Doctor Siegel, or anyone on this board,
Please excuse my ignorance, but being European, I’m not familiar with ‘how things work’ in US legislation.
My question is this: why would these health groups protect the interests of a tobacco company? Why would they care whether PM supported the bill or not? Or whether PM lost money or not? What could PM ever do to hurt them?
The answer is probably very simple 
Could you please fill me in?
Hartelijk dank! (Dutch for ‘many thanks’!)
.
Alecto,
The reason why the health groups care about whether Philip Morris supports this bill is that the idea behind the legislation was to forge a compromise between the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and Philip Morris. The perception was that if Philip Morris supported the bill, it would be easy to get it through Congress because it had both public health and tobacco industry support. So I don't think the health groups care whether Philip Morris supports the bill for any reason other than that if PM doesn't support it, the deal falls apart, PM withdraws its support, and the bill dies.
Hey, doc, I see teen smoking rates have remained steady since 2003, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25393862 considering the proliferation of smoking bans, and your study claiming bans cut teen smoking 40%, how can this be so?
They're "actively promoting death and disease"? from the "menthol scourge"?
"Scourge" to the side, where the word will roll on the floor and laugh itself to death, isn't that accusation right along the lines of Mr Bill's accusing YOU of "promoting death and disease" (or at least of promoting smoking) when you can't quite go along with his favorite policies like firing all smokers, and invading their private homes?
Watch it, Doc. All of your swords are double edged. Turnabout fair play. And any other handy cliches that come to mind.
:
Dave: The article you quote from is nationwide stats. It could be that States that have enacted bans have more of a decrease than States with status quo. Also, as you get close to the health target goal for youth smoking (16%) it'll get more difficult. The adult smoking rate in the US will be accelerating as the baby boomers get older. Most older smokers die before their time and you just don't see many smokers over age 60. They expire about a decade sooner than there nonsmoking counterparts.
Dave K, maybe this is the answer:
The smokeshop where I work is within walking distance of several colleges. Out of curiosity, I recently asked one of them why he had started smoking. I pointed out to him that he was too young to have ever seen a cigarette add on TV. In fact, the only information concerning cigarettes available to him from the electronic media (which is where teens get 99% of their information) was all NEGATIVE. Since this kid was old enough to understand the English language, he has been bombarded with nothing but adds telling him not smoke. So why does he? His answer was simple and to the point: "Everyone was telling me not to do it, so that just made me more determined to try it." Ah, from the mouths of babes….
http://murderofravens.org/2008/0...t-want-a-cigar/
Your understanding of the menthol issue is itself racist. Those who smoke menthols are from every economic and racial divide. I am a Caucasian woman who started smoking menthols years after I started smoking regular cigarettes. I like the damned taste of them and find this, among many other things spouted by the anti smokers, painfully naive. Should your fascist group do away with menthols, I will not quit. I will simply smoke what I used to smoke before menthols. In fact, before all this started, I had considered quitting smoking. Now, I have no intention whatsoever of quitting. The fact that you people do not get that increasingly restrictive policies against smoking have little to no effect on forcing smokers to quit is laughable. In many instances, the growing ridiculous studies only make people more likely to continue smoking and practically insure that young people with a rebellious streak will indeed start to smoke because of the anti smoking zealotry. Perhaps we do have a death wish...one that was born out of the desire to escape a world that grows increasingly unattractive and stifling.
"Most older smokers die before their time and you just don't see many smokers over age 60" Geo are you myopic,blind or just bloody stupid ?
Dr Siegel,presumably you are a lifetime non smoker ? For anyone who has not tasted genuine US made cigarettes,they are unique in having quite a distinctive chocolaty style taste.They aren't "harsh" as such at all.To be honest far from masking the "harshness" of the tobacco,menthol makes them very sharp on intake.A low tar menthol cigarette had as much impact in my lungs as a high tar full strength fag.The suggestion that menthol masks anything is crap,non too surprisingly it is another myth promoted by TC OR RATHER T(OTAL) C(RAP) but who gives a shit,we're only smokers right ?
Campaign for tobacco free kids just knows what side of their bread is buttered. They need smokers more that Phillip Morris does. This menthol thing is bull and everyone knows it. Sheri is so right when she calls it racist. This really disgusts me. White, black or purple? Who cares? If someone enjoys them, then leave them alone. Marketplace is the only true test of the product. Surveys and polls on who smokes what is crap with a capital C.
