For example, using cigarette tax revenues to fund expansion or improvement in treatment for smoking-related diseases makes sense from a tax policy perspective. It is fair, because the benefits accrue to precisely those who are paying the tax.
Yes, and, ya know, nonsmokers would benefit, too. Research lung cancer and all those asbestos victims would beneift. The problem is that, once treatment has been discovered, people who smoke are denied treatment unless/until they quit. The antismoking thing is a runaway train. I still vote for using tobacco taxes and MSA money to launch a nationwide yoga campaign. Conscious relaxation. Breathing. Circulation. Gently press the forehead on the shin. Quietly start making sense.
Question: Childrens' healthcare would be funded by tobacco consumption. With smoking bans, more parents will smoke more often at home. As per the antitobacco groups, children suffer from exposure to SHS. Soooo...this anti-plan is to increase childrens' healthcare by increasing their illnesses. Given that this is the logic of antismokers, can we call this anti-logic?
It's time to take the blinders off. There's a whole world out there which we are not seeing.
Yep. But, frankly, that's true for most people.
OT: About that asbestos...Has there ever been a study of asbestos workers, comparing percentage of nonsmokers who got cancer and smokers who got cancer? I've never seen one--and RJR quickly deflected the lawsuit from asbestos manufacturers to share the bill of those cancers. The lack of any such study makes me suspicious. People who smoke are already producing defences aganist foreign particles--otherwise we'd have all keeled over last year from defective filters. Just a late-night question.
Good to see your alive and kicking, Doc.
How about attributing 100% of the MSA money to a health cause, like research instead of studies?
Your fear that its dependence on tobacco tax revenue will stop the government from fiercely pursuing smokers and hounding them to quit under pain of...hell, name it-- eviction, unemployment, no medical care, whatever-- is ultimately misplaced.
Totally blinded by their own fiery Doublethink, they will, I assure you, continue to do both.
From Surrealitytimes:
http://surrealitytimes.blogspot....kruptcy-
of.html
~snip~
Health Promotion and other 'prevention' industries cannot deliver what they have promised - what they have misled the public and policy-makers into developing false hopes about. They cannot deliver these things, because the premises underlying the concept of "preventing" chronic illness and other public health problems is false. Laws and regulations designed to manipulate and control people's thinking and behaviour are incapable of saving lives, preventing death, eliminating chronic illnesses, wiping out criminal behaviour or significantly reducing the cost of health care or emergency and policing services.
~snip~
When 'prevention' industry propagandists are pointing fingers of blame, there should be reflexive questioning in our minds, such as: "If Health Promotion and other 'preventions' are valid concepts, why is all this new regulation necessary?
____________________
There will never be enough for the leeches---not enough scares not enough funding not enough taxes not enough scapegoating, not enough persecution. Never. That is why we need all of this new regulations.
Nice---very nice.
.
.
Doctor Siegel,
Do you believe that it is un-American to smoke?
Do you believe Big Tobacco Control has been given the mandate to define what behavior/lifestyle is, or isn't, American?
Is that what our taxes are being used for? We are being heavily taxed so BTC can call us un-American?
Is that on the stated agenda of the American Lung Association? After all, it's paying Gallegos to say these things. Evidently, Glendale Adventist Medical Center, too.
Junkfood Science
July 15, 2007
Information management — News for fellow medical professionals
Lead in:
Whooah! Dr. Julie Gerberding, director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has called for government-run education for all doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals, as the first step to creating a national healthcare system. It seems that leaving medical education to state universities and private academic centers is a problem. [Resulting in too many of us not following the party line, perhaps?]
Speaking yesterday at the annual meeting the American Veterinary Medical Associations, Gerberding seemed especially troubled by bloggers and alternative media sources, which she said were “conduits for an onslaught of misinformation,” making it hard for people to get good health information. The government needed to “get our voice heard above the cacophony of the junk science that is being heard,” she said.
Gerberding also believes government healthcare should be paying more attention to “helping people lead healthier lives.” [Rod note: "Helping" has become a euphemism for "taxing and coercing."]
Reuters also reported:
URL: http://tinyurl.com/26de8f
Un-American
I wonder if this guy Gallegos would have the cojones to greet our returning warriors with a sign that says "Smokers are not Americans - You are not welcome"?
