Big Anti-Tobacco?
When does an interest become vested? Generally, I suppose, when it is an interest in something of which you disapprove. No one would suggest, for example, that an oncologist had a vested interest in cancer merely because cancer was the sine qua non of his calling. Only those who derive an income from the sale of carcinogens have interests that are vested.
Of these, the greatest is tobacco: almost by definition, no one can have a vested interest in the reduction of smoking. Or can he?
A recent small item in The Lancet, written or at least signed by fourteen authors, protests the decision of the Dutch government to close down — presumably as a budgetary saving measure — its “world-renowned national centre on tobacco control, STIVORO” (hands up, all those who have heard of it). Moreover, the government has likewise decided not to provide medical assistance to those who say they cannot give up smoking, though there are nearly 20,000 premature deaths caused annually by smoking in the Netherlands.
A higher proportion of the Dutch population smokes than average for a developed country (27 percent), and fewer Dutch people are aware of secondhand, or second-lung, smoke — that breathed in from other people’s tobacco — than any other comparable country.
It is certainly true that, in my observation, the Dutch break their own anti-smoking laws more than any other people. Bars in Amsterdam openly advertise that they have bars for smokers, though it is against the law to have them. In nowhere else known to me is the law so openly flouted in this way: I suppose years of equivocation about smoking cannabis have conditioned the orderly Dutch to regard the law as a moveable feast. Let your “yea” be “maybe,” and your “nay” be “perhaps.”
At the bottom of the item in The Lancet is a brief declaration of the interests of the authors:
RW receives research funding and undertakes consultancy for companies that manufacture smoking cessation medications. MCW is a senior researcher at STIVORO.
Since correspondence on the item is to be addressed to RW, it may be assumed that he was at least one of the moving spirits of the protest.
Oh, where do we start… First of all, recall that all much-hyped “wars on smoking” stop exactly at the breaking point after which the tobacco companied would go bankrupt… All governments are deeply interested in people contining to smoke, or their would suffer immensely. Second, smokers, of course, already pay more than their “fair share” by supporting those coffers, the contents of which are then in part directed against their habit, or so it appears. Three-ring circus ensues, of which the payer and the duped party is the taxpayer, of course.
But let’s not forget what Mr. Dalrymple has touched upon: the quit-smoking industry, now with the entrance of big pharmaceutical players and the resulting prospects of profits, has a very palpable vested interest in your tax dollars being redistributed via a multitude of governmental interventions. The question still stands: what will happen if and when all the potential quitters do indeed give up their habit?
Two words: “electronic cigarettes”. Keep the tobacco growers employed, yet eliminate the vast majority of ills that come from inhaling combustion of tobacco products.
Everyone wins, problem solved (including the problem of people making a living off of some “Big Anti-Tobacco” movement – these people need to get REAL jobs where they work to create real wealth, not waste our time with this idiotic, technologically-overcome drivel).
Reminds me of a wonderful way to get a priceless look on the face of your earnest young college lefty types: Ask them if they really think that the idea that they should “Question Authority” is a valid one — shouldn’t they just have faith in same?
Watch them go to town on “what an absurd propsition” that is. Let them explain in detail why they, the oh-so-wise collegiate, could never even begin to let authority be unquestioned. (Given, it is not an unreasonable stance).
Then, look ‘em dead in the eye, and ask, “And are you honestly questioning those who question authority? Are you taking into account that they are every bit as willing to advance an agenda, to spin, to obfuscate, to withhold information, and to outright lie, just as much as “authority” is? Are you “questioning” them too? Really??”
Watch for the moment, and you can see it, when they realize that this idea never even occured to them before, genuises though they so obviously are. Because very likely, it hasn’t. (And if it has occured to them, then they are probably not the earnest young lefty that I am referring to here.)
Jolly good fun.
I’ll smoke to that.
“Of this, not a word: they are putty in the hands of the tobacco companies and their government, scarcely human in fact.”
This mindset provides the excuse needed by “elites” to impose their will on society. The common folk is unable to defend itself from the vile and deceptive capitalists. They must be defended from their manipulators. Totalitarianism is right around the corner. The elites have every intention of becoming our benevolent dictators.
Sure, “benevolent dictator.” By definition, an oxymoron. The Progressive elite are most surely aiming toward that end. After all, they have stated on innumerable occasions that they “know all, see all, and would control all” for the “benefit of humanity.” What they fail to mention is that fact that they intend to be the 1%. Just ask Al Gore.