Off topic but some might enjoy this. Some grassroots group here in Dallas wants smoking banned from all bars and sidewalk cafes. The City Council is getting behind it and heard their presentation yesterday, complete with news media there for coverage. I believe the group was breathe free Dallas or something like that. There was 3 people there. One woman who was doing all the talking and 2 men who stood next to easels with posters and a pointer. No one from the smokers rights were allowed inside. The lead in to the news said that they had the evidence to prove that ALL Dallas residents were in favor of a ban, yet when the cameras started to roll, we were told that all Dallas residents SHOULD get behind this. As of yet there is no ordinance written as the City Council is going on vacation for the month of July but will revisit this when they get back in August. In all fairness, the cameras went to a bar and got the take from a business owner and customers in just one bar. Nope, all Dallas residents are NOT behind this.
it's only been 10 months since the no smokers hiring policy at the Cleveland Clinic and now they are testing new wellness waters....while serving us, their beasts of burden, oats and seeds in their vending machines...for starters
http://www.cleveland.com/plainde...nde...5820.xml&
coll=2
I used to run 5 miles in 35 minutes and eat right because I wanted to.... now all I want to do is sit in my lazyboy, light up, eat chips and drink beer...wonder why
http://www.cleveland.com/plainde...5820.xml&
coll=2
Dr. Siegel's headline:
"Tobacco-Free Kids and Other Health Groups Actively Working to Protect Cigarette Sales; With Friends Like These, Philip Morris Doesn't Need Enemies"
Don't you mean, "With enemies like these, PM doesn't need friends"?
I totally agree with Si on menthols. Way back when my brother smoked Kools I'd bum one once in a while and I had a hard time inhaling them.
geo,
If the reason you don't see many smokers over 60 is because they're all mostly dead, then there aren't too many nonsmokers over 70, if you believe the life expectency charts and smoker mortality.
Doctor-what in the world makes you think millions would quit (or even 1), or millions would never start (or even 1) if menthol was banned?
FDA legislation will do absolutely nothing to protect the public's health
I'm sorry Doc, I must have missed your response to my question that I've asked several times already "WHAT threat to the public's health are you talking about?" The MINUTE increased risk of any number of diseases on earth? Spare me.
I saw an article the other day where the obesity nazi's are claiming that 2/3 of the deaths by cancer and heart disease are CAUSED by obesity. (I'll look for the link again and post it later).
You better set them straight, they are trying to steal your thunder by claiming obesity kills more and costs more than smoking/SHS.
The Campaign is interfering with a legitimate Congressional effort to take the one action which actually might save countless lives.
Again, I must have missed your response to this one also: "You can really guarantee that those people will NOT die......ever......from anything"? Because THAT is the only way you can claim to "save lives".
Most older smokers die before their time and you just don't see many smokers over age 60. They expire about a decade sooner than there nonsmoking counterparts.
Geo |
Really? I'll be sure to tell my 80 year old father that he was supposed to have died 20 years ago. And how dare his mother, who also smoked, have lived until her late 90's. Interestingly my mothers mother was about 5 years younger than my fathers mother and was a non-smoker. Both women died the same year....both in the 90's. The smoker in her mid to late 90's and the non-smoker in her early 90's.
I'm sorry, I'll scold them immediately for defying you.... 
Oh my, I just received this email and can't decide what to do...Those poor defenseless children are being used again.
Late last week, advocates for effective alcohol policy scored a major victory when Anheuser-Busch agreed to stop producing and marketing caffeinated alcoholic beverages such as Bud Extra and Tilt. The company acted in response to threats of litigation from the Center for Science in the Public Interest and an investigation by 11 state attorneys general, as well as mounting concern from other public health groups about these dangerous and deceptive products.
Now is the perfect time to crank up the pressure on MillerCoors, maker of the very popular Sparks line of alcohol-energy drinks. After Anheuser-Busch's move last week, MillerCoors knows it's vulnerable. The company needs to hear right now from thousands of Americans who are watching to see what it does next.
Send an email to the MillerCoors president demanding that he do the responsible thing and immediately stop making alcohol energy drinks.
Sparks products are 6% to 7% alcohol -- higher than most beer. They are laced with stimulants like caffeine and ginseng, and aggressively marketed with tactics that appeal strongly to underage youth. For instance, the Sparks website sometimes displays text on school-notebook-like lined paper, and offers a recipe for an alcoholic drink called a "Lunchbox."
These products and their marketing are blatantly irresponsible. Advertising messages often imply that you can drink more without becoming intoxicated, in spite of mounting medical concern about the safety of mixing high-alcohol beverages with stimulants. These dangers are only multiplied for underage youth, who already consume regular energy drinks in great quantities -- and who are at high risk for catastrophic alcohol-related harms.