Figuring out what's normal
As a landmark study on healthy children's brains forges ahead, researchers look forward—finally—to having a benchmark for identifying neurological disorders.
By Eric Jaffe
Special to The Los Angeles Times
July 16, 2007
Lead in:
NEWBORNS sleep about 16 hours a day. When infants reach a year, they stand on their own, or at least wobble. At age 4, many children can tell stories — and in the decade that follows, motor skills become bike rides; memory skills become math solutions; language skills turn into back talk — as the brain prunes its billions of nerve cells and refines its trillions of connections.
And once they're 18, they may again sleep 16 hours a day.
This path into adulthood is well worn, but developmental scientists know very little about the mental changes that guide the way — limiting their ability to identify and understand many disorders that crop up en route.
Soon, however, a group of researchers will complete a major study of normal brain growth — the first of its kind — that will fill in this map of child development.
The National Institutes of Health Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of Normal Brain Development, an encyclopedic and unprecedented project, will track the growth and structural changes of healthy children's brains as they develop from birth to late adolescence — providing developmental researchers and pediatricians with a benchmark, finally, of what is "normal."
Excerpt:
To ensure the healthiest brains possible, participants endured a wringer of screening tests. Anyone with potentially irregular brain development — as noted by family history of neurological problems or prenatal exposure to cigarettes, for example — was excluded.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2rkc2r
Note: This link is probably good only for today unless you're a subscriber
Bets please ,left or right to be ripped off first .
The above comment was following on from Rod's comment re Gallegos and the orchestra stalls.
Si
Do you mean the blinders?
.
I wonder Rod how they will be able to blame smoking for the radiation exposure causing the harm then? You see there's a direct correlation between getting more then 4 xrays in your lifetime, and cancer. Now all medical representational test (xrays, cscan, mri, etc) are based on bombarding the body with years of radiation in minutes. Now how can they realistically say what is a "normal brain" when the imaging method may actually cause the damage?
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=3403
Here's a novel idea, how about cutting spending in nonessential areas to fund this program? Or better yet, how about the government get its meddling fingers out of what should be in the private sector?
Of course neither of those ideas will go over with the leeches who insist on government control from cradle to grave.
I do believe a good first step in eliminating unnecessary government funding to free up revenue for the SCHIP program would be to DEFUND THE ANTIS, starting with ALF and CTFK. Then get rid of the assinine government agencies created to harrass and denormalize smokers which exist in such alphabet soup outfits as the CDC, EPS, NIH, and a whole host of others.
The diversion of those funds alone would probably provide health insurance premium payments for every man woman and child in the entire US.
lynda Duguay - I wonder Rod how they...
.........
So far, Big Tobacco Control has been able to claim and/or explain absolutely anything, no matter how outrageous.
Why? Because it has the money - our money. With that mountain of cash, they can do anything, control anything: research, researchers, doctors and results. Careers are made and destroyed at will.
By the time each level of this industry gets its rake-off, its piece of the action, there is nothing left for true, uncorrupted research.
Pardon me if I offend someone reading this diatribe of mine, but its very similar to what happens when you "grace" an African dictatorship with billions of dollars to improve the well-being of its citizens.
Anyone want to tackle this blog author?
http://scienceblogs.com/
insolenc...and_smoke_1.php
Anyone want to tackle this blog author?
I sent this:
There are at least 52 spousal smoking studies, and meta-analysis produces estimates of relative risk ranging from 1.15 to 1.43; i.e., a 15-43% elevation in lung cancer risk
Is this meaningful epidemiologically? If it were not SHS then would these figures warrant futher investigation?
Should all activities or substances that produce risks at these levels be banned?
Even if there were no health benefits to banning smoking, the improvement in air quality inside and outside is remarkable
How is the air quality outside improved? Does industry continue to spew out toxins, traffic spew out exhaust?
Enough exposure and I'll be coughing, sick, chest sore, for the rest of the day
This seems an extreme reaction.
west
----
As for cig tax funding other things, surely current taxes cover this.
On the argument that a group does not benefit form the tax they pay, this doen't really apply since single people pay tax towards schools etc yet derive no benefit. The tax system is inherently unfair.
