" Instead, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids appears to have decided upon its own pet legislation and forced it down the throats of everyone else in the movement.
To make matters unacceptably worse, the Campaign took it upon itself to basically represent the public health community in negotiations that were essentially conducted with Philip Morris, but without approval from the rest of the public health community."
Kind of poetic justice isn't it?
They did to you exactly what you have been doing to smokers for years. And now you cry foul?
Which of the conflicted interests do you serve? So many groups are leeching off the smokers already it's hard to follow the script?
All are fighting over the spoils of theft.
Now we get the last laugh.
This seems like a pretty good analysis, and I have to say I agree. CTFk is not looking so good in my opinion. I hope that everyone can somehow come together and all get behind this bill.
But I have to ask, Dr. Siegel, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but why do you spend so much time making fun of people in the tobacco control movement instead of working to advocate for effective legislation like this. Take the hours that you've spent making your top ten lists and challenges and apply it to an issue of real national significance. I'm not one to tell you how to use your time, but I just don't understand why a guy with your gifts would be spending his days making fun of people when you have so much to offer in terms of helping to advocate for effective policy reform.
"I just don't understand why a guy with your gifts would be spending his days making fun of people when you have so much to offer in terms of helping to advocate for effective policy reform."
There are only so many hours in the day. And counting dead bartenders is hard work. Especially when you can't see them.
I kid! I kid!
Doctor, 'There was no real discussion with the tobacco control movement, no consultation with many of the established experts in the tobacco control field who have important insights into the most effective national policy strategies and who have been leaders in the movement over the past two or more decades'
******
And in over the past two or more decades when were the smokers included in the discussion? You really make me laugh.
And then-----'This is the way that you develop a national tobacco control strategy. You bring the major health agencies and health groups together and you discuss the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use.' So since they weren't doing what "Mikey Likes" they were all wrong.
******
This is all very rich.
*****
As to your discussion consider this thought from Jim Bovard:
"It is absurd to expect that discussions will resolve differences between people who wish to live as they please and others who demand the power to bring them to their knees. The more power government possesses, the more fruitless deliberations become between aggressors and victims'"
Yes, Doctor you want for 'discussion' is absurd.
.
Of course, the only people who are left completely out of the game, are the ones that it is about - the tobacco users.
"Two hands on the table"-- each of them reaching for the necks of smokers--and this is what you applaud. This sure as hell defines No More Mr. Nice Guy.
And, not that I give a s***, but fining a company if its sales don't go down (even after you mandate skulls and crossbones on the packs) is like fining the teachers if the students don't learn, fining MacDonald's if its customers order fries, fining the priest if his flock doesn't get to heaven-- as you define heaven.
Even religion accommodates Free Will. But not anti-tobacco,.
The Final Solution to the Smoker Problem seems to be at hand, and just as you now affect such surprise and dismay at the extremes to which it'
s gone, I suppose you'll be similarly wringing your clean hands when this ends with smokers in jail or in camps for re-education being chemically lobotomized (the new scientific breakthrough) or vaccinated, by force.
Think carefully, Doc. Your own lust for power is poking through.
:
"Last week, Enzi introduced the “Help End Addiction to Lethal Tobacco Habits Act” (HEALTH Act), S.1834, a bill to wipe out tobacco use in America through an innovative cap-and-trade program that will shrink the size of the tobacco market over the next 20 years.
Dr. Siegel, explain to me the elaborate long-term plan instead of proposing immediate illegality of the product.
Playing devil's advocate I suppose the answer will be that the powers that be are too afraid to immediately withdraw it with "so many" smokers existing right now and are embarking on a drawdown until which time they predict those alive today will die and there will be "so many" fewer smokers to contend with at that time. Taking it away from fewer people means weaker and easier to handle rebellion?
Except that it will always be millions. Prohibition itself teaches that the number of consumers do not go down even when prohibited. So whatever they figure they'll be waiting for as far as numbers will never materialize.
So why don't they just get it -- the inevitable -- over with and, like ripping off a bandaid, just do it now?Any other long-term talk makes the whole soapbox campaign surreal.
Oh, MSA money. Perpetual payments. Well, at least as long as the income amount is worthwhile to them, I suppose.
History will laugh its ass off at the Anti-Smoking/Smoker movement and its players.
Is this what it’s all been about Doctor, a petty internal squabble between you and your TC friends over tactics?
Were you uncomfortable about the overt persecution of smokers, concerned that public opinion would eventually turn against TC, that reasonable people would say enough, this is wrong? To mix my metaphors, that particular Pandora’s Box is open and you can’t get the genie back in the bottle until the hatred has run its course.
You have created and validated an irrational fear in the general public as evident all over the world. Public behaviour is degenerating, exampled recently by that unfortunate deaf man battered senseless for lighting a cigarette outdoors in a prohibited area (link on a previous thread).
Tobacco Control, including you, are drunk on the power that bullying brings and addicted to the financial and other self serving, ego boosting rewards. Your ability to objectively examine your behaviour and care about the consequences is long gone.
You support this further proposed attack on smokers; once again smokers are acceptable collateral damage in your crusade. Do you think by targeting Big Tobacco, imposing punitive fines if they don’t drastically reduce their customer base, you are doing any good, and the fines will be passed to the customers? Increase taxes (again) punish smokers and disproportionably the poor. Remove nicotine and nobody will smoke? Please save me from the “Congress will not vote to remove nicotine” line, that is nothing but a very poor attempt to throw us a bone. Remove nicotine from cigarettes and you are right nobody will smoke….. legally.
Do you honestly think that the world won’t see through this tactic? The truth is out there and gathering momentum. With luck your time is limited and justice will out in the end.
Your personal hatred of smoking and Big Tobacco has re-surfaced with a vengeance; your utter disregard for adults that choose to smoke is astounding. We need more righteous people in this world and a damn site fewer self-righteous ones.
Bring on prohibition. I will happily buy black market and make my own entertainment.
You know something ? The only difference between you and the rest of the TC fanatics is; you are subtle.
Walt----'Think carefully, Doc. Your own lust for power is poking through.'
The really creepy thing is, I believe her has 'thought carefully' and is proceeding with this anyway!!!
You're right no more Mr Nice guy. Wonder how pleased he'll be with how this all ends up?
.
JTF asks----'Dr. Siegel, explain to me the elaborate long-term plan instead of proposing immediate illegality of the product'
They way I see it is that they are not done funding their lofty retirements. Their successors will have found another lucrative scam in 20 years.
Sen Enzi:
Note is stand on 2nd Amendment: Gun Issues
http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.p...?
can_id=558#838
Just wait Senator----they get to you and your freedoms soon enough!!!
Shocking, another hypocrit!!!
"In a press release issued yesterday, Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) invited the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA]"
Here is the dividing line It all boils down to partison politics again.
Public versus the private institutions. Supporters of the BUSH league versus the opposition.
Centrist politics battling for the center a place in politics which brings us to a fascist breeding ground with both parties living and dying by the polls ingenuity replaced with public support numbers.
The Doctor as he refers to himself is a politician at Heart. In the ramblings he borrows his catch phrase from the global warming fascism with a reference to cap and trade which is a sneaky way of describing a carbon tax applied to the industries but paid by consumers.
And here we find a new bill which for fear of clear public definition names an "addiction to a habit". A little confused in the terminology with this one Doc. The spin doctors were afraid to separate the two because they knew what a predictable response would be from the public if you call it a nasty habit the public would be more accommodating in blaming smokers for abusing others, however if you call it an addiction all bleeding heart liberals would climb all over you for abusing someone and taking advantage of an addiction. So it is better to cloud the issue and call it neither and avoid the controversy.
When drug makers recently admitted to misrepresenting the addictive nature of their product they paid a fine and the deal was done never to be discussed again however in this case smokers are made to pay for the same situation while the hypocrites protect the manufacturer.
