tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26965727323110259232024-03-12T22:56:34.881-04:00Stand FASTPro choice for smokers
Fight Anti Smoker Tyranny
protest smoking bansThe Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.comBlogger303125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-84688938577655210772012-01-01T01:26:00.003-05:002012-01-01T01:30:27.776-05:00Plain packages<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IKBjcjgaVSo/Tv_84wyp9rI/AAAAAAAABIU/0ofRYev1TUE/s1600/as%2Bgraphic%2Bas.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 270px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IKBjcjgaVSo/Tv_84wyp9rI/AAAAAAAABIU/0ofRYev1TUE/s400/as%2Bgraphic%2Bas.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5692546506119837362" border="0" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Anti-smoker zealots would have us believe that all tobacco control initiatives are about public health; if smokers can be coerced into quitting their filthy habit, then the cancer “epidemic” and dozens of other “tobacco related” diseases would simply disappear. But honesty and integrity are not characteristics I normally associate with the anti-smoker crowd.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The latest gambit in the campaign to force smokers to quit comes from the land down under.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Australia has launched legislation that will require tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging beginning in December 2012. Under the plain packaging legislation, all tobacco products will have to be sold in ugly olive-green packages, plastered with graphic health warnings, with the product name in standardized lettering. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">It is believed that plain packaging will make cigarettes less attractive to young people, improve the effectiveness of health warnings and diminish the perception that some brands are ‘safer’ than others. According to the zealots, making the cigarette package as nondescript and unappealing as possible will reduce smoking uptake amongst children and young people. Uh-huh.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, there’s no way the effectiveness of this, or any other single tobacco control initiative, can be evaluated. Have fewer kids taken up the smoking habit because cigarettes are hidden from view or because laws prohibiting sales of tobacco to minors, on the books in Canada for over a hundred years, are finally being enforced? </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Do cigarette packages, adorned as they are with repulsive graphic health warnings, really encourage children and young people to start smoking just because a small portion of the package comes in a pretty shade of blue or a company logo? </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">British American Tobacco (BAT) has launched a court challenge to Australia’s plain packaging legislation. This angers the anti-smoker zealots who prefer the industry to roll over and play dead.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Australia’s Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said in a statement: "Let there be no mistake, big tobacco is fighting against the government for one very simple reason - because it knows, as we do, that plain packaging will work.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The simple truth is that neither she, nor her government, can possibly know any such thing. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Australia is the first jurisdiction in the world to contemplate such legislation, and that legislation is not scheduled to become effective for another year. So there is no precedent on which to base her claim that the government knows plain packaging will work. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But, despite the lack of evidence demonstrating any merit in such legislation, anti-smoker zealots are already pushing for similar laws in other jurisdictions, including Great Britain and Canada. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In Canada, cigarette advertising is conspicuous by its absence, cigarette displays are prohibited at point of sale and the sale of any tobacco products to minors is illegal. The elimination of company trademarks, logos or colour schemes is unlikely to make cigarettes any less appealing to children (or young people). Even adults don’t get to see the pack until after they’ve paid for them.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, the kids might develop a nicotine “addiction” from the flavoured nicotine gum or lozenges which are sold over the counter with no age restrictions. But, that’s for another post. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, it’s hard to see how plain packaging would make the graphic warnings on cigarette packs any more effective. They’re already as ghoulish and grotesque as a scene from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or some other slasher flick. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, the packs will still require a modifier indicating whether the contents are regular, light, extra light or menthol. Whether the smokes are marked Peter Jackson Lights, Peter Jackson Blue or Peter Jackson Number 2 will make little difference. The distinction between regular and light cigarettes will always be there because smokers want, and are entitled, to know what they’re buying. So, there is little to be accomplished on that front. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Plain packaging? Bullshit and bafflegab at its finest.</span></span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-63562866473300171322011-12-22T13:35:00.002-05:002011-12-22T13:44:44.602-05:00Return of The Old Rambler<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WvrSreJjCFs/TvN6domqg0I/AAAAAAAABII/1fYQ_7EDzk8/s1600/not%2Bdead%2Byet.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 276px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WvrSreJjCFs/TvN6domqg0I/AAAAAAAABII/1fYQ_7EDzk8/s400/not%2Bdead%2Byet.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5689025403833451330" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I guess it’s about time I gave readers of this blog (at least those who haven’t deserted me) an explanation for my lengthy absence and the lack of a timely response to their e-mails; 386 unanswered e-mails in one account and 522 in the other.<br /><br />The simple truth is that I’ve had neither the energy nor the inclination to sit down at my computer long enough to even check my email accounts, let alone post to my blog. A lengthy hospitalization (over three months) can be both debilitating and depressing. <br /><br />Obviously, rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated, although it was ‘touch and go’ for awhile. Nor have I been soaking up the sun on some remote island in the South Pacific. In fact, a vacation on some snow covered island in the frozen reaches of the far north would have been preferable to where I did spend the summer and a good part of the fall. Hospitals are no place for rest and relaxation.<br /><br />I knew I was in deep shit when I woke up back in June with some sweet young thing asking me if I knew my name or where I was. I answered, in a barely audible whisper, “Huh?”<br /><br />“Do you know where you are?” she persisted.<br /><br />“Hospital,” I wheezed, after giving the question some serious thought. “CABG” (coronary artery bypass graft)<br /><br />“That’s right.” She smiled, “Now, can you tell me your name.”<br /><br />I did the Socrates routine and answered her question with one of my own. “How in fuck does a guy get run over by a truck in the middle of an operating room?” Her raised eyebrow suggested she was in no mood for humour. So I told her who I was even though I suspected she already knew. I was in no position to be combative.<br /><br />Bypass surgery is fairly commonplace these days; some might be tempted to say routine. But it does come with some considerable risk attached. The surgery itself went well, or so I’m told. It was an infection, a touch of pneumonia and fluid on the lungs which kept me in the intensive care unit for five weeks. I’m still trying to figure out how you get an infection, especially a contagious one, in such a sterile environment.<br /><br />At any rate, I spent five weeks with nothing to eat or drink that wasn’t pumped through a tube. And weeks after that eating solid foods pureed to the point of liquidity and drinking fruit juice thickened to the point where you had to drink it with a spoon. Did you know that they can even thicken water?<br /><br />Of course, it wasn’t all bad. I did manage to shed 35 pounds. But, it’s a weight loss regimen I wouldn’t recommend to everyone. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, even the fanatics in the anti-smoker brigade.<br /><br />But I’m not going to spend a lot of time crying in my beer. I was sick. And, thanks to some very capable and dedicated medical professionals, I’m now on the road to recovery. <br /><br />The cardiac surgeon seems happy with the outcome and I’m happy I’m still on the green side of the grass. Even the nurse I overheard confide to a colleague, “He’s not going to make it,” seemed pleased to be wrong. And it will come as no surprise that I’m as pleased as a pig in shit that she was. Wrong that is.<br /><br />It has not been a pleasant experience. And, it’s taken a toll both physically and mentally. But it’s time to shake off the lethargy and get on with the business of living. And that includes making regular posts to this blog. <br /><br />I’ll be out of town over the holidays, spending time with my kids and grandkids. But, hopefully, I should be able to start making regular posts in the New Year.<br /><br />Until then, I’d like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and the best of luck in the New Year. </span></span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-57162120617618389042011-05-26T15:06:00.003-04:002011-05-26T15:12:11.398-04:00Can we make smoking safer by reducing TSNA?<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ivXTMLeRTjY/Td6k5ZXjwZI/AAAAAAAABH8/Cvcga8noX9s/s1600/gori%2Bsafe%2Bcigs.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 299px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ivXTMLeRTjY/Td6k5ZXjwZI/AAAAAAAABH8/Cvcga8noX9s/s400/gori%2Bsafe%2Bcigs.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5611103491719414162" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">A new “scientific” study from </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/05/20/tc.2010.042192.abstract"> anti-smoker researchers</a><span style="font-family: arial;"> concludes:<span style="font-style: italic;">”We found no indication that any meaningful attempt was made to reduce or at least control TSNA levels in the new varieties of the popular brands Marlboro and Camel introduced over the last decade. In light of the recently granted regulatory authority to the FDA over tobacco products, regulation of TSNA levels in cigarette tobacco should be strongly considered to reduce the levels of these potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The researchers are calling for the US FDA to dictate a reduction in the levels of TSNA (tobacco specific nitrosamines) in cigarettes. This follows a WHO (World Health Organization) proposal to mandate a lowering of selected “toxicants” in cigarette smoke published in the journal Tobacco Control in 2008. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Study authors are claiming that higher levels of TSNA in cigarette smoke are associated with a higher risk of cancer, and that reducing TSNA will have an unspecified beneficial affect. <span style="font-style: italic;">“Modification of tobacco curing methods and other changes in cigarette manufacturing techniques could substantially reduce the levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), a group of potent carcinogens, in cigarette smoke.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The inference is that reducing the levels of TSNA in cigarettes will reduce the alleged health risks of smoking; that mandating lower levels of TSNA will, in fact, result in safer cigarettes.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The problem, of course, is that the specific chemicals, or chemical compounds, (the toxicants) responsible for the alleged risks related to tobacco smoke are unknown. So, following the logic of the anti-smoker crowd, there can be absolutely no scientific evidence that reducing or even eliminating specific constituents in tobacco smoke will reduce its overall toxicity.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If the specific constituents in tobacco smoke responsible for lung cancer are unknown, it follows that no safe level of exposure to those unknown constituents can be determined. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In fact, that is just what the US Surgeon General has stated unequivocally; that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. And, if there's no safe level of exposure, just how in hell will forcing the cigarette companies to reduce levels of specific tobacco constituents improve public health?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The researchers are highly critical of the tobacco companies, blaming them for their failure <span style="font-style: italic;">“to reduce or at least control TSNA levels.”</span> But, obviously, if there is no such thing as a safer cigarette, as the anti-smoker zealots contend, then reducing the levels of some chemicals in tobacco is a complete waste of time, effort and money.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This latest study ignores the fact that it was anti-smoker zealots who were responsible for the termination of research into potentially less hazardous cigarettes. In fact, for 30 years, the anti-smoker cult has categorically rejected the possibility.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In the late seventies, the Smoking and Health Program was administered by the National Cancer Institute in the US; charged with the task of developing a less hazardous cigarette. Among those researching the possibility of less hazardous cigarettes were such notables as Gio Batta Gori and Ernst Wynder, both of whom opposed smoking.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Dr. Gori, who received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts, maintained that a less harmful cigarette could be developed. He did not envision a “safe” cigarette, but rather a safer cigarette, one which would reduce the risk(s) associated with smoking even though it might not eliminate those risks in their entirety. Focusing on harm reduction, Gori asserted, could substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality for which tobacco was thought responsible.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In 2002, </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-15.pdf"> Gori wrote</a><span style="font-family: arial;">: <span style="font-style: italic;">“One-fifth of humanity smokes with little indication they might soon quit, too many public and private interests benefit handsomely from the trade, and an illegal market stands eager to fill an uncontrollable demand should taxes and prices be set too high or should cigarettes be made illegal. Hence, the sensible and ethical public health policy would be to continue efforts to persuade smokers to quit, and to consider ways to reduce the risks for those who keep on smoking.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Unfortunately, Dr. Gori's harm reduction approach to tobacco use was discarded in favour of the zealots zero tolerance policies and research on less hazardous cigarettes was terminated circa 1980 when the prohibitionists announced they could end smoking by the year 2000.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So how can the WHO and the anti-smoker zealots insist, on the one hand, that less hazardous cigarettes are neither feasible nor desirable, while on the other advocating a reduction of TSNA and other toxicants, ostensibly to facilitate some kind of health benefit to smokers?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If the anti-smoker crowd were genuinely concerned about the health of smokers, they would embrace the concept of harm reduction. They would actively promote all products with the potential to reduce the alleged hazards of smoking, including snus and the electronic cigarette, not just those products on offer from the pharmaceutical industry.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Instead, the anti-smokers stridently attempt to discredit those tobacco products, with dishonest claims and blatant misrepresentation of the facts.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This latest study, and the proposals from the WHO which preceded it, must be considered disingenuous at best. Just more bullshit and bafflegab from the disciples of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker.</span></span><br /><br /><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-3575217402415908462011-05-23T10:55:00.003-04:002011-05-23T11:03:08.728-04:00Smoking is . . . is not, an addiction<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JRqYfWXRxV8/Tdp1yLAVwbI/AAAAAAAABH0/dSj4SMO68eA/s1600/addiction%2Bsad%2Bsack.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 218px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JRqYfWXRxV8/Tdp1yLAVwbI/AAAAAAAABH0/dSj4SMO68eA/s400/addiction%2Bsad%2Bsack.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5609925790651498930" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">There's been a lot written about smoking and addiction on the blogs and websites dedicated to such issues this past week. It's actually a difficult subject to discuss because there's no longer any real definition of addiction; the meaning has become rather vague, lost actually, with the parameters seemingly changing to suit the occasion.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">John Banzhaf, one of the high priests of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker, has pontificated that </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/225667.php"> smoking is not an addiction</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. The addiction, he claims, is to nicotine. And, since nicotine addicts can get their fix from any number of sources or delivery systems, including the patch, gum or electronic cigarette, then smoking becomes a choice.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">And, it naturally follows that, if smoking is a choice, then it is fair and reasonable to discriminate against smokers by refusing medical treatment, among other things.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel, takes exception to Banzhaf's decree, claiming that </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/former-ash-director-calls-smoking.html"> smoking is indeed an addiction</a><span style="font-family: arial;">; smokers are as much in need of the rituals involved in smoking as they are in the hit of nicotine.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Siegel's main concern is that, if smoking is viewed as a choice rather than an addiction, then legal action against the tobacco companies, dependent as they are on the proposition that people don't quit because they can't, becomes that much more difficult. The contention that the tobacco companies compel smokers to use their product by making it addictive becomes a somewhat specious argument.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If nicotine is the addiction, and there are other sources of nicotine available, then the case against the tobacco companies goes up in smoke. The anti-smoker strategy of painting smokers as the helpless victims of “big tobacco” falls apart and smokers become the authors of their own misfortune.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In the US, the patch became available by prescription in 1992, and over the counter in 1996. Other alternative nicotine delivery systems have been developed and marketed since then. So, if nicotine is addictive, then Banzhaf has a point. And, the smoker has ample access to an alternative supply of nicotine. In addition, there are now a number of relatively safer tobacco products available, including the electronic cigarette and snus. Plug (chewing tobacco), cigars and pipes have also been shown to be less hazardous in comparison to cigarettes.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So, can either smoking or nicotine be properly considered an addiction?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Reviewing the smoking prevalence statistics from Health Canada's last SAMMEC report, we find that 44% of Canadians over the age of fifteen (roughly 8 million) are former smokers. So, if either smoking or nicotine is an addiction, obviously neither requires a herculean effort to break. Certainly neither is in the same league as heroin or cocaine addiction.