate, so please explain how these problems are “smoking-related”.
While it's true that the available funds would decline if smoking drops, that is appropriate, since as smoking drops, less funds would be needed.
Why would less funds be needed? Are you seriously suggesting that all the ills you blame on smoking and SHS will magically disappear? Surely you are not THAT delusional. Are you? Do you have some guarantee that these illnesses will just go down and away as smoking does? Please tell me you are not expecting me to believe that bowl of horse manure.
The Enzi proposal would not take choice away from smokers. They would still make any choices they want to.
Considering how nicotine is an important aspect of our smoking pleasure, you don’t think removing nicotine from cigarettes isn’t taking our choice away? IF we wanted nicotine free we wouldn’t be smoking. DUHHHH knock knock is anyone home?
If they don't do this, then they would pay penalties which would be used to reduce youth smoking. I think it's a pretty sensible idea actually.
Excuse me, but I think it’s already been proven that the tobacco companies won’t be paying one red cent for any penalties. They’ll simply raise the price of cigarettes so the smokers can pay it. Oh yes, THAT is such a sensible idea. ONLY an anti who doesn’t view smokers as human beings would think that way.
As far as banning nicotine in cigarettes, I don't believe that Congress will pass such a provision.
Of course they won’t ban it…………it’s free cash for them.
But the other aspects of the program are, I think, very politically feasible and workable.
I can only repeat myself here: “ONLY an anti who doesn’t view smokers as human beings would think that way.”
Well said M J M
I would like to add to your points and
1 Taxes applied to selected groups are punitive and imply a crime or injustice is being committed.
To tax for moral reasons as referred to as a sin tax, A tax which has no legitimate standing when grandfathering is not considered because those who already smoke will be affected deliberately, this is taking advantage of what is said to be an addiction and treated as a habit this has little in the way of ethical license, a cash grab by new perspectives which do not respect pre-existing norms. Trapping smokers in a tax they can not avoid without resorting to criminal enterprises.
If the costs of health care are a legitimate issue they should have been worked out with the manufacturers and added to the price of the product a long time ago, to avoid the segregation and vilification of a targeted group. Coming along decades later having spent taxes already collected and claiming costs from the past is a little hard to grasp.
2 The costs to the manufacturers plus a markup will be the only effect of this measure as with the MSA payments they will come out of the pockets of smokers simply an additional sin tax through deceptive means.
The effect will be for the manufacturers in ignoring the reductions demands and increasing sales; simply a lot more profits and a product with increasing profit margins following the time line you promoted.
3 Warning labels which reflect information with value No safe cigarette as I referred to it before is a hollow egg which when thrown at someone has a shock value however produces little beyond the fear it promotes. Nasty pictures have a similar effect the shock value quickly fades and becomes an item of amusement.
Smoking does not kill the diseases associated are supposed to be responsible remember?
If smoking were to cease would those diseases be eliminated? Fair and honest claims are respective of our rights although thought to be boring by the sound bite addicts, in their honesty they will have a much more resounding effect.
4 if I agree entirely Black markets will flourish and smokers will be forced to deal with them if the product sold on the shelf is not serving their needs.
The results of that criminal increase are taken far too lightly. Look at the damage of turf wars and gang violence today and amplify it many times smokers will not be as much at risk as all of community will be due to the fallout.
5 Tobacco control is a lobby group who financed themselves in the past and should have no problem continuing to be funded by the conflicted funds which brought them thus far if stakeholders are profiting from the excessive measures smokers endue why should their costs be reduced make them pay full value for their profit streams and keep the money taken from the public in public hands. Perhaps in a national charity foundation serving the public view of charitable cause for a change.
I can not see much value to society in either rendition of the bill people will continue to suffer as divided communities, smoking will be increased and the rich stakeholders will simply get richer and increase their power over the rest of us.
Some interesting info?
The Hypocrisy of Raising Cigarette Excise Taxes
Cigarettes are one of the most heavily taxed consumer products in the United States, and excise taxes on cigarettes are much higher than excise taxes on other age-restricted products. In most states, there is a wide gap between the level of excise taxes paid on beer and wine compared to the level of excise taxes on cigarettes.