If this were about punishing the industry they would be made to pay their penance by capping the price of the product before imposing a fine to undermine the passing the buck strategy which has been promoted to date.
This is really about penis envy looking north of the boarder and lusting after the ten dollar package of cigarettes and dividing the spoils of a much larger pie with the tobacco industry exactly as the government did in Canada.
It all boils down to partisanship in cutting a deal and dividing the spoils of war. Through torturing and pillaging of the civilian population.
Despicable Criminal behavior no matter how you slice it or who you convince to participate.
In the name of public health and for the children.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/
natio...4559956953.html
"PANIC over childhood obesity has contributed to a dramatic rise in the number of teenage girls starving themselves, vomiting, abusing laxatives and smoking in an effort to shed weight, the author of a national study released today said."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6911596.stm
"The number of prescriptions handed out to children under 16 for depression and mental health disorders has quadrupled in a decade, official figures indicate.
GPs in England wrote more than 631,000 such prescriptions for children in the last financial year, compared to just 146,000 in the mid-1990s"
And for the rest of us...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6911530.stm
Low cholesterol 'link' to cancer
"The Boston-based researchers could not say if this was a side-effect of the statin or due to the low cholesterol."
Anyone who deputes the connection between Tobacco Control and the Global warming scam.
Here is the connection
Health strategies to impose cap and Trade on the environment, affected industries.
http://www.who.int/globalchange/...ms/
ecosysq5.pdf
A Public health movement who will meddle anywhere they can inspire large dollars to be expended.
Elevating the third world is no longer the goal reducing the developed world to equality is the obvious target goal.
Here is a list of other cash grabs in the making. Non smokers have a rude awakening coming when the Clinton fans get back into the drivers seat.
http://www.who.int/topics/en/
A growing problem? Or a gentle humanitarian effort you decide.
We have all seen the work in action compassionate? Trustworthy? respectful?
Not so far...
http://www.who.int/hia/network/w...e/en/
index.html
" WHO headquarters is expanding its programme of work to encourage development of HIA across the world. HIA work is underpinned by two of the four strategic directions identified in the corporate strategy and adopted by the Executive Board:
* Reducing risk factors associated with major causes of disease and the key threats to human health that arise from environmental, social and behavioural causes.
* Promoting an effective health dimension to social, economic and development policy."
the most deadly consumer product
"Most deadly consumer product"? Explain that please. Provide the proof that cigarettes and ONLY cigarettes are the cause of death for ALL smokers. Also explain then exactly what it is that kills ALL non-smokers as well. You sound like you believe no one would ever die, or at least not until the age of 120, if there were cigarettes in the world at all.
Seriously doc, where's your proof that this product that you claim is responsible for the deaths of less than 1% of the population is the "most deadly consumer product".
Please, we are all waiting breathlessly for this information. And while you're at it, kindly answer my questions from yesterday. I was serious about wanting those answers.
Once Tobacco Control is judged as a successful strategy, it will be used to dominate other political issues which need to silence all opposition. The references are already being made.
Notice how they have synthesized or created the evidence.
http://www.who.int/globalchange/...ms/
ecosysq5.pdf
"Policy-relevant scientific assessments have led directly to
many important decisions protecting public health from
environmental risks. In many countries and settings,
legislation regulating environmental exposures to lead,
asbestos and secondary tobacco smoke, for instance, have
been facilitated by evidence synthesized by health scientists
who measured the links between environmental exposures
and health outcomes, reached a reasonably broad consensus
regarding health impacts, and presented these findings to
policy-makers. Experiences implementing the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
demonstrate that health considerations also can be
important in decisions by local policymakers and
stakeholders to address global environmental issues. This
experience may encourage decision-makers similarly to
address the health aspects of other risks, such as
desertification, biodiversity loss and climate change."
OT of interest on Globalism:
The Global Elite: Who are they?
http://www.augustreview.com/issu...hey?_200511146/
.
Great, let's vote for Hillary. Maybe she'll even re-institute universal health care, slap price controls on Big Pharma. Boy, would that shake the health industry. If we are going to be socialist let's do it right.
Anyway, I agree, in no time some criminal element will decide that there is money to made. Maybe the next Kennedy will emerge. In any case I won't blame smokers for breaking the law and buying black market cigarettes. Heck, this may even be fun. Imagine, smoke easies in some back alley. The smoking police will be out to knock heads, so be careful. How many will be on the payroll of this new underworld? Who will emerge as the next Al Capone?
"The more quickly that we can end the Campaign's dominance over the movement, the more quickly we'll be able to start talking about some real solutions to this problem."
Which problem would that be Doc?
Do you mean the problem of TC deciding whats best for tobacco users without actually gathering a concensus of smokers opinion?
OR, Do you mean the problem of how best to redistribute the wealth extorted from smokers among the remaining TC "players" once CFTK has been publicly embarrassed, and finally ejected from the TC country club?
OR, Do you mean the problem of how best to continue to convince the "public" that the fabricated "tobacco crisis" requires even more studies, and billions more dollars to fund them.
Clearly, you're confused.
Hey, I know!, ...lets penalize corporations for their products being too damned popular.
Which TC socialist actually put that bug in the ear of the senator?
Sorry, politicians just are't that sharp on their own.
Which one of these TC clowns decided that penalizing growth in the freemarket would be good for the country?
You and you're buddies are just holding up progress, and delaying the inevitable. There are fortunes to be made in the black market.
We all owe Dr Siegel a debt of gratitude for making us see that behind his façade of smooth talk and "understanding" of the problems that smokers are constantly being forced to endure, his only concern is promoting smoking bans and all the usual demands provided by the anti faction.How easily we believed he was honourable and that he sought a more reasoned approach to the problem of co-existence between smokers,non smokers and antis.However,he could not disguise his real ideals that are set in tablets of stone.His hollow statements that were immediately rescinded,or were followed by the customary rhetoric proved his position beyond reasonable doubt.You disclosed your true self on that historical Sunday,you shocked most of us that day,in just how vindictive you could choose to be when pushed.You demand facts to be scientifically proven,you even criticise your fellow brothers.Yet in an instant you proved yourself to be identical.It wasn't a one off event,you still decline to provide evidence to support your "facts" ,facts that met the desperately needed anti agenda.Political science or bogus science,but science that just had to be found.It took almost 20 years to get that science and you became the toast of the movement,one would presume.It must really hurt that your constant demands to reduce the reliance of fictitious propaganda has led to this level of in-fighting.Your credibility has disappeared in a wisp of tobacco smoke ,much like the missing 220 one would surmise.
The anon for some strange reason was me.
I don't really understand the argument that the nation's public health agencies should not be trying to reduce smoking rates. I think we all would agree that our nation's public health agencies should be trying to reduce bird flu rates, pneumonia rates, diabetes rates, and West Nile virus rates? Why should they not also try to reduce lung cancer rates, heart disease rates, stroke rates, and COPD rates? Especially since these cause more deaths than all of the others combined.
If public health agencies are not intended to try to prevent disease or lower disease rates, then I don't really understand the point of having them in the first place. So I think trying to reduce heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, and COPD by lowering smoking rates is a valid and appropriate role for public health agencies (and in fact, I view it as their responsibility).
I agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke. But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit. I completely agree that such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it.
I agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke.
There are other, more vicious forms of coercion and they have been used over the past decades.
We heard the message, but the problem is that when there is seemingly no effect, they (TC) feel they need to use ever bigger hammers to drive in the nails.
Graphic warnings, videos (http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/05/
american-lung-association-pulls-abuse.html), ever increasing excise taxes, discrimination, apartheid, restrictions of social gathering, smoking bans, restrictions of civil rights, intrusion into our homes, you name it. There is no end and they will not give up.
With regards to "we need more money from the smokers", haven't they shown that they can't use the money they already got and get (MSA, taxes) in a sensible way?
