"...the ALA is telling the public that the legislation would require changes in tobacco products to reduce their harm, such as reduction of harmful smoke components."
Excellent, when will they get rid of the more toxic Fire-Safe Cigarettes?
http://findarticles.com/p/articl...27/
ai_n15833914
My letter to Democracy watch; Duh
Hello;
I am writing to illicit your opinion, is the purchase of politics now legal in Canada, or does anyone really care enough any more to enforce the rules?
What started off as an agreement to attack the use of tobacco products, to register guns, to reduce the health effects of obesity and sedentary lifestyles, along with a host of other ambitious goals of the World Health Organization. Have in practice depreciated to a government agency Health Canada being transformed from what Canadian citizens perceive to be an agency which offers them a level of protections against Industry products and an enhancement of medical application. Into an agency completely obsessed with propaganda and the distribution of unrestricted and irresponsible fear mongering, which is having an unmistakable dangerous effect in the divisions of communities with nothing less than government mandated bigotry.
Consider the facts, if the purchase of politics is illegal how do we balance the following three definitions and deny a crime is apparent.
1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
For other uses, see Politics (disambiguation).
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. Most commonly it is generalized as "who gets what, when, why, and how." Although the term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, politics is observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.
Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3] Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]
Political science (also political studies) is the study of political behavior and examines the acquisition and application of power. Related areas of study include political philosophy, which seeks a rationale for politics and an ethic of public behavior, and public administration, which examines the practices of governance.
2]
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...oc/
index_e.html
Social Marketing is "the application of marketing technologies developed in the commercial sector to the solution of social problems where the bottom line is behaviour change." It involves: "the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences to improve their personal welfare and that of society."
3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.
Is this what we are actually purchasing? the question which frightens me in all of this over hyped bravado.
http://www.pierrelemieux.org/
art...artproctor.html
"The Nazi government was known, and admired, for implementing the most progressive public health policies in their time. State-of-the-art research and regulation were applied to occupational, environmental, and lifestyle diseases. Cancer was declared "the number one enemy of the state." Nazi policy favored natural food and opposed fat, sugar, alcohol, and sedentary lifestyles. The existing temperance movement against alcohol and tobacco became more active under the Nazis, who were involved in what Proctor calls "creating a secure and sanitary utopia.""
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/...l.com/
...al.php? id=80747
The final product of social marketing has a University of Toronto Professor of science incredibly proclaiming in a news paper report “At this point it‘s very likely smoking causes all cancers". Health Canada is distributing in TV commercials the idea, a child could be at grave risk if their toys are expossed to second hand smoke. Along with a litany of associated risks being distributed as casal effects which by every sense of reality could never hold up to the scrutiny of any level of legitimate investigation.
Simon Chapman editor of Tobacco Control the British Medical Journal describes the "spoiled Identity" of anyone who smokes a cigarette, as a real and concerning effect. The effect of yelling fire in a theater is more obvious, however not any less real, in what is being done deliberately and with a government stamp of approval. What else could be the effects of dispensing a hateful or fearful attitude to a large population group with a lesser group targeted? Could anyone fail to realize the increase of violence and confrontations which would always result? Is the common good well served by an alienation of a quarter of the population, with a stated goal of making their lives as difficult as possible, in order to entitle coercion and make them quit? We are now considering a ban on smoking parents inside a car with equally ridiculous claims the existence of tobacco smoke could come anywhere close to the level of harms by a larger existence of auto emissions. The favored emotional blackmail term "protecting the children" is not entirely different or out of context with "protecting the gene pool" considering the vast majority of smokers are exactly those population groups in the lowest of socioeconomic standing.
"Child and Family Services Act section 72.(1): Duty to report child in need of protection. If someone has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is likely to suffer physical harm they must report it to child services."
Dalton McGuinty stood in front of news cameras this week and stated his belief clearly, along with the OMA, The Canadian Cancer Society and the Lung Association,. "Smoking around a child in a car is child abuse". He went further to state he had seen this himself and it disgusted him". Today I read a column in the Sun repeating the charge of abuse going further and stating it amounts to attempted murder, and children should be taken out of the home after repeat offenses. The question which needs to be asked and I believe it is the media's responsibility to do so. Did Dalton McGuinty in his failure to report, what he clearly believes is child abuse, commit a serious crime. Under the existing Provincial child protection act, this is a crime. Does anyone have to mention how such a law will serve to undermine parental rights and authority over their own children? Or how the 200 dollar fine proposed, will have pedophiles demanding to be released from prison due to unequal sentencing. The planned move to legislate what a person will be allowed to do inside their own home, takes away any need for a search warrant if a claim is made by authorities of a suspicion, a smoker may be inside.What will it take to wake up the media to the reality there are some things much more important than the sales of their product, which will ultimately loose value commensurate with lost credibility.