Hypocrisy
In Rhode Island, you can buy 450 six-packs of beer, and still pay less excise tax than you would pay on only one carton of cigarettes. In New York, you can buy 400 bottles of wine – more than 33 cases – and pay less excise tax than for one carton of cigarettes. How many six-packs of beer or bottles of wine would you have to purchase in your state to generate the same state excise tax revenue as one carton of cigarettes?
The Bottom Line
Smokers make up about 22.3 percent of the U.S. adult population, and they are already paying more than their fair share of the tax burden. The government makes more money off cigarettes per minute than the average family makes in a year. Federal taxes on cigarettes have increased 62.5 percent since 2000. Yet proposals to further increase cigarette taxes are made each year – usually to fund new or expanded government programs unrelated to tobacco control. Raising cigarette taxes perpetuates the hypocrisy of "politically correct" tax profiling of adult smokers.
Know the Facts
The estimated weighted average state tax on cigarettes as of September 2004 was 76 cents per pack, and the federal government levies an additional 39 cents per pack. Federal, state and municipal excise taxes on cigarettes for the fiscal year ending June 2003 amounted to more than $19 billion. This is not a fair way to tax cigarettes or the adults who smoke them. It's time to end the hypocrisy of tobacco excise taxes and spread the tax burden more fairly.
Dr Siegel,you say you haven't flipped your lid,sorry to disagree but that happened a couple of weeks ago when you spouted the magic figures of 220 and followed that by going off on a tangent concerning the 16 Million asthmatics you rather implied we couldn't give a shite about.You didn't so much as flip your lid as fall out of your tree.You continue to treat us with contempt and deny us the answers to the questions we asked then and subsequently.Sorry your integrity has been ruined by your fit of pique and demeanour ever since.Your brainwashing went a lot deeper than you can comprehend or is it merely your choice of excuse? You do belong alongside your fellow antis,your ideals and agenda are identical,only the path that you choose differs.
Michael McFadden: And I can only begin to imagine what strengthening some of the nonsensical secondary smoke warnings might look like!
Imagine no longer
From thje sounds of things, they're using the Canadian packs as example....50% of package devoted to warning, complete with lovely graphics of diseased pig and sheep organs, limp cigarettes, etc and statements like "cigarettes hurt babies", "don't poison us" (complete with picture of 2 wide-eyed children), and "cigarettes cause strokes".
Click the "see all 16 warnings" to see 'em all.
Since I'm really into harming none, actually perhaps having a bonfire would be more appropriate, instead of dumping it into the ocean
I understand, because I share your beliefs to some extent. However, the symbolism would be lost if we just had a bonfire.
Doc,
You have a split personality or what?
You are no better than the TC scum you continue to point your finger at.
Of course, ...their not paying attention to you anymore either.
You're not "helping" anyone but yourself.
Do us a favor,......stop.
Lynda F, a bonfire is probably not a good choice.
Can you imagine the shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth over the thought of the SHS from burning a whole shipment (boxcar or semi-trailer) of cigarettes?
WHAT?!?! How did I miss it? The War On Terror is over? Did we win? The borders are secure now? I missed that one. Social Security has been reformed and funded? Our prisons are nearly empty? Have I been in a coma?
It must be happy days when smoking becomes a federal crime!
Prohibition never works.
Cocaine is illegal.. looks like we never "fixed" that problem.
This will create billions to be made in the Black Market. And you non-smokers better get up in arms about this garbage...when there is no more tobacco tax money coming in then they’ll come after some other non-favorable activity for their blood money — quite possibly YOURS.
Get the government out of the health business — in all ways and always
Imagine Hillary Clinton Healthcare, telling you "Sorry, cant eat that burger, its BAD for you and it COSTS BIG DADDY GOVERNMENT MONEY if you get sick"
Ban smoking? Not if you dont want riots in the streets.
Wow, this country is getting nuts.
Health Nazis leave smokers ALONE!
Enough already.
WHAT?!?! How did I miss it? The War On Terror is over? Did we win? The borders are secure now? I missed that one. Social Security has been reformed and funded? Our prisons are nearly empty? Have I been in a coma?
Yeah, apparently those things aren't all that important anymore. Now it's punishing AMERICANS...not terrorists.