Do you really think Enzi will be able to change the corrupt mentalities in our government? How about collecting money in form of an excise tax from our politicians to produce ads on how to become honest citiziens and how to run a government.
Why should they not also try to reduce lung cancer rates, heart disease rates, stroke rates, and COPD rates? Especially since these cause more deaths than all of the others combined.
They shouldn’t. Unfortunately, you all seem to be of the belief that ONLY smoking is the cause of these things. You can’t even indisputably prove that smoking is the major contributing factor of these illnesses. Your attacks have been against smokers and smokers only, while doing nothing in terms of real science and research.
So I think trying to reduce heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, and COPD by lowering smoking rates is a valid and appropriate role for public health agencies (and in fact, I view it as their responsibility).
And yet you still can’t prove any reduction in these diseases when smoking rates are reduced. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. As has been shown already, as the population grew the rate of these illnesses grew; BUT the smoking rates while remaining the same, also became the minority of the population. Listening to you one would have to believe that 25% of the population, who have had fewer public places to smoke in over the past 20 years, have somehow managed to deliberately harm the other 75% of the population. We are not talking about a communicable disease here after all. Do you really believe this?
But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit.
Since when did education and sending messages include total bans? Since when did bans suddenly become “encouragement”? Prohibition is prohibition, no matter which way you slice it. Education and encouragement have nothing to do with bans.
I completely agree that such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it.
And what exactly do you think you do, when you use the word “causes” knowing the general population takes that as absolute and will then relate that to smokers killing them? What exactly do you think you do, when you continually refer to cigarettes as “the most deadly consumer product”? What exactly do you think you do, everytime you utter the phrases like “serious health hazard”, “dangerous health hazard”? You paint smokers as villains out to kill innocents. The people don’t see you talking about just the smoke, but the people creating that smoke by lighting those cigarettes. And if you don’t know that, you have NO business being an educator, for it is obvious you are too blinded to see.
"I agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke. But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit."
So does the proposal for a 61-cent tax amount to coercion? The 10-cent tax? What about a tax of $25 a pack?
Do you support similar taxes on high-fructose corn syrup to reduce the rate of obesity? What about demanding a pay-per-view system for network television, and a high tax to be paid on all shows watched? That would certainly encourage people to watch less television.
Last, you talk about education. And you talked about it before. You said it could be a powerful thing. You said that there was a way to fully warn people about the dangers of SHS. And you said if they were thus warned, you would back away from the idea of a ban.
I still say you were lying. You insist you were not. OK, then. I am calling you out. Do the same to me. Come out with your idea of how to "educate" bartenders accordingly.
Or admit that you were being dishonest.
You constantly do this "calling out" and "challenging" when others are involved. And when they don't respond, you publicly accuse them of being dihonest.
Well, turnabout is fair play. You said what you said. Own up to it. It has been 19 days, by my count. That's long enough.
but why do you spend so much time making fun of people in the tobacco control movement
Dr Siegel spends even more time discussing the issues. Sometimes humor is a good way to bring a point across.
But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit. I completely agree that such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it.
All the same, we don't have the data to precisely define what that minimum threshold should be, where smoking rates descend to where people who smoke are the ones who want to, etc. So setting the numbers to hit now leaves us open to a trap later. I see a lot semantically wrong with saying, well, this is what we know to be an optimal smoking rate, and tobacco companies are at fault if people don't hit that.
For instance, if people trade in cigarettes for meth or binge drinking, that's not an advance in public health, whether or not public health hits their numbers WRT tobacco use. Scare people away from one bad habit, they generally pick up another, instead of finding a good one.
I think you've made the point that demonizing tobacco makes more dangerous drugs seem relatively benign and if this bill does that, it doesn't really make any progress.
I agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke. But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit.
You are having a laugh.
What did you and your team do in the early 90's after education and encouragement failed to achieve your desired results despite smoking rates falling?
Which part of education and encouragement was Sir George Godbers 1975 tactic of convincing the non-smoking world that ETS was killing them and their children?
Or are you stretching the definition of encouragement to include fear and persecution. It was TC that invented the word de-normalisation still liberally used by your team. How the F**k can de-normalisation be associated with encouragement??
GreatScot
Michael Siegel, smoking tobacco is a production of human action. The west nile virus is not. In principle opium, cocaine, cannabis, khat, coffee are the same as tobacco. These plant based stimulants do not lurk for unsuspecting humans, we choose to use them. It is not a disease.
rrgabe23
Canada is a bit ahead of the US on the tobacco front. We have the extremists deciding what the bills and strategies that should be passedby the health Ministry, etc. It started it out by giving the Ministry Advisory Council on Tobacco Control $480 million dollars (2001) in seed money, while the health ministries (provincial, federal) were also giving the same organizations and charities that these "advisers to the minister" "volunteered" or represented millions as well. Don't forget Canada loves to say that they are the leaders in this fight for a tobacco free society.
BTW Does everyone realize that Canada is presently funding (using the tobacco taxes) 1/3 of the impoverished (3rd world, etc) campaign to "control tobacco. I can see it now Iraq, is a nonsmoking nation due to the tobacco control "denormalization" process, meanwhile the Taliban couldn't make the people quit using such methods as cutting off smokers fingers, killing, etc. Now lets have a good laugh at why I'm no longer wanting to allow the gov't to waste my money on tobacco control. Its not like the present gov't and workers are corrupt. You cant' go into the Iraq museum where all the looting took place and but ancient relics from the guards, or that you can buy ancient seals for $700 from the local antique shop. Oh I forgot tobacco is such a larger problem then the regionally grown opium that makes heroin, where they figure there's only about 70% of the population using and addicted to. Doesn't it make you wonder how much of your "foreign aid" dollars is actually not going toward local or national campaigns; but is actually funding the anti tobacco control campaign and pressure needed form the WTO (1) to make the countries want to "make tobacco control a national concern" and .
Yet the people tell us this really isn't about money, politics, or increasing the size of their "business interests". Sometimes people are just blinded by what they want to believe is everyones ethics, when its only their own that they want people to believe is everywhere.
(1)2002 New Report from Canada:
Facing the Facts: A guide to the GATS debate by Scott Sinclair and Jim Grieshaber-Otto
Summary and full report available at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) website - www.policyalternatives.ca
Unknown to most Canadians,(and Australians-ED) senior government officials have just returned from a negotiating session in Geneva to expand the reach of the World Trade Organization's services agreement into areas usually considered the exclusive prerogative of domestic policy-making. On the table are public services such as education and health care, and public interest regulations such as tobacco control and environmental protection laws.
The GATS -- a global treaty on services adopted in 1994 as part of the new World Trade Organization -- has been described by its proponents as "perhaps the most important single development in the multilateral trading system since the GATT itself came into effect in 1948." As former WTO Director Renato Ruggiero correctly noted, GATS extends "into areas never before recognized as trade policy."
While still largely unknown to the general public, the binding treaty is deservedly controversial. Its subject matter -- services -- is almost unimaginably broad. The GATS affects how governments regulate services -- from water testing to heart surgery. It restricts actions taken by all levels of government, whether central, regional, or local. The treaty also has a built-in requirement for repeated rounds of negotiations to expand its reach. The current round began in early 2000 and was rolled into the new round of WTO negotiations that was recently launched in Doha, Qatar. -source
The latest article on SCHIP:
http://www.cnsnews.com/
ViewNatio...T20070724b.html
Oh- and lookie who also likes the tax for SCHIP:
http://www.moveon.org/
Another tragedy due to the smoking ban. This time a non-smoker,still more blood on your hands.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/
...7340144,00.html
a price worth paying??
Gilster, I just contacted them about the discrimination they are spreading.
I did the same thing with Care2 the other day for the same reason.