As politics goes this campaign which is only the tip of the iceberg considering the list of other campaigns in process or in the works, demonstrates politics with expenditures of money which should rightfully be used to staff hospitals and fund research to find cures, being wasted "managing diseases" in a stalled discovery process, which will never serve to reduce mortality figures as stated, with the damage of smoking seen today, realistically is a reflection only of smoking behaviors in our past. The current figures of smoking prevalence should indicate if smoking is a significant cause of disease, we should see a significant decrease already in those disease rates, which to date has not occurred. The effect we see of the raised profile of smoking, has been a stall in the steady and state declines we have observed over the past 50 years. For the first time during that span we now realize an unmistakable increase in the numbers of young people starting to smoke. Expenditures beyond all reasonable expectation, primarily only serving the sales of media groups coincidental with the reduced credibility of governments and science. A strategy which will put us back generations in terms of credibility and confidence.The result is an absolute failure of the campaign in a reversal of fortunes it created, as smoking rates will now climb.
How do you inform anyone in power in their obsession with paternalist policies, they are doing more damage than good?
I have tried and the unanimous response is to refer your inquiries to the Tobacco Control Unit the same lobby group who sold this trash to elected officials and the same group who produced the junk science which enabled it. A group obsessed with their own fortunes display their detachment from reality, when they always respond with prepared forms out of all context, of the inquiry made.
Thats progress, if progress is at all possible within a collectivist ideal, which empowers language laws in Quebec, a civil society, on the supreme court ruling; individual rights of some individuals who wish to be educated in French are more important than some who wish English education, because the rights of an individual are subservient to a collectivist mandate of the majority, who happen to speak French? Yet the official languages act remains as authoritative over the rest of Canada, despite its ignorance of the multitude of the other cultures who now form the majority, described in the constitu
From the previous thread, posted by Anonymous:
“At this point it‘s very likely smoking causes all cancers"
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/...l.com/
...al.php? id=80747
Doctor Siegel, How can you continue to associate yourself with "professionals" that make these kind of absolutely over the top statements?
There is clearly, absolutely no integrity in Tobacco Control.
There is clearly, no ethical standard to adhere to.
There is clearly no statement, action, or demonstration of any kind that is beyond reproach, yet you continue to refer to yourself as a member of this obviously out of control blitzkrieg of obsession.
Your readers understand that you walk the razors edge when it comes to your personal beliefs being in conflict with demonstrable fact, (you often ignore those facts) but if your going to continue to push for accuracy, and demonstrable "science" behind such wild claims, then perhaps you should consider coming up with a new name for your own movement, one that has nothing to do with what people like
Dr. Roberta Ferrence have to say.
Cont...
Thats progress, if progress is at all possible within a collectivist ideal, which empowers language laws in Quebec, a civil society, on the supreme court ruling individual rights of some individuals who wish to be educated in French are more important than some who wish English education, because the rights of an individual are subservient to a collectivist mandate of the majority, who happen to speak French? Yet the official languages act remains as authoritative over the rest of Canada, despite its ignorance of the multitude of the other cultures who now form the majority, described in the constitution as "multi cultural heritage" who will be drawn to conclude the languages act there fore supports bigotry and racism? What will a road sign or a contract look like in 10 years, when other cultures demand their languages be added to the languages act to respect their cultures as well?
Entitled politics?
http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/
a...cs_osgoode.aspx
Its starting to sound like the credibility modern science is only enabled by the power of scorn, Bullets and Billy clubs.
"Regardless of my individual opposition to the FDA Legislation, I find it unethical for the American Lung Association to mislead its constituents and the public by being dishonest and decieving them about what the Legislation does and does not require". Thankyou, that is exactly how I feel about tobacco control and your movement. Unethical is how we all feel your movement is.