The key differences here are the regressiveness of the tax and the apparent paradox that the tax revenue will fall if it succeeds in one of its aims, yet is still required to finance its other aim. Daft if you ask me.
west
----
Gilster,
I sent this:
National Cancer Institute - “In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – National Cancer Institute, “Abortion and possible risk for breast cancer: analysis and inconsistencies,” October 26, 1994.
Sir Richard Doll - " ... when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
“The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219.
WHO/IARC - “Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so.” - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA - “Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability” - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999
FDA - "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
Average cancer risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 20% (relative risk=1.2)
Average cardiovascular disease risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 30% (relative risk=1.3)
This is a contrived issue to force a specific behavior on a segment of the population. Why is using spit tobacco or spitless tobacco banned? Last I checked there was no SHS from it? It should concern all Americans when a group can massage data to prosecute an agenda that they believe is better for all. What's next? Privacy and freedom are American values, the SHS issue was invented to organize non-smokers against smokers and it has worked.
The diesel issue is real. Check the asthma rates in the Bronx NY.
As for the tax, this is only the beginning. Tobacco is the flavor of the day for taxing. The congress does not care about life and death only about their jobs. They will back anything they believe is in their best interest.
Oh, the woes of having so much money from smokers. Ah well, BTC can always continue to raise state and federal taxes on cigarettes.
Lamentation from the American Lung Association's site that they didn't get their fair share of the loot.
Securitization – Breaking the Promise
Lead in:
When attorneys general settled their lawsuits with tobacco companies in 1998, the resulting
agreement included language promising a dedication to reducing youth smoking and promoting public health. Today, a number of states are breaking that promise - and handing the tobacco industry a profit windfall - by securitizing their tobacco settlement money, affecting both health policy and state budgets. Faced with record deficits, many states are eyeing future payments from tobacco companies. Investment firms are now offering states the chance to sell the rights to those payments in exchange for one lump payment, through a process called securitization.
URL for this PDF file (8 pages): http://tinyurl.com/2fjl3u
http://tr.itsmyiq.com/home.php?i...?id=498&
art=346 Sunz,you've got me "blinders" ?
Rod: Lamentation from the American Lung Association's site that they didn't get their fair share of the loot.
Going back to a point made by Michael J McFadden, the MSA *assumes* that future smoker-related diseases will NOT be treated any better than now. Given that the disease most often associated with smoking (at least in public opinion) is lung cancer. So, there really isn't much sense in funding the ALA now is there? Because we *assume* that it isn't doing any long-term good anyway!
However, the point being made is that the money from tobacco companies has gone toward unrelated matters, filling deficit holes. So, the people in state governments don't really believe that there is a need for the money to go toward what the settlement says that it was to cover--future medical expenses of people who smoke, tobacco control (at least in youth) and such. That's a big hint that it's been a lie and that people have known that the whole "lame tobacco" thing was a lie from the start.
BTW, love that response from rrgabe23!!
Also, I came across an interesting article in one of our journals about "normalization". The idea is applied to getting people to "abide by the rules". (The article included explanations of "injunctive" and "descriptive" normalization.) The applications included compliance/noncompliance with insurance rules, getting people to abide by energy conservation measures, a good will example, etc... Smoking wasn't discussed, but it's an interesting--and somewhat scary--dissection of psychology. I'll have to do a write-up sometime.
Si,
The doc said in his final sentence:
"It's time to take the blinders off. There's a whole world out there which we are not seeing"
I think I got it though it was in reference to Gallegos.
Thanks
.
Great responses from all on the scienceblog.com link above.
West - rrgabe23 - GDF
Excellent, you guys are much better at getting the science points across
than I.
I heard once that the MSA was concocted during a game of golf between former President Clinton and Mr. Meyers. Not sure how true that is, but from what I have read about Mr. Meyers since, I don't really doubt it. None of this is about protection or insuring a child's health. Neither could care less.
I do remember reading an article once about Mayor Bloomberg, New York cities billionaire mayor taking New Yorks Senators Joe Brunno and Senator Shelton on a weekend golfing trip to Bermuda. Being formerly from New York, I was quite interested in New York's Political news. A month later, New York State had a smoking ban very much like the one in New York City.
Moral of this story? Should you see a Politician on a golf course, be very afraid. Their games always ends up costing someone more money and all of their dignity.
Too much brain power for me Sunz,cajones from Rod is the same as orchestra's if you rhyme it.
