A City Council member of Queens who is chairman of the council's Environmental Protection Committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce the smoking bill next week.

"I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids," Mr. Gennaro said. "I've lost family members to lung cancer and I've seen what happens."

link

I find electioneering amusing. Politicians, who are trying to get the job of representing us, don't tell us what we want. They tell us what they want. A good example is when you see Republicans running for office in Democratic regions (and vice versa). How can a Republican or Democrat possibly represent people with opposing views? It's what THEY want, that's what really matters.

So it should be no surprise to me that some a**hole in NYC is working to see smoking come to an end because he "lost family members to lung cancer."

Some elected officials are the epitome of the "Me generation."

Btw, he's trying to ban smoking in cars.

Another politician that just knows what we should think and do.

This dude is just another Nazi.

"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the Nazi Party. It is also the heart's desire of every Leftist since Karl Marx.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
A good example is when you see Republicans running for office in Democratic regions (and vice versa). How can a Republican or Democrat possibly represent people with opposing views? It's what THEY want, that's what really matters.

This is why I've always felt that the two party system needs to be a five or ten party system. A no party system is a soon-to be one party system in my mind because it invites totalitarianism. A two party monopoly is the next worst scenario. A ten party system that covers a broad spectrum of beliefs would slow the lawmaking process, which I think would be great, and would give many more people a sense of being represented. Perhaps this has popped up at some point in the world, but I'm not aware of it. If it did, it may have failed horribly for all I know. It seems that it most likely would have popped up in the U.S.

It's really the fault off The People that such a thing doesn't exist, but the special interests are very grateful for it.

It does not seem to matter what an elected official believes before entering office because they inherit the staff from the previous official. Not in the same configuration but with the same mind set. The staff's mindset determines what the representative sees and hears and is led to believe. If he/she is to succeed they listen to their staff. Personal agendas are relegated to the sidelines until true power is achieved for the representative and their staff.

A multi-party system may sound wonderful until you look at the negotiating amongst the parties that results in the European Union and the control exercised by the World Bank and World Health Organization. No one elects the EU, the administration of the World Bank or the World Health Organization.

No one elects the officials of any Health Organization, they are all appointed.

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
A City Council member of Queens who is chairman of the council's Environmental Protection Committee, James Gennaro, said he is planning to introduce the smoking bill next week.

"I am just seeking every opportunity I can to denormalize smoking and to try to put it out of the reach of kids," Mr. Gennaro said.

Btw, he's trying to ban smoking in cars.

denormalize smoking =control and coercion = just another form of RAPE!!!

More of the same old crap is not going to do anything for kids.

So after 15 years of constant dunning through TV commercials, the spending of as much as $880 million dollars a year on "Tobacco Control" (according to the AMA!), an increase of probably well over 150% in taxation, and an increase in workplace smoking bans of probably 500% or more....

The Antismokers managed to reduce the nationwide smoking rate from 23.0% in 1990 to ... er... hmm... 23.0% in 2002, to 20.6% in 2005.

Yep. That certainly justifies all those bans and taxes nicely doesn't it?

See: CDC: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Trends Data


http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/taxandteen.html

Cornell researchers find boosting taxes does not cut teen smoking. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980409080915.htm



And consider this: The Canadian Tobacco Products Control Act of 1989 increased the cigarette tax to C$3.86 on Jan 1, 1990. As can be seen below, even this massive tax hike did not reduce teen smoking.

Canadian Teen Smoking Rates

1989
Male Teen smoking =22%
Female Teen smoking = 24%

1991
19%
25%

1994
27%
30%



source: http://quit.org.au/BackgroundBriefs/15Yth_RTS.html



http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/assort.htm

Smoking Is Down. Why Hasn't Health Improved? - The paradise of health promised by anti-tobacco once people stop smoking has not been realized.

Decades of lower smoking rates have not only not eliminated ailments but, in the case of key childhood conditions, the lower smoking rates have gone hand in hand with higher levels of illness. Dave Kuneman examined the data and found the following:
I read with interest the Dec. 20 article “Smoking by Expectant Moms Declines while Premature Births Rise”. I’d like to comment that the prevalence almost all children’s medical conditions blamed on second hand smoke are rising even as the prevalence of smoke declines.
I have compiled as much of this data as possible from Statistical Abstracts of the United States. The table below presents this data; the year the data was acquired is in parenthesis . The right-hand margin cites the year the government published the abstract, and the table number.