We have a short window of opportunity to apply public pressure on MillerCoors to follow the lead of its competitor and pull Sparks off the market. Please act now:
Send an email to Tom Long, president of MillerCoors, today.
Thanks for all that you do,
Join Together
Boston University School of Public Health
geo, with half of states with smoking bans, the other half would have to have had a 40% increase in teen smoking for the national average to still remain unchanged since 2003.
so, of course, all these people who said all these other ideas would cut teen smoking, (and were wrong) now claim that somehow the FDA can cut teen smoking.
Any of this look familiar?
http://www.jointogether.org/keyissues/
http://www.jointogether.org/
So, now we attack the beer companies...ehh? When I was about 18, I could legally purchase and drink 3.2 beer but no other alcoholic beverages. 3.2 beer tasted like crap, but it was the only thing available. Since I was a college student and I did want the experience of imbibing, I drank the crap anyway. No amount of advertising is going to make the difference as to whether a young person will drink alcohol in one form or another. If it were so simple to control people by eliminating all advertising, these fascists would be celebrating (with bottled water of course) in the street. You CANNOT legislate social behavior. Why don't you people get that?
Anyone like to send the targeted company a letter, explaining how to deal with criminal extortionists?
http://members.jointogether.org/
...=adv_web_center
A Junk Science Congregation
by David J. Hanson, Ph. D.
The New York State Assembly's Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse recently held hearings on whether or not alcohol advertising has an effect on youthful drinking and, if so, what action the Assembly should take.
For most who testified, it was an article of faith: Alcohol ads causes young people to drink and strong action is needed. They converged on the hearing like the faithful assembling for a tent revival meeting. And their testimony was about as science-based as the rhetoric at a religious revival.
Research from around the world has repeatedly demonstrated for decades that alcohol advertising doesn't increase overall consumption, doesn't contribute to alcohol abuse, and doesn't cause non-drinkers to become drinkers. However, what it has found is that successful advertisers increase their market share at the expense of their competitors, who lose market share.
But scientific evidence was irrelevant to the true believers, who showed great faith in their beliefs. As one testified, "we should trust our eyes and ears" instead of believing what science has demonstrated.
Because those who opposed alcohol advertising were not supported by the scientific facts, they were forced to rely on anecdotal stories, emotional appeals, impressions, beliefs, and extensive use of "junk science." Of course there were testimonials, without which no tent meeting would be complete.
To "prove" that alcohol ads cause young people to drink, the faithful resorted to polls indicating that many people think alcohol ads increase youthful drinking. But polls also find that many people think that extraterrestrial aliens have landed on earth, that ghosts can communicate with us, and that some races are systematically inferior to others.
The true believers made great use of correlations that never, even once, proved anything. We know that increased consumption of ice cream is correlated with an increase in drownings. But that doesn't mean that eating ice cream causes people to drown.
Dave: Hey, doc, I see teen smoking rates have remained steady since 2003, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25393862 considering the proliferation of smoking bans, and your study claiming bans cut teen smoking 40%, how can this be so?
Geo: "The article you quote from is nationwide stats. It could be that States that have enacted bans have more of a decrease than States with status quo."
Considering, the number of states that have enacted bans since 2003, If the doctor's hypothesis that smoking bans reduce teen smoking by 40%, a status quo in states not passing bans, one would still expect a significant reduction on the national average.
Geo: The adult smoking rate in the US will be accelerating as the baby boomers get older. Most older smokers die before their time and you just don't see many smokers over age 60. They expire about a decade sooner than there nonsmoking counterparts.
Since Dave's remarks deal with teen smoking, I do not see older smokers dying before there time has to do with the fact that teen smoking has not been reduced as predicted by Siegel's hypothesis.
If anything, I believe it points to a flaw in the theory that smoking bans has a significant impact on teen smoking. But it also appears that the massive tax increases which tobacco control has alleged to significantly reduce smoking has failed to produce results either. Not to mention the loss of sports like NASCAR's Winston cup.
All in all, I have to believe the predicted effectiveness of these interventions have been dramatically overstated in an effort to "sell" them to the public, and have little actual effect on a "real" population. What may discourage a 13 year old, may encourage a 16 year old, and simply delay the inevitable.
Further, since we have a history of the CDC distorting information for the means of furthering their anti-smoking agenda, one has to wonder if they CDC's findings were a result of an agenda to promote further tax increases, and have to be taken with a grain of salt. So has teen smoking really gone down, and the CDC is covering it up to promote a renewed tax agenda, or has all these theories on factors to reduce teen smoking just failed miserably.
In either case, the public should take note, that they have been lied to, and as a tax payer, I demand a refund of the money put into reducing teen smoking, and since these current crop of tobacco controllers have failed to deliver on their promises, should be permanently barred from further funding.