In "Fiscal Facts: State Tobacco Tax Rates Have Skyrocketed Since Last Federal Tax Increase," Curtis S. Dubay and Gerald Prante correctly conclude "Cigarettes should be taxed according to the negative external costs they impose on society, and nothing more or less."
But Dubay and Prante failed to even consider the enormous negative external costs caused by cigarettes (which were estimated to be $7/pack by the Society of Actuaries in 2005).
Also, since many diseases caused by cigarettes smoked this year won't be treated for five, ten or twenty years from now (the latency period for many cancers is 20 years), the negative external costs caused by cigarettes smoked this year will be closer to $15/pack.
So why is Mike Siegel and the Tax Foundation criticizing the proposed $.61/pack federal cigarette excise tax as excessive?
Also, how much money has the Tax Foundation received from the cigarette industry? They don't disclose the very important fact in their publications or on their website.
The Tax Foundation and Mike Siegel have also failed to acknowledge that low income smokers are most price sensitive to cigarette price increases (i.e. they are most likely to quit smoking or reduce consumption).
Bill Godshall,
Please provide the bodies and the proof.
Please provide the accounting where all the extorted money has gone.
Please provide the number of low SES smokers that have quit smoking. Not a computer program based on assumptions.
No more "paper" and "statistical" deaths, illnesses, etc. based on unproven hypotheses, assumptions, etc.
Show us the bodies. Show us the accounting.
Rememeber, BTC is the one making the extraordinary claims and being kept rolling in dough - not us. Provide the extraordinary proof.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Also...the negative external costs caused by cigarettes smoked this year will be closer to $15/pack."
Bill, what are the costs associated with NOT smoking/pack? Do you have a figure? According to Glantz (I believe) smokers only add 5% to Medicare costs. And don't forget to figure in all that social security those nonsmoking parasites suck up.
and
"The Tax Foundation and Mike Siegel have also failed to acknowledge that low income smokers are most price sensitive to cigarette price increases (i.e. they are most likely to quit smoking or reduce consumption)."
If this were true there wouldn't be any low income smokers left.
Cigarette prices have risen dramatically over the inflation rate over the years, especially in recent years.
Bill G: (i.e. they are most likely to quit smoking or reduce consumption).
OR they find cheaper, more affordable alternatives.........which is what most do.
Your taxes, turn normal law-abiding citizens into criminals. You must be sooooo proud of yourself.
And no, Bill, there is NO law that requires me to quit smoking just because you want me to and raise my taxes to try to force me to bend to your will. I'd rather die first, than submit to the likes of you.
Glister: Anyone want to tackle this blog author?
http://scienceblogs.com/
insolenc...and_smoke_1.php
FWIW, I just left a comment. Unfortunately, it was longer than I'd intended--and I don't know that it was particularly good. However, I did notice great comments from GDF, as usual. 
Bill Godshall: So why is Mike Siegel and the Tax Foundation criticizing the proposed $.61/pack federal cigarette excise tax as excessive? Also, how much money has the Tax Foundation received from the cigarette industry? They don't disclose the very important fact in their publications or on their website.
Are you implying in some sideways fashion that the Doc is some sort of tobacco shill? The Doc. Dr. Siegel. Dr. Michael Siegel. Aside from being a very tired accusation, do you have any idea how nuts that sounds? It's almost as bonkers as claiming that children get sick from SHS/ETS and then raising taxes on tobacco to pay for their healthcare.
Hey, Doc, any chance you could give this guy some sort of prescription? I think he needs a little pill to help him think straight. You know, according to Einstein, tobacco might help him just as much....
Einstein (at age 71), upon becoming a lifetime member of the Montreal Pipe Smokers Club: I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs.
Glister;
My contribution,
I am quite amazed there is a dialog still going on as far as second hand smoke is concerned, the Surgeon General among many other nicotine industry promoters declared the matter settled despite the controversy, which will only grow with the suspicion created when propaganda replaces real science as a foundation for health related information.
The foundation of human rights and civil law rests in the precedent of a basic human right to factual information of the highest quality available. Those in the Health care community seem to have found a way of cherry picking what is relevant in those areas, and what is not, which leaves them as a collaborating collective, independently liable when reliable facts are eventually established.
