|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Moderator |
(Some of are probably reposts)
Category: Money/Thieves/Hypocrites A coalition of public health groups yesterday vowed to campaign against Gov. James E. McGreevey's proposed 40-cent tax increase on a pack of cigarettes if he doesn't rescind his proposed cuts to anti-smoking programs. At the same time, the groups said they would support an even bigger tax increase -- half a buck per pack -- if the extra dime was set aside for anti-tobacco efforts. [Wow. They say raising prices reduces youth smoking, but they would rather hold out just to get a dime for themselves. Wonder what I could get these whores to do for a dollar? (No offense meant to real whores)] ------------ "This comes at a very important time for us," said Sen. James Clayborne (D-Belleville), the sponsor of a Senate bill that would limit the bond requirement. "We're strapped for cash. We don't want them to go out of business before they can pay the $9 billion they owe us." [And they call tobacco companies merchants of death] ------------------- The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, North Dakota Medical Association and North Dakota Public Health Association all spoke out against a tobacco ban on Tuesday, much to the dismay of some lawmakers on the committee. A spokeswoman for the tobacco control program of the state Health Department spoke along with those against the bill, although another spokeswoman later said the department is taking a neutral stance on the legislation. Most of them said they opposed it because there was no scientific evidence that it would work, since North Dakota would be the first state to enact such a ban. They said the state should instead rely on other tobacco cessation strategies that have been proven to work. He said some members of the committee were "extremely upset by the testimony from the groups who consider themselves to be anti-tobacco." [Members of the committee shouldn't be surprised, they've seen these whores before living off of tobacco money. Ban = no tobacco money. (No offense meant to real whores)] --------------------------- "What should we accept in such a settlement? We should take the tobacco business, all of it, including foreign subsidiaries, as part of an agreement to let these companies keep their cookies, cheese, and beer. We should let the government make plain cigarettes available (no fancy brands, no advertising, no nicotine boosting additives, no campaign contributions) for smokers who can't quit. We should take the money from the sales of these cigarettes and use it to help tobacco workers and farmers retool and to run a big aggressive anti-smoking campaign (modeled on California's successful campaign) to reduce smoking as quickly as possible. Since we will own the overseas business, we can simply close it so that America can no longer be accused of exporting death" Stanton Glantz [Gee, didn't we overthrow the government in Chile when they nationalized US businesses there?] ======================================== Category: Dumb, dumber, dumberer, dumbererer, dumbererer A nonsmoker in a smoky room inhales the equivalent of 35 cigarettes an hour. Secondhand smoke has twice as much nicotine and tar and five times the carbon monoxide as the smoke inhaled by smokers. Cunningham (1996), Smoke & Mirrors -- the Canadian Tobacco War. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. ------------------- Dr. Richard Carmona, the Surgeon General and...primary adviser on the nation's public health...during testimony at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing..."[T]here is no significant scientific evidence that suggests smokeless tobacco is a safer alternative to cigarettes." [S]mokeless tobacco use carries no risk for lung cancer, heart diseases or emphysema.The only consequential risk for long-term smokeless use is mouth cancer. Fifty years of research prove that even this risk is very low (less than half that associated with smoking). In fact...That's 98 percent safer than smoking. -------------------------- "Even if an adult caregiver makes an effort not to smoke around an infant, the secretions from the adult's skin still may pose a risk of SIDS for the child." Patty McWhi Executive Director, Healthy Start Coalition of Osceola County -------------------- Chapman’s attack then turned on funding from the tobacco industry in an attempt to discredit Lee’s work, but the rhetoric was confused, and appeared in the end, to endorse it. While he admits it would be surprising that the tobacco industry did not ‘conduct research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of passive smoking’ (Chapman’s