Enzi---"I have put my name, and staked my reputation, on a proposal to get rid of tobacco once and for all, and I hope you will take tha as seriously as I do."
Boy with the Senators support of guns (which I agree with) he talks out of both side of his mouth. Wait till we hear this power hungry fella sqwak when they go after his 2nd amendment rights.
He is just fine with our right of freedom of association being thrown into the shredder.
So very typical.
Dr. Siegel, do you have any links to Sen. Enzi's response? I checked his Senate homepage and didn't find anything. This is the last I saw on this issue:
Enzi calls on nation's top health officers to work together to eliminate use of tobacco products
Just ignore the crap on his site about the Iraq War, it might make you as physically ill as we get when reading ASH articles or Godshalls homepage.
My guess, and what the Hell do I know, I'm just a jackass with a modem, is that Enzi's MO is similar to Mike Grosz' bill from 2003 in the North Dakota state legislature to ban tobacco products.
Shine a light on the cockroaches and watch them scurry for cover.
"Get rid of tobacco once and for all."
Wow. Is that the message of tolerance and diversity you are looking for, doctor? Is it really all about SHS? Or might it just have a smidgen to do with taking a position on personal decisions?
And I particularly like this from the doctor:
"I think the public in general, and tobacco control groups and advocates in particular, need to know the truth about how the FDA legislation came about."
Really? It's important to know how legislation came about? Well, in that case, I have some questions about some legislation. Specific legislation from Amherst. Legislation that came about, at least in part, because of support from a doctor who said 220 bartenders were going to die.
You clearly had an impact, Or hoped you would. Otherwise you wouldn't have gone.
So. If it is important to know how legislation came about and what went into it... How did you come up with the 220?
A simple, basic question. And you refuse to answer. Why?
What ever the outcome, the good thing is that CTFK and the all the crappy organizations sharing the same bed will wake up with bloody noses.
Great, they deserve it.
Enzi: I stand apart from the tobacco companies on these matters and I have never taken a dime in campaign contributions from the tobacco industry, and that is not going to change.
But definitely from Big Pharma!
The Doctor states in his final sentence: "Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis might just as well have been talking about the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids efforts to promote this FDA bill when he wrote that "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
And the Justice might have been talking of you, public health, and the rest of you control freaks when
he stated:
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone." -JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS
http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Ar.../
0205alone.html
The makers also wanted to control what the Government could do NOT what We The People can do.
When the hell will you leave people alone?
.
Sam, Benpal and All:
I really believe there is something more than meets the eye at work here with Enzi's proposal.
The reaction of the "health authorities" (whoever and whatever that is) and the State AG's who are addicted to MSA revenue will say it all. It will answer all questions for us once and for all.
Will they give up their livelihood and billions of dollars to accomplish their stated goal? Fascinating stuff really.
Benpal, I will look up Enzi's campaign contributions from Big Pharma. That is another interesting angle.
Eric:
http://www.opensecrets.org/polit...6249&
cycle=2006
http://www.opensecrets.org/polit...6249&
cycle=2006
This is hardly the smoking gun but it is interesting. Enzi's 2nd biggest campaign cash contributor was in fact the Pharmaceutical industry. "Health Professionals" were #4. Nothing damning there per se. Pretty typical for a "conservative" Republican who opposes Universal Healthcare and is in favor of tort reform which benefits both pharma and doctors.
MIKE ENZI (R-WY)
Top Industries
The top industries supporting Mike Enzi are:
1 Securities & Investment $155,761
2 Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $128,038
3 Insurance $114,822
4 Health Professionals $100,053
5 Commercial Banks $97,450
6 Oil & Gas $81,250
7 Accountants $80,011
8 Computers/Internet $65,504
9 Lobbyists $62,126
10 Mining $49,700
11 Retail Sales $47,500
God damn it benpal! I just spent 15 minutes trying to get you the same damn facts you just found on your own from the same damn site. 
Let me know next time. I could have been watching Sportscenter.
God love you, Sam. Keep pluggin. If nothing else, it gives me a wolfish grin.
:
Eric Blair:I really believe there is something more than meets the eye at work here with Enzi's proposal. The reaction of the "health authorities" (whoever and whatever that is) and the State AG's who are addicted to MSA revenue will say it all. It will answer all questions for us once and for all. Will they give up their livelihood and billions of dollars to accomplish their stated goal? Fascinating stuff really.
That's one of the things that I've been saying. However, I'll add that there appears to be an *admission* in this legislation that MSA money (and tobacco taxes) has never been about paying for medical expenses incurred as a result of smoking. We know that the money has been spent on filling budget holes and politicians' pet projects, among other things. But this bill *admits* this sham--this very expensive sham.
The dynamics of how this legislation will play is more than fascinating. (I put out that North Dakota link showing the hypocrisy of antismoking guns.) If this legislation really leads to the eradication of tobacco companies, then I will...well, I've offered to send the Doc a gift certificate to his favorite restaurant. And then I will stub-out my last cigarette. And then I will die of shock!
I *really* want to see this play-out.
PS Did anyone see that bit about bibs in Denmark from GreatScot? Yipes.
DTB I'm with you:
If this legislation really leads to the eradication of tobacco companies, then I will...well, I've offered to send the Doc a gift certificate to his favorite restaurant. And then I will stub-out my last cigarette.
