Speak Your Piece: States Should Pass Smoking Bans
02/25/2008
8 comments  email  print
Editor's Note: Rural teens smoke more than their urban counterparts. So it may be of interest to Yonder that the Virginia House of Delegates recently defeated a proposal to ban smoking in public places. An Alabama state senator has proposed the state ban smoking in most public places. (For a contrary view, visit the Daily Dixie.) St. Paul, Virginia, attorney Frank Kilgore makes the argument for the ban.
If you have ever wondered if youth, smoking, illegal drug use and littering have anything in common, wonder no more. The following findings should cause the most radical smokers’-rights fanatic to shiver: "Results of this study deliver a strong cautionary message that those who smoked cigarettes before the age of 15 were up to 80 times more likely to use illegal drugs than those who did not," said lead author Shenghan Lai, MD, MPH, associate research professor, Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. What have most states done with the huge tobacco settlement funds that were originally touted for preventing smoking among young people? Most have spent those funds for anything but education and prevention, including general expenditures in order to keep taxes down. Meanwhile, the hard-earned smoking decline among teenagers has leveled out and shows signs of spiking as some Hollywood actors and megastar singers sink to new lows by using tobacco in every movie and public appearance they can. Tobacco companies have found out many clever ways to skirt advertisement bans. As the bans went into effect, we started seeing more smoking on TV, movies and public appearances by celebrities than anytime since the 1950s. Big Tobacco also uses direct mailing and inundates anyone who signs up for any of their gimmick “free prize” contests with slick brochures urging the reader to be an edgy dude by getting addicted to their product. The prize is death. A much less deadly but worrisome habit seems to go along with youth and smoking. Studies now reveal that smokers are 64% more likely to litter than non-smokers and that 67% of all litterbugs are young people, teens to thirty-year-olds. Nearly one fourth of litter in cities and on beaches comes from cigarette butts, packages and paper. This debris is gobbled down by birds and fish, killing them by the thousands worldwide. The national and international movements to ban smoking in public places, keep children away from tobacco and fine litterbugs seem to be making some headway. The debate in Virginia over whether smoking should be banned in public places has been couched as one of public health versus individual rights. The argument posed by opponents to smoking bans has gotten ridiculous. Anyone who invites the public to their premises has a duty to protect people from harm, whether it means forbidding pit bulls from roaming the floor, keeping poisonous snakes from under the tables and chairs or banning self-destructive “rebels” from fouling the air with 1,000 known air pollutants that cause lung disorders and cancer. As in all other cases in a civilized society, if businesses open to the public refuse to protect customers and employees, the state requires it. Children do what they see adults do. One does not have to believe in evolution to agree that we humans act like monkeys in that regard. The less that children see adults smoking and littering, the less likely they are to pursue either habit and the less likely these kids are to pursue much more deadly illegal drugs and lifestyles. Let’s get real and save our children. The author, Frank Kilgore, is an attorney in St. Paul, Virginia, and a lifelong advocate of improved conservation, education, and health. He has also promoted eco-tourism to create jobs in the Appalachian coalfields.
|
Declines in smoking among teens have levelled out.
Comments
Joe Camel
Frank, why a total ban? Why don't you lobby for those nifty air cleaners that leave the air better than outdoors? Don't the American peeople deserve protection from all air contaminants?
Oh wait, I forgot! Air cleaners don't work! Authoritative Tobaco Nazi James Repace says it takes a wind of 700 mph to ventilate toobaco smoke.
And it's much easier to bitch about littering than to provide butt containers!
About total bans
I have been researching Smoking and SHS since 1998. I have found that Bans always cause, loss to business, State taxes, Jobs and even death due to smoking Cessation drugs. If you read any of my posts, you will also note, smoke does not harm non-smokers or children.
ACS misinformation.
The research I have been doing since 1998 has shown me the real truth of the myth being spread about Second Hand Smoke worldwide by the Pharmaceuticals. They do this to boost their profits into the Billions through the sale of pills and patches.
I found the largest studies ever done. These studies were completed by the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization, the National Oakridge Labs, one simply called The Enormous German Study and a few others. These were all long term and the largest ever done to date. NONE have been larger or longer in years to complete. None have ever been more complete in their investigation of the supposed problem. The largest percentage started their studies to prove the link of SHS to cancer.