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">To me, that suggests the anti-smoker claim that 75% or 80% or 120% of smokers want to quit but simply can't because of their addiction is just so much bullshit. If they really wanted to quit, they'd join the 8 million Canadians who have already done so.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">As a layman, I have to rely on common sense to distinguish between addiction and habit. For example, if I run out of smokes and knock on my neighbours door to beg a fag, I'm entertaining a habit. If I kick in his door, beat him about the head with a blunt instrument and take his fags, then I'm feeding an addiction.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">That may be considered a simplistic analogy, but the scientific (medical) definition of addiction has become meaningless. I read of addictions to chocolate, sex, Big Macs, computer games and pale ale, among other things. The growing list of addictions has become something of a joke. Every time I read about some new addiction, I find myself wondering just what the fuck they're talking about.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">No two people are alike. Like their fingerprints, each individual is unique. Some will have a much more difficult time in giving up their habit(s) than others. But, that does not make them addicts. Some people will use addiction as an excuse for not giving up a habit, but it's just as likely that they haven't really made the commitment required to quit successfully. Because, deep down, they don't really want to quit smoking, or eating chocolate or drinking pale ale.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So, it appears that one faction of the anti-smoker cult wants to paint nicotine as the culprit. That way they can lobby government to promote NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) as the cure for “nicotine dependence” and provide free NRT for those poor helpless souls who, according to the zealots, just can't quit any other way. And, greater sales of NRT will, not coincidentally, put a smile on the faces of their financial backers in the pharmaceutical industry.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In addition, if nicotine is the addiction, they can continue to attack all forms of nicotine delivery from alternative tobacco products such as the electronic cigarette and snus. To the anti-smoker cult, pharmaceutical nicotine is the only acceptable form of nicotine.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The opposing faction wants the act of smoking itself identified as the addiction. Going down that road leads to more legal action against the big, bad wolf as symbolized by the tobacco industry. They can continue the charade that smokers, because of their addiction, are simply incapable of free choice.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Neither construct fits the classical definition of addiction; both do a disservice to smokers who may actually want to quit. Those individuals are being convinced by anti-smoker zealots that quitting is hopeless without the intervention of the cult; that the road to salvation (giving up the habit) lies only in following the dictates of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Dictates . . .dictator . . . anti-smokers . . . that's why I'll never be a former smoker.</span></span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-9971733931996105112011-05-19T08:11:00.003-04:002011-05-19T08:21:43.300-04:00Kentville – No smoking Down in the Valley<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1FGXo6yq8zY/TdUJY02SOrI/AAAAAAAABHs/y-VeAHMp0fs/s1600/Kentville.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 282px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1FGXo6yq8zY/TdUJY02SOrI/AAAAAAAABHs/y-VeAHMp0fs/s400/Kentville.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5608399233067662002" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Kentville is a small town in the picturesque Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia with a population of about 6,000. I haven't been down that way in years. Better make that decades; time flies when you're having fun. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In a <a href="http://www.ns.dailybusinessbuzz.ca/Provincial-News/2011-03-10/article-2318637/NS%3A-Kentville-retailer-continues-battle-for-smokers-rights/1"> recent news article</a>, Bob Gee, owner of Mader’s Tobacco Store in Kentville, said freedom of choice is being limited, with regulations slowly eroding constitutional freedoms and rights. He was, of course, talking about the plethora of anti-smoking legislation passed by the province in recent years by gutless politicians folding under intense lobbying by the lunatic fringe of the anti-smoker cartel. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I've written several articles over the past couple of years to update the status of <a href="http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2010/10/protecting-kids-from-sight-of.html"> Bob's fight</a> with the province over the tobacco displays in his shop. Back in 2007, Gee was ordered, under Nova Scotia's Tobacco Access Act, to cover up the tobacco displays in his store. He refused.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In 2008, he was charged with improper storage and display of tobacco products. Bob entered a plea of not guilty, thereby initiating a lengthy, and ongoing, legal battle with the province. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">To the best of my knowledge, the constant delays have originated with Crown persecut . . . er, prosecutors, who always seem to need more time to prepare their case. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Last year, Provincial court judge Claudine MacDonald ruled that the provincial legislation breached Gee's right to freedom of expression under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question now before the courts is whether the law is a reasonable means of protecting some compelling public interest which would override Gee's right to freedom of expression.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In October of 2010, the crown was still asking for more time to prepare their case. Bob's next court date is scheduled for June of this year. Unless, of course, the Crown needs still more time to prepare. I believe it was William Gladstone who used the the phrase: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Maybe the Crown is just trying to wear him down. They have all the time in the world, and all the power of the state behind them. And, the province certainly has much deeper pockets than he has. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But, Bob does not seem intimidated by the power of the state; men of principle seldom are. He shows no sign of capitulation, despite the odds. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Back in March, Bob Gee wrote a letter to Kentville Mayor Dave Corkum and town council criticizing a recent by-law banning smoking on all town-owned and -leased property, including streets and sidewalks. <span style="font-style: italic;">“Kentville’s bylaw does not reflect the larger issue at hand, which is really about how we as individuals educate ourselves, our families and one another so that the freedom to choose does not become hindered through a state of dictatorship.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">He noted that he has provided a service to the public and government by collecting over $20 million in (sales) taxes over the 35 years his shop has been in operation, and that he has conducted his family-run business in a way that gives back to the community. <span style="font-style: italic;">“It saddens me to realize that this same consideration was not returned to us and many of the customers that support us and the Town of Kentville when the town council decided to put this by-law into effect.”</span> </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, he noted the government's reluctance to make tobacco illegal, but instead to set rules and regulations on smokers. Punishing rules meant to denigrate and demean, I might add. And, he has a valid point. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">If smoking causes the damage the government and the anti-smoker zealots claim, then they are criminally negligent in the discharge of their duties and as much responsible for any morbidity and mortality attributed to smoking as the tobacco companies. If smokers are the victims of the tobacco companies, as the anti-smoker cartel maintain, then the government has a responsibility to end the victimization, not profit from it through the imposition of punitive sin taxes. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, if the anti-smoker zealots want to punish the tobacco companies, why are they insisting that smokers and small business owners who cater to them pay the price. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Dave Reid, owner of another Kentville shop, DM Reid Jewellers, sees smoking, as a matter of choice - not something you can legislate.<span style="font-style: italic;"> “Businesses pay the consequences for the decision if customers are staying away from town,”</span> he said. <span style="font-style: italic;">“There was no consultation before making the decision.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><span style="font-style: italic;">“How far do we go to legislate lifestyle?”</span> he asks.<span style="font-style: italic;"> “They have to use common sense and be realistic.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Mayor Dave Corkum says the by-law isn’t an attack on smokers, but that “Kentville” just doesn’t want people smoking on town-owned property. Kentville . . . the whole damn town? And, the litter issue seems to be on everyone's mind these days. The mayor also notes that town staff don’t enjoy picking up cigarette butts. Maybe he should consider public ashtrays. Or . . . </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Maybe smokers should take their business a few miles up the road; to Wolfville, maybe. Somewhere they'll be treated like the decent, hard-working people they are instead of being segregated like refugees from a leper colony. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">They just don't want people smoking on town property? Shit. </span></span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-7911393637304743462011-05-16T21:54:00.004-04:002011-05-16T22:11:40.209-04:00New York smoking ban; a ban too far<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-keoiGbxq-WI/TdHV3H5dQCI/AAAAAAAABHk/51x4dQzGszc/s1600/defiant%2Bsmoker.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 366px; height: 268px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-keoiGbxq-WI/TdHV3H5dQCI/AAAAAAAABHk/51x4dQzGszc/s400/defiant%2Bsmoker.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5607498154042540066" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">A recent New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html?_r=1"> op-ed piece</a> by Dr. Michael Siegel has drawn over 400 comments to the online version of the article. Dr. Siegel is a professor of community health sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health and an enthusiastic anti-smoking advocate. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In his article, Siegel expresses his opinion that the smoking ban in city parks and on city beaches, which becomes effective May 23 in New York City, is carrying things a little too far. And, in that at least, he's right. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Smoking is still a legal activity. Smokers are taxpayers too and have as much right to use the parks and beaches as anyone else. And, there is scant scientific evidence to justify such a ban on public health grounds. Even anti-smoking activist Siegel admits: “<span style="font-style: italic;">. . . no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure - in places where people can move freely about - is long enough to cause substantial health damage.</span>” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But Siegel's opposition to the New York City smoking ban is not based on the injustice to smokers which it represents. Instead, he is concerned that the reasoning used to justify the outdoor ban <span style="font-style: italic;">“runs the risk of a backlash that could undermine the basic goals of the anti-smoking movement.</span>” Uh-huh. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">For example, Michele Bonan of the American Cancer Society says<span style="font-style: italic;"> “We think the risk is greater than Siegel implies”</span> and asks why “we” should take any risk at all. After all, she notes: <span style="font-style: italic;">“more than 80 percent of New Yorkers don’t smoke, and two-thirds support outdoor smoking bans”. </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, following that logic means that as long as two-thirds of non-smokers support herding smokers onto box cars and shipping them off to re-education camps, then it's a perfectly acceptable solution to the smoker problem. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The City's Health Commissioner, Thomas Farley, notes that:<span style="font-style: italic;"> “Parks and beaches are special places, built and maintained with tax dollars for the benefit of all New Yorkers. Glass bottles that can break, amplified sounds and alcoholic beverages are prohibited, not because this would save lives, but to keep parks and beaches safe and enjoyable for everyone. Smoking doesn’t belong there either.” </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">So, the smoking ban isn't meant to save lives, but to protect some non-smokers from something they perceive as an annoyance; and an opportunity to punish smokers for their reluctance to submit to the tyranny of the majority and give up their habit. Parks and beaches are special places; special places that are to be reserved for non-smokers. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Other reasons enumerated to support the ban are equally frivolous. Thomas Farley:<span style="font-style: italic;"> “Children in parks or on beaches should be learning how to play baseball, bike or swim, not how to smoke.”</span> </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">So children are to be protected, not from any real hazards of secondhand smoke exposure in the great outdoors, but rather, from the very sight of a smoker. Like watching a character smoking a cigarette in a movie, a child seeing a smoker light up in a park might be lured into a lifetime of sin and depravity. Watching wanton acts of violence or sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, have no affect and are perfectly permissible. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Such anxieties are not driven by real science; they are founded on an irrational fear of cigarette smoke and unbridled hatred of smokers; fear and hatred encouraged and blatantly promoted by the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker which perceives smoking as an immoral act.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But, it is neither the vilification of a sizable minority of the population, nor the malicious persecution of smokers which apparently disturbs Dr. Siegel.<span style="font-style: italic;"> “To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.” </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The Surgeon General's claim that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke is absurd. Even the <a href="http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2008/03/faulty-science-from-epa.html"> discredited EPA report</a> released in 1992 is predicated on an assumption of a lifetime of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke. Transient exposure such as might be encountered in a park or on a beach has never been demonstrated to be a health hazard; simply a nuisance to some non-smokers. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Thus smoking bans in the outdoors are based on scientific evidence which has likewise been manipulated to the <a href="http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2010/09/bloombergs-smoking-ban-and-his-lies-of.html"> point of absurdity</a>. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Dr. Siegel's real fear is that the public, confronted with this outrageous persecution of smokers, might recognize the absurdity of smoking bans in outdoor environments and begin to question not just the science behind the fatuous smoking bans in outdoor environments, but the entire body of evidence supporting smoking bans in general. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, they may find out that his claim that the anti-smokers have science on their side is a distortion of the truth; that the scientific evidence is neither as clear nor unequivocal as he implies. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">To be fair to Dr Siegel, it should be noted that he has criticized many misrepresentations of fact from tobacco control researchers on his blog, <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/">The Rest of the Story</a>. And he has been vilified by his colleagues in the tobacco control movement for doing so. The “movement” does not tolerate dissension within its ranks. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In this instance, however, I must question his motivation. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, if protecting the public from the health consequences of secondhand smoke was the objective, then there were (are) compromises available which could have achieved that result without the blatant bigotry directed at smokers. But smoking bans are not intended to protect public health; they are intended to punish smokers. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The problem was (is) that the High Priests of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker demand capitulation, not compromise. </span></span><br /><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-2114686608255182492011-05-10T12:10:00.004-04:002011-05-10T12:24:11.300-04:00E-cigs are out in the land down under<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kwaGqyJ8GWs/Tcljypoe5EI/AAAAAAAABHc/NLBzijxwf1A/s1600/the%2Bsake%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bkids.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 239px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kwaGqyJ8GWs/Tcljypoe5EI/AAAAAAAABHc/NLBzijxwf1A/s400/the%2Bsake%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bkids.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5605120933059552322" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Sophie Dwyer, Executive Director of the Health Protection Directorate of Queensland (Australia) Health recently advised Queenslanders that:<span style="font-style: italic;">“E-cigarettes are illegal in Australia.”</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">They are illegal because they contain nicotine. And, nicotine is classified as a dangerous poison. Says Ms. Dwyer: <span style="font-style: italic;">“If used inappropriately – or if children get hold of the liquid nicotine – the consequences can be fatal.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">A May 5, 2011 <a href="http://www.health.qld.gov.au/news/media_releases/qhe_cigs0515.pdf">press release</a> from Queensland Health notes that: <span style="font-style: italic;">“The World Health Organisation’s International Program on Chemical Safety advises that 10mg of liquid nicotine can kill a child within five minutes of them swallowing it.”</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">It's true of course. Pure nicotine is indeed poisonous. That's why farm workers harvesting tobacco wear protective clothing to protect them from exposure and the green tobacco sickness which it may cause. And, there can be little doubt that precautions are needed to protect children from accidental consumption.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">The problem with the warning from Ms. Dwyer and Queensland Health is the means by which they seek to accomplish their goal of “protecting the children”.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">The fact is that there are any number of consumer products which could have serious consequences if “used inappropriately” or “if children get hold of them”. These include most common household cleaners, prescription and over the counter drugs, beauty products, etc.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Even my tube of toothpaste contains the warning, <span style="font-style: italic;">“Do not swallow. Children under the age of six should use only a pea sized amount and be supervised while brushing.”</span> There is an additional warning on most labels to get medical help if more than a pea sized amount of toothpaste is accidentally swallowed.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">But we don't ban toothpaste, despite the fact that it contains a poison, fluoride. Nor do we ban Easy Off oven cleaner, prescription drugs or aspirin; all of which could cause serious harm or death to children and adults alike if common sense is not applied in their use or if precautions aren't taken to keep them out of reach of inquisitive toddlers.