Doctor Siegel,
I am confused.
You seem to define "chemical" and "toxin" as one and the same.
Is it over four thousand "toxins," or over four thousand "chemicals?"
On the issue of raising the legal age of cigarette purchase, what age do you suggest it be raised to?
Doc, you slay me.
"We have already identified over 700 ingredients"
In a single cigarette?,..puhleeeze.
There are at least 599 Ingredients.
A List of these was first published on April 12, 1994 by the six American cigarette companies.
American Tobacco Company
Brown and Williamson
Liggett Group, Inc.
Philip Morris Inc.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
There are not however 700, or even 599 different ingredients in a single cigarette. These are simply a list of "possible" ingredient combinations.
Puhleeeze, each time you make such a vague statement, you are more often than not, every bit as bad as the TC scam artists you perpetually cite as mis-leading the public.
All of these ingredients are already regulated by the FDA, EPA, or other regulatory bodies.
If they are used in a way that might produce a toxic effect, ...Who's fault is that? The Tobacco company?,...ummm NO. The smoker?,..uhhh don't think so. The respective regulatory body that approved their use for commercial application in the first place?,....Ummm YA THINK?!
This would seem to be simply more of the same shoddy science, and absurd methodology that has brought us to where we are today.
Poor testing of each possible ingredient by the FDA/EPA et al.(them) prior to their individual seal of approval seems more likely the reason for the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today.
if any of these possible ingredients are banned from cigarettes, shouldn't they also be banned from every other application for which they may be used. After-all, if it's bad for you, ...it's bad for you no matter what,...right?
While most of the ingredients were likely not approved based on what might happen when they are burned, many, (probably most) likely were.
"Put money, for the first time, into a serious anti-tobacco advertising campaign (like the "truth" campaign)"
Still working on your comedy skills eh?
"Create or restore well-funded anti-smoking media campaigns in all 50 states. These campaigns represent the most successful intervention available"
Aren't we (smokers) footing the bill for such wasteful expenditures already?
"(the bill would fine cigarette companies if they fail to reduce the number of smokers of their brands to prescribed levels; it would also increase federal cigarette excise taxes), I think the general idea makes sense."
Penalizing any company, or industry for the popularity of their product has already been discussed as the Anti-American, Anti-capatilist, Anti-business, Anti-answer to everything you and TC in general don't personally like.
GET A GRIP.
What part of....
"New Research Suggests that Cigarette Price Increases No Longer Stimulate Smoking Cessation"
....did you not understand?
And it seems in order to emphasize the seriousness of your faulty memory, you even repeat the rediculous idea again;
"they should work with legislators like Senator Enzi on crafting a bill that would utilize the approaches to reducing tobacco use that are tried and true prevention strategies."
What is your fascination with aiding in the march toward the socialist society?
Though the bill would attempt to regulate new tobacco products, it would permit Marlboro and other popular brands to stay on the market virtually untarnished, even as they cause the deaths of nearly half a million Americans each year.
There's that magic number of "nearly half a million". Our old friend SAMMEC again. Come on Doc, we know the real number is probably less than 200K and 80% are above 65.
I am all for educating and warning consenting adults, but that's enough.
If we are to fine BT for not reducing users than we need to fine Big Medicine and Big Pharma if they don't reduce the "nearly one million deaths" attributed to medical mistakes.
Dear Dr. Siegel,
Congratulations on your article. I do however take issue with the following statement. "Though the bill would attempt to regulate new tobacco products, it would permit Marlboro and other popular brands to stay on the market virtually untarnished, even as they cause the deaths of nearly half a million Americans each year."
There is that word "cause" again. Cigarettes in themselves do not cause death. No more so then gun do. There is a very strong link that smoking is a risk factor for diseases (commonly called smoking related) that can lead death. But it is the disease that causes death. People can die of these same smoking related diseases when they have never smoked or been exposed to SHS. Unless a smoker died of lung cancer (for which there is a very strong correlation to smoking) it would be hard to conclusively say that a smoker who died of a smoking related disease that the disease was due to smoking. Correlation does not equal causation. This is especially true for heart disease as there are many other things that are risk factors for that (obesity being a big one). Even while there is a very strong correlation between lung cancer and smoking and a strong case can be made that smoking is the most likely culprit, it cannot be ruled out that something else (radon, etc) really caused the cancer. Where did the half a million Americans each year figure come from? Do you have a citation you can provide? Or it this one of those things where anyone dieing from any disease for which is linked to smoking (however weak or strong) is counted whether or not that person was ever exposed to smoke or not? The point is you make a point criticizing your fellow TC zealots for exaggerations you yourself make. The biggest is using correlation to equal cause. This not being a scientific journal you do not have to provide citations, but I really would be nice if you did at least provide a citation for how the half million deaths were determined. Again congratulations on your write up. I personally do not care whether the FDA regulates tobacco or not.
Sorry folks, I'm just blood boiling mad right now. I've about had it with all these nosey-body, butt-in-skis, feeling they have the right to STEAL MY INALIENABLE RIGHT TO USE A LEGAL PRODUCT.
If the anti-smoking groups really want to do something meaningful about addressing the tobacco epidemic in this country, they should stop wasting precious time and resources supporting the FDA legislation and instead, they should work with legislators like Senator Enzi on crafting a bill that would utilize the approaches to reducing tobacco use that are tried and true prevention strategies.
Why are not just pushing for outright prohibition? Do you honestly believe we are so stupid that we can't figure out that "reducing" preferably to zero, tobacco use, is nothing more than prohibition snuck in through the back door?
Seriously, WHAT business is it of yours that we choose to use a LEGAL product? Spare me your death numbers because as I've already pointed out dozens of times, I don't buy them. You cannot prove that NO smoking would have prevented those problems therefore your argument that smoking causes them is a LIE.
Human beings are considered "adult" at the age of 18. When they reach that "age of maturity" they are allowed to vote and go to war. IF they are allowed to vote and go to war then you have absolutely NO right to tell them they are not allowed to smoke or drink.
And until you stop using the word CAUSE out of context, deliberately allowing the general public to assume "absolute" definition of the word, I cannot find any reason to congratulate you for this.