"Doctor Siegel, or anyone on this board,
Please excuse my ignorance, but being European, I’m not familiar with ‘how things work’ in US legislation.
My question is this: why would these health groups protect the interests of a tobacco company? Why would they care whether PM supported the bill or not? Or whether PM lost money or not? What could PM ever do to hurt them?
The answer is probably very simple Could you please fill me in?
Hartelijk dank! (Dutch for ‘many thanks’!)
.
Alecto | 07.01.08 - 2:24 pm | #
".
Alecto - The MAIN reason they want Phillip Morris' Endorsement and to protect the profits of PM, is because of the Master Settlement Agreement made between the Tobacco Companies and the States Attorney Generals, whereby, as long as the tobacco companies don't lose profits, the (Tobacco companies) have to keep paying BILLIONS of dollars to the states, if the companies can prove the Anti measures cost them profits, the companies can cut the amount of the MSA payments to the states, which in turn removes monies MOST of the states have already taken loans against to pay for whatever pet projects they wanted funded, never mind that the payments WERE supposed to be used to offset the "cost" of smoker's illness's that the states supposedly had to pay, or the fact that smoker's already pay the added "costs" several times over in just simple punative taxation on their cigarettes.
Forty-three people. Forty-three people think they can speak for the "millions" of menthol smokers.
It also appears that Lorillard will lose the most - Doc why are you so focused on PM?
There is no proof that only African Americans smoke menthol. That indeed is racist and you are promoting that, Doctor.
Or did someone do a POLL to declare "an estimated 75 percent" are African Americans? (How come they can STATE 25 percent are white but only estimate the balance?) Oh boy, another poll. Surprised it wasn't the usual 70 percent, but then again that accounts for the word "estimate."
Anti's have resorted to outright lies, accusations, misinformation, called us child abusers and said our breath is deadly enough to be declared a WMD...since that isn't working to stop us from smoking, or indeed, to get anyone to respect your latest and greatest SCIENTIFIC PROOF because they're too busy laughing their asses off at your latest claims, you have to resort to a skin color to raise alarm?
Now you need to bring race into the mix to raise the "alert" to a higher level. That is truly pathetic.
I truly do not know your hidden agenda, Doctor. I agree with the poster on another blog that you are just using us as guinea pigs and you could care less about our rights and lives. If only a fraction of your outrage could be directed at the Anti groups that publish all the BS they pass as science...
Several posters have posted about the efforts of Join Together to ban energy beer drinks, or as others have called it "The Breakfast of Champions."
http://www.jointogether.org/abou...outus/whoweare/
"Join Together is a program of the Boston University School of Public Health. Since 1991 it has been the nation's leading provider of information, strategic planning assistance, and leadership development for community-based efforts to advance effective alcohol and drug policy, prevention, and treatment"
"Funders
Join Together is funded by individual donors and foundations, with major support from The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We have also received an educational grant from Alkermes, Inc. and Cephalon, Inc."
So, "energy" beer is the first step. Next, fruit flavored kiddie liquor, then back to real beer, (ban advertising it on TV), then ban alcohol sales in public places where people who drink might hit children with their cars on the way home. Ten years into the new "alcohol hysteria" Banzhaf senses that public sentiment has grown so that it it is now safe for government authorities, and judges, to enforce bans on the consumption of alcohol in private homes even if there is no one else in the home.
Why does this sound familiar?
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf.
I will bid all of my good friends on this blog a fond farewell, because I expect that Dr. Siegel is going to 86 me after the next post of mine, and rightly so because what I am about to say is not pleasant in the least, in fact it will be very insulting to Dr. Siegel.
Please keep up the good fight, we are right and the Siegel's, Godshall's, Banzhaf's and Glantz's of the world are wrong in everything they say and do.
Dr. Siegel, you are an asshole.
What this story shows, first and foremost, is that the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is full of crap.
You've been being told that for longer than you have run this blog, why is it only just now sinking in?
In fact, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is essentially promoting death and disease among African-Americans by interfering with legitimate Congressional efforts to rid the African-American community of the menthol scourge which has been ravishing that community for decades.
What is it with you freaking nanny-state control freak libtards that you always have to bring out the race card? Is is something in the water you drink?
....inexcusable and unconscionable.
Thank you for PERFECTLY describing EVERYTHING ever done by you and your precious movement.
.
.
.
Gabz,
That's really tame to what my going away post will look like.
Gabz,
I don't think the Doc will 86 you for that. You just called him a name you didn't attack him really. We all do that when we get pissed and I think he knows that.