They all agreed in their findings. None found any connection of SHS to cancer. The World Health Organization even stated they also found no connection of SHS to Heart Disease. They also stated there is the possibility that SHS may have the beneficial effect of helping the immune systems of children to develop. The WHO also found that Children of smoking families are 22% less likely to contract cancer.
I also fond an almost unbelievable co-operation between Government Agencies, Studies by non-profit organizations, scientist, National Media, Doctors and almost everyone who stands to profit by spreading the misinformation provided by the Big Pharma.
The worst of the myth spreaders are the EPA and the American Cancer Society. The EPA study was no study. They came up with 3,000 deaths a year caused by SHS by computer generated junk science and that so called study has been proved rigged and false. Even our Surgeon General is still using that figure today,, and the 3,000 figure is still the same. He couldn’t even adlib. His review of studies was a farce and he is no longer the Surgeon General. He is currently working at a health spa.
The Surgeon Generals study by press conference ( his study of selected studies provided by the EPA) is the product of politically connected charlatans led by Jonathan M. Samet, who has been the ringleader of every major anti-smoking fraud since the EPA ETS report. Like ALL the anti-smokers' reports, it is founded on the deliberate and systematic use of defective studies to falsely blame passive smoking for diseases caused by INFECTION or VIRUS as stated by the ACS in 1955. It is also the most flagrantly politically corrupt: Fred Malek, who was deputy director of President Nixon's board of directors of the contracting firm which concealed the identities of the anti-smoker authors of the EPA ETS report behind illegal pass-through contracts. The EPA’s own scientists would not stand behind this false study but it is being used by every Health Department here and overseas.
The American Cancer Society is the worst offender of all the NON-Profits. The last figures I have are they have over a Billion dollars in cash and they have over 23 fundraisers a year and poormouth at every one of them. Most of their money goes into six figure incomes and more misinformation. The smallest part of their funding goes to research.They even get in a huff if there is mention of a cure. Why kill the Goose.
The RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) was set up by Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals to fund the smoking bans through the ACS. Johnson and Johnson is the largest seller of stop smoking products. They own over 250 drug companies with the aim of controlling the nicotine market. The ACS was about to lose its tax free status because of their political funding of smoking bans and they had to create the ACSCAN foundation as a for profit agency to provide funds for pushing the bans.
It’s been a long, deliberate process that continues to become evermore sophisticated in its manipulation of the minds of the American public.
One of the principle architects in the takeover of the American mind is a man named Edward Bernays, who is considered the father of the American public relations industry. If his name doesn’t ring a bell, then maybe his Uncle Sigmund Freud’s will.
In 2002, the BBC broadcast a four-part documentary called “The Century of Self,” covering the story of the relationship between Freud and his American nephew, as Bernays learned about the human mind and how to manipulate the masses. Bernays’ goal, from the early part of the 20th Century, was to be able to teach corporations how to make people want things they didn’t need through a variety of manipulative techniques appealing to people’s unconscious fears and desires.
What makes this production interesting is that it covers post-war America and illustrates how politicians and policymakers learned to use Freud’s ideas in their desire to control the masses as well. It shows how Sigmund Freud’s daughter, Anna, and his nephew Bernays, were central players, along with the U.S. Government, corporate America, among others by controlling the masses via engineering consent.
Lasker (a student of Bernay) and his wife, Mary, longtime board members of the American Cancer Society, realized that really big money could be had for research, if only the public could be convinced that tax dollars -- if poured into research year after year -- might lead to cures for all sorts of diseases, particularly cancer.
Over the years, Lasker had developed a number of Madison Avenue propaganda techniques similar to Bernays that he applied to motivate people to generously fund the American Cancer Society (ACS). Lasker’s campaign strategy detail Lasker’s central role in creating the money hungry machine we call the National Institutes of Health, which began when he retired as the richest man in the history of advertising. was based on our fear of death and the hope that with enough money, we could cure cancer. He coached his friend, Elmer Bobst, president of the American branch of Hoffmann-LaRoche and later Warner-Lambert drug company, to start every fundraising speech with the following statement, "One in five of us here - every fifth person in the audience - will die of cancer.” He would then turn the fear he had engendered into hope with his next line, "We want to cure cancer in your lifetime…donate generously.”