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">The electronic cigarette is designed for adult use. The cartridges used with the device contain a dose of nicotine approximating the dosage found in nicotine replacement therapy sold by the pharmaceutical industry.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">According to Dwyer, <span style="font-style: italic;">“They (electronic cigarettes) contain vials of liquid nicotine, which is a very dangerous poison.”</span> But, that's a dishonest statement which highlights the disingenuous nature of her argument.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Electronic cigarettes do not contain vials of liquid nicotine; at least, not any I've ever seen.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">As noted previously, the cartridges contain measured amounts of nicotine. The liquid vials are purchased separately by “vapers”, as users of the e-cig refer to themselves, looking to save money by refilling their empty cartridges. But, if it's the vials of liquid nicotine which are causing all the concern, then why not simply ban the sale of liquid nicotine and allow the electronic cigarette, with the prepared cartridges, to be sold to those adults who choose to use them?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Another less than honest claim by Ms. Dwyer is that: <span style="font-style: italic;">“There is no evidence e-cigarettes are effective in helping people to quit smoking.”</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">While there may be no formal clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of the electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation, there is a substantial body of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the electronic cigarette is an effective tool to help people quit. In addition, many prominent anti-smoking advocates promote the device, both as a harm reduction tool and a means of achieving smoking cessation. .</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Even the New Zealand Ministry of Health recently acknowledged publicly that electronic cigarettes are "far safer" than smoking tobacco. So why do they consider the e-cig an unapproved medicine and regard their distribution as an offence?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">One statement by a Health New Zealand spokesperson sheds some light on the matter, <span style="font-style: italic;">“It (the electronic cigarette) does raise issues about the social approval of such devices and does run counter to one of the objectives of the [Smokefree Environments] Act and this bill, which is to de-normalise smoking." </span>Uh-huh.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">The objective of Health New Zealand is not to rescue smokers from the alleged hazards of smoking; it's to denormalize smoking and turn smokers into social outcasts. The anti-smoker crowd obviously sees the electronic cigarette as an impediment to that goal.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ms. Dwyer is busily shilling for the drug barons. <span style="font-style: italic;">“There are a range of safe products people can use to help them quit smoking, including nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers or sub-lingual (under-the-tongue) tablets.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">Uh-huh. Nicotine is poisonous. Nicotine is a menace to children. Nicotine is evil. You must buy only government approved nicotine from your government approved nicotine pusher. We insist. The law is on our side; because we make the law. And, the law says smokers are to be punished.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">According to the press release, <span style="font-style: italic;">“Queensland Health is committed to making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people . . .” </span>Uh-huh.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">There appears to be no end to the bullshit and bafflegab being spread by the anti-smoker cartel!</span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-32334263075717215092011-05-05T14:21:00.003-04:002011-05-05T14:36:10.771-04:00Ban smoking in movies to save lives<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t46z6uJw4T8/TcLq_Z1sDMI/AAAAAAAABHU/gYft4EWnT8I/s1600/Bad%2BBacall.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 276px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t46z6uJw4T8/TcLq_Z1sDMI/AAAAAAAABHU/gYft4EWnT8I/s400/Bad%2BBacall.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5603299261391047874" border="0" /></a> <span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Hyperbole is defined as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. Of course, with comments originating from anti-smoker fanatics it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between hyperbole and plain old bullshit. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Take, for example, the following statement: </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:arial;" >“God knows how many film-goers died from watching Lauren Bacall smoke.”</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> Are we really expected to believe the sultry siren from the age of the silver screen caused untold numbers of mysterious movie deaths just by blowing a little smoke?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">No. I don't think so. That's an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement. And, just as obviously, it's not intended to be taken literally (or seriously). It's hyperbole. Surely the Guinness people would have kept a tally if movie-goers were kicking the bucket in great numbers while watching Lauren Bacall light up on screen. Hell, it would have been front page news if even one movie buff had died from watching the sexy screen star caressing her Winston's.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But why single out Bacall? Does she deserve all the blame for any mysterious movie deaths which may have previously passed without notice. Was it only Bacall's surreal cigarette smoke which surreptitiously slipped from the screen to slay unsuspecting movie-goers. I mean, God only knows how many film-goers died from watching Bette Davis and the chain-smoking characters she often portrayed. If watching someone smoking on screen really killed people, then, together, those two would have qualified as a weapon of mass destruction. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">At any rate, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health apparently has <a href="http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/14/graeme-hamilton-tobacco-study-suggests-smoking-on-film-may-harm-the-audience/">a new study</a> which claims </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:arial;" >“the very sight of a character lighting up on the screen is enough to encourage a new generation of smokers.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Shit. More hyperbole. I think. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But, I don't believe many teenagers sit up to the wee hours of the morning, being led astray by Bacall or Davis; lured into a lifetime of degradation as chain-smoking cigarette fiends? Nor do I believe watching Bacall on the small screen has the same deadly impact as watching her from front row seats in a real theatre. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">So, perhaps the hyperbole prone Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health is talking about more recent films. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Yes. That must be it. They recently handed out their Ashtray award for the Quebec film with the most scenes of smoking on screen. The award, intended to communicate the disapproval of the anti-smoker zealots for on-screen antics involving smoking, went to a film titled “Les amours imaginaires”, directed by Xavier Dolan (who also co-starred in the film). </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Dolan, in his early twenties, is considered one of the most gifted of the current crop of young Québécois film makers. His first feature, “J’ai tué ma mère”, won several awards at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. It also won Dolan the Toronto Film Critics Association Jay Scott Prize for emerging talent. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">None of which matters to the censors of the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health. To the anti-smoker zealots the quality of a film is not based on the truth and humanity which it reveals, or the number of laughs it produces, but rather the number of tobacco occurrences in the film.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And it's not at all surprising they have a scientific study to support their argument.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The scientific study, conducted by researchers from Université du Québec à Montréal, counted 116 “tobacco occurences” in the film which they estimated, with great scientific precision, at one occurrence every 59 seconds. Uh-huh. One tobacco occurrence every 59 seconds. They counted them. On their fingers and toes. Which suggests the film was reviewed by at least six scientific cigarette censors. Or, maybe they used a specially modified scientific calculator. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">At any rate, after rigorous scientific analysis, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, which commissioned the study, concluded that “by glamorizing smoking, the movies encourage teens to smoke”. Uh-huh.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In addition, after reviewing a similar study of American teens, carefully extrapolating the data to the Quebec population and allowing for potential confounding factors such as language and the consumption of French-Canadian pea soup, the council estimated that <span style="font-style: italic;">“about 40% of young Quebec smokers start the habit because of what they have seen in the movies.” </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">It is unclear whether or not the <span style="font-style: italic;">“young Quebec smokers”</span> were ever exposed to Lauren Bacall or Bette Davis movies. When asked, most of the kids responded: “Who?” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Also unclear is the number of tobacco occurrences to which a teenager must be subjected before trotting off to the nearest First Nations reserve to get his/her first fix of the noxious weed, then plummeting into the depths of depravity and ultimate death caused by their newly acquired addiction.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">However, it has been rumoured that the US Surgeon General plans to announce that there is no safe level of exposure to on-screen tobacco smoke. One over-zealous zealot named Whinnykoff proclaimed alarmingly </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family:arial;" >“If you can see it; it can kill you. Third, er . . fourth, er . . . fifth hand smoke is even more deadly than active smoking. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.” </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health is quick to point out that they are not calling for outright prohibition of smoking in the movies, but rather they contemplate giving movies which depict smoking an automatic “18A” rating. Given that, in La Belle Province, this rating is usually reserved for hardcore pornography, this would place Casablanca (with Lauren Bacall), and “Les amours imaginaires” (with Xavier Dolan), in the same classification as Deep Throat (with Linda Lovelace) and Debbie Does Dallas (with Bambi Woods). </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">How I know the names of the stars in the latter two movies is in no way germane to the issue. But, I should note that they surfaced only after serious scientific research. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I have only one question . . . who are these fucking clowns?</span></span><br /><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-75747982885499348662011-05-01T13:52:00.003-04:002011-05-01T14:02:15.503-04:00E-cigs a “tobacco product”; help or hindrance<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uRSFU12XPZ4/Tb2eHZFsnGI/AAAAAAAABHM/Y6IcmaLZhok/s1600/Not%2Bthe%2Breal%2Bthing.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uRSFU12XPZ4/Tb2eHZFsnGI/AAAAAAAABHM/Y6IcmaLZhok/s400/Not%2Bthe%2Breal%2Bthing.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5601807361349819490" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Anti-smoking activist Dr. Michael Siegel noted on his blog (The Rest of the Story) a few days back that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US has decided not to appeal a ruling by the DC Court of Appeal. That ruling declared that electronic cigarettes were to be regulated as tobacco products, rather than drug delivery devices; the drug, of course, being nicotine. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This could be good news for the hundreds of thousands of smokers who have successfully used the e-cig to cut back on their smoking habit or quit smoking altogether. Unfortunately, I believe it's premature to begin celebrating in the streets. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The reason for my (very) cautious optimism is that the FDA has yet to clarify how they will regulate this new “tobacco” product. And, it could be several years before FDA guidelines are actually put in place.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The pharmaceutical industry has invested heavily in anti-smoker campaigns intended to demonize tobacco in all its forms, as well as denormalizing and stigmatizing tobacco users. Their payoff has been increased sales (and the enhanced profits generated by those sales) of smoking cessation products; the nicotine patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers, etc. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">They will not take kindly to any competition which might jeopardize their return on those investments. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">And, while the FDA may have to justify any restrictions placed on the electronic cigarette, the anti-smoker zealots are under no such restraints. For example, they have already convinced legislators in several jurisdictions in the US, to include electronic cigarettes in their smoking bans. They have accomplished this objective despite the fact that there is little or no evidence of any deleterious effect whatever from using the e-cig. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">They oppose the device, not because of any real hazard associated with the it, but simply because it looks like users are smoking. And, of course, if smokers are permitted to substitute the e-cig for pharmaceutical nicotine, funding from the drug lords in the pharmaceutical industry</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> for their war on smokers</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> may not be as bountiful as it has been in the past.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">I noted in a previous post on the subject that one of the reasons the anti-smokers were unwilling to accept the electronic cigarette as a legitimate means of smoking cessation was that they hadn't yet figured out how to extort tax revenue from the users. And, since the zealots also depend on money extorted from smokers through sin taxes (and, in the US, the Master Settlement Agreement) to fund their war on smokers, that source of funding is also threatened.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">If smokers turn to the electronic cigarette in any great numbers, to cut back or quit, tobacco sales will decline thus adversely impacting tax revenue and consequently the finances of the anti-smoker cartel. With the electronic cigarettes now designated a “tobacco product”, the anti-smokers can press for sin taxes to be imposed on the sales of the devices, even though many anti-smoking advocates consider the e-cig a far less hazardous product than real tobacco cigarettes. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Another point to consider is the marketing methods used to generate sales of the e-cig. The product has been sold primarily through the internet with orders delivered through the mail. Mail orders sales of tobacco products have been severely restricted in recent years. And, some credit card companies have even refused to handle such transactions. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">This provides another opportunity for the zealots to delay the introduction of the e-cig into the open market. Of course, that may change if the e-cig is permitted to be sold through regular retail outlets..</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In Canada, a number of convenience stores have begun carrying a line of e-cigarettes. Unfortunately, the cartridges must remain nicotine free. Health Canada has restricted the sale of nicotine to a format and dosage consistent with the nicotine products sold by the (legal) drug industry. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">On a personal note, I invested in an e-cig about four months ago from a local convenience store. My original e-cig was confiscated by Customs and Excise Canada because the carts contained nicotine. But, even without the nicotine, I've managed to cut back from a pack and a half of native brand cigarettes a day to a large pack a week. And, no, I have no intention of quitting. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">My cardiologist is still screaming bloody murder, but I can live with that.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">It's unfortunate that Health Canada has elected to join forces with the anti-smoker crowd in their efforts to eradicate tobacco and those who choose to use it. They should focus more on reducing the harm tobacco allegedly causes although I don't see that happening any time soon.. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">Did I say unfortunate? That's an understatement. I consider what they're doing fucking criminal.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">In addition, retailers will not be permitted to promote the “theraputic” properties of the e-cig, or advertise the device as a less hazardous substitute for cigarettes, at least, not without the prior approval of the FDA. And, since that will not be acceptable to the anti-smoker crowd, FDA approval should not be expected anytime in the near future. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">The facts are that regulating the electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product may not be as beneficial as some people expect. Tobacco is, arguably, the most heavily regulated product in history, and it is definitely the most heavily taxed in most jurisdictions. Tobacco products, including reduced risk products such as the electronic cigarette and snus, are anathema to the zealots. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">So, there's one thing of which we can be sure; the anti-smoker fanatics will continue their vehement opposition to the electronic cigarette (and all other forms of harm reduction tobacco products). Because it's a “tobacco” product. Because it so closely resembles smoking. Because it represents a threat to their funding sources. Because it interferes with their overall objective.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: arial;">They're fanatics driven by an unhealthy obsession with eradicating tobacco and tobacco users, especially smokers. </span></span><br /><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-86656376428246409462011-04-27T00:04:00.004-04:002011-04-27T00:41:36.896-04:00Non-smoking bars lose business . . .<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IV0FFKEp4gE/TbeYbXrrEYI/AAAAAAAABHE/nt2xgNjSP5w/s1600/lies%2Bof%2Bantismokers.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 269px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IV0FFKEp4gE/TbeYbXrrEYI/AAAAAAAABHE/nt2xgNjSP5w/s400/lies%2Bof%2Bantismokers.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5600112257639584130" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Anti-smoker zealots have persuaded gullible politicians that smoking bans are needed to protect the public from the hazards of secondhand smoke; hazards which may, but most likely do not, exist. They have convinced legislators that no economic damage would ensue from the implementation of smoking bans, that there would be no additional costs to society for enforcement and that there would be no political fallout because the majority supported the imposition of smoking bans and other punitive action against smokers.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, anti-smoker zealots have been known to stretch the truth. Hell, they've even been known to flat out lie.