|
|
Let's
Get Crazy
What The Nannies Are Up To
CONCLUSIONS: Focus group participants indicated that industry manipulation and secondhand smoke are the most effective strategies for denormalizing smoking and reducing cigarette consumption. Youth access, short-term effects, long-term health effects, and romantic rejection are not effective strategies.
http://thriveonline.oxygen.com/medical/library/abstracts/abstract4045.html
*******************
Anti-tobacco activists admit politics more important than science
In league with Mr. Glantz in such blatant disregard for honesty in order to reach their ends is Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health. In an article posted on the Americans for Non-Smokers Rights web page (a group founded by Glantz) Siegel advises anti-tobacco activists, "Do not get into arguments with the industry about scientific evidence... Instead, the best approach is to expose the tobacco industry ties of the so-called scientists making the arguments."
In other words, when you can't impeach the opponents' work, impeach the opponent.
We provide you with testimony written by someone who has such hatred for tobacco that he distorts Hitler's anti-smoking campaign and seeks to prove that the German Nazis should receive accolades for their research on smoking and cancer. Had the author said that research by the Nazi medicos was the first to provide the link between smoking and cancer then that simple statement would be perfectly acceptable. But the underlying anti-semitic nuances and support of the regime in general is a testimony of hate. Excerpt: "And yet outstanding scientific work was being done, meant to save lives, not destroy lives." He'll demand they be praised for research that could have started saving lives as far back as the early 1940s. Our question to him is how many compared to the 6 million they took?
John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 had something to say about this... "Gimme a Break"
Stanton Glantz, anti-tobacco activist, had something to say about John Stossel's piece..."I hope that ABC would take all necessary steps to see that accurate material regarding secondhand smoke is presented to the public..."
Mr. Glantz should practice what he preaches.
"See you in court," Bruce C. Bereano, a lobbyist for the Maryland tobacco industry, said to village Mayor Alfred Muller after the council's decision. "Believe me, you're far from victory."
Extract from another related article:
"Opponents plan acts of civil disobedience, and the tobacco
industry is expected to sue."
Another look at the zealotry at work in this tiny community - "...the
village's ban is social engineering, pure and simple."
Technically, this should have been posted on C.L.A.S.H.'s website page Let's Be Reasonable. But we hate to break up a set.
A Montgomery County judge yesterday blocked the village of Friendship Heights from enforcing a smoking ban described as the strictest in the nation.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any nuttier. Ya can't make this stuff up. This certainly offers a completely different spin on the oft repeated anti-smoking proclamation, "For the children."
"Alfred Muller, the longtime mayor of Friendship Heights who championed the nation's strictest tobacco ban in the Montgomery County village, turned himself in to D.C. police last night after being charged with second-degree sexual abuse involving a juvenile, police said."
"...the Friendship Heights smoking ban is outrageous. It represents
prying, snooping, busybody government at its worst. And it tramples on
the rights of an unpopular minority -- smokers -- without any basis in
civics,
science, or morality."
ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) -- A judge Friday temporarily halted a suburban Washington community's anti-smoking ordinance that was considered one of the toughest in the nation.
The village of Friendship Heights did not have the authority to pass the nation's strictest smoking ban, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled yesterday.
The village of Friendship Heights has repealed a smoking ban considered the toughest in the nation, concluding that continuing the legal fight to enforce the ban after two adverse court decisions could harm the national movement to take the war on smoking outdoors.
A quiet community figure for years, Muller briefly made international headlines in December when he led tiny Friendship Heights into imposing the nation's strictest smoking ban. The law, forbidding smoking on villlage streets and sidewalks and all other public property, has since been repealed.
After the sentencing hearing on Friday, Muller said he has never done anything like this before.
But a former patient of Muller’s told ABC 7 that’s not true. Ernest
Suesbury claims that Muller molested him
during an examination at his medical office nine years ago. He now
is suing the practice that Muller worked for.
West Hollywood to allow landlords to declare apartments as nonsmoking and evict violators.
It is incredulous how nanny organizations such as this one will go to such great lengths, espousing that they are conducting themselves in this manner for the sake of everyone when it is clear that they are taking advantage of a system in order to shove their agenda down everyone's throat and make a lot of money for themselves in the process. If they are successful they will learn that it is the trial lawyers who pocket the cash, not them.
This statement from the environmentalists should stand as a lesson to all that nannyism will not stop at tobacco and further demonstrates greed supercedes good intent:
"...the tobacco wars and other legal battleshave taught that the most effective lever against corporate misconduct is the threat of court-ordered damage awards only a mass tort case can bring."
Jacob Sullum explains how the tobacco companies are damned if they do and damned if they don't by the anti-smoking powers that be.
Canada's New Cigarette Packages With Graphic Pictures Go Into Circulation
"But packages sporting the new labels, which hit the streets
on Saturday, don't seem to be having much effect on Montreal's
teenage smokers."
Even nonsmoking groups are calling this campaign overkill and ineffective. On January 9, 2001, the Yahoo Daily News reported that these groups are creating cigarette sleeves with messages about quitting smoking to place over the offending packs.
The headline is just another example of fear-mongering tactics by the anti-smoking cartel. The report sounds credible at first to anyone who may buy into the theory that ETS causes harm. But anyone with an ounce of sense should hear bells and whistles when they read:
"In fact, infants exposed to smoke from nonfamily members sometimes had levels of cotinine--a breakdown product of nicotine--in their urine that were higher than levels seen in children of smoking parents, the authors note."
Excuse me?!
Don't let the article title fool you. It's not the U.S., just some nut who likely does not have the support of government or the anti-smoking establishment. He is a well known fanatic... David Kessler, the former head of the food and drug administration.
Mr. Kessler suggests that there is now no other way to deal with tobacco
than dismantle the tobacco companies as
they now stand and allow them to operate only as a regulated organisation,
similar to a public utility, able to supply cigarette addicts but not allowed
to market their product. The money paid by smokers would be used only to
cover the costs of production and transport.
Three things immediately occur upon hearing a proposal such as this:
1. The government is horrified to hear someone suggesting the cash cow be killed.
2. The health agencies are shaking in their boots that their funding would cease and many of them would be out of a job.
3. The anti-smoking organizations are confused. They like
the idea but wonder what they'll pick on next since other
actively hated products are already
spoken for.
I don't foresee much luck in Mr. Kessler's future.
"A few questions in the doctor's office backed by a urine test can correctly identify nascent teen-age cigarette smokers and target those who can be helped before addiction, according to a report published on Sunday."
In other words, let's infringe on the privacy of adolescents in order to maintain control over their future choices. Where have we heard this before? Oh yes, Germany, circa 1930s.
"A smoker has died after Australian doctors delayed a life-saving operation because he refused to give up tobacco."
ALSO SEE
Surgery
ban on smokers
February 8, 2001
Herald Sun
"Doctors are refusing smokers potentially life-saving surgery until they quit their habit."
AND
Cigarette
Smoking in Renal Transplant Recipients
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 11:753-759, 2000
"Thus, every effort should be made to encourage transplant candidates to quit smoking. Indeed, it may even be in the public interest to deny renal transplantation to patients who do not make a serious attempt to quit smoking. The interests of both the individual and society may be best served by such an approach."
Years of twisted and false medical information about smoking, the proliferation of junk science, the unrelenting campaigns of instigation against smokers, and their social marginalisation. These are the results. The assassins can be proud. Click here to read more about this ethically offensive direction the medical world has taken.
INTERNATIONAL STAND-BY ALERT: FORCES INTERNATIONAL HAS SENT A LETTER to those involved in the Australian medical edict; an email address list of those who have received this letter is provided. If you're concerned about the direction our health care may take, please bring this situation to the attention of your elected officials and let them know that this type of 'medicine' is not tolerable. This is the proverbial 'shot across the bows'; it's a warning that should not be ignored.
But There's Even More on this Topic
Smokers
Found to Fare Worse After Bone Surgery
Reuters - March 5, 2001
``We won't flat-out refuse to do it,'' McKee said. ``But we ask them to stop smoking.''
Because the surgery requires patients to wear a frame that is attached to the healing bone for several months, McKee said smokers must quit for a ``6-month window,'' beginning several weeks before the procedure.
SMOKERS
WON'T GET BONE OPERATION
CTV-BCTV News - March 1 2001 7:46 PM
Doctors at a Toronto hospital have provoked controversy by saying they
will no longer perform certain bone
reconstruction operations on smokers.
St. Michael's Hospital must have gotten a little shook up by this report. They offered a clarification statement. Unfortunately it really doesn't clarify the outstanding argument; that those who do not quit will not be treated.
The Montreal Gazette published an opinion piece, Our society's moral confusion runs deep, by George Jonas, in which the author explains that in general, "We were inexorably moving toward the elimination of both individual responsibility and autonomy." This column is the result of the statement by Dr. McKee, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto. He writes:
"The problem isn't, of course, that McKee advises his smoking
patients of these findings. The problem isn't that he strongly urges them
to stop smoking to improve their chances of keeping their limbs. The problem
is
that he reportedly refuses to operate on them unless they follow
his advice."
|
£40,000 for widow of smoker 'denied bypass' |
Under a proposed law thought to be the first of its kind in the nation,
smokers would pay a surcharge for every cigarette pack they buy in Maine.
Then they could redeem the butts for a nickel each.
JEFFERSON CITY -- Sen. Peter Kinder brought his outrage over the huge fees that attorneys could receive from Missouri's tobacco settlement to a Senate panel Wednesday, calling the fee agreement "the biggest rip-off in the 180-year history of the state."
If anyone questions the greed that's really behind tobacco litigation, one need only read a piece like this to convince you otherwise.
Abstract:
Objective To determine the
relation between extent of restrictions on smoking at
home, at school, and in
public places and smoking uptake and smoking
prevalence among school
students.
Conclusions:
These findings suggest that
restrictions on smoking at home, more
extensive bans on smoking
in public places, and enforced bans on smoking at
school may reduce teenage
smoking.
Another example of the lengths the extremists are willing to go to,
to promote good health and deny individual freedom.
This study is currently in effect, funded by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation and being conducted by The Center for Social
Gerontology, Inc., James Bergman, J.D., to the tune of $345,065.
In short, the foundation is paying a lawyer big bucks to write "model"
laws to force nursing homes, assisted living facilities and retirement
homes to ban all smoking by their elderly residents and then to work at
the national, state, and local levels to make sure these inhumane laws
pass.
