Bans and higher cigarette taxes are for the 'KIDS'.

One is led to believe that 'Kids' are in immediate peril from smoking.

Here are the percentages of deaths that occur over the age of 65 from the,so called, smoking caused diseases.
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html

Leading Causes of Death in the United States
As compiled from data reported by the National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 50, No. 15, September 16, 2002

Major Cardiovascular Diseases = 85%

Malignant Neoplasms = 71%

Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases = 87%

Influenza and Pneumonia = 90%

Renal Failure = 84%

About 84% of the auto accident and firearm deaths occur 'UNDER' the age of 65.

This year about 6,000 teens will go out for car rides and not come back alive.

Will kids die from something?
Absolutely.

60 years from now,will these kids have the same health problems that we have today?

Only if you believe that medical advances will come to a screeching halt.

Here is a very short list of the medical advances of the past 60 years.

Anyone over the age of 60 remembers when Polio was a very real danger. Today Polio is non-existent.

Some other 'Killers' that are non-existent are
chickenpox,measles,mumps,smallpox,cholera,
diptheria,whooping cough, scarlet fever,tuberculosis,and malaria(In the USA).

A few of the Medical advances are improved blood screening, prostate cancer tests,PAP smears, CAT scans, MRI's, Sonograms,Fluoroscopy, Colonoscopys, artificial hearts, heart and other organ transplants, open heart surgery,stents,angioplasty,radiation therapy,chemotherapy,ambulances that are not just meat-wagons,intensive care units,air-evac flights,laser surgery,microsurgery,cosmetic surgery,dental implants,and air-conditioning in the home(I think it's a life-saver! ).

Hundreds of millions of dollare are being spent every year on tobacco control that could and should be spent on medical research.

These monies should not be going to bloated salaries and expense accounts.

Gary K.

What I find funny is that when I was in high school in the late 'seventies, only about a third of my graduating class smoked. (I was not one of them; I didn't start until I was 21.)

Now, every single kid I know between the age of fifteen and eighteen is a smoker, and I know... let's see... eleven of them.

The antis have made smoking cool again.

When I graduated from high school in 1965 I had only one friend who smoked. In college I had a couple but it wasn't something we spent a lot of time thinking about. I started smoking at the age of 21. On my first job, after school, 90% of my co-workers smoked.

Growing up most parents smoked. My mother smoked when she wasn't pregnant. All my friend's parents smoked. I remember our home was as polluted with smoke as a bar during dinner parties hosted by my parents. All my grandparents smoked.

My wife smoked when we got married, but quit when she got pregnant. Her mother didn't smoke but her father had in his youth. Both sets of her grandparents were tobacco farmers.

I received the polio vaccine in school. I endured measles, mumps, and chicken pox growing up.

I am getting so tired of the Phrase "its for the Children" these organizations campainers using the term so much that its desensitizing ..example my union call me on the phone while I was making dinner..few days before the general elections..wanted me to donate a few dollars for the campaine they used the " its for the children I hit the celing started calling the person on the phone a Nazi and a few other choice words.. the person on the other end of the phone said " well I guess thats a NO" and I said "You got that F***ing right!!" Click

who was the first organization that used it "feed the children" christian charity. then it evolved from there.. now don't get me wrong I love children.. but come on now the term is being exploited to the point that it dosen't feel good anymore when you want to help a child in need.. that is truely sad when good people are guilted into "its for the children" fund raising..

"For the children" is wearing very thin with me.

For the children currently costs taxpayers:

$ 1,000 a month for education
1,000 a month for food and shelter in fostercare

Who knows how much Schip per child costs along with prescription drug coverage for their mental problems. Then the cost of case workers, their supervisors, lawyers, and doctor fees.

At the same time "the children" hold over their parent's heads the prospect of calling Children's Services if they don't tow the line and provide the latest electronic devices, fashions, and a late model car.

What adult of child baring age would volunteer for this duty?

How long are the rest of us going to put up with this?

quote:

Hundreds of millions of dollare are being spent every year on tobacco control that could and should be spent on medical research.

Tell me about it! Nixon kicked off the war on cancer 35 years ago and there has been little imporvement in survival rate or the availability of new treatments. At the same time, we have learned so much about how a cell functions and small upstart biotech companies have used this knowledge to try and develop more effective treatments. Why aren't we seeing them? Because the clinical trial phase for new drugs is extremely expensive and burdensome and the FDA consists of people in bed with Big Pharma who is making a killing off of the existing and highly toxic drugs used in chemotherapy. At the same time, you have a new breed of public health scientists with ties to trial lawyers who are getting a lot of press stressing "cancer prevention." Some environmental agents such as radiation certainly can cause cancer if you get a high enough dose, but very very few people are exposed to this. Viruses like HPV can too. However, in order to cease power, public health has had to convince the public that everyday things, including secondhand smoke, cell phones, and sunlight will land you in an early grave. The truth is in our genes - only 5-10% of heavy smokers develop lung cancer, usually between 65-70 years of age and over half of these cases are ex-smokers, some who quit 40 years ago, and never smokers. Cancer is a disease of aging - the more times our cells divide, the more likely they are to screw something up, and that is what leads to cancer, the more times your heart pumps, the weaker it gets - some of us are built better and can last longer, regardless of how we live - just like cars - there are Mercedeses that can go for a million miles and AMC pacers that don't make it past 40,000. Biologically, there is no need for us to live past our reproductive years - but our cells and organs haven't causght up with the fact that we're living longer now than ever before - this is also the reason why health care keeps getting more expensive. We could all be no-smoking, teetotaling, vegans, and we would still die of something and our life expectancy would proably not be extended by more than a few years.

Bruce: "'For the children' is wearing very thin with me."

I think it has with everybody, Bruce. The Simpsons even lampooned it. South Park probably has too, but if so I missed it.

But it's a lot older than a Christian charity. 'The Children' are the oldest pawns of propaganda in existence. Hitler loved them. (I think he really was genuinely fond of them, too--even monsters are human.)

Curmudgeon that I am, I'm a bit sick of hearing about the selfish little pre-mature animals myself. I paid $828.48 in property taxes for education alone this year, and I never had kids. I didn't want any. I don't care for the hack job the public schools are doing in any event.

So now the press is dragging Bush through the muck for vetoing a bill that should have been vetoed. It's about the only thing he's done in office with which I agree. If everyone wants improved health care for kids, everyone should pay for it--not just smokers.

Speaking of kids and propaganda - has anyone seen the AARP commercials lately? They consist entirely of kids asking you to write congress and ask them to work together to solve problems, though they didn't say what these problems were or why AARP was using kids in a commercial and not grown-ups over 55.

A picture to use for "It's for the Children"

Hitler with Children
Scroll down to the end of the page.

gilster: "A picture to use for 'It's for the Children...'"

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking about. It wasn't a put-on either. The sonofabitch really did like kids.

If you get a chance to see the Bruno Ganz film Der Untergang (The Downfall), which chronicles Hitler's last days in the bunker, don't pass it up. It's the only film I've seen that portrays Hitler not as a cartoon monster, but as what he was: an angry, obsessed leader going down for the third time. It was based on the recollections of his secretary, Traudl Junge, who was actually there. The interviews with Ms. Junge at the beginning and end of the film give one pause for thought.

The scenes with the Goebbels kids are difficult to take. Hitler obviously loved them. Most everyone present saw them as THE FUTURE, including their mother, and when it became clear that National Socialism had no future... well....