I found the author although apparently well read on the subject, a little confused on the perceptions presented. Although fewer studies refute the level of harm those few are the largest ones which carry much more weight in statistical studies. I could cite the World Health Organization's own research or that of Enstrom and Kabat along with the 50 year research of Sir Doll evaluating doctors who smoked which all are significant, all involve substantial research groups and all seem to deny the ad agency spin promoted by some of the largest health organizations on the planet. It should be noted no research studies of any equal size have provided anything but a proof of the insignificance of ETS exposure. The Surgeon General's report was at the time it was released an embarasement to all the mentioned groups, who found it entirely difficult to cozy up to a lot of the unsubstantiated rhetoric particularly in association with the pre-release press statements.
Epidemiology is a calculation of a single dimensional phenomenon. It unfortunately has defined limitations particularly in respect to size of population group studied. The larger studies have to carry the final say a collective of cherry picked studies all agreeing to desired opinions by excluding the peer reviewed studies which do not agree with formed opinions in what is known as meta analysis, promotes only politics and fraud. The odds tell us some research will not agree the non existence of those studies, is actually proof all are wrong and a result of bias in the model.
As with all things taking short cuts to find success will eventually find a higher cost unfortunately in this case we are toying with politics and only the children will suffer despite a truck load of good intentions.
By taking the low road of double talk and deceit encompassed in propaganda terms such as tough love and for the greater good we yield the high road to the Tobacco industry who is not being punished as generally believed, but growing profits by the actions to date. Where is the hurt and hate directed most predominantly, is among the most vulnerable in society the poor and the children. It is too bad when cults and fanatics rule, how much we all suffer as a result. After the last time they hung doctors at the Nuremberg trials apparently the lesson was lost.
When science has to resort to proclamations such as "hurricane force winds" and "outdoor smoke plumes raining down on unsuspecting victims" to sell broad opinions, the future of science is heading into a dark period where snake oil and blood letting become popular once more.
almightBill states--- "Also, since many diseases caused by cigarettes smoked this year won't be treated for five, ten or twenty years from now (the latency period for many cancers is 20 years), the negative external costs caused by cigarettes smoked this year will be closer to $15/pack."
So Bill if you smoked 3 packs a day for 35 years---you'd be owing about $60,000.00 for you past sins. Will you be demanding that all former smoker pay up likewise? I mean given your lactency perior for cancers. If not who will be paying for your load?
.
Bill;
" The Tax Foundation and Mike Siegel have also failed to acknowledge that low income smokers are most price sensitive to cigarette price increases (i.e. they are most likely to quit smoking or reduce consumption)."
You forgot the big one;
Or buy cigarettes from an exploding black market at lower costs than we have seen in decades, as new organizations join the cash grab and compete for business.
Oh;
and that would be untaxed cash grab.
No taxes no Health scare partners to share with.
Thanks Si, that's what I figured. You devil, you!!
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.
"I find it unfortunate that anti-smoking groups are so narrow-minded in their thinking that..."
The final three paragraphs of this blog were interesting to me. I've read them over several times. I feel I could have written them -- except I would have been talking about the erosion of property rights with bar/restaurant smoking bans.
GDF
The primary message is found here;
"" In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on "a priori" reasoning, intuition, or revelation."
Consistent positive correlations can only be recognized if we can absolutely assure the possibility of bias is less than the predicted result.
In ETS calculations it would be a real stretch of the imagination to presume confounding effect and linear regression is defined so precisely without defining the variations of the suspect cause, or the exposure levels?
The sheer arrogance of anyone in the profession to dispense frauds declaring the precision of the method has been honed to accuracy within a .3 increase which can only truly demonstrate dedication much more than accuracy or expertise,
The confounding base is the same so how can we test the accuracy of the theory when the confounders are all of common design.
The randomness of the modeling process as well as the data has all but been eliminated is it any surprise the results find similar numbers?
More incredible is the formation of conclusion which agrees the level of increased risk with the complexity of a single life's experience can be defined to a level E&K numbers are insignificant yet the .3 level is judged as significant proof?
The precision suggests impropriety and that impropriety is found in the collusion within the major group who demand recognition because of their station alone.
One cannot believe empirical proof can be demonstrated without confounding for the bias of education and collusive need. The unknowns exceed the level of accuracy yet to be discovered. Consensus discoveries among a dedicated group who can not determine which harm will result from exposures and seeks to combine all possible harms in one disease perspective, with an identical model utilized to detect them all. The results are reviewed separately despite the reality many times alternate diseases are found among the same observed individuals.