That will be the 3rd happiest day of my life. (after the birth of my children)To see all of the liars, greedy big tobacco companies, their partners in crime in the State AG offices, and TC advocates lined up on skid row with a tin can in hand.
Then I can quit smoking in peace knowing my job is done.
When they ask me for change as I pass them by on the street, I can proudly say "No thanks, I've got plenty."
Eric, I too have entertained the thought that Enzi might be playing spoiler with his proposal. A dare intended to show the rabids for what they are. Though this time, unlike the North Dakota lawmaker, I doubt it more than not.
Sunz, great job on posting Justice Brandeis' FULL beliefs. You know, the antis do this with the alleged Mark Twain quote "Quitting is easy, I've done it a hundred times," which they coopted for propaganda material in their campaign. Except Twain never said that. Snopes debunks the notion that Twain ever said that. Rather Twain cursed the antis of his time. But the antis today not only try to use half a statement but a MYTHICAL quote in their own defense! It's despicable.
Anyway, allow me to add another Supreme Court Justice's excerpted quotes. Justice Thomas concurring in Lorillard vs Massachusetts:
Underlying many of the arguments of respondents and their amici is the idea that tobacco is in some sense sui generis--that it is so special, so unlike any other object of regulation, that application of normal First Amendment principles should be suspended...
The State's assessment of the urgency of the problem posed by tobacco is a policy judgment, and it is not this Court's place to second-guess it. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate to point out that to uphold the Massachusetts tobacco regulations would be to accept a line of reasoning that would permit restrictions on advertising for a host of other products...
[goes on to recite a litany of obesity/food examples]
...Respondents have identified no principle of law or logic that would preclude the imposition of restrictions on fast food and alcohol advertising similar to those they seek to impose on tobacco advertising. Cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. 56-57. In effect, they seek a "vice" exception to the First Amendment. No such exception exists. See 44 Liquormart, 517 U. S., at 513-514 (opinion of Stevens, J., joined by Kennedy, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ.). If it did, it would have almost no limit, for "any product that poses some threat to public health or public morals might reasonably be characterized by a state legislature as relating to `vice activity.' " Id., at 514. That is why "a `vice' label that is unaccompanied by a corresponding prohibition against the commercial behavior at issue fails to provide a principled justification for the regulation of commercial speech about that activity." Ibid.
No legislature has ever sought to restrict speech about an activity it regarded as harmless and inoffensive. Calls for limits on expression always are made when the specter of some threatened harm is looming. The identity of the harm may vary. People will be inspired by totalitarian dogmas and subvert the Republic. They will be inflamed by racial demagoguery and embrace hatred and bigotry. Or they will be enticed by cigarette advertisements and choose to smoke, risking disease. It is therefore no answer for the State to say that the makers of cigarettes are doing harm: perhaps they are. But in that respect they are no different from the purveyors of other harmful products, or the advocates of harmful ideas. When the State seeks to silence them, they are all entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...00&invol=00-
596
Though this was an advertising case and the issue was the First Amendment, one can see that Justice Thomas would, on principle, not agree with holding the tobacco industry to a different standard of treatment or scrutiny on any level. I believe that shines through in the first paragraph where he speaks of the attempt by the antis to make tobacco distinct ("unique") from all else. I almost feel his disgust at that.
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/in...n_id=&
Issue_id=
From Title V
'Closes a loophole in Medicare and Medicaid to provide coverage for smoking cessation, regardless of whether the beneficiary has a diagnosed smoking-related illness.'
No force used here. s/
.
Eric, some more coming in:
Senators who weakened drug bill got millions from industry
The bill's chief sponsors — Sens. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., — agreed after consultations with industry officials and others to modify a proposal that all clinical drug studies be made public, said Craig Orfield, Enzi's spokesman. Under the change, only those studies submitted to the FDA would be available.
Enzi took in $174,000 from drug interests since 2001; Kennedy, $78,000. Their spokesmen said the money did not influence them. [of course not!] - http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...drug-
bill_N.htm
And a gem:
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said he demanded removal of language that would have allowed the FDA to ban advertising of high-risk drugs for two years because it would restrict free speech.[the same free speech they deny BT]
benpal,
Check out FORCES top article today.
July 25 [08:00 GMT] – Stooge of the pharmaceutical industry proposes alternative bill for the extinction of tobacco
.
Check this out - Ohio is cutting and running and cashing in on the MSA money now, worried about the new legislation.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2.../
ap3947711.html
~snip~
"Five years from now, 10 years from now, smoking bans are kicking in, taxes may change, maybe court decisions. If the tobacco companies are not profitable, Ohio would be out its money. But if we cash in now, we will have our money and we will shed the risk," Cordray said.
We all know where this will go if it passes. The proponents of this bill can hide their heads in the sand, but this is prohibition. What does history tell about it's success?
The companies will flee to Mexico, sell their products to smugglers who will transport them to the US. No more MSA, no more sales taxes or sin taxes, but we still have people using tobacco.
This is wrong headed and badly timed. Education should continue and smoking will eventually reduce itself without intervention of this sort. In the meantime, efforts should made to reduce exposure. Sure, add more nicotine and apply filter technology.