At least I hope I'm right in this. Though I love that you read my mind....I have been biting my tongue lately, thank you! 
It's been stated before on another thread but I think it needs restating here for the record:
That this is racist is true! But from the other end. Assuming the contention is correct that menthols are smoked mostly by blacks then once again blacks are being singled out to be denied a privilege enjoyed by others.
In order to "save" "them" they will be restricted? How is that any different from in order to "save" "us" OR "hurt" "them" they will be restricted? No matter how you parse it, blacks again are being singled out for "action." Denied a legal product produced in a "preferred" way while the "majority" is allowed to continue to enjoy the legal product produced THEIR preferred way. Hey, you know what they say about hair products. All sorts of concerns about carcinogens. So why not save the black population by doing away with hair straighteners (for those who prefer that look)?
You know what, Dr. Siegel? In the grand scheme of things blacks ARE the minority. So why not lobby to end the sale of NON-menthol flavored cigarettes?? According to this logic many more whites would give up smoking since they don't like menthol than you'd ever achieve with the black smoking population.
Was it Siegel himself who invoked "countless lives"? I thought that was a term he'd mocked his collegues for using in yet another context. Didn't he jeer, "Countless? Of course they can't be counted; they simply don't exist"
Geo, the reason you don't see smokers over 60 is that most of them a) don't look like they're over 60 (none of those advertised wrinkles and stoops) and b) they;re unwilling to have their dignity assaulted by hanging out in doorways or huddling on the street in front of grown-up restaurants. And they're far less likely to be sheepishly playing along with the loss of a liberty they've had all their lives. And on top of that, kid, you have no idea if those sexy executives and their age-appropriate wives are or aren't smokers just because you don't happen to "catch them in the act."
As for banning liquor, well of course Creme de menthe should be the first thing to go. That sticky mint scourge has surely been the undoing of many an elderly aunt, some of whom, in their youth, may have lost their virginity after one or two stingers in a smoky piano bar. The failure to have the government swiftly remove the menthe is leading millions (or even countless) of our tender and youthful vixens into lifetimes of sordid sex. Surely they'd never start, nor your Aunt Matilda continue, if it hadn't been for the menthe. Those who oppose me are promoting prostitution, gonnorhea and early death.
:
http://smokefreestl.org/
Smoke-Free St. Louis City long ago promised St. Louis an interactive website concerning the secondhand smoke issue in our town. Though their website has been up since November 2007, Smoke-Free St. Louis City has yet to publish a single comment. Do they fear intelligent opposition to their smoke-free cause? It is time they engage their local opposition! Please e-mail Smoke-Free St. Louis City and ask them to let a real dialogue begin:
smokefreestl@gmail.com
Tobacco Free Kids caught on the wrong foot again - and yet another study.
And as Bill Godshall and Tedd would say: Banzhaf doesn't propose to fine teens for smoking and tobacco possession, does he?
Fining Teens Who Smoke Is a Very Effective Means to Reduce Smoking By Children -- New Study Contradicts Antismoking Naysayers Like Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the Illinois Coalition Against Tobacco
The new study comes just in time because the decline in smoking by kids seems to be stalled, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH, who suggests that youth possession, use, and purchase (PUP) laws which currently exist in 45 states -- but are rarely enforced -- should be dusted off and more actively used as an additional technique to help prevent an entirely new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine.
http://www.pr-inside.com/fining-...s-a-
r677710.htm
Bill H;
Participation will only be claimed as support. Your silence within their forum and opposition outside is a much more effective advocacy. If they are allowed to control what you say by moderation; you will be taken out of context and made to seem to have no substantial arguments. If you move with baby steps trying to have any little argument heard, you will soon find yourself agreeing with the nonsense that is their life blood.
Second Hand smoke is not a health hazard until you eliminate the tens of thousands of agents in your environment known to be more dangerous, on the same scale of scrutiny.
WE have known safe levels of harm for most of them, with acceptable risk understood. The tales of second hand smoke are spun as a convenient lie, by those who don't like the smell. It really was never more complicated than that and anyone who claims it to be more is a Liar.
Beyond the lie this chink in our value system's armor, has allowed a large number of very hateful and very dangerous people to threaten your way of life and security by joining in on the bandwagon of convenient lies.
One lie will have to be protected with more lies and the escalation of moral decline will continue into chaos. Chaos which will only be cured by absolute oppression.
"The new study comes just in time because the decline in smoking by kids seems to be stalled, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH, who suggests that youth possession, use, and purchase (PUP) laws which currently exist in 45 states -- but are rarely enforced -- should be dusted off and more actively used as an additional technique to help prevent an entirely new generation from becoming addicted to nicotine."