If you have been mislead into believing that SHS is killing people you are just part of the millions so don’t feel too bad. Our City Councils have fallen for this overload of junk science by hearing and reading the same lies everyday in our major media since Surgeon General Coop had the first cigarette labels warn about cancer.
The Fat Police are coming. Can you even guess how many Billions the Big Pharma will make on diet pills? I may be wrong on this; they may go after alcohol next.
I’m up to over 330+ studies and reports on the myth of SHS and growing. I know I can’t stop this control of our lives by myself. There are too many people and too much money against me and too many people who won’t believe and won’t take the time to find the truth.
We don’t have an immigration problem either. Do you believe that?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.
Thank you VirgilK
There isn't anything to add to your comment except I agree with you and wish the Nanny-folks would just go away.
I want the freedom to smoke my organic roll-your-own tobacco. I have understood for a very long time that SHS was a shill for pharma.
Did you ever notice that when big business piles on an issue, the truth can be found 180 degrees opposite?
ban yourself first...
i don't smoke. i hate cigarettes. but i'm so tired of the extremist who wishes to ban everything they are against. the idea of individual rights, which is the entire point of our Bill of Rights, seem to be lost on those who think their beliefs and habits should be shared by the rest of us. I'm sure Mr. Kilgore is completely for free speech, for the right of assembly, right to privacy. he probably hates the assault on these freedoms by the Bush administration. but does he think twice about his call for a 'ban'? probably not. sad.
the instant folks start talking about 'banning' anything, is the instant they lose me. we've experienced the disaster of prohibition, we live the disaster of the 'war on drugs' every day, imagine what will happen when tobacco products are 'banned'. Mr. Kilgore, and all the rest who think things they don't like should be 'banned', should revisit what it is to be an American. part of living in a free society is living with things you don't agree with. and accepting it.
Opinions
I have a very good article" You can get Americans to believe anything". About what it boils down to is, if you lie long enough the lie becomes the truth.
We are subjected to Media lies on a 24/7 basis. If it's profitable for the Media, it will be in our face constantly. That is why Smokers are taking a beating. Big-Pharma is their best source of revenue. Big-Pharms's best source of revenue is Drugs. The Nicotine market, world wide is tremendous. Johnson & Johnson is the largest maker of Smoking Cessation Products. They fund smoking bans through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who in turn, fund the ACS, AMA, ALA and all the so-called "Grass Roots" groups and on and on.
Here in Louisville, the RWJF gave grants of over $600,000 to the University of Louisville among others and with the help of Mayor Jerry Abramson got a 100% smoking ban passed.
Make no mistake, it's about profit and Politics make it work.
Rural Living.
This shoukld give good reason to stay Country. I just found this.
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html You may need to copy and paste this link.
Introduction
So far, most of the money given to the cancer industry has been spent looking for a cure for cancer. But it seems that cancer is a disease which has no cure. Traditionally, with solid tumours, cut it out has been the only real option - and it still is. Given that, wouldn't it be better to concentrate more on preventing it?
Oxford's cancer expert, Sir Richard Doll, writing in The American Journal of Public Health , said that increasing cancer mortality "can be accounted for in all industrialized countries by the spread of cigarette smoking." Unfortunately, this statement tends to be believed, despite the evidence against it.
If smoking were a cause of any cancer, lung cancer is the most likely one. It was Sir Richard Doll who implicated smoking in a study published in 1964 - despite his own published data from that study which showed that people who inhaled cigarette smoke had less lung cancer than those who didn't!
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
· tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
· that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
· that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
· that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
· and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:
"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".
Go to the link at the top, if you want to read the complete article.
Wish I lived in the Country.
Our government is going to "protect" us right into a revolution
On the 5pm news today, WHIO TV, Dayton:
News or press release: The surgeon general said it is time to treat alcohol as 'we' did the tobacco industry 30 years ago. It is time to change the way we think of alcohol.
