Withdrew Posting

Changed title/fk

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frank Koza,

Very interesting and well reasoned positions that I'm sure few of us here in this forum will argue with. Unfortunately, the hysterical and loony antis are the ones driving the dialogue and policy decisions right now when it comes to smoking bans. When confronted with rational arguements against banning smoking, these people simply reiterate their talking points and meaningless statistics then dismiss the opposition as being on big tobacco's payroll or something like that. Ten years ago, I didn't think the antis would be nearly as succesful as they have been with their fear mongering - especially in the past few years and I don't hold out much hope for the future. I am resigned to the fact that in a few more years, I won't be able to smoke anywhere indoors other than my own home if I own one then. I will also probably have to submit to nicotine testing at work or at the doctors' office. I don't know what it will take before the smoking and non-smoking public realizes the ghastly consequences of the anti's success but I hope it happens soon - I am not optimistic though.

I feel we all have options in life. We can eat, drink, and do what we want, whether legal or illegal. I feel the medical profession is a group with good intentions, but can only advise and presrcribed when asked. I feel many mediccal proceedures are worse than the condition they are designed to effect. We have the option to follow the advice of the medical profession or not. One study reflected than many doctors, if faced with cancer in their own body, would not accept many of the theropies they prescribe for their patients.

I feel if 75% of the world's population do not want to be exposed to cigarette smoke then they should allow the balance of the population their portion of the earth's surface to pursue their own course.

I feel that the high costs of medical care are a direct result of other people paying the bills. If each of us paid our own expenses in this area then costs would decrease to what we individually can justify the service is worth to us.

It may not be politically correct, but I feel that the medical profession has created much of our current problems by maintaining lives that should have been terminated by mother nature years before.

quote:

I feel that the medical profession has created much of our current problems by maintaining lives that should have been terminated by mother nature years before.

And if they don't, they'll be sued. Curb the enormous rake-off the medical malpractice lawyers are raking off in punitive damages (which is where the real money is), and the entire medical system would not only be improved, but the costs would drop enormously.

quote:

Originally posted by NickM_71:
Ten years ago, I didn't think the antis would be nearly as succesful as they have been with their fear mongering - especially in the past few years and I don't hold out much hope for the future.

Hey, Nick. As I recall, the doors were thrown wide open for the anti-smoking fear mongerers during Clinton's task force on healthcare reform which was created when he assumed office in January of 1993. That was nearly 13 years ago and though I might not have realized it then, in hindsight, the writing was clearly on the wall.

Not to call it all a "conspiracy", but it certainly was the most opportune time politically for the EPA to publish its infamous report on environmental tobacco smoke and for anti-smoking orgs to go on a full scale offensive. Hillery continuously bashed the health industry for a number of things to include "price-gouging, cost-shifting and unconscionable profiteering." In parallel, her fervid anti-smoking position which, enventually enveloped the entire executive branch, was certainly no secret, making both the tobacco industry and us lowly consumers fair game for them to pick our pockets to fund their power-grab. Is it any wonder that under that governmental pressure, big tobacco quickly sold us, their customers, out to the states' attorneys general only a mere five years later under the Master Settlement Agreement to save their collective asses and offer the states our money in the form of across the board product price increases in return for legislation to inhibit competition?

quote:

I am resigned to the fact that in a few more years, I won't be able to smoke anywhere indoors other than my own home if I own one then. I will also probably have to submit to nicotine testing at work or at the doctors' office. I don't know what it will take before the smoking and non-smoking public realizes the ghastly consequences of the anti's success but I hope it happens soon - I am not optimistic though.

I fear you're right on the mark. The anti-smoking propaganda has been overwhelmingly pervasive for so long with little to no equal time afforded any opposing point of view because they've successfully painted any such voice as nothing more than that of evil big tobacco or else us mindless addicts who use the stuff. More and more big anti-tobacco cult followers joining today are like the Ku Klux Klan of yesterday. It's inevitable. The principles and messages the anti-smokers adopted to advance their cause, painting smokers as un-civil, uncaring, toxin spewing misfits and the associated hate speech is very attractive to terrorists and bullies.

I wish I could be more optimistic, but like you, I'm not convinced the public will awaken anytime soon. I predict the hatred will grow and the unkind acts against us will continue to escalate until the anti-smoking crowd is observed and finally reported for perpetrating heinous enough acts against smokers that society in general starts recognizing them for what many of them are, nothing but a bunch of bullies and thugs co-opting a "cause" under which to exercise their hate of others. Eventually, horror stories such as the guy accidently shooting the pregnant woman in New Orleans after menacing her with a loaded pistol for smoking; the growing numbers of reports of smokers dying by falling off ledges of college dorms and apartment buildings; the man in NJ dying under the collapse of a snow covered smoking shelter; and the tragedy of the young teen beaten to death by another kid's brother in New Smyrna Beach because the attacker thought the victim was supplying his younger brother with smokes will grow too numerous to ignore and the movement will implode. It kind of reminds me of the civil rights movement. Each atrocity committed by the segregationists and hate-mongers on its own wasn't enough to spark the change, but the overwhelming weight of many eventually turned the tide. Expect it will be the same with the smoking wars.

quote:

Originally posted by ChainSmoker:
In this day and era (FYI) Doctors have people, basically, "over a barrel!" For example (when you have time) surf the internet on all these drugs on the market and read up on the "side effects." Your better off not taking them then taking them.