Again I'm Mr. Cynical, but I believe that in the end the money will rule. These guys don't care who dies and how. An example is abortion. An average of over 1 million abortions have occurred yearly since 1973(total 48,590,000). This compared to the contrived number of 430,00 per year from tobacco. We know from the 430K number that more than 70% are over 65 years of age.
Who really cares about our children? When these guys talk about protecting our children I want to puke. We are a society that murders our children to the count of over 1 million per year. I guess too much money is made by our esteem health care community in this endeavor.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/
fac...rtionstats.html
So I guess you can tell that CTFK has never had any credibility with me.
On a different note, check the story from MSNBC concerning some docs that took Big Pharma money.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19935705/
DTB: PS Did anyone see that bit about bibs in Denmark from GreatScot? Yipes.
Somehow I seem to have missed that one. Do you still have the link?
I hate to belabor the point others have made very well... but I'm going to do it anyway
"... Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
This joker's connections to big pharma is a little too cozy.
At least I'll still have my fingers, perhaps I should fawn at my master's feet for that (actually, I'll give them ONE of my fingers 
These folks remind me of a book I read Intellectual Morons by Dan Flynn.
In it he shows how "ideology acts like a mental straightjacket."
"It blinds adherence to reality. It breeds fanaticism. It justifies dishonesty...."
When you run into an Intellectual Moron you will know by:
"
An IM is someone who's blessed with great cognitive abilities, but because they squander those abilities by relying on ideology to provide them their thoughts rather than their brain."
A good read he goes after the 'right' and 'left' with equality. He also writes about how this leads to it being perfectly acceptable to these folks to lie with impunity----if it is for a good cause.
.
Looks like MaBell is out on an early pass again????
Just asking.
Eric said "Sam, Benpal and All:
I really believe there is something more than meets the eye at work here with Enzi's proposal.
The reaction of the "health authorities" (whoever and whatever that is) and the State AG's who are addicted to MSA revenue will say it all. It will answer all questions for us once and for all.
Will they give up their livelihood and billions of dollars to accomplish their stated goal? Fascinating stuff really.".
My problem is that ANY social experiment is NOT "fascinating stuff" to those whom it is being performed upon. I have given up on trying to debate the issue, debate was never an option anyway, I am now considering myself a freedom fighter, and I will proudly, loudly, and defiantly push back against the bastards every chance I get.
Freedom is two wolves and a sheep with a gun discussing whats for dinner.
Jerry Thomas, I will gladly be the shepard holding the weapon with a full metal jacket, safety off, and protecting the sheep.
I stopped reading here: I have put my name, and staked my reputation, on a proposal to get rid of tobacco once and for all, and I hope you will take that as seriously as I do
If he was all THAT serious, he'd make it ILLEGAL.
Glister's post on Ohio in a panic over losing all that "found money":
"The money that the state gets from the sale will go toward school construction and property tax breaks for the elderly and disabled."
I'm so happy to learn that the states really do believe the MSA monies are needed for the additional medical care necessary for the effects of smoking.
From glister's link, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2.../
ap3947711.html :
"The money that the state gets from the sale will go toward school construction and property tax breaks for the elderly and disabled....The Ohio sale would be the largest of the 19 states that have taken the lump sum. California, New York and Michigan are among those that have cashed in all or part of their settlements."
They don't even try to pretend that the MSA money had anything to do with medical expenses from smoking. The article also refers to the federal tobacco tax hke. Well, maybe they can make-up their losses with sales of T-shirts saying, "I support children's healthcare. I smoke."
******
Lynda--I don't think that GreatScot actually gave a link. He was talking about people who smoke that are given a bib and told to stand in the smokers' pen--in Denmark. No attempt to ridicule and degrade there. Right, sure. (sarcasm. I know it's bad form...but I do it anyway.)
LOL, Rod. You're psychic.
Do i read in between the lines correctly Dr Siegel that you are having a bit of a spat with your brethren over BANNING tobacco,ie you are all for it by being an arse licking brownie supporting Enzi (should be Enzo,its drain cleaner over here) and have constantly berated TFK for their proposals which would not ? This is classy warfare,who tells the least truth and who is in it for the most benefit ? This is your hard ball Dr Siegel ? I see what you mean now as it has always been a waste of time discussing anything with you since your view has been so hardline .Jerry i think speaks for us all.One day i hope to see you arguing face to face with FORCES,preferably in a court of law,to answer for the 220 missing bodies and how you manipulated your studies into becoming the life saving rally for the entire anti movement.A wolf in sheep's clothing ? Just one of the stygian witches in Macbeth.
OT, but not really...
Look at the last excerpted quote.
Diet soda, metabolic syndrome linked
One daily soft drink -- with calories or not -- is associated with much higher risk of the heart-threatening disorder, a study finds.
By Thomas H. Maugh II, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 24, 2007
Lead in:
Drinking as little as one can of soda a day — regular or diet — is associated with a 48% increased risk of metabolic syndrome, a key predecessor of heart disease and diabetes, according to results released Monday.
Researchers knew that drinking regular sodas contributed to the risk of metabolic syndrome, but this is the first finding implicating diet sodas, according to results published online in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Assn.
The researchers were uncertain why diet soda seemed to have such a large effect.