I'm sick and tired of you feeling it is perfectly alright to punish and attack smokers (and yes, you do, you just do it sneakily and hope we won't notice, but I do). You know damned well that ANY fines imposed on the tobacco companies will be paid for with a price increase in cigarettes. In fact RJ is increasing the price on several of their brands as of Monday coming up, according to something I read last night.
I no longer believe a single word ANY organization says. The next pandemic to come up I will also ignore because you have so deceitful with the little things that I cannot honestly believe anything else you say is true.
Sorry Doc, you are doing more damage with your "smoke" hatred than you can imagine. Too bad your intelligence doesn't include the ability to see beyond your nose. And considering how some of your relatives/ancestors were probably persecuted by Hitler, I'm shocked to see you using the same tactics. It is disgusting.
Perhaps MD's, (instead of being financially rewarded for coercing smokers to switch to NRT) should be fined for failing to achieve quitters targets. $2500 for each person below the target.
Or how about MD's being fined by the Government for not reducing the number of visits patients make to the Doctor each year?
Or how about a fine for each unwarranted prescription made? Or each non-generic drug prescribed?
Yeah, I know that would be forcing MD's to reduce their income, but what the hell, it's for the greater good, no?
Would that be reasonable Doc?
Letting the Government force a legal business to reduce it's customer base at all, never mind to the point of becoming inviable, is a dangerous precedent to set. Supporting such a proposal tells me a lot about your myopia with respect to smoking.
GreatScot
The USA Todays have Greater Antis debating Lesser Antis for what Tobaccos greatest profiteer (Government) should do about tobacco regulation. With Big Tobacco having a seat at the table. Again the group with the greatest stake(tobacco consumers) have no voice. The best thing all you hypocrits can do for all of us tobacco users Doc. Quit picking our pockets!
Well, well, well.........will wonders never cease? Dr. Siegel has finally admitted what those of us who oppose the nanny state have known all along. The anti-smoker jihad is NOT about health, it is all about money and control.
Dr. Siegel, in case you didn't realize it, the government does not generate any revenue, it TAKES it in the form of taxes, thus you are advocating stealing money from the users of a legal product to line the pockets of those, including yourself, who will then use it to demonize the victims of said theft.
The first step on the road to recovery is admitting you have a problem. That you have done with this opinion piece with your admittance you are only interested in money. The next step is to admit the damage you have done to others..........
Doctor, do you live in Wonderland with Alice?
"(1) increasing the legal age of cigarette purchase; and (2) limiting the places where cigarettes may be sold."
What is the legal age for purchase of heroin? Oh it's prohibited. Does this prevent any minor from laying hands on heroin?
Where are the places where heroin may be sold? Oh, there aren't any such places. Does this prevent heroin from being sold?
Look' it's really very simple. When two people engage in exchange of wealth, there is no crime and no victim. If one person exchanges money for cigarettes, there is no crime and no victim. Period.
Dr. Siegel,
"The constitution is not an actuary table." (From a letter to the NYT)
I am saddened to see you write that tobacco smoke contains 4,000 toxins.
Even the CDC stops at 250 and you know they are loosely using the word "toxin" to mean that at some--often unrealisticlly--high dose a chemical has harmed some living creature. Will you retract that preposterous 4,000 number?
One of your arguments against the current FDA-regulation proposal is that Philip Morris has partcipated in its crafting. Are you saying that industry should have no input into regulatory laws? In a democracy all sides are expected to represent themselves in regulatory legislation and often--by statute--industry has a right to do so. Would you have it that only public health and government officials participate?
They said:
"the alternative is doing nothing — leaving a rapacious industry free to deceive the public."
Could someone in the know please tell me the last time the tobacco industry was free to deceive the public? Lorillard couldn't even beat ALF in court when it was obvious Lorillard was the only truth®ful one there.
"FDA authority would give consumers a fighting chance to learn the facts and make more informed decisions about whether to use tobacco products."
Yeah, maybe for the five or six people who've been living under a rock the last four decades.
Geez, in school my kids have been taught:
1. Smokeless tobacco companies put fiberglass in their tobacco.
2. Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray.
3. If you smoke you'll die.
Maybe by informed they mean my kids won't be lied to by anti-tobacco scumbags. Hmm, maybe I am for FDA regulation.
Heck James, your number 2 and 3 were being bandied about when I was in elementary school back in the '60s and early 70's.
From an article referenced in the ASH uk website.
Another spin on Cigarette equivalents.
A far cry from Doc Siegel's 1.5 to 2 packs per 8 hour shift.
Excerpt
Non-smoking bar workers had nicotine intakes approximately seven times higher than non-smokers in the general population with some analyses suggesting that this was equivalent to smoking about 160 cigarettes per year.
http://www.a2mediagroup.com/?c=1.../?c=140&
a=18117
Is there no end to legalised extortion?
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&
...ategory=Kingdom
Stop the gravy train Doc, call for prohibition. There is no justification in this continued persecution.
GreatScot
I agree that the tobacco industry should not be fined for people using their products. However, I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products. This is where I disagree with the specifics of the Enzi bill. I support the general concept, but I agree that the companies shouldn't be fined if legal-age people are using their products. It is their right to market and sell their products to those people. It is not, however, their legal right to market and sell their product to youths.
Slippery slope Doc....
Should beer companies be fined when underagers get hurt/damaged/sick when they partake?
Should vehicle manufacturers be fined when underaged drivers crash and hurt themselves (or others) after "liberating" someones car?
Tobacco is no more marketed to youth than cars or beer.
We need us one of those "level playing fields".......
Fine all or fine none.
Smoking Bans are nothing more than a Cheap rent-seeking ploy that is somehow supposed to be made palatable through the paternalistic endorsement of extremely wealthy Non-profit entities telling business owners and their patrons that it’s “for their own good”, and “In the interest of public health” It is most assuredly not in the best interest of business.
Our governments’ obvious delegation of their authority to these questionable entities along with the legislators’ silent approval of the resulting economic damage without question, hesitation, or reservation is simply appalling.
Legislating personal preference so as to remove any choice from a minority that would willingly choose to accept the alleged risks involved in entering such any smoke friendly environment, reduces the vitality of the independent business community, diminishes the versatility of what the community has to offer, and outlaws the personal choice of every citizen in the state.