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Public nudity, like smoking, is frowned upon. But, those who find that activity pleasurable are accommodated. They can join a nudist camp where they can socialize with like-minded individuals. Strip clubs, open to the public, cater to those with more prurient interests. Those who find such activity offensive can choose not to be exposed through the simple expedient of not attending such facilities.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">No such accommodation is afforded smokers.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Through the legal device of the smoking ban, ordinary citizens have been turned into lawbreakers as they seek to avoid the punishment meted out for publicly engaging in what is an otherwise legal activity. Or, in the case of bar owners and their staff, the penalties imposed for allowing their clientele to engage in a legal activity.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">At any rate, Sheriff Todd Nehls wants the <a href="http://www.fdlreporter.com/comments/article/20110425/FON0101/110424005/Non-compliance-smoking-ban-create-rivalry-among-tavern-owners">lawbreakers out of Dodge</a>. And the lawbreakers he's most interested in are the bar owners and bartenders who allow patrons to smoke in their establishment.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">According to Nehls, blatant disregard of the statewide smoking ban will no longer be tolerated in the taverns of Dodge County, Wisconsin. He's ordered his deputies to make unannounced bar checks to catch the culprits and issue citations, thus turning the Dodge County Sheriff's Department into the Dodge County Bureau of Smoker Harassment.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The Wisconsin smoking ban, like most such bans, was to be self-policing. That is to say the bar owners and their staff were to be pressed into service as unofficial “smoke police”, without remuneration and with no clear direction as to how they were expected to carry out the responsibilities with which they were charged. Questions of liability, in almost all cases, have been completely ignored.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">For example, if a police officer or other law enforcement official is injured in the line of duty, he or she is provided with a pension and health care coverage. But, will the same coverage be extended to the 130 pound waitress who is injured in an altercation with an uncooperative patron who defiantly lights up despite the proliferation of no smoking signs and the absence of ashtrays?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Will the state, which has unilaterally imposed the responsibility for law enforcement functions on bar owners and their staff, provide similar compensation if those civilians are injured carrying out the duties imposed on them by the state?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Who will be liable if a patron is seriously injured in an altercation with over zealous bar staff who attempt to eject uncooperative clientele? Will the state absolve bartenders and wait staff of any liability if they are sued for assault or use of excessive force?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Remember, this obligation to enforce a state law is being imposed on civilians, without their consent, without compensation of any kind and with no training in proper police procedure or law enforcement. Bar owners and bar staff are expected to comply with the law or be subjected to financial penalties without defining what compliance, for any practical purposes, actually means.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Is it enough to remove ashtrays and post signs? To orally inform patrons that lighting up on the premises is illegal? Are they required to stop serving uncooperative clientele? Should they call the police?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Bar owners are faced with a simple ultimatum: stop your clientele from smoking in your establishment or be penalized.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">According to Sheriff Nehls:<span style="font-style: italic;"> “We now have this rivalry of bar owners turning in other bar owners. That’s what the fight is about now. You’re either a business that complies with the law and has no business as a result or you’re breaking the law to get more business. And we’re going to bring that to an end.”</span> Huh? They have no business as a result of enforcing the smoking ban?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">That's an open admission that smoking bans do adversely affect the bottom line; that given a choice, smokers will choose to patronize bars which allow smoking. Non-smoking custom could likewise be free to patronize bars which prohibit smoking. Those who choose not to be exposed to secondhand smoke need never enter the doors of an establishment which allows smoking.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, if the bars which adhere to the law are losing business to those which don't, then the the anti-smoker argument that most bar patrons prefer a non-smoking environment is a demonstrable lie. Otherwise, those establishments which ignore the smoking ban would be losing business to the smoke free venues.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Prohibition, by whatever name, has been shown to be counter-productive. The prohibition of alcohol in the US from 1920 through 1933 did not eradicate drinking. Prohibition, smoking bans. A rose by any other name.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Perhaps it's fitting to give the last word to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a staunch supporter of prohibition: <span style="font-style: italic;">“When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”</span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Uh-huh.</span></span><br /><br /></div><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></span>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-80475674171118574722011-04-20T22:55:00.003-04:002011-04-20T23:05:05.924-04:00Government profits from kids smoking<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eUuGNgtwodk/Ta-c4k9UUGI/AAAAAAAABG0/gHJznOy5--I/s1600/government%2Bprofits.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 254px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eUuGNgtwodk/Ta-c4k9UUGI/AAAAAAAABG0/gHJznOy5--I/s400/government%2Bprofits.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5597865357652283490" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The Spanish flu was a pandemic which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people as it swept around the world in 1918/1919. In a few short years, the death toll in Canada alone was estimated at 50,000. It is considered one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The anti-smoker zealots claim there are 37,000 tobacco related deaths each and every year in Canada. If those numbers are believed, then the death toll from tobacco far exceeds the estimates of death due to Spanish flu. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, the government response to this purported mayhem? Tax the victims into extinction and sue the pants off those allegedly distributing the virus while allowing the body count to climb. Uh-huh.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Newfoundland is one of those Canadian provinces that passed “enabling” legislation in anticipation of a lawsuit against the country's tobacco companies. The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, passed by the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly in 2001, paved the way for legal action against the tobacco companies to recover the the health care costs the government asserts were incurred in the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">This “enabling” legislation allows the province to sue the tobacco companies directly. It also allows the province to dictate the rules of procedure, including the rules of evidence, to be followed by the (provincially appointed) courts where the case will be tried. Enabling legislation, however, should not be seen as an attempt to stack the deck in favour of the government. Although there are clearly advantages to having the dealer on your side, Newfoundland was merely following the lead of other provinces and providing the house with a slight edge. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In February of 2011, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced it was prepared to proceed with the lawsuit. And, although they haven't specified how much money they're seeking in the statement of claim, it is expected to be a billion dollar lawsuit. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, that makes it difficult to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the government's action. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">According to Physicians for a Smokefree Canada (PSY), Newfoundland spent roughly $95 Million on direct health care costs in 2006. In the same time frame, 2005/2006, they confiscated $116 million in tobacco taxes from the province's smokers, not including sales taxes. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The fact is that Newfoundland's tobacco consumers have already reimbursed the province for direct health-care costs, allegedly incurred due to tobacco use, on an annual basis. And, the same situation holds true for every other province in Canada. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">On a nation wide basis, the combined provincial and federal revenue from sin taxes on tobacco was $7.09 billion in 2005/2006 (excluding provincial sales taxes and goods and services tax). Physicians for a Smokefree Canada estimates nationwide direct health care costs attributed to smoking at $4.35 billion in 2006. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Any way you look at it, in Newfoundland and in every other jurisdiction in the country, Canada's tobacco consumers are paying more than their share of health care costs. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, you're not likely to learn that from newspaper or magazine articles on smoking. Most such articles, coming as they do from the main stream media, follow the “party line” of the anti-smoker zealots; portraying smokers as a financial burden on the health care system. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, there seems to be another popular misconception among members of the general public; the belief that “smoking related” diseases are exclusive to smokers. For example; <span style="font-style: italic;">“I think the decision to smoke tobacco is the choice of each person, and the province should no longer foot the bill for smoking related illnesses. Then in turn, no lawsuit would be necessary.” </span></span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In fact, there is no such thing as a smoking related disease which can only be caused by smoking. Ischemic heart disease is referred to as a smoking related disease although only about 13% of the 40,000+ deaths annually are attributed to smoking. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">So what the writer is actually proposing is that “the province should no longer foot the bill” for smokers, despite the massive amounts of revenue they contribute to government coffers. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">While browsing through the “fact sheets” on the PSY website to check my figures, I came across another interesting tidbit; one to which I hadn't really given much thought. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The anti-smoker zealots are constantly berating the tobacco companies for marketing their product to children. And, that may or may not be the case. I suspect that claim, like most of the propaganda provided by the zealots, is something of an exaggeration. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But has it crossed anyone's mind that governments also profit from the sale of cigarettes to school-age children; that they make many times the profit from that demographic than the tobacco companies. Uh-huh. Someone at Physicians for a Smokefree Canada has taken the time to calculate the dollar amount spent by "school-age children" on tobacco.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:arial;">“Based on Health Canada’s estimate that tobacco companies make $4.43 in profit on each carton of cigarettes sold, and that retailers make $3 on each carton of cigarettes sold, industry revenues that result from young Canadians smoking totals $14 million per year, or more than $50 per school-aged smoker.”</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The kicker: <span style="font-style: italic;">“Provincial and federal governments collectively receive $83 million a year in revenue from</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" > tobacco taxes on cigarettes smoked by young Canadians, representing about $380 for each</span></span><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-family:arial;"> of the 220,000 young Canadian smokers identified in the survey.”</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, incidentally, PSY estimates that only 10% of the cigarettes smoked by the “young people” in their survey came from First Nations “contraband”. </span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Imagine?</span></span><br /></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-55817081591585648362011-04-11T16:54:00.003-04:002011-04-16T10:02:23.268-04:00First Nations: Scapegoats for flawed tax policy<div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7J1fwts0OTI/TaNrKPLoopI/AAAAAAAABGs/jC8NO0w0lvw/s1600/1%2Ba%2B2%2Ba%2Bproblem%2Bwith%2Bnations.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 250px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7J1fwts0OTI/TaNrKPLoopI/AAAAAAAABGs/jC8NO0w0lvw/s400/1%2Ba%2B2%2Ba%2Bproblem%2Bwith%2Bnations.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5594432985742484114" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:100%;">More whining from those who want to blame others for the consequences of badly flawed tax policy initiated at the insistence of anti-smoker zealots for the sole purpose of persecuting smokers.<br /><br />Michel Gadbois is senior vice-president of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association. And, Gadbois believes that tobacco taxes are unjustly punishing law-abiding, taxpaying tobacco retailers, because the punitive sin taxes are driving business away from the members of his association.<br /><br />He's right, of course; at least in part. But, extortionate sin taxes on tobacco are really intended to punish law-abiding, taxpaying tobacco users . . . smokers, in other words. Unfortunately, convenience store owners and other tobacco retailers have become collateral damage in the anti-smoker crusade to eradicate smokers and all things related to tobacco.<br /><br />It's no secret that convenience stores, especially the smaller, independently owned corner stores, are highly reliant on sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products to generate adequate levels of income to remain in business. And, as sin taxes on tobacco soar, more and more smokers are turning to unregulated, untaxed product from other sources. In Canada, that means tobacco products manufactured on, or distributed through, First Nations reserves.<br /><br />According to an article written by Gadbois, and published in <a href="http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/time%20snuff%20contraband%20cigarettes/4589795/story.html">the Calgary Herald</a> contraband tobacco sales have “devastated the convenience store industry” forcing more than 2,300 corner stores, mostly in Ontario and Quebec, to close over the last year. In addition, claims Gadbois, illegal sales were the cause of more than $2 billion in lost tax revenue in 2009.<br /><br />Gadbois warns of a similar fate befalling convenience store operators in Alberta and other provinces if sales of untaxed tobacco products are allowed to continue. “Alberta and the other western provinces will face the same fate if this activity goes unpunished.”<br /><br />The recent seizure of cigarettes from the Montana First Nations in Alberta is a<span style="font-style: italic;"> “step in the right direction”</span>, claims Gadbois, but fails to resolve the issue. More drastic action is required. He seems particularly chagrined that the manufacturer (Rainbow Tobacco) and the band chief of the Montana First Nations have initiated legal action and are seeking redress through the courts for what they consider an illegal seizure by provincial authorities in Alberta.<br /><br />So, he wants Ottawa and the provinces to declare war on Canada's First Nations. He wants them punished in the mistaken belief that this will stop the flow of contraband and save thousands of convenience stores which rely on “legal” tobacco sales for substantial portions of their income.<br /><br />Gadbois concludes his whine saying: <span style="font-style: italic;">“Look for leadership among those who recognize the problem and intend to extinguish the contraband trade once and for all.”</span><br /><br />Obviously, Gadbois is not among those who “recognize the problem”.<br /><br />The problem originates, not with the manufacture and sale of untaxed contraband, but with the usurious levels of sin taxes intended to force smokers to give up the habit. Contraband tobacco is merely a response to those punitive levels of taxation.<br /><br />Canada's First Nations did not create the demand for cheap tobacco; demand was created by government's insistence on treating smokers like cash cows to be milked whenever they needed an unsympathetic source from which to extort additional revenue. The trade in contraband flourishes because smokers, in ever increasing numbers, are fed up with the constant tugging at their teats.<br /><br />The fact is that the “man in the van” has followed the imposition of excessive sin taxes, meant to punish smokers and control their behaviour, wherever that particular brand of extortion has been introduced. It's a global phenomenon.<br /><br />It's the glaring disparity between the cost of production and the legal selling price of a pack of smokes (roughly 80% of which is tax in one form or another) which represents the massive profits available to those engaged in the contraband trade. And the greater the disparity, the greater the potential for profit.<br /><br />A confrontation with Canada's First Nations will not <span style="font-style: italic;">“extinguish the contraband trade once and for all”</span>. With the kind of profits to be made from this government folly, there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take up the slack and reap the rewards inherent in what is a flawed and ill advised public policy.<br /><br />Canada's First Nations simply make a convenient scapegoat for the problems created by anti-smoker venom.<br /></span></div></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-16662737073163642742011-04-06T15:40:00.006-04:002011-04-07T00:20:16.829-04:00Bans - kids playing, happy meals and fruitcakes<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bxsNWn2Ed1M/TZzCrZPuklI/AAAAAAAABGk/iKDLuI1bZDo/s1600/1%2Ba%2B2%2Ba%2Bhomocide.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 253px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bxsNWn2Ed1M/TZzCrZPuklI/AAAAAAAABGk/iKDLuI1bZDo/s400/1%2Ba%2B2%2Ba%2Bhomocide.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5592558888054329938" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">At first glance, it appeared it might be an April Fool's Day gag. But, then again . . .</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The headline certainly sounds pretty ominous, not to mention a little silly: “HOA Wants Kids Banned From Playing Outside”. Uh-huh. A Florida homeowners association is going to vote on a proposal to ban children from playing outside.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">According to an online article from <a href="http://www.news4jax.com/news/27406602/detail.html"> News4Jax</a>, a Jacksonville news outlet, the proposal states that "minor children will be under the direct control of a responsible adult at all times." No more sending little Johnny out to play, without Mommy and Daddy.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The proposal would also ban the game of tag, skateboarding, Big Wheels and “loud or obnoxious toys” on "common property," presumably whether there was an adult present or not.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The board of the homeowners association claims the proposals are all about child safety. The complex of 48 townhomes has no playground for the children and they have little space to play other than the parking lot. Of course, if it's about child safety, why do they specifically propose to ban “loud or obnoxious” toys?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">But then, this is how it always starts. First, it's a ban on kids playing in public, then it's a ban on kids playing in the parks, or maybe even in the privacy of their own homes. And, eventually, they'll progress to the final solution, a ban on heterosexual sex. No sex, no kids . . . no problem.