Excerpt:
"Vasan said a great deal of research had shown that people who drank sodas also tended to have diets higher in calories, saturated fats and trans fats and lower in fiber. They are also more sedentary.
The authors tried to control for all those factors in the diet, but "even after all that, we still found an increased risk," he said. [Rod note: Are you ready for this astounding observation?] "Maybe it is very difficult to adjust for lifestyle."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/32z53r
Rod note: The above link may be "stale"
The largest problem associated with Tobacco regulation stems from the rhetoric promoted by the lobby groups. Smoking is not defined clearly as either an addiction or a nasty habit for fear of loosing popular support for punishing an addiction. In one report we are told more heavily "addictive" than crack cocaine in another report smokers are admonished for their "nasty habit" which if enough punishment is applied we can force them all to quit.
The efforts to control what the New Public Health decries is a "workplace hazard" were seen in providing rhetoric for smoking bans in a protection of workers thy never asked for, in an effort to treat smokers who never requested help either, to "Help them quit" many of both groups vehemently opposed that protection Hospitality workers many of whom were also smokers, because they knew they would face a large job loss possibility not surprisingly the addictive alternative industry lobbies took it on as a "New Public Health" issue" and guided efforts through the WHO, a UN agency.
Now with the public witnessing the failures and vast expense associated with their efforts it is time to claim plausible deniability and head for the hills. Deceit is found in the lack of integrity associated with their own HIA process of political dominance in it's promotion of joining with conflicted interests to sell a promotion of heath advocacy, conflict of interest by design is tied to procedures as described in the process. A picking and choosing of who may profit and who may not.
Time to pass the buck. As with the incompetence of almost all other UN agencies which fail under the massive weight of bureaucracies wrapped in population view perspectives, they are not permitted to be aware of other agencies who follow other paths, the result is seen in a massively expensive association of independent agencies who simply don't work well together, despite the claim to unity under the equally inept administration banner head we know as the UN. They now seek to pass the responsibly without admitting their absolute failures on to the American FDA another ill planned mistake in assigning the duty to a known fractured agency which actively promotes alternative addictive products in dispensing Tobacco Control Lobby sound bites on demand with tax payers money yet. The conflict there arises when we see how much these multi billion dollar product sales grew by lobby investments in the anti smoker industry. A problem because we can never accept a cigarette as an FDA approved consumer product, they even forbade the manufacturers from making that claim publicly, as an amendment to the FDA regulatory bill.
So where do we go from here? In regards to the second hand smoke issue To the agency which should have been handling a workplace environmental issue from the outset the EPA which sets safe levels for much more dangerous products through publicly transparent scientific means, beyond the partial directional studies which can be crafted to state any claim you wish, but in taking a look at the whole science evidence package and making informed decisions based also in the rest of the process the biological and time line observations so simply waved aside by the cultists.
We can finally dispense with the fracturing of communities and the promotions of hatred in blaming smokers for the effect of the product and we can get rid of the entirely uncivilized ban promotions and move forward in repairing our communities, by allowing a property owner to decide if a still legal product can be safely consumed on his own property.
That would make sense however with so much looted and ill gotten gains up for grabs and the dreams of the ten dollar package of cigarettes to match the Canadian prescription, thoughts of the experts are more consummed by how much can be divided up among the group who reigns supreme, in the "war on smoking" A new kind of war which claims it's perfectly fine to torture and loot the civilian population and the Partisan warlords do battle for the right to do precisely that, saving us all from ourselves The new Public Health is dedicated to forbidding adults from making purchases which are not politically corrected without a significant payment; now revealed as an autonomy tax. What will they think of next?
Smokers who have always been prohibited from speaking and revealing their views on a war waged against them alone, while the manufacturers said to be responsible are increasing profits along side the rest of their stakeholder allies.
Newsweek Magazine
July 30, 2007 issue
Perspectives
"There are very few symbols as powerful as kids."
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, doubting threats from the Bush administration that the president would veto any expansion to the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate Finance Committee approved an increase.
I certainly agree with Senator Rockefeller. He, and others like him, cynically exploit children to the maximum.
But, the images that terrify me the most are the photos of Jewish children being exploited by Hitler's Socialist regime:
Jewish classmates made to stand at the front of the class to be vilified by "good" German children. 1935 ( before "it can't happened here.) Translation of blackboard: "The Jew is our greatest enemy, beware of the Jew".
URL for JPG: http://tinyurl.com/3dcjwb
Warning - need a strong stomach
Photos of Jewish children that had been used for medical experiments (some of the ones who survived).
URL for JPG: http://tinyurl.com/2sqmok
Note: I have not included photos of the neatly arranged "discarded" body parts that remained after some of the experiments.
All this began with a supposed "concern" for the health of the German people. Its main tool was to create an atmosphere of hate and fear directed at certain segments of society. The medical profession and other "health" professionals had few qualms and, indeed, assisted in identifying and eradicating (many after necessary medical experiments) those segments of society that posed a threat to the health of the German Volk.
On the MSA:
It's my understanding that the MSA is for past, not future, medical expenses incurred by those states. So there's nothing wrong with what they spend it on.