Legislators continue to hide behind such media friendly clichés as “the people have spoken” and “in the interest of public health”, or the ever popular, and emotionally charged “for the sake of the children” in a concerted effort to avoid any political repercussions that may ensue by actually taking a stand against a Politically Correct, ethically challenged “Public health” juggernaut that they know full well, but continue to rationalize and deny, is clearly out of control.
The ongoing campaign of hate against individuals for a personal choice they have made is palatable, and inescapable.
It is promoted at every turn, and in every conceivable form from tax funded highly insulting “truth” commercials, to legislators that are too lazy to research for themselves, and would rather parrot the same vile unintelligible junk science that lacks any trace of common sense and would be easily exposed as fraud upon a even cursory inspection of the facts.
The amount of money wasted in this effort to criminalize a legal product in use by adults on private property is obscene. Smokers in Ohio and across the nation are now expected to suffer through the continuing crusade of faux victims and the effort of “public health” and their puritanical campaign financiers, the pharmaceutical industry to readily accept the second class citizenship so graciously afforded to them without objection because, after-all it’s “for the children”.
This new class of citizenry is also expected to fund the next big step in socialized medicine through their continued purchase of tobacco products, as well as provide the necessary funding used to promote the campaign for prohibition that is a result of the same measures that supports Tobacco Control in the first place; continued tobacco sales.
It is a vicious, discriminatory, prejudicial circle, and you can not continue to have it both ways!
This issue is less about public health concern than it is about social engineering. It's about unelected health authorities using the power granted to them to regulate and prevent infectious diseases, and instead using that power to effect societal change through media scare tactics, and forced government intervention. By ignoring opposing points of view, dismissing all opposition as selfish or uninformed, and allowing their self-perceived nobility of cause to over-rule sound judgment in an effort to achieve the desired result is nothing more than paternalistic, moralizing self indulgence. It is readily apparent that these organizations, regardless of how well intentioned, are willing to sacrifice sound public policy and more importantly to abandon strict scientific standards without discretion in their effort to have the end justify the means.
Hate; it’s absolutely legal now in far too many states, and it is quite simply shameful.
Doctor Siegel, you are equally guilty of promoting this charade despite your best effort in deflecting any blame that is directly attributable to your own comments and efforts.
I remain confident that you will all ultimately, be brought to justice.
I can only hope that you won't be able to weasel out from under the appropriate punishment by using the excuse of "it was for the children"
The Doctor says: "I agree that the tobacco industry should not be fined for people using their products. However, I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products. This is where I disagree with the specifics of the Enzi bill. I support the general concept, but I agree that the companies shouldn't be fined if legal-age people are using their products."
The problem is that the fines will be passed on to legal smoking adults through higher cigarette prices. The same happened with the tobacco settlement. Smokers foot the bill with no difference made to tabacco profits (other then fewer smokers) and huge increases to government coffers as an indirect tax (the government does not have to call it a tax increase). In the end the legal smoker pays.
Doc - "I agree that the tobacco industry should not be fined for people using their products. However, I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products. This is where I disagree with the specifics of the Enzi bill. I support the general concept, but I agree that the companies shouldn't be fined if legal-age people are using their products."
To expand slightly on Col's post.
The Tobacco industry is not responsible for who uses their product. Big T sell their legal product to licensed retailers. Their responsibility ends there unless you have evidence to the contrary.
Youths get their smokes either from irresponsible retailers, friends, black market, theft or occasionally family. Now correct me if I am wrong but is there not existing laws to prohibit this?
Any excuse to target the producers Doc?
GreatScot
3. If you smoke you'll die.
Actually, what I remember hearing or at least understanding in health class was, "Smoking is less acceptable now than in the past. If you start smoking now, you need to realize it should be even less acceptable later."
Oh well, for most of us, the smoking part of health class got us easy enough grades, because the questions were the most obviously loaded, so we didn't have to think, and that was good.
3. If you smoke you'll die.
Newsflash!
If you dont smoke you'll still die.
Is it reduced to who has the better death?
Andrew, some of that "not thinking" stuck with a certain crowd.....
I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products.
Fine the cutlery industry and knife makers if somebody uses a knife as a murder weapon?
Fine your car manufacturer if you cause a car accident?
Fine the roller blade manufacturer if your kid breaks a leg?
Can somebody please get the good doctor back to reality?
However, I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products.
I asked you this last week Doc, and I’m still waiting for an answer. HOW are you going to prove that youth smoking has gone down since youth (which means UNDER THE LEGAL AGE OF 18 ) cannot actually buy cigarettes legally anyway?
And why punish a company or industry because people who shouldn’t use their product still manage to? Why NOT fine the parents of said brats if you are so concerned, for it seems obvious they are NOT doing their job. Or the retailer who IS the point of sale person selling the cigarette illegally to the minor?
The industry does NOT market and sell it’s product to youth. It IS marketed and sold to LEGAL ADULTS. Just because adults also like cartoon characters doesn’t mean Joe Camel was specifically designed to attract all the 12 year olds. Give me a break already. AND when was the last time the tobacco company was even allowed to advertise their product? Their freedom of speech has been squashed for at least a couple of decades now.
It is NOT industry’s responsibility to keep their product out of the hands of youth……there are already laws in place to do that.
Your logic is born of your hatred of cigarettes and it shows. YOUR plan STILL punishes the LEGAL ADULT smoker, for WE will be the ones to pay through increased prices, because kids want to exert their independence and make their own choice, or just want to outright do what they are told not to do.
Is it reduced to who has the better death?
Colin, yes it is............didn't you get the memo?
"Public Health" and the "majority" are the only ones allowed to dictate death. They claim to have the right to who, when, where and how. If you even try doing it your way (or God's) you will punished.
I'd love to say I was being sarcastic here, but I think it's been proven that this is far closer to the truth than TC's SHS claims.
Gabz wrote:
"Heck James, your number 2 and 3 were being bandied about when I was in elementary school back in the '60s and early 70's."
I don't recall any anti-smoking stuff when I was in school (class of '75), but I remember a class on drugs. What I can recall is that after learning about all these drugs I decided if I were ever to indulge, cocaine would be my choice. LOL
There was an indoor smoking room for students at that school.