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">They're banning all kinds of things these days, for the good of the children, of course.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In November of last year, San Francisco banned toys included with Mac Donald's Happy Meals. The city's Board of Supervisors wanted to protect the kids from turning themselves into chubby little cretins and contributing to the obesity “epidemic” which is apparently sweeping America. But, just how many calories can there be in a plastic figurine of Ronald Mac Donald or Hamburglar?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, I wonder, do burgers and fries from Wendy's, or the A&W, represent a lesser degree of risk to children's health because they don't come with toys?</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">In the US, they're getting so ban happy, they're even trying to ban bans. Uh-huh. OK, to be more accurate, they're banning some bans.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The Arizona legislature recently passed legislation to ban cities or counties in that state from banning any kind of incentive offered by restaurants, including toys, contests, coupons, trading cards, coloring books, admission tickets, ride tokens and crayons.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Apparently, Arizona's politicians don't want anyone stupidly banning toys in . . . er, with? happy meals and, by extension, making them look stupid. Of course, the powerful and corrupt junk food lobby may be pressuring Arizona's lawmakers so they can continue to addict kids to their deadly junk food fare.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, then there's smoking. Smokers have been banned from lighting up in public places, private places, outdoor places and imaginary places. No, Virginia, the world of Pandora, the setting of the movie Avatar, is not a real place. But then, the Na'vi aren't trying to ban smoking. It's the anti-smoker zealots in the real world who are trying to ban smoking in the imaginary world of the movies.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">OK. So maybe the anti-smoker zealots have no connection to the the real world. They live in an Alice In Wonderland World, which, like Pandora, is an imaginary world. Unfortunately, they're trying to ban smoking everywhere in the real world, as well as their imaginary world. They want all worlds for themselves, the greedy bastards.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">And, I wonder which world <a href="http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/032911-smoking-rage-doctor-charged-in-car-attack?CMP=201103_emailshare"> the homicidal healer</a> hails from; you know, the doctor from Dallas who delights in running down smokers. I kid you not.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">Apparently, a Dallas psychopath, euphemistically referred to as a physician, was unhappy with the rate at which smokers were (allegedly) killing themselves and decided to help one smoker give up his unhealthy habit. Unfortunately, the doctor's treatment included ending another unhealthy habit, most often referred to as breathing, by running the smoker over with his car.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">The 54-year-old doctor, Jeffrey Reed Thompson, is free on $5,000 bail after being charged with aggravated assault with a vehicle. It is only a rumour that Thompson plans to enter a plea of self defense, claiming the smoker was jeopardizing the health of his two door Mercedes by blowing secondhand smoke on it's windshield.</span></span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:arial;">I really hate to jump on the ban bandwagon, but maybe it's time for a ban on anti-smokers passing themselves off as sane, rational people.</span> </span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-4194744178169010552011-03-31T11:27:00.003-04:002011-03-31T15:17:24.621-04:00Should we be grateful for anti-smoker abuse?<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dDUbVFFxBhs/TZSdmw_u6KI/AAAAAAAABGc/JSX1RtLPHsU/s1600/a%2Bhelping%2Bhand.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 400px; display: block; height: 293px;" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5590266326786435234" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dDUbVFFxBhs/TZSdmw_u6KI/AAAAAAAABGc/JSX1RtLPHsU/s400/a%2Bhelping%2Bhand.jpg" border="0" /></a> What do governments do when faced with crippling deficits and the need to either reduce spending or raise taxes? Well, they polish up the hobnails and put the boots to the sinners. Smokers are an exceptionally popular target these days.<br /><br />New Brunswick's Finance Minister, Blaine Higgs, is trying to persuade smokers in that province they shouldn’t turn to the black market following a recent 45% increase in provincial tobacco taxes. Last week, the debt ridden province raised the level of legalized extortion on a carton of smokes from $23.40 per carton to $34.00 per carton. The government hopes to extort an additional $44 million annually from the province's smokers.<br /><br />The increase in provincial sin taxes will bring the price of a carton of cigarettes in New Brunswick to roughly $90.00, over 75% of which is tax imposed by one level of government or another. This is generating some concern that New Brunswick's smokers may take to buying contraband. Or, perhaps in the interests of accuracy, we should say there is concern that more smokers may switch their allegiance to contraband tobacco products.<br /><br />A Globe and Mail <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/atlantic/increased-tobacco-taxes-in-nb-expected-to-boost-black-market-trade/article1957514/%E2%80%9C">article</a> quotes Higgs: <em>“I’m asking all citizens to do their part. If they’re going to smoke, we’d like for them to pay taxes legally.”</em> Uh-huh. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />First they divide the population into opposing camps and endorse an anti-smoker campaign to denormalize the smaller of the two groups; smokers. Then they pass laws to drive smokers into social isolation, relegate them to the status of second class citizens, confiscate a substantial portion of their wealth, allow their paid mercenaries in the anti-smoker industry to encourage and promote discrimination against smokers, discrimination which would not be tolerated against any other identifiable minority . . . and they promote this unbridled hatred of smokers under the pretext of protecting public health.<br /><br />And, of course, smokers should be thankful for the punishment meted out by the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker and their altar boys at all levels of government. It's for their own good, after all.<br /><br />It's also fucking infuriating.<br /><br />Yes, they admit, punitive tax increases impose a serious financial burden on the poor. But if they're forced to choose between eating and buying cigarettes maybe some will be forced to give up the cigarettes. And, the zealots have pronounced that “good”, motivated as they are by their alleged concern for the welfare of smokers.(And, if you believe the anti-smoker zealots, or their political lapdogs, are really interested in the welfare of smokers, I still have some oceanfront property in the Alberta badlands for sale.) <br /><br />Of course, those feeling the financial pinch might just opt to take advantage of the $50 to $60 a carton savings available from making their tobacco purchases on the black market and apply those savings to their food budget.<br /><br />I made my choice years ago. I've been waging my own quiet protest against the tyranny of the anti-smoker zealots, saving thousands of dollars in the process and I haven't been bitten in the ass by a single terrorist.<br /><br />Go ahead. Ask me if I feel guilty. You silly fool.<br /><br />There's little doubt contraband cigarettes pose a growing problem across Canada. In Ontario, for example, it's estimated that somewhere between 40% to 50% of all tobacco sales are contraband. <br /><br />A few days before Higgs announced his latest round of confiscatory tobacco taxes, a 53 year old Bas-Caraquet (New Brunswick) woman was fined $55,000 after the Mounties executed a search warrant and found 520 cartons of contraband smokes believed to have been acquired somewhere “up the line” in Quebec or Ontario. Was the government trying to send a message?<br /><br />By some estimates, only between 3% and 10% of the underground trade gets stopped. But I think that may be something of an exaggeration. And, every time they increase sin taxes on tobacco, they increase the profit margin for those engaged in the underground economy.<br /><br />No. I do not consider bootlegging tobacco a criminal activity. The real criminals are the politicians in Ottawa, Queen's Park and other provincial capitals across Canada who view smokers as a cash cow.<br /><br />No apologies.</div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-61362201751009588832011-03-22T13:31:00.006-04:002011-03-22T14:02:15.563-04:00Odds and ends and anti-smoker rhetoric<div align="justify"><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9VxC3xGSp1o/TYjel7CpWWI/AAAAAAAABEM/mUuwp8kIO3c/s1600/1a%2B2a%2Bcouple%2Bsmokers.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586960080838416738" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 270px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9VxC3xGSp1o/TYjel7CpWWI/AAAAAAAABEM/mUuwp8kIO3c/s400/1a%2B2a%2Bcouple%2Bsmokers.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">Although I'm still working to fulfill other commitments, I figured I should take the time to write a post to let those who care know that I'm still alive and kicking. I should be back to writing blog entries on a regular basis in a week or so.<br /><br />With everything that's happening in Japan, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc., it's amazing how the anti-smoker zealots manage to maintain any level of press coverage. But, they do.<br /><br />According to an <a href="http://www.canada.com/health/Second+hand+smoke+increases+risk+breast+cancer+young+women/1526524/story.html">article</a> in the Windsor Star, an 11 member panel of experts has unanimously agreed that evidence now exists to link second-hand smoke to breast cancer. The article also notes, however, that: <em>“Studies on the possible relationship between cigarette smoke and breast cancer have been inconsistent, with some showing an increase in risk and others not.”</em><br /><br />The experts reached their conclusions after reviewing <em>“all available evidence”</em> from studies which showed no consistent results. And they call that science?<br /><br />One of the panelists, University of Toronto public health expert Dr. Anthony Miller, is quoted as saying: <em>"On average, it would be about a 50- to 70-per-cent increase in risk, depending on how much women smoke."</em> Such scientific precision.<br /><br />Of course, if studies linking active smoking and breast cancer show inconsistent results, one has to wonder how Miller can then claim that: <em>"Even moderate exposure to passive smoking, such as living or working with a smoker early in life, increases a woman's risk of breast cancer when she is in her 30s, 40s and 50s."</em> No 30 year latency period for breast cancer I suppose. Did they unanimously agree that passive smoking was more hazardous that active smoking?<br /><br />Or maybe it's just another example of anti-smoker bullshit and bafflegab?<br /><br />Everybody in Canada knows that smoking kills 37,000 Canadians a year, more than all deaths due to suicides, homicides, HIV and car accidents combined. That's a scary and often repeated statistic.<br /><br />But how's this for a statistic. IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease), excluding deaths attributed to smoking, kills more Canadians every year than smoking related deaths due to oropharyngeal cancer, oesophageal cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, laryngeal cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, urinary tract cancer, renal cell carcinoma, bladder cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, pulmonary circulatory disease, cardiac arrhythmias, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, pneumonia, influenza, fire related deaths and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease combined. Uh-huh.<br /><br />And, only about 30% of deaths from smoking related diseases are attributed to smoking.<br /><br />Aren't statistics fun?<br /><br />How about this one? Although the average life expectancy in Canada is roughly 80 years, less than 13% of the Canadian population had actually survived past 65 years of age when the last smoking attributable mortality tables were prepared based on 2002 data. Yet, roughly 70% of all deaths attributed to smoking occurred after the age of 65.<br /><br />Statistics may be fun, but growing old sure as hell isn't. Shit, I passed 65 almost two years ago. I could kick the bucket any day now. Maybe I should quit smoking. Just in case.<br /><br />Naw. Fuck it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/236007">In Scotland</a>, Professor Candace Currie, director of the child and adolescent research unit at Edinburgh University, claims drinking, drug use and smoking among schoolchildren has fallen to the lowest level in two decades. Says Currie: <em>“Some people have suggested the ban on smoking in public places supported this decline, as there are fewer people visibly smoking.”</em> Uh-huh.<br /><br />But, I wonder how a smoking ban which applies only to adults managed to cause a decline in underage drinking and cannabis use? Strange.<br /><br />And, I wonder how truthful the kids are when answering such surveys.<br /><br /><em>“Yes Miss. I swipes a couple fags from the old man's pack a Player's every day. An', every Friday me an' Frankie pools our money an' picks up a bottle a 999 from the bootlegger before heading out ta da dance at the Odd Fellows Hall.” </em><br /><br />Of course, maybe the kids are more honest today than when I was a kid. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2I65CLMuw-I/TYjdU_HS_lI/AAAAAAAABEE/dTXVWzbcAnA/s1600/1a%2B2a%2Bsex%2Btrade.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5586958690362261074" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 314px" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2I65CLMuw-I/TYjdU_HS_lI/AAAAAAAABEE/dTXVWzbcAnA/s400/1a%2B2a%2Bsex%2Btrade.jpg" border="0" /></a>On a slightly different topic, Joe Warmington in his column in the Toronto Sun today, quotes a Toronto City Councilor: <em>“It just makes no sense for this (the sex trade) to continue without the city capitalizing on the tax revenue from it . . . “</em> Uh-huh.<br /><br />Prostit . . . er, sex trade workers, like smokers, drinkers, gamblers, the overweight and the couch potatoes also need saving apparently.<br /><br />And, if the government can make a few bucks from regulating the "industry", and creating a safe working environment for the girls (and boys) peddling their as . . . er, services, then why not?<br /><br />After all, they do it for the smokers, drinkers, gamblers, the overweight and the couch potatoes. (Sometimes I wonder if anybody but we sinners are paying to keep the fucking government afloat.)<br /><br />At any rate, it seems there's a lot of money to be made saving sinners these days. </span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-33215883041944927322011-03-10T15:44:00.009-05:002011-03-10T16:30:10.429-05:00Candy flavoured smokes – here's the truth<div align="justify"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NurQYo-7fTs/TXk5tO57IYI/AAAAAAAABD8/XbPtmqtfE88/s1600/1a2%2Baharpo.jpg"><span style="font-family:arial;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582556662360383874" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 350px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NurQYo-7fTs/TXk5tO57IYI/AAAAAAAABD8/XbPtmqtfE88/s400/1a2%2Baharpo.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."</em><br />Albert Einstein<br /><br />Apologies for the lack of posts recently, but other commitments have been demanding a great deal of my time. Things should settle back to a more regular routine in the next few weeks.<br /><br />According to Canadian MP (Member of Parliament) and New Democratic Party health critic Megan Leslie. <em>"Health experts agree that flavoured tobacco [products] are consumed by young Canadians as a stepping stone to consuming non-flavoured tobacco products . . . these things target young people."</em> Uh-huh.<br /><br />The inference, of course, is that little cigars are being marketed to children, which is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Because, whether flavoured or not, little cigars and other tobacco products are not being marketed to children. In fact, it's against the law to sell tobacco products to anyone under 19 years of age.<br /><br />In most provinces in Canada, as in many other jurisdictions, 19 defines the age at which children legally become adults. And, that status allows them to sit in a bar and have a beer with friends who have also reached the age of majority. At 19, young adults can enter into legally binding contracts, serve in the Canadian Forces . . . and legally purchase tobacco products. It's quite legal for the kids of any age to lift a smoke from mom's purse and smoke it in front of the local high school.<br /><br />Ms. Leslie's euphemistic use of the term “young people” to infer that little cigars are being marketed to children is disingenuous at best. Bullshit and bafflegab at its political best.<br /><br />At any rate, Ms. Leslie has introduced a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/08/pol-flavoured-tobacco.html">private member's bill</a> to tighten the rules around the sale of flavoured little cigars.<br /><br />By “tightening the the rules”, Ms. Leslie is referring to a federal ban on the sale of flavoured little cigars, passed in October, 2009 by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The manufacturers of little cigars merely changed the product, altering the size slightly and removing the filters, to comply with the new law.<br /><br />But, the facts are that the bill approved by the Harper government was based on lie. And the bill recently introduced by Ms. Leslie is being sold to the public based on the same litany of lies.<br /><br /><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OadhpLDsI_U/TXk4pUcWLRI/AAAAAAAABDs/bgYFEz3CINA/s1600/1a2a%2Bharpo%2Bwrapper.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582555495615835410" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 146px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OadhpLDsI_U/TXk4pUcWLRI/AAAAAAAABDs/bgYFEz3CINA/s400/1a2a%2Bharpo%2Bwrapper.jpg" border="0" /></a>In announcing her bill, Ms. Leslie used a campaign slogan from a new anti-tobacco advocacy group, <em>“cancer shouldn't come in candy flavours”.</em> Catchy little shibboleth. <em>"It's marketing to kids,"</em> she said.<br /><br />But, let's look at the bill, and its intent, logically, without the emotionalism of the 'save the children' argument, to determine if the claim that these products are being marketed to children has any merit in the real world.<br /><br />With few exceptions, advertising of tobacco products is almost non-existent in Canada. No cigarette (or little cigar) commercials on TV or radio. No billboards on the lawn of the junior high school proclaiming the joys of smoking cherry flavoured little cigars. No tobacco sponsors of sporting events or rock concerts.<br /><br />You will, however, find lots of advertising for alcoholic beverages, especially beer, the perennial favourite of “young people” across Canada. In fact, I suspect many “young” Canadians are as familiar with some beer commercials as they are with the national anthem. There are even some young people who think a beer commercial is the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kpW5A_8kCc&feature=related">national anthem</a>.<br /><br />And, there's lots of advertising for drugs, especially smoking cessation products that carry a warning to consult a doctor immediately if you should start thinking about throwing yourself in front of a fast moving train. Of course, jumping in front of a fast moving train will likely guarantee that you'll kick the smoking habit and remain smoke free for the rest of your life. The downside is that the rest of your life may be limited to a few brief minutes.<br /><br />The point is, without advertising, it's pretty damn difficult to market anything to anybody.<br /><br />In September, 2008, Harper promoted his bill to ban candy flavoured little cigars by holding up colourfully packaged little cigars. <em>"These products are packaged as a candy, and this is totally unacceptable,"</em> Harper was quoted as saying. <em>"This can't continue."</em> Huh?<br /><br />What the fuck does it matter how products are packaged? It's <strong><em>illegal to sell tobacco products to children</em></strong>, no matter how pretty a package they come in. And, children are not likely to see the pretty packages at any rate.