I am also disappointed in the pharmacuticals who will pay anyone to promote or push their products under the guise of healing. Telling people that cigarettes and smoking is so harmful and secondhand smoke causes everything from warts to cancer and then have their products end up in our drinking water. No wonder so many kids have asthma, heart conditions, are obese, ear infections and whatever else. The people who claim to heal are the ones who unsuspectingly are the ones fooling us. Mothers drinks water and then they breast feed, no doubt passing pharmucutical products to their newborns. We bathe and wash our clothes in this water. The list of things we do with water is endless, yet no one wants to admit or take responsibility for the fact that what they do in everyday life is what is effecting all the health conditions. It is so much easier and alot more profitable to blame a cigarette and a smoker. If there is a Politician reading this, I encourage you to stand up and take notice. You are vilifying the wrong group of people. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080...us/
pharmawater_
Diane;
Last year in southern Ontario when taking a shower we had to endure a repulsive and pungent smell originating in the water.
It was widely reported in the news the situation was common and occurred in drinking water often and had no effects on our personal safety.
With the new information available I have to wonder what part the Pharma ingredients, which were obviously not being measured had, in polluting the bath water of over 3 million people for months. While most of us wondered if they smelled better before or after a shower.
Doctor's call for cigarettes to be increased to £10 ($21) a pack of 20. More interesting though is the ASH quote contained.
"And last night anti-smoking pressure group ASH told The People that the Government's public smoking ban had made the problem WORSE for children - because it encouraged parents to light up at home instead of in pubs."
and now that 50% of all children are exposed to ETS at home.
"And ASH says HALF of all British kids are exposed to passive smoking in the home."
Home smoking ban coming your way soon.
Greatscot
The good news is, they are finally starting to wake up and take notice;
http://www.ethicsworld.org/
corpo...andpolitics.php
"And ASH says HALF of all British kids are exposed to passive smoking in the home."
It is obvious the ASHoles at ASH are total morons.......this statement alone DISPROVES everything, and I mean EVERYTHING they say about smokers and what smoking causes.....
Think about it folks.....according to the ASHoles smokers represent about 20-25% of the population and have problems with impotency and infertility.
But here they are saying that 50% of Brit kids are exposed to SHS at home - which means that half the kids in GB have at least one smoking parent.
So just where is it that they are lying, and they are definitely lying somewhere, because the statements are all so different.
There are none of Dr. Siegel's "mistakes" here, someone is lying, and lying big time in the effort to perpetuate FRAUD. I don't claim to have any knowledge of British jurisprudence, but since our form is based upon English Common Law, I would assume perjury and fraud statutes are fairly similar.
The ASHoles are guilty of criminal activity, plain and simple. whether they are British or American, every member of TC is a lawbreaker. Most of their crimes fall into the realm of civil law, but many of them fall into the area of criminal law.
GreatScot wrote: and now that 50% of all children are exposed to ETS at home.
"And ASH says HALF of all British kids are exposed to passive smoking in the home."
Home smoking ban coming your way soon.
OK, Someone needs to explain this math to me (someone NOT affiliated with TC in any way, shape or form – in other words, a real person who understands real numbers).
1. Smoking causes impotence/infertility and miscarriages.
2. Approx. 25% of the population are adult smokers.
3. 50% of ALL British Children are exposed to SHS.
A. Given number 1, how is number 3 even remotely possible?
B. Given number 2, how is number 3 possible?
C. Given BOTH numbers 1 & 2 how is number 3 possible?
Talk about transparent lies…..damn.
Somedays you just have to chuckle:
From one of the arch-antis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/1...=rssnyt&
emc=rss
Oh, saints, heal thyselves.
LyndaF
I these days they just open their mouths and any old stuff comes out, they no longer even try to make it convincing.
As a rule of thumb, take every thing they say and look for the opposite, you will probably find a study that has nothing to do with tobacco or TC, in some other field.
For example, my favourite-
Passive smoking makes your teeth fall out.
Tobacco-derived drug prevents cavities
http://www.drugresearcher.com/ne...d=60622-
tobacco
Smoking makes you depressed
Tobacco Smoke May Act as Antidepressant Drug
http://mentalhealth.about.com/
li...blsmoke1001.htm
Carbon monoxide is a deadly gas in cigarettes
Carbon monoxide soothes digestive disease
http://www.dentalplans.com/Denta...ive-
disease.asp
Keeps me amused for hours.
hey dudes check this: http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/ with tobacco really great
Lynda F -- you said that so much better than I did.