It is the government that has the greatest vested interest in people continuing to smoke. In places like NYC where the city gets $4 or more in taxes on a single pack of cigarettes, it is a large part of their income. If the government was concerned with the health risks and costs associated with smoking, they should just ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco products. But they, and the taxpayers, would have to contend with the loss of income from taxes or bite the bullet and be willing to pay more in other ways. Perhaps they could then put a special tax on those obesity drugs like Big Macs, doughnuts, ice cream, candy, etc.
“Perhaps they could then put a special tax on those obesity drugs like Big Macs, doughnuts, ice cream, candy, etc.”
Dont give them any ideas, though they already have them by now with sugar taxes floated in Philly and New York…Its all about revenue masquarading as benevolence…revenue for them.
Anyone else here wonder why the “heathcare bill” was ever needed at all, since “the tobacco settlement” was supposed to “solve” the “crisis” way back in Clintons day?
Remember all those huge payments from “Big Tobacco” that went to “The States” because of all the money “they” spent on smoking related illnesses?
Yeah, the STATES forked over the money, and needed it “back”…funny how none of it ever made it’s way into the hands of the taxpayes, huh?
The Government, thieves and liars every one of them
There’s a new and dangerous business strategy being employed in the United States. Corporations are creating Foundations who give grants to non-profits who push for laws that move their products. One thing the corporations, foundations and non-profits all share is profitability. One such corporation is Johnson and Johnson. Those who share in the profits are their partners.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was created by the founder of Johnson & Johnson with over ten million shares of Johnson and Johnson (JnJ stock)[i]. In 1972, it was established as a national foundation worth $1.2 billion [ii]. In 2009, the Foundation’s investment portfolio increased $1 billion to $8,379,808,000[iii]. RWJF’s mission today: to help society transform itself for the better. Noble sounding, until you delve into the fact that it’s what RWJF considers “for the better”, foregoing what we want for ourselves or for society. The horrifying truth is RWJF profits from what it wants for society.
The RWJF Anthology “Taking on Tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Assault on Smoking” publication [iv] outlines how they gave $99 million in grants to fund coalitions “housed in organizations” such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Lung Association (ALA) and American Heart Association (AHA). This publication outlines all the organizations who received over $446 million in grants just through January, 2008. In the beginning, grants were given to organizations to promote tobacco education. Once organizations were used to receiving funding, if they did not move on to tobacco “control”, their funding was cut off. The Foundation makes it perfectly clear in their publications that as a Foundation, their grant money cannot be used for lobbying. However, to quote Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, that’s just geography. It’s just moving money from point A to point B while accomplishing lobbying, with smoking cessation as RWJF’s ultimate goal. Over $99,000 in grant money was invested in Evaluating an Innovative Communications Campaign Designed to Increase Consumer Demand for Tobacco Dependence Treatment by Medicaid Recipients [v]. Nearly $97,000 in grant money was invested for Individual and Policy Level Influences on the Use of Various Cessation Strategies and Abstinence from Cigarettes Among Adult Smokers [vi].
The New Corporate America Business Model
Creating Foundations to Move Their Ideals…and Products
By Pam Parker
http://www.forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2303
One of the funny bits here in the States is that the huge Tobacco lawsuit settlement was one of the most brilliant displays of lawyer work in history. The Tobacco industry ended up with a legally enforceable cartel at the cost of a large chunk of money, but without ever again being at risk of legal exposure. They bought freedom from future liability for a reasonable price and the ability to prevent any more competition. (Though some restrictions on freedom of operation)
The final result is exactly what you should expect: the Governments only ever cared about getting their hands on the Tobacco money. They need the companies to keep making their products, so the Government can get its cut. I still laugh about it. So much for moral preening!
And I agree with Theodore. I find the habit disgusting, but if people want to smoke in areas cut off from others (so we don’t have to deal with the smoke), I have no problem with them.
If you would like to engage in your disgusting habits in an area cut off from others so that I don’t have to put up with them I would be fine with that. If you are denied free association with like minded people I am fine with that, if you pay taxes and are told you cannot participate in public life because you are, do, say or like something the self righteous prigs currently in charge don’t approve of then, hey I am fine with that too.
Which makes you one of the self-righteous prigs?