I am now keeping a list of what organizations not to support and letting all know about it.
So, if anyone else here every signs petitions for Care2, I suggest you stop, and tell them why and then unsubscribe from them.
GreatScot, That is appalling.
Unfortunately, it is the smokers who did the harm and trust me, the rAntis (thanks DTB for this one) will use that to show how violent smokers are now.
They totally ignore the fact that non-smokers have gone on the attack more, but that's alright in their eyes.
And if "education" is really the goal, which class does Elizabeth Whelan get to teach? Can people like Jacob Sullum get tenure at that college? Gio Batta Gori?
Or is it the Siegel/Godshall show?
Dr Siegel if you cannot see the picture all around you ,or should i assume you wish to ignore it,your words carry as much weight as those 220 fictitious bodies,you referred to and subsequently ignore.
"I don't really understand the argument that the nation's public health agencies should not be trying to reduce smoking rates. I think we all would agree that our nation's public health agencies should be trying to reduce bird flu rates, pneumonia rates, diabetes rates, and West Nile virus rates? Why should they not also try to reduce lung cancer rates, heart disease rates, stroke rates, and COPD rates? Especially since these cause more deaths than all of the others combined."
And at what point do you draw the line in attempting to mold human behaviour? You have yet to prove causation as a result of a choice made IE; tobacco use, which is nothing like a truly communicable disease, such as Tobacco/Social Control.
You Mister Siegelm are a hypocirte and a liar and the worst sort of person who exists, trying to gain sympathy from those you try to dictate to, I will fight you until my dying breath, and I'll have my family sue any agency which tries to list that death as "related" to tobacco use, you lying scum sucker you.
Lynda,
the responsibility for any and all death, assault, rape or emotional damage caused by the social engineers lie fairly and squarely at TC's feet.
The Surrey police force in England have just released a warning that date rape drug instances have rocketed post ban. The same happened in Scotland. I assure you my vengeance will be terrible if my daughter is ever a victim.
GreatScot
GreatScot- It seems that boxers plight is "related" two bad policies in one. Both Tobacco and Gun Control.
One of these days you and people in TC will find yourself lying at some bully's feet (either figuratively or literally), feeling absolutely helpless, and then you will know why we are so angry right now. Please be aware a good portion of us will walk by as if we don't see it, because so did you. Please also be aware that some will stop to kick you too...and then you'll REALLY, truly understand what we've known all along.
Well nemo31 it can only get worse when all the Police get bogged down with smoking incidents and leave real crime well alone.
the responsibility for any and all death, assault, rape or emotional damage caused by the social engineers lie fairly and squarely at TC's feet.
I know, GreatScot. However, we all know that the rAntis and their supporters will never admit it. Nor will Dr. Siegel.
I have mixed emotions about Dr. Siegels post and the responses, sort of like Osama bin Laden driving off a cliff...in my brand new car.
On one hand, Dr. Siegel IS an anti-tobacco advocate for crying out loud. He never claimed he wasn't. What do you expect him to say people: "Yeah, smoke up!". If he did that he would be a laughingstock and nobody would take him seriously.....
On the other hand Doc, you have to understand that you have been so indoctrinated and brainwashed by this Brave New World of "Public Health" that you can't for the life of you understand why grown adults here curse at you when you look at them with a straight face and say:
"Yes, we are going to cajole, nag, coerce, hound you, make commercials with tax payer money to get the public on our side, kick you out of bars, restaurants, parks, stadiums, beaches, take your money from you in a social engineering experiment designed to coerce you to give in to the Leviathan state and quit smoking for your own good...I don't understand what the problem is."
I don't have to ask you. I've been reading your blog long enough to know that your stance is that some coercive measures like smoking bans in bars are OK in your book, but other coercive measures like denying employment are not.
You obviously have no intention or desire to listen to a bunch of posters on your blog try to explain the difference between public health efforts to reduce communicable diseases and your version of public health to coerce your fellow citizens. So maybe a fellow public health physician like Dr. Whelan can explain it to you better.
Big Brother Will See You Now : Dr. Elizabeth Whelan from ACSH will explain in serious terms where this is all headed... "Earlier this year in New York City, a public health regulation went into effect that set a new and very troublesome precedent, one that insinuates government agencies into personal medical matters. In mid-January, the City began legally requiring laboratories that do medical testing to report to the Health Department the results of blood sugar tests for city residents with diabetes -- along with the names, age, and contact information on those patients.""When the government's phone calls and letters nagging people to eat better, quit smoking, and be more physically active don't work, the next phase of the war on chronic disease may be a harshly punitive one, with fines and other restrictions on those who fail to heed the health warnings. The message will be: live a healthy life or the government will punish you."
"the next phase of the war on chronic disease may be a harshly punitive one"
The next phase? Do you have any idea how much the government already taxes tobacco? The government is already levying hefty confiscatory fines.
Do the calculations. Someone with a two-pack-a-day habit smokes 730 packs of cigarettes every year. Times how many dollars per pack.
The future is now.
Doctor Siegel is against this. Except when he is for it.
Michael;
You can play with semantics until the cows come home, there is no way to glorify the promotion of hatred, you can ignore it and pretend not to see it, but it is still there and growing and if you don't feel it a duty in your current position to speak against it directly to the press and to the legislators you have to admit if to no one but your self you are absolutely responsible for it.
There are more compassionate ways to deal with the ills of society, they just take a little more effort. That effort becomes a lot less of an ordeal with the help of others perhaps a quarter of the population you disposed of in the analysis may well be more help than the 75% you still claim to give a damn about.
Looking beyond the power and the monetary rewards, how do you serve community by expanding the dangers we face on the street every day?
The population view offers some immunity to seeing the damage up close perhaps, but even the most determined ego has to admit when he is wrong. Especially in light of the massive damage being done in society which will only get worse as you continue your self serving arrogance.
You are in a position to stop the damage, step up, be a man beyond that be a human being, who is part of a divided community and take responsibility for your own actions before you judge the failings of others.
DancingTigerBait cannot get her computer to log on to the blog:
Here she is:
"I still can't get Siegel's blog to come up. I guess that I really have been banned! LOL, give my best to all. I'm tempted to send my response to the latest blog to y'all just to get it off my chest!
Main Points:
1.) Yet another tax increase. *yawn* By your own admission, states are not putting their MSA money to proper use--and, I've got news, that's common knowledge and talk of "taxation without representation" is already afoot. Oops. Tell ya what, start putting the current monies toward smoking-related goals--then we'll worry about whether or not you (*ahem* not we?) need yet another tax increase.
2.) Death knell of the antismoking movement. rAntis don't want to ban tobacco because (a) it funds their tantrums and (b) it can only lead to the abolition of nicotine, which would bankupt at least two of the larger pharma companies. Take a look at http://www.tobacco.org/news/114664.html and see where the problem for the legislation to ban tobacco lies. This little gem will force the rAntis' hand at the federal level--it will be nationally (and, being the US, globally) recognized that antismoking has little if anything to do with tobacco and everything to do with TC and PhRMA profits.
Secondary Points:
1.) Witch doctor effect, which is more deadly than tobacco ever could be. Oh, but people who smoke are callous...riiiight. *slaps wrist* Bad boy!
2.) Why isn't there a similar law to remove caffeine from coffee? As it happens, I've used decaf to get off caffeine but there's a *BIG* difference: I'm not constantly being told that caffeine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine, I'm not constantly being attacked by anti-caffeine nutjobs screaming, "Coffee killed my mom!" and I'm not bombarded with sick pictures of what caffeine supposedly does to my inerds. IOW, decaf will work better to get people off caffeine than denic will work to get people off nicotine. While we're at it, let's look at secondhand coffee--dealing with people on an irrational caffeine high, putting up with people who spill coffee and/or leave coffee rings on my reports/furniture/everything. Although removing caffeine from coffee takes out the addictive stimulant (oh, yeah, like nicotine!), people still drink decaf...because they enjoy drinking coffee just like some people enjoy smoking tobacco. Ah, but the argument goes that nicotine is as addictive as heroin or cocaine; yet, nicotine is found in ETS and I don't see any addicts running around to get their ETS fix like a heroin addict looking for a needle. BTW, I notice there is no desire to remove nicotine from loose tobacco or cigars. Hypocrites...again.
3.) This is an official admission that states have NOT been using MSA money for MSA goals--as officially stated in the Master Settlement Agreement. Yes, let's see the antismoking guns admit that at the federal level.
I had several points of my own. Alas, people who smoke don't have ideas--see http://challengingdogma.blogspot...h/label/
Smoking and do a CTRL-F on "ideas"."
Posted for DancingTigerBait
.
agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke. But "I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit. I completely agree that such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it."
I guess it depends on what your definition of "encouraging" is.
"...one that actually uses proven, effective interventions that would actually put a substantial dent in smoking rates."
Given the failed policies and promises over the last decade, isn't that begging the question?
But, even if a strategy continues to fail, we know where the fault lies:
"...levy penalties on tobacco companies if smoking rates do not decrease substantially"
Which will be passed on to us for noncompliance.
Sorry Doc, I'm calling BS on this. If this is your definition of government or civilization, you can have it. I'm glad I never had children, is all I can say.
Sunz and/or DancingTigerBait, that's an interesting link.
Noting what the poster on challengingdogma agrees with the tobacco companies on: low self-esteem and emotional insecurity? How much of that results from anti-smoking ads? How many times have you heard an obliging smoker say "Oh, I really shouldn't, you know." Is this not killing the village to save it?
Again, there's a question of causation and correlation, and of why a car company getting someone to buy something they can't afford or a clothing company selling overpriced junk is any different--based on these two factors.
My self-esteem was ok before I jumped on this blog. Then I realized I could stand up for myself, that quite simply, I enjoy smoking, and stuff like "well it's only 1 cigar a week" is rubbish reasoning, a sort of Vichy compromise.
And if smokers aren't into ideas, well I can see the sort of ideas anti-smokers are into. And I don't like them thar ideas.
I can't help but think of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette when it comes to a discussion like this. In my mind, the otherwise excellent newspaper has been completely dishonest about SHS--openly tarring every ban opponent as a tobacco shill. And, apparently, taking guidance from Godshall about how to cover the issue. But I am not even thinking about that here. I am thinking about an editorial the paper wrote about whitewater rafting on the Yough.
There is a very dangerous stretch of rapids in the river. The place is called Dimple Rock. People keep dying there. So someone came up with a plan to remove the rock. You know, to protect rafters and their guides from drowning. The plan failed. Much to the delight of the Post Gazette, which opined:
"In our erstwhile home of the brave, there's an urge to flatten every bump, to put a pillow around every tree and to generally make life as risk-free as possible. That Dimple Rock will be left alone, that a wild river will be allowed its bit of wildness, is a reassuring sign that America hasn't entirely lost its daring."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0.../680887-
192.stm
I don't see why this cannot be the response to smoking. Yeah, sure, educate. Let people know about the dangers. Put a warning label on the cigarettes if you really want to. And put a warning somewhere on the river. Some people will ignore it. But so be it. They know the risk. And the benefit they get from taking that risk outweighs the cost, in their minds.
Is getting on a piece of rubber and floating through dangerous water any less stupid than lighting a tobacco leaf and inhaling the smoke? Is it any less arbitrary? Any less subjective in value? I don't think so.
But for some reason, people like Doctor Siegel and the good folks at the PG are DETERMINED to convince you that one of these things is bad. So determined that they will demand thousands of dollars in taxes from a working-class smoker who refuses to toe the line. So determined that they will use government force to shut down saloons and bingo parlors that choose to serve these social lepers.
The erstwhile home of the brave, indeed.
I guess the problem, doctor, is what to do with the people who get your "education" and still refuse to comply. I think the right response is to let them live their lives. Yours is to harass them and tax them into oblivion. Because they are wrong. And you are right.
It's a real shame.
Carrie Nation walked into bars with an axe and alcohol prohibition took place. Crime and murder ran rampant. Moonshine became the drink to have. Children were used as runners to get the moonshine to the customers. Your tobacco prohibition is exactly the same. Now change axe to lies and moonshine to tobacco and the rest will be repeating history. We smokers didn't ask for this war, but you and your friends manipulated it. We never asked for the crimes that will be coming nor do we want to use the children. The very people you say you want to protect. You have asked for it. Now do you not understand why we are mad as hell? Good Lord, read a history book, get a real job and pay your own health insurance. We all have.
I happen to agree with Eric's comment above. I agree that Dr. Whelan is correct when she notes that we are going too far in our efforts to change people's behavior, and where I draw the line is when we start to punish people for their choices or to discriminate against them because of these choices. And I will add, where we harass them.
I disagree with the steps that Dr. Whelan describes that one health department is apparently taking. I don't think you punish people for their legal choices.
I have never promoted smoking bans as a method of controlling smoking. I only would promote it in order to protect people from secondhand smoke. In fact, I've spoken out against groups and advocates who have supported outdoor smoking bans with the argument that it will help cut smoking rates. I think I've made very clear, and on the record, that I do NOT support the idea of trying to reduce smoking by limiting the places where smokers can smoke. The only reason I have given to place such limitations is if it is necessary to protect people from secondhand smoke. If I really wanted to use smoking bans to reduce smoking, then I would support even the draconian outdoor smoking bans such as in Calabasas.
I understand that many smokers feel harassed by smoking bans, but my intent has nothing to do with harrassing anyone (I'm not saying that there are not other anti-smoking advocates out there who have such an intent - there certainly are).
Also, people should note that I objected to a number of anti-smoking ads, including the ALA ad which depicted smokers as child abusers. Just because I support the idea of using educational and persuasive approaches like advertisements does not mean that I condone the use of these types of belligerent ads. I will continue to fight against those type of ads, putting my neck on the line again as I did with the ALA ad if it is necessary.
Eric -"Yes, we are going to cajole, nag, coerce, hound you, make commercials with tax payer money to get the public on our side, kick you out of bars, restaurants, parks, stadiums, beaches, take your money from you in a social engineering experiment designed to coerce you to give in to the Leviathan state and quit smoking for your own good...I don't understand what the problem is."
Eric,
You forgot, being fired if you don't quit, not hired if you smoke, higher health insurance, being denied health care, being verbally and physically abused, being humiliated by being herded into smoking pens, wearing smoker identifiers to leave and re-enter clubs and like those kids in Denmark that are forced to wear smoker bibs and stand like an exhibit for ridicule, here in Britain smoking pens must be 50% open to the elements not including doors and windows, carers not allowed to assist old folk to go outside for a smoke (if you can't crawl there you don't smoke),etc etc.
I do appreciate your point and would like to take this opportunity to thank the Doc for educating me.
GreatScot
GreatScot, thats a ditto for me too! I have been educated, so leave me alone!
I understand that many smokers feel harassed by smoking bans, but my intent has nothing to do with harrassing anyone
Oh really? Then what is this, copied and pasted from your own entry today: “This is now a source of great embarrassment, as Senator Enzi has stolen the show from the Campaign, showing them up by proposing a real bill - one that actually uses proven, effective interventions that would actually put a substantial dent in smoking rates.”
Your own words Doc. And exactly WHAT proven and effective interventions are you referring to that puts a substantial dent in smoking rates? Seems to me that smoking rates had been decreasing, regularly, all on their own BEFORE your “education”; BEFORE your taxes; BEFORE your bans.
What secret weapon do you have that has been proven that you somehow feel smokers won’t object to? IF they are proven, then they’ve been tried. So far all I see from you and yours is lies, exaggerations, deliberately not clarify your use of words to the general public, outrageous tax increases on cigarettes, bans galore all over the place – rapidly expanding everywhere and eventually into our homes.
So, what other plan do you have that is proven that we are not aware of?
I will continue to fight against those type of ads, putting my neck on the line again as I did with the ALA ad if it is necessary.
Did you do the same with the link to the ad I posted a couple of weeks ago? Did you point out to the ALA how denormalizing it was, not only to smokers but to females as well? Did you point out how discriminatory it was, not only to smokers but to females especially? Did you get a response from them? I didn’t.
Several thread ago, the doctor stated that he had some new stuff up his sleeve. I guess this is it.
I will never be convinced that he is a person of integrity. If he ever had any he sold that long ago. He is a liar. He is a game player. There is a naughty phrase they use for women who behave themselves in such a manner.
.
"I think I've made very clear, and on the record, that I do NOT support the idea of trying to reduce smoking by limiting the places where smokers can smoke. The only reason I have given to place such limitations is if it is necessary to protect people from secondhand smoke."
If that's the case, then you could do us all a huge favor and step up in the defense of PROPERTY RIGHTS.
In Ohio, on December 6, 2006 a sign hanging on the front door of a restaurant or bar that clearly read "NO SMOKING" wouldn't even have been looked at twice by smokers.
They would simply go somewhere that actually wanted their business.
Somewhere that refused to buy into the anti-tobacco propaganda, and actually wants to keep their business open and growing buy catering to ALL potential patrons.
On December 7, 2007, that same sign, now required to be posted EVERYWHERE, and ANYWHERE people work,(specifically Bars and especially restaurants) ...became discrimination.
This eliminated ANY and ALL CHOICE available to smokers.
It penalizes small business owners, and it creates an atmosphere where those owners are now REQUIRED by LAW to cater to only a portion of their customer base at the expense, discomfort and alienation of the balance of those customers.
If I place a sign on the door now that reads "SMOKERS ONLY", ...it's discrimination against the MAJORITY!
PUHLLEEEEEEZE.
Eliminating the choice from smokers is harassment. Forcing business owners to restrict the growth and well-being of their business is harassment, and an obvious full frontal assault on their property rights.
Constitutionally protected Property Rights continue to be eroded "in the interest of public health" as a direct result of the insanity, and paranoia induced by the SHS rhetoric.
How do you defend that Doc?
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Why punish the business owner, and the patrons that actually WANT TO BE THERE specifically because smoking IS ALLOWED, ..possibly even encouraged.
TC wants it both ways, always, and clearly so do you.
Tobacco is not the problem Doc.
Tobacco Control is the problem.
OK, off topic, sue me....
OMG, Censorship is now on the fast track? Just found this over at FORCES:
July 24 [08:00 GMT] � British schools cut Churchill from curriculum - It has finally happened: Orwell is fully in force now.
http://www.americanthinker.com/
b..._churchill.html
OK, not quite censorship, but since when did learning about current issues such as global warming and genetically modified foods become part of the history curriculum?
Okay, I feel like I've missed most of the fireworks--but, hey, I'm baaaaack. Missed y'all!! 
Lynda--If i'm reading this correctly, the Doc says that he never advocated using smoking bans to cut smoking rates. However, he does believe that this legislation will cut smoking rates and he is in favor of the legislation. (Not to put words into someone else's mouth. just from what i'm reading.)
Sunz--You're a STAR! (LOL, as I wrote that, I liked the way it came out. Sunz. Star. Appropriate.) Thank you so much for posting my thoughts on the matter for me when my computer was misbehaving. Normally, when that happens, I blame my cats. However, today, I wish to blame my husband. *grin* On that note...
I am probably dissenting from the masses here. I am in favor of this legislation. (Doc, quit smiling. You'll get bugs in your teeth and I know you won't like my reasoning.)
First If the British ban had been partial and taken place in good weather, there would be minimal fuss about it now. Similarly, this legislation cuts to the chase. It's time for rAntis to fish or cut bait--either they want to banish tobacco smoke or they don't. The Doc has told us--and repeated just recently--that his motivation is for health not harassment; yet, the people who are involuntary passive smokers have been left undefended because we don't want government intrusion? (I'm picking on the Doc here because he's convenient--but we all know that there are others who've been giving the same rationale.) So, make up your mind. Either ETS is a health hazard or it isn't. If yes, then move to eradicate the sale of tobacco because that's the ONLY way to do it. However, those of us who are NOT cranks in denial also know that the big engines of TC and the antismoking guns won't do it because they'll derail their gravy train. If I'm wrong, then TC is on the up-and-up and tobacco will be history; if I'm right, then TC will shows its true colors and the jig is up.
Second The thing that I *love* about this legislation is that it--or part of it--is based on the FACT that MSA money has never had anything to do with smoking, other than to harrass, demonize, denormalize, dehumanize and generally irritate the bejeepers outta people who smoke--all to bolster the stockholders of drug comapnies, like RWJF. Any politician who endorses this legislation is admitting to the...what is it? fraud?...of the MSA. MSA money hasn't been put toward the medical treatment of people who smoke--especially now, when people who smoke know that they don't get medical treatment. At *best* all that people who smoke have gotten from tobacco extortion...erm, taxes and MSA money is abuse in society and addiction to ineffective NRT products given to them by the state. If politicians had truly believed that MSA money was neccessary to compensate for medical expenses of people who smoke, then that's where the monies would have gone and not toward filling their budget holes or funding their pet projects.
Third (minor) Taking nicotine out of tobacco will only make cigarettes more dangerous because nicotine has some very nice, helpful properties--even if it is addictive. (I read the most interesting history of niacin the other day, too...hmmmm... And that's on top of the well-known stuff and a previous blog on low nic vs. no nic.) But, okay, let's take the addictive stimulant out of tobacco and see how that flies. This is a minor point because I believe it is dangerous--like putting sick pictures on tobacco products--but it needs to be done and play out.
I want nothing more than to see this legislation ALL OVER the place. The only thing I would do is make it even stronger on the part about getting tobacco companies to deplete their customer base. I'd like to see this legislation say that we're phasing out tobacco immediately--and see how TC and the like respond.
Andrew--Thank you for your response to my earlier post. Point well-taken. People who smoke might have lower esteem becasue they are are vilified by the antismoking propaganda. As for the challengingdogma...wanna guess where I got that? On the blog page, right under the pink bit describing the Doc, click "View My Profile" and then look down the page to the last "Challenging Dogma" (click), go down the righthand side to "Smoking". Thar it be. That's the reason that I wasn't so sure of expressing ideas here when I first started commenting.
Admittedly, I only just got my browser to call this page without an error, and I haven't read everything yet. Just wanted to check in. My apologies if my views conflict with others. I see this as a way to...well, tinkle or get off the pot.
My last comments were actually *snort* in reference to a previous blog that I couldn't reach in time. I've just read this one and have some comments. (I want to go through the remainder of the comments from everyone a little later, though.)
...strengthen warning labels on cigarette packages...and give the FDA authority to eliminate nicotine from cigarettes if the demand reaches a low enough level so that this becomes practical.
My only two problems with this. (1) Go ahead and strengthen warning labels if you must, but keep the obscene pics to yourself. Don't even try to pretend that past pictorial propaganda hasn't been faked. (2) Reducing nicotine in tobacco is dangerous. However, given the clause "if the demand reaches a low enough level so that this becomes practical," I personally think it's okay. I don't really belieb that smoking rates will ever reach such a low level--but, if rates do fall that much, then I want you to take personal responsibility for the last ten people who smoke in the US trying to smoke nicotine-less cigartettes.
In contrast, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, over the past few years, has basically...
Please don't say "basically." The term is overused and makes you sound like an illiterate buffoon who is too lazy to use a thesaurus. Later, you say, "Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids essentially signed off..." So, you'll need an alternative that is NOT "essentially." You use "basically" and "essentially" too often. Try "effectively" or, in this case, "unethically." Find an interesting and appropriate adjective, please. (I use "actually" too often. It happens.)
... leaders in the movement over the past two or more decades.
There have been leaders for two or more decades? Prior to...let's see, 2007 minus 20 is 1987..*squints eyes, bites lip*...are these leaders Californians? You don't mean that Glantz quack, do you? No, wait, a quack would have to be an incompetent doctor doctor; Stanton is a PhD doctor. Sooo....too screwed up. Names. I want names. Who's been behind this hysteria from the start? The same sweethearts who banned plastic bags in San Fransisco?
Now that Senator Enzi's proposal is on the table, the FDA legislation is just not going to look so appealing any more to much of the tobacco control community.
I disagree--and that is the reason that I want the new legislation on the table. I say, it's the new legislation or nothing. Force the real issues into the open--one way or another.
Coming back to science:
Excerpt from:
LUNCH DEBATE IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE FCTC
http://
www.smokefreepartnership....meeting_new.pdf
Page 6, Amendment 5, Recital E.
whereas exposure to tobacco smoke in general or in the workplace is proven to increase the risk of lung cancer and employees of catering establishments in which smoking is permitted are, for instance, 50% more likely to develop lung cancer than employees not exposed to tobacco smoke... .
Dr. Siegel, can you see how they twist your own "science" in the way the need it?
And you still believe Enzi's proposal will rid us of all those liars? May honesty come upon us ....
From the same LUNCH DEBATE document
http://
www.smokefreepartnership....meeting_new.pdf
11a. Considers that those participating in the polemic email action by the "Netzwerk Rauchen Forces Germany" against the Green Paper "Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke" have failed to understand that the freedom of smokers ends where it infringes on the freedom or health of others;
They certainly meant to add: ... and freedom of smokers starts at the entrance of private properties.
Note: "Netzwerk Rauchen" (Smoker's Network) IS FORCES Germany.
And more from the same LUNCH DEBATE document, considering prohibition:
http://
www.smokefreepartnership....meeting_new.pdf
11b. Calls on its President to clarify whether he considers EU-wide prohibitions of smoking to be a "dictatorship of education", as being quoted in an interview with the Berliner
Tagesspiegel of 18 March 2007;
The short answer is: YES
And talking about coercion (from the same document as per above link):
... so as to include a renewed library of larger, hard hitting picture warnings mandatory on all tobacco products sold in the European Union, and for such warnings to appear on both sides of the tobacco packs. All warnings should also include clear contact details to help smokers quit such as a relevant freephone number or website.
Justification
Bigger, hard hitting picture warnings, together with stop smoking information an all packs is necessary to ensure there is also an emphasis on helping smokers to quit.
That's what they "helping": hit them on the head until they go down on their knees and beg for help.
rrgabe23 states:
Maybe the next Kennedy will emerge.
that would be Mike Enzi (R), Wyoming.
hard hitting picture warnings mandatory on all tobacco products sold in the European Union, and for such warnings to appear on both sides of the tobacco packs.
Brilliant. What makes them think we actually LOOK at the packs to start with? Better yet, what makes them think we are too stupid to cover them up if we don't care to see their 'art'?
Your compatriarts are truly delusional Doc, not to mention insulting in how they consistently think smokers are total idiots.
And Doc, I'm sorry, but the fact that you think you have a right to coerce anyone into conforming to your belief and living according to your standards puts you in the same boat with them.
You cannot pick and choose what freedoms you will allow and which ones you won't. We are either free or we're not. Personally, I like the free country I was born into. I can't stand what you and yours are trying to turn it into.
Just noticed this site
Tobacco Farm Quarterly -- interesting stuff there
http://www.tobaccofarmquarterly....ews%20archives/
rrgabe23: Maybe the next Kennedy will emerge.
brandz: that would be Mike Enzi (R), Wyoming.
Earlier today, somebody reminded me of some business in Wyoming. I recalled a link, supplied by Sunz some time ago, about a little girl in Wyoming who couldn't "let ig go" and realize that they just didn't want her rAnti business. See "Smoke signals Group vows to continue fight for smoking ban" at http://www.freerepublic.com/focu...s/1845243/
posts (I seem to be a Sunz fan today.)
Hi, GDF. BTW, aside from the obscene amounts of our--I mean, the tobacco companies'--money flowing into rAntis' coffers, the second article says, "North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture Steve Troxler said in the April issue of Carolina-Virginia Farmer that fewer growers will be involved in tobacco production in the coming years." Have you heard of the tobacco farm buyouts? Hmmm...strange business. I looked into it and have a few links. Frankly, it's just...a strange business and I'm not sure what to make of it yet. In the end, we might just be growing our own. How are your seeds doing?
Hey DTB!
Yup - those amounts of $$$ (in the first article) are sickening. I got my seeds a little too late for spring - so I'm waiting for next year - though I may play with them a bit when I get some time. They're *tiny* little buggers.
They're *tiny* little buggers.
ROFL!!
I like to grow things. I had an herb garden in Wisconsin to die for. And I grew monster aloe plants in Illinois. FL is tough, but I'm growing things outdoors. I have apple trees, a pear tree, berries... I lost my orange tree and lemon trees--but the one of the lemons did bear *beautiful* fruit! We had a fabulous plum, but our neighbor cut it down! (Why do people do that? She also cut down a big apple tree.) I haven't tried my hand at tobacco but I'm wimpy about tobacco. However, I did switch to a slightly stronger cigarette about a month ago--and I am now smoking a pack less per day without trying. (If the Doc throws one of his nic fits over this, I'll...I dunno, I'll do something.) Anyway, I also have some filters--separate, they filter large particles and I'm paranoid about fibery filters. Those separate filters look like those elegant cigarette holders that people used to use, too. So, I'm working my way up to real tobacco--minus the tobacco sheets and fibery filters. I'll try my hand at growing and curing my own, but I don't hold much hope here in FL; if tobacco grew on trees, I might have more luck here.
Everything everybody's said about this--
I agree that coercion should not be used..... But I see nothing wrong with educating people... encourag[ing] young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit.... such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it.
and it's lucky I wasn't drinking coffee when I read it or you'd owe me a new Mac.
So what're you-- Dr. Pangloss? IF an ad just tries ... Uh-huh. In what (best of all possible) world would that be? Given the history of your movement (and the history of its ads, not to mention its feverishly lying propaganda) on what do you base that improbable IF? And why, when demeaning, ostricizing, lying, firing, evicting, taxing, banning from everywhere, denying child custody, and generally promoting hatred, fear, indignity and contempt have been working so well, why would you assume-- short of lunacy, fatal naivete, or an optimism that verges on blind and gloriously self-righteous perversity-- that anything would change-- instead of, in fact, getting much worse?
How else to attain the "goal" of only 2% smokers?
2% smokers? You haven't even reached that goal with horse and crack, let alone with maryjane.
Further, the clearly stated purpose of this bill is outright coercion. We will FORCE people to quit by making it outrageously and unconscionably expensive. We will FORCE people to quit by making cigarettes unpalatable.
And you call this "education"??
Well, okay. In a way, I guess it is. The lesson is conform or the state will make you one sorry, broke SOB.
:
Of your comments, Dr. Siegel, Eric Blair and Walt took them the most head on. Now I will add.
I don't really understand the argument that the nation's public health agencies should not be trying to reduce smoking rates. I think we all would agree that our nation's public health agencies should be trying to reduce bird flu rates, pneumonia rates, diabetes rates, and West Nile virus rates? Why should they not also try to reduce lung cancer rates, heart disease rates, stroke rates, and COPD rates? Especially since these cause more deaths than all of the others combined.
If public health agencies are not intended to try to prevent disease or lower disease rates, then I don't really understand the point of having them in the first place. So I think trying to reduce heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, and COPD by lowering smoking rates is a valid and appropriate role for public health agencies (and in fact, I view it as their responsibility).
This is pure blindness, Dr. Siegel. You don't see because you refuse to see. It's been explained to you numerous times.
The former (less the diabetes) is involuntary. Unasked for. Not sought. That if infected CAUSES illness. Immediately. That can pass from person to person if not stopped, cured, or innoculated against and that could wipe out populations of people. Think the flu pandemic circa 1920. THAT's the job of Public Health.
The latter are CHOICES we make that affect NO ONE but the person making the choice. It's about MY body. PRIVATE, not public. Those choices MIGHT lead to unhealthy results. My business to deal with in the beginning, middle and end, not yours past issuing advisories and warnings. It is NOT the job of Public Health to coerce individuals IN ANY MANNER (you seem to pick and choose which is acceptable (taxation) and which is not (outdoor bans)) into living life the way you say it should be lived by revoking those choices through such a thing as a tax.
And I'm not just talking about tobacco use (though as others point out, it's taken on (actually given) a life of its own compared to all else). I mean about food, seat belt and helmet use,
ANY coercive measure -- that means the use of any measure aimed at restricting CHOICE -- is NOT ROLE of public health. More maddening -- and where I too would have spit something -- it is cerrrrrtainly NOT your responsibility.
It's sooooooo very simple, Dr. Siegel. Public Health is contagious diseases, researching cures, and yes, making determinations about what will or might lead to poor health and then WARNING the public. I think that's "the point of having them in the first place." It's a big enough job, Dr. Siegel. Or is it ego? Not satisfying enough to say we warned you? Now you have to control me too? We're back to my body now belonging to the state. You're living in the wrong country for that to fly with us.
I agree that coercion should not be used in the sense of telling people that they cannot choose to smoke. But I see nothing wrong with educating people and sending out messages to try to encourage young people not to smoke, or encouraging adult smokers to try to cut down or quit. I completely agree that such messages should not demean smokers or attempt to socially ostracize them, but if the ad just tries to discourage smoking without doing these things, I don't see what is wrong with it.
How on earth do you get to this after what came before????? You are entirely mixed up. You circle yourself. You want to tax (coerce) to reduce smoking. You want a legal industry to impose your cap on the number of customers (your true target) they can have and then you ask what's wrong with "educating" people with ads???
I believe we're all in agreement that you can advertise to your heart's content (sans anything villifying smokers)!!
It boggles the mind that you can champion the new FDA bill version and somehow equate that in your mind to "educational ads" and "not coercive." It even seems like you have two brains working at once, neither the two shall meet.
Lastly, it occured to me what real evil is taking place here. This is the first industry to be nationalized. No different/better than Chavez taking over the oil industry. State run oil. State run tobacco. No more private ownership. That's stealing "for our own good." Marxism in America. Mark the dates on calendars folks. BT the first to fall to Big Anti-Smoking Marxist takeover.
Dr. Siegel, I truly believe that you suffer -- dare I say, like Bell -- from the failure to fully (she doesn't get it at all) grasp the core value differences. That's where your problem probably lies. If you would just finally catch on to our country's (and all free loving countries) fundamental principle of the "right to be left alone" and that it cannot live side by side with your bleeding-heart dogoodieness the haze you think WE'RE in might be lifted from YOUR eyes.
From the Senators page:
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/in...n_id=&
Issue_id=
~snip~
"“Cap-and-trade programs have a proven track record in the environmental arena, particularly in addressing acid rain. My tobacco plan is based on the successful program in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This system achieved the desired results faster and at lower cost than had been anticipated. The same can be done for tobacco,” Enzi said."
~snip~
"Making the power of the market work to achieve our policy goals just makes sense"
The power of the market that you have manipulated sir. This is from a "conservative republican"!!!
Cap & trade - the People's Republic of China comes to mind:
Limit the number of births per family, especially of girls.
Proven effective measures in who's opinion?
Can I pour you another glass of bleach to wash down that rat bait your having for breakfast?
How many people have quit smoking because of the pictures on the package? Can you name one or demonstrate any research?
How many children did not start smoking in fear of the pictures? any research out there?
The pictures on the rat bait and the bleach consist of a skull and crossbones and they are very effective in dissuading people from ingesting them.
Why do they not put the same skull and crossbones on a cigarette package? the answer lies in the immediate toxicity of the product and if they did so it would lessen the message on the other products because some would, by comparison believe if this is the same as cigarettes it isn't really that immediately dangerous.
The truth is we believe by estimation smoking could cause harm if used for 20 or thirty years, but only some of it's users will be affected? In actual fact less than half will die from diseases which are associated to smoking. In the new health scare science no one can say how many they smoked, or if they quit if it helped in comparison to if they continued to smoke until death simply that they smoked so smoke cause death. We really can't say alternately if that effect would have been seen irregardless of smoking because no one has evaluated the true effect beyond the information created for political statements.
The effects of casual exposures to other people's smoke which a primary smoker also is exposed to in larger amounts is though now to be more dangerous than smoking with absolutely no evaluations to even asses that danger. The damage is already done according to the stats and public statements smokers may as well continue to enjoy their "habit" because the irreversable damage is already done. Helping smokers to quit should be replaced with allowing them a comfortable place to waste away until the day smoking finally kills them, perhaps a place sheltered from the elements might be beneficial and a cool beer couldn't hurt. WUnfortunately some may mistake such a place for a bar which allows smoking so we can't discuss that.
Similarly no known safe level of ETS is known not because we could not find any acceptable level of risk but because no one has calculated one, beyond what stands in place of wisdom in political prose.
We all know if smoking were eliminated those diseases would still have a considerable presence in mortality rates.
To say half of smokers die only because they smoke is known to be a lie yet the experts keep repeating it.
To say cigarettes are the most dangerous product on the market is another lie yet the experts keep repeating it.
To say there is no way to make cigarettes safer is a lie yet the experts keep repeating it
To say casual exposure to tobacco smoke as in "no known safe level" is deadly is a lie yet the experts keep repeating it.
We could go on all day with lies repeated by the experts who are much more skilled at parroting lies than any claim to expertise in other areas.
So who is left we can trust to provide reliable information?
I certainly can not take the word of a liar to make informed decisions so what do we have left?
Two political fronts in government who are so engrossed profiting from the control Health scare provides. Both are determined to harness that control as partisan and provide the delusion public health is supported only in their camp. There really is no one left to speak for or to the people who can be trusted.
How long can a nation survive under the current circumstances? only the statisticians can say, although we can't get a straight answer out of them either so your guess is as good as mine.
"The alternative to granting the FDA jurisdiction over tobacco products is not the status quo, as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and its partners have been suggesting. 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."
"I understand that many smokers feel harassed by smoking bans, but my intent has nothing to do with harrassing anyone ..."
That's right, doc, onerous tobacco taxes that affect 25 percent of the population -- including in large measure the poor -- aren't merely harrassing: they're simple theft. What the hell is your definition of 'harrassing,' then, when it doesn't include confiscatory taxes to harrass smokers into quitting?
What you and your ilk do is sneak down into the ghettos by stealth and mug the smoking poor. Not that it bothers you or that the end justifies the means, however.
Con-gress (kon'gras), n
The only whore house in America that loses money.
Doc, I've always wanted to ask you.
Do you ever voluntairly expose yourself to shs? - Do you have freinds or relatives who smoke, do you ever go visit them in their homes or socialize with them otherwise, while they are smoking?
I noticed a long time ago, you disclosed in one of your published papers that you are an exsmoker of more than 100 cigarettes in your life.( can't remember where) Do I remmeber that correctly, are you an exsmoker? Dave K
Commenting by HaloScan