Rose, I agree it can keep us amused, but we need to look at it in a different light in regard to Dr. Siegel's blog, where we are posting.
Dr. S. does rightly call SOME of his collegaues on SOME of their transgressions, howver he refuses to take the entirety of HIS movement to task for the evil of which they are ALL quilty.
Until such time as Dr. Siegel accepts the fact his entire movement consists of corrupt liars, charlatans, snakeoil salesmen, and racketeers, he is an enabler and NOT the whistleblowing crusader he believes himself to be.
Anon,
I just heard that on the news about Spitzer, Govenor of NY. It put the biggest smile on my face. Let's see, what would I rather explain to my family? Honey, I smoked a cigarette at lunch time and they tell me that only having one will make me addictive and now I will be like those low lifes that I sent to the streets. or Honey, I was just caught in the middle of a prostitution ring and if you were wondering where that $5,500 a month goes to, let me tell you, she was good. You could take lessons from her! Um, all you holier than thou folks will get caught too. That goes for the good host here and even Bill. Hope they look into Banzhaf and Glantz too.
Diane, you are so right!
All of these holier than thou charlatans have something they don't wish to become public.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them for not wanting their private lives made public, I just question their legitimacy to fault others for their private lives.
Gabz,
I don't know, you did a pretty nifty job there yourself........hehehehehe
Rose,
I agree, they just suffer from diarrhea of the mouth.
Bill, I just read your website and your testimony to the PA Legislature in favor of a smoking ban. Please study the report on pharmacutical drugs in our water and change the numbers as to how many get people get sick from what. Sorry Bill, it isn't the smoke. Also change the line about the overwhelming support of a smoking ban in New York City. First of all, the city says that they poll 1050 people in a city of 8 million and 70% is in favor of it. That is not overwelmning nor is it the majority. On top of that, New York consists of areas upstate and not just the city. These places are hurting, I know, I am from there and I talk with lots of people on both sides of the issue.
I haven't checked out NBC World News Tonight's website yet, but there was an interesting segment tonight about a study being done at Einstein Hospital (I think it was Einstein). They have studied 450 people over the age of 90 to find out the reason of their longetivity and they have ruled out obesity as many were overweight, they ruled out smoking as 20% had smoked for over 40 years and they have reconciled it to just good genes. Looks like Lynda F and I have been right for a long time.
Gabz
Perhaps I should have said "occupied" and yes the depths and intricacies of this scam are beyond belief.
I just keep getting more and more intrigued, you have TC coming up with all sorts of ridiculous stuff, but if you look round in other places you get an entirely different view
"The polyunsaturated fatty acid (Pufa) level of tobacco oil is as good as sunflower oil," Patel adds. "We have the know-how and the procedure if any businessman is interested."
"And solanesol, another tobacco leaf extract, is the starting material for many high-value bio-chemicals like vitamin-K analogues, vitamin E and co-enzyme Q10. The research shows that after introducing solanesol into the structure of some medicines, the effect are increased distinctly and its primary material, Co-enzyme Q is useful in the treatment of heart diseases, cancers and ulcers. BTRS has done some primary research but is yet to prepare a prototype"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...0,prtpage-
1.cms
Its like apart from the money, power and social engineering theres some other ulterior motive.
CTRI wins patent for using tobacco as medicine
"Many pharmaceutical companies have approached us for carrying out clinical trials for the usage of solanesol as anti-cancer and anti-diabetic drugs," CTRI Director V Krishna Murthy told reporters. Solanesol is rich in Coenzyme Q10 - a physiologically active substance with high pharmaceutical value"
http://finance.indiainfo.com/
200...48_tobacco.html
Dr Siegel tobacco is a LEGAL product.As a LEGAL CONSUMER why can't i ENJOY flavored tobacco if i so wish ? Why must a load of demented morons dictate that because,in their myopic world,kids (up to 1
MAY choose to smoke flavored tobacco in lieu of tobacco that in reality is ALREADY flavored to some degree,must entail removal of that product.The real issue (if there is any evidence supporting these farts) IS if sales are being made to those underage,the LAW IS BEING BROKEN.The ideology that dictates banning something because the LAW is failing speaks volumes .Yet again we see Tobacco Control adopting a jack-booted approach and avoiding reality.
Oh no i've been smiley faced,such read 18 (Eighteen)
SuperCallousSi asked a very reasonable question, "Dr Siegel tobacco is a LEGAL product.As a LEGAL CONSUMER why can't i ENJOY flavored tobacco if i so wish ?"