Can you imagine the shrieking, wailing and gnashing of teeth over the thought of the SHS from burning a whole shipment (boxcar or semi-trailer) of cigarettes?
hehehehe Yep, I can. That's why it's so appropriate. And then when none of them drops dead we can ask them why they are still alive since they are so sure the health nazis were telling the absolute truth about the deadliness of just a whiff of SHS.
A bonfire of a tuckload of cigarettes..........gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling just thinking about it........LOL
Jalestra, Lynda F, Lightning Boy, Kevin, all the rest: at least two of you know where to find me. So what's stopping you? If you want to start mounting a resistance, then let's get started. The antis are right when they call us whiners. What else are we doing? One of you send me a message with an email address and send one to each other. Let's get this show on the road, for Petey's sake. Look at the guys in the UK -- I thought the Brits were the ones who we fought to get away from. And forget the stupid tobacco money -- whoever said that. They gave the NSA $45 million for the sole purpose of giving four snots in suits nice jobs sending out a lot of mail, and keeping us smokers quiet -- which they succeeded in doing -- what else did you think their mission was? The Brits have male leaders -- I'm sorry, but that's the difference -- that's what we don't have here. You guys don't seem to want to do a damn thing unless you think some tobacco company is going to give you money doing it. If I'm wrong and that's unfair, send me an email, snot, and I'm glad to be corrected. I'll scrub your f*n toilet if it will help move your a** into action.
OT but look where we're going now.
Alzheimer's Care Center to Carry Out VeriChip Pilot
http://www.rfidjournal.com/artic...icle/view/3340/
How do you get an alzheimers patients informed consent to 'volunteer'?
But not everyone agrees:
http://www.antichips.com/forced-...ed-
chipping.htm
Talk about using the vulnerable for experiments. Wonder how long before we are all standing in lines to be fitted?
;(
Dr. Siegel wrote: The Enzi proposal would not take choice away from smokers. They would still make any choices they want to.
And Lynda F responded:
Considering how nicotine is an important aspect of our smoking pleasure, you don’t think removing nicotine from cigarettes isn’t taking our choice away? IF we wanted nicotine free we wouldn’t be smoking. DUHHHH knock knock is anyone home?
Lynda, I'm going to ask you to rethink that part of your argument. I'm against the drive to remove nicotine from cigarettes on the general principle that it's no different than caffeine and it's none of anyone else's business to "control." (not forgetting the fact that the tobacco leaf naturally contains nicotine which makes the antis look really stupid when they fail to address that).
Your angle on the nicotine debate is detrimental to our cause. It falls right into the hands of the antis. To quote you, we wouldn't be smoking but for the nicotine. So then, if it's about the nicotine then their gums and patches would supply it and what are we complaining about?
But as I and others have argued, the act of smoking provides other sorts of enjoyment. That to take a pill does nothing to satisfy the associated enjoyments. One of my analogies has been about trading a caffeine pill for a cup of coffee. Like one can get the aroma, warmth, and comfort from a caffeine pill that they'd get with their cup of coffee? And let's not forget that there's DECAF coffee out there! None of the caffeine and still all the associated pleasure of coffee drinking.
IF we wanted nicotine free we wouldn’t be smoking. DUHHHH knock knock is anyone home?
Ummm, that's what the antis are alleging. That's why they want to get rid of the nicotine and we're arguing that the act of smoking is not just to "get a fix."
I'm willing to bet you spoke on impulse (in a burst of anger) and didn't think it through.
KaChinga asks---'WHAT?!?! How did I miss it? The War On Terror is over? Did we win? The borders are secure now? I missed that one. Social Security has been reformed and funded? Our prisons are nearly empty?'
Yep, it's all been handled---even the potholes are in perfect repair!! We should all be dancing in celebration.
s/
Agreed - a meeting, a plan. Resistance. It's time.
Some of you I do know from other lists; I'll contact you through those and see who knows the others' email addresses.
It was very satisfying to see everyone pick up on the same offense right out of the box. Now all I can do is add to it.
Senator Enzi's proposal establishes what would be the first national tobacco counter-advertising program run by the federal government.