<br /><br />At the end of May, 2008, months prior to the passage of the bill banning flavoured cigars and their pretty packages, convenience stores and other retail outlets selling cigarettes and tobacco products were required to have those products hidden from view. Tobacco displays, referred to as "power walls" by anti-smoker zealots, had to be covered so that neither children nor adults are subjected to the sight of those ugly cancer sticks in the pretty packages.<br /><br /></span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDNBhFR7eQI/TXk4_2-M6jI/AAAAAAAABD0/TPuS3hhajDE/s1600/1a2a%2Bharpo%2Bdisplay.jpg"><span style="font-family:arial;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5582555882841762354" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 210px" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDNBhFR7eQI/TXk4_2-M6jI/AAAAAAAABD0/TPuS3hhajDE/s400/1a2a%2Bharpo%2Bdisplay.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">So the only time the children are exposed to the pretty candy-like packages is when some politician holds them up for the TV cameras to show the public how much the pretty packages look like candy wrappers. Unless, of course, the kids are digging the pretty packages out of the garbage when adult smokers are through with them.<br /><br /><em>"Despite the ban, you can still find flavoured cigarillos on store shelves today."</em> Leslie told the CBC. And, she's absolutely right.<br /><br />But, she forgot to mention that children can't see them; it's illegal. Children can't buy them; that's also illegal. So banning little cigars because they come in pretty packing which might appeal to children is just plain stupid. Because the only people permitted to see, or buy, the pretty fucking packages are adults.<br /><br />So, banning the legal sale of little cigars to adults, whether they come in pretty packages or not, will do nothing to prevent underage children from experimenting with tobacco products.<br /><br />Sometimes (often), it seems that the anti-smokers zealots are overly eager to prove Einstein's observation that human stupidity is infinite.<br /></span><p></p></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-37773497116097740372011-02-19T00:39:00.005-05:002011-02-19T08:35:47.368-05:00Helping smokers to an early grave with Champix<div align="justify"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqqOKnytyy8/TV9Ya9V8XGI/AAAAAAAABDk/bvgsu-q6584/s1600/1%2Ba%2B2%2Bdimanno.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5575272083874405474" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 241px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqqOKnytyy8/TV9Ya9V8XGI/AAAAAAAABDk/bvgsu-q6584/s400/1%2Ba%2B2%2Bdimanno.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">A <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/938172--ontario-may-pay-for-drugs-that-help-kick-nicotine-habit">recent article</a> in the Toronto Star claims the province is considering placing smoking cessation drug Champix (and possibly Zyban), on the list of drugs covered under OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Program).<br /><br />Diane McArthur, who runs the Ontario Public Drugs Programs Division of the Ontario Ministry of Health, confirms that an “expert advisory committee” has given the green light to the anti-smoking drug Champix and a study of Zyban, another smoking cessation drug, is already underway. The Drug Programs Division is responsible for making decisions on what drugs will be covered under the provincial health plan.<br /><br />It's estimated that covering the smoking cessation drugs under OHIP will cost Ontario taxpayers $20 million annually.<br /><br />NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products such as the patch, nicotine gum and lozenges, are not being considered for coverage under the health plan, but the Ministry of Health Propagan . . . er, Promotion announced recently that free nicotine replacement therapy would be available through family health teams to “help” up to 20,000 smokers over the next two years.<br /><br />At any rate, both Champix and Zyban are reported to have <a href="http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/2008/10/quit-smoking-permanently.html">serious side effects</a>, including depression and suicidal ideation.<br /><br />In June, 2008, Health Canada warned that Champix had caused <em>“unusual feelings of agitation, depressed mood, hostility, changes in behavior or impulsive or disturbing thoughts, such as ideas of self-harm or of harming others, in some users.”</em><br /><br />It should be noted that, among the thousands of lawsuits pending against the manufacturers of these drugs are hundreds of cases alleging actual suicides from the use of both Zyban and Champix.<br /><br />And, in addition to warnings from Health Canada, and the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned pilots and air traffic controllers from using Chantix, as Champix is known in the US. It has also been banned for use by commercial drivers.<br /><br />Of course, according to the anti-smoker cartel, which likes to depict smokers as social misfits with no redeeming qualities, the risk that a smoker might leap off a tall building or throw themselves in front of a fast moving train is perfectly acceptable. But then, to the anti-smoker zealots, any risk is apparently preferable to engaging in some vile, anti-social habit like smoking.<br /><br />God save us from those who want to save us from the evils of tobacco, even when faced with the possibility that they may be saving some of us right into an early grave.<br /><br />The Star article by Tanya Talaga was surprisingly even-handed; not at all what I'm used to from the main stream media, especially from the somewhat liberal-minded Toronto Star. There was no editorializing about the inflated body counts the zealots attribute to smoking. And, even the exaggerated health care costs associated with smoking were attributed to an unidentifiable “they”, as if the author wanted to disassociate herself from the highly suspect claim. <em>“Smoking costs the provincial health system $1.6 billion a year, <strong>they</strong> say.”<br /></em><br />But, what really surprised me was a column by Rosie DiManno the day following Talaga's article. <em>“The argument that smokers put undue strain on our health system has no traction with me, not until universal medical care is denied to piehole-stuffing fat people, the promiscuous, the bareback riders, the booze-hounds, the drug addicts and anyone else whose lifestyle choices put them at risk.”</em> Huh?<br /><br />What the fuck? This woman comes across like an unrepentant smoker. How did she get a pro-smoking column past the Star's cens . . . er, editors.<br /><br />Says Rosie: <em>“I’ll pass on the prescription meds, thanks — already have a drug cabinet full of those. But smokes are a one-size-fits-all antidote for what ails you: Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, obesity, mania, anorexia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and deadline freak-out-itis.” </em><br /><br />Shit. No doubt about it, the woman's got bal . . . er, backbone. And she seems even more pissed off at the extremists than I am. She's just more articulate than I am at expressing her displeasure. But then, that's why she gets paid the big bucks.<br /><br />The anti-smoker crowd will likely be calling for her head for some of her remarks.<br /><br /><em>“Lacking the gumption to make tobacco products utterly illegal yet ever greedy for the impost they collect off the top — which is why sensible people buy their darts from guys who come into the bar toting inventory from the Indian reservation free market — bureaucratic nico-Nazis, adjusting their halos of righteousness, have perfected the practice of suck-and-blow: Smoking bad, smokers’ money good.<br /><br />They know full well that we, the hounded constituency of tobacco-lovers, will continue to buy cigarettes, regardless of price. Thus, they can simultaneously take the high road — spending oodles on anti-smoking campaigns that have had negligible impact — and the low road, which is to exploit smokers as cash cow.<br /><br />It’s an endless circle that . . . (ooh, perfect smoke ring I’ve just exhaled here) . . . gives the illusion of efficacy, which, boosted (or not) by the tsunami of junk science smoking studies, justifies spending more money and constantly expanding the hobnailed anti-smoking brigades: $33.8 million lavished on cessation programs and research since 2005.”<br /></em><br />Wow. You go, girl. You can read Rosie's column <a href="http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/939429">here</a>. Smokers and pro-choice advocates will enjoy it.<br /><br />As for adherents of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker . . . well, who really gives a fuck?<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-6219004201765525482011-02-14T13:43:00.004-05:002011-02-14T14:06:33.874-05:00Expanding the “No Smokers Need Apply” policies<div align="justify"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yuzLQXmqYHM/TVl57GZF_3I/AAAAAAAABDc/yeCwitE12yE/s1600/1%2Ba2%2Bnonsmokers%2Bapply.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5573620070082805618" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 285px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yuzLQXmqYHM/TVl57GZF_3I/AAAAAAAABDc/yeCwitE12yE/s400/1%2Ba2%2Bnonsmokers%2Bapply.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">In my last post, I asked what additional deterrents [to curtail the smoking habit] would be considered acceptable by anti-smoker fanatics. And, the answer appears to be that there are no limits to the malicious mistreatment of the smoking community at which the zealots will balk.<br /><br />In his latest <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/02/franciscan-health-system-will-not-even.html">blog entry</a>, Dr Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, reports the latest outrage perpetrated against the smoking community. Siegel, a strong anti-smoking activist, says: <em>“. . . this policy has nothing to do with health. It is, instead, a policy based purely on ideology.”</em><br /><br />He's talking about <a href="http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/02/12/1541382/no-smoking-is-a-prerequisite.html#">an article </a>which appeared in the Saturday edition of the Tacoma (Washington) News Tribune bearing the headline : <strong><em>“Franciscan: Health system will no longer hire tobacco users.”</em></strong> According to the author, John Gillie, <em>"Tacoma’s Franciscan Health System is adding a qualification for prospective employees beginning next month: They must be tobacco-free.”</em><br /><br />But, both the headline and the opening remarks are deceptive and misleading.<br /><br />As it turns out, it is not just smokers who are to be barred from employment, but anyone who tests positive for cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, in a compulsory urine test. And, the source of the nicotine exposure doesn't matter to the anti-smoker health freaks at Franciscan.<br /><br />Since cotinine can be detected in even very small trace amounts, the draconian policy to be implemented on March 1, will bar employment even to those using NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products such as the patch or nicotine gum. The exposure can also result from use of smokeless tobacco products such as snus, or the electronic cigarette.<br /><br />But, even more incredibly, cotinine may also be present due to secondhand smoke exposure. So, if a job applicant lives with a smoker, or perhaps associates with smokers on a regular basis, he/she will find their application rejected.<br /><br />This is neither a misinterpretation, nor an exaggeration of the policy; it is a fact openly acknowledged on the <a href="http://www.fhshealth.org/jobsearch.aspx">Franciscan Health System website</a>: <em>“A positive test for nicotine, regardless of the source, will eliminate a job candidate from employment consideration.”</em><br /><br />The anti-smoker fanatics have gone from banning smoking on the job, to denying employment to smokers who smoke at home, and now they're prepared to dictate to smokers who may be trying to quit, and even non-smokers, with whom they may associate.<br /><br />Are non-smokers married to smokers expected to throw their spouses (or significant others) into the street before applying for employment with Franciscan? Should they tell lifelong friends who smoke to stay to fuck away, because they don't want to jeopardize their job prospects in the health care field?<br /><br />Do these perverted lunatics really intend to ban from employment, not just smokers, but anyone who condones smoking by associating with them?<br /><br />It's fucking outrageous.<br /><br />And, it's all perfectly legal. The News Tribune article, quoting an employment attorney, notes: <em>“Washington isn’t one of the 29 states that have passed legislation banning tobacco use as a hiring criteria. And it’s unlikely that a person rejected for employment because of tobacco use could successfully sue.”</em><br /><br />But, legal does not equate with moral. Unless, of course, you're an adherent of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker. As noted by Dr Siegel in his blog entry: <em>“Clearly, the policy is motivated instead by an ideology which demonizes nicotine, regardless of its source. This is a religious-like policy that has absolutely no public health basis.”<br /></em><br />Imagine. Even staunch anti-smoking advocates like Dr. Siegel can see past the dogmatic intolerance of these bigoted bastards at Franciscan.<br /><br />Lewis Maltby, author (<a href="http://www.cantheydothatbook.com/">Can They Do That</a>) and president of the National Workrights Institute, citing the slippery slope argument, told the New York Times: <em>“There is nothing unique about smoking. The number of things that we all do privately that have negative impact on our health is endless. If it’s not smoking, it’s beer. If it’s not beer, it’s cheeseburgers. And what about your sex life?”</em><br /><br />Franciscan spokesman Gale Robinette said Franciscan has no plans to go beyond tobacco use. But, if such is the case, one has to ask, “Why not?”<br /><br />If the Franciscan Health System really wants <em>“to encourage healthful living, to set a good example in the communities it serves, to improve employees’ health and to save money,”</em> how can they ignore job applicants with other unhealthy lifestyle behaviors or conditions such as obesity, the consumption of alcohol, unsafe sex, and lack of physical exercise?<br /><br />Why are these oppressive tactics directed exclusively at smokers?<br /><br />And, the only reason that similar tactics have not been directed at other groups is that the public has not been fully programmed to fear, and in turn, to hate other groups to the same degree as smokers. The denormalization of smokers is almost complete. The campaigns against the overweight and obese and drinkers are still in their infancy.<br /><br />May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their fucking armpits.<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-9026120387968380672011-02-13T19:17:00.003-05:002011-02-13T19:31:53.918-05:00Smokers need not apply<div align="justify"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_hO9TsOB9_U/TVh1Qtyb8mI/AAAAAAAABDU/FqLKuMXZbds/s1600/1%2Ba%2B2smokers%2Bnot%2Bapply.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5573333468900487778" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 285px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_hO9TsOB9_U/TVh1Qtyb8mI/AAAAAAAABDU/FqLKuMXZbds/s400/1%2Ba%2B2smokers%2Bnot%2Bapply.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">Last Thursday, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=2&hpw">published an article</a> which questioned the practice of refusing to hire smokers, even when they engaged in their habit off the job. The article, <em><strong>“Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban”</strong></em> by AG Sulzburger, points out that many employers, especially those in the medical profession, are adopting policies which exclude smokers from employment.<br /><br />But the “No Smokers Need Apply” policies are not restricted to new hires. In some instances, employers are demanding that smokers quit their habit or face the prospect of unemployment. In some cases, employers are demanding urine tests, intended to detect traces of nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, from those seeking employment and, in some cases, from those who may already be employed who want to keep their job.<br /><br />These employers, which include the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and a growing number of hospital and health care facilities, believe they have a right to dictate what activities employees may indulge in their free time.<br /><br />The anti-smoker zealots justify these gross intrusions into the personal lives of potential employees (and existing employees) by pointing out the need to <em>“increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.”<br /></em><br />The Times article insinuates that the shift from smoke-free workplaces to smoker free workplaces is a new phenomena. <em>“The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts — like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers — have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.”</em><br /><br />But, in fact, the uncompromising vindictiveness of the zealots has been characteristic of the euphemistically named “tobacco control” movement from the very beginning. They have carefully crafted a propaganda campaign which portrays smokers as social misfits - addicts, aggressively spreading their contagion to a non-smoking population and jeopardizing the lives of children.<br /><br />And, despite the fact that their war on smokers is built on a foundation of lies and scientific deception, their message of bigotry and intolerance seems to have taken root. The discriminatory tactics used to harass a significant smoking community (20% to 25% of the adult population), now appear acceptable in the larger community of non-smokers, judging from some of the comments to the Times article.<br /><br />For example, <em>“I'd LOSE IT if I found out that a smoker came anywhere near my newborn. I don't care if he or she washed hands. I don't even care if he or she was wearing a coat and then removed it. I don't want third-hand smoke near my infant's lungs. I'd love to give birth at a hospital with a no-smokers-employed-here policy.”<br /></em><br />Only someone suffering from some kind of anxiety disorder could write such drivel? An irrational fear of third hand smoke, no less.<br /><br />Another comment notes: <em>“As a physician, I have concluded that many people who continue to smoke – or start smoking – in spite of ostensibly knowing the risk, do so because they don’t have a tangible deterrent that is significant enough to motivate them otherwise. These new policies are significant – I hope they work!”</em><br /><br />Yes. That's all smokers need, a deterrent to force them to quit. But, how far are these anti-smoker fanatics willing to go?<br /><br />If the smoking bans don't work, if depriving smokers of a place to live is not sufficient deterrent, if refusing to provide medical coverage to those who continue to engage in that sinful habit doesn't force them to quit, if usurious levels of tobacco taxation haven't eliminated smoking, then what additional deterrents would be considered acceptable? Anti-smoker goon squads assaulting smokers? Compulsory electroshock therapy? Re-education camps?<br /><br />Comments agreeing with the “No Smoker” policy ignore, or dismiss outright, the slippery slope argument, claiming that smoking is not like any other lifestyle choice .Secondhand smoke, they claim, represents a health hazard to those exposed. Other lifestyle choices, like obesity, do not.<br /><br />But, what they fail to grasp, is that these policies are not being implemented to protect the health of other employees. The stated intent is to cut health care costs and increase productivity; to generate additional profit for employers. The "healthier living" angle is just a smokescreen to justify the unwarranted discrimination against smokers.<br /><br />And, if employers can save money by refusing to hire smokers, they can almost certainly save money by refusing to hire the overweight and obese, social drinkers and alcoholics alike, those engaging in unconventional sexual behaviour, and a host of other activities.<br /><br />Roughly two years ago, the Cleveland Clinic stopped hiring smokers. Clinic CEO, Dr. Delos Cosgrove told the New York Times that if he could he would choose not to hire obese people. Responding to criticism over his remark, Cosgrove said obesity represents a major social, economic and medical problem that should be given the same priority as efforts to curb tobacco use.<br /><br />No smoker policies are being promoted by anti-smoker zealots. That this insane experiment in social engineering is being led by health care professionals is nothing short of disgusting.