I tried the flavored tobaccos a few years ago. It was an RYO product and I don't know if it is still available. RYO tobacco is certainly not aimed at kids.
Why ban it? It smells very good to non-smokers. The cherry flavored tobacco smelled like cherry flavored pipe tobacco. Suddenly, cigarette smoke would be "renormalized" if it smelled better.
No good smells allowed. Case closed.
E=MC^2
Amateur Tobacco Tester & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Si and EinsteinSmoked,
I agree with you. I don't see the rationale for banning flavorings in tobacco. Once you decide to allow cigarettes, then it makes little sense to me to start regulating what flavors can or cannot be added. And you can no longer justify it on health grounds since you are allowing the product itself.
So I agree with you.
Doc,
You are criticizing others for falsehoods, yet in the same breath, you make this profoundly idiotic statement:
"This is particularly concerning for the African-American community, as menthol cigarette use is high among this group and menthol is used to recruit young African-American smokers."
How exactly does menthol "recruit" a smoker, let alone one of a particular race?
Do you honestly believe that if menthols were not available, that black people would not smoke?
What "recruits" the white kids to Marlboros or Camels? What "recruits" people to choose Coke over Pepsi?
Perhaps it's the same reason why large numbers of black youths wear large white t-shirts or white kids choose a particular brand of sneaker over another. Every boy my son's age is plastered head-to-foot in camoflage. What force "recruited" him to choose the camo shirt over the white button-down?
Every culture has it own preferences. The "recruitment" argument is as spurious and insulting as when Anita Bryant used it against gays.
Menthol as a recruitment tool is every bit as ridiculous as the recent claims that smoking causes all cancers, or smokers outgas carbon monoxide for hours after a smoke.
You want your colleagues to change their tune, but you're singing the same song.
I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS FROM DAY ONE.
You can not avoid the final product of personal comparisons, without finding some will have more effect of similar life style choices, as a factor of genetic variance alone.
When you go down this road of promoted hatred. If people are being categorized by calculations, the product will always take on a genetic or racial preference. One which will always protect the good old boys representing old money in America.
If you want to cheer for Hitler or the Aryan nations, thats your right in a free society just try to stop lying to us and to yourself.
There is nothing in TC advocacy which is original or anything to be proud of. Your just another product brand name for bigotry.
RAMPTON PATIENTS CHALLENGE SMOKING BAN
They will challenge the ban, imposed last summer, under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. http://www.thisisnottingham.co.u...&
pNodeId=133951
"Rampton secure hospital is home to some of the most dangerous people in Britain, with three out of four of its 400 patients responsible for "very serious crimes".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
2205956.stm
I really wouldn't want to be one of the nurses trying to impose the ban, might I suggest that members of ASH UK or the Department of Health go there and show them how its done?
EinsteinSmoked:
One of the oddments of being a pipe smoker (who smokes cherry tobacco) is that i seemed to get more complaints about the smell from cigarette smokers than from non-smokers. In fact I think that I've had more non-smokers come up to me and say how much they like the smell than I've had complaints from non-smokers.
This was (of course) in the days when I could smoke in my local pub (with its smoking landlord and predominantly smoking staff) rather than huddle outside with them.
So Spineless Spitzer refuses to resign according to an article in the paper http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
money...wspitzer111.xml. Doesn't this just highlight the problems with the moralistic do-gooders who sanctimoniously preach and damage other peoples lifestyles but who cannot control their own vices.His head should roll,how can ANYONE TRUST HIM ? One of the original henchmen of the Attorney Generals who threatened to sue Mastercard unless they stopped allowing their cards to be used for LEGAL online tobacco purchases AND legalized extortion in pursuit of the MSA payments .Is this what is expected of PUBLIC SERVANTS ?
Callous Cowbell,
My husband smokes menthol cigs and I assure you that he is a causcasian. He enjoys the flavor. I for one do not like menthol. Both our own choices and I don't have to worry about sharing my cigs with him.
SuperCallousSi,
I saw another news report this morning on the Spitzer prostitution case and a young gentlemen on the streets of New York City was being interviewed. He called Spitzer a hypocrite. The group of people behind him were all smoking, and Bill says that the majority of people in NY are in favor of a ban and are so happy to have it forced on them. Really? Who is being slandered and vilified now? Not one of them is above the law, any law, and my hopes are to add Bloomberg to that list soon too.