USA Today Highlights Debate Over FDA Tobacco Legislation
1. Point -Counterpoint: USA Today - Dr. Alan Blum - Dr. Michael Siegel
Why weren't smokers represented in this debate? I find it very offensive to be treated as a child or as an asset to be argued over. I am not an asset to be exploited and/or disposed of as you wish. You are not my parents - I am an adult who can make my own decisions.
2. False health claims by tobacco companies
Tobacco companies haven't been making false claims for decades. If they did, there is recourse by lawsuit. It is Big Tobacco Control, a multi-billion dollar industry employing tens of thousands, funded by forced fines and taxes paid by smokers and funding from the Legal Drug Cartel, that has been producing fraudulent claims about the dangers of smoking and SHS.
3. "...leaving a rapacious industry free to deceive the public.
The only rapacious industry involving tobacco is Big Tobacco Control - Its addiction to tobacco taxes and fines has been escalating for years in a never ending need to feed its addiction. This addiction is so severe it affects its ability to reason, to maintain an ethical and moral balance - it will say and do anything to maintain access to its drug.
4. "...make us skeptical that Congress is finally standing up to Big Tobacco."
Congress is not afraid of "Big Tobacco." It's terrified of Big Tobacco Control and its co-conspirator the Legal Drug Cartel.
5. "...it would permit Marlboro and other popular brands to stay on the market virtually untarnished, even as they cause the deaths of nearly half a million Americans each year."
A. The tobacco companies sell a legal product. Like many other legal products (alcohol, cleaning solutions, BBQ briquettes, firearms, matches, cars, knives, prescription drugs, etc.), no one is forced to purchase a product and cannot be prevented from misusing a product.
B. The "death" statistics you so freely throw around are statistical artifacts produced by a computer program. The data input is a biased assumption based on unmeasured exposure (which in turn is based on memory recall) to produce "paper" deaths which cannot be verified.
6. "...reduce youth smoking by controlling youth access to tobacco products, it precludes the FDA from doing the two things that would result in the most meaningful access restrictions: (1) increasing the legal age of cigarette purchase; and (2) limiting the places where cigarettes may be sold."
A. Define "youth." 18? 21? 25? What age do you consider mature enough to make a decision whether to smoke? What age would be legal for "flavored" cigarettes? To drink? Get married? Own property? Die for your country?
B. Where would you allow the sale of cigarettes to those of "legal" age?
7. Chemicals, Toxins and carcinogens, thousands of.
A. Please define "Toxins" and "Chemicals."
B. Please be more specific reference "carcinogens."
8. Fining and taxing Tobacco companies
A. Tobacco companies (or any other corporation) do not pay fines or taxes - smokers pay the freight. When you tax or "punish" a tobacco company, you are taxing and punishing the users, the ones you so passionately want to protect.
B. It is ridiculous to hold a company responsible for lowering its sales numbers. If you think the general idea makes sense, then your addiction to tobacco taxes and fines has destroyed your ability to reason.
9. "...I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products."
I'm almost speechless! What other industries, manufacturers, etc. should be fined if "underage youths" are using their products?
Benpal provides this analogy:
Fine the cutlery industry and knife makers if somebody uses a knife as a murder weapon?
Fine your car manufacturer if you cause a car accident?
Fine the roller blade manufacturer if your kid breaks a leg?
The difference, Benpal, is that the cutlery industry is not marketing their products to be used to kill people. Car companies are not trying to get people to cause accidents.
If the tobacco industry were not trying to get kids to smoke, then I would agree that we should not fine them if kids smoke. But if they are trying to do so, then should they not have to suffer some consequences for this behavior, since it is illegal for kids to purchase cigarettes?
I agree that if the cigarette companies are simply trying to recruit adult smokers, then they should not and cannot be blamed for the "side effect" of kids also starting to smoke. But if the companies are actually intending to get kids to smoke, then the situation is completely different.
That's all I'm saying. I don't disagree with you in principle.
Doc, You are going to have to explain to us exactly how the Tobacco Cos are trying to get kids to smoke. Where are these ads at that target kids? Has Joe Camel made a comeback? Doc, I was taught that you need proof to convict someone. I guess I am a little old fashion because "I would rather fight than switch" and would "walk a mile to do it".
If the tobacco industry were not trying to get kids to smoke, then I would agree that we should not fine them if kids smoke
I'm sorry, WHERE is your proof that they deliberately set out to entice KIDS to smoke. ANY cigarette advertising I've ever seen was not geared towards children any more than the alcohol ads are. They are NOT geared towards kids any more than car ads are.
So, produce the proof that they deliberately advertise to kids, otherwise, you need to retract that statement for it is an outright lie.
Has Joe Camel made a comeback?
Nemo, I always took Joe Camel to be an ADULT cartoon, as adults have come more and more to enjoy them over the years.
I personally don't feel Joe Camel was a gimmick to lure children, and IF that is what TC thinks, they need to prove it.
Contrary to what TC thinks, this is STILL a free country....and our justice system states that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and it is the accusing party's responsibility to provide the irrefutable proof.
All you ANTIS have done is create a new minority group for people to hate, and spew their bigotry against. It's not PC to practice bigotry against any minority group except smokers. Here are some comments from a smoking forum:
"I would so love to be in your oncologists office when you are told of your impending cancer. Watch you try to hold on to life as your family gathers round your hospital bed as you strain to breath and talk. Cancer wards are full of people just like you that refuse to surrender, that would rather die than quit the addiction, your weak and to top it off your stupid to think that I will go away until every last one of you junkies and addicts scream from the pain of quitting.
Call me a socialist or communist or whatever just remember that WE have the politicians ears and to top that off it is soon to be an election year. Wonder what the politicians will do when a mass of angry seniors demand that smoking in outdoor areas is unhealthy to children? If you say never happen you are a bigger fool than what I thought.
Smokers to me are vermin that have no reason or business breathing air that they foul. The sooner they are dead the better and the worse the death the better.
At least ONE smoker is aware that MY THREAT is serious to your way of life. You morons keep laughing and Kent don't bother to do anymore than scoff and be the fool that you are. We are a NATION WIDE group thats sole purpose at this time is to eradicate any form of tobacco from public areas inside or out.