This is the point Banzhaf will separate from his largest political support. If smoking among children were ever the goal making it illegal for them to have cigarettes was were they should have logically started. Of course we would have avoided all the fun they have had in between.
If the movement went this route the politicians would have to bear the responsibily for under age smoking and if it failed to decline they would take it on the chin for their failures.
The movement gene purity movement is supposed to be about shifting the responsibility away form governments and the major charities and on to the people Banzhaf would be seen as in opposition to the core disease management strategy and expelled as a nut to protect the common good.
It is a stance he may rattle chains over, but you wont see him pushing for the regulations in any serious way. Not if he knows what is good for him.
When asked in the past; Michael contended there is no clear evidence to support the safer cigarette is possible, in direct discussion of Nitrisomates which are a component in the production of NDMA. "Safer" he claims would require many years of human experimentation to confirm.
In response to a recent campaign at health Canada he determined the only way Health Canada could equate someone in a smoky bar inhaling the equivalents of 35 cigarettes an hour would be in evaluating the components, specifically those which by scale would be higher than known safe levels, than the general total exposure ETS rates by dilution equivalents could possibly produce, in the real world.
Again NDMA comes into the discussion. Exposures are normally measured in respect to concentrations in respect to a specified time frame, which indicates total exposures. By body mass we then determine actual exposure on a comparative scale which could be applied to all who would be at risk.
NDMA is not believed to be bio-cumulative, so the risk is limited to immediate exposure rates and the risk of damages so far are limited to rat studies. This is not to say we should ignore NDMA as a risk because autopsy measures in humans is known to be extremely high
The most significant contamination of NDMA are found in water and the production of rocket fuel, Sewage or waste treatment, and drinking water treatment plants are the largest contributors of that contamination
If NDMA can be used to promote smoking bans as a marker of carcinogens or harm in the room, Harm surmised without decades of human research BTW, the inclusion of much higher than necessary levels of Nitrisomates which could be controlled by simple regulations would be a much more direct way of eliminating that harm.
The only reason, Michael seems to offer in defense of his non regulation stance seems to indicate he likes the higher levels of contaminants because it gives his arguments a boost to the detriment to everyone else.
From Health Canada's own research;
http://www.inchem.org/documents/...s/
cicad38.htm#6.
The maximum concentration of NDMA in ETS-contaminated indoor air was 0.24 µg/m3, whereas NDMA was not detected (i.e.,
The maximum concentration of NDMA in ETS-contaminated indoor air was 0.24 µg/m3, whereas NDMA was not detected (i.e.,
Cont...
less than 0.003 µg/m3) when the indoor air of a residence of a non-smoker was sampled in the same manner (Brunnemann & Hoffmann, 197
. Concentrations of NDMA in ETS-contaminated indoor air in these countries were generally between 0.01 and 0.1 µg/m3 (Health Canada, 1999)."
Michael claimed here;
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Health Canada Toolkit Encourages Kids to Create Their Own Smoking-Related Research Facts; However, the Example Given to Guide them is Untruthful
The Rest of the Story
It is far from a "fact" that nonsmokers in a smoky bar inhale the equivalent of 35 cigarettes an hour. In fact, it is false.
In terms of nicotine exposure, a nonsmoker in a smoky bar inhales the equivalent of less than one-thirtieth of a single cigarette in an hour. So clearly, you cannot accurately claim that a nonsmoker in such a situation inhales the equivalent of 35 cigarettes an hour. You are in fact in error - and by a whopping factor of about 1000. You're off by three orders of magnitude!
It is true that in terms of some smoke constituents - notably NDMA - which is much more concentrated in secondhand smoke than mainstream smoke, nonsmokers in a smoky bar may inhale the equivalent of about 2 cigarettes an hour. But even for NDMA, this "fact" is off by a factor of about 17.
From the BMJ research in over one hundred studies Nitrates and specifically tobacco specific nitrates can be reduced in the range of over 90-95% with simple restrictions of tobacco plants used, non use of roots and stems and flue curing processes, which would reduce further, the levels of NDMA produced if any.
This restriction would of course take the level of cigarette equivalents from as Michael stated, generously to his own side of the argument as we can expect, in a smoky bar at 2 cigarettes per hour, after restrictions we could expect the same equivalent down to .02 cigarettes per hour. Which comes close to the exposures of ETS CEQ in the same bar.
Not yet a "safer cigarette" without "decades of human experimentation", however a considerable depreciation of the claims or credibility of harm and causation.
