Just over 75 percent of Michigan residents are in favor of the recently passed workplace smoking ban, and 88 percent thought that secondhand smoke was a serious health threat to nonsmokers, according to a statewide survey conducted by the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) Tobacco Section between March 1 and April 23.
The nine question survey assessed knowledge about secondhand smoke, knowledge of the law, support for the law, and behavior change related to the law; specifically whether participants would eat out more often if smoking was prohibited in bars and restaurants.The survey was distributed to clients receiving services at local health departments in 80 of Michigan’s 83 counties and through 8 agencies serving populations disparately affected by tobacco use, and it included 10,030 participants.
The smoking rate in Michigan is around 22 percent and falling, and that seems to be confirmed by the 25 percent who were not in favor of the law. The survey was conducted before the law went into effect on May 1, and overall, 89 percent of those surveyed reported that they would go out to eat more often or no change if smoking was prohibited in restaurants and bars. That seems to be reflected in the fact that bars and restaurants are doing well, despite the Bush recession and cries of wolf from bar owners.
However, the same survey will be conducted again next month in August, and the results of the pre- and post-law implementation surveys will be compared.
The Livingston County Department of Public Health (LCDPH) was one of the participating agencies, and they reported similar results, with less people here supporting the ban. The survey found just 63 percent favored the law, and only 79 percent know that secondhand smoke is deadly and causes a variety of diseases.
Like most places, there have been few complaints about the ban, and people are accepting it, with the exception of a few misguided people.
“The implementation of the state smoke-free air law has been relatively smooth,” said Jennifer Lavelle, Health Education Supervisor for the LCDPH. “We’ve received very few complaints so far, and businesses are complying with the requirements of the law.”
55 comments:
Here in Chicago, as the second winter approached, many small neighborhood bars (not family restaurnats that serve alcohol) had to decide whether to allow smoking, risking fines over the next few years, or close.
The survey needs to be repeated in the spring, after the subzero windchills.
That’s just so much false propaganda. Please, please explain to me how 22 percent of the population can cause a bar to close.
You can do the survey every single month of the year, and the results will be the basically the same, and that is that 75 percent support it, and the 25 percent who still smoke will not; just like the survey done in April showed.
A truer survey would be amongst
the owners, workers and customers.
Why? Because they are the ones who have a vested interest in this smoking policy
Why should the people who never or very seldom patronize the hospitality industry have a say in this matter?
Given no other choice but complete smoking bans or smoking everywhere, most people will vote for the former. But poll the people properly giving them choices and you will find that most people (except for rabid or professional anti-smokers) will favor accommodations for smokers such as ventilated smoking areas, patios, private clubs, or a certain amount of ''smoking allowed'' venues.
Of course special interest groups and government agencies who want these bans to appear as if they're successful and widely accepted will never ask the right questions therefore their surveys will always lean on the side they were predetermined to lean.
The fact is those against the ban will question every single survey and poll. That’s how the
tobacco industry fought off restrictions for years. But this is just one poll that shows how
widespread support the smoking ban has. EPIC MRA has done one and just about every
newspaper in Michigan has done one with similar results. What makes you think
customers and workers were not part of the survey?
But here’s the bottom line: there was only one poll that really counted, and the ban had
widespread, bipartisan support in that poll. That was in the Michigan Legislature where it
got a majority of votes in both the House and Senate. As current events in Washington,
D.C. are showing us, Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much, but they did agree
on the smoking ban.
There is so much wrong with this post I don’t know where to start.
The survey was on the Michigan law passed by the Michigan Legislature last December. Like I told the other pro smoker that posted just before you, the fact is those against the ban will question every single survey and poll. That’s how the tobacco industry fought off restrictions and regulations for years. But this is just one poll that shows how widespread support the smoking ban has. EPIC MRA has done one and just about every newspaper in
Michigan has done one with similar results.
But here’s the bottom line: there was only one poll that really counted, and the ban had
widespread, bipartisan support in that poll. That was in the Michigan Legislature where it
got a majority of votes in both the House and Senate. As current events in Washington, D.C. are showing us, Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much, but they did agree on the smoking ban.