That's a good thing?!?! That is not the role of the federal government! My god, statements like that scare me to death. Federally run advertising to counter the free market and a legal product. That's socialism, Dr. Siegel. That's 1984 exactly.
It also provides incentives for states to use their Master Settlement Agreement dollars on smoking prevention and cessation programs,
I see, since the states failed to use the MSA money the right way in the place, let's punish THE SMOKERS some more (who pay the MSA through price increase) by taxing them again to teach the state a lesson.
provides funding for state tobacco control programs, and increases the federal excise cigarette tax (which will itself reduce cigarette consumption) to pay for these national and state programs.
Advise us, warn us, set up centers for those who feel they need and want assistance. Anything past that and what I keep hearing -- what you want to fund -- is that MY BODY BELONGS TO THE STATE and... TO YOU (!!)
As long as I choose to smoke I'm apparently a slave... OWNED BY YOU. And you guys have the nerve to talk about "being a slave to nicotine." If the latter were true, I'd choose it over YOU.
Glister,
It was a good read. So much there for the likes of TC to read.
"It does not take much time -- half a generation or so -- to turn a country upside down. It requires nothing more than a bad election or two, a small detour away from the logic of courage and toward the rationalization of fear, to transform a stable landscape into a nightmare.'
And this.
'We are so confident in the architecture of our American democracy, and in the abundance created by our labor, sacrifice, and ingenuity. But the balance we have been able to strike and maintain is a work in progress, our reward for a continual resistance to the natural human tendency toward divisiveness, corruption, and viciousness.'
They are so blinded by the smoke, they do not see what the hell they are doing.
.
JTF: Ummm, that's what the antis are alleging. That's why they want to get rid of the nicotine and we're arguing that the act of smoking is not just to "get a fix."
I'm willing to bet you spoke on impulse (in a burst of anger) and didn't think it through.
JTF, I see your point, and it is a good one. Yes, I did speak on impulse in a burst of frustration and anger.
However, think about this for a minute. Nicotine is a natural substance of the tobacco plant. HOW can it be removed, without destroying the entire end results of the plant, including how it smokes?
I smoke mostly because I enjoy the act of smoking. That's why patches and gums, etc don't help me. The nicotine alone is NOT enough.
Now, there are people who smoke mostly for the nicotine, and the other pleasure they get is just a perk. For THEM, removing the nicotine IS removing their choice, for it is the tobacco plant they want to smoke, not some facsimile. These people will do well with NRTs for the nicotine IS the priority for them.
Fortunately for us, WE are not one of those people. We take the full experience of the smoke as pleasurable, and find the nicotine to be just a perk. But I still don't want a nicotine free product for that would change the taste totally in my mind, and I'm quite particular on taste.
I'm the same way about sweet things. I can't stand the taste of artificial sweeteners and will NOT eat or drink anything sweetened artificially. When I want sugar, I want the real thing, not a substitute. I don't eat or drink diet anything. I don't even use products labeled "light" as they just don't taste the same. I'll take my chances with a few extra calories over whatever poison they are trying to feed me.
I know coffee drinkers who don't consider decaf to be coffee at all, because for them, drinking coffee is all about the caffeine and is their favorite source of caffeine.
But as I said, I do see you point, even as I type this I see how it can be used against me. 
Sometimes seeing all the sides is a burden.........hehehehehe
JTF, Lynda, it doesn't matter what arguments we make, they will be turned against us regardless.
it doesn't matter what arguments we make, they will be turned against us regardless.
This is so true Jalestra. And the Doc doesn't seem to understand why we are so frustrated and angry. We've been complacent and considerate for years, and all they did was get greedier and greedier. They took our willingness to compromise and be fair as weakness.
Won't they be surprised when the giant is fully awake? (it's only partly awake right now)
KaChinga asks--- "'WHAT?!?! How did I miss it? The War On Terror is over? Did we win? The borders are secure now? I missed that one. Social Security has been reformed and funded? Our prisons are nearly empty?' "
And Sunz answered, " Yep, it's all been handled---even the potholes are in perfect repair!! We should all be dancing in celebration."
And I add an opinion, "Well as long as the trains are running on time, who cares?"