Is causation in this case; a result of "cause by cigarette smoke", or "caused by lobby groups" maintaining an elevated risk, to sell their wares
TC partners have consistenly stated cigarette smoke and ETS have an ability to be trapped in the Lung macrophages, causing the bulk of long term damages and the most substantial risk of harms. This would sustain the weight of their 30 year exposure to risk assumption, as opposed to aging and reduced bodily function playing the larger role. They know there is very little in tobacco smoke which is known or even believed to accumulate or to survive, within the human body to cause the effects they describe 20-30 years down the road.
The physical dimensions and the weight of both seems to indicate this is a Lie. The more likely suspects in having an ability to exibit this risk would be auto ehaust particularly Diesel exhaust and coal burning power plants.
In the fine particulate category we see the reality that Tobacco smoke and ETS are the least likely of all particulate in our "clean" indoor air, to accumulate or be trapped in the lung because the weight is not sufficient to aid accumulation and the size is too large to be trapped in the macrophages.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...27&
blobtype=pdf
Most older smokers die before their time and you just don't see many smokers over age 60. They expire about a decade sooner than there nonsmoking counterparts.
Geo |
Geo,
How do you suggest I go about the task of informing my mother and her five sisters and their spouses that they are all dead from smoking because they are all over 60?
Should I write them letters or would it be better to phone them up?
And not forgetting my dad (but pipe smokers don't count)
Doctor, again, what is your stance on FDA regulation of tobacco flavored cigarettes?
Between 1979 and 1990, there was a steep unexplaind decline in teen smoking, which reversed and again began to climb to a peak in 1997, and then declined again til 2003 and leveled off.
during the first decline, 1979-1990, tax hikes were rare, and no smoking bans were implemented, so this shows it is possible to reduce teen smoking without harassing adult smokers.
As Pink Floyd said, "hey teacher!...leave us kids alone"
we don't need no "education"
Dr. Siegel: “This doesn't mean that everyone who currently smokes menthol would quit. But some of them would, and many future smokers would be deterred”.
Bans on smoking in cars while carrying children as passengers are difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. Likewise, Banzhaf’s suggested ban on smoking in the home; without enforcement, the ban would be seen as farce.
However, enforcing a ban such as that suggested by ASH, would necessitate a police presence in the home, possibly the arrest of parents who refuse to butt out or removing children from the home to protect them from the alleged dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke. The spectacle of such state intrusion into the private affairs of its citizens would be featured prominently in the nightly news. Tobacco control would not long survive the scrutiny of such media coverage.
Dr. Siegel has opposed such bans, mostly because he rightly perceives the harm they could cause to the reputation of the tobacco control movement.
A ban on menthol, on the other hand, would mean a complete prohibition against the manufacture, distribution and sale of menthol products. As the Doc notes, this might coerce some into quitting, although most would probably just switch to regular cigarettes.
Since Dr. Siegel appears to support outright prohibition of one (large) segment of the tobacco market, the question in my mind is whether he is simply holding out for the complete prohibition against the manufacture, distribution and sale of all tobacco products.
He has no hidden agenda but is simply supporting the ultimate objective of all factions of his movement; tobacco prohibition.
Matt;
"He has no hidden agenda but is simply supporting the ultimate objective of all factions of his movement; tobacco prohibition."
The objectives of these coalition members is anything but prohibition. Smoking on both the sales and the alternatives marketing, is far too profitable for any of them to suggest or allow slaughtering the golden goose.
The bulk of rent seeking charities and non profits, currently gorging themselves [pigs as they are] from the public trough, would have to go out in search of real jobs, possibly involving honest and productive labor.
It should be obvious to anyone watching this spectacle of second hand smoke fraud, as it builds in gossip[Theories] entitling more gossip[Citations]. These people will do and say anything to avoid such an insult as being asked, to do an honest days work.
Gilster asked: "Doctor, again, what is your stance on FDA regulation of tobacco flavored cigarettes?"
Gilster - I do not believe that regulation of the tobacco product is the appropriate way to deal with this issue. I am not in favor of the FDA regulation of cigarettes in the first place. So no, I do not support any regulation of the tobacco product, including banning flavorings. I think that's not the appropriate way to deal with this product. I think the appropriate way is to work on the demand side, not the supply side. I think that we need more anti-smoking education and prevention programs.
However, the fact that I don't favor the FDA legislation at all doesn't mean that if groups are lobbying for it, they are not justified in including the menthol exemption. Since THEY are the ones stating that cigarette flavorings need to be banned, THEY are the ones who need to be consistent by including all flavorings. Otherwise, they are not being sincere and truthful in their propaganda.
Geo wrote: “you just don't see many smokers over age 60”.