Interesting. The previous post asked which was next, obesity or alcohol. Well, that question is now answered. Not a good time to own a bar, as unfortunately my husband and I do. The smoking ban in Ohio has closed hundreds of bars. I've told people all along that the smoking ban was just a prelude to an alcohol ban..that if they closed enough bars from a smoking ban it will be easier to step right in and close the last few. We can't fight them, they've taken our business (customers) away. And what do you think our business will be worth if/when we try to sell it? I'm retired.
I, too, like the gentleman who posted, have been doing research. I spend all my time fighting to expose the lies and unearth the truth. This whole smoking ban is so corrupt. The names of the players show up on boards of different companies, intertwined with politics, it's so out of control. And the gentelman is right. It IS all about the money and power. And it IS the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who is behind it all. The lady quoted in the article from Johns Hopkins University? Would it interest you to know that the Johns Hopkins University has been a benefactor of grants from the RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) to the tune of $14,953,392? How would you THINK she'd comment? Let me share with you what it's taken me months to put together. I can document every claim I've listed below (more than the ACS can).
Out of 123 second hand smoke studies (64 spousal, 25 work, 9 social, 25 children), only 16 showed a measurable positive risk. That’s 13% of the studies.
The ACS touts that 53,000 people die each year from second hand smoke. But then cannot produce their names…because they don’t have them.
Smoking bans were started by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in 1992, through their “SmokeLess States” later called “RWJF Tobacco Control Policies”.
The RWJF has funded, to date, $446,000,000 for smoking bans
$99,000,000 was paid “in grants” to the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the American Medical Association to BUY smoking bans nationwide
The RWJF created and funded Tobacco-Free Kids @ $70,000,000 since 1996, which they use to lobby for tobacco control policies nationwide through “grants”. They use our children and pit them against us for their financial gain.
The RWJF created and funded American Non-Smokers Rights to the tune of $5,196,802 so far through “grants”. ANR funding was created to fight to keep the ground they've won with bans.
The RWJF paid the ACS just under $1,000,000 to push nicotine replacement therapies, smoking cessation products and programs through a “grant”.
The RWJF paid the ACS $71,000 to lobby Medicaid to pay for NRT through a “grant”.
The RWJF IS Johnson and Johnson.
The RWJF owns 60,000,000 shares (after sell off) of J&J stock which is currently at $64 per share worth today $4,096,000,000. (but today has taken a small dip-too bad).
J&J uses their political wing, the RWJF to fund the smoking ban movement in order to implement a government mandated use of their product
J&J Company’s Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette sales have SOARED while our businesses are closing. (manufactured and sold through many of their subsidiaries)
One Million Boxes of Over-the-Counter Smoking Cessation Products Sold in January 2008
PR NEWSWIRE
Posted: 2008-02-04 15:12:16
PITTSBURGH, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) Consumer Healthcare today announced that it sold one million boxes of smoking cessation products in January 2008, which includes NicoDerm CQ patches, Nicorette gum, and Commit lozenges. The New Year is the most popular time for smokers to try and quit, unfortunately, many of them fail without the proper tools and support. With more than 44 million smokers in this country, people need as many safe and effective options as possible to help them quit. NicoDerm CQ is the best-selling smoking cessation patch in history
J&J Co, who bought Pfizer OTC in 2006 @ $16.6 million dollars to get Nicorette, promised a per share gain by 2009.
J&J has paid $24,980,000 in lobbying expenses from 2003-2007.
In fact, the pharmaceutical industry as a whole has paid $1,051,183,170 to lobby for their drugs and products since 2003. This nation is a nation of drug takers at the beckoning of the drug companies.
Since 2003, the pharmaceutical companies have made PAC donations of:
$20,802,279 to the House of Representatives
$31,416,269 to the Senate
This is just step one to the RWJF’s plan for total Prohibition. They are using the same footprint for alcohol bans and have already spent half a billion dollars on obesity (guess who owns “Splenda”?).
US Surgeon General Report 2006 was the springboard for all the “hype” with Dr. Carmona’s “no safe exposure” rhetoric. The editor of this report was none other than Stanton Glantz, who has made it his life long goal to eradicate tobacco. He is the Professor of Medicine with the University of California (which has received over $6,000,000 in grants from RWJF). Dr. Glantz is, and was at the time of editing the SG Report, the Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Seems like the odds were stacked against SHS in this report. It didn’t stand a fighting chance.