DTB, ok, I do remember that. IF I remember correctly though, it was high school students that were put into a "designated smoking area" (pen) with the bibs if they wanted to smoke.
It's a disgusting thing to do, made more despicable by doing that to "the children".
Why they will not prohibit tobacco altogether (unless the black market takes a substantial part of the income away). A lesson learned from alcohol prohibition (1920-1934):
From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent.
In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930.
There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol.
Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury.
So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.
That's the sorry logic of politics and Prohibition. -http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/
search/s_518872.html
please delete from the above: "(even though the black market will take a substantial part of the income away)", it's out of context.
It's all a rouse?
west
----
James Austin: On the MSA: It's my understanding that the MSA is for past, not future, medical expenses incurred by those states. So there's nothing wrong with what they spend it on.
It's my understanding that it's for both past and present supposed medical expenses incurred fromsmoking--that's the reason that the Agreement protected tobacco companies from *future* lawsuits. Moreover, the MSA payments from the tobacco companies are not paid by *past* smokers--the cost is shifted to *current* smokers. There is a great deal *wrong* with how it is spent. The fact that current tobacco taxes are spent on politicans' pet projects and inability to balance their budgets is also very wrong.
Lynda: DTB, ok, I do remember that. IF I remember correctly though, it was high school students that were put into a "designated smoking area" (pen) with the bibs if they wanted to smoke. It's a disgusting thing to do, made more despicable by doing that to "the children".
I'm reminded of a letter to Ann Landers some years ago. The topic of discussion from some of her readers concerned corporal punishment for children. Different people had different views and different ideas of discipline--as punishment and/or guidance. One man wrote that he strongly disagreed with corporal punishment. At first, you think this might be from a progressive parent...until you hear his alternative. He said something like, "Parents should just do what my parents always did. If I misbehaved, then I was told to wear a girl's dress until I apologized." (Ann Landers advice was that he seek professional help.) The business of wearing bibs in a smokers' pen is indeed despicable. I think the government should take Ann Landers advice and get professional, psychiatric help. You know, one wonders about the emerging European nanny state. Heaven help them if any other country gets ticked at them--because they won't have any fighters left to defend their homes!
Canadians don't need to look at the world for sources for disgusting methods to "denormalize" smokers. We now have the Saskatoon Pheonix newspaper. ON July 19th we have a olympic hopeful in a blog stating "When I jog past smokers, I often try to imagine what's going through their mind. I often stare at them while making a loud coughing noise and/or forming an "L" for "loser" on my forehead with my thumb and index finger.
Maybe it's because I'm a runner, or even because I'm a new dad, that this issue hits home.
That's why I was pumped to take Tuesday's StarPhoenix out of the mail box and see the front page headline "Smokers targeted." Smokers will be moved even further away from the entrances of city-owned buildings. No, there aren't any penalties yet, but anything to further marginalize this disgusting practice is welcome." source
Then just today in a letter to the editor, we have "Stop smoking campaigns seem to be aimed at the intelligence of smokers. But that's an oxymoron, because intelligent people wouldn't be smoking in the first place.
So let's start a campaign that embarrasses them for their infantile need for a pacifier. "Got your suckey?" is a good name for the campaign.
If the commercials and posters drew enough attention to this parallel, perhaps the image of sucking on a cigarette would become less appealing." source
Which must mean that since the Federal health minister has said that he wants to start "denormalizing tobacco", and its just part of the plan ahead.
Off topic but I am amazed by something. Not sure if any of you has seen the news and seen where there was a gas explosion in Dallas this morning. Gas canisters were blowing up and landing all over the place. The flames were at one time over 200 feet high. Black smoke was billowing even higher. The EPA was called in as some of this gas had some very toxic chemicals in it and they were needed to test the air quality around it for the firemen, police and media. They said that it was at safe levels and the smoke disappears as it rises and would not harm anyone. Yet, should I light a cigarette in a bar, restaurant or within 50 feet of another person, that little wisp of smoke will cause a heart attack or give them cancer? Hoping that some of you guys can explain this in words that the antis might understand. Thanks in advance.
Benpal - Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury.
So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source.
.............
Prohibition created (caused) Organized Crime. You can be sure the illegal distillers and rum runners spent huge amounts of money to prevent repeal of Prohibition. However, the repeal of Prohibition was a federal thing. States and counties continued bans of one sort or another, many of which continue to this day.
Any movement to "re-regulate" and tax illegal drugs will meet huge opposition from two groups: The Illegal Drug Cartel (as opposed to the Legal Drug Cartel) and the armies of enforcers employed in the War on Drugs.
So it is with Big Tobacco Control and the Legal Drug Cartel. Those industries will oppose by any means the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. Can anyone doubt that Organized Crime is spending big bucks to enact a total ban?
The average American doesn't realize that these groups are conducting a war to control who gets the money - the public be damned!
I am bemused by the spectacle of "Health" departments, Big Tobacco Control and the Legal Drug Cartel fighting each other and Organized Crime for the billions of dollars to be gained.
Will there be something similar to ABC stores? (state-run Alcoholic Beverage Control)
FAC stores: FDA Approved Carcinogen stores.
Speaking of that, are charcoal briquettes and firewood federally approved carcinogen sources?