Present Smoker
Male, age 25-44 56.3% (1967) 29% (1998) SAUS, 1970T113, 2001T191
Female, age 25-44 41.3% (1967) 25% (1998) SAUS, 1970T113, 2001T191

Lower Respiratory Problems - children and adolescents
conditions age 0 to 5: 66.0% (1968) 79.7%(1989) SAUS,1970T106, 1992T194
conditions age 6 to16: 72.0%(1968) 90.6%(1989) SAUS,1970T106, 1992T194

From the Washington Toxics Coalition - Toxics in the home: Protecting children
childhood cancer: Incidence rose 1% a year between 1974 and 1991

birth defects: 29 of 38 types increased during the 1980’s, only two decreased

childhood asthma: Increased 60% since 1980


From Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Feb. , 1996
Ear infections, age 0-2 Tripled between 1975 and 1990
Ear infections, age 2-5 Doubled between 1975 and 1990
Note: The above conditions require medical attention, or causing one day of missed school.


Discussion:

Death rates due to most of the aliments reported above have declined over the last 30 years. However death rates are a product of the prevalence of the cause of the ailment, and the effectiveness of measures of detection and treatment. Prevalence of an ailment, however, is primarily related to prevalence of the cause. This is why I presented prevalence data instead of death rate data.

The anti-tobacco interests, the EPA, and CDC have worked overtime to persuade the public that second hand smoke is a major cause of these ailments. If so, prevalence rates for these ailments ought to be declining.

It is evident smoking in the home has declined almost 50% because the age cohort (25-44), the most common age of parents of small children, is down 50%. As an added bonus, public smoking is down substantially . Today’s ten-year-olds have never seen anyone light up in a McDonalds, day care center, school, or on an airplane.

Arguments are often made we should have a lag time between a reduction in cause of an ailment and it’s beneficial effect on public health. This may be true among adults, but today’s children drew their first breath long after the prevalence of secondhand smoke declined.
This lack of improvement in children’s health should send a signal to our public health officials other causes are really the culprits, not second hand smoke.


Real science is based on hard fact, not circumstance. A change in the independent variable (smoking) must result in a predictable change in the dependent variable (childhood disease). If not, the scientific method states we must modify the theory, or discard it.

A funny thing happened on the way to the Forum, I stopped by the CDC and found these statistics. Note; the steady rise in numbers.

1990=24.7%

2002=28.4%

These 18-34 year olds(2002) were 6-22 years old in 1990. They were exposed to the full propaganda of the health groups for their entire teen-age years.

All of the money spent on anti-smoking was a huge waste and could have been put to better use elsewhere!!

The tax increases on cigarettes did not lower smoking rates in this age group.

What a complete failure these antis are!!
Gary K.

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/agechart_c.asp?gr...tate_c=US&SUBMIT5=Go

Trends Data
Nationwide (States, DC, and Territories)
Age: 18-34

Current Smokers*
Age: 18-34
Nationwide (States, DC, and Territories)
Year: %

1990 24.7

1991 25.3

1992 25.3

1993 26.1

1994 25.3

1995 25.7

1996 27.6

1997 27.9

1998 27.3

1999 28.1

2000 28.1

2001 28.1

2002 28.4

Why is their data so old, 2002? I could understand 2005, and MAYBE 2004, but 2002? Geez, don't they have a whole division devoted to smoking?

I wonder if they're hiding something?

It is like the studies that find no connection between smoking and disease. The number do not reflect a cause and effect that they can afford to make public.

Their programs are not working.

Was just in a diferent place and in a different format, this is the govt.

2006 18-34 = 24.95%

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/age.asp?yr=2006&state=US&qkey=4394&grp=0

So;after 16 years and billions of dollars(our money,not theirs),bans and taxes all over place,and much weeping and wailing, NO CHANGE in this age group.


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5526a2.htm
Table 2
Percentage of high school students who reported current cigarette usage

GRADE 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

9th 23.2 27.8 31.2 33.4 27.6 23.9 17.4 19.7

10th 25.2 28.0 33.1 35.3 34.7 26.9 21.8 21.4

11th 31.6 31.1 35.9 36.6 36.0 29.8 23.6 24.3

12th 30.1 34.5 38.2 39.6 42.9 35.2 26.2 27.6

So;after 14 years and billions of dollars(our money,not theirs),bans and taxes all over place,and much weeping and wailing, NOT MUCH CHANGE in this group.

Note that a class always has a higher smoking rate as 11th and 12th graders than as 9th and 10th.

The longer they are preached at,the more they smoke!

The anti's crusade is a stupendous 'FAILURE'.
Gary K.

quote:

Originally posted by gkayser30:
Was just in a diferent place and in a different format, this is the govt.

Thanks Gary.