How will teens who smoke or chew survive two days without tobacco?
That's what the Washington State Department of Health hopes to find out when it takes a cue from hit television shows like CBS's ``Survivor'' and MTV's ``The Real World (news - Y! TV)'' and chronicles a weekend in the lives of five teenagers in ``Unfiltered,'' its own ''reality'' show for the Internet.
To qualify for the series, one must frequently smoke or chew tobacco, be enrolled in a Washington state high school, get signed parental consent and agree to be videotaped.
``Once selected, cast members will be flown to Seattle for a cold turkey weekend like no other,'' the department said in a statement.
Not only is this hypocritical in the fact that a government agency is actively seeking high school aged smokers but it is sadistic in nature.
Muscat and his colleagues believe that blacks are doing something different in their smoking behavior--perhaps inhaling more deeply or taking more puffs per cigarette--that may lead to a higher concentration of cancer-causing substances.
They're getting desperate in their attempts to further demonize smoking and will resort to any angle, no matter how outlandish, to promote a smoke-free society. Blacks are doing something different? What racist hogwash.
ORLANDO, Fla., April 26 (AP) — Florida is sending a message to tobacco company employees in a full-page newspaper advertisement: Quit your job.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some of the biggest names in the mobile telephone industry are named as defendants in two class action lawsuits [filed by high-profile Baltimore lawyer Peter Angelos] alleging links between cell phones and possible health risks, the Washington Post reported on Friday.
The lawsuits allege links between cell-phone use and an increased risk of brain damage, genetic irregularities and other health problems, but do not claim that anyone suffered an illness, the Post said.
Angelos, who is also the owner of the Baltimore Orioles professional baseball team, helped the state of Maryland win $4.2 billion in damages from the tobacco industry.
A lawsuit where no one has suffered any illness?? Put this in your photo album under "Snapshot of the BIG PICTURE taken by Big Brother." Add to that a subtitle, "Greed."
How can people be persuaded to be more temperate in their eating habits and more vigorous in their physical routines? Our most current model of a public health campaign against an unhealthy habit is the war on smoking. It's gradually being won, thanks to the efforts to increase the habit's cost, decrease its accessibility, punish its purveyors and stigmatize its victims. Can similar strategies be mobilized in a war against obesity? [emphasis ours]
Note: The italicized print in bold should make anyone who practices tolerance squirm in their seats. Yet, there it is as if it is okay to say that a group of people have been targeted for forced behavior (raising prices) and discrimination (stigmatization).
Children whose parents smoke are more likely to develop dental cavities according to a study from the University of Rochester’s Strong Children’s Research Center.
"If a child has a cavity, the dentist should explain to parents that smoking may be the cause," Aligne adds. "I’m sure they say, ‘Don’t eat too many sweets,’ but perhaps they should also say, "Do you know what causes cavities? New research shows that second-hand smoke may cause cavities. Maybe that’s another reason you should try to quit."
Note: Forget biological plausibility when the message is about quitting smoking. Anything goes when fanatics are involved.
How about a reality check: Too much juice can cause tooth decay, diarrhea [Reuters Health - May 7, 2001]
Parents who think they are sneaking extra vitamins and minerals into their child's diet with juice may be undermining their health in the long run, a group of pediatricians report.
And as an added interesting side note concerning adults and tooth decay: "In the absence of saliva, which has potent antibacterial and antiviral properties, bacteria in the mouth runs rampant, leading to decay. Atheena Pappas, professor at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, said users of dry-mouth-causing medications have 10 times the bacteria in their mouths as normal. People with dry mouth also are more prone to fungal infections, gum disease and nutrition problems."
Among the biggest culprits among the dry-mouth-causing drugs is Zyban, according to the article.
One of the first things every pediatrician tells parents is not to smoke around their kids.
What we need to do is haul a few parents off to jail. Toss them in a paddy wagon with a broken exhaust pipe.
Read another columnist's response to this garbage: Give Loony Columnists a Night in Jail
WE PUBLISH THE FOLLOWING, BY THE SAME AUTHOR, OUT OF DATE ORDER SO THAT YOU KNOW HE IS NOT BEING "FUNNY" OR FACETIOUS. HE'S DEAD SERIOUS.
Soft
drinks can be as addictive as cigarettes
Orlando Sentinel - Mike Thomas - April 7, 2002
When those of us who eat our bran and exercise for 45 minutes a day are done purging cigarettes from society, we will need a new moral crusade to embark upon.
After perusing a list of potential villains, the new target is obvious -- carbonated sucrose water. Or as they call it in the Midwest: pop.
No longer can we ignore the increasing carnage to society caused by soft drinks.
Cigarettes kill 400,000 people a year, but close behind is obesity with more than 300,000 victims. The main cause of obesity is sugar. The main source of sugar is pop.
The World Health Organization called Thursday for all countries to ban smoking in public places to protect non-smokers from breathing ``killer'' second-hand smoke.
In 1998, the tobacco industry ended a slew of health-related lawsuits by agreeing to make annual payments to the states worth $246 billion. The settlement also included restrictions on advertising that might attract teen-agers. Among these were a ban on billboards and cartoon characters such as R.J. Reynolds' Joe Camel.
But young people still are exposed to cigarette ads in magazines, convenience stores and through promotional events in bars and restaurants, the report said.
Unless tobacco is eradicated they will never ever be satisfied. Next they'll be saying that anyone who smokes in public is nothing but a "front" for Big Tobacco and their oh so devious new way to advertise. Even now they blame smokers for encouraging youth smoking and want to remove it from sight to make it "socially unacceptable." So we're halfway there.
From
Morbidity
& Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
[MMWR 50(31):663-666, 2001. Centers for Disease Control]
With funds available from revenue generated by a voter-initiated ballot measure to increase the state cigarette excise tax, the Oregon Health Division (OHD) created the Tobacco Prevention and Education Program (TPEP) in 1997.
30-day smoking prevalence among eighth grade students declined more
in funded schools than in a comparison group
of nonfunded schools. The declines were significantly greater among
schools with high and medium levels of implementation. These results suggest
that comprehensive school-based programs can be an effective component
of statewide antitobacco efforts.
In other words, give us more of your (smokers') money and we'll lie to you to get it:
They passed out 2 questionnaires to determine smoking status to funded schools and nonfunded schools with the questions worded differently on each:. "During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?" and "How frequently have you smoked cigarettes during the past 30 days?" Students who indicated that they had smoked on >1 days were classified as smokers on each survey.
Questionnaires to kids who are having the anti-tobacco message thrown at them from all ends of the universe?
The findings in this report are subject to multiple limitations. Two different student surveys, each with slightly different questions, were used to measure prevalence. Question wording and context in the questionnaires may have affected responses.
Student smoking prevalence was based on self-reports, and in schools with stronger programs, students might have underreported smoking because of stronger antismoking norms.
SEATTLE (Reuters Health) - Smoking just one cigarette can cause an abrupt change in the function of the heart's key pumping chamber, according to research presented here last week at the 12th Annual Scientific Sessions of the American Society of Echocardiography.
There were limitations to the study, Ghanem pointed out. The number of patients was small and nicotine levels were not measured. Also, the changes in heart function observed didn't meet clinical criteria for dysfunction of the left ventricle, Ghanem noted.
So what is the purpose of this study?? That physical changes in the body occur when something other than air (and even that applies) is introduced? This is nothing but another attempt to scare people into not smoking because someone just doesn't want you to. Tell us what they find out when they study the changes in the heart after jogging. We're dying to see the results.
We weren't sure where to put this story. Did it belong on our Reasonable or Unreasonable Page. It has both elements. But we decided that it was quite unreasonable that this goes on at all, no matter how much we're sticking our tongues out at them.
Despite California's 1995 smoking ban, which makes it illegal to smoke in most indoor workplaces, some renegades refuse to abandon that most illicit of L.A. pleasures: smoking. Stubbornly, they defy the law—at parties, clubs and bars. For the city's only two smoking inspectors, it's a never-ending chase in a place with thousands of bars, cafes and clubs.
Seems New Zealand nannies are just one step ahead of their U.S. counterparts. But rest assured, they're working on it here too.
Anti-smoking groups are set to lobby the Government to bar young people
from attending movies portraying
excessive smoking.
It follows a push by the Australian Council on Smoking and Health to
make Australia's federal government put age
restrictions on films in which actors smoke excessively and unnecessarily.
The ministry of health on Friday welcomed what are believed to be the first convictions under South Africa's law against smoking in public places.
This week two Port Elizabeth men were jailed for 20 days when they were unable to pay a R200 fine for ignoring warnings not to smoke in the city's New Law Courts.
Patricia Lambert, legal adviser to Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, said on Friday that the ministry welcomed the conviction.
"We are more convinced than ever of the necessity of protecting non-smokers, and especially children, from the toxicity of environmental tobacco smoke."
Lambert also welcomed a report that a Northern Cape High Court judge had ordered in a child custody hearing that the child's mother and her friends may not smoke in a room or a vehicle where the one-year-old is present. [See: Landmark Ruling on Smoking]
"It's long been a matter of grave concern to me that the legislation we drafted was not able to reach into people's homes to protect children from tobacco smoke," Lambert said.
Peter Ucko of the non-governmental organisation National Council Against Smoking also welcomed the convictions and the High Court ruling.
"I'm delighted that parents are now being forced to recognise that smoking in the presence of a child is tantamount to assault," he said. "It's equal to hitting them with a stick."
He said under South African law, other high courts would have to take note of the judgment, and all the lower courts would be bound by it.
"While the judge's actions are commendable, I believe he could have gone further and instructed the mother to give up smoking, or award custody to the father," he said.
"The mother may smoke outside, but the chemical toxins hang in her jersey and her hair, and when she has contact with the child, it absorbs those poisons."
He said he had recommended to the ministry that, at the very least, smoking in a motor car should be prohibited if there was a passenger under 16.
At best, the council would like to see a total
ban on smoking in cars.
This entire recorded verbal exchange of ideas is outrageous and frightening. Those in leadership positions want to extend laws to encompass control in peoples' homes based on lies?!? Toxins "hang in her jersey and her hair, and when she has contact with the child, it absorbs those poisons" ??? This is nothing more than a case of a repeated phrase becoming "truth" because there is absolutely nothing else to support it. No scientific support whatsoever. Realistically, this is tantamount to making the claim that each time a parent touches an object, any object, if they do not wash their hands they are passing poison onto their children when they touch them. Actually, that is more of a true statement than the claim they make. And then to suggest that someone be "instructed" (read forced) to give up a legal choice or lose custody and think that's a perfectly reasonable suggestion?!