The good news is that I do not have to have my hand in your death it is already in the works, the only sad part of your death is that I won't be able to witness it point and laugh as you gag for another breath and crave another cigarette.
You can whine all you want about constitution this or that or rights this and rights that, makes me no difference, I get my way because we are a united group that fights and VOTES........ the MAJORITY fool.
I do not coddle those that are sub human stench filled vermin. They will all die a horrid death filled with wrenching pain, sad thing for me is that I won't get to watch and point and laugh.
Come smoke here and find out what war really feels like.
I think you have the mistaken idea that I care about smokers rights or that I worry about the freedom you are losing. Rest assured I DO NOT, the sooner you are gone the better for the rest of us that care about the air and environment I live in, the sooner you smokers are dead the better life the rest of us who are of strong mind and did not allow some weed to dictate my comings and goings the better.
I wish every single addicted moron DEAD yes I could care less, I am and would happily volunteer to pull the lever on the chair that puts felons and smokers out of sight and mind. Rest assured I care less of your opinions or warnings you addict.
Hitler was brilliant he just went about it the wrong way. Holocaust victims lived that is the problem never leave your enemy alive.
ONE MORE THING, News flash TG declares WAR on smoking and smokers. I have no intention of being nice or peacefull. I am at war and you smokers are the enemy. I am very DANGEROUS to your way of life."
http://www.topix.net/health/smoking
The difference, Benpal, is that the cutlery industry is not marketing their products to be used to kill people. Car companies are not trying to get people to cause accidents.
I think I understand what you are saying as an if-then proposition.
But in this case I think the analogy would be that car companies are offering products that give a higher risk of accidents(which are much more likely to be lethal,) not that they cause accidents. Cigarette smokers don't think "gee I'm trying to kill someone with this smoke." And car companies regardless of intent still sell a car that kills people--and a car is a product without a warning label on it that people have to see every time they choose to use it.
So I think that by this reasoning, if car companies advertise, ostensibly to adults, cars much bigger than are practical in the city, that we CAN legislate? Cars that cause the potential for accidents among others(ie SUVs that you can't see from behind?) Cars that, quite simply, are not safe because they are big? (see SUVs and rollover) Or that create exhaust that can raise the risk of lung cancer for people living nearby a major street(as I do) as much as living with a smoker?
We could and should then fine the auto industry for the number of outsize cars sold, in that case.
The cars-are-necessity argument doesn't apply here as having more than one car per driving-age adult as is the case now in the US.
I don't agree with the reasoning above but I think that is where the italicised statement leads.
Excellent op/ed Mike.
Many claims made in USA TODAY's editorial were incorrect or misleading.
In Fact:
- Cigarettes labeled Light or Ultralight comprise about half of the U.S. cigarette market, as many full flavored brands also emit less than 15 mg. of tar (per FTC testing method).
- Cigarettes are regulated by the federal government, just not by the FDA.
- Philip Morris (which negotiated and is lobbying for the FDA legislation) has given more campaign contributions to members of Congress than has any other tobacco company.
- Snus and other smokeless tobacco products TRULY are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, while reduced exposure cigarettes (which are allowed to be marketed as such, and could be mandated, by the Philip Morris backed FDA legislation) would perpetuate the safer cigarette fraud for many more decades.
- The State Settlements sharply curtailed tobacco marketing to youth, while the Supreme Court already has struck down advertising restrictions contained in the FDA legislation for violating the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
- Many far superior public health alternatives to the Philip Morris backed FDA legislation exist, including:
* Senator Mike Enzi's HEALTH Act (S. 1834), which gives tobacco companies huge financial incentives to reduce tobacco use by 90% over 20 years, summarized at http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247766.html
* Senator Enzi's many public health amendments to the FDA tobacco legislation in the Senate (S. 625), summarized at http://www.smokefree.net/bg-anno...ges/
247765.html
* AHEAD's proposed improvements to the FDA legislation, at www.tobaccoatacrossroads.com
Addendum...and by that logic I think toys of big 4x4s, etc., should not be marketed to kids. Because you know what kids do with them? Crash them! Guess what that leads to! Why hasn't Big Auto spoken out against this sort of behavior?
"While we agree that children must have channels for their aggression we believe that Big 4x4's can and should be enjoyed without rough play and simulated accidents. We believe the toys last longer too."
I can't imagine a toy company saying that. Not that I like tobacco companies in the least, but they're being forced into that sort of thing. And if this treatment fails(as it will,) someone will come up with a ridiculous way in which We Must Do More.
Snus and other smokeless tobacco products TRULY are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes
So are candy bars, but I don't like candy bars.
Addendum to Andrew, not Bill.
which gives tobacco companies huge financial incentives to reduce tobacco use by 90% over 20 years
I don't think I have ever read a more stupid statement. How can they reduce tobacco use other than by reducing production. Why would a company want to be in the tobacco business when the only thing they are allowed to do is to close the shop?
And who would pay the incentives? The non existent smokers or the black market smokers?
Dr. Siegel: But if the companies are actually intending to get kids to smoke
Call me stupid, but I have never seen a tobacco sales person twisting a child's arm to get it to smoke. I have never seen a cigarette ad aimed a kids. Can you explain what you see and I don't see?
Bill wrote:
"Snus and other smokeless tobacco products TRULY are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, while reduced exposure cigarettes...would perpetuate the safer cigarette fraud..."
Bill,
What kind of music should we imagine is playing in the background of your smokeless commercials?
Btw, I heard it's not good to mention your competition in your own commercials. It's free advertising for them.
Poor country, poor children. In the USA, children grow up without parents. But luckily, there are enough nannies in the gouvernment to take care of these children, to guide them through life. In fact only until they have learned to think for themselves, but then they will learn that they haven't learned to think for themselves.
Burger King limits advertising to kids.
http://www.miamiherald.com/busin...ory/
234366.html
Michael - your argument for penalizing businesses for the *illegal* use of their products makes zero sense to me...
Anyway the good news is... maybe people are starting to get it, maybe we've had enough.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news...ory/
701742.html
No-flag policy lifted at Sampson school
"...Gayle Langston of Turkey had sounded the alarm about the policy when her daughter Jessica was told on Friday not to wear her flag shirt again. She wanted to wear her flag shirt on Tuesday, the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Langston said.