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
KaChinga asks---'WHAT?!?! How did I miss it? The War On Terror is over? Did we win? The borders are secure now? I missed that one. Social Security has been reformed and funded? Our prisons are nearly empty?'
And Sunz answers, "Yep, it's all been handled---even the potholes are in perfect repair!! We should all be dancing in celebration."
And I add, "Well, as long as the trains are running on time, who cares?"
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael McFadden adds--'And I add, "Well, as long as the trains are running on time, who cares?"
Who was the last tyrant who made that claim? And why should we care?
(hint) Hey that's Italian
Jalestra: JTF, Lynda, it doesn't matter what arguments we make, they will be turned against us regardless.
Have to disagree, Jalestra. It's not about what we say that gets turned against us, it's about some things we say that does nothing but agree with what the antis say.
Saying we smoke for the nicotine is THE lynchpin of their intrusion. "They don't know what they're doing, what they're saying, and can't help themselves so we have to do it for them."
Saying that is handing them their reason for living.
Lynda F., I gotcha (and figured as much) 
However, speaking for others -- you saying that they are in it for the nicotine -- is being somewhat presumptive. We can't know that, what with all the brainwashing going on. If the weak-minded have been told over and over and over again that it's the nicotine that's got them "hooked" then that's what they'll believe and say. Not saying it's impossible, just saying we can't know that they're being honest with themselves until we set them up with nicotine-free cigarettes and see what they say then
Hi, guys.
i'd like to make the point that smoking tobacco forms a multi-purpose combination that works for us, is legal, historically established, and nobody's business but our own.
I'd also like to point out that tobacco smoke is a complex mix which contains anti-carcinogens which likely explains why lung cancer rates are proportional among those - smoking, ex or non - otherwise at risk through occupational and other exposures to a multiplicity of hazards, including that of living in a higher-traffic area, being poor and - one deadly health-destroyer and cause of premature death - feeling a lack of control over ones own life and personal decisions.
We don't want to mess with a natural combination that works, just avoid added toxins.
If I may, I'll just wedge in a few chunks of a previous post.
Nitrosamines are not natural to tobacco or other consumables - they are formed in a two-step process involving typically fossil-fuel supplied artificial nitrates, (using incompletely combusted natural gas and coal,) and generally exhaust pollution from internal combustion engines.
The combination degrades amines into nitrosamines.
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/Production_G...red/
chptr12.pdf
As stated in this report, one of the most significant factors in the development of tobacco specific nitrosamines is the chemical reaction between nicotine (amines) and various oxides of nitrogen in fuel combustion exhaust in the curing process.
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org...tract/10/8/
1511
Yet R.J. Reynolds was actually sued for having what sounds like (by all descriptions) minor variations in procedure in their curing sheds; an airflow WITHOUT engine combustion gasses (and unmentioned toxic diesel particulates) in a controlled (temperature, humidity, etc.) environment.
http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/
2...no_smoke_1.html
Quote from the link to US patent 6202649: 'It is known that fresh-cut, green tobacco has virtually no nitrosamine carcinogen...It is widely accepted that such nitrosamines are formed post-harvest, during the conventional curing harvest...'
Apparently, the only way to determine patent infringement is to discover afterward that nitrosamine formation has been reduced or eliminated.
http://www.patenthawk.com/ruling...MJG-01-
1504.pdf
Now, you would think that if something in a commonly used product considered to be a major hazard was found to be avoidable that there would be a certain amount of publicity given this, rather than redoubled efforts to extend bans of 'public' use of a (legal) product presumably about to become much safer over the following few years as curing barns changed over and exhaust-free tobacco replaced the other nitrosamine-affected stock.
Because it seems odd to me that toxic RIP cigarettes were globally demanded by globally orchestrated anti demand supposedly on the grounds of 'fire safety' AFTER the antis had ensured that a steadily reducing relative few were able to smoke indoors at all, and at a time when Big Pharma-controlled FDA takes control of tobacco to 'change it for its own good' so to speak.
That and a whole lot of other factors to be considered.
Including the question of why nitrosamines suddenly come up now to be used as a 'tracer of exposure' instead of the useless cotinine test exclusively used for so long (as the 'only reliable test') with a total disregard of the presence of dietary cotinine in the human body (and most especially those of potato chip and french-fry and tomato-sauce consuming kids) - and when the nitrosamines in question are nitrate degraded amines which in tobacco happen to be various forms of nicotine - and when these nitrosamines are typically formed by engine exhaust the tobacco companies were sued for avoiding.