ChainSmoker, I don't particular care for big pharma, and I agree that they are an extremely large part of the cause of many of the political, economic, and social problems we live with today. However, I do feel we have to be very careful not to do to them what the anti-smokers have done to the tobacco industry and us smokers. For to do so would make us no better than the anti-smokers.

Case in point, Merck* and Vioxx. It's certainly nice to see one of those who comprise big pharma getting a taste of its own medicine for allegedly "hiding" risks, in that the industry has been gunning with the anti-smokers to rob big tobacco blind, drive them out of business, and hopefully rape us smokers over the coals of big T's ashes for years. But it's all to what end? Some of Merck's customers obviously benefitted immensely from the availability of Vioxx for chronic pain relief, which is probably not much different than us smokers perceiving how much we benefit from the availability of tobacco products. Yes, apparently there were risks associated with taking the drug, just as there is with any drug. Unfortunately, now because of the trial lawyers and those folks jumping into the courtroom lotto arena claiming they were not given the proper disclosure of such risks, many people who would still take Vioxx even with full awareness of any and all risks because it helped them are now deprived of its use.

My question is, just what exactly is the risk of taking Vioxx or any of the other COX-2 inhibitor drugs? Who the hell knows? I certainly don't. Consider that Vioxx has only been on the market for 5 years since initial FDA approval in 1999. Tobacco has been studied in excruciating detail for well over five decades, and even longer if you consider counting scientific methods available centuries ago. Risk estimates for cardio-vascular events associated with tobacco use and/or environmental tobacco smoke exposures are still all over the map.

So Vioxx appears to cause an increase in risk of heart attacks. So freakin' what?!? Just take a gander at the plethora of studies on the NCI website concerning research on the COX-2 gene. Now, I'm just a pissant layman, who smokes (or used to)** no less, but from leafing through those studies, it appears to me that increased levels of proteins and enzymes of the COX-2 gene are being observed across the spectrum of research as possibly being causally associated with increased risk of the genesis of a number of different types of cancers. Also interesting to note is that there are several studies that appear to indicate some association between h pylori infections and increased COX-2 expression in gastric cancer patients. Not only are h pylori infections associated with gastric cancers, but h pylori infections have also been observed to be significantly higher in lung cancer patients than in healthy controls.

So, given the above comments, does anybody think that big pharma is systematically perpetuating a conspiracy behind all these studies to create a the illusion of some increased value of COX-2 inhibitors such as Vioxx, Bextra, and Lexapro as possible "cancer speed bumps"? I doubt it. I haven't heard of many of these studies prior to fooling around with a few searches tonight, and those I did hear about, I never gave them a second thought. The main steam media certainly isn't doing any investigative research. All we hear is Vioxx and other COX-2 inhibitors bad and Merck evil, in the mesmerizing mating call of trial lawyers enticing victimized prospective "mates" to come out of hiding to pair up in courtroom lotto gold digger marriages of convenience. Of course, you know, once the verdicts are in, divorce is inevitable, as the trial lawyers kick these revolving spouses to the curb after taking large chunks of their settlements.

Anybody see any parallels with the tobacco lawsuits? I do, and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, except maybe the anti-smoking liars.


*Competing interests declared - I do own some Merck stock and have been picking up more as this Vioxx situation intensifies, driving the stock into the bargain basement. Big tobacco survived the courtroom lotto, I have no reason to believe Merck won't.

**I haven't had a cigarette in about three months except for the 5 packs I deliberately smoked for political propaganda purposes as I caroused through various bars on a few nights during a trip to Florida, just to say I could and did, despite the antis classifying Florida as having a state-wide ban. What they won't tell you is that there are more than enough bars (and even a few "restaurants"... Shhhh!) which allow smoking. Haven't bought any more since I returned home. Cold turkey, not once, but twice. Easy. Nicotine replacement "therapies" are for sissies.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frank Koza,

I would like to see a chemicle diagram of nicotine and be able to compare it to many of the wonder drugs on the market today. I would like to able to show that diagram and compare those drugs to the press. Tobacco production has risen every year since 1993 in this country and those plants are not all going into cigarettes and cigars.

I read an article about the ban in one country that bans any product using tobacco. I think it would be very interesting to investigate how many drugs have been developed from this plant.

Add and ADHD work on the brain the same way as nicotine. How many antidepresants have been sold since the tobacco settlement?

A prospectus on Johnson and Johnson stated the company makes, on average, a 70% profit on each dose of it's products. Is it any wonder how the Wood Foundation can finance so many donations to hospitols, medical schools, and time to health organizations.

The research on the COX-2 gene and its expression is intriguing. What I gather is that it's possible that if indeed the COX-2 expression is involved in the formation of tumors, then it might follow that COX inhibitors such as Vioxx, might lessen tumor production. Very intriguing indeed.

