Just suffered through a segment of Hannity & Colmes which I wound up turning off-Morris was on hacking his latest book (why else whould he be on?) called OUTRAGE, where he gets down on just about everybody.

He was talking about 'big tobacco' *he probably invented that detested term) giving campaign contributions, and bitched about PM changing their name to Altria, then called the tobacco companies 'murderers' on tv. The Skull of course agreed, but Hannity, to his credit, called him on it, saying "people have a CHOICE on bad habits like drinking and smoking, Dick. I don't want you to get sued." Morris arrogantly said, "Let them sue me." They've killed a lot of people, including my mother and father-in-law." I wish one of them WOULD sue the disgusting little weasel. In fairness, he got down on Big Pharma, too, but used the term 'drug companies' instead. He also once again predicted the Klintons would soil the white house and further divide the country once again.

I saw that, too. He parroted the usual "400,000 deaths" garbage, and apparently the book claims the tobacco companies increased the amount of nicotine. I'm assuming he based that on the recent Harvard study, which Dr. Siegel pretty much debunked; nicotine amounts vary naturally, plus reducing the amount of nicotine actually causes people to smoke more as they attempt to get their "daily quota".

I also appreciated Hannity's comment. I wonder if he caught the History Channel's "Last Days of Earth" Sunday night. It was a two-hour show about the top 7 things that could doom earth (nothing like a little levity on a Sunday night...). The first part of the show was interesting - I didn't know there were actually wandering black holes in the universe - but the last half hour was all global warming propaganda with Al "live as I say, not as I do" Gore whining and droning on.

What does this have to do with Hannity? They showed clips from Fox News Channel, including one of him, and then compared them to the tobacco executives claiming nicotine wasn't addictive! In other words, the clear message was that anyone who questions the claim that the sole cause of global warming is humans is a liar.

What they always leave out about that infamous testimony, of course, is the fact the tobacco executives were testifying to what WAS the definition of 'addictive' - a definition that was changed just prior to the tobacco hearings in the 1990s, specifically so nicotine could be meet the definition of an addictive substance as they ramped up their war on smokers.

quote:

Originally posted by Freedom:

What they always leave out about that infamous testimony, of course, is the fact the tobacco executives were testifying to what WAS the definition of 'addictive' - a definition that was changed just prior to the tobacco hearings in the 1990s, specifically so nicotine could be meet the definition of an addictive substance as they ramped up their war on smokers.

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page134.asp
Why the addiction argument is so popular

There's a great deal of hypocrisy surrounding the addiction argument. After all, if smoking is so addictive why does the anti-smoking lobby try so hard to ban smoking in all public places? Surely, if smokers are as addicted as they say, prohibition is simply going to increase their suffering.

(NOTEoes anyone really feel the antis care about anyone else's feelings or problems???)

No, the reason the addiction argument is so popular among anti-smokers is because it takes away the important concepts of free choice and personal responsibility. By arguing so vociferously that smokers are 'slaves to the weed', the anti-smokers are trying to undermine the idea (held by FOREST and by many other people) that by choosing to smoke adult smokers are old enough to decide their own lifestyle and are merely exercising their own free will.

This in turn gives anti-smokers the excuse to insist that the state must apply the tightest restrictions on smokers 'for their own good'. What the killjoys cannot accept is that a great many people enjoy smoking and take pleasure from it. The fact that they smoke has nothing to do with addiction.

Filed 06/01/03

quote:

No, the reason the addiction argument is so popular among anti-smokers is because it takes away the important concepts of free choice and personal responsibility.

BINGO

Free choice and personal responsibility are two words not to be found in the collectivist utopian sheeple new speak dictionary.

In the UK, the antis - who have declared smoking more addictive than heroin - have apparently successfully planted the seed of denying surgery to smokers until they have quit for at least 4 weeks; after that time period, they must be tested to prove they did indeed quit.

If smoking is so addictive, how can they turn around and say "You want to have surgery, give up cigarettes", and, bingo, you can quit?
Which is it, people? Is it so addictive we can't quit, or easy enough to quit we can do it to have lifesaving surgery?

I guess it's a case of telling so many lies, they get their stories crossed. I wonder how the doctors who go along with this viciousness can live with themselves.

These same people prescribe medications that have side effects that can effect surgical outcomes, but do they tell these patients to stop taking these medications before surgery? If the patient can do without this medication for a month before surgery, do they really need them at all?