The WHO call for evidence produces only what is requested, and in the absence of studies demonstrating non-proof results. The process is known to be corrupt and that corruption is worn on the sleeves of those who support it.
Most damning of all; the modelers them selves unanimously agree the funding source could somehow produce results with predictable bias.
Who pays hundreds of millions of dollars for the promotion of smoking bans and creating fat pandemics, is the topic which needs evaluation in observing billions in profits earned enjoying apparent immunity of the same discretion as other funders. The public purse is largely augmenting the direct promotion of those same products and services openly.
Antagonists declare all the time no conflicts of interest despite the obvious fallacy in those declarations, yet no one seems to mind???
Bill: But Dubay and Prante failed to even consider the enormous negative external costs caused by cigarettes (which were estimated to be $7/pack by the Society of Actuaries in 2005).
Oooooh, the Society of Actuaries. An "unbiased source" with "professional expertise" is more than implied whenever their study is referenced. Isn't that it, Bill?
One expects a cold, clinical and unemotional mathematical analysis by people who are interested in finding costs that could affect insurance rates.
But read their study and it's riddled with anti-smoker terminology and phrases. It turns out to be nothing more than an anti-smoking industry "study" dressed up like an insurance industry report.
Why is that you ask?
Because one of the three study authors is a professional rabid anti-smoker! (The other two are SOA fellows). Michael P. Eriksen's involvement is proof enough that it is, in fact, coordinated propaganda. I'm sure the other two authors were merely Eriksen's human calculators that punched in one set of numbers that he alone supplied.
His Curriculum Vitae is full of anti-smoking work and associations. It's an arm length long at least, and includes a 3 year stint with RWJF.
I'll end with this:
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. ERIKSEN, SC.D.
OFFICE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH
NAT'L CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
U.S. SENATE
April 1, 1998
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the health hazards of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and efforts to reduce exposure. I am Dr. Michael P. Eriksen,...
So Bill, take you Society of Actuaries study and shove it... in the draw with the rest of the studies authored by the likes of Glantz and Repace. No credibility differences exist.
http://scienceblogs.com/
insolenc...and_smoke_1.php
Everyone's comment on the linked blog were Great!
Will be interesting to see the author's next foray into the science of SHS...
The comment section, when I first stumbled on the article, was very one sided...great counter posts.
So Bill, manipulate the poor because they don't have the money to fight you? Well, Bill, you're utter contempt for the poor has come through loud and clear. Newsflash, you're studies are wrong. We're not gonna quit smoking or reduce consumption. We WILL however, lie like dogs, because it's none of your business. Bill, you and your type have been trying to use the poor for years, we just keep doing what we do and going on. Folks like you come and go, but we are always here.
We have a bit different morality than people with money. We tend to leave folks alone to do their thing as long as they aren't hurting anyone. And, we're not so stupid as to know whether or not we're hurting someone.
I'm not so poor anymore. I have a good life now, but I grew up in this world, and I'm still one of them. So just to clarify here, we won't quit smoking. We'll just find a way to afford it. If that means growing more vegetables and buying smokes off that nice guy at the flea market...who most of them won't even consider being a black market criminal (which I know he is), because well, he's got the smokes and it's none of our business how he got them. FWIW, I haven't actually BEEN to a flea market in years, tho I just ADORE them. My darling husband is a bit of a snob 
But you know there's a guy at the back selling black market smokes...and lady bless him...
I'm sorry to go off like this, but I'm really sick of it. You people with money have NO clue what makes the poor tick because you have never been poor. The poor don't act like the middle class or the rich. If we have less money it doesn't scare us because we might become poor, we're already poor. You taking our money, nothing new at all, at all. You think going after our MONEY is going to freak us out? We're not as money hungry as you are. You think because we have less of it, then we must want it more. I'm not saying we wouldn't LIKE more, but we know we probably won't get it, so *shrugs* no biggie. Of course, I'm not going to tell you what we DO care about, hehe, but I do get irritated at your projections. Just because money is the end all and be all of YOUR existence doesn't mean it is to everyone.
Jalestra,
Bravo! Well said. I'm in your corner Lady!