Quotes follow from something I've only just found, re-looking up articles on sludge and toxic waste fertilizer when I luckily couldn't find my notes.
http://www.ejnet.org/sludge/nsa/...nsa/
nsa112.html
National Sludge Alliance
Charlotte Hartman, National Coordinator NSA Public Fact Sheet 112
Deception - Deceit - Diversion
5/1/1997
'The current lawsuit against the tobacco industry by the Attorney Generals of 25 States appears to be a diversionary tactic in an effort to transfer liability for many human health problems from the States to the tobacco companies. As an example, food crops and tobacco in particular, can be extremely dangerous to human health when the States allow them to be grown on land fertilized with hazardous and toxic contaminated sewage sludge. The hazardous and toxic pollutants in sludge disposed of in the soil as "fertilizer" are multiplied by the tobacco plant by a ratio of 11 to 20 times (plus) that found in the soil. (1)
'The use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer violates the federal prohibition against open dumping of solid waste, even though the EPA policy which allows it has been in effect since 1979. However, EPA has made it very clear that sludge use or disposal options are a local (state or county) determination and EPA is not responsible for any human health problems caused by the use of sewage sludge on lawns, gardens and food crops. (Public Facts #100, #101)
'Heat dried sewage sludge (which killed pathogens) has been used as a mixture in fertilizers since 1927, when the inorganic toxic pollutants were known as rare earths. In 1945, there were only 19 cities selling sewage sludge under registered brand names. (2) By 1979, the EPA began promoting the use of all sewage sludges (including those contaminated by pathogens) as beneficial use fertilizers. And, in 1980, "The Agency [has] decided that growth of food-chain crops need not be banned at hazardous waste land treatment facilities but rather should be carefully regulated." (3)
'By 1983, the EPA decided, "- to avoid conceivable stigmatization, we are willing to re-name recycled hazardous wastes "regulated recyclable materials." (4) And, in 1985, the "regulated recyclable materials" title was shortened to "recyclable material"." (5) Not only that, but "---commercial hazardous waste derived fertilizers [which] would not have to undergo chemical bonding to be exempt." from the law. (6)
'The real problem is that even though States are required to comply with the federal prohibition against open dumping of hazardous and toxic waste, since 1981, many of the States have followed the EPA policy of allowing both hazardous waste and toxic waste contaminated sludges to be used in or as a fertilizer on home lawns, gardens and food crop production land without any liability.
'Yet, Congressional mandated laws are very clear, all sludges from pollution control treatment plants are classified as solid waste which must be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. EPA lists 62 inorganic and organic hazardous constituents (pollutants) for detection monitoring in a landfill. It also lists 220 hazardous constituents which may be found in the landfill. (40 CFR 257/258, Appendix I & II)
'EPA and the States are currently operating an intense public relations campaign to gain public acceptance of uncontrolled toxic and pathogen contaminated sewage sludge use as a fertilizer for use on lawns, gardens and food crops. The EPA's 1993 sludge regulation (503) is based on the domestic sewage exclusion in federal law, which actually limits the exclusion to the introduction of unregulated hazardous wastes into public owned treatment works. Still, EPA only addresses 9 of the inorganic pollutants and PCB's (constituents) in the sewage sludge fertilizer, yet, EPA claims that under the exclusion and regulation, n o one can be held liable for any human health or environmental damages caused by the 126 priority toxic pollutants in the sewage sludge fertilizer as long as the sewage sludge is called a fertilizer, even if a Superfund site is created. (Public Facts #100, #101)
'A priority toxic pollutant, according to the EPA sludge regulation 503 definitions, is an organic or inorganic substance or pathogen which, on the basis of information available to the EPA Administrator, will cause death, disease, cancer, etc., when exposure is either direct by inhalation, ingestion or in directly through the food chain. (503.9(t))
'According to a recent article by Joel Bleifuss, editor, In These Times, April 28, 1997, the EPA and States are now allowing the addition of radioactive hazardous waste in fertilizer for use on lawns, gardens and food crops which would include tobacco. According to the article, EPA is allowing the clean up of a radioactive Superfund site outside Denver, Colorado, by piping the radioactive material into the Denver sewage treatment plants where it will be mixed with sewage sludge and sold to the public as a safe fertilizer for lawns, gardens or used by the city of Denver on food crop production land.