emphasis) and while he agrees it is true that ‘overseas, tobacco-funded scientists have been prominent in their criticism of health agency reports on passive smoking’, he endorses the view expressed by the Journal of the American Medical Association, that ‘research into health effects of tobacco conducted by the tobacco industry has often been more sophisticated and advanced than studies by the medical community’. In the guise of a scientific debate, Chapman’s attack must be considered a low point in the Thoracic Society’s history. --------------- Children who live with parents who smoke in their homes are breathing massive amounts of toxic pollution, which makes them drowsy and lethargic, and brings on headaches. Federal standards allow somewhere between zero and 100 parts per million of carbon monoxide as tolerable, but tobacco smoke contains 42,000 parts per million. Bigger kids who don’t smoke probably stay out of those homes as much as possible. Schoolchildren cannot think clearly enough in that atmosphere to do their homework properly, and feel less like doing it. Chemically impaired children in those homes are apt to sleep longer and be harder to wake up. Ray Perkins Jr. Founder and president Mid-Coast Maine Promotion “For Clean Indoor Air” [Note to readers. These children would be dead if this guy knew what he was talking about] ========================== Category: Lying is the best policy "On the other side will be anti-smoking crusaders, including city Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, who said secondhand smoke kills up to 11,000 New Yorkers every year." "Call me naive, but I really do think that telling people the truth works," said Frieden, who has prepared an 18-page briefing book on secondhand smoking for City Council members. "The bottom line is, secondhand smoke kills." [Those aren't homeless people lying on the street. Those are victims of secondhand smoke. 11,000 of them.] ---------------------------- "...it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS." Sir George Godber, British delegate to the World Health Organization (WHO), blueprint for changing individual behavior by changing social attitudes. (1975) ------------------------------ Obviously, it was a lung, but it was as black as coal, bore tumorous growths and couldn't hold its air very long. "This is what happens when you smoke," Capt. Rob Pankiw, drug demand reduction administrator with the Delaware National Guard's Counterdrug Task Force, told a gaggle of wide-eyed adolescents in Dover. Pankiw described the centerpiece of his anti-smoking display as the diseased lung of a 150-pound man who smoked for 15 years. Actually, it was a pig's lung shot full of various carcinogens on purpose, but, Pankiw said later, his lesson was made stronger by not passing along that tidbit of truth. ------------- "After further discussion...[and] input from other [ANR] Board members, we have concluded that the possible 'clarification' that you and I discussed is simply not feasible... I realize that your views on the matter are heart-felt and sincere, and that mere removal of your name from the paper, without more, will not be entirely satisfactory to you. But at this point ANR must put its political credibility ahead of what you consider to be your scientific credibility." [emphasis added] --------------------------- Governments concealed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution in the wake of the great London smog 50 years ago, and attempted to shift all the blame on to cigarette smoking, a medical historian will allege today. While gradually there came to be no doubt of the deaths and disease caused by cigarettes, it suited governments for political reasons that the focus should remain firmly on smoking... An estimated 12,000 people died from the effects of the smog, but there was a shift in the public health agenda from the 1950s onwards towards the individual taking responsibility for his or her own health. [T]he Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying that although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of it could be caused by air pollution. On May 31, 1957, a modified version was published, which stated that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was "a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking". ------------------------- Epidemiology is a crude and inexact science. Eighty percent of cases are almost all hypotheses. We tend to overstate findings either because we want attention or more grant money. [Source: New York Times, October 11, 1995] Charles Hennekens, one of the Kawachi study authors. --------------------------------- In the same article, Dr. Feinstein (Yale University Medical School) revealed that he "recently [had] heard an authoritative leader in the world of public health epidemiology make the following statement: "Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" (p. 303). ------------------ ‘I am DEEPLY concerned about the implications for the credibility of our whole report arising from the calculations.