<br /><br />But, smokers are merely the first target group. And anyone who believes otherwise should take their head out of their ass and give it a shake.<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-42855121894102921512011-02-08T00:02:00.005-05:002011-02-08T00:37:24.586-05:00Japan: next target of anti-smoker zealots?<div align="justify"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TVDP7rTBpAI/AAAAAAAABDM/d0xrVvQoEgc/s1600/1%2Ba2%2Bsmoking%2Bgirls.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571181363199058946" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 302px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TVDP7rTBpAI/AAAAAAAABDM/d0xrVvQoEgc/s400/1%2Ba2%2Bsmoking%2Bgirls.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">I was bouncing around on the net recently, not knowing where I was going or what I might find when I got there, when a headline in the sidebar of one site caught my eye: <strong><em>“<a href="http://thefastertimes.com/japan/2010/05/31/land-of-the-rising-smoke/#"> Will Japan Ever Have a Smoking Ban</a>”</em></strong> Following the link took me to a site called “The Faster Times.”<br /><br />According to its own promo, <em>“The Faster Times is an independent collective of journalists and writers who are looking to create a new model for the newspaper.”</em> It's an interesting concept.<br /><br />The author, Daniel Krieger, was praising those jurisdictions which had enacted smoking bans, and waxing eloquent about turning ashtrays into flower pots or some such. Reflecting on the virtues of smoking bans, and the apparent lack of same in Japan, prompted him to pose the question: <em>“So why is it that Japan, a country so advanced in so many ways, still hasn’t gotten its act together when it comes to meaningful tobacco laws?”</em><br /><br />By “meaningful tobacco laws”, Krieger obviously means the discriminatory anti-smoker laws, common in North America and Europe, which force smokers into social isolation, deny them employment, housing and would even deny appropriate health care. He appears to be somewhat chagrined with the more reasonable anti-smoking laws enacted thus far in Japan.<br /><br />Unlike North America and Europe, smoking is still permitted almost everywhere in Japan. And, although smoking has been restricted in some environments, designated smoking areas are usually available.<br /><br />And, while the anti-smoker zealots elsewhere are busily dictating how small business owners should run their business, Japan, for the time being, is content to allow them to make their own decisions on whether or not to impose smoking bans.<br /><br />Some big name global chains, Starbucks, for example, bans smoking in all its stores. McDonald's Japan plans to ban smoking at some of its stores and banned smoking at its 298 restaurants in Kanagawa prefecture in March, 2010. Kentucky Fried Chicken banned smoking at one branch in Shibuya, Tokyo in July, 2010. And, many independent restaurants and bars have opted to go smoke free.<br /><br />Most of the trains and subway platforms in Japan prohibit smoking, mostly because they are so crowded that it's simply impossible to light up safely. And, at least one prefecture, Chiyoda-ku, banned smoking while walking on crowded, busy streets in November, 2002. And, the last article I read on the subject suggested that less than 25% of hotel rooms were designated as non-smoking.<br /><br />The purchase and smoking of cigarettes is restricted to persons over the age of twenty, the age of majority in Japan. But there are no bans on the display of cigarettes or other tobacco products in retail outlets. Cigarettes can be bought in tobacco stores, convenience stores and vending machines, although purchase from the latter is only possible with a Taspo (tobacco passport) card which verifies the holder's age.<br /><br /><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TVDOxA8-R6I/AAAAAAAABDE/MADjFKfiMXw/s1600/1%2Ba2%2Bvending%2Bmachine.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5571180080521955234" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 332px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TVDOxA8-R6I/AAAAAAAABDE/MADjFKfiMXw/s400/1%2Ba2%2Bvending%2Bmachine.jpg" border="0" /></a> Just as a curiosity, it was estimated in 2006, that Japan had over <a href="http://www.curiousread.com/2008/11/weird-vending-machines-in-japan-pics.html">500,000 cigarette vending machines</a>. But, it should be noted that almost anything in Japan can be purchased from a vending machine, including beer and alcohol.<br /><br />But, comparatively speaking, there are few anti-smoking laws and none as restrictive, or discriminatory, as the anti-smoker laws found in North America and Europe.<br /><br />So, what's behind Japan's more liberal attitude to smoking and smokers?<br /><br />The first thing that has to be recognized is that the smoking prevalence rate in Japan, although declining, is still among the highest in the world. In 1966, it was estimated that over 83% of Japanese men smoked, and the latest figures suggest that slightly over 36% of men continue to enjoy the habit. Smoking prevalence among women is quite low, somewhere between 9% and 15%, depending on who's quoting the figures.<br /><br />In addition, the <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/285/20/2643.abstract">most recent study</a> I've found on the subject, Ohida et al, 2001, notes that: <em>“The prevalence of cigarette smoking among physicians was 27.1% for men and 6.8% for women.”</em><br /><br />The second point that has to be considered is that the anti-smoker crusaders have yet to infiltrate the government to any great extent, perhaps due to the very high smoking rates which, undoubtedly, includes a number of politicians. And, without the full support of the government, financially and otherwise, anti-smoker propaganda campaigns become largely ineffective.<br /><br />The most commonly cited reason for the failure of anti-smoker crusaders to win the support of government, is the role government (and politicians) play in the industry. Until 1985, the tobacco industry was a government-run monopoly. And, they are still heavily involved in the industry, with the Ministry of Finance controlling just over 50 percent of Japan Tobacco, the world's third largest tobacco company.<br /><br />However, the anti-smoker group, the Japan Society for Tobacco Control, is working hard to change Japan's image as a smoker's haven. Their goal is to “educate” the public about the dangers of smoking, coerce smokers into quitting, and pressure politicians to implement smoking bans to “protect” non-smokers from the (largely non-existent) hazards of secondhand smoke.<br /><br />Dr. Manabu Sakuta, head honcho of the Japanese anti-smoker group, following typical anti-smoker rhetoric, paints all those opposed to his group's efforts to de-normalize smokers as allies of the tobacco industry: <em>“Japan Tobacco uses their in-pocket famous doctors, Diet members (Japanese legislature), Ministry of Finance bureaucrats, mass media, and even ordinary smokers”</em> to work toward stifling regulation.<br /><br />Shit. Everybody but Sakuta and his anti-smoker bunch is on the payroll of Japan tobacco. Including the mass media.<br /><br />Which brings us to the third reason for the more tolerant attitude towards smokers and smoking in Japan. Unlike North America and Europe, the anti-smoker crusaders do not have control of, and are therefore unable to censor, the mass media . . . at least not yet.<br /><br />Krieger notes in his article: <em>“Although Japan Tobacco insists the solution lies in harmonious separation between smoking and non-smoking areas, Sakuta feels that a strictly enforced ban along the lines of New York or London is the only way to go.”</em> In other words, why use a conciliatory approach to the smoking issue when you can easily resolve the problem by battering smokers upside the head with a sledge hammer?<br /><br />Sakuta and his Japan Society for Tobacco Control and <em>“its members that number in the thousands”</em> want to dictate public policy on smoking issues to Japan's population of 127 million. They may face an uphill battle, but then again . . .<br /><br />Did you know that Japanese lawmakers set a maximum allowable waistline size for anyone age 40 and older? And, Japan has one of the world’s lowest rates of obesity - less than 5 percent, compared to nearly 35 percent for the United States.<br /><br />Shit. Maybe they were just giving their obesity epidemic priority.<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-11366246914823211022011-02-03T11:11:00.006-05:002011-02-03T11:43:53.118-05:00SHS: little white lies or scientific fraud<div align="justify"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrU2BdFWAI/AAAAAAAABC8/9ZYEh45Y9YI/s1600/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard%2B3.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5569497913765484546" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 260px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrU2BdFWAI/AAAAAAAABC8/9ZYEh45Y9YI/s400/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard%2B3.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">A report prepared by a European group called the Smoke Free Partnership, completed in 2006, examined mortality allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in 25 nation states of the European Union. The report, titled <strong><em>“Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for going smokefree”,</em></strong> concluded that <em>“Second-hand smoke exposure kills and harms health”</em>, noting that <em>“Every worker has the right to be protected from exposure to tobacco smoke”.</em><br /><br />The conclusions, of course, were not unexpected. The report was intended to convince politicians and policymakers in individual states in the European Union to commit to comprehensive smoking bans and other smoke free policies. And, the EU report was indeed used to justify the smoking bans recently imposed throughout Europe, including the ban implemented in France.<br /><br />For years, anti-smoker zealots have used the “threat” of secondhand smoke to support the need for smoking bans in the workplace, including restaurants and bars.<br /><br />Mortality statistics, deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke, are frequently quoted in anti-smoker propaganda released through the main stream media. As often as not, the news stories appear to be written directly from the press releases issuing forth from the fanatics in the anti-smoker movement. The extravagant, often outrageous, claims made by the zealots are seldom challenged by the media.<br /><br />Robert Molimard is professor emeritus of physiology and coordinator of the DIU of Tabacologie to the Faculty of Medicine Paris-South in France. A renowned tobacco researcher (tabacologist), Molimard took note of some discrepancies in the report which highlighted the number of deaths in France attributed to passive smoking.<br /><br />Of particular concern to Professor Molimard were two tables presented in “Lifting the smokescreen”. The first asserted that there was a total of exactly 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in France in 2002. (identified as Table 6 in the report)<br /><br /></span><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrUOYjmgjI/AAAAAAAABCs/ZykNMmABh7g/s1600/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard.jpg"><span style="font-family:arial;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5569497232772071986" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 200px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrUOYjmgjI/AAAAAAAABCs/ZykNMmABh7g/s400/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">That's the figure most often used by anti-smoker zealots and their allies in the media, often rounded off to 5,000 or 6,000 passive smoking deaths. And, the inference is that these passive smoking deaths are among those who have never smoked.<br /><br />However, Professor Molimard was quick to see the subterfuge; that the majority of those deaths occurred among smokers. <em>“But what do we see when we revisit this study? We see that these 5,863 deaths include a majority of smokers!”</em> he maintained in one interview. Uh-huh. Smokers are killing themselves with their own secondhand smoke, apparently after first having killed themselves by smoking. Or, perhaps they were killed by smoking after having already being killed by secondhand smoke.<br /><br />At any rate, it's this frightening distortion of reality which clearly demonstrates the extent of the deceit perpetrated by the extremists.<br /><br />This grossly inflated statistic points out another deception of the zealots. Looking at the chart we can see that, of those 5,863 deaths, it's apparent that only 314 of the alleged deaths occurred in the workplace, and only 25 in the hospitality sector.<br /><br />But, there's more to the deception. Table 7 in the report estimates that deaths attributable to passive smoking among non-smokers is only 1,114, of which only 113 are allegedly due to passive smoking in the workplace. And, only six of those are ascribed to the hospitality sector.<br /><br /></span><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrUkFxWrRI/AAAAAAAABC0/EFfN_0pF-qE/s1600/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard%2B2.jpg"><span style="font-family:arial;"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5569497605686603026" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 189px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUrUkFxWrRI/AAAAAAAABC0/EFfN_0pF-qE/s400/1%2Ba%2Bmolimard%2B2.jpg" border="0" /></span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">But, the deception doesn't stop there. As noted by Professor Molimard: <em>“And since ex-smokers represent approximately 40% of people who don’t smoke -- 48% and 52% [of non-smokers] are never smokers -- we then realize that the number of true non-smokers, who have never smoked, who will have a risk because of passive smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, discotheques, these places where it is absolutely imperative to stop smoking because of the risks to the staff -- estimated using a scoop as a measuring tool -- is 2. ”</em> Uh-huh.<br /><br />So, the passive smoking deaths, as estimated in the EU report, included both smokers and former smokers. In addition, the vast majority, 5,574 of the 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke in the workplace, occurred not in the workplace, but from exposure in the home environment. Incredibly, only six were attributed in the hospitality sector. And, rough calculations by Professor Molimard suggest that fewer than half of those were never smokers.<br /><br />France is a country of roughly 62 million people, with a smoking prevalence rate of between 21% to 27%, depending on who's quoting the figures. Yet, the anti-smoker zealots managed to convince their politicians that extremely restrictive anti-smoker legislation, which focused primarily on bars and restaurants, was needed to protect workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.<br /><br />It's difficult to determine who is most at fault, the anti-smoker zealots who manufacture these fraudulent statistics to support their utopian goal of a smoker free society, or the brain dead politicians who blindly accept them without question.<br /><br />And, the misrepresentation is not limited to France or the European Union.<br /><br />It is a scenario being played out throughout the developed world. The economic costs, the loss in revenues experienced by restaurants, night clubs, bars, etc., occasioned by smoking bans, is ignored. The loss of jobs in the hospitality industry is ignored. The stigmatization of smokers, their social exclusion, and the blatant discrimination directed at them, is routinely ignored.<br /><br />In France Professor Molimard, an anti-smoking advocate, is publicly trying to bring the deception to an end. But, as he notes in his interview: <em>“My chances of success are very limited. “</em><br /><br />And, he has a point - as long as the lies and deceit of the anti-smoker zealots go unchallenged in the main stream media, whether it's in France, the US, Canada, Great Britain or elsewhere around the world.<br /><br /><br /><strong><em>Notes:<br /></em></strong>The English version of </span><a href="http://cagecanada.homestead.com/CorporateShenanigans.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">an interview with Professor Molimard</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, translated by Iro Cyr, is available on the CAGE (Canadians Against Government Encroachment) website. The charts used in this blog entry came from the CAGE blog.<br /><br />There's also a a second article by Molimard, discussing the same subject matter, on the CAGE blog. </span><a href="http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html"><span style="font-family:arial;">Beliefs, Manipulation and lies in the Tobacco Issue</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"><br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-88624896971059674772011-01-30T15:13:00.003-05:002011-01-30T15:21:39.979-05:00The quit or die tactics of anti-smoker extremists<div align="justify"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUXIFBf4MrI/AAAAAAAABCg/SKb5US3TP5c/s1600/no%2Bsmoking%2Bnazi%2Bdoctor.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5568076502940529330" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 246px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUXIFBf4MrI/AAAAAAAABCg/SKb5US3TP5c/s400/no%2Bsmoking%2Bnazi%2Bdoctor.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">The state of New York is currently considering legislation which would ban e-cigs in that state, <em>“until the FDA approves electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device.”</em> Unfortunately, in December 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA could not regulate e-cigarettes as drugs or devices. The ruling dictated that e-cigs must be regulated as tobacco products.<br /><br />So, why do politicians and anti-smoker organizations want to deny smokers alternatives that could save lives? After all, these people claim the war on smokers is being waged to protect the public health. Shouldn't they be welcoming every opportunity to reduce the health risks associated with smoking, rather than confining their activities to the complete elimination of tobacco use in any form?<br /><br />Tobacco harm reduction (THR) is a concept based on the reality that smoking is unlikely to be eliminated any time in the near future. Even the prohibition of tobacco will not eradicate smoking. Although some might quit, it would, as likely as not, simply drive tobacco use underground.<br /><br />Therefore, it makes sense to reduce the harm ostensibly caused by smoking, by encouraging smokers to switch to demonstrably less hazardous tobacco products such as snus, or even alternative nicotine delivery systems such as the electronic cigarette.<br /><br />Since it is the chemicals in cigarettes, formed primarily through combustion, which have been identified as the source of the health risk, reducing exposure to those chemicals would obviously reduce the health burden allegedly due to smoking. Clearly, substituting less harmful tobacco products, or electronic cigarettes, for the real thing has the potential to lessen the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking.<br /><br />Yet, harm reduction is opposed by the anti-smoker crowd as vehemently as they oppose smoking. The question is why?<br /><br />It's not as if there is no scientific evidence showing the potential benefits of non-combustible tobacco products like snus as compared to smoking cigarettes. The research is actually quite extensive. The problem, I would suggest, is that research into tobacco harm reduction receives little or no attention in the main stream media. And, lacking media attention, the public is largely ignorant of the fact that there are other options available if they should choose to quit smoking.<br /><br />In Canada, for example, snus is not available from convenience stores or other traditional retail outlets, although you may find it in a few specialty shops dedicated to tobacco products. But, the majority of Canadians buy their cigarettes from the corner store, or when they gas up their vehicles.<br />In addition, advertising restrictions prevent the tobacco companies from promoting snus as a less hazardous, or safer, tobacco product.<br /><br />The Canadian consumer remains oblivious to the fact that there is an alternative to the nicotine patches, gums and lozenges being promoted by the anti-smoker crowd as the only acceptable path to smoking cessation and eventual salvation.<br /><br />Most Canadian consumers are likewise ignorant about the potential benefits of electronic cigarettes as an alternative to smoking.<br /><br />Last fall, at a party celebrating my sister-in-law's sixtieth birthday, her brother was reflecting on the difficulty he was having in quitting. When I brought up the subject of electronic cigarettes, I was met with blank stares from everyone within earshot. No one knew what the hell I was talking about.