The outdoor smoking pen that GreatScot mentioned is not Denmark, but Belgium: http://www.ananova.com/news/
stor...u=news.quirkies
http://www.expatica.com/actual/a...&
story_id=35871
http://www.int.iol.co.za/
index.p...70069638322P142
Rod, charcoal briquettes would be a nono ,in case they are used to fire up a narghile.Alcohol Prohibition may have led to Organised Crime ,but Organised Crime now operates under the guise of Public Health ,and is linking worldwide.It makes the Russian Mafia look like sweetie snatchers.
Hot off the CNN press. Now Doc, THIS is what public health is for, CONTAGIOUS disease (and yes, when you read it you'll understand the sarcasm I'm writing this with):
OMG……..We have joked about Second-Hand Fat (think I’ll run off and copyright that phrase LOL)……………well here it is:
Obesity Is Contagious, Study Finds
Wednesday, Jul. 25, 2007 By LAURA BLUE
Wondering why your waistline is expanding? Have a look at those of your friends. Your close friends can influence your weight even more than genes or your family members, according to new research appearing in the July 26 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine. The study's authors suggest that obesity isn't just spreading; rather, it may be contagious between people, like a common cold.
http://www.time.com/time/health/
...1646997,00.html
Si - but Organised Crime now operates under the guise of Public Health ,and is linking worldwide.It makes the Russian Mafia look like sweetie snatchers.
....
Yes, it's true...and these departments of Public Health are federally approved sources of carcinogens!
Lynda F - The study's authors suggest that obesity isn't just spreading; rather, it may be contagious between people, like a common cold.
...............
All that is needed is a few more studies (funded by RWJF), an EPA style meta-analysis of the studies and BIG FAT CONTROL is born to fight BIG FAT.
Think of the possibilities!
The next stage on the obesity angle is to blame the Tobacco Companies for allowing the majority of smokers to be thinner than their non smoking equivalents through using their products,and hey presto you can screw them for even more lolly.Even more so when clean nicotine cannot provide this valuable service and will cause weight gain in the newly liberated ex smoker.
Michael and Bill must be busy witting emails, cutting ties with any overweight friends [assuming either has any friends], so they don't have to feel guilty when the fat bashing begins.
No doubt the personality types are attuned to attitudes required of those who will join the next big plan to help others loose weight by denormalization using the smoking crusade as a road map.
There has to be a study out there to denormalize these self important clowns, something along the line of increased hatred causing huge mortality increases. Hmm
If Obesity is a contagious disease, then the Idiocy Epidemic found the ideal breeding conditions in Big Tobacco Control.
You may be onto something there Rod through history when cults rule, common sense has always gone out the window.
Perhaps population view psychosis is a communicable disease, The failure to identify this disease has demonstrated huge effects in the Public health community who are loosing credibility by the day suffering from a sickness they haven't even considered yet, much less started to deal with.
Diane: Black smoke was billowing even higher. The EPA was called in as some of this gas had some very toxic chemicals in it and they were needed to test the air quality around it for the firemen, police and media. They said that it was at safe levels and the smoke disappears as it rises and would not harm anyone.
Yes, I saw this on CNN (all day actually), and all I could think was how is it that cigarette smoke is somehow so magical as to be more dangerous and deadly than that?
Lynda F - Yes, I saw this on CNN (all day actually), and all I could think was how is it that cigarette smoke is somehow so magical as to be more dangerous and deadly than that?
.........
This reminds me of a Florida hospital's staff telling people that the smoke from the brush fires didn't contain carcinogens (like cigarette SHS does) because it was organic brush - so not to worry!
I'm not making this up!
The study's authors suggest that obesity isn't just spreading; rather, it may be contagious between people, like a common cold.
Of course that may be that, oh, I don't know, fat people HANG OUT TOGETHER??? Why would I hang out with people who aren't like ME???? Why wouldn't I have more fat friends if I'm fat because so many skinny people are so judgemental?
Well it was only a matter of time before they declared obesity a commucible disease! Seeing they used public healths BMI chart as the gauge for obesity what would one expect. To their way of thinking a 5'10" 210lb running back in the National (American) Football league is considered obese. The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a joke to start with. That really makes the whole study just sensationalism and another public health scare. Then you got the percentages again. The doublespeak 40%, 57% etc.. of a thousand. In reality the risks are 4%, 5.7% of risk only. then those famous words can, may, may be,appears to be, implications for interventions and my favorite generalized estimations. Who the heck would pay for this crap! Darn it looks like the good obese and smokey citizens of the USA.
FINSING SOURCE: NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH.
They did try a tie in with smoking. They stated smoking had no significant effect to weight loss. They did not state what no siginificant was! Go figure!
Yep! Doc, this is your gang!Public Health!
Have you noticed that smokers tend to hang out together, to flock in front of bars and pubs?
This must be prevented by all means, since smoking might be highly contagious.
Oh, by the way, antis tend to flock around Globalink. Looks like it is contagious as well.