The RWJF even studied and “groomed” Legislators. The grants go on and on, as does the money the RWJF spent on our government.
"State Legislators Vary in Their Attitude Toward Tobacco Control" grant -
-This project described the processes by which state legislators form their opinions about tobacco use and tobacco control legislation. The study found that most state legislators believe tobacco is ad...
www.rwjf.org/programareas/resources/product.jsp?id=17860&pid=1141&gsa=1 Cached
05/31/2000-
"Legislators Groomed to Become Strong Policy-Makers in Critical Health Issues" grant
-From 1991 to 1996, staff at the Intergovernmental Health Policy Project (IHPP) continued and expanded the services provided by the organization, which provides nonpartisan information on health-care p...
www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=17834&gsa=1 Cached
12/01/2001
Bars nationwide are dying at an alarming rate. Ohio is no exception either. In Ohio, Anheuser Busch sales to bars/restaurants is DOWN 7.8%, draft beer DOWN 8.1% while sales to carryouts and drive thrus are UP 1.7%. FACT. People are now drinking (and smoking) at home.
Loss of revenue from bars doesn’t just hurt bars. Sales and Use Taxes are hit hard. The Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp is funded by premiums paid by employers based on their payrolls. When places close their doors, there are less payrolls and less money to fund compensation and worker safety. The unemployment rate in Ohio is at 6%. We’re one of 7 states nationwide at 6% or higher. According to ODJFS News Release dated January 18, 2008, the hospitality industry has lost 2,700 jobs in the last 12 months. They HAD projected a 10,000 job increase.
SUMMARY
These bans were the brainchild of and funded by a non profit organization, the RWJF, backed by the stock portfolio of the Johnson and Johnson Company. They used epidemiology “studies”, which is no science at all but a science of probability, and used 13% of them to create nationwide panic that a puff of smoke (no safe exposure) starts a death process. The RWJF created and funded organizations to lobby and push for tobacco control policies, aka smoking bans. They paid the ACS, ALA, AHA, etc., recognized and “respected” organizations to do their bidding. They created and funded Non-Smokers Rights Foundation to make sure no ground is ever lost in their push for total bans.
The non profit RWJ “Foundation” created and funded Tobacco Free Kids to lobby for tobacco control. How is this legal? How can a non profit provide money to create and fund an organization that lobbies?
How is it legal for one organization to push for state-by-state bans on tobacco when they stand to profit from these bans?
And how is an industry (pharmaceutical) been allowed to create the policies of this country?
Political contributions, lobbying expenditures and grants to groom legislators don’t bode well with the American People. The purpose of the government is to protect us from corruption like this.
Have you been as annoyed as I at the number of drug commercials on TV? Especially during the day, when us "retired" folk are home. Talk about marketing! We've become a nation of pill takers and patch slappers. Please explain to me how commercials for drugs can say "ABC drug...ask your doctor about it". It doesn't tell you what ABC even does but "ask your doctor about it". How wrong is that? And have you heard the warnings for the arthritis drugs? Dear God. I'll take the arthritis. They talk about the marketing the beer companies or cigarette companies have done but please explain to me how their drug commercials don't do the exact same thing? To me, these drugs are worse. Just because they're prescribed doesn't make them alright. The RWJF condemned the tobacco industry for their packaging, but the RWJF held roundtable discussions on packaging and pushing their drug Nicotine Replacement Therapies. So it's ok if they do it?
We need a federal investigation into this brilliant, however corrupt, marketing strategy. The Department of Justice needs to investigate.
People all over the United States are aware of this fraud. This is not limited to a few “conspiracy theory” people. We’re not quacks. We’re professionals who have, or have retired from. good jobs. And we’re mad as hell that this was allowed to happen. We want this be investigated now before their alcohol prohibition and obesity hatred takes hold in this country.
We are educated people. We want to be able to make decisions for ourselves. We do not want our freedom determined by people who PAY TO PLAY.
Furthermore, once an investigation is completed, the RWJF should be made to divest themselves of all Johnson & Johnson stock (in fact, ANY pharmaceutical stock) so this is not allowed to happen to this country again.