Langston called local media outlets, and those reports have circulated through email and chat rooms, prompting outraged responses from as far away as Hawaii.
"We're in America and we've got to stand up for what's right," Langston said. "We are the land of the free. What are they going to take way from us next?""
(I think that "Turkey", was the improbably named Turkey, NC...)
“Create or restore well-funded anti-smoking media campaigns in all 50 states. These campaigns represent the most successful intervention available to reduce tobacco use. If Congress really wanted to do something about the problem, our legislators would put their money where their mouths are. They would allocate money to fund such a program in every state.”
My version; in part,
Match funding for anti-smoking media campaigns in all 50 states, for the purpose of creating a well funded and massive media campaign specifically targeting anti-smoking groups that spew false misrepresentations regarding: tobacco, taxes, children and smokers.
Doctor if you really mean what you blog here you should be advocating for funding to counter the misrepresentations and falsehoods so often used by AT.
Maureen Moore, ASH (Scotland), recently announced her retirement. Job advert for replacement £54,000 ($108,000) salary.
Where do they get the money again?
GreatScot
"The alternative is for Congress to actually do something meaningful about the problem of tobacco use. Put money, for the first time, into a serious anti-tobacco advertising campaign (like the "truth" campaign)."
Is this the same guy that denies he's a nanny? The very fact that Siegel uses the term "problem" is indicative of a nanny mentality. The REAL problem isn't with tobacco use, it's with fascist-minded people like Siegel who seem emotionally incapable of refraining from minding other people's business. If there is a problem here, how does MY problem suddenly become YOUR problem, Siegel? How do you justify sticking your nose in other people's problems? ON WHAT ETHICAL GROUNDS?
Now if smokers were a a burden on the taxpayer, that might be a different kettle of fish. But smokers aren't a burden on the taxpayers; they're, in fact, an absolute BOON to the taxpayers!
Smoking is no more your damn business, Siegel, than is any other risk activity, such as climbing mountains or racing around a track at high speeds. Just how in the hell do you JUSTIFY this interfering in the lives of other people, ESPECIALLY when using their own money? Have you ever addressed this question? I don't think so. But then, you're a nanny, and nannies never do need to justify themselves.
It's okay for me and my ilk to interfere, all uninvited, into people's lives 'for their own good,' goes the argument, but you'd damn well better not try coming into my car or home! Why? Because cars and homes are sacrosanct, that's why! But individuals aren't.
Go figure.
.
How do you decide when a cigarette ad is targeting "children"? What's the criterion? And who gets to decide? (Wait. Don't tell me. That unbiased entity, Anti-Tobacco.)
How about when anti-tobacco targets children (and blank minds of any age) with out and out lies? Would you fine AT-- or AT's manufacturers, the government itself? Maybe you should fine them if they don't reduce their lies by at least 90%?
And how about the media when the media uncritically pushes those lies? According to your theory, AT should be fined since they're somehow responsible for the acts of every small town paper in the country. Then, too, perhaps the papers themselves should be fined if they don't, very steadily, continue to lose readers, since the readers are certainly being harmed by the lies, and, in turn, harming others.
I'll refer to those hate-filled blog posts above and I'll call them Exhibit A.
Another tangent--in your article you favor removing the 40 no-nos, but elsewhere you've stated that nobody actually knows what they are. So now, which is it?
:
Dr. Siegel wrote: “If the tobacco industry were not trying to get kids to smoke, then I would agree that we should not fine them if kids smoke. But if they are trying to do so, then should they not have to suffer some consequences for this behavior, since it is illegal for kids to purchase cigarettes?”
I think a much bigger problem is the pharmaceutical companies. I cannot remember the last time I watched the nightly news without over half the ads being for drugs for this ailment or that. They have caused people to think that one should take a pill for whatever ails them, when side effects can cause more harm then good. It is also well known that these drugs are making it into the hands of children. Children are being taught that drugs are good, as long as it is from the pharmaceutical companies. The biggest problem drugs right now are pain killers. In addition, parents and schools are putting kids on drugs simply because they can not sit still and pay attention in class. Doctors are taking money from the pharma companies in free sample drugs and other benefits to help push there products when cheaper alternatives maybe available. The number of people dieing from drug interactions is increasing and I assume these are verifiable deaths.
While I am not advocating these measures as I feel any company has a right to advertise there products, based on your reasoning you should advocate the following.
1. Pharmaceutical companies should be restricted from advertising on television.
2. Doctors should not be allowed to take any gift or other freebees from drug companies (conflict of interest).
3. If children are found abusing pharmaceutical drugs including over-the-counter medicines (cough syrup, etc.) pharmaceutical companies should be fined and the proceeds used to warm the public of the dangers posed by excessive reliance on prescription and over-the-counter drugs.
4. Doctors and pharmacists should be held accountable for patient deaths due to drug interactions. This one probably not needed as relatives of the deceased probably already have legal recourse.
I agree that the tobacco industry should not be fined for people using their products. However, I don't find it unreasonable to fine the industry if underage youths are using their products. This is where I disagree with the specifics of the Enzi bill. I support the general concept, but I agree that the companies shouldn't be fined if legal-age people are using their products. It is their right to market and sell their products to those people. It is not, however, their legal right to market and sell their product to youths.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 09.12.07 - 3:22 pm | #
Good Grief, Doc........the tobacco companies DO NOT SELL their products to consumers - they sell them to wholesalers who sell them to retailers who sell them to consumers. The only ones guilty of selling to underage smokers are RETAILERS. Your comment is akin to claiming Coors Brewing should be fined for underage drinkers.......INSANE.
There was an indoor smoking room for students at that school.
James Austin | 09.12.07 - 5:32 pm | #
As seniors (class of '7
we were allowed to smoke in the courtyard of the school, unless of course you were on really good terms with a teacher and she or he would allow you in the teacher's lounge
I remember one nun (I attended all girl Catholic HS) who really harped on the smokers in class. That came to an abrupt end one day after one of her tirades she was asked "Is Father soandso going to get the same lecture, after all we were with him?" Father was the Pastor, also a smoker, and frequently joined the seniors in the courtyard!!!