'Food crops take up some toxic pollutants and tobacco has long been recognized as an accumulator of Cadmium at 11 to 20 times (plus) the rate of Cadmium levels in the soil, which has been associated with the accumulation of Cadmium in the lungs and kidney of smokers. However, when the studies were done, Cadmium was the only inorganic toxic pollutant the EPA and scientists considered to be dangerous to human health. (1)
'The one limited human health study funded by EPA in Ohio noted the build up of Cadmium in the kidney of animals grazed on pastures fertilized with small quantities of toxic sewage sludge. The study also noted the documented transfer of Salmonella contamination from humans, to sludge, to animals, to humans.(Public Facts #110)
'If the toxics in sewage sludge can be transferred to humans through tobacco and animals through grazing on grass, wouldn't the same hold true for food crops consumed by humans?'
To be con't
(The use of toxic sludge and waste as fertilizer is unfortunately well established, as evidenced in http://www.pirg.org/toxics/repor...rts/wastelands/
and elsewhere, as is the uptake of toxicity by crops and the sources of various toxins like cadmium in cigarettes for which we're doubly penalized by those inflicting this on consumers in general, although I haven't checked out ANY specific info regarding this quoted article, which I'll tentatively [with caveat galore] accept as another part of the complex puzzle wherever it matches with fact.
[There could also be an attempt at indirect Big, Overhanging Butt-covering in action, resulting in a PR fandance.]
However, there are reasons to believe that in many cases, the [obviously variable] toxicity added to cigarettes was negligible in effect, and possibly negated by natural constituents which may or may not still be present or be booked for GM removal, although added toxins could never be acceptable - and most especially not the obvious [if altering] ones in the Canadian [and presumably other] RIP cigarettes.
The sick building syndrome mentioned has varying but traceable causes having to do with molds, outgassed chemicals, etc. and in all cases of which I heard had some such individual circumstance eventually identified with no evidence of any relation to smoking.
[I speak of Canadian cigarettes and sick house problems, not of varying conditions elsewhere of which I've had less information.]
Suitable ventilation in newly constructed buildings should have been long since incorporated to reduce radon concentrations, apart from all else, but the expense, typically, received more consideration than health.
One cannot, in a sane community/courtroom, [of course, sanity is a pretty big assumption these days] be charged with slander [although Bush did recently rush into motion to push for laws to protect various toxic industry - and including the food industry - from injured consumers and others] if the statement is reasonable or provable and publicly known; a salt-shaker should be kept handy until each unproven statement in this article has been verified or not, as the case may be, despite the fact of application of toxic fertilizer being established.
And do please note that we're all being poisoned to save hazardous waste site costs, but somehow smokers are pegged as criminals doomed to pay higher than the rest of the victims for the worse poisoning. There is FAR more transferred than toxins snuck into soil - although it seems unlikely that natural tobacco would have the toxins listed as being of concern if not from such various contamination.) In continuation:
'Actually, United States Department of Agriculture studies (1974) indicated there could be very serious problems with tobacco grown on land where toxic sewage sludge was used because of the high uptake of Cadmium. "Chaney et al. (84)--- observed Cd (Cadmium) content in tobacco to be 15 to 20 ppm at 1 ppm in the soil, and 45 ppm with 2 ppm Cd in the soil." (1)
'North Carolina State University studies found, "3. The bottom leaves of tobacco consistently had the highest Cd concentrations. With tobacco grown on Norfolk soil at Ph 5.2 and 1.8 ppm Cd in the soil, the Cd content in the lower leaves averaged 73 ppm compared to 26 ppm in leaves higher up the stalk." (1)
It was also noted in the studies that 5% to 20% of the Cd was readily transferred to the smoker during the burning of tobacco. Furthermore, "40% to 80% (of the CD) enters the sidestream smoke which may be passively inhaled by nonsmokers. (1)
Regulators have always used diversionary tactic to hide problems they created. As an example, due to the energy crisis of the early 80s, buildings were closed tightly to conserve energy and tobacco smoke was the first indication of the sick building syndrome which appeared at about the same time as pathogen contaminated sludge fertilizer was first being promoted for use on crops. According to media reports, pathogens and toxic vapors build up in closed buildings which do not have enough fresh air exchange. Instead of increasing the fresh air exchange in the buildings to protect public health, smoking was banned, thereby, preventing any indication of the symptoms of the sick building. The most famous of the sick buildings was the EPA's own headquarters.