… If we look at Table 7 in the way any journalist would … a reasonable conclusion will be that the idea that there is ANY lung cancer caused by ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in Australia will be seen as a huge joke. Journalists … will be hard pressed to write anything other than ‘Official: passive smoking cleared—no lung cancer’ … our estimate of 93 deaths should be 4,247. ‘I think we had better get out a thesaurus and find a lot of words to express the words ‘conservative estimate’ in hundreds of different ways…. We are looking down the barrel of a MAJOR public relations problem … I STRONGLY recommend that we convene another face-to-face meeting to discuss what to do about this.’ (emphasis in the original) By the time the draft report came out, the table Chapman was referring to had been deleted. ========================================== Category: Or maybe....Tobacco smoke appears to reduce asthma problems. “CONCLUSION High levels of parental smoking in the home are associated with a reduction in health care contacts for asthma. This could be due to a lack of awareness of asthma symptoms among heavy smokers or a reluctance to visit the GP. Children with asthma who have parents who smoke heavily may not be receiving adequate management.” ============================================ Category: Researchers or hitmen? Rice commented on her motivations for the study stated "I feel very strongly being a public health person that we should have a smoke-free society." And further went on to say, "I feel that the states are now going to be very successful (in their lawsuits) and maybe we can somehow bankrupt the tobacco industry." [At least she's not asking they be nationalized like Glantz, only bankrupted.] ================================================ Category: Funny how the rules change when it's secondhand smoke "Researchers...did a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies of diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Note: 7 other diesel exhaust/lung cancer studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, 6 of which did not support the researcher's ultimate conclusion). The researchers reported a relative risk of 1.33 (95 percent confidence interval 1.24. - 1.44). But in an accompanying editorial, the National Cancer Institute's Debra T. Silverman wrote: Skepticism regarding the carcinogenicity to the lung of diesel exhaust...arises from three main concerns... First, and probably most important, the magnitude of the effect observed in most studies is low, with relative risks (RRs) typically under 1.5. Second, of the 30 studies conducted...only four have obtained either quantitative data on current exposure or semiquantitative data on historical exposure. None has obtained quantitative data on historical exposure, the measure most relevant to the development of lung cancer...Third, the effect of cigarette smoking has been controlled in only about one-half the studies... " Has science proven causality beyond any reasonable doubt? Probably not. The repeated finding of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation." ============================================= Category: At any cost As the sixth-graders from Berylwood Elementary School stepped onto the "Bus of Tobacco Horrors" Thursday morning, they embarked on a one-way trip to "Dead Valley." During their 45-minute journey through the tobacco education bus, the students sat in the "Stench" family living room, visited a school bathroom with a toilet full of cigarette butts and stepped on a gigantic tongue that coughed. "It made me want to throw up," said 11-year-old Christopher Silva after watching a short video. "Anything we can do to help children make good choices--about drugs, alcohol or smoking--is worth the effort," Berylwood Principal Butch Peterson said. "And the tobacco education bus seems to affect the kids." After leaving the bathroom, the students walked through oversized foam cigarettes into a mouth filled with sores and stained teeth. One student came out of the mouth saying, "That's nasty. My stomach's turning." [What a bunch of sick %$#^%$#@, and I'm not talking about the kids.] |
||
|
Thanks, Squeezer! This series of quotes you've put together here really does say it all about the antis.