For hundreds of years children have been living with other people smoking around them. Children have not and are not being poisoned, contaminated, abused or killed because of it. No secondhand smoke study has been produced that has found an actual link between SHS and illness. The ones that do come close to any statistical significance were for nonsmoking spouses living with a smoker for 30 or 40 years. And those studies are still only a maybe.
This is a sickening affront to our rights as individuals not to be manipulated by others who have their own agenda to force us into compliance, using lie upon ever-growing lie to accomplish that.
The town health board voted last night to make Braintree one of a handful of Massachusetts communities banning smoking at beaches, parks and even the town’s public golf course.
Antonelli, 55, is a cigarette smoker. “I smoke out there, and I still will continue to,” he said. “Let them bring a cruiser out and follow us and let them arrest me and handcuff me and do whatever they want to. They can’t take my rights away: that’s pathetic.
“I can understand them doing it in a restaurant, or some of the other public places. That’s fine. But this is outside. A golf course. Who is it hurting?”
Sacramento -- California imposed more restrictions on smokers yesterday with a new law that bans smoking or dumping butts in playgrounds or tot lots.
In signing the law, Gov. Gray Davis cited the health risks of exposure to secondhand smoke and called for even more restrictions -- smoke-free zones of at least 15 to 25 feet around play areas.
PARIS, — Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe vigorously defended his anti-car campaign amid growing criticism on Thursday that new lanes reserved for buses, bicycles and taxis were turning the city centre into a traffic hell.
The Socialist mayor, elected last spring on a platform of creating more "civilised space" in the capital, argued he had a mandate to fight pollution and he intended to use it.
"Fighting against the dominance of the car is therefore a duty, but it also reflects the aspirations of a majority of Parisians," he said.
By sitting quietly by while the anti-tobaccoists are allowed free reign to mandate laws to fight "pollution" and invoking the FALSE will of the people, it is only a matter of time before other agendists think it's perfectly all right to use the same ideology to support their self-righteous laws "for your own good."
It's not just Paris, Britain is considering the same: War on the car sparks driver rage
WASHINGTON (Reuters Health) - The Bush administration on Tuesday kicked off a new environmental health effort that seeks to protect millions of children from the dangers of secondhand smoke in their own homes.
"The message is clear...quit or take it outside,'' EPA administrator Christine Whitman said in announcing the ''Smoke-Free Home Pledge Initiative'' at Children's National Medical Center here.
Yes, the message is very clear... Government is this close to intruding on Constitutional rights to privacy in the home. Smoking now. What next?
City Council members are contemplating a crackdown on smoking that would be tougher than any in the country: They may banish smokers from all public parks.
The Montgomery County Council yesterday approved one of the most restrictive anti-smoking measures in the nation, setting stiff fines for people who smoke in their homes if it offends their neighbors.
-AND-
Maryland
County Passes Restrictive Anti-Smoking Measure
FOX News - November 21, 2001
"Moral police" in a wealthy Washington suburb are giving new meaning to the phrase "nosy neighbors."
Residents in Montgomery County, Md., may be fined up to $750 if their
neighbors complain about tobacco
smoke odor from their homes, according to a new measure.
Here we go again. Friendship Heights, a community within Montgomery County, first tried to ban smoking on the streets last year but was defeated in the courts. (click here to read more).
The Guest Choice Network, a coalition of more than 30,000 restaurants and tavern operators, responds to this outrageous restriction: "What's Next?" AND Smoking Ban Or Taliban?
It's obvious this collection of elitists have gone too far by the amount of flak their action has generated on the opinion pages of newspapers across the country:
Smoke detectors - Rocky Mountain News
What was the council smoking? - Washington Times
Propriety Police Given A Boot-Hold In Montgomery - Washington Post
The
Home Front
Smoking
ordinances and property rights - By Jacob Sullum, Reason Magazine
Cigarette Nazis on the march - By Walter E. Williams - World Net Daily [A Minority View]
Then finally some came to their senses while others showed they had no sense which to come to:
Global Ridicule Extinguishes Montgomery's Anti-Smoking Bill - Washington Post
GARDEN GROVE -- Mark Rosen was fuming after waiting in line for the Harry Potter movie, but he wasn't angry about the long wait.
It was the smokers puffing away around children that upset the Garden Grove councilman. Rosen plans to propose a local law at tonight's council meeting that would ban smoking in movie lines, parks and fast-food playgrounds.
And then there was the voice of reason: Anti-smoking law burns
Ottawa's no-smoking bylaw will mean savings of up to $50 million a year
for health care in the region, according to four
physicians at the Ottawa Hospital.
Barry McKay, head of the pub and bar coalition that opposes the bylaw, said he doesn't believe the doctors.
"People take their habit with them wherever they go, whether it's home or to Hull," said Mr. McKay. He said people will continue to smoke despite the bylaw.
Exactly. And more proof that smoking bans are not about "protecting" anyone. They're about leaving no place for smokers to smoke in an effort to force you to quit smoking out of frustration. But more than anything... FOUR doctors with one "study" makes their claim fact?
The organization [Contra Costa County Tobacco Prevention Coalition] cites the dangers of second-hand smoke and the behavioral influence of adult smokers on children as their reasons for supporting the ban.
When the new law takes effect Jan. 1, it will be illegal to smoke within 50 feet of playgrounds. The coalition is also encouraging city councils to enact smoking bans in apartment buildings and doorways of businesses.
Laws against behavior? That's what it comes down to. Forget about that consisting of smoking and let's not even get into the fact that no study does or could exist that shows harm from cigarette smoke outdoors. The dictators are now telling you how to act around others even when what you do is legal or only because they don't like what you do. Watch out for the body of politicians whose majority concludes that soda drinkers are merely fronts for the caffeine pushers and that soda is highly addictive and fattening and children should just not be exposed to that kind of thing. Not to mention all the cans and bottles and bottle tops you find lying around on the street. Did you know that there are no stories about young kids putting cigarette butts in their mouths and if they did, they wouldn't die from it, but there are news stories about children choking to death on twist-off bottle caps.
And if you think that nobody has thought about this, then you are in serious need of an eye-opening article that states:
"The popularity of soft drinks makes children particularly susceptible to caffeine with increasing evidence that caffeine causes health problems and addiction," Mr Elliott [South Australian Democrat MP] said.
"If adults want to use this legal drug that is their choice but it must not be a choice made in ignorance.
"Neither should they be allowed to unwittingly cause harm to their children."
If you didn't know any better you'd swear the subject was tobacco, wouldn't you? WOULDN'T YOU? Stop being so naive and recognize the threat to your lifestyle choices that will be the direct result of the blueprint for tobacco control.
Board of Health officials here have joined a regional push to ban smoking in establishments that serve food.
The officials have jumped onboard with Canton, Walpole, Foxborough, Millis, Wrentham, Dedham, and Norfolk by scheduling a nonbonding referendum on the issue for April.
''The charge of the Board of Health is to protect the public health,'' said Phyllis Boucher, director and superintendent of Norwood's board of health. ''The single most important thing you can do is not to smoke or be exposed to smoke.''
Federal cigarette excise taxes are climbing 5 cents per pack, to 39 cents per pack.
Anti-smoking activists say the tax increase -- which will raise an estimated $1 billion in revenues per year -- isn't steep enough. They are vowing to fight for more tax increases this year.
"This will not be the last tax increase,'' said Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids President Matthew Myers.
Mark Smith, a spokesman for Louisville-based Brown and Williamson, said smokers ``already pay more than their fair share in taxes.''
Besides paying state and local taxes, smokers are also footing the bill for Big Tobacco's $205 billion settlement with 46 states.
"When you put it all together, it means there's a real unfair tax burden being shouldered by consumers who choose to smoke,'' Smith said.
From New York to Oregon, more than a dozen states are weighing higher cigarette taxes to help shrink budget deficits.
NEW YORK — Put down that pizza! Toss out that cookie dough! And banish those burgers and root beers.
That is, unless you want to join the millions of Americans who are potential plaintiffs in an increasingly less hypothetical lawsuit that could change the way the U.S. eats.
Now that Surgeon General David Satcher has declared obesity America's
soon-to-be-number one killer, class-action lawyers and others may be eyeing
legal action against everyone from fast-food chains to the nation's leading
snack food
companies.
Some see precedent for such action in the slew of lawsuits that have been successfully brought against the nation's cigarette makers.
THIS IS A MUST READ.
REPLACE "OBESITY" WITH THE WORD SMOKING AND WE HAVE A "I TOLD YOU
SO."
Jan. 14, 2002: Don't let merchants of death water down anti-smoking bill
Jan. 20, 2002: Be serious about smoke: Health facts are eloquent compared to false complaints
Jan. 23, 2002: Those who seek ban on smoking should also support tax hike
A bill being proposed in the state House of Representatives would ban Oklahomans from smoking in sports bars, at rodeos or in lawmakers’ offices.
TALLAHASSEE, Jan. 28 – Sponsors of a petition drive to ban all smoking in restaurants and workplaces say they hit the 500,000 mark Monday with a signature from a Tallahassee restaurateur.
"Half a million Floridians have registered a complaint against secondhand smoke," said Martin Larsen, chairman of Smoke-Free for Health.
To get its proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot, Smoke-Free needs 488,722 verified signatures and a stamp of approval from the Florida Supreme Court, which reviews all citizen initiatives for scope and clarity.
PAY ATTENTION!! This is a state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, not a law looking to be passed by the legislature but a change in the constitution of the state. You can write the Florida Supreme Court Justices at supremecourt@flcourts.org
[Related: Smoking
ban initiative has rival
A second proposed amendment, backed by restaurateurs and the tobacco
industry, would not change the law.]
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) Maine has banned smoking in its prisons since 2000, but some inmates are still lighting up if they can get their hands on cigarettes that can cost $7 to $10 each inside the walls.
But tobacco has displaced a lot of the contraband because it's so valuable. A cigarette is worth twice as much as a marijuana joint.
Windham inmate Larry Cox told the Maine Sunday Telegram that the value
of tobacco rose sharply when the Legislature
banned smoking in prisons as part of the law to eliminate secondhand
smoke from state buildings.
''When they banned it, I said, 'Wow! There goes the price of tobacco. Time to step in and make some money on it,' '' said Cox.
The anti-smokers are protecting those poor criminals from the "dangers" of secondhand smoke while the correctional personnel have to deal with a new issue that has the propensity to reach violent acts. Priorities?
The American Legacy Foundation, an antismoking group created with more than $1 billion from a huge 1998 tobacco settlement, sued the Lorillard Tobacco Company yesterday in an effort to preserve an advertising campaign that has piqued the interest of teenagers and the ire of the tobacco companies.
The lawsuit, filed in Delaware state court, amplifies an already contentious dispute over how far public health advocates can go to dissuade teenagers from smoking without violating the settlement or libel laws, especially through radio and television commercials that depict tobacco companies as underhanded while mentioning them by name.
Lorillard was enraged by a radio advertisement contending that it flavors
cigarettes with urea, a chemical found in urine, and it threatened to sue
the foundation last month for breaching the $206 billion settlement between
tobacco companies and 46 states. Under the agreement, the tobacco companies
agreed to give the foundation $1.5 billion over five years to
educate the public about the risks of smoking and to discourage young
people from picking up the habit.
In return for its tobacco money, the foundation is barred from engaging in "any personal attack on, or vilification of" a tobacco company or its employees. The foundation says it does not malign anyone but only states the "truth," as its advertising campaign is called. Lorillard, a unit of the Loews Corporation, scoffed at that contention in a letter to the foundation last month, promising to curb the "deceitful, callous, malicious" group in court. In particular it wants future spots toned down.
Anti-smoking campaigns in the United States have little impact on hard-core smokers over the age of 40, and new ways of helping them quit have to be considered, including nicotine medications and smokeless tobacco.
That's the conclusion of a new study from University of Alabama at Birmingham researchers, who say longtime smokers are so addicted to nicotine that health warnings, education campaigns and other anti-smoking efforts have virtually no effect on them.
Reality check for these busybodies.... It has no effect because some DON'T WANT to stop.
Defining a Workplace
A major weakness in existing legislation is the lack of a consistent and comprehensive definition of "workplace." Historically, public places that are workplaces -- restaurants and bars being the main examples -- have been treated separately by clean indoor air legislation (Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights and Prospect Associates, 1994). Such workplaces are typically dealt with in "public place" local by-laws, on the assumption that it is the customer, rather than the employee, who requires protection from ETS.
Looking ahead, policy-makers should expand the definition of workplace to include homes.
The computer revolution, coupled with the rise of "contracting out" as organizations downsize, has fuelled the rise of home-based businesses.
ETS Policy Implications
At issue, then, is the ability of legislation to extend to all places where individuals work.
No, at issue is the alarming intent to circumvent, by distortion, the most prized principle of a democracy in order to force their smoke-free agenda down the throats of the public: The right to privacy in your home.
Anyone who questions the accusation that Nazi philosophy thrives in the anti-smoking camp are the ones who should question their own morality.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- While the National Governors Association meets in the nation's capital, anti-smoking groups are urging states to jack up their cigarette taxes.
The American Medical Association, the leading advocacy group for doctors, says that increasing taxes on cigarettes not only provides a revenue boost for state coffers but also brings a decrease in smoking. And over time, that decrease results in less cost for treatment of smoking-related illnesses.
Also see the AMA Press Release: National Health Organizations Challenge Governors: Increase Excise Tax on Cigarettes and Save Lives
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 — Cigarettes are cheaper in developing countries
today than they were a decade ago, according to a new study by the World
Health Organization that warns that low prices will lead
to a rise in smoking-related deaths.
The study, which examined price trends from 1990 to 2000 in more than 80 countries, called on finance ministers to raise tobacco taxes to discourage consumption.
The manufacturer of Marlboro, Philip Morris, took issue with the research, particularly with the assertion that taxes should be raised.
"We don't oppose taxes per se," the statement went on. "We do take issue with the imposition of tax burdens where taxes become so excessive that adult consumers who choose to smoke can no longer afford to do so."
A Winnipeg doctor is telling his patients who smoke that they have until tomorrow to quit or find a new physician.
Dr. Frederick Ross, a family physician in practice for 26 years, says he is "fed up with wasting my time treating people with smoking-related diseases."
He is believed to be the first doctor in Canada to refuse to treat smokers.
Dr. Robert Walker, deputy registrar of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, said, "However, he appears to be applying it to a group and once you start doing that then one possibility is somebody might challenge that and say it is a form of discrimination."
Dr. Ross needs to be reminded that he, like mechanics, are being paid for a service, not to play God. We pay him, he provides the service, period. It doesn't matter whether it has to do with our own bodies or the bodies of our vehicles. Additionally, why doesn't he refuse to treat kids who participate in sports, get banged up, and go back to playing only to risk and receive further injury? Perhaps even the same injury the doctor repaired the last time? This man has a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Ararat (religious implication intended).
WASHINGTON, March 11 — The Justice Department will ask a federal judge
to impose tough restrictions on the marketing, manufacture and sale of
cigarettes, as government lawyers show their hand for the first time in
their three-year
legal assault on the tobacco industry.
The government’s new demands signal that it intends to pursue its legal
battle with the industry despite doubts raised
last year when Attorney General John Ashcroft called for settlement
talks to end the case, which was filed in 1999. The demands appear to mark
a striking departure for the Bush administration, which so far has been
friendly to the industry and received millions of dollars in campaign donations
from tobacco companies.
The city just joined Andover, Methuen and lots of other communities with rules that prohibit smoking in eating places. None of the city's top brass tried to prevent the Board of Health from putting this rule into effect, so they must tacitly support it, at least. They should serve as role models and patronize Haverhill restaurants, as should members of the city's anti-tobacco establishment who fought for the change. No more skulking off to the Loop in Methuen or Newburyport or Portsmouth, N.H.
Why would they have to beg people to eat out if nonsmokers were chomping at the bit to be able to eat in smoke-free eateries?
This case is entitled Brown et al. v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 711400 (JCCP 4042). Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, by way of deceptive advertising and marketing activities in California during the class period, misled the smoking public of the health risks of smoking to seduce and induce people to smoke. The Plaintiffs seek to recover all profits from the Defendants' sales of cigarettes during the class period, and an order stopping these practices. This case does not involve claims for personal injuries or wrongful deaths. The defendants deny all allegations and a trial is set for October 11, 2002.
But there's one ad neither of the Hollywood trades will run—the latest broadside from Smoke Free Movies, a health advocacy group that's been at the forefront of a no-holds-barred campaign against the proliferation of cigarette smoking in movies. Led by UC San Francisco School of Medicine professor Stanton Glantz, a pit bull-like anti-smoking activist, Smoke Free Movies has run a series of ads in publications including the New York Times detailing what it calls Hollywood's "sordid history of trading cash, goods and publicity" for glamorizing smoking in movies. Citing its studies, which have found smoking on screen today more frequent than it has been since the early 1960s, the organization advocates giving an R rating to any movie that features tobacco use.
Note that while the anti-smokers attack "the industry" for pushing cigarettes in movies, Rob Reiner, a leading anti-tobacco activist film maker, actor and wannabe politician reports the following contradiction:
"Karen Kehela, co-chairman of Imagine, recalls trying to take smoking out of one script after the meeting, "but the actor insisted on smoking," she says. In fact, many movie stars can't leave their cigarettes in the dressing room. "Actors who smoke look for any reason to incorporate it into their characters," Reiner says. "You have directors who don't care about the social implications or are kowtowing to the actors."
[From "Puffing Up a Storm Smoking is on the rise in movies, sparking a campaign to stub it out. A look at who's behind it" By Margot Roosevelt, Time magazine Monday, Mar. 18, 2002]
You mean it's the actors who conspire to promote free will and not
tobacco industry advertising ploys?! Mercy.
Before we offer the excerpt of this story let's be clear. The headline says he was sentenced for making threats that, by the currently unpopular nationality of the gentleman, was really a misinterpretation of his words due to his thick accent. In fact, he was sentenced for smoking.
"If this were a pre-9/11 situation, we would not be in court today arguing over sentencing," Flier told U.S. District Judge Ronald S. W. Lew.
Lew said that Sept. 11 was not a factor in his sentencing decision.
"I do not take smoking lightly," said the judge, adding that Naghani had never fully accepted responsibility for his actions.
In an apparent case of first impression, a judge in Utica, N.Y., has
prohibited a mother from smoking in the presence of
her 13-year-old son.
What makes Supreme Court Justice Robert F. Julian's order in a visitation
matter extraordinary is that he banned the parent from smoking even though
the youth is neither allergic to cigarette smoke nor afflicted with a disease
such as
asthma that could be exacerbated by exposure.
The attorney for the father, Kurt D. Parry of Rome, N.Y., said the order
"takes children out of a harmful situation and
acknowledges that harm could be brought to them as a result of smoking.
I think clearly the court is looking to do what is in the best interests
of the child. Here, we were dealing with a mature 13-year-old individual
who was able to recognize the risk."
Clarification: This story fails to report that the mother can not smoke in her home or car EVER, not just when her son is visiting.
This event is the most alarming turn of events in government intrusion into the rights of parenting and security in your home. Please read Dennis Prager's opinion piece as it describes so well the frightening ramifications of such a judicial decision.
Then go to NYC C.L.A.S.H. Alerts to learn how you can help.
ST. CLOUD -- Marlboro men -- or women -- need not apply for city jobs.
St. Cloud no longer will hire people who use tobacco products. Sanford officials are considering adopting the same get-tough policy, which took effect Monday and is aimed at reducing health-care costs and improving productivity.
Job candidates are required to sign affidavits swearing they have been
tobacco-free for 12 months. Current workers,
meanwhile, can still light up or have a chaw on break or at lunch,
but some complain that the litmus test for new employees is unfair.
Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said governments
don't have the right to regulate other
dangerous activities, such as "people who drive race cars, do bungee
jumping or are addicted to a dangerously high-fat diet."
"I think what employers have the right to insist on is the employee to show up to work on time and perform successfully," he said. "There has got to be some remnant of privacy so people have a right to their own life when they're off the job."
American Cancer Society spokeswoman Rachel Tyree called the rule "harsh."
When will the American Cancer Society realize that they are an agent in promoting this sort of policy?
It starts off sounding like a rational discussion and then deteriorates into arrogant "for your own good" rhetoric.
How fat do Americans have to get — and how fast do they have to get that way — before they are threatened with legal penalties for being immense?
I'm inclined to think that threats of physical force — even the bland, familiar threats that constitute a body of law — are terrible, dangerous, brutal things that should only be unleashed as a last resort, probably only in retaliation to prior physical attacks (murders, armed robbery, etc.).
BUT
At the same time, don't be afraid to moralize a bit. Fat is no doubt
a side effect, in part, of booming American wealth, and as such emblematic
of the triumph of the free market. At the same time, it may be indicative
of our slovenly lack of
self-discipline in an era of loose morals. Fat is often an indicator
of lack of self-control and it may be productive to label it so. If the
fat acceptance movement insists that "fat is beautiful," those concerned
for public health are within their rights to respond with the more-justifiable
slogan "fat is deadly" and even with the judgment "fat is evil." Still,
we must remember that fat people are not evil, merely engaged in self-destructive
patterns (that also set a bad example for others). We must remember to
hate the fat, not the fattie, as it were.
How about doing neither and letting people go about their lives they way THEY choose, not the way others choose for them?
SACRAMENTO -- Citing California's huge budget shortfall and its growing number of overweight children, a state lawmaker is proposing a new tax on soda to fight childhood obesity.
The idea is given little chance of passing, at least not in this election year, but it's reigniting an old debate at the Capitol about the proper role of tax policy as a social engineering tool.
Sen. Deborah Ortiz (D-Sacramento) is seen as the leading edge of a broader
initiative to tax or levy fees on a variety of eating and drinking habits.
One lawmaker, in fact, has introduced a bill to study taxing a wider range
of junk food to finance health programs for children. Another may try to
impose a fee on retail sales of alcoholic beverages to bolster
trauma rooms.
Assemblyman John Campbell (R-Irvine) described the soda proposal as the latest attempt to demonize a legal product to justify increasing taxes. Targets of so-called sin taxes have traditionally included tobacco, alcohol and gambling.
"Where will this ever stop?" asked Campbell, a self-described soda abstainer who handles budget matters for his caucus. "Are they going to tax the butter on my carrots because carrots are healthier without butter?
"I think if you ate too much tofu it's probably bad for you, so does that mean we should tax tofu in big jars?"
3 cheers for Assemblyman Campbell!!! [See more about the new war against obesity]
As Delaware legislators consider a bill that would make most public places smoke-free, Big Tobacco is without a doubt moving behind the scenes, working to sabotage democracy, unless we put an end to it.
The big question is who will elected officials choose to represent when it comes to a vote? The people or Big Tobacco?
In a 1996 document titled "Delaware Focused 96 Election Participation," Philip Morris stated its objectives: "To get the right public officials elected and to support those officials who are reasonable and accessible to the PM point of view of fairness, tolerance, and accommodation."
Those terms -- fairness, tolerance and accommodation -- are all part of Big Tobacco's Orwellian speak, intended to invert the truth. It's supposedly unfair for bar workers to get the same workplace protections as bankers. It's supposedly intolerant that non-smoking college students choose between smoke-infested nightclubs or staying home on a Friday night. Philip Morris could care less about accommodating us. It's all about us accommodating the company's business agenda.
This tirade is at least obnoxious and at most self-righteously wrong. While we don't defend tobacco companies we do defend the fact that while writers such as this one focus their attack on the companies it is the private citizen that is being told that they have less rights than the anti-smokers. It is the private citizen who smokes screaming to be accommodated and fed up with the intolerance. Bars are where smoking occurs. It's part of the business. Don't like it? Don't work there. Just like a person who does not like loud music can choose not to work in a club. What is this nonsense about workers dictating the job atmosphere and demanding they must be allowed to work there under their conditions?
This one is so full of lies, distortions and paternalism it almost speaks for itself on the outrage meter. But we can't help noting particular points anyway...
In the past 80 years, Americans have learned a great deal about tobacco and the industry that promotes its use. We have learned so much, in fact, that it seems ludicrous to even consider a 1920s perspective on tobacco use as relevant to 21st century science-based initiatives to stem the health epidemic caused by tobacco.
Yet, D.J. Tice did exactly that in his March 27 column chastising the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco. He built an entire column on a 1923 quote from G.K. Chesterton suggesting that liberty loses out to zealotry in the campaign to reduce the toll that tobacco causes Minnesotans.
Mr. Hurt would like you to believe that their new weapon, science, forgetting for a moment that they've prostituted it for their own use, has anything to do with liberty issues.
The facts tell a very different story. The challenge to liberty never has been from those whose goal is a smoke-free society. To the contrary, the challenge to liberty is from an industry that has consistently lied in order to make huge profits. People give up their liberty when they become addicted to tobacco products but give up their lives when they die of tobacco-caused disease.
Mr. Hurt is going to decide for others what defines liberty. Sorry Mr. Hurt, by you using pressure to force people to stop engaging in a legal behavior smacks of dictatorship to me. People CHOOSE to smoke or not, that's why millions who wanted to have been quite able to quit on their own. "People give up their liberty" when they smoke?! My God, the arrogance. How about coffee drinkers too? Whether smoking kills me or not it is none of your business!
Apologists suggest that the tobacco industry has been singled out for lawsuits borne mostly of political correctness. Tice and Chesterton see tobacco as a victim of the "instinct for persecution." Tice doesn't see patients who die of lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease caused by smoking as the real victims.
Let's stop driving because the maiming and death is a horrible thing to witness after an accident. Personal emotions of sadness does not give someone the right to change behavior because of it.
Chesterton could at least claim ignorance in defense of his view because in the 1920s he did not know any better. Tice and other contemporary critics have no such luxury. Even Tice has to know that tobacco smoke of any kind is hazardous to a person's health.
We know it. So what? Let's get those beach-goers off the sand. We all know the risk of skin cancer.
Shining a light on tobacco hasn't made the goal of saving lives any less elusive. Political interference and public indifference, combined with an estimated $144 million spent by the tobacco industry every year in Minnesota to market its products, stand in the way.
Try to save lives by education, not nazi tactics.
Still, in a fight against an epidemic that is directly responsible for one out of every five Minnesota deaths — more than from motor vehicle accidents, guns, drugs, HIV/AIDS and alcohol combined — the accomplishments to date pale in comparison to the challenge.
Dr. Hurt is fighting free will. He challenges the right to pursue happiness.
Recognizing the scope of the challenge, the court directed MPAAT to be innovative in its efforts and to rely on the best scientific evidence to promote cessation. What research tells us is that stopping tobacco use by individuals is most effective when supported by environmental change.
"Stopping" how? By force. There's nothing philanthropic about that. I didn't ask for help. How dare he shove it down our throats.
Consequently, MPAAT has given a small amount of its grant dollars — fewer than 2 percent — to promote local discussions on whether restaurants and other public places should be smoke free. The discussions in some communities have resulted in ordinances to make restaurants smoke-free.
This is their end run around their challenge to the Constitution. They can't enact a law that says smoking itself is an illegal activity but they sure can make a law that says where, well actually where NOT, one can smoke. Hence, no places to light up essentially makes the act of smoking illegal and they succeed in making us stop smoking "for our own good."
Critics, including Tice, somehow see grass-roots democracy as anti-liberty.
Grass-roots actions don't have millions at their disposal. And "democracy" is hardly what they promote.
The fact is, restaurants have an obligation to provide a safe environment for their workers and patrons.
We'll let Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas answer this one. He has been much more a friend of the antis than to smokers, but he did have some real words of wisdom about state-mandated smoking bans. In justifying his refusal to approve a state restaurant ban the Arkansas Board of Health had sent to him.
We've all heard the anti-tobacco professionals state that since boards of health already regulate restaurants on such health issues as cleanliness and bacteria in food, it's okay for them to regulate restaurants' smoking policies.
The antis used this same argument in Arkansas, but Governor Huckabee called it a "ridiculous" comparison. He said, "One relates to the unseen issues of food preparation, where the public has no ability to ascertain cleanliness. The public is not allowed to go into the kitchen and make an inspection, so the Health Department does that on their behalf.
"The smoking issue is one in which it's part of the atmosphere of the customer, not the atmosphere of the kitchen. It's a very clear distinction to me. That's a ridiculous kind of association some have tried to make."
"The business owner has a right to paint the walls what color he wishes. He has the right to serve Italian, Mexican, Greek or American food. He has the right to have music and determine what kind, whether it's going to loud, soft, hard rock or violin music. And he has a right to determine whether he's going to allow people to smoke. That's part of the ambiance that he as a business owner creates. If I don't like red paint, Italian food, loud music or waiters who sing, I make a consumer decision and I don't go there."
The research is unequivocal that exposure to secondhand smoke is hazardous to everyone. It causes lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers and in America kills more than 50,000 nonsmokers a year. Tice wouldn't suggest that it is OK for restaurants to serve contaminated food. Why would he allow safe food to be served in the presence of an environmental toxin?
The research IS equivocal. The science of epidemiology is statistical in nature. It does not prove cause and effect. At most it can provide links and usually very weak at that. The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) put the boots to the numbers "proving" second-hand smoke is deadly -- STATS doesn't say it's not deadly, only that the statistical evidence being thrown has more holes than a wiffle ball. To clear up the "doesn't say it's not deadly" means that no one has proved that it is. Even the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a rabidly anti-smoking group, states that the claim made that SHS causes heart disease is far from proven.
Some find it easy to dismiss anti-tobacco advocates and MPAAT as zealots. Before doing so, critics should consider that the board makeup largely was defined by the Ramsey County District Court.Board members are physicians from Minnesota's leading institutions, nationally recognized authorities on public health and representatives of communities of color and other populations that have been targeted by the tobacco industry and devastated by its effect.
And no one questioned the "recognized authorities on public health," doctors, scientists and architects, who helped design and build the concentration camps. Being a physician does not exempt his kind from having an agenda.
The reality is that MPAAT's board members are experts on a public health epidemic that stands apart from all others. None is more politically charged. And none is more deadly. If MPAAT's board members are impassioned, then their passion is for the health of all Minnesotans. And the work of MPAAT is nothing less than a compassionate call to all Minnesotans to help prevent needless deaths.
Bull. Compassion means concern. What Dr. Hurt recommends, using propaganda, is creating outcasts of perfectly upstanding citizens through tyranny.
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- Physicians described deaths and diseases they see from secondhand smoke, as the state Medical Society announced an educational campaign Thursday about the dangers of breathing other people's smoke.
The society also backed legislation that would further curb smoking in restaurants and workplaces.
"As far as we're concerned secondhand smoking is smoking," said Dr. Murray Nusbaum, an obstetrician and gynecologist from the Utica area. "There isn't any difference."
Bzzzzt! With fallacious statements like no one should doubt that there is an immediate loss of credibility.
SOUTHINGTON, Conn. -- Gov. John G. Rowland has found a way to silence the loudest critic of his new cigarette tax: He pays for her smokes.
The governor's mother, Cerie Rowland, told The Associated Press last month she was mobilizing her bridge club to oppose the 61-cent increase her son had proposed to help close the state's budget gap.
According to the Record-Journal of Meriden, Rowland good-humoredly told state agencies at a luncheon on Friday that the secret to keeping his 70-year-old mother quiet is as simple as paying her off with cigarettes.
"I have bought her silence. It cost me $60 a month more. I buy all her cigarettes." Rowland said. "Believe me, it was worth buying her silence on this."
THE STUDY by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the nation’s total cost of smoking at $3,391 a year for every smoker, or $157.7 billion. Health experts had previously estimated $96 billion.
Americans buy about 22 billion packs of cigarettes annually. The CDC study is the first to establish a per-pack cost to the nation.
The agency estimated the nation’s smoking-related medical costs at $3.45 per pack, and said job productivity lost because of premature death from smoking amounted to $3.73 per pack, for a total of $7.18.
More fabricated numbers by an agency pushing an agenda while ignoring real threats like Anthrax. Why weren't they prepared with enough antibiotics when needed? Because they're too busy worrying about voluntary risks and have lost sight of their original function.
Steven Milloy of Junk Science has this to say about it:
Fanciful but oh-so-PC statistics du jour: "Newsday.com - CDC Estimates Cost of Smoking"...
I'm certainly not going to suggest that smoking is a good thing for anyone to do and, if you do smoke, you'd certainly be healthier and feel (and smell) a damn-site better if you quit (wait for it, here it comes) but there's no excuse for flights of pure fantasy like the above. A first cursory glance shows about 8% of SAMs (Smoking-Attributable Mortalities) are supposedly due to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) when the most polite thing that can be said about evidence of such causation is that it is 'less than compelling.' Nonetheless, such inconveniences didn't stop them attributing 38,000 bodies to ETS annually. Similarly, there are 10,000 perinatal mortalities listed (almost one-third SIDS), roughly 10% SAMs (with a breakdown for SIDS as SAMs despite SIDs remaining largely mysterious). Peppered with such outrageous assumptions, this estimate is instantly invalidated and filed as an essay in zealotry.
Smoking isn't a healthy activity and, in general, smokers will die younger than non-smokers but the question of whether they represent a net cost to society is moot. Throwing around wild figures like these will not do anything for anyone - it just wrecks the credibility of the anti-tobacco lobby. Foolish.
APPARENTLY health warnings alone are not preventing enough smokers from
lighting up. Last week I heard a radio
advertisement which constitutes a new strange direction in tobacco
prevention, confirming fears for many conservatives that the left has succeeded
in the battle for higher education.
A group calling itself "Campus Invasion" sponsored the ad, which was
cloaked in a promotional offer for a free laptop
computer. However, instead of listing the health risks experienced
by smokers and non-smokers alike, the ad sought to prevent tobacco consumption
by focusing on child labor and the environment. This is a big switch, redefining
consequences of smoking from health to third world tobacco toilers.
Ad executives understand, like most observers of higher education, that
guilting students into fears of ruining lives of
impoverished tobacco farmers will better dissuade them from smoking
than a campaign based on ruining their lungs.
Campus Invasion’s latest ad campaign wheedles tobacco consumers to quit smoking, or never develop the habit, by focusing on the plight of children laboring in foreign tobacco farms and on the environmental damage caused by tobacco cultivation.
In short, the anti-tobacco campaign message has changed from "don’t smoke lest you die", to "don’t smoke lest you exploit children and contribute to global warming." As the website (www.campusinvasion.com) states, "Everything that is done to grow tobacco leaves can hurt the environment, as well as the people that grow it."
Mr. Gruber and Mr. Mullainathan used about 10 variables that are correlated with smoking, including age, income, household size and religious observance, to identify who the smokers in the survey were — thus catching former smokers as well. The two also collected data on changes in cigarette taxes in the United States and Canada.
While controlling for other variables, the two economists found that after cigarette taxes increased, unhappiness declined among the smoking subset, indicating that they had quit or cut down smoking and were pleased about it. The taxes are also less regressive than they appear, because poorer smokers are more likely to quit when the price increases.
Some smokers, to be sure, do not want to quit, and they receive no benefit from higher taxes. But society still might.
Ahhhh, the old "you have an obligation to your government to remain healthy." Where have we heard this before? Hmmm, hint: Not in the Republic of the United States of America.
PHOENIX -- Two designated smoking areas at Bank One Ballpark will be
eliminated Friday after Arizona Diamondbacks fans complained there was
too much smoke seeping into the rest of the stadium.
"Like anything else, through time you learn what works and maybe what
doesn't," said Russ Amaral, vice president of event services at the ballpark.
"Due to an overwhelming response from fans who were exposed to an extensive
amount of smoke coming from these areas, we believed it was necessary to
make this change."
The Diamondbacks were letting fans know about the changes during homes games Tuesday and Wednesday. Come Friday night, the BOB will be smoke-free.
People who leave the stadium to smoke can get their hands stamped for re-admittance
If you'd like to complain to the management about this policy you
can write to them at
inquiry@bankoneballpark.com
LONDON (Reuters Health) Apr 15 - Children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of pollution and Europe needs to develop specific policies to protect them from environmental hazards, international agencies said on Monday.
"The whole point of this report is to get a children-specific angle on monitoring and assessment--and to integrate the needs of children in policy-making," a spokesman for the EEA told Reuters Health.
Not only is any global policy intended to influence independent nations a bad thing but there's more evil at work here than their faux halo would have you believe:
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."... Adolf Hitler, as quoted by Rabbi Daniel Lapin
Editor's note: We've noticed a lot of people are continuing to view this story long after it was written. Our readers should know that an update of this story, School Reverses Prom Ban For18-Year-Old Smoker, is available.
HARTFORD CITY, Ind. -- The Indiana Civil Liberties Union plans to take the case of a Blackford High School student who was banned from the senior prom after testing positive for nicotine in a random drug test.
Rob Mahon, 18, did not smoke on school property and is upset that he's being punished for an activity that is legal for someone his age.
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- A Bradford County caregiver [Burdick] was arrested Thursday, after police say she forced a 20-year-old man to eat tobacco products until it killed him.
At the time, Burdick and others in the home said he ate the Copnhagen
on his own, but police have continued to interview the others who were
present at the time. They now say it has since come out that Burdick
forced Converse to eat the Copenhagen as punishment for having it, which
was a violation of house rules.
The anti-smoking campaign intentionally promotes intolerance that what...? Leads to murder.
WHEN CIGARETTE taxes go up, pop go the weasels of big tobacco, springing out of the pack-in-the-box as your local social service agency and civil rights advocate. Philip Morris says a new tax proposed by New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg ''will place a disproportionate burden on low-income city residents.'' R.J. Reynolds, cynically cribbing from the unfair stopping by police of African- American and Latino motorists for drugs, decries ''tax profiling'' that targets ''lower-income Americans to pay higher and discriminatory taxes - a sort of Robin Hood in reverse.''
What Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds neglect to say is that they never consult with the poor before speaking for them. In the long run, smokers end up happy that they were taxed out of smoking. Even as Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds claim that cigarette taxes are regressive, people who study the actual thinking of smokers know that the opposite is true.
People who STUDY the THINKING of smokers??!! Give me a big fat break. The real liars here are the anti-smokers who torture more survey material and attempt to tell everyone how smokers think, not the tobacco companies.
Read "Tax Happy" for a clear analysis of this nonsense.
RIYADH, 15 May — Authorities have banned males under 18 years old from coffeehouses in a bid to preserve their morals and stop them from smoking.
Officials from the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice will mount surprise raids on cafes and arrest anyone violating the ban, Othman Al-Othman, the head of the commission in Riyadh, told Al-Jazirah newspaper.
Cafe owners had also been specifically instructed not to allow under-18s to smoke nargilehs, or water pipes, a time-honored custom for thousands of Saudi nationals and expatriates that has already been restricted to city outskirts.
The phenomenon of under-18s visiting cafes could “negatively affect the morals of youth and lead them to start smoking,” Othman warned.
The commission has a force of more than 3,500 men who patrol the streets to enforce moral values. The officials can order the arrest and detention of violators or those who resist their instructions.
Understand that this is what the morally superior in America want to emulate. The life and actions of our enemies.
In fair play we post this "news" while rolling our eyes at such stretches that will surely help to undo the credibility of the anti-tobacco crusaders eventually.
If you're a smoker, and a parent, you probably step outside to indulge your habit, thinking this will protect your little ones from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Not true, a new study shows.
"We wondered if parents who said they were not smoking in the home or
near their children had an impact on the child's
environmental tobacco smoke exposure," says study leader Judith Groner,
MD, clinical professor of pediatrics at Ohio's
Columbus Children's Hospital, in a news release.
So her team measured the amount of cotinine -- a by-product of nicotine metabolism -- in the hair of 327 children, aged 2 weeks to 3 years, and their mothers.
As expected, children whose primary caregiver smoked, and did so in the home, had the highest levels of cotinine. But kids whose parents reported smoking only outside the home also showed potentially dangerous levels of exposure, albeit much lower than the other children.
Overall, the children of parents who knew that cigarette smoke was unhealthy for their children and avoided smoking or allowing others to smoke in their presence, had the lowest cotinine levels.
"Our study verified that exposure still occurs," the researchers say. "As healthcare professionals, we still have very serious concerns over the fact that these children are being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The youngest children are the most vulnerable."
The researchers conclude that parents who know that cigarette smoking is bad for their kids make the greatest effort to keep exposure to a minimum. "This attitude correlates to the child's cotinine levels being lower," they say. "Intervention to change attitudes among parents is key to reducing children's environmental tobacco smoke exposure."
Verified??? Verified what? One "study" with so few subjects that is not peer reviewed and duplicated does not a verification make. Continine was found in the systems of those who are never around smoke, whether inside, outside or all around the town. Explain that.
Two things to remember whenever you read such nonsense: 1. Nicotine is naturally found in tomatoes (to name just one). 2. Exposure does not equal harm.
Every day we are exposed to thousands of chemicals in our food, our water and our air. We'd all be dead by the time we were one if we took seriously the implication of such material. All it is is a sorry excuse to scare us into changing behaviors.
See comments in story directly above. The same applies here.
Just a little bit of secondhand smoke can cause measurable damage to a child's learning ability, affecting reading, math and reasoning, researchers said on Monday.
More than 13 million children breathe in enough secondhand smoke to be affected in this way, said the researchers from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital.
"This study provides further incentive for states to set public health standards to protect children from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke," Kimberly Yolton of the Children's Environmental Health Center at the hospital, who led the study, told a conference.
What they leave out from the first sentence is "in private homes" and that is exactly where they are trying to go with this.
Yolton said 43 percent of U.S. children are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in their homes, and 85 percent of children have detectable levels of cotinine in their blood.
43%? How can that be when only approximately 25% of the population smokes?
Smoking by high-school students has dropped to its lowest level in a decade, the government said Thursday, crediting steep cigarette taxes and school programs that discourage kids from picking up the habit.
How soon they forget. A year and a half ago there was a story about a "Showcase Anti-Smoking Project" that reported the school based program was a huge failure:
"It was to be a showcase, world-class demonstration of how to persuade school children not to smoke.
"The $15 million program used the latest smoking prevention theories from the best social scientists. From the third grade on, children attended special classes and were meticulously instructed by trained teachers how to resist tobacco use.
"But after 14 years, experts declared Tuesday that the project failed." [Showcase Anti-Smoking Project Fails; Associated Press; December 19, 2000]
Just 28.5 percent of high-schoolers in a nationwide survey last year reported they had smoked a cigarette in the previous month — down from 36.4 percent just five years ago, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
Survey? Oh sure, high school kids are honest as all get out when it comes to telling authority figures who constantly demonize smoking whether or not they smoke when asked.
It's not that we want them to fail. Anyone under 18 shouldn't smoke. But we do want these health agencies to tell the truth.
An anti-smoking bill intending to make smoking in public spaces an offense punishable with jail time will be introduced during the current session of the Diet, it was leaned Saturday.
"Anyone who smokes in public spaces in a way that may injure other people or damage their property with a lit cigarette will be given penalties ranging from a 10,000-yen fine to a 1-month jail sentence," read the draft of the bill drawn up by Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) legislators.
DPJ lawmaker Akira Nagatsuma and his colleagues believe that smoking should be restricted from public places like streets because of the physical danger lit cigarettes pose to others, especially children.
"Japanese is too tolerant on smoking in public. Tobacco is the only dangerous article that you can carry around anywhere," Nagatsuma said. "The matter urgently needs to be dealt with. It is no longer an issue of manners."
He added that they are working with a nonpartisan group of 64 anti-smoking legislators to introduce the bill before the current Diet session ends on June 19.
In order to prevent law enforcers from detaining suspects in more serious cases by using smoking as an excuse, the bill intends to add the smoking restriction clause to the Minor Offense Law, which bans authorities from using it to make arbitrary arrests.
The amendment is expected to get Diet approval once it is introduced. (Compiled from the Mainichi and wire services, May 18, 2002).
How soon until this makes it to our shores with the domestic terrorists (our own anti-smoking organizations) cheering them on from the shoreline?
Leading tobacco companies have manipulated the hospitality industry in a worldwide campaign to prevent restaurants and bars from introducing smoke-free areas, according to research published on Wednesday.
By capitalising on fears of lost profits and through donations to industry organisations such as the International Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes (HORECA), tobacco firms led by Philip Morris tried to stifle support for smoke-free premises.
"The tobacco industry has effectively turned the hospitality industry into its de facto lobbying arm on clean air," said Dr Stanton Glantz of the University of California, San Francisco.
"We continue to believe that a total ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, night clubs, hotels and similar establishments that cater to smokers and non-smokers is extreme," the company said in a statement.
"Apparently, the authors of the Tobacco Control article believe that it is inappropriate for us to express these views or to seek the support of business sectors that might share the same concerns. We respectfully disagree," it added.
And so do we. According to Stanton Glantz and company the hospitality industry couldn't possibly ever speak up on behalf of its own interests. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see they'd be happy to associate with anyone who could help them run their business the way they want to. Accomplices? No. Allies? Yes.
The campaign against soda and snacks in public schools has reached the front page of The New York Times. As we have told you in the past, anti-obesity activists have openly declared the fight against soft drinks in schools as a "wedge" issue meant to open up all sorts of foods and beverages to new government regulation. California has already adopted a law that bans the sale of foods that do not meet arbitrary standards for fat and sugar content on elementary campuses -- in cafeterias, snack bars, vending machines and even at student bake sale fundraisers -- and limits the sale of carbonated drinks at middle schools. The legislation's sponsor has vowed to "remove junk foods from schools in the next four years."
"The lawyers filing these suits hope to do to Mega Gulps and Twinkies what they did to Joe Camel and tobacco," writes the Times -- demonizing a product, taxing it out of reach of consumers, and restricting the places where it can be bought and consumed.
The University of New England has joined forces with several York County health care providers to pilot a project aimed at reducing smoking among low-income people with mental illness.
The project will be funded through a $100,000 grant from the American Legacy Foundation of Washington, D.C. It's part of a nationwide project aimed at lowering smoking rates among minorities and low-income people.
This targeted group likely doesn't have much enjoyment in their lives. Leave it to the busybodies who hate to see anyone enjoying themselves in the least to try to remove this one bit of pleasure this group derives. And talk about a waste of money.
A Brazilian university is refusing to take students who smoke.
The Centro Universitario da Cidade University has put an advert in the
city's newspapers saying it will no longer
accept applications from smokers.
The university's principal, Paulo Alonso, said students who cannot control
their addiction will have to look for another
college to attend.
The move has been described as discrimination.
But the the university in Rio de Janeiro says 90% of its students are already non-smokers.
The Organisation of Brazilian Lawyers said it can forbid smoking inside
its buildings but cannot forbid smokers from
applying.
A spokesman said: "It is illegal. It is discrimination."
Light smokers — people who smoke just a few cigarettes a day — may reasonably assume that they are in less danger than heavier smokers. But a new study offers evidence to the contrary when it comes to cardiovascular disease.
The researchers wanted to look at the effect smoking has on the thin layer of cells that line blood vessels and are known as endothelial cells.
They examined three groups: nonsmokers, people who said they smoked about three cigarettes a day and those who reported smoking 20 cigarettes a day or more.
Regardless of the amount of tobacco use, smokers exhibited the same
changes in the blood vessel lining, the
researchers wrote.
The researchers did not try to establish how long the test subjects had been smoking, nor did they try to learn how long it would take the body to repair itself if someone stopped smoking.
PROPAGANDA
WARNING
First they trust what smokers, those who have been called the scum of the earth, report about how much they smoke, then they admit they don't know exactly what they have. Didn't establish how long someone has smoked? Might that matter? They don't even conclude that it's permanently damaging.
WATERLOO REGION -- Stubborn bar owners may face jail for letting their customers smoke in Waterloo Region.
Health staff have proposed asking justices of the peace for orders prohibiting convicted owners from breaking the smoking bylaw.
Owners could then be jailed for contempt of court if they breach the order and permit smoking.
It's thought the jail threat may be what's needed to dissuade 28 hard core premises that continue to flout the smoking ban after two years.
Health staff say the crackdown, to be considered by councillors today, addresses complaints that a few establishments are stealing business away from 99 per cent of the industry that complies with the ban.
Oh really? Law breakers that allow smoking are stealing customers? Aren't smoking bans what the people want or aren't they? It's the health staff noting the complaint, not just some disgruntled bar owners making what the anti-smokers call a false claim -- that business goes down when smoking bans are passed. The health staff supports the fact that business is negatively affected by bans.
Should all teenagers be given a vaccine that blocks the effects of nicotine and so prevents them from becoming addicted to the evil weed?
This controversial possibility is on the horizon thanks to the development of two pioneering vaccines for nicotine addiction. The vaccines were designed for people who repeatedly relapse after giving up smoking. But since most countries are failing to cut the number of children and teenagers taking up cigarettes, many will ask if the vaccines should be used far more widely if they prove to be effective.
Mark Soufliers of Nabi is also cautious. "The challenge is at what age you'd give the vaccine, and whether you'd need to give regular boosters. Also, how much right does the child have to say no?''
As I walk the humid streets of Midtown Manhattan, I find myself staring at the clusters of workers outside every building. They are the smokers, puffing languidly or frantically as their day allows, and I glance at them the way I glance at the homeless, my awkward interest mixing with pity.
I am not a smoker. In fact, I border on self-righteous about secondhand smoke, and I was part of a mini-rebellion at this newspaper back in 1986, creating a six-desk smoke-free zone when law and newsroom tradition offered scant support for such a thing.
But when I pass the clustered smokers this summer, I see more than just a precancerous condition. I also see an emblem of today's workplace.
They weren't there 15 years ago, when they could smoke at work. And I'll wager they won't be there 15 years from now, because employers and landlords are beginning to reclaim the space outside the building, too.
NEW YORK — Want a class-action lawsuit with that burger?
A New York City lawyer has filed suit against the four big fast-food corporations, saying their fatty foods are responsible for his client’s obesity and related health problems.
Samuel Hirsch filed his lawsuit Wednesday at a New York state court
in the Bronx, alleging that McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s and KFC Corporation
are irresponsible and deceptive in the posting of their nutritional information,
that they need to offer healthier options on their menus, and that
they create a de facto addiction in their consumers, particularly the poor
and children.
In December, then Surgeon General David Satcher declared obesity America's soon-to-be number one killer, and urged for there to be a healthier range of food available to consumers.
KEY WORDS: health problems; irresponsible;
deceptive; addiction; children
Same language, different product. Regulation and government
dictating diet is about to bite you in the rear.
See our library of stories on Obesity and the Health Police
ATLANTA--The first work from gkv communications and public relations partner Porter Novelli for Maryland's Tobacco-Use Prevention and Cessation program broke last week.
The $14 million "Smoking stops here" campaign, half advertising and half grass-roots initiatives, seeks to change what gkv officials called a "social norm."