Dr. Siegel, sorry but I am finding that all of TC is dishonest and deceptive.
I notified the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada on February 20, 2008 that they have an error on their Position Statement.
http://www.heartandstroke.com/at...ee-ENG-
2007.pdf
FACTS:
• In 2002, 37,209 Canadians died as a result of tobacco use and second hand smoke. Cancers accounted for 17,679 deaths, heart disease and stroke for 10,853 deaths, and respiratory diseases for 8,282 deaths.(1)
When I go to the footnote (1) Rehm J, Baliunas D, Brochu S, Fischer B, Gnam W, Patra J, Popova S, Samocinska-Hart A, Taylor B.
The Costs of Substance Abuse in Canada 2002. March 2006.
"We do not look at actual dollars spent or at a literal body count in cases where death results in a cost to society. Rather, cost studies are based on well-documented economic theories and assumptions."
"In 2002, an estimated total of 37,209 Canadians died from tobacco use, accounting for 16.6% of all deaths in Canada that year. Cancer was the leading cause of death (17,679 deaths) followed by cardiovascular disease (10,853) and respiratory disease (8,282)."
We have gone from the original "an estimated" to it now being "FACT?". How many more FACTS have been obtained this way by TC?
As of this morning they have not changed the document. Do you think maybe their webmaster ran off with the one from Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails?
Completely off topic but this is for the Canadians on the list. You need to read these two pieces and spread the word up there.
This was posted on News With Views this morning:
NORTH AMERICAN MILITARY AGREEMENT SIGNED BY US AND CANADA
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV...News/
news38.htm
My friend posted this last night:
http://www.justmytruth.wordpress.com
Well Callous Lynda, all I can say is you have no fear of "us" Canadians doing much. We are far too polite, eh - lol
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/abo...out/
index_e.asp
There are approximately:
* 62,000 Regular Force members; and
* 25,000 Reserve Force members, including 4,000 Canadian Rangers.
It is "we" who should fear you.
Ann W,
You totally misunderstand me here. My fear isn't of the Canadians.
Think about this for a moment. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the devastation was seen, many countries, including Canada I believe, immediately offered whatever help and aid might be needed. Granted our arrogant government refused all help.
Now, considering how most countries do this whenever there is a massive problem somewhere, exactly WHY would the U.S. military suddenly feel a need for such an agreement as this? More importantly, WHY was this done without our congress approving it? WHY is it that THIS is the first anyone is hearing about this? WHY has the public been kept in the dark if it's all so on the up-and-up?
I don't trust bush one bit and am literally holding my breath until the elections, only because I strongly suspect he will find a way to derail them.
So yes, I'm imaging a 'what if' that no one really wants to imagine.
The FDA bill does not ban menthol but does ban chocolate flavoured cigarettes?
Presumably this is a compromise designed to minimise annoyance to smokers while protecting the children.
A better approach would be to ban flavours that could appeal to children but are not used by adult smokers.
So, for example, one could ban Rabbit, Piglet and Poo Bear flavoured cigarettes.
Also a bill prohibiting Disney from manufacturing cigarettes
could save millions (if not billions) of lives.
Lazy Fredrik.
That's ok, they'll ban flavored ice cream next. I mean, those flavored ice creams are just sucking in kids left and right and the US shakes from the ranks of obese children walking to the school bus...
"My husband smokes menthol cigs and I assure you that he is a causcasian. He enjoys the flavor. I for one do not like menthol. Both our own choices and I don't have to worry about sharing my cigs with him."
Diane,
I smoke menthols, as well. I am also white, so I wonder how I was "recruited."
On the home-ban front: NYC DOH is running commercials urging "smoke-free" homes. In one of them, the only reason given is that it "encourages smokers to quit and prevents children from starting." No mention of the perils of secondhand smoke. At least they're getting honest.
The other one, however, shows sick children, some near death, and informs us that the floating wisps of their parents' smoke is "eating them alive." A surprisngly rare newspaper article exposed the fact that all the children shown in this spot were unknown kids plucked from archival footage, none of whose illnesses were in any way linked to smoke.
But, yes; it begins.
:
Sorry folks, I just noticed I omitted the link to the article about the smoke ban making it worse for children and 50% claim.
here it is
http://www.people.co.uk/news/tm_...-
name_page.html
GreatScot
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