Second, what the hell is a “professional anti-smokers?” I guess I’m just an amateur anti-smoker. As for accommodation, there is no ventilation system yet invented that will completely protect the more than 75 percent of us who do not smoke from deadly
secondhand smoke. The Medical director of the Michigan Department of Community
Health said that in committee testimony on the bill, and the U.S. Navy just banned smoking on its nuclear ballistic missile submarines. They have the best air purifying system ever invented. You can find both of those stories on this blog.
I find it hard to call the American Cancer Society a special interest group. As for the “government agencies” they have a constitutional duty - at least according to the Michigan
Constitution - to protect the public health, and that’s what the smoking ban is all about.
Again, this is just one of many, many polls and surveys.
Second hand smoke has not been proven to be a significant health risk (let alone a deadly substance) no matter how much you torture the epidemiological studies. http://www.fightingback.homestead.com Don't forget to click on each and every link in the ''additional reading'' section.
From this follows that smoking bans have nothing to do with health but with politics and corporate shenanigans.
If you haven't heard of professional anti-smokers you have an awful lot to learn on this issue. Yes, the American Cancer Society is a special interest group. More ''interested'' than you could ever imagine. Wake up and smell the SHS, it won't kill you. Excessive government, however, will kill you every time!
You just lost all credibility. You must be a professional smoker and work for the tobacco companies because secondhand smoke is deadly and causes numerous diseases. You can read the numerousd studies and actual results on this blog. You can also read either one
the two US Surgeon General’s reports. Do you need a link?
The workplace smoking ban is a public health issue. This “professional anti-smoker” thing is something you made up, just like the fantasy that secondhand smoke is not a significant health risk. The American Cancer Society is not a special interest group.
Ah, excessive government - AKA the people - will kill me. Great, a teabagger. It’s a scientific fact that secondhand smoke is deadly and causes numerous diseases.
You're free to believe what ever makes you comfortable.
Calling someone that is against the manufactured consensus a tobacco industry employee is par for the course. People refuse to believe that they have beed lied to and are very defensive when it comes to their established beliefs so they use ad homs instead. Water off a duck's back, I am used to it.
The lie is too big for people to admit they have been fooled, but if you ever want to get an education please do read at least some of the documents on the website I pointed you to.
Have a good day and life! :-)
LOL Guru, I have read the SG report. It should be filed under fiction subsection political humor since there is nothing scientific about it. For one thing it makes the claim that there is no safe level of ETS. But shows no scientific evidence to back it up. The no safe level or Linear no threshold model, {as it is rightfully called) yet fails to show one linear study. It also is a Meta-analysis on cherry picked studies,I would call that intentional publication bias. Any way you put it. It is junk science to suit an agenda.
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/smoking-bans-and-junk-science/
Thank you for allowing me to have an opinion. The problem is I don’t know how to
debate someone who looks at a scientific fact and denies it. Plus, you are using almost the
exact same tactics used by tobacco companies. They hired their own scientists so they can
say the issue needs more study, but they would never release the results their paid
scientists found.
So, who is it that’s lying to me, and why?
Guru,Guru,Guru
You said
"The workplace smoking ban is a public health issue." No it isn't. It is an individual and property rights issue. You think that your collective group of anti-smokers have more rights than the individual or the property owner. http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/antis-dont-understand-rights/
Good for you.. Does that mean you read both of them, as well as the results from places that have seen an immediate drop in heart attacks after a ban goes into effect?
The fact is there is no amount of safe secondhand smoke, and that is a scientific certainty. And exactly what agenda does the SG have, other than public health?
That is correct, the workplace smoking ban is a public health issue. Where does it say the
minority has a right to endanger the health of other people? If you want to endanger your health, great, do it in your own home or outside. Health departments inspect restaurants all the time for health violations. Is that “an individual and property rights issue?”
Guru,Guru,Guru
The SG report was a rehash of the CalEPA, and was written by many of the same activist that got caