This is pretty interesting. I'm sorry, I cannot really add more. I just wonder how the anti-smoking organizations that receive money from drug companies will spin it or deny it.
Michael; Thanks, I totally agree with the assessments of the study, as entirely consistent with personal experience and all which we refer to as common sense.
I would also like to thank you for the honesty, in disclosing the conflicts, which should have been absolutely transparent from the outset. An obvious failure to respect those who will be affected by the decisions made, in a lack of integrity which can never be helpful regardless of the approach taken.
I had to smile when reading the reaction to the heavily conflicted views motivating the ACS;
" Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends and director of international tobacco programs at the American Cancer Society in Washington, D.C., said the research is intriguing.
"What this study does is certainly require us to take a step back and look at different decision-making styles that people have," he said. But without further study bearing out these results, the cancer society would not consider revisiting its smoking cessation advice. "We certainly wouldn't want to do it on the basis of one study, particularly one that's based on retrospective data,"
In plain English he prefers the views of prophesy to observed time line observations???
"In Massachusetts, no bartenders are going to die from secondhand smoke exposure because smoking has been banned in bars." Dr. Siegel
Smoking is returning to bars in states with bans all across the country. Smoking will probably soon return to Massachusetts bars too.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/
0527...montefinise.htm
http://www.topix.net/city/honolu...h-smoking-ban-
8
http://www.topix.net/content/
cbs...181251104156326
http://www.philly.com/philly/
col...obacco_ban.html
http://www.gazette.com/onset?
id=...te=article.html
To borrow a term from Dr. Siegel:
"Two comments for the price of one."
One on topic, one off topic.
1. Doc, your left wing social engineering colleagues operate under the assumption that "smokers" are just "addicts" and "victims" of an evil corporation. (I hope Philip Morris goes broke while Native Americans get rich) They have no ability to think for themselves and are in need of Gubmint intervention and help from Big Pharma.
Yet we all know people...friends, family members, neighbors...who quit smoking years ago without help from A. Government coercion or B. Nicotine replacement therapy.
That's not good enough for your "friends" in Tobacco CONTROL. They want to put the turkey in the microvave and then put it on the barbeque grill in order to cook it. Of course, it just won't taste right.
2. In response to some of Bill Godshalls posts, I (and I'm sure others) have gotten to the point where I really feel sorry for him.
What a miserable existence it must be to spend your life pre-occupied with the idea that somewhere, somebody is drinking beer, smoking a cigarette, eating fried cheese curds and having a good time... And trying to figure out a way to put an end to it using lies and politicians.
Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy."
H.L.Mencken
Agree with Harley here, the spin should be funny to watch. And in Kevins post ACS is already calling for other studies (more grant money). That way they will be able to cherry pick and create a whole new road for TC to go down.
.
This is exactly how my father, a three pack a day smoker, quit. While driving he had a cough attack which caused him to rear end another car (no injuries). He tossed his cigarettes and never smoked again. This was when he was in his 40s. He is still alive and kicking at 75.
The reason why quitting cold turkey works successfully is that the people doing it have chosen for themselves. THEY have decided that they no longer wish to smoke. They are quitting for NO other reason.
When we choose to do something strictly out of our own personal desire to do so, no outside pressures, we will always succeed.
People resent being pushed into something they really don't want to do............regardless of what they say.
They cannot, and will not, succeed until they, and ONLY they, are truly ready to make that change.
Bill H.
You made my day, sir! 
Bill Hannegan---" Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere is happy."
H.L.Mencken'
And a happiness they have no control over or have in anyway created. That thought must just drive the control freaks crazy!! LOL
above was me.
I do agree that this type of "cold turkey quitting" is probably quite effective.
Bit "quitting on your own" is misleading. It occurs within a social context that communicates clearly the dangers of smoking, thus setting up the "sentinel event" to occur.
"It occurs within a social context that communicates clearly the dangers of smoking, thus setting up the "sentinel event" to occur.'
hrj01---do you see a marketing oppurtunity here? How would you go about orchestrating the 'sentinel events' to your best advantage.
.
"We certainly wouldn't want to do it on the basis of one study, particularly one that's based on retrospective data," he added.
Ummmm,...excuse me?
RETROSPECTIVE DATA!, - ONE REPORT!?
The results of more than 150 Environmental Tobacco Smoke studies readily available and having been completed between 1980 and 2006,
(retrospective data?) demonstrate that there is ample evidence that the reported and promoted dangers of ETS have been at the very least, greatly exaggerated not only for the benefit of corporate profit, and increased funding for public health organizations, but in an attempt to gain political influence by public and private health advocates in every State and Local government across the United States. The perception of collusion between Non-profit organizations, Public Health agencies, Pharmaceutical companies, and paid professional lobbyist is not to be dismissed. (yet it is routinely ignored specifically by the media)
Only 16% of these studies show an elevated risk of harm from exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
More than 70% show NO RISK at all, while 14% actually reflect a protective quality attributed to exposure.
Such a wide margin in published study results hardly constitutes conclusive evidence of anything.
We are routinely bombarded with the popular sound-bite term. "conclusive studies have shown"
Ummmm,...WHAT!?
So,..it's ok to use "retrospective data" while ignoring current data that's completely contradictory to your pro-ban position?
It's ok to use "retrospective data" that is specifically selected to support your position when pushing for a smoking ban while ignoring or dismissing out of hand, the larger quantity of "retrospective data" that doesn't support your position?
It's ok to use "retrospective data" if it fills the REALITY gap in Anti-tobacco logic?
It's ok if it's used as the basis for Survey questions in which the answers to those questions are then used as the basis for compiling statistical information to support fraudulent claims about smoking, ETS, and the smokers themselves?
The Double Standards used by TC never cease to amaze me.
I think I'm going to invent a new dance, The Tobacco twist'n side step.
It appears that the folks at ACS have conveniently forgotten about the dozens of surveys over the past three decades confirming that the vast majority of exsmokers quit on their own via cold turkey, as well as the GSK funded study that found NRT products have a 93% failure rate.
Does anybody know just how many millions of dollars GSK has given to ACS in exchange for ACS endorsement of (and ACS logo placement on)Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Commit NRT products?
And Bill G, you have somewhere along the line forgotten that this was country was just fine before all of you nannystatists came along and made life better for all of us.
.
http://www.opinions3.com/
doctors..._leading_ca.htm If you want to live a healthier life it appears the US isn't best suited,especially if the medical profession have an input.Let's face it,with all these health busybodies inputting their panacea you would think that something positive would prove to be the end result.Fact is NOTHING IS REALLY IMPROVING ,in Economics there is the law of diminishing returns,in American Public Health it's Tobacco and that deadly spin off called SHS.But just look at how much money is spent on these "specialists" ? Cost effectiveness is a joke,try the local witch doctor and turn the clock backwards.Try 1975 when the need for SHS was desperately needed to promote the agenda of the ranti smoking movement,promoting Dr Siegel into the mainstream when he obliged in the early nineties.
For the record.
Hrj01: Bit "quitting on your own" is misleading. It occurs within a social context that communicates clearly the dangers of smoking, thus setting up the "sentinel event" to occur.
Explain this please. IF I decide I no longer enjoy smoking and choose to quit, I am doing so out of my own personal desire and choice. It has NOTHING to do with any social context, and nothing to do with health. I have known some smokers who just one day, put down the cigarettes as they no longer enjoyed it, and never picked them up again.
People who quit because of some health crisis, may have chosen to quit, but were still forced into making that choice. It’s not the same thing.
People who quit due to social pressures are not quitting of their own free will, and turn out like Bill G………………….why do you think so many former smokers are nasty (check out Bill G’s comments about smokers, not one nice thing to say about us). It’s because they quit for some other reason and not because of any self desire to not smoke anymore. You can always tell the former smoker who quit of his own free will and those who caved in to outside pressure. The first are reasonable and understanding, the latter are all part of the TC movement.
Lynda F. said:
"IF I decide I no longer enjoy smoking and choose to quit, I am doing so out of my own personal desire and choice. It has NOTHING to do with any social context, and nothing to do with health."
Free will is overrated. Kids wear the clothes/sneakers and smoke the cigarettes that are most heavily advertised. I doubt anyone would ever choose to quit smoking had it not been for the 1964 Surgeon Generals report and all the public health and TC work done since.
"We certainly wouldn't want to do it on the basis of one study, particularly one that's based on retrospective data,"
Strange, don't think they ever rejected the Helena study. Or Pueblo or Bowling Green.
But "quitting on your own" is misleading. It occurs within a social context that communicates clearly the dangers of smoking, thus setting up the "sentinel event" to occur.
Well, nobody does anything totally on an island. And there's no evidence that being badgered by overblown fears helps people who want to quit or helps them stay non-smokers.
Given the ineffectiveness of shame therapy and the techniques used by anti-tobacco advocates to (try to) reduce smoking one might argue they have created a social context that communicates the dangers of smoking are unavoidable as smokers probably don't want to quit enough yet, or they have to show the requisite scorn before they "really want to quit."
Interesting info about aversion therapy/shame therapy on reversing homosexuality and how it was apparently successful in 1966, and it is totally unethical now.
I think there are parallels between that and smoking now. If there is something genetically different about smokers that cannot or should not be changed by an outside force, and a "charity"(derived from the Greek word from comfort, incidentally--and increasingly ironically) says these people don't know what they really want, then "piling on" to "help people quit" is dangerous.
Posted while I was typing:
Free will is overrated. Kids wear the clothes/sneakers and smoke the cigarettes that are most heavily advertised. I doubt anyone would ever choose to quit smoking had it not been for the 1964 Surgeon Generals report and all the public health and TC work done since.
WHOAH THERE LITTLE DUDE! That first sentence is a whopper. Are you secretly with the smokers here and just playing ironist?
The 1964 report may have made people more aware of the potential dangers of smoking, but saying NOBODY would have quit before then and the rather intrusive techniques now is plugging gross paternalism.
hrj01, Please direct us to all the advertisements for cigarettes. Do they air before or after the Nike commercials or in between the viagra and lipitor commercials. Am I missing something by channel surfing on Nick at Night or the Disney Channel?
“Non-profit organizations, Public Health agencies, Pharmaceutical companies, and paid professional lobbyist is not to be dismissed.”……..LB, above
Good points LB!!
………………………..
IMO:
Its all one big pot of soup. The soup doesn’t get sweater -Bill- just because it gets stirred a bit. Your all in the same pot. Yet, some of you believe you can jump out at will. Kind of like PM.
Strange how this so called “movement” can mobilize an army to pass smoking bans, but can only muster up a few people (if that) to combat the rest of the corruption which comes the with bans and so forth.
Free will is overrated. Kids wear the clothes/sneakers and smoke the cigarettes that are most heavily advertised.
Just because you are incapable of free thought of your own, doesn’t mean everyone is. I did not start smoking because of advertising. I don’t wear clothes and shoes because of advertising. I wear what I like and what I find comfortable and rarely will you find me dressing “in fashion”.
I doubt anyone would ever choose to quit smoking had it not been for the 1964 Surgeon Generals report and all the public health and TC work done since.
OH? Really? Guess NO ONE EVER quit smoking before 1964 then eh? I do know people who quit, and their reason for quitting was not because of any report or movement……or any other “social program”…….it was simply they no longer enjoyed or liked the cigarettes. So strong was their own personal desire, that they could quit and leave that open pack of cigarettes lying out in the open and not think about it.
Unfortunately, people like you, who don’t like thinking for themselves, wouldn’t understand that there are people who are not only capable of free thought, BUT able to make decisions for themselve’s as well. Hell, some of us actually know ourselves well enough to know what we really like and dislike, we don’t need anyone else to tell us. And we have the nerve to do that in every area of our life too.
Them damn lazy smokers:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/w...kers/
index.html
"Study: Smokers have poorer-than-average work performance and productivity
Smokers also tend to call in sick more
Employers have a legal right to restrict smoking in the workplace
Employers who hire smokers bear indirect costs, including productivity losses"
Whats more banning smoking on and off the job has an immediate effect on employee health as shown by the Helena study.
"Prohibiting smoking in the workplace can have an immediate and dramatic impact on the health of workers and patrons. A study conducted in Helena, Montana, found that the number of heart attacks fell by 40 percent during a six-month period in 2002 when the city's comprehensive smoke-free air law was in effect."
hrj01,
Free will is overrated? How do you defend this? Free will gets you out of bed in the morning, decides if you are cooking in or going out for a meal, cleaning the house or mowing the lawn and the list goes on. Time and time again, people have said that cold turkey is the way to go IF you want to quit. I use to enjoy a cold beer on a Saturday night, if it was hot outside, I could enjoy 6 cold beers. I drank beer for lots of years, but finally got to the age where I decided that as much as I liked that refreshing glass of beer, I didn't much care for the headache the next morning. That was 5 years ago and I have only had 1 beer since. I found that it didn't taste as good as I thought it would. When the day comes when I decide to stop smoking, my free will will lay that pack down. No amount of coerician will make me do it sooner. That is called freewill to say to you to get out of my life. Yes, my life!
Another example of free will for me was just in just the last couple of months. Our house is less than 3 years old, but the hot Texas sun was drying up the paint on the house. My Dad always said that you should never pay someone to do what you yourself can do for free, so I, an almost 57 year old, slightly over weight lady with and arthritic knee (thanks to a Doctor's screwup during surgery) painted my own house. Yep, bum knee and all, in the hot Texas sun, I painted my house. A determined decision I made and a job I did quite well. That is called free will.
Bill,
The amounts of money given to ACS and others is hidden from us who either supports a charity so to be dictated to. Please enlighten us to how much big pharma pays them. I can remember when you could only get Nicoderm patches from a Doctor's prescription, then they were offered over the counter but kept under lock and key, and now they are out on the shelves. I am sure that many people have tried them only to see that they don't work, but in the meantime it is chi-ching for the pharmacuticals.
Lightning Boy and Bill G.-
I agree with both of you. It is not just ONE study that demonstrates this point, it is a large number of studies. So by claiming that they don't want to draw a conclusion from one study, the ACS is either being disingenous, not aware of the other studies, or somehow blinded for some reason. But they are not alone: the whole tobacco control movement seems to be blinded by something.
Could it be...
...oh, I don't know...
...the large amount of money coming in from pharmaceutical companies?
Excellent article Dan.With such propaganda emanating from the American Lung Ass. and such an excellent study of Swedish workers we've no arguements to counter this article.Presumably only smokers use computers thus necessitating a break from the workstation under Health and Safety regulations.I wonder if they included snus users who presumably leave their place of work to evacuate the contents of their mouths or do they just spit it out around them ?I wonder who funded this jerk to undertake this study ? It rather contradicts several studies which suggest the opposite to be true.Perhaps these studies were undertaken under a different set of scientific principles ? Integrity and professionalism no longer apply to ANY scientific study,People will just continue to believe whatever they want to,and that includes the medical profession as well ,who interpret the results to further their own agenda.
Dan,
I no longer work outside of the home, but I think it is time any of you who are at a desk or on any kind of job, should conduct your own study on loss productivity and then get them published. I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open and jot down every time a fellow employee makes a personnal phone call, reads the paper, does google searches, chit chats with another employee and so on. Add up the minutes and compare it to how many minutes you are actually outside smoking and publish it after showing it to your boss. No names are needed as there is no reason to turn anyone in for lossing money for their company.
Doc said; "But they are not alone: the whole tobacco control movement seems to be blinded by something.
Could it be...
...oh, I don't know...
...the large amount of money coming in from pharmaceutical companies?"
You mean, ...it's not because it's for my own good?
What about the poor little children!
OOHHHH NOOOO!
You mean there really is NO SUCH THING as a Level Playing Field?
OMG!!,...what about worker safety!!?
I'm so distressed now,... I think this could be a trigger event....... that makes me smoke even more.
Diane inquired:
"Bill,
The amounts of money given to ACS and others is hidden from us who either supports a charity so to be dictated to. Please enlighten us to how much big pharma pays them. I can remember when you could only get Nicoderm patches from a Doctor's prescription, then they were offered over the counter but kept under lock and key, and now they are out on the shelves. I am sure that many people have tried them only to see that they don't work, but in the meantime it is chi-ching for the pharmacuticals."
I was one of the folks who encouraged the FDA to approve nicotine products for over-the-counter sale more than a decade ago because obtaining a prescription made them far less accessable for smokers.
Some retailers keep the products locked up to prevent thefts, while those located on the shelves tend to be behind the counter accessable only to the retail clerks. While clean nicotine products may not be very effective for smoking cessation or for nicotine maintenance, they are far farless hazardous nicotine delivery devices than cigarettes.
If I knew how much GSK has given to ACS of its nicotine product endorsements (as well as ACS' recommendation to smokers to quit smoking with those products), I would have exposed the amount (but I suspect at least $50 million has been given to ACS by GSK for its nicotine product endorsements).
And of course, the ACS has never acknowledge this financial conflict of interest in any research articles it authors or publishes on smoking cessation, which is a violation of scientific ethical standards.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
I agree with both of you. It is not just ONE study that demonstrates this point, it is a large number of studies. So by claiming that they don't want to draw a conclusion from one study, the ACS is either being disingenous, not aware of the other studies, or somehow blinded for some reason. But they are not alone: the whole tobacco control movement seems to be blinded by something.
Are we to believe that the American Cancer Society and other groups are willfully ignoring a set of studies? That sounds like a conspiracy to me...
Read the comments section of the previous installment to see what I mean.
"Free will is overrated. Kids wear the clothes/sneakers and smoke the cigarettes that are most heavily advertised. I doubt anyone would ever choose to quit smoking had it not been for the 1964 Surgeon Generals report and all the public health and TC work done since. "
The "work" is what is vastly over rated the fact so many kids started smoking is much more associated with weighing the source and placing little value in the information provided than with any other factor.
The more outlandish the "New Research" and the more ignorant TC becomes, only sets the plate for increased smoking rates we are already seeing among the kids. Blame the advertising we haven't seen since well before the kids starting today were born, or show some integrity and take responsibility for the "Work" The trend of lowering Percentage of population is reversing and increasing for the first time in 50 years.
That is the power of promoting ideology above real science; forward going strategies with backward going progress.
"Free will is overrated."
W W !!!! That is one big statement.
Have you gotten a memo from the Almighty/Universe or any other planet that has informed you of such?
We'd all love to see a copy of that memo.
.
Bill: While clean nicotine products may not be very effective for smoking cessation or for nicotine maintenance
Then you admit they are a waste of money and the claims are bogus? How nice of you. It’s still the smoke I am after, so even IF it were effective……………it’s useless.
And of course, the ACS has never acknowledge this financial conflict of interest in any research articles it authors or publishes on smoking cessation, which is a violation of scientific ethical standards.
And I don’t see you or the Doc out there screaming demands for disclosure either. There’s that double standard again. ACS hides is funding sources and you accept it quietly because they happen to be pushing your agenda, but don’t let anyone else do it who happens to disagree with you.
Hypocrite.
Actually, kids aren't wearing the most highly advertised, yadda yadda, due to "free will"....it's society's insistence on conforming with a group. As a parent, I've seen so much of this, it's sickening. And the guilty parties are the PARENTS, not the tv.
Any instance of REAL parenting I've seen has led to children exercising free will and not caving to their peers' bullying in what they wear or what activities they undertake. However, all the children wearing the same thing have one thing in common, PARENTS caving to advertisements. One little girl's (and it's always a little girl) momma bought her THE MOST EXPENSIVE, and all the other little girls' mommas gotta compete with THAT mom. It makes up the whole suburban mom phenomena. Other children will see those clothes and think the other kids will accept them because of the clothes, so then THEY want to do wear those clothes too. The "nerds" feel that if they wear the right clothes the kids will like them (personal experiment--no they won't). Again, not advertisements, bullying. However, as I've already noted, changing clothes does nothing but make them find something else to pick on you about. So, apparently, only parents are suckers for ads, not kids. My kids don't wear those clothes, probably because I teach them more important things and involve myself with them, and I don't watch tv. THEY watch tv, more than I by a long shot. I never seem to hear any yelling and screaming for McDonald's and toys, except for a brief period between 2 and 3(ages, not the hour between 2 and 3 LOL). Probably when I crack down and say "NO"...again, seems ads aren't the problem..Parents are.
You're problem with free will is your own, hj. If you have a problem making your own decisions, I hear there are women that love to diaper grown folks and play mommy, you should hire yourself one. Meanwhile, I'll hang onto my free will tooth and nail. It's what separates ME from the animals.
Bill G "I was one of the folks who encouraged the FDA to approve nicotine products for over-the-counter sale more than a decade ago because obtaining a prescription made them far less accessable for smokers'
And Bill G how were you compensated while encouraging the FDA? Or is that another of your vast-nanny statist volunteer activities?
.
.
Eric Blair: What a miserable existence it must be to spend your life pre-occupied with the idea that somewhere, somebody is drinking beer, smoking a cigarette, eating fried cheese curds and having a good time... And trying to figure out a way to put an end to it using lies and politicians.
You have made my day Eric. Exactly my thinking.
Once again we see evidence that nicotine really is not very (at all?) addictive because if it were, NRT would have a high success rate for those wishing to quit.
I remember in the 1980s, economicsts used to say the 2 most profitable industries were pharma and tobacco.
The whole NRT debaucle is just big pharma trying to steal big tobacco's profits. and this is based on the faulty, but desirable asumption pitched by big pharma that nicotine is addictive, and the substance craved by smokers.
First, nicotine does not have a chemical structure like substances which really are addictive, second, smokers do not act like addicts when derived of smoking for long periods of time...they can continue to function. even heavy coffee drinkers suffer more when derived than smokers. There is no known case of a smoker going into convulsions when denied smoking fro long periods of time. The same is not true of shopping, gambling, or other activities where no substance all is being ingested, but where convulsions ahve occurred.
Some other evidence has recently been discovered which further extinguishes the claim nicotine is addictive. smokers who suffer a stroke in the insula region of the brain immediately lose the desire to smoke
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
co...ourcetype=HWCIT
But the insula is not the addiction center of the brain, it is the enjoyment center. Strokes in the insula are also associated with loss of the ability to enjoy music, for example. I have often hoped that Dr. Siegel would blog this.
So, let's face it, no one really knows why smokers like to smoke, and therfore should not all smokers addicts or treat them as such.
Dave K
Dave, it's amazing the type of thing people will claim when they don't understand it. My husband and I have this conversation very often (he's non-smoker, I smoke). He claims that it's addiction to nicotine and the nicotine delivery system that makes me value my smoking so much. I say it's not. My proof, being from a redneck area of the country, we know several people who quit smoking and went to dipping instead. So I called them all up and asked them, do you still want a cigarette? Every one of them said yes. I said, why? You're getting your nicotine from the dip. They don't know either, all they can say is it's "not the same". I turned to look at my husband, knowing I just won. I even told the friends what was going on, every one of them agree, he can't possibly understand, he's never smoked.
Bill G. - "While clean nicotine products may not be very effective for smoking cessation or for nicotine maintenance, they are far farless hazardous nicotine delivery devices than cigarettes."
You guys keep missing the point, or ignoring it. I'm still not sure which.
It's about the SMOKE and all that it entails. The TC preoccupation with nicotine continues to miss the mark.
Provide me with one of those "safe cigarettes" that TC likes to tout as being created in the near future, and I'll certainly give it a try, particularly if it's LESS EXPENSIVE. But if the taste isn't there, if the aroma (that's right AROMA) isn't there, if the quiet, calming physical mechanisms involved in lighting, drawing, exhaling, holding, and personal contemplation involved in the whole experience of smoking isn't there, ...I'll liklely revert to the Marlboro faster than you can blow out the match to light that "safe" cigarette.
If I could roll nicotine patches and smoke'em, then you'd have something,
After 30 years of Marlboro, you've got some seriously big shoes to fill with any "clean" nicotine replacement.
Love the term 'clean nicotine'
With all the money involved in the promotion, I'd say it's at least as filthy as Big T.
.
Well said, LB.
Filthier, Sunz. At least I knew what I was getting into with tobacco and knew they might lie (all corporations lie)...didn't know public "health" was a corporation...
Jalestra, -
"Public Health" is a subsidiary of the larger Corporation "NON-PROFITS-R-US" and they in-turn are a holding company for the still larger "PHARMA-R-WE" global entity.
All corporate policy comes from the Parent, managing corp. So in this case, "Public Health" takes direction from, accepts funding through and does as they're told by the larger global entities.
"Whats best for the corporation, is good for society",....and if it's not, we'll provide a generous grant to someone to conduct scientific studies that prove what we tell them to find is true.
Filthier, Sunz. At least I knew what I was getting into with tobacco and knew they might lie (all corporations lie)...didn't know public "health" was a corporation...
Worse, Jalestra, I never knew, OR expected, that "public health" would LIE.
Lynda---'Worse, Jalestra, I never knew, OR expected, that "public health" would LIE.'
And be leading us on the road to tyranny.
My sentinel event is about to occur on Sept. 1... the day the Cleveland Clinic will not hire smokers anymore. I plan on lighting up... first time.
Thank you Toby!
Millions of people could have been saved. That's far more than 220 virtual bodies. Do we really want to let the FDA rule tobacco?
The FDA's Bloody Hands
Via Cato, a an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today attempt to tally the number of lives cut short by the FDA's refusal to give sick people access to drugs shown to be safe, but still in trials to determine their efficacy [...]
The American Cancer Society reports that some 550,000 cancer patients die annually, making the number of cancer deaths from 1997 to 2005 about 4.8 million. Over that same period, the FDA reports granting individual access to an investigational drug to not more than 650 people per year for all diseases and drugs—a pathetic, even cruel, pittance. A few thousand more patients managed to gain access by enrolling in relatively small clinical trials or exceedingly rare expanded access programs. The other 4.7 plus million cancer patients, not to mention millions more with other diseases, were abandoned to die, denied access to progress by their own FDA when they needed it most. - http://www.theagitator.com/
archi...8046.php#028046
Lynda F wrote:
"And I don’t see you or the Doc out there screaming demands for disclosure either."
That's because you've seen very little of my work, as I've repeatedly notified ACS about this, and have posted this lack of disclosure on various blogs and listserves.
Sunz inquired:
"And Bill G how were you compensated while encouraging the FDA?"
I wasn't compensated, but rather that was just one of my many volunteer activities to help smokers have easier access to less hazardous forms of nicotine.
Dave K. wrote:
"Once again we see evidence that nicotine really is not very (at all?) addictive because if it were, NRT would have a high success rate for those wishing to quit."
Nicotine is very addictive if/when consumed in dosages provided by cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products. Unfortunately for smokers (and smokeless users), the dosages of nicotine provided by most clean nicotine products aren't fast enough or large enough to satisfy their nicotine craving, which is why clean nicotine products are an effective nicotine replacement product for a very small percentage of smokers who have used them.
I've been advocating further deregulation of clean nicotine products so that they can contain more nicotine, be recommended for short or long term use by all smokers, and be sold in less expensive packages. Unfortunately, the drug companies haven't endorsed further deregulating their products due to fear that some anti tobacco activists will criticize them for more easily marketing more addictive products.
Lightning Boy wrote:
"You guys keep missing the point, or ignoring it."
The point missed or ignored by Lightning Boy and other smokers who post on this blog is that its the smoke (not the nicotine) that causes nearly all of the tobacco diseases, disabilities and deaths.
Free basing nicotine (which is basically what smoking a cigarette is) is by far the dirtiest and most hazardous way for addicts to obtain nicotine.
Marlboro has become the most popular cigarette because Philip Morris found a way to utilize ammonia to more efficiently release more nicotine from the tobacco into the smoke, and subsequently into the bloodstream and into the brain.
Lynda summarized very insightfully why the spontaneous quit attempts are much more successful than all of these planned quit attempts that smokers are encouraged to do by physicians and public health groups. I can't add to it, but will only repeat it here, because I think it warrants highlighting:
"The reason why quitting cold turkey works successfully is that the people doing it have chosen for themselves. THEY have decided that they no longer wish to smoke. They are quitting for NO other reason.
When we choose to do something strictly out of our own personal desire to do so, no outside pressures, we will always succeed.
People resent being pushed into something they really don't want to do............regardless of what they say.
They cannot, and will not, succeed until they, and ONLY they, are truly ready to make that change."
Thanks, Lynda!
Harley asks: "Are we to believe that the American Cancer Society and other groups are willfully ignoring a set of studies? That sounds like a conspiracy to me."
Harley - Let me make it clear that I am not invoking any kind of conspiracy. What I am talking about is something much more subtle. It is a conflict of interest that I believes leads to bias. Bias is very different from a conspiracy. I am not arguing that the ACS is intentionally misrepresenting the evidence (at least not here on this issue). I am just suggesting that they are biased in their presentation of the information, possibly because of the conflict of interest that is widely prevalent in the tobacco control movement.
I need to make it clear that being biased is not an example of wrongdoing. It may make the ACS wrong, but it is not wrongdoing per se.
In contrast, I do have to say that the expert panelists who served on the national panel and prepared the smoking cessation guidelines despite their conflicts of interest may be viewed as having acted unethically. At least that's my personal view.
"Freebasing"? LOL
I need to make it clear that being biased is not an example of wrongdoing.
It is when you deliberately use your bias to push your personal agenda or attempt to manipulate others.
As far as I'm concerned all the these groups and orgs ARE doing wrong.
Thanks, Lynda!
Thanks Dr. Siegel. NOW will you and yours kindly keep your noses out of my business and my life?
Will you all stop trampling all over our liberties and the constitution?
The stress is killing me.
~FYI~
RUSH: To refresh people's memories and to inform those who weren't here, a New York City councilman's going to pass a resolution or present a resolution for passage that would not allow parents to smoke in their cars if the kids are in the car. I thought the political correct crowd's going to love this. Everything is "for the children," and I to this audience loud and clear, "You better be careful of this for two reasons. A, you let them into your private property, your car, and tell you what you can and can't do there, it isn't going to stop with smoking. You aren't going to be able to listen to the radio down the road. You're not going to be able to use your cell phone." Well, you can't use your cell phone with your hand in a lot of states now. You let 'em into your car, then you're going to let 'em into your house, and if you have kids in the house, you can't smoke in there -- and once they get into your house, folks, then they can start telling you anything they want about your house. They don't like the paint that you're using. They don't like the lightbulbs that you're using. They don't like the hardwood floor or the upholstery that you're using. Maybe it's not flammable retardant enough. Who knows?
The idea that they run around and see some parent smoking in a car with the windows up or cracked a little with kids in there, too bad! You know, if this product is so bad, ban it! But instead, what are they doing? And this is the second thing I want to tell 'em that they better figure out real quick. If they are going to fund health care insurance programs "for the children" with tobacco products, they'd better make sure the products can be used. Otherwise people aren't going to buy 'em, and when they don't buy the products there's no tax revenue and then the health care program for "the wittwle children" runs short of money, and guess who's going to come next in line for taxes? You! They're not going to shut the program down; they're going to come to you. Now, you can't sit here and start condemning this product as deadly secondhand smoke is deadly -- which it isn't! It may be uncomfortable. You may not like it. Some people may be allergic, but it doesn't kill anybody. There are no studies that say it does, and those who purport to say it are as big a hoax as global warming is. The World Health Organization did a big study and suppressed it, but we have it at RushLimbaugh.com. But that's not the point. The point is if they're going to raise all this hell about how horrible and deadly this product is, and at the same time tax the sale to fund their precious little government operations, they better make sure people can use the product. You see the conundrum here, or the dilemma? If they really believed all this, they would ban it! If this stuff is so deadly, why, they would ban it. They don't dare because their government operations depend too much on the revenue from this stuff, and they're going to kill that goose by eliminating places where these products can be used. They can't have it both ways on this and it's going to come to a head at some point, sooner rather than later.
CALLER: You're not honestly, seriously suggesting that there is a trend to ban smoking within private homes.
RUSH: I'm telling you it's coming. It's been tried. It would have succeeded in Maryland were it not for an outrage. Montgomery County, Maryland --
CALLER: I -- I --
RUSH: Now, listen to this, Michael. In Montgomery County, Maryland, a little ninny neighbor claimed in her locked house with the windows down, she could smell somebody's cigarette smoke a hundred yards away who was also in their house. So a city councilman said, "Well, we can't have this! That's disruptive," and they tried to ban smoking in the house.
CALLER: Okay. You're talking about one place, one person, making one complaint. I wouldn't call that a trend.
RUSH: Well, Michael, this is how liberalism spreads. Once they start this stuff, it never goes away. Like gay marriage is going to happen in this country.
CALLER: What I'm saying is... What I'm saying is when you see it quote, "spreading," end quote, that is right-wing paranoia. (Chuckles.)
RUSH: No, it's not right-wing paranoia. It's stopping it. It's making sure it doesn't grow. It's making sure that these powers, these liberal ninnies, nannies and do-gooders, do not get foothold and traction in trying to tell everybody else how to live, including in their own homes. In New York, for crying out loud, you have to ban trans-fat at the grocery store as well! You are blind if you don't see what's happening here, and the fact that you're not concerned if means you probably think that these people doing this have "the public interest, the highest standards of public interests at heart," and they don't. It's about control. They can't leave people alone. You gave me a Libertarian definition a moment ago. They don't believe in that. They're not going to sit there and let people do what they want to do in their homes. They're trying to change everything about the way people live, what kind of cars they drive, pressuring them into buying these little hybrids and stuff. It's been going a long time, and it would have advanced a lot sooner had it not been for the effectiveness of me and this program.
RUSH: The solution to this is not changing diet dramatically like this. The solution to Medicare and Medicaid... I don't think that what people eating each and every day are contributing to the kind of illnesses that end up on Medicaid. Medicaid is for the poor. Medicare is for the seasoned citizens, and when you get seasoned citizen status, and the odds that you're going to get sick from anything go up simply because of the law of averages. Look, Ellen, I will talk about this in greater detail tomorrow.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: RUSH: Headline from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, from May 29th: "Homes, Next Target for Smoking Ban -- An effort this fall will urge multiunit buildings to adopt a smoke-free policy."
We'll continue this tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen. I can't wait. I cannot wait.
END TRANSCRIPT
Read the Background Material...
NYSun: Council Seeks New Ban on Smoking by Parents in Cars
HST: Homes next target for smoking ban
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.
I know it's anecdotal, but only one ex-smoker I know went through some sort of quit program; all the others quit cold turkey, all of a sudden, out of the blue, with no touchy-feely programs, and no spells and incantations.
One woman had a story similar to mine -- woke up one morning, only had 2 cigarettes left, smoked them, decided "Meh, I don't feel like going to the store to buy smokes anymore". That's it. It wasn't about cost, it had nothing to do with being nagged or assaulted with hyperbole or squeezed into a corner. It was just an I-don't-feel-like-doing-this-anymore moment.
I was doing a mental roll call of all the quitters I know, and they all did it without having a religious epiphany of some sort. There was no fanfare. It was, in the majority of cases, just simply developing an indifference about smoking.
Still, probably 85-90% of them would gladly admit that the withdrawal was hellish at times. And don't get me going about the extra 40 pounds I put on. If it wasn't nailed down I ate it during withdrawal.
Only a couple used NRTs, but they didn't buy NRTs or plan to use them before they quit. The successful only purchased NRTs when they hit a particularly rough patch of withdrawal, and found them more trouble than they were worth, eschewing these products shortly after trying them a few times. (They do give lots of people terrible flatulence and a general upset stomach.)
Just my $0.02, adjusted for inflation.
Bill G.-
For someone that's supposed to be an ex-smoker, your view and knowledge of that activity seems to be awfully limited.
You clearly quit because you didn't enjoy the smoke.
If you don't enjoy all that goes with smoking, (specifically the smoke), then don't do it. You're wasting your time, and money and will ultimatley only appear foolish.
You can claim any other reason you like, but your previous response indicates that I'm correct. You simply don't get it, and probably never did.
It wouldn't matter if I were smoking woodchips in ricepaper, or grass clippings in cardboard.
If it tasted, smelled, felt, and most importantly burned like a Marlboro, then great.
Put them on the market and I'm there!
Nicotine or NOT, I'd be smok'n it right now. IT IS THE SMOKE Bill, You're right about that, but not at all for the reasons you cite.
Bill, come down out of the trees, NRT would only delay the impact of nicotine a little, within a few minutes, instead of a few seconds, NRT nicotine will still reach the brain, and that would relieve the desire for nicotine, not imediately as in smoking, but soon enough to offset the desire to smoke over the long haul.
Let's face it, a crack cocaine addict would be satisfied if someone gave him low doses of cocaine in a gum or inhaler product.
Methadone, works well for heroine addiction, and it's not even the same chemical compound as heroine. It's given as a drink in Mthadone clinics.
Smoking is compulsive behavior. DaveK
Dave K, I would also add that NRT products do NOT kill any craving to smoke. I know....I actually tried once and used the patch, with the gum, and the inhalator...............I STILL craved a smoke.
Like I said, unless someone is willing to quit for their own reasons, by themselves, nothing will help them succeed.
All that NRT products do is give you a bit of a head rush between cigarettes.
All that NRT products do is give you a bit of a head rush between cigarettes.
They do? I didn't find that to be the case at all. NRT products are tantamount to placebos as far as I'm concerned.....totally useless, except for the dollars pharma rakes in.
This is pretty interesting. I'm sorry, I cannot really add more. I just wonder how the anti-smoking organizations that receive money from drug companies will spin it or deny it.
Harley | 08.14.07 - 11:41 pm | #
If profits from cigs didn't go to the big 3, you would have a better argument. ACS,AHA,ALA survive off of tobacco sales. Every tax increase, and state settlement, they get a cut.
Kind of sad. Honest people trust them, and have no clue, what crooks they are. Snake oil salesmen, making a fortune.
"Freebasing"? LOL
Callous Cowbell | 08.15.07 - 6:10 pm
I caught that as well.
The rest of this "supposed" board seemed to suddenly be stupid, blind, deaf, and dumb.
I caught that as well.
The rest of this "supposed" board seemed to suddenly be stupid, blind, deaf, and dumb.
Not at all. It's just that we ignored it as he's used that before, and compared to some of the other vile things he's said, THAT was nothing.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