Here's one more oldie but goodie I'd like to add: This is what Richard Scruggs, the biggest of the money-grubbing lawyers involved in the states' suit against the tobacco industry and the subsequent MSA had to say about the professional antis and their drive for more and more money: Interviewer Pires: "Not enough money, $368 billion?" Scruggs:"No, no. It wasn't enough money. There wasn't enough money in the world to satisfy some people. And it wouldn't have mattered. The problem is that there are people invested in the fight, okay? I mean, like, some people in Palestine or Northern Ireland don't want the wars to end. "This was the biggest mistake we made in tobacco. We did not anticipate the self-interest of some of the health groups in perpetuating their existence and their fund raising. Because bashing big tobacco was the fundamental way to raise money." [Harper's Magazine Forum: "Making the Case for Racial Reparations," Nov. 2000, p. 45] |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Wanda, I'd never seen that quote before. That's a good one. ROFL
Maybe everybody should add their 5 or fifty favorite quotes and once a year drag it out for a laugh. How about Glantz when he was at a loss for words on the Dennis Prager show? "Uh, er, now wait, um, uh, er, I didn't say, er um, ah,..." LOL |
|||
|
|
Moderator |
A few additions:
Category: So long, goodbye, auf Wiedersehen, goodnight John Slade, M.D., died...at a family home... The obituary in the New York Times...said Slade shot himself. His death was ruled a suicide. He was 52. Six months earlier he had suffered a stroke. John Slade was a hero among contemporary public health crusaders. He was addicted to the anti-tobacco crusade. However, John Slade was also a hypocrite...He was a statist towards others and a libertarian for himself. He sought to use the power of the state to interfere with...cigarette buyers and sellers. ...Slade believed he had a right to end his life because he no longer wanted to go on living. No one should condemn him for committing suicide. However, Slade devoted a significant part of his professional life lobbying for the very opposite kind of policy when it came to others: Smokers, he asserted, do not have the right to exercise free will to self-destruct by smoking. ===================== Category: Do as I say-Not as I do/Practice what you preach Six years ago, when owner Willie Degel opened the place, he described Uncle Jack's as an under-35-seating-capacity, "smoke-friendly" steakhouse with a great drinking bar. Zagat lists it as one of the city's top five steakhouses and its sign boasts a statue of a man smoking a cigar, leaning from the sign's logo. Although Uncle Jack's has a smoke-free room downstairs, Bloomberg always sits upstairs in the smoking room, where he devours his New York strip steak. =============== Category: Do it TO the children Timothy Downey...who admitted to raping teenage boys, was sentenced to eight to 10 years... Downey...pleaded guilty to nine counts of rape and abuse of a child, no force; eight counts of distribution of marijuana; seven counts of disseminating harmful matter to minors and nine counts of procuring alcohol for minors. Downey...admitted...he...showed them pornographic images and videos, gave them alcohol and marijuana and engaged in sexual acts with them. The prosecutor also said that Downey...took little responsibility for his actions when he told the psychiatrist that he used poor judgment in "allowing" the victims to talk him into inappropriate behavior. Still, Downey has many positive attributes, the defense attorney said. As a member of the Board of Health for eight years, Downey led the fight to ban smoking in restaurants and to remove cigarette machines from locations where young people have access to them. ================== Category: Time to get a new calculator Repace discovered that the rate of ventilation necessary to duck under the risk level would require 100,000 air changes per hour, which would create gale-force winds equivalent to the wind power of a tornado. |
|||
|
|
Moderator |
Wanda, I'll see your Richard Scruggs quote and raise you 1 Michael Siegel quote
Category: He's right: Hypocrites This is exactly the type of thing that tobacco control practitioners have vociferously opposed for years. In fact, it's exactly what the Foundation itself, in its policies regarding grants to institutions, opposes. The Foundation requires Schools of Public Health that receive Legacy funding to promise _never_ to accept tobacco industry funding, and they are not eligible for such funding if the School currently takes tobacco money. I am in fact personally not eligible for Legacy Foundation funding because my School refuses to sign a letter stating that it agrees never to take tobacco industry money. So let me get this straight: It's terribly wrong for another organization to take tobacco money to conduct what may be important research and tobacco control activities, but it's OK for the Legacy Foundation to take tobacco money for its own purposes. If that's not the example given in the dictionary under the definition of "hypocrisy," it should be. I am truly discouraged by all of this -- and I really believe that the tobacco control movement as we know it is coming to an end. What is left is a movement run by a few organizations that are positioning themselves for their own financial gain... |
|||
|
Didn't you know that antis are alchemists? In olden times alchemists searched for a way to transmute lead into gold, but the anti alchemists have found they can transmute bad tobacco money into good tobacco money simply by grasping it in their hands.
|
||||
|
So what will these org's gain by "winning" the battle and enacting smoking bans? They'd all be out of business! Same analogy as a lumber dealer cutting down all the forests and not replanting. Why cannibalize their own source of revenue? |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
I believe what Siegel's saying there is that with dwindling resources (money) the bigger fish are cutting the small ones out.