If you don’t see many smokers over the age of 60, I would suggest a visit to your optometrist. Or, alternatively, you might try opening your eyes.
Yesterday I attended Canada Day celebrations at the local Legion hall with a number of old friends. It was one of the best attended events of the year because it was held outdoors, thus allowing people to smoke.
I witnessed the strangest things. The vast majority in attendance were over sixty. A simple majority were puffing merrily away, many on Putter’s Light or DK’S (which must have Imperial Tobacco really pissed).
Imagine; 60, 70 and 80 year olds having a grand old time, drinking beer and . . . smoking. My God, some of them were even chasing women. There was one 89 year old veteran, engulfed in smoke, chatting merrily with old comrades. And, not one single non-smoker in the crowd made a negative remark. Can you imagine; non-smokers choosing to risk their health to be with their smoking friends? Unthinkable.
Geo, you may ignore this little rant since, if your assumptions are correct, it’s being written by a dead man.
But, you really should get a grip, young man. Fear, hatred and intolerance are among the most stressful emotions you will endure over your lifetime. And, that stress could kill you much faster than smoking.
Anonymous: You may indeed be right.
Gabz,
I hope that you'll reconsider your decision not to continue sharing your comments and perspectives. As you'll see, I did not delete your comment. I respect your opinions, and value all your contributions to the discussions on this blog. I also accept your criticism, even when it is personally hurtful. But you know what? That comes with the territory. If I am going to be a publicly visible figure who advocates for public policies that affect all people, then I have to be willing to listen to and accept criticism - however harsh - from people who might be affected.
I hope that you will consider staying because I think that I and my readers need to hear your perspectives, even when they are personally harsh. I really value your contribution, and giving me the opportunity to hear your perspective.
As I am increasingly finding out, a lot of what you have been saying for a long time is coming to light. Please give me a little slack for being slow to accept it - I've been part of this movement for 22 years and it's not so easy to change views that one has held for so many years.
If you don't come back, thanks for all your contributions and we'll miss you. But I really hope that you will come back.
James - I hope you never leave, because I would not want to see your farewell post!
Doctor
Is it the plant itself or just the smoking of it that bothers you?
From my observations its about as dangerous as a cabbage and I am beginning to fear for my Delphiniums, which really are poisonous.
Delphinium
"a genus of the plant family Ranunculaceae which includes the domesticated plants, delphinium and larkspur. One of the commonest causes of plant poisoning in North America.
They contain forty different diterpenoid alkaloids of which methyllycaconitine is believed the major toxic principle"
"Methyllycaconitine (MLA) is a plant alkaloid found in the larkspur, and has been identified as an antagonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChrs) in the muscle and brain. It is one of many alkaloids found in the larkspur, but is believed to be one of the major culprits in the poisoning of livestock in the Western United States"
Or are my delphiniums safe because there's no profit to be made by organizations campaigning against them?
I think that we need more anti-smoking education and prevention programs. Michael Siegel
Fear, hatred and intolerance are among the most stressful emotions you will endure over your lifetime. And, that stress could kill you much faster than smoking. Matt
Doc, any more of YOUR kind of education and you will definitely be responsible for my death "BY STRESS", as Matt so correctly points out.
You busy bodies are destroying the world faster than Mother Nature herself could accomplish. I wish Geo was correct with his stupid statement about smokers not living past 60......thanks to TC my desire to NOT live to ripe old age is 10 times stronger than ever before. And knowing how God/dess has such a warped sense of humor......I'll probably have to deal with your abuse for another 50 years instead of the 5 that Geo claims I only have left.
I don't understand the obsession with trying to force people NOT to make their own choices.
YOU are NOT God/dess and have NO right to try to dictate how, why and when anyone dies.........not even for yourself.
Don't try to dictate MY choices and I won't dictate yours. And trust me, they will be coming for you eventually.
As I am increasingly finding out, a lot of what you have been saying for a long time is coming to light. Please give me a little slack for being slow to accept it - I've been part of this movement for 22 years and it's not so easy to change views that one has held for so many years. - Michael Siegel
That I can believe. Particularly when it comes to re-evaluating your own research.
You're in a bit of fix there, aren't you? If you were ever to admit that your figures were as baseless as any of those that are being thrown around these days, you'd lose credibility as a TC advocate.
But I think that it's a kind of credibility that you won't want to have pretty soon, if not already, as public esteem for TC advocacy collapses, as its claims get wilder and wilder (Go, Banzhaf, go!!). You're going to be - already are - far more credible as an apostate whistleblower from the TC movement than you ever were as one of its leading lights. Think Daniel Ellsberg.
Commenting by HaloScan