'Now the regulators have taken the concept one step further and it can be hazardous to complain about the potential harm from hazardous and toxic waste fertilizers. Twelve states, including Texas, have passed food slander laws that was intended to prevent anyone from making negative remarks about food products grown on land fertilized with the toxic sewage sludge. Under the law, anyone who complains about contaminated food products could be subjected to a civil slander lawsuit from sludge users.
'Furthermore, Texas Attorney General, Dan Morales, has long recognized the health problems associated with uncontrolled sludge use. According to an article in the El Paso Times, Oct. 3, 1992, concerning the EPA approval of dumping New York City sludge in Sierra Blanca, Tx., "Morales said the decision means the EPA has "arbitrarily decided not only to destroy our air, water and countryside, ----."
'Yet, under the Texas law, at the time, sewage sludge was required to meet the more stringent limits of either Texas or the State which shipped the sewage sludge. However, the Texas law was changed to delete that requirement, even though the New York City sludge was too contaminated with toxic pollutants to be used in New York State as a fertilizer.
'Furthermore, according to the EPA/WEF Biosolids Fact Sheet for the Sierra Blanca, Texas sludge dump site, the EPA, New York City and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) have used deceptive numbers and testing procedures to prove that the New York City sludge is a safe exceptional quality fertilizer under the EPA's part 503 regulation. According to the Fact Sheet, Arizona, Colorado, and Florida also accept the deceptive numbers and testing procedures. These states also have food slander laws. (Public Facts #102, #103)
'Yet, according to an Associated Press story in The Kansas City Star, April 27, 1997, Texas Attorney General, Dan Morales, wants to raise the price of immunity for the tobacco industry, rather than settle for 2 or 3 billion dollars to compensate sick smokers. According to the article, "Government figures show smoking cause $50 billion in medical costs every year and another 50 billion in lost productivity- -but so far tobacco companies are offering to pay just $300 billion over 25 years." (p. A-
'Where public health is concerned, Texas, like many other states, has abdicated its responsibility to protect the health of its citizens. As an example, in 1996, the TNRCC registered a toxic sludge dump site on the water shed of the south Texas border town of Laredo. Two Texas legislators who live in Laredo, Senator Judith Zaffirini and State Representative Henry Cuellar, held a public meeting to fight the sludge dumping registration. However, under the revised Texas law, the sludge dump site was legal, even though the TNRCC registration also permitted the dumping of sludge from a drinking water treatment plant, an acknowledged violation of federal law.
'During the public meeting, the TNRCC representatives acknowledged that while it registered the site, EPA was responsible for enforcement of compliance to protect public health at the site under the part 503 sludge regulation. The registration was later withdrawn for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that Part 503 specifically excludes drinking water sludge from being used as a fertilizer. (503.6(i))
'While many states refuse to comply with federal law and protect the health of its citizens by stopping the illegal hazardous and toxic sludge dumping on food crop production land, the lawmakers are concerned that children are not respecting the law against underage smoking. In fact, the Texas Senate passed a bill on April 24, 1997, which makes criminals of under age smokers. They face a $500.00 fine and could lose their drivers license for smoking or possessing tobacco products. Senator Zaffirini, who sponsored the Bill is quoted in the Laredo Morning Times, April 28, 1997, "If they break the law, they must be held accountable and they must be punished."
'The question is, shouldn't the same rules apply to the personnel of state, municipal and federal agencies, who, according to the documented evidence, are poisoning the children's food products and claiming they have no liability because the sewage sludge is simply called a biosolids/fertilizer.'
It's enough to make you sick.
Commenting by HaloScan