Dr Siegel states,The truth is finally coming out", what that Enzi is PHARMA controlled ? That TFK are in cahoots with PM ? That Dr Siegel is a secret abolitionist ,who has kept his little secret throughout the length of his blog ? Who claims he saw the light when he personally attacked a fellow advocate for getting the storyline wrong,but refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the lost 220 bodies and accused commentators of being callous ? For suggesting if a sufficiently well worded statement pointing out the "perils" of SHS to bar staff be formulated, it would lead to his position regarding bans in bars being totally reversed ? For changing the definition of chronic exposure ,originally quoted as being 15 to 20 years, suddenly to a very much reduced timescale to capitalise on the 20 minutes being quoted by fellow advocates for "damaging health effects to occur". For showing us all what a politically manipulative tobacco abolitionist you really are.YES DR SIEGEL,YOU MAY BE CORRECT,BUT NOT QUITE IN THE WAY YOU ENVISAGED.
I guess there is such a thing as secondhand obesity. Will public health advocates now start banning obesity in public places, lest it spread to others? First, we'll have obesity-free workplaces, then obesity-free restaurants, then obesity-free bars, and finally, obesity-free casinos.
Wasn't there a better way to word this, other than to say that obesity SPREADS from one person to another (like an infectious disease)?
Doctor---'Will public health advocates now start banning obesity in public places, lest it spread to others? First, we'll have obesity-free workplaces, then obesity-free restaurants, then obesity-free bars, and finally, obesity-free casinos.'
____________________
And how will they level the playing field? Perhaps they could shoot the overweight on sight. That otta solve the problem. That way they wouldn't have to try to forget what a horrid sight they witnessed!!!
Sort of like the "my hair smells" crowd, they just cannot seems to clean themselves.
Yes, Doctor there is a better way to say it.
Just as you could drop the hysteria and the seizure of private property just to suit your nose.
Also you could have been up-front from the get go on your prohibition stance.
.
I guess it's a case of monkey see monkey do, Michael.
There is a deadly pandemic of that going around as well, it is most prominent in the new Public health, although that is resultant of a deliberate plan.
http://www.who.int/hia/en/
Above was me. Apologies.
So doctor. In measuring a bartender's exposure to fat people, would you assume that every bartender is sandwiched between two gargantuan slobs 40 hours a week, for 40 years? Or would you go to real world places and actually measure how often and for how long the average bartender is exposed?
Wait.. I know. Let's just do it the way you measured exposure to SHS.
Oh, wait. You won't say.
Too bad.
Maybe now would be a good time to reveal your methodology. It can't really be THAT embarrasing, can it?
So... the 220? How did you come up with that figure? Really. This is getting ridiculous. You made the comments in public. You affected real lives in doing so.
Good grief. Is it that bad?
I am not in favor of prohibition. I'm not sure where people got that idea. Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support.
Dr. Siegel and Sen Enzi
Hey another member of the Abbra Cadabra, Plastic Banana, Good Timer-Rock and Roller Club:
North Korea's Kim Jong-il bans smoking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../24/
wkim124.xml
~snip~
In most cities, smoking bans are intended to protect the non-smoking majority from the minority who insist on lighting up.
Kim Jong-il's health has deteriorated recently
In Pyongyang, the latest and most unlikely international capital to be subject to a ban, it is the other way round.
'The ban is to protect one man from the effects of his puffing compatriots, but since that man is the reclusive North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il, it is still likely to be vigorously implemented'
________
Just like here in America 'Cause YOU Say So!!
Such wonderful you fellas keep.
.
Such wonderful you fellas keep.
Should be:
Such wonderful company you fellas keep.
I am not in favor of prohibition. I'm not sure where people got that idea. Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support.
Well gee, Doc, it might be your obvious support for a bill that clearly states it's goal is to eliminate smoking.
Eliminating smoking is the same as prohibition in my book UNLESS you allow that elimination to happen naturally without legislating bans, excessive tax increases, and forcing smokers to smoke reduced nicotine cigarettes to force them to quit.
Gee, I have no idea what made us think you were for "prohibition/elimation of smoking".
Michael Siegel - I am not in favor of prohibition. I'm not sure where people got that idea. Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support.
........
Doctor Siegel,
A prohibition does not have to prohibit manufacture and sale of a prohibited item.
If you place a tax on an item so large almost no one can afford to buy it, is that prohibition?
If you claim there is no prohibition to farm in a certain area, then deny access to water and/or charge so much for water that the land cannot be watered sufficiently to produce a crop, is that prohibition?
You are playing a semantic game. Reminds me of the biblical story to make bricks without straw.
Doctor, you have no straw in your bricks.
Sam -- The laugh your post gave me --I needed.
Michael S. -- the laugh your post gave me, was of a different sort. Okay... okay... only 90% Prohibition.
"... with a required 90% reduction in smokers over the next 20 years..."
Michael----'I'm not sure where people got that idea'
Being a blond maybe why I just don't get you. Stop with the playing games it's very unbecoming. BTW are you blond?
Here is a CLUE----please get one!!!
Enzi calls on nation's top health officers to work together to eliminate use of tobacco products
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/in...n_id=&
Issue_id=
Enzi introduces bill to wipe out tobacco in America in a generation
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/in...n_id=&
Issue_id=
This is the latest Good Time Charlie you've hooked your star to. Wait maybe you are just playing dumb here. Yes, that's it. So in 20 more years of the BS you can say how shocked you are that this has all happened.
.
"...encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit..."
Does a tax of several dollars per pack count as "encouraging" or as "helping"?
And when PM jacks up prices to pay the $3.5 billion fine you envision, how are you going to make sure that only kids and wanna-be-quitters have to pay extra?
You know, I guess I have been too harsh on people. All those years my landlord kept jacking up the price of my apartment. I thought he was screwing me. Turns out it was just help and encouragement.
And wow. When my local and state government ratchet up the sales tax? Thanks guys! For being so helpful and encouraging!
Next time I see some poor schlep outside of a bar, sneaking a cigarette in the snow, I'll be sure to give him a high five. Because I am sure he'll be psyched about all you've done for him, doc. And I bet he'll be able to jump really high. You know. Because his wallet is so light.
Your gifts are the kind that keep on giving.
I guess it sucks to get you as Secret Santa at the office. What do you do? Torch the poor guy's car?
Sam M---'I guess it sucks to get you as Secret Santa at the office. What do you do?'
I bet he is a re-gifter.
BTW Sam, keep up the excellent posts.
.
“I am not in favor of prohibition.”
Great tee shirt idea Doc!! I could just see you standing in your smoke-free Boston bar dawning your declaration. Truly priceless!
"I am not in favor of prohibition. I'm not sure where people got that idea. Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support."
That is rich, however to afford the benefit of the doubt would that statement indicate, as half truths are almost expected here, a possibility you forgot to add "not yet" or a state secret not discussed because "we aren't allowed to discuss the plan yet to maximize the effects"?
This would be the new American oath of elegance written in BANgkok by the "New Public Health", rulers of the planet by right of self declaration. Believe it or not most countries fell for it.
http://www.uicc.org/index.php?id...235&
tt_news=570
New FDA regulations are the battleground the commonality of the two, both bills are based in the promotion of three substantial lies
based on the principles that second-hand smoke kills, that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke, and that all people - especially workers - deserve to be protected from second-hand smoke.
"For millions of lives to be saved governments must implement these guidelines immediately,"
Zieg Hiel
To hell with what the public really thinks, their voice is easily edited or coerced into subservience.
Soren,
thank you for correcting my geographical error.
Doc,
How do you define "encouragement" and "education"?
Does punishment to control behaviour count? How about an electric shock every time someone lights up?
As the pirate said at his trial " I did not kill him, I did not force him to walk the plank. I simply encouraged him with the point of my cutlass and educated him that being stabbed in the back hurts. After enough encouragement and education, he chose to jump overboard"
GreatScot
Dr Siegel states that he is not an abolitionist,wherever did we get the idea,probably from the same source that moved the goalposts on the issue of SHS and suddenly made it a tremendous mass killer of 220 bar staff and a potentially fatal trigger to 16 MILLION asthmatics .Who was this source DR SIEGEL HIMSELF,IS THIS SOURCE INACCURATE THEN ????
Should i have said unreliable instead of inaccurate ? I suppose it depends on who's offering what carrot and who can help advance DR SIEGEL'S MISSION.
" I am not in favor of prohibition. I'm not sure where people got that idea. Trying to reduce smoking by encouraging kids not to smoke and helping smokers who do want to quit to do so is not the same as supporting the prohibition of tobacco sales, which I do not support."
Obviously, you don't read, much less comprehend the signifigance and impact of the very specific choice of words you use for your own blog.
Try as you might to give the appearance of some "quasi-neutrality"
Your position remains quite clear.
You simply want to be liked while you're rescinding the rights of tens of millions that have NO DESIRE TO QUIT.(For their own good no doubt)
Afterall, it will level the playing field for the children in the interest of public health, and protect workers all at the same time. Right?
Your TC buddies don't care if their liked or not, ....except by their pharmaceutical backers.
They have no problem using the TC playbook of repetitive, obvious lies to get their message out.
You have no problem with using what must be a gigantic thesaurus, and the ACME semantic catalog of subtleties to achieve the same goal.
Being a Baptist makes you fat! I wonder if being baptized causes obesity. Will there be a ban on baptisms to prevent obesity? (Try saying that quickly!)
Obesity is 'contagious,' study finds
Friends help friends get fatter, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 26, 2007
Excerpt:
"But Paul Ernsberger, an obesity researcher at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, said that there are many reasons why people become fat and that friendship may be a marker for social forces the researchers were not able to measure.
He said body weight varies by social class and religious denomination, so it was possible that friends who got fat in the study were members of a larger group, such as Baptists, with a greater tendency for becoming overweight."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2wpsfw
(probably only good for today)
Rod note: I understand, via PNN (Panic News Network,) that the local health authorities have sent out special squads (Einsatzgruppen?) to question residents within a one half mile radius of Baptist churches to assess the spread of the obesity epidemic. An unconfirmed report indicates church membership records have been seized and the minister is being sought as a "person of interest."
The entire premise of fat begetting fat is found to be nonsense, when you ask why does skinny not also beget skinny?
Pure opportunistic use of junk science.
Trash to support an new hatred agenda according to CSPI the anti food Nazis; to replicate the tobacco scare mongering campaign legislating unhealthy food taxes to punish those who will not make the right choices voluntarily.
Paul Ernsberger, an obesity researcher at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, said that there are many reasons why....
Illitterate buffoons. At least the Doc has broken that habit.
6 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