"We started from the plain fact that no matter how provocative we make them, the last thing the world needed was another commercial about the dangers of cigarette and second-hand smoke," said Jeff Millman, creative director at gkv.
Instead, the Baltimore agency, which won the account last December, decided to undercut what Millman called the "tacit approval of smoking in public places."
"We decided we'd talk to the seven out of 10 Marylanders who are not satisfied with the idea that smoking in public places is OK."
In the commercials, directed by David Butler of Butler Films in Annapolis, Md., a montage of citizens talk about where they do not want others smoking.
HARRISBURG, Pa., Aug. 29 /PRNewswire/ -- On behalf of Pa. Gov. Mark Schweiker, Secretary of Revenue Larry P. Williams today announced that the department is cracking down on illegal Internet sales of cigarettes.
"The number of Internet sites selling cigarettes has increased dramatically, and many of those websites are falsely advertising that cigarettes may be purchased tax-free. In Pennsylvania, smokers who possess more than one carton of cigarettes purchased from outside the state are committing a criminal offense.
"The Internet is a great resource, but some individuals are using it to thwart Pennsylvania tax law. We owe it to our Pennsylvania retailers to stop this illegal practice."
If a Pennsylvania resident is found in possession of more than one carton of cigarettes which are not marked with Pennsylvania tax stamps, they are subject to up to 90 days imprisonment and a fine of $300.
This begs two questions:
1. Are they going to conduct a house to house search to determine
who has more than one carton?
2. Are they going to conduct a house to house search for ALL
purchases made over the Internet, whereby taxes were circumvented?
That would be only fair, right? Otherwise, what we have here is a
persecution of only one set of tax evaders. Why is that?
CLEVELAND (AP) -- A judge has ordered estranged parents not to smoke around their 8-year-old daughter in a ruling family law experts say is the only known example of a court raising the issue of secondhand smoke without being asked.
Judge William Chinnock's ruling says the child is healthy and makes no mention of any testimony about possible health threats posed by adults smoking in her presence.
Instead, he cites in detail dozens of studies on the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, and concludes it is the court's obligation to act in the best interests of the child to limit exposure to smoke.
You can read the Judge Chinnock's actual propaganda filled ruling
at
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/documents/98/2002/2002-ohio-4489.doc
We are in big trouble. NYC C.L.A.S.H. comments appear between paragraphs:
ALBANY - The state Health Department has been ordered to get its arms around the widening problem of obesity in New York.
NYS residents are about to be ordered to change their diet against their will.
Among a beefed-up list of bills signed into law this week by Gov. Pataki
was the little-noticed Obesity Prevention Act,
which mandates a major study into the growing battle of the bulge within
the state.
Money needed to combat immediate dangers will be spent to study how the government should begin to manipulate your behavior to comply "for your own good."
Sen. Guy Velella (R-Bronx) said he laughed when he was first approached by Assemblywoman Gloria Davis (D-Bronx) to sponsor the bill.
"I thought it was nonsense," he said. "I thought, let people go on a diet. What's the big deal?
"But she convinced me, this is a legitimate health problem," he added.
Sound familiar? Your personal eating habits have now become their business by calling it a "health problem" instead of personal choice. Making it a "public health problem" gives them the green light to control you.
Bill sponsors say obesity affects up to one-third of all Americans and leads to serious ailments such as heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.
Sound familiar? Also note, they have changed the standard by which someone is determined to be obese. That makes it a lot easier to control that many more lives. Just like they reinvented the definition of addiction to justify outside intervention.
Some 300,000 deaths a year nationwide are linked to excessive weight problems, making it second only to smoking as a preventable cause of death, according to the sponsors.
And there you go... the link to smoking, which we all know they insist must be stopped whether one wants to or not even though it's a legal product. How soon before they legislate your candy machine out of your office so that you will not have easy access to your midday Snickers bar? They've already done it in schools "for the children."
The study will focus on the effectiveness of traditional and alternative
methods of treatment as well as the impact of
obesity-prevention programs.
In other words, "alternative methods" means legislation intended to "discourage" the ingestion of foods THEY say are no good for you.
It will also look at the current fiscal impact obesity has on health-care costs.
McDonalds, Wendy's, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken have already been sued. The same trial lawyers involved in the suits against the tobacco industry are involved in a personal lawsuit against "Big Food" for causing one man's obesity, hence health problems. How soon before the real lawsuit against the food industry that claims to recoup millions spent on treating those "addicted" or "unable to resist advertising?" And how soon until fat people are accused by their fellow citizens for burdening the health care system? And if you are burdening the health care system then it is only right that they insist/force you to modify your diet because it "affects others."
Velella said it could provide the impetus for lawmakers to enact legislation
requiring insurance companies to cover
prevention efforts ranging from fat farms to physical-fitness programs
to dietary programs.
And who, in the end, is going to pay for these programs? Why, those who tip the scales of course. Food identified as "unhealthy" will be taxed to cover these programs.... or that new highway.
A final report is due to the governor and Legislature next June.
Presently, one in four adults and one in five children are considered
obese, according to the American Obesity
Association.
For adults, that's the same number of smokers that are now punished for their behavior. For children, the time will come when giving your child that extra cookie will be considered child abuse. Spouses that are divorcing will begin to document the child's meals and snacks and use it to gain custody away from the "abusive" parent.
Nearly 18.5 percent of adults in the New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania region are obese, according to the AOA.
"It's well known we drive more than we walk, we eat fast food more and
drink more soda and less milk - and that leads
to problems," said Assembly bill co-sponsor Ronald Canestrari (D-Cohoes).
Assemblyman Canestrari needs to get his head out of the sand. The lawyer involved with the tobacco suits, and now the fast food suits, has stated to the press that he plans to go after milk too. Whole milk, you see, isn't healthy -- skim milk is -- and the whole milk industry has failed to make the public aware of that.
It's estimated by the AOA that the health-care cost associated with obesity is $100 billion.
Stockpile your fries folks. The tax man cometh.
Liquor companies should be forced to pay damages to the victims of liquor-related crimes, just as tobacco companies are forced to pay restitution to second-hand smoke victims, says the head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
"I wish we were as advanced as the people fighting the tobacco industry," said MADD Canada chapter president Louise Knox.
"I don't see why we aren't already forcing liquor companies to pay damages for liquor-related crimes."
Casinos could lose billions of dollars of revenue under strict indoor air-quality standards sought by special-interest groups, attendees at a gaming industry conference and tradeshow heard last week.
Breath mints won't cut it anymore for students who have been smoking in the bathroom--some schools around the country are administering urine tests to teenagers to find out whether they have been using tobacco.
Screenings can detect cotinine - a metabolic byproduct that remains in the body after smoking or chewing tobacco - for up to 10 days in regular smokers of about a half a pack, or 10 cigarettes, a day, McAlpin, director of marketing for EDPM, a Birmingham drug-testing company said. Experts say it is unlikely that cotinine would collect in people exposed to secondhand smoke.
They throw in that emphasized remark so that teens can't use the excuse that they were only around smoking and not smoking themselves. Sort of like being around marijuana and saying you got a "contact high."
Except that every study conducted by the anti-smoking crusaders to prove that employees or children are being exposed to harmful levels of cigarette smoke has rested on their ability to measure cotinine in their subjects!
So which is it? Or as usual, when the shoe fits, throw it at the media?
AUSTRALIA - SMOKERS would be forced off the streets and into addict-style "safe ingesting rooms" under a radical plan by Victoria's top health authority.
Sealed smoking rooms would be set up across the city under the VicHealth plan, with signposts directing office workers in need of a nicotine fix. Busy shopping strips could also get the designated rooms and smokers could be made to pay to use them, much like some public toilets.
Dr Ron Borland, co-director of VicHealth's Centre for Tobacco Control, said smoking outside city buildings was a problem that demanded action.
Dr Borland said with growing bans on smoking indoors, "there may be a need to consider if we should set up safe ingesting rooms".
"Just as we don't want heroin addicts shooting up in back alleys, so too we don't want to push smokers into those situations," he said. "I believe there will be moves to ban pavement smoking as a public annoyance issue.
"It is difficult to justify this ban on public health grounds.
"But in terms of the annoyance factor, people have to walk through clouds of smoke to get into buildings and stand behind smokers and this will become an increasing problem."
A judge has ordered a four-year-old boy removed from his mother's home because she was exposing him to second-hand smoke.
"I am not prepared to play with the life and health of this child," Mr. Justice Bruce Glass wrote.
One of several articles was written in response to this story. Before we post it, to sum up the details, both parents smoked marijuana and both say they have given that up. But the mother has not given up smoking cigarettes. The father claims that his son responds asthmatically to the smoke even though there is no evidence to show that. When the mother first got pregnant the father wanted her to abort the pregnancy, she refused. We now join the article that responds to this case:
Tobacco use disqualifies Ontario mother
I don't know if either or both of these people are fit to raise a child or if one is more fit than the other, but I suspect that I wouldn't want either of them raising any kid of mine. I do know, because judges as addle-brained as this Ontario judge have ruled on such cases in the past, that, had the roles been reversed during the pregnancy, the results would have been different. That is, if the mother had wanted to end the child's life and the father had not, she would have had easy access to an abortion and he would have had nothing to say about it. Whatever either one of them smoked, wherever and whenever they smoked it, would have had nothing to do with it. That's the kind of country we live in -- where a child can be taken from a mother because she smokes tobacco and given to a father who wanted to kill him.
Butt
out
National Post - October 22, 2002
It is preposterous, and heavy-handed, for a court to determine who wins a custody battle because one parent smokes and the other does not.
...but the danger has been vastly overblown by anti-smoking lobbyists and vote-cadging politicians. The United Nations has found that while smoking two packs a day for 40 years raises a smoker's lung cancer risk by 2,000%, the cancer risk of living with that smoker for 40 years is raised by less than 1/100th of that amount.
Although it is unwise and unhealthy to smoke in any circumstances,
and additionally selfish to do so with children around, it does not come
close to being a proper reason to separate a child from a parent. Judge
Glass's remarks and ruling take us further down the road toward the nationalization
of children. In case after case, the rights of parents to bring up their
children are being trampled. Anti-smoking pressure groups are willing to
endorse even the grossest acts of official interference if the demon tobacco
is involved. More voices need to be raised, not just soon, but now, to
cry halt to this overweening state impertinence.