<br /><br />Health Canada had already banned the device on the grounds that they had not been proven safe. Or, to be more accurate, they banned the sale of the nicotine cartridges used with the e-cig. In Canada, nicotine may only be sold (or prescribed) in the form of patches, gums and lozenges, or the nicotine inhalers sold by the pharmaceutical industry. A very convenient law – for the drug lords.<br /><br />I have suggested several times on these pages that the motivation is primarily monetary.<br /><br />Governments are reluctant to give up the lucrative revenue generated by sin taxes on tobacco products. In Canada, tax revenue from tobacco exceeds 8 billion dollars annually. In the US, sin taxes on tobacco are used to balance state budgets while avoiding general tax increases or a reduction in services.<br /><br />Anti-smoker organizations are anxious to deliver potential customers to their financial backers in the pharmaceutical industry. And, every smoker they can coerce into quitting represents a potential customer for the (legal) drug lords. Provided, of course, there are no other alternatives to which they might turn.<br /><br />But, although the politicians and anti-smoker groups fear losing control of the nicotine market, there is yet another reason for the constant attacks on alternative methods of nicotine delivery. That is the pure vindictiveness of anti-smoker extremists such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and the ANR (Americans for Non-Smokers Rights) to name but two.<br /><br />For extremists such as these, the healths hazards associated with smoking are merely a convenient excuse, a subterfuge, to justify their attacks, not just on smokers, but anyone using tobacco products of any kind. And, more recently, their particular brand of vitriol is being directed at e-cig users, not because it's a tobacco product, but because it contains nicotine and it closely resembles smoking.<br /><br />Strange behaviour for those ostensibly acting in the best interests of public health.<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-92215668193752273982011-01-27T14:30:00.002-05:002011-01-27T14:47:26.779-05:00MaineCare shouldn't pay. Let poor smokers die?<div align="justify"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUHIx_QqQzI/AAAAAAAABCY/lKY1yhPgAAU/s1600/senator%2Bfor%2Bmaine.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5566951375527101234" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 305px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TUHIx_QqQzI/AAAAAAAABCY/lKY1yhPgAAU/s400/senator%2Bfor%2Bmaine.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">In their capacity as the new whipping boys (and girls) for everything wrong with the western world, smokers, this time in Maine, may soon be faced with yet another egregious assault on their health (and personal autonomy) by their elected representatives. And, this time smokers may literally face a life or death ultimatum; either conform to the demands of anti-smoker zealots and quit smoking or be denied medical care through the state medicaid program. Uh-huh.<br /><br />Newly elected State Senator, Thomas Saviello said Friday he decided to introduce a bill to keep people receiving MaineCare from receiving benefits at the suggestion of a constituent who works in a rural health care clinic. Saviello says the unidentified female constituent is <em>“troubled when she sees MaineCare patients who have respiratory problems and smoke heavily, because taxpayers are subsidizing treatment for illnesses that could be avoided.”</em><br /><br />MaineCare is the state’s name for Medicaid. Funded by both state and federal money, it provides free medical and dental care to low-income residents. In 2009, it was estimated that approximately 270,000 Maine citizens were enrolled in the program, which has an annual operating budget of roughly $2.4 billion. Most of the funding is provided by the federal government, with Maine taxpayers paying roughly $1 billion.<br /><br />By definition, those on the medicaid program are among the most financially disadvantaged residents in the state. Refusing MaineCare benefits to smokers could effectively deprive them of medical care in potentially life threatening situations. Is Saviello seriously proposing to jeopardize the lives of Maine residents, who obviously can't afford private health care, simply because they smoke?<br /><br />In an <a href="http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/974728">AP article</a> by Glenn Adams, and carried by several newspapers in Maine, Saviello claims he's <em>"not out to punish smokers or tell them how to live their lives."</em> Huh?<br /><br />How can this deranged proposal be construed as anything but punishment for failing to conform to lifestyle behaviour deemed appropriate by anti-smoker zealots? Does the Senator realize that smoking is still a legal activity? That his plan would penalize the most vulnerable in the population for engaging in a legal activity? I wonder how many smokers voted for this morally bankrupt idiot?<br /><br />This is the most cowardly, and callous, assault on smokers since Jane DeVille Almond, a British nurse and anti-smoker zealot, told a radio audience that smokers should have to quit or be denied medical procedures offered to the non-smoking public under Britain's NHS (National Health Service). When quizzed by the host of the radio program about what should be done if smokers needing heart surgery couldn't afford to pay the medical costs from their own pocket, the nurse responded: <em>“They'll just have to die, then, won't they.”</em><br /><br />It's unclear just how much (if any) serious consideration he's actually given to his proposal since the Senator has released no details on the bill he intends to introduce in the State Senate. But, despite the fact that his proposal is meant to reduce the costs associated with smoking related diseases, among smokers at least, Saviello acknowledges that he has no idea how much money might be saved by denying medical treatment to smokers, although he “suspects” it could be pretty significant.<br /><br />I guess Maine's smokers should be thankful none of his “troubled” constituents suggested herding smokers into boxcars and shipping them off to some isolated re-education camp where they could be experimented on with Chantix and other "smoking cessation" drugs.<br /><br />Saviello's proposal is just one of several pieces of anti-smoker legislation to be introduced in Maine's new legislative session.<br /><br />Rep. Les Fossel wants to raise the minimum age to possess tobacco from 18 to 21, in an effort to reduce teen smoking rates. Rep. Anna Blodgett is sponsoring a bill to bar smoking in private clubs such as the Elks and the American Legion, which are apparently exempt from the current smoking ban. The lung association wants legislation to discourage youth smoking; they're lobbying for a $1.50 increase in Maine's cigarette excise tax.<br /><br />Of course, this is all just idle speculation until (unless) Saviello actually comes up with a bill and introduces it formally in the legislature. So, we'll put a hold on the crucifixion . . . for now.<br /><br />And, of course, there's always the possibility that the senator might change his mind. He's been known to do that. Saviello served four (two-year) terms in Maine's House of Representatives, first as a Democrat, then an independent, before being elected to the State Senate as a Republican in last November's election.<br /><br />But, his political affiliation doesn't really make a lot of difference. Whether he's a 'publican, a 'dependent or one of Demuddercats, I suspect he'll still be an anti-smoker bigot.<br /></span></div>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-43580773309226503672011-01-22T18:03:00.005-05:002011-01-22T18:23:24.202-05:00A world full of risk<div align="justify"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TTtkEUB6KpI/AAAAAAAABCQ/kmSSSkliRsg/s1600/1%2Ba%2Bafat%2Blady.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5565151789805349522" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 210px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 343px" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TTtkEUB6KpI/AAAAAAAABCQ/kmSSSkliRsg/s400/1%2Ba%2Bafat%2Blady.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">I wasn't researching anything in particular; just catching up on some of my favourite blogs and following links I thought might be of interest. One link caught my eye, and following up on it took me to the Science Daily web site.<br /><br />The Science Daily piece was titled <strong><em>“Being Overweight Just As Risky To Health As Being A Smoker”.<br /></em></strong><br />According to <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224230749.htm">the article</a> <em>“Obese adolescents have the same risk of premature death in adulthood as people who smoke more than 10 cigarettes a day, while those who are overweight have the same risk as less heavy smokers, according to research published on the British Medical Journal website.”</em> Uh-huh.<br /><br />Apparently, being overweight at the age of 18 increases the risk of premature death by just over a third, while being obese more than doubles the risk. The gist of the article was that, unless you wanted to kick the bucket prematurely (what, exactly, does premature mean, I wonder), you'd better sign up for a membership at Jenny Craig's.<br /><br />Then, just as I was prepared to move along, I spotted another link to an article titled:<strong><em> “Be Overweight And Live Longer, German Study Suggests.”</em></strong> Since this article appeared to contradict the one I'd just finished reading, I had to check it out.<br /><br />The second article noted: <em>“Contrary to what was previously assumed, being overweight is not increasing the overall death rate in the German population. Matthias Lenz of the Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Natural Sciences of the University of Hamburg and his co-authors present these and other results in the current issue of Deutsches Ärtzeblatt International.”</em><br /><br />The <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016094032.htm">German Study </a>claims that being overweight does not increase death rates (premature or otherwise), although obesity does increase them by 20%. Fortunately, the study also notes that, as people grow older, obesity makes less and less difference.<br /><br />Since I'm only 8 or 10 pounds overweight, the apparent contradictions in these two studies don't really bother me. I'm getting too old to die young, at any rate. And besides, I'm already destined to die of a smoking related disease.<br /><br />So, I think I'll believe the German study. That way, I can have the occasional beer without worrying that I'll pack on the pounds and die prematurely. It's nice to have a choice in these matters.<br /><br />But, the subject matter seems to be of great importance to some young people. For example, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310120349.htm">another article</a> on the same website is entitled: <strong><em>“Reducing Suicidal Behaviors Among Adolescents.”<br /></em></strong><br />This one, by Inas Rashad, an assistant professor of economics at Georgia State University, claims that adolescent girls who perceive themselves as too fat are more likely to commit Hari-Kiri than girls who are, in fact, overweight.<em> “Although studies have shown a link between obesity, depressive disorders and suicidal behaviors, Rashad and Dhaval Dave of Bentley University, analyze these indicators in conjunction with an individual's perception of their weight.”</em><br /><br />The article notes: <em>“The study revealed that body dissatisfaction had a strong impact on all suicidal behaviors for girls and was generally insignificant for males.”</em><br /><br />Another article on <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090520064349.htm">the same topic</a>, <strong><em>“Teens Who Think They’re Overweight More Likely To Try Suicide”</em></strong>, tends to agree. Well, almost.<br /><br />Monica Swahn, Ph.D.,lead author of the second study, noted that: <em>“Our findings show that both perceived and actual overweight increase risk for suicide attempt.”</em> The only discrepancy is that the Swahn study concluded that the <em>“association was as strong for boys as for girls, contrary to what the researchers had originally expected.”</em> </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"><br />So, being overweight may, or may not, shorten your life. But, just thinking you're overweight might cause you to jump off a tall building or throw yourself in front of a subway train. Interesting.<br /><br />Apparently, there are risks every where. It's enough to make a man want to lock the doors, park his ass in his favourite armchair and let the rest of the world go by.<br /><br />But, then again, that might not be such a good idea. There's <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100722102039.htm">another study</a> on the Science Daily site which claims: <strong><em>“More Time Spent Sitting Linked to Higher Risk of Death; Risk Found to Be Independent of Physical Activity Level”.</em></strong> Uh-huh. A study which claims too much sitting can kill you.<br /><br />Researchers <em>“found that more leisure time spent sitting was associated with higher risk of mortality, particularly in women. Women who reported more than six hours per day of sitting were 37 percent more likely to die during the time period studied than those who sat fewer than 3 hours a day. Men who sat more than 6 hours a day were 18 percent more likely to die than those who sat fewer than 3 hours per day. The association remained virtually unchanged after adjusting for physical activity level. Associations were stronger for cardiovascular disease mortality than for cancer mortality.”</em><br /><br />Now, there's a potential confounder I'll bet the EPA and the US Surgeon General never took into consideration in their secondhand smoke studies. Imagine. The excess mortality among spouses being attributed to secondhand smoke exposure may have been due to an excess of female couch potatoes in the cohort exposed to secondhand smoke.<br /><br />Ain't science grand?<br /><br /></div></span><span style="font-family:arial;"></span>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2696572732311025923.post-47708417931411801362011-01-17T17:10:00.002-05:002011-01-17T17:14:29.472-05:00Smoking statistics and 18 holes of golf<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TTS-wkMsG_I/AAAAAAAABCI/dwYvztj6lcY/s1600/1%2Ba%2Basmoking%2Bgolfer.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5563281181269302258" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 400px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 270px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7NTpd923z7o/TTS-wkMsG_I/AAAAAAAABCI/dwYvztj6lcY/s400/1%2Ba%2Basmoking%2Bgolfer.jpg" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:arial;">“Numbers don't lie.”<br /><br />If I had a nickle for every time I heard (or read) that claim over my lifetime, I'd be able to play a damn sight more golf in my retirement than I currently do - in my dreams. Although the claim has a ring of truth, and many people will nod in agreement, it can easily be proven to be untrue.<br /><br />But, since I don't really know how often I've heard someone make the claim that numbers don't lie, I'd have to calculate (or assume) the number of times I've heard the phrase. So, let's assume that I heard the “Numbers don't lie” claim once a day, on average, every day since I was five years old. Uh-huh. That's an unrealistic assumption, but it will serve to illustrate my point.<br /><br />So, that's five cents a day for every day over the past 62 years. (365 X .05 X 62) or $1,130.50. That's not a lot of money.<br /><br />Now, if I go out golfing on a sunny summer morning, I'd likely spend $40.00 (a conservative estimate) for green fees; another $20 to rent a golf cart, and yet another $15 for a few drinks or a bite to eat at the 19th hole.<br /><br />We'll ignore minor costs, like the replacement cost for balls lost in various water hazards, or those lost in the deep woods on the occasional hook. And, then there's the balls lost when those perfect tee shots inexplicably disappear from the middle of the fairway. We'll also ignore the cost of a new three-iron every time I wrap the old one around a tree because I couldn't break 90; which is roughly 75% of the time. That is to say that I fail to break 90 some 75% of the time, not that I wrap my three-iron around a tree every time I fail to break 90.<br /><br />At any rate, I expect to spend about $75 every time I go out to play. So, if I've saved roughly $1,130 in nickles and if I spend an average of $75 when I play; and, if I live to average life expectancy, then I might be able to afford an extra day of golf a year over the remainder of my lifetime. That's a lot of “ifs” and it doesn't add up to a lot more golf.<br /><br />And, what if my basic assumptions were wrong? For example, what if I only heard that phrase every second day. Then my nickle a day savings would be reduced by half and I would only be able to afford an extra game every second year during my retirement. That's not even worth the effort of searching my pockets for a nickle every time someone claimed that numbers don't lie and stuffing it into a piggy-bank for 62 years.<br /><br />And, what would happen if inflation drove the cost of a game of golf up to $90 a day. Obviously, I would be able to afford even less time on the golf course. That might do wonders for my blood pressure, but it would do little to improve my golf game.<br /><br />In addition, there's always the possibility that some unexpected event might also affect my calculations. For example, if I had gone out to play a game of golf to celebrate my retirement and gotten run over by a bus load of Moose Lodge members arriving for their annual tournament. Then I would have derived absolutely no benefit from all those nickles I'd squirreled away every time someone claimed that “Numbers don't lie.”<br /><br />I know what you're thinking. Just where in hell is he going with this little analogy?<br /><br />The point is that if I take into consideration all the factors which might affect my calculations, the whole exercise can be seen for the absurdity it is.<br /><br />And, the same holds true, I suspect, for the statistics bandied about by the anti-smoker zealots. Estimated numbers lacking adequate quantification. Deliberately ignoring confounding variables in their analysis and interpretation of data. Throw in a fistful of ifs, mights and maybes. And then pass the results off on an unsuspecting public as honest science. All of which is likely the reason we see such a lack of consistency in the results of the many secondhand smoke studies that have been conducted over the years.<br /><br />Now it seems they don't even want to go through the motions of conducting (or exploiting) fraudulent scientific studies to mislead the masses. Instead, they want the politicians to ignore the science and pass legislation based on popularity polls conducted by anti-smoker fanatics.<br /><br />From <a href="http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Science%20shouldn%20stand%20sound%20smoking%20policy%20study/4086184/story.html">the Montreal Gazette</a>: "A new study is urging lawmakers not to let science get in the way of sound policy when it comes to laws on children's exposure to second-hand smoke in cars. Smoking in cars carrying children should be banned whether or not science can prove exactly how risky it is, according to an article penned by Ray Pawson of the University of Leeds and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal."<br /><br />Science should not get in the way of sound policy? What the hell does that mean?<br /><br />In pushing for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children in seven Canadian provinces, the anti-smoker fanatics emphasized, repeatedly, the claim that smoking in a car is 23 times more toxic than smoking at home; a statement that has been disproved.<br /><br />Now, caught in a lie, the anti-smokers zealots want policymakers to ignore the science. Apparently, the science should only be considered if it favours the anti-smoker crusade.<br /><br />Said Rob Cunningham, of the Canadian Cancer Society. "This issue has unstoppable momentum. These laws have enormous public support and they have been easily adopted with all party support in provincial legislatures."<br /><br />Of course, most anti-smoking laws enjoy public support only because of the fear-mongering bullshit and bafflegab disseminated by the fanatics with the sole intention of misleading the public and influencing gullible politicians.<br /><br />Shit. The temperature's below zero and there's about three inches of snow on the ground. I can't even work out my frustration on the golf course. </span>The Old Ramblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18366952824616311979noreply@blogger.com1