Or maybe I don’t always recognize sarcasm.
And therefore, is every place in the world to be made available just in case you happen to drop by? Or would it make more sense for you to avoid us filthy, disgusting, stinking smokers?
That’s fine with me – provided that the places in question are specifically labeled “tobacco dens” and are not used for dispensing other food and drink. I don’t want to get back to the old situation where it was just about impossible to find any restaurant or tavern that wasn’t full of smoke.
Was it impossible to find a place that was reasonably smoke-free pre the various smoking bans, or was it just not something that had a high enough demand to be common? Seems to me if there were so many poor victims clamoring for a place where they didn’t have to suffer the merest whiff of tobacco smoke, they would have flocked to those few places that were either smoke-free or had proper separation and ventilation of smoking areas. Granted, they may have been few and far between before they were forced on the public by the Government, but smokeless areas most certainly would have been profitable and therefore become common if they were *really* desired.
Of course, predictably, we have moved on from saving the world from evil tobacco smokers and now are doing our best to control fats, children’s toys, soft drinks and criticisms of our Dear Leader and punish those who would dare indulge in the above… and equally predictably, you can count on being forced not merely to refrain from unhealthy foods (or those that the folks in power have decided are unhealthy/not willing to contribute to their campaign funds) but to participate in State-mandated activities.
Expect to be woken up early to stand outside your front door so that everyone can see that you are participating in your morning exercises. Expect to have the government-mandated purchases defined for you, starting with health insurance and ending with…?
So you are saying that smokers should not be able to eat out or go to a bar? Movie? Hospital? Church? Store? Park? Ballpark? Damn! Just who do you think you are? What gives YOU the right? If you do not want to be around smokers, stay away. We would appreciate it for sure. I do not want you in my bar. Or my resturant. Or my life.
The life and health insurance companies were given a free hand to charge double for people ‘who use tabacco products’. This was part of the ‘pay for the carnage’ brought about by lung cancer patients on the overall population. The ‘why should we, the non-smoker, be forced to pay for the smoker.’ Though it may take 50 years or more to get to that place of pulmanary discomfort. It is common knowledge that there are addictions to substances that over time may cause or will cause medical problems leading to ‘high cost’ treatment. What has always’got my goat’about this argument is the selectivity of it. There is no insurance form or insurance agent that asks the applicant if they are sexually active. There are about 125 differnt Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and it doesn’t take several years of practice to aquire the symptoms.
Why, if it is ‘for the kids’ is there not a tax on ‘food adiction’, ‘sex addiction’, ‘drug addiction’, or the ad.,infinitum addictions. Just tabacco seems to rise to the level of ‘costing society’. When HIV and AIDS came out of the closet the hue and cry was ‘it is none of your business’ and because so many of our judges, politicans, and media knew this was about ‘protected classes’ the insurance companies and agents were disallowed in ‘taxing’ the offender for their actions unlike the smoker. There is more money in ‘treating cancer’ than any other scheme that proports to be ‘for the children’. No one wants to CURE cancer but billions are made ‘treating’ cancer.
Smokers pay more for insurance and medical than anyone else. We get LESS in return because we have the decency to leave this world at a reasonable age. Non-smokers linger and linger and linger around piling up HUGE medical bills that SOMEONE has to pay. Smokers do not do this as a rule. Or am I mistaken? Or are you lying about smoking shortening your life? Cannot have it both ways there bud! A shorter lifespan means fewer medical bills in general. You should thank everyone who smokes. Heck buy ‘em a pack of cigarettes once in a while. If smoking was as dangerous as is claimed, there would not be as many people here right now. We would have killed ourselves off a long time ago. Please use some common sense when you start to spew forth the vile hatred of the progressives. They would make us all healthy; even if it kills us. TEA 2012
Rev. Jay,
You missed the greatest outrage of the “Tobacco Settlement” which was engineered under the Clinton administration. Huge amounts of the settlement funds are channeled to the trial lawyers as contingent fees, who in turn, are the largest contributors to the Democratic party both at the state and the Federal level. The Tobacco Settlement assured the DNC and its state affiliates, and innumerable affiliated PACS of a reliable source of funding essentially forever. The state and local governments not only harvest huge taxes from the sale of tobacco products, but in states like California, New York, New Jersey and other Democratic strongholds, this funding virtually assures that the Democratic politicians will stay in power. All of the billions that went to the trial lawyers should have gone to the governments that put their political weight behind the litigation. Instead, the settlement was carefully crafted to fund one political party and their trial lawyer allies. Hillary Clinton’s brother received $10 million just for sitting on a chair!!! He had no legal experience or expertise that would have justified a payoff of that magnitude. This is one of the great, untold scandals of the Clinton administration.
Disturber
The $42 billion settlement was supposed to be earmarked for smoking prevention, health care reimbursement, and programs to aid quitting. Instead, most of it (after lawyer fees) went directly into the general funds of the states who participated in the lawsuit. Tobacco companies merely passed on the cost of the settlement to the smokers, who saw an instantaneous 50% rise in the cost of cigarettes.
For the smoking consumer it was, for all practical purposes, nothing more than an additional “sin tax” collected by the states through the judiciary system without a requisite legislative vote. A new beast was created – taxation by litigation.
Can someone post a link so I can read the peer reviewed data that says second hand smoke is indeed harmful. I can not find one anywhere, not one single study.
Just like the myth of drinking plenty of water; ask your doctor to tell you where he got that info-there is no such info!! Maybe I should ask the bottled water lobby.
I say we tax health clubs, anything with the word diet on it, and all exercise equipment, and all health food-that should raise some dough$$
Amen!
Second hand smoke is not nearly as dangerous as second hand penises. The science is settled!
Bravo,
Don’t you know that second hand smoke is the MOST TOXIC SUBSTANCE known to man? While the government has established acceptable exposure rates for dioxin, arsenic, cyanide, and even plutonium, etc., etc., the Surgeon General of the United States determined that there is NO ACCEPTABLE exposure rate for second hand smoke. None. Zero.
My question to the SGOTUS is: “Given the choice, would you rather sit in a smoke-filled bar for a hour, or sit with a an unshielded chunk of plutonium on your lap for an hour?” I think that pretty well illustrates the hysteria behind second hand smoke.
Good God, people! It’s an asinine habit you got stuck with when you were trying to be cool as a teenager! Just f-ing stop.
It’s not a grand symbol of freedom. It’s not “they came for the smokers and I said nothing…” It’s nothing more than an outward manifestation of your desperate quest to have a “badass” personality. I will not defend smoking at any time, in any manner.
No one cares if you defend smoking or attack it. When it comes
to telling other people what legal products they may use on their own property,
it’s none of you damn business. That is the only issue regarding smoking
that I care about. Do you have brains sufficient to see that the issue isn’t smoking at all, but rather the sacredness of private property? When we pay big bucks to buy property, how can we say we own it if we can’t use legal products on it because some POS busybody doesn’t approve, whilst they do not have the political power to actually OUTLAW the legal product itself?
If you don’t see the problem here then YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!
James E Solbakken
Cigarettes are nothing more than lawn darts. I remember whining when they were taken off the market. “Nanny state! Nanny state!” Then we looked around and said, “Hmm… turns out we can get along without them just fine. They were actually pretty stupid.”
By the way, triple exclamation points never really do win me over.
Sooner or later, they’ll come for your favorite vice, hobby, etc. At which point, FOAD.
You actually never do own it anymore. You just pay someone “big bucks” for the right to lease it from the government in the form of property taxes, etc. In my part of New York, you must buy it back every 20 years or so.
You never, ever own anything, anymore. You just keep it until the government decides they want it back.
And Obama and the Dems are fine with that.
I don’t smoke, and never have.
Now that that’s out of the way, my favorite method of responding to someone who rails about the evils of tobacco is to ask them, “what about marijuana”?
Most of the anti-tobacco mavens I’ve met are all in favor of legalization of pot, and even harder drugs. They don’t see the disconnect.
For real fun, I ask them if they know how much tar is in a typical “joint”. I’ve yet to find one who knew. The correct answer is that pot contains more tar than tobacco gram per gram, however it contains no nicotine. You’d be amazed how many people think “tar” and “nicotine” are the same thing.
Since the tar is the major cause of the long term health problems associated with tobacco (cancers, etc.), I’d say smoking pot is not safer than smoking tobacco. Again, you’d be amazed how many anti-tobacco types have never thought of this.
Personally, as long as they don’t do it in my face, I don’t care what someone smokes. If they want to ruin their health, fine- just don’t mess mine up in the process.
But the anti-smokers who think pot is harmless are either badly misinformed, or else just like to gore other peoples’ oxen as long as their own remain in an ungored state.
clear ether
eon
“I detest smoking and support the ban in public places,”
You support the taking of individual property rights. You are neither a libertarian nor a conservative. Business owners should be allowed to make the decision they want, based on market forces, not government trampling of their property rights.
Sweden has the lowest rate of smoking and smoking related deaths in Europe
Why?
Because snus is the preferred nicotine delivery system in Sweden.
For some crazy reason snus is illegal in the rest of the EU
–legal in the US and available at some 711s
Snus is a safe way to get nicotine-and is much cheaper that the alternatives.
It is not nicotine that kills 450,000 American each year–it is smoking to get the nicotine.
A non-smoker, I like smoke-free workplaces and restaurants as I am fairly sensitive to smoke, even the residue given off by a smoking coworkers clothes.
All That said, the anti-smoking zealots do go way too far, on many fronts, and the hypocrisy is shameless.
The dangers of secondhand smoke are grossly overstated (beyond waits staff in a smoky bar for hours at a time, or a child in the car of a smoking parent)
The ‘truth’ campaign in particular is deceptive: when they are citing arsenic, etc in cigs those are mostly just trace elements that any plant gets from the soil.
Anti-smokers managed to shoot down both the ‘reduced sidestream smoke’ cigarete designs *and* the enhanced nicotine but lower tar cigs that solved the problem of conventional ‘light’ cigs being ineffective due to the low nicotine meaning more of tem are smoked to satisfy the craving (as others pointed out, most of the harm is due to the tar). They did this out a crusading ideological purity ‘no such thing as a safe cigarette’ — but these are the same liberals who fall over themselves supporting free needle programs for heroins addicts to slow AIDS, and condoms willy nilly in schools for STDs, in the name of ‘harm reduction’.
And legal marijuana is the kicker — the ‘psychologically addictive’ element is manifestly true, while the tar problem is likely worse than tobacco, like no-filter Camels. I actually do support some relaxation of marijuana laws, but I do remind my more libertarian friends to just wait until there’s more lawyer- and regulator-accessible big money in it
Well you know I smoke…..
I have no disagreement that smoking is not a healthy activity…it is simple logic.
Then along comes this nonsense about “second hand smoke”….with claims to research which much like CO2 climate forcing research is opinion not science.
That said, I usually remark that I can’t quit smoking because “second hand smoke” scares the hell outa me. According to the hype it is more lethal than sarin.
Yet, according to the EPA second hand smoke does not approach unsafe levels….that is if you check the EPA allowable, emmision levels they mandate on other matters…..
Why should Govt be allowed to profit from one “Sin” then others, if Drinking & Smoking and Junk food are considered Sin Tax Items then why hasn’t Govt tax all proportionally as opposed to just constantly driving up the costs of tabacco ? It’s wrong and if Govt were smart they would have left the Tax alone and allowed everyone who quit to continue smoking, I compare this extremely high tax to a carnival where they charge $4/ride when if the charged $1/ride they bring in 10 times the money…Arizona has raised there tax so high that they can’t raise the tax on tabacco any more or they will lose more smokers than the tax will bring in and I suppose other states have reached the same threshold !!! What right does govt have to dictate where someone can use a “Legal” product ? There’s many who dislike going to bars/restaurants where there’s loud foul language but Govt doesn’t stop or dictate the amount of booze one can consume as long as there not behind a steering wheel, but we should bow to those who dislike smoking when there’s plenty of other places you can go that don’t allow smoking !!! You allow this to continue then nothing is off limits for Govt to regulate so if I were you who oppose I’d stop talking stupid !!!
Greetings:
Wasn’t it Eric Hoffer, New York’s waterfront philosopher, who wrote, “What starts off as a cause, turns into a business, and ends up as a racket.” ???
…and that’s why I love you, T.D.
Sorrrrry. I don’t want to smell your nasty stank breath cigarette smoke when I’m in public. I don’t want my hair or clothes to smell like your nasty smoke either. I don’t want to be an unwitting participant in your nasty habit that you CHOOSE to have.
Keep it out of public. I have a right to not have to breathe in your cigarette exhalations or smell like your smoke stank. Thank you (and please don’t masturbate, urinate or defecate in public either).
Thanks
Sorry, we don’t like the smell of your cheap perfume either.
Hear that ‘whoosh!’ as the point of TD’s article flew way above Jerra’s head?
As a non-smoker I prefer the whiff of second hand smoke to the stench of self righteous, self-centred ignorance. Could you at least bother to read the article before “enlightening” us with your bile and hatred?
“You should not be allowed to do this, because it bothers me.” has become an acceptable position. Likewise the idea, that a majority should be allowed to control a minority (unless it is a religious or ethical minority of course) has become commonplace.
Simple answers for simple minds.
How easy it’s become to deny people the basic right to make their own free choices. All that seems to be needed is to have the Left pick something they dislike or disagree with, then simply demonize it. No facts. No scientific evidence, just hysteria-based fear mongering.
Isn’t it odd how the very same people who would deny a smoker the right to choose freely, would fight to the death to protect a womans “right” to choose a free abortion.
Have you ever asked yourself, if the govt. believes tobacco to truly be the scourge they claim it is, a) why don’t they simply ban the growing, sale, and possession of tobbaco, and b) could the govt. and it’s “scientists” go into a court of law and actually prove their claims without all the hysteria?
Talking about science: in the preamble of the WHO FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON TOBACCO CONTROL it says:
“The Parties to this Convention [...] Recognizing that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability[...]”
Real scientific evidence does not need to be approved by contract. Science by contract is a medieval thing (think: Gallilieo).
The duplicitous posture of the anti-smoking interests is out of the same playbook as the race and sex grievance industrialists. The issue must be nurtured or they lose their jobs. You can swap out phrases from a quote in the article as follows:
“Only those who derive an income from the [sale of carcinogens] or [perpetuation of belief in workplace race biases] or [continued insistence on systemic workplace sex disparities] have interests that are vested.”
Imagine how many jobs would be lost in corporations, human resources consulting firms, government agencies and academic departments if the public believed that we had acheived a satisfactory resolution of race and sex workplace issues.
Well, it is nice to see that some people are beginning to wake up to the criminal activities of the anti-tobacco industry, even if it concludes with anti-tobacco rhetoric (‘filthy habit’) but why can you not bring yourselves to look at the overall picture with the same critical eye?
The dirty tricks, pseudo science etc of anti-tobacco has been known literally for decades but only now is it beginning to dawn on people that the science is flawed/false and money / influence / fanaticism is driving the deception on passive smoking. For some inexplicable reason, anti-smoker science/scientists/health advocates etc before the SHS fraudulent claims still remain, in many peoples minds, somehow incorruptible, morally and ethically untouchable – all they have claimed was true and unassailable. Do you really believe that this Lernaean Hydra only breathes poison from ONE head or that money has been the main driving force and corrupting influence in anti-tobacco for only a few short years and before that only ‘truth and light’?
What you should realise is that anti-tobacco grew from years and years of industry sponsored research to reduce / avoid their responsibility for adverse public health by blaming ill health on individual lifestyle choices. That objective achieved, the drug companies took up the baton to increase their profits while anti-smoker fanatics couldn’t believe their luck!
One commentator highlights the absurdity of making snus illegal but then goes on to quote an equally absurd figure of american deaths ‘caused‘ by smoking ! Can I make one thing clear – smoking has NEVER been proved to have ‘caused’ ANY deaths – other than by use of statistical jiggery-pokery!! I know this will seem to be an absurd suggestion to those brainwashed to think otherwise – but it is true!
Try to employ rational thinking to these facts:
China has DOUBLE the male smoking rate of the US, (60% v 25%) – YET – the US has DOUBLE the cancer incidence rate of China: (USA – 407 cases per 100,000 / China – 205 per 100,000) (2008).
(Pfizer facts: The Burden of Cancer in Asia – 2008) (not isolated – invariably the heavier smoking nations have less so called ‘smoke related’ illness)
Despite the reduction in smokers/smoking, the lung cancer rate in the US is increasing at almost epidemic proportions – A 31% increase in the EIGHT years following 2000;
Lung and Bronchus cancers in USA (American Cancer Society) – NEW Cases;
2000: – 164,100
2008: – 215,020
(US population increased by 8% over the same period)
“The majority of lung cancer diagnoses in the United States now are either in people who never smoked or in people who have quit,” (Dr. Bruce Johnson of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute Boston) – Nov 2010.
There is much much more that challenges the slogan ‘the debate is over’ whether that is fallaciously claimed in relation to passive 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand smoking OR indeed primary smoking! Challenge, Challenge, Challenge and expose this money driven, destructive healthist propaganda – it is killing far more people than has ever been claimed for smoking.
The Number One cause of Lung Cancer in the US is Radon Gas…naturally occuring Radon gasses seeping into your home. Number one cause of Lung Cancer.
We also have the best cancer screening/diagnostic tools and rates of “usage” of anywhere on earth. We’re bound to “find” more cancer here, because we LOOK for it more than anywhere else.
All this perfectly aligns with Government Greed to “blame” tobacco companies, yet enjoy all the profits. The government makes a lot more revenue off cigarettes than the Tobacco Companies.
Do you believe Phillip Morris can make 5 dollars from 20 cigarettes? No they cannot, but THE GOVERNMENT SURE CAN
Calling smoking a “filthy habit” is uncalled for. I can think of a lot of “habits” that are not only filthy but also unprintable. Smoking isn’t one of them.
As far as I can see, smoking is rather clean. After all, you simply are burning some tobacco leaves. The left-over butts are trashed in the same way any other garbage is. There may be some ash left over, but I mean, can it compare with the ash left over from a fireplace? Why aren’t people “allergic” to the stench left over from a used fireplace? I contend it’s because it’s purely psychological.
I’ve seen people practically froth at the mouth in “disgust” as they watch me smoke. But put them in front of a fireplace spewing out thousands of times more “carbon” than my puny cigarette, and they get giddy watching “nature” at work.
It’s positively repulsive.
Governments have a vested interest in tobacco companies. In the UK, to the tune of at least £11billion/pa. It is certainly not in their interests and, by direct association, the general public’s (including, of course, the good doctor and other anti smokers) to over tax at the risk of a fall in profits. This implies that smokers are of great economic value to society, even accounting for the cost of treating ‘so-called’ smoking related diseases (£3-4 billion?). This will surely remain the norm until an equally pleasurable (and hence highly taxable) alternative form of nicotine delivery has been developed and monopolised by the pharmaceutical industry. BTW, does anyone know where they currently source nicotine for NRT products (I’m assuming not from unscrupulous tobacco companies)? Are they able to synthesise it yet?
You rarely (if ever) see a logical argument from anti-tobacco zealots. They always fall back on ‘filthy, stinking, disgusting’. Even the letter which Dalrymple complains about has only a diagram of how many smokers ‘agree’ that smoking harms other people – as if that justifies persecuting smokers. There is no evidence mentioned. I suppose that people who are a bit plump would agree that they should lose some weight, but that does not justify refusing them indoor comfort. “Better you should stand outside in the cold – you would use up quite a lot of calories that way. Out you go!”
Anti-tobacco activists quote a multiplicity of studies which show a possibility (statistically irrelevant)of harm from passive smoke. Activists then compute a theoretical number of people who are supposed to die prematurely. These numbers seem to vary somewhere between 3,000 and 10,000 in the UK, but they are just computer-produced suppositions, and not reality.
A good study which used a very large database showed no harm which could be identified for SHS. The url is:
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
All you need to read is the abstract at the beginning.
In order to ferret out this thoroughly debunked “good study” by long-time tobacco-funded scientists, you had to clamber over, under, around and through a mountain of normal research clearly showing the harms of SHS. This is the best you can do?
Check out the author of this “good study,” who has been in the industry’s battle against the science of SHS since at least 1993, and who, documents show, has been toadying for industry grants since 1975.
So now he comes up with a “good study” purporting to determine SHS exposure in 1959, when no one had even heard the term, when people even smoked in elevators(!) Then he famously loses track of his subjects for 28 years, winds up finding only 4% of them, and even then totally fails to account for death, divorce, cessation and all sorts of intervening happenstance. Despite this morass of astounding sloppiness and arrant supposition, he ridiculously comes to a conclusion that his funder, a tobacco company, just loved. Sure.
Normal science has since debunked this mess.
Фабрика мебели Креаль “Creale” изготавливает мягкую мебель более 12 лет на мебельном рынке Украины. У нас лучшее качество и большой выбор моделей: диваны угловые, диваны-кровати, мягкие уголки, кухонные уголки. кровати, кресла.
На сайте http://creale.kiev.ua/ представлены модели с ценами на мягкую мебель Creale Креаль.