Jalestra: We have a bit different morality than people with money....I'm not so poor anymore....You people with money have NO clue what makes the poor tick because you have never been poor....If we have less money it doesn't scare us because we might become poor, we're already poor....You think going after our MONEY is going to freak us out? We're not as money hungry as you are. You think because we have less of it, then we must want it more. I'm not saying we wouldn't LIKE more, but we know we probably won't get it, so *shrugs* no biggie....Just because money is the end all and be all of YOUR existence doesn't mean it is to everyone.
Interestingly enough, I recently saw an author on The Colbert Report who had written a book about how poorly people predict what will make them happy. One of the issues he addressed was money. Now, if you're living in a cardboard box under a freeway, then money might increase your happiness. However, above that, more money does not equal more happiness. Personally, I can remember a time when I couldn't afford food as a grad student. (Short lived phase, but still it helped to shape my priorities.) Like you, Jalestra, we don't worry so much about money now, not that we're "rolling in it". Even when I was young and my family didn't have all that much, I noticed how the "rich kids" had so many restrictions put on them that weren't neccessary for me. Just an interesting perspective from you, IMO. However, I would like to stress that we should always keep in mind that Tobacco Control tends to be rather dissociated from reality; so, their posturing over their "clever" tactics is...frankly, part of their comedic value.
Glister--On that blog, I noticed some...well, apparent plants. The guy claiming to be from Sydney was clearly telling fish tales--and, to highlight his BS, I supplied a piece from a Sydney newspaper dated two and a half years ago, which he couldn't "follow," mistakenly called a "blog," and didn't quite realize that 2 1/2 years isn't exactly "historic" even though he said that he was 36. Trying to convince people that smoking is "historic" only is a blatant ploy akin to trying to tell people that "everyone's doing it". (It's a known and fairly common psychological ploy to get people to do everything from give money to street musicians to getting people to comply with insurance rules to getting people to abide by energy conservation methods.) Yep, a plant, which is probably what the entire blog was setup to attract. And I was also very pleased to see some people get in there and tear apart the author's garbage. 
Glister,
Did you see where Orec got his info regarding Engstrom? No other than ASH. Whose the crank?
Glister;
The Blog comments are now being held for approval expect deletions to happen. They can't handle it when others make more convincing arguments in real time than their parroted sound bites can compete with.
This is my last entry which has not been approved;
"but the bans are chipping slowly away at these so-called "smoker's rights", rights which are so costly to us as a society."
Spoken like a true sheep who deserves to live in the world he is cheering for. You cheaply give up the rights many others died to preserve. You may surrender your own rights, you have nothing to say about mine you cowardly ingrate.
The chiming in of the glorious realization declaring what a community will no longer tolerate without even the slightest understanding of what communities are about, is merely the parroting of what the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation told their paid stooges to recite.
It would be refreshing to converse with one of the industry stooges with something original to say at least something he could actually take credit for.
The stooges of the cigarette industry have nothing on the stooges of the addictive chewing gum or spit tobacco industries, fodder for late night comedy.
Your words can be found internationally in blogs and discussions similar to this one almost word for word and always recited in the same hateful tone.
You are not talking about some imaginary army of villains, you are talking about all of our neighbors and friends close to 25% of the population, who in your estimation do not deserve enough respect to be allowed the privacy of their own decisions.
There are a lot of immature minds attached to the anti smoker cult movement it is really too bad the lessons of our past and the horrors which developed by these careless mindsets are no longer properly discussed in education systems anymore. It seems we are going to be forced to learn some very painful lessons once more. Hopefully when they punish those responsible, they hang enough of them this time to make a more lasting impression.
Jalestra--
Beautiful!
:
Ahh - I see you guys have discovered the great Orac. You can't argue with that guy. The Great Orac "knows" because the government and industry reports alway tell the whole story - didn't you know that? They are the source of all Truth!
A whole array of anti-smoking therapies are available in the market that you can get hold of for the purpose of triggering off smoking cessation. Some of the procedures to treat smoking addiction, namely, quit smoking medicines such as chantix (champix), Zyban and nicotine replacement therapies(nicotine gum, patches and lozenges) can help you to quit smoking at the earliest. To get hold of detailed information on these anti-smoking treatment procedures, visit the website http://www.chantixmagic.com.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