Gabz,
The school I was talking about was a Catholic high school too.
benpal wrote:
"I don't think I have ever read a more stupid statement. How can they reduce tobacco use other than by reducing production."
It is obvious that benpal either hasn't read Senator Enzi's legislation or doesn't understand the incentives it provides.
But I'm not going to waste my time explaining.
It is obvious that benpal either hasn't read Senator Enzi's legislation or doesn't understand the incentives it provides.
Yeah, coercian and force............the usual tactics for control freaks who don't like others thinking for themselves when it comes to using LEGAL PRODUCTS.
There are NO incentives for anyone except the control freaks who want everyone to behave as they say.
Tell me Bill...........how do you propose all these programs that are funded now, and planning to be funded by, smokers going to survive IF we all submit to your will and quit smoking? Are you really willing to have your property taxes increased to pay for your neighbors kids healthcare?
Your increased taxes ONLY work to build and increase the black market. Because, Billy dear, people like me will refuse to submit to your will.
I don't know of any 17 year olds who have died because they smoked. 16-21 year olds killed in car accidents is sadly quite common.
Should Ford be financially penalized if youth deaths aren't reduced? A kid who the law says can legally drive at 16 (in many states). Every lawyer in America is smacking their lips.
Bill: It is obvious that benpal either hasn't read Senator Enzi's legislation or doesn't understand the incentives it provides.
But I'm not going to waste my time explaining.
I'll explain it for you, Bill:
Communism - the political, social, and economic system of certain countries in which the state, governed by a single party without formal opposition, owns all property. control the production and distribution of goods and services, and, to a great extent, control the social and cultural life of the people.
Doc--
I'd like an answer to my question above, and to the other apt questions asked by others, Don't duck out on us.
:
Bill G. I am not going to explain why I told you pardon my French. But you do not seem to realize that by TC that means YOU too. From a TC viewpoint chewing is no different then smoking. ALL tobacco is bad. The SHS issue is only a convenient excuse to further an agenda.
One further comment meant for Bill G. If i were a non-smoker, I would find it more offensive to have someone spitting around me then smoking around me. Spreads viruses, don't you know? That would be a bigger health concern. I do not care, nor should you, about the cancer risks you inflict upon yourself. Believe it or not TC is after you too.
Lynda F. wrote:
"Tell me Bill...........how do you propose all these programs that are funded now, and planning to be funded by, smokers going to survive IF we all submit to your will and quit smoking?"
In the future (after cigarette excise taxes are $5-$10/pack) as cigarette consumption, diseases, disabilities and deaths continue to decline, cigarette tax revenues will also decline.
That is the most effective type of tax policy and/or government policy (i.e. one that gradually disappears as the underlying problem disappears).
Politians of the future can (and will) determine what (if any) other types of tax revenue might replace cigarette tax revenue in the future.
I suggest increasing beer and liquor excise taxes (as social costs caused by alcoholism and binge drinking greatly exceed alcohol tax revenue), taxing pornography, and decriminalizing (and then taxing) marijuana, prostitution, and most forms of gambling. Taxes on those products and services would generate more than sufficient revenue to replace any declines in cigarette tax revenue.
Not only is Bill G an anti-tobacco lobbyist, he's also a Pigouvian.
Who would have thunk it....
Well, I'm glad Bill set us straight yesterday concerning our conspiracy theories to say nothing of our "silly" accusations regarding our opposition to the nanny state.
Still claim you're not in favor of de facto prohibition of tobacco, Bill?
Walt asked two questions which I will answer here.
First, how do you decide whether tobacco ads are targeting youths?
I think you do it based on careful research. I have done some of this research myself, examining the placement of cigarette advertisements in magazines, for example. My research found that after controlling for young adult readership, certain cigarette brands are more likely to advertise in magazines with higher levels of youth readership, while other brands are more likely to advertise in magazines with higher adult readership. It turns out that the brands which prefer youth readers are precisely those which are smoked by youths. And the brands which prefer adult readers are those which are smoked almost entirely by adults.
This research, and other research like it, provides strong evidence, in my opinion, that cigarette companies have been targeting youths. But it is restricted to certain brands, and that's what makes the evidence particularly strong.
Second, Walt asks how I could favor removing the 40 known carcinogens from cigarettes, yet elsewhere I've said that we don't know which constituents actually cause the cancer.
Actually, I don't favor requiring the cigarette companies to remove those particular constituents. I don't favor FDA regulation of cigarettes at all. My point is that this is an absurd approach to this problem. If you are going to require removing those 40 carcinogens, then you might as well get rid of the whole product. I'm not arguing for either.
What I am saying, however, is that it is disingenuous of the health groups to claim that they are concerned with protecting the public's health by enacting legislation that will remove the harmful ingredients in cigarettes, and then for those groups to agree to a deal by which chocolate and cherry would be removed, but menthol and carcinogens would be allowed to remain.
I'm not arguing in favor of regulating the product and removing particular ingredients.
Legalized prostitution? Did I hear that right?
This blog is getting more interesting. Might be an interesting weekend.
"First, how do you decide whether tobacco ads are targeting youths?"
"It turns out that the brands which prefer youth readers are precisely those which are smoked by youths. And the brands which prefer adult readers are those which are smoked almost entirely by adults."
Correct me if I'm wrong... but couldn't that just mean that they are TARGETING the population of adults who (for whatever reasons) tend to like those magazines that younger people also tend to like? Isn't the point to establish that they are directly TARGETING youth?
I think there's a difference between demonstrating youth exposure to ads of a certain type and "targeting"... In addition, are these "youth" brands also the most popular brands? If so, I could see the argument being made that these are more likely advertised in "general interest" mags -- which would appeal to a wide audience (in other characteristics as well as age), while less popular brands are advertised in niche market mags (which might have a more restricted readership). Not being a "marketer" -- I suspect the question is more complex than your demonstration.
GDF - You're exactly right. And this is why we explicitly controlled for young adult readership in our models. We also controlled for a variety of other variables, including female vs. male readership, black readership, Hispanic readership, median income of readers, and cost of advertising placements. It is a complex study, and no one study like this can prove intent, but I think it does provide strong evidence. At any rate, I did want to explain to Walt that I view this as an empirical question that can be empirically tested.