BTW, they'll never be out of business as long as they're financed. And even if every smoker quit they'll say they're still needed to prevent the next generation from starting. What amazes me is that it costs any money at all to run anti-tobacco programs. Smoking rates dropped on their own before the antis moved in and made it an industry. |
|||
|
You really ARE a true believer. If smoking bans actually eradicated smoking, then all we'd have to do to eradicate cocaine use would be to ban it---oh, that's right, we already have! And, of course, Prohibition only increased alcohol use; it didn't eradicate it. |
||||
|
Yep, keep referring this back to prohibition. X does not equal Y, folks! If I wanted to outlaw tobacco, I'd have stated so. Keep twisting the issue, it's in the user manual. |
||||
|
Ah, so you weren't making a connection between smoking bans and the elimination of smoking? Sometimes you seem to be saying two disparate things at the same time. By "manual" do you mean "Strategies To Control Tobacco Use In the United States: A Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990s"? That's one of the many, many manuals used by the antis to produce their little erroneous and misleading soundbites (or "talking points," as they say in their media training sessions). That's why you all sound exactly the same, because you cannot deviate from the script. You will note here that people all have their own writing styles and voices and actually do their own research. No goose-stepping among the freedom lovers, just among the-er--Niconazis. |
||||
|
It's not as much fun when I find the term endearing, is it Wanda? Much like the neighborhood bully meeting his/her match with the kid smart enough to wipe off the insults. |
||||
|
The only folk's that don't mind being associated with nazism in all it's different forms ... are, well, you guessed it ... Nazi's, it's not really insulting to them, in fact, they rather find it endearing, and wear it proudly as a badge of honor, and always portray "themselves" as the one being persecuted.
I notice their new address is now in Minnesota. AMERICAN NAZI PARTY  This message has been edited. Last edited by: John L, |
||||
|
Now this would be an example of attacking one's "credos," Jennifer.
Assuming that I am affiliated with an organization that will make my words and/or logic seem less compelling and therefore, less believable. |
||||
|
|
Moderator |
Let's see, Wanda wrote all this: Ah, so you weren't making a connection between smoking bans and the elimination of smoking? Sometimes you seem to be saying two disparate things at the same time. By "manual" do you mean "Strategies To Control Tobacco Use In the United States: A Blueprint for Public Health Action in the 1990s"? That's one of the many, many manuals used by the antis to produce their little erroneous and misleading soundbites (or "talking points," as they say in their media training sessions). That's why you all sound exactly the same, because you cannot deviate from the script. You will note here that people all have their own writing styles and voices and actually do their own research. No goose-stepping among the freedom lovers, just among the-er--Niconazis. And all you're capable of commenting on is the last sentence. Most of your posts are like this. (I say MOST just so I don't have to look at them all to be sure it's not all.) But then again, after posting that you are compelled to eat in restaurants because you don't know how to put a piece of cheese between two pieces of bread, I guess we can't expect too much from you. |
|||
|
Nico,
I certainly acknowledge that one's credos can be either accepted or attacked, believed or disbelieved. I just don't think somebody can GIVE credos to another, much like noone else can GIVE you "self-esteem." I understood your original post to mean that you wanted to "give" Dennis his credos. I think you can acknowledge his credos (or not), I think you can believe his credos (or not), but GIVE him his credos? I don't think that's possible. Which is why I thought you might mean "kudos" instead. In any case, I don't wish the forum to go off on any more of a tangent. It's almost midnight here and the kids will be up at 5:30am. I don't have the energy to argue the semantics of Aristotle! LOL If I have misunderstood your meaning, I do apologize. Regards, Jenny |
||||
|
Are you the neighborhood bully, squeeker? |
||||
|
Pointing out your personal failures (God how could anyone be so sad as to admit he can't feed himself), is not bullying, it's enjoying the obvious. |
||||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | speakeasyforum.com | ||
| Servlet | eve2da018 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Blue Steel [Default]" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Material presented in these forums constitute the views and opinions of the individual authors.