Yes, the greedy lawyers are going after big pharma, and, yes, they'd be more than happy to do to Big Pharma what they did to Big Tobacco. In fact, since pharmaceuticals are arguably the most profitable business in the world, the lawyers would find even better pickings.

I'm very annoyed at Big Pharma for cosying up to the antis and helping (even possibly controlling and initiating) the war against smokers. That they have done this is without doubt. However, that is not to say that the pharmaceutical industry hasn't also made valuable contributions to the health and welfare of countless millions of people.

As you say, ALL drugs have negative side effects, even potentially life-saving drugs. However, those negative side effects do not occur in all people, and even for those who do experience negative side effects, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Is being free of arthritic pain worth an increased risk of heart attack? That's for each individual to decide, I would think.

BTW. Stand-alone bars (with food sales contributing less than 10% of income) are exempt from the Florida smoking ban, so your being able to smoke in bars was entirely legal. It's also true that some bars with significant food sales and also some restaurants are ignoring the ban.

Evidently we were posting at the same time, Bruce. My response was to Lockjaw's, of course.

Nicotine is truly a wonder drug, and I absolutely believe that Big Pharma got involved in the war on tobacco not only in order to sell smoking cessation drugs (most of which contain nicotine and most of which are not really effective for smoking cessation) but also in order to corner the nicotine market for therapeutic drugs and for nicotine products that have a "cleaner" delivery than smoking.

quote:

I wouldn't appease anyone which such ideological thoughts about a certain class of people!

::gasps::

God forbid anyone to have idealogical thoughts of a certian class of people!! Anyone who does so must immediately be linked to the etymology of Hitler!

Yes... smokers are now a race of people. The home of smokers is in Smokersville,Kentucky and since the dawn of this nation, smokers have been persecuted and enslaved. I see the connection!!

quote:

Stick around long enough and you'll get educated

No shit Shirlock... why do you think I'm here?

Educate me: Why continue to smoke when there's evidence that suggests smoking can harm you? YES... I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF FACTORS IN LIFE THAT ARE JUST AS MUCH A RISK OR MORE THEN SMOKING. BUT I'M NOT WONDERING ABOUT THEM AND THIS ISNT A MESSAGE BOARD FOR THE SOCIAL ISSUES OF HITLER.

If I made a direct correlation between smoking and your likelihood of death, and I showed you statics, graphs, and the freakin corpses, would that be enough to help you quit?

What is the ultimate bottom line? What would help you quit?

In quoting myself,

quote:

Why continue to smoke when there's evidence that suggests smoking can harm you?

Clearly this isnt something people [smokers] are willing to consider. God forbid one consider his actions and support them logically.

quote:

Originally posted by ChainSmoker:
Yeah and Bill Clinton never had a sexual relationship with Monica! Sheeze and I use to think that Richard Nixon was bad . . . .

Hence the ethical issues brought up by congress.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
Educate me: Why continue to smoke when there's evidence that suggests smoking can harm you? YES... I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF FACTORS IN LIFE...

If I made a direct correlation between smoking and your likelihood of death, and I showed you statics, graphs, and the freakin corpses, would that be enough to help you quit?

What is the ultimate bottom line? What would help you quit?

This forum wasn't intended to get people to quit smoking so you're off-topic.

We've seen all the literature so there's no need for you to dredge it up.

I'd like to appologize to folks in this thread. I read through the article in the innitial post and I found a few of the essay's well written. I especially liked the last essay written by William Niskanen. I think he did a fair job of suggesting courtesy from both smokers and non-smokers and he has some valid points.



Consider this a gesture of good intent.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
I'd like to appologize...

Consider this a gesture of good intent.

How about a better gesture by using the search button. I swear to God you either escaped from the playpen at Tobacco-Free Kids to come over here and have fun or you're one of the laziest bastards on the internet.

I realized today at a car forum I frequent that in my 13 months there I've never asked a single question. I've answered a few, but never asked one. Why? Because the search button has all the answers.

the 'search' button gets you only so far when your intent is to personalize the issue of smoking with smokers.

As its appearent to me, though I knew this previously, numbers mean almost nothing to people. 6,000,000 Jews dead as a result of the Holocast isnt as signicant as an individual story [such as Ann Frank] becuase people cant relate to a number so large... they can however relate to 1 person.

I've found from talking to folks on this forum that statistics mean nothing.

So I'm no longer am conerned with statistics to get any point across. In fact, I'm no longer concerned with getting a point across. IN FACT, I'm no longer conerned with making points.

I'd rather talk to you folks individually about smoking.

Thats now why I'm here...

Also.. I should meantion that I came here as a result of the damn search button. In search of "pro-smoking" websites. Because I've been wanting to understand your prespective for the research I'm doing for college.

As a person who supports individual rights but is also health conscious, i think thats saying a lot. How many people do you know that can say, "I'll set aside my personal agenda to hear your prespective and actually consider what your saying" as a non-smoker?

Also, I'd prefer not to be refered to as an Anti-Smoker. I'm a none-smoker in search of your prospective.



[sorry if anything is mistyped or unclear, I've had a bit to drink. I think I fractured my toe trying to do wall-flips tonight]