Thanks for the link Doc but I must humbly disagree with your take stance of: "a fine job of presenting a balanced and evidence-based report on the FDA tobacco legislation -- perhaps the most accurate coverage of the bill's enactment that I have seen."
This is of course your opinion, we all have one, but this law applies to more people than merely those in employed in public health positions. Was Altria represented? Was a single smoker asked for their opinion? All of the phrases used in the piece were taken from the 2 extremes of tobacco control. One side being pro-FDA, the other your side Doc.
Funny how when someone asks your opinion, the report all of a sudden becomes "balanced" and "evidence-based" and even "perhaps the most accurate".
Speaking of evidence, why weren't you concerned 20 years ago when EPA and WHO started blatantly lying about the effects of the ETS?
Per Mr. Mojo, " why weren't you concerned 20 years ago when EPA and WHO started blatantly lying about the effects of the ETS?"
Because... about 20 years ago he was busy concocting new ways of bundling junk science studies into bigger and junkier "mega-studies" to support the lies of the EPA and WHO???
It's just a wild guess. Really! I don't know what Dr. Siegel was doing 20 years ago.
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.
An interesting new poll by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/12107...ng-
Tobacco.aspx
shows 52% to 46% of the public opposing the FDA bill. I'm actually quite surprised at this given the amount of resources the antismoking lobby has poured into manufacturing support for it and given the incredibly lopsided Democratic Party vote in the House on it ( Something like 179 to 2 ? )
I'm wondering if the opinion may simply be rapidly changing and that this new poll is reflecting that change. It has *seemed* to me that I've seen more articles critical of the idea in the last week or two than I had over the month or more before.
Is it a true change? Or just my perception? Or perhaps a "cover yer butt" reaction by supporters who knew it had a lot of problems but wanted it to pass... but who also now want ot be "on the record" as saying, "Well, I foresaw problems with this legislation and wrote about them..." ?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
MJM , I've spoken to a couple hundred of people and most of them don't know or care what I'm talking about. They apparently are too busy worrying about the fate of Jon and Kate and whether or not they will get divorced. The FDA regulation was an annoying interruption of their busy busy lives. You can probably tell, I'm really pissed off.
Sorry Kevin, I'm being negative.
I can't help but agree with David Goerlitz. We live in a bubble. WE are aware of this news because it's circulated within our bubble which gives it the appearance of prominence. But step outside the bubble onto Main Street and barely anyone was even aware of this "historical" (so you'd think they'd know!) proposal and subsequent passage.
The antis' support didn't make it into the mainstream except for the occasional Guest Op Ed or Editorial. And that's strewn across the country's papers. People reading their one local paper a day might have been exposed to opinion (for or against) not more than, say, five times.... over the course of two years!
The FDA bill was never a matter of PUBLIC support no matter how much CTFK put into efforts (which were also essentially conducted in a bubble) to get the public to voice support. The issue of support belonged strictly to those who sit in Congress who acted on the perception that the public is against tobacco GENERALLY. Your example that you say stumps you (the vote) is proof of where the importance of support lay.
In this matter specifically, public opinion is not equal to Congressional opinion. The latter does not/did not reflect the former.
Hey David G, I've had a similar experience with people being unaware that the FDA legislation contained enhanced the retirement income for government employees attached to it. The tobacco fees will help match funds for TSP accounts beginning 6 months after enactment. It's kind of hard to not be negative about this whole scenario. I know I feel agitated, negative, suffer from disbelief of what I read, and have become a real cynic! But I'm attempting to regain my composure with a smoke a little grey goose. Tomorrow is another day let's see what pitfalls we can avoid by our enemies and create for those very foes.
David
Confidence trick
"It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
societ...lthandwellbeing
Just because we have all been done-over by experts doesn't mean we can't learn from them.
I missed this one.
New Discoveries About Nitric Oxide Can Provide Drugs For Schizophrenia
"Problems with memory and social function in patients with schizophrenia may result from an imbalance in the brain’s nitric oxide system. A dissertation from the Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University in Sweden shows that rats with characteristics of schizophrenia regain normal brain function if they receive drugs that reduce the production of nitric oxide in the brain."
"Schizophrenic patients can be treated with anti-psychotic drugs, but the treatment does not help cognitive disturbances or impaired social function to any appreciable degree. We believe that this is due to an imbalance in the brain’s nitric oxide system, and if this is the case, we may be able to develop a completely new type of treatment,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...71121213845.htm
So that would apply to any herbal cigarette, tobacco is far from unique.
From the University of Florida
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AA260
Thats very puzzling, why should nitric oxide be bad for schizophrenics but important for everyone else?
"Consequently, a response bordering on disbelief greeted the discovery that cells lining the walls of blood vessels, endothelial cells, intentionally synthesised nitric oxide as a muscle relaxant. The molecule is short-lived, and a constant supply is generated by endothelial cells in response to the sheer stress of the blood flow on the artery wall. The notion that such a noxious little molecule should also hold a key to a healthy body and mind was counter-intuitive, and is still disconcerting to some people."
http://www.absw.org.uk/Briefings...ric%
20oxide.htm
Premature Babies Benefit From Inhaling Nitric Oxide At Shands At The University Of Florida
"A gas commonly found in smog and cigarette smoke actually helps premature babies by opening blood vessels in their underdeveloped lungs, causing blood oxygen levels to rise, University of Florida researchers report."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70328095354.htm
"This unique gas, which is integral to biological functions in humans, speaks volumes of its merits with every heartbeat of every person. It is undeniably an awe-inspiring feat of nature"
http://www.chem.yorku.ca/
hall_of...NitricOxide.htm
"A study of 191 children with the disease in Tanzania found that the sickest patients those who either died or suffered lasting neurological problems had the lowest levels of nitric oxide. The researchers from Duke University Medical Center and the Veterans Administration Medical Center, both in Durham, North Carolina, believe their condition deteriorated because they could not produce enough nitric oxide"
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...ly-
malaria.html
Harvard
"A group of Medical School researchers has discovered a bizarre twist on the harmful effects of car exhaust and cigarette smoke: nitric oxide, a component of both pollutants, can help treat a deadly type of pneumonia.
"Instructor in Anaesthesia Dr. Jesse D. Roberts, Jr., a member of Zapol's research group, said the discovery also explains why mountain climbers short of breath often claim that smoking cigarettes makes them stronger. The seeming paradox may be due to the presence of nitric oxide in cigarette smoke"
http://www.thecrimson.com/articl...aspx?
ref=222612
I beleve the only way this cycle of "protection" will be broken will be with the emergence of unintended consequences.
If for instance a large number of smokers were to start saying "I smoke and that doesn't bother my breathing the air fresheners definitely do bother me and they make me choke." Or if people were advised more broadly that the most likely cause of asthma is the same air fresheners and deodorizers advertised as "providing safety for your children" with pine fresh fragrances.
The same companies involved in promoting the bans while selling chemical products of an identical unknown "toxic" nature, would be left with little defense, in light of the highly sensitized community awareness of "the toxins we breathe" the same sensitivity they created, could well be their own undoing, along with a large number of ad agency execs who lead them down this bigoted road.
If the Cancer society was pressed to provide their proof demonstrating ETS is more of a direct risk for lung cancers than room deodorizers especially in light of the number expossed and the duration of exposures, they would be held speechless. More importantly embarrassed and ridiculed, for the lack of wisdom gained by the billions invested in their little shell games.
If ETS is a risk factor at all among non smokers, it might well be understood by the more simplistic and logical of explanations. By the cure for the smell of smoke if it bothers them, which can be seen with an almost instinctive reaction in reaching for an aerosol can loaded with a much more toxic product. I can guarantee this was not a confounder even Michael considered when doing the 220 study.
ETS is nothing compared to the 100s of thousands of toxins and carcinogens in you deodorants and air fresheners. The difference in the two if measured on an equal footing; what is in a lifetime exposure to ETS isn't harmful at all, compared to the huge volumes we would experience by other sources of toxins no one is afraid to breathe or spray in the presence of their own children. By products with little or no scrutiny poisoning all of the breathable air in virtually all indoor spaces and especially the so called smoke free environments.
The lobby that grows by the lies of industry, by exposing the truth will be much more successful in destroying many of the same industries currently standing in negative judgment of normal people and their few remaining lifestyle choices.
Kevin
Now air fresheners are a thing I can't abide. I can't stay in the same room where someone has recently sprayed it.
I am fine with incense, scents and essential oils in a room, but air fresheners and flyspray set my alarm bells ringing.
There's just something in it, but I don't know what.
"The Bethlem Royal Hospital of London is a psychiatric hospital in Beckenham, south east London. Although no longer in its original location and buildings, it is recognised as the world's first and oldest institution to specialise in the mentally ill. It has been variously known as St. Mary Bethlehem, Bethlem Hospital, Bethlehem Hospital and Bedlam.
The word bedlam, meaning uproar and confusion, is derived from its name. Although the hospital is now at the forefront of humane psychiatric treatment, for much of its history it was notorious for cruelty and inhumane treatment – the epitome of what the term "madhouse" connotes to the modern reader"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedlam
Nowadays the quality of care at a hospital is presumably advertised by a desolate row of very sick people in their nightclothes, some attached to drips,either in wheelchairs or standing shivering outside the building.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