Well, I agree that you can probably strongly suggest that ads *may be* targeting youth - but to prove such a thing would be, I think, difficult. But I'd love to see your analysis?
This whole idea of holding tobacco companies responsible for youth smoking (at this late date, when it is already illegal for youths to purchase the products, when TV ads are outlawed, when both TC and BT produce anti-smoking ads, when we already have evidence that there are a variety of reasons young people begin to smoke (weight loss, anti-depressent effect...) ... I mean absolutely no offense here, but it seems to me that in a fair debate, the tobacco companies, without thinking too hard, could tear such evidence as yours to shreds. That doesn't mean that it's not worthwhile research, just that it would be very difficult to rule out all other possibilities (as to their advertising choices) and thus, with the burden of proof on you, I would think, a shaky ground for intrusive public policy.
And there's the rub (to me). By not recognizing such a thing, by being carried away by agenda, and insisting that evidence against tobacco (specifically SHS) is stronger than it really is, (and I believe that's been done repeatedly) TC has, as you would say, eroded the integrity of the whole research community.
And ya know, removing a *possible* hazard that's pretty much avoidable by choice, is just not that important. I know y'all TC'ers think it's THE most important issue EVER... bigger than choice, property rights, worth letting the government intrude into your private property, private business, private life...worth destroying people's belief in, as well as integrity of public health...
I know y'all think it's worth all that, but really, it just isn't.
Darn well said, GDF.
Doc, I think you've built another house of cards in your advertsing theories. Like a lot of academic literary critics who find "symbols" in the oeuvre of Mickey Spillane, you're off in another world. I've worked in advertising-- major Mad Ave, major products. GDF is closer to the straightforward truth.
First, you're not talking about the content of the ads (rather critical to "targeting") , you're simply talking about the media buys. True, today's youth are more likely to read, say, Sports Illustrated than Foreign Affairs, but what the hell does that prove? Should tobacco companies forego ads to all sports fans because readers include some teens?
True, if I were advertising, say, Nat Shermans, I'd pick The New Yorker-- not because of age but economic demographics. True, if I were advertising Camel #9, I'd go for Vanity Fair and mix it in with Cosmo. Not because of age but becuse of sex.
Sheesh. You've got your loaded cart driving the horse; or, more aptly, your hobby horse driving yourself crazy.
Teens, if they smoke, smoke the most popular brands. Because other teens smoke them., Because their parents smoke them. Because they're popular. And becuse they're popular, they're more widely available.
Bill:
I'm busy imagining the process by which you'd tax prostitution ("that'll be 50 bucks plus-- wait while I get my calculator--")
:
Walt -- it boggles the mind. And I can just see "Brandy" handing over *her* cash to the tax man... (Early in my career I interviewed lots of "commercial sex workers". Taxing prostitution? Bill G. is far removed from the reality of the profession.)
Bill G, there is no safe level of second-hand prostitution...
There's a joke in there somewhere 
Actually, if we're going to go about taxing things, the "sin" taxes isn't the way to go. Even good boys do one of those things. You'll never get the support you need. You better stick to the "harmful to society, cost too much" route. But I guess that means you gotta tax that stuff YOU like that releases carcinogens; cars, planes, pharma drugs, grills...I'm sure folks can think of more.
Jalestra, my vote is to tax (*lowering voice to a whisper*) oral sex. Spreads all those nasty germs --clearly harmful to society. And I'm sure Cathy will come in and tell us that no one would choose to do that, since it offers no benefit. But, like Bill, I'm willing to put up with it, as long as we tax it.
Since I whispered -- maybe I won't get censored..?
Isn't it so appropriate in this day and age,especially in the puritanical US,that the real problem is totally ignored.If you cannot cope with children (and anyone up to 18 seems to be deemed as one) buying cigarettes,then you should target the POINT OF SALE and involve the PARENTS.Instead we have Public Health acting like headless chickens clucking NANNY KNOWS BEST,targeting their hated and loathed Tobacco Companies with any excuse to blame and shame .Has Public Health so little to do that it has to get involved in reading magazines to check the brands of cigarettes to see if THEY CAN ACCUSE THE TOBACCO COMPANIES OF ADVERTISING THEIR LEGAL PRODUCTS TO POTENTIAL/EXISTING CUSTOMERS.That's pretty warped to me.What happens to the "Men's " magazines that teenage boys would love to get hold of.What brands were advertised there Dr Siegel ? You nanny's are destroying growing up,yet you are the perverted minds causing these problems.Are you demanding a net nanny for every "child" who connects to the internet ? RIGHT,IT'S OK FOR THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO ADVERTISE FREELY THERE.HOW LONG BEFORE YOU BAN ACCESS TO TOBACCO COMPANY WEBSITES ?
Bill G: In the future (after cigarette excise taxes are $5-$10/pack) as cigarette consumption, diseases, disabilities and deaths continue to decline, cigarette tax revenues will also decline.
And you know this for a fact because ONLY cigarettes CAUSE all the diseases in the world (short of ingrown toenails that is – though I’m expecting to see that claim made shortly too). You have irrefutable proof that NO SMOKING means the end of disease AND the beginning of immortality?
Well, IF you are God, I truly hope I go to hell (or would hope IF I believed in hell), because YOUR kind of benevolence is disgusting.
You really do believe that diseases, disabilities (?) and deaths will decline just because smoking declines? And you call US delusional?
I suggest increasing beer and liquor excise taxes (as social costs caused by alcoholism and binge drinking greatly exceed alcohol tax revenue), taxing pornography, and decriminalizing (and then taxing) marijuana, prostitution, and most forms of gambling. Taxes on those products and services would generate more than sufficient revenue to replace any declines in cigarette tax revenue.
As long as YOU don’t have your taxes increased eh? You truly are pathetic.
For people that read french : please have a look at http://unairneuf.org, a site dedicated to false claims regarding tobacco, especially medical ones...
Good point GDF. We should ban anal sex, too! As straights also engage in this unhealthy practice, such a ban could not be interpreted as discrimination against homosexuals.
For the best online health related products from lots of brands at most discounted prices just visit Vitamin Shoppe at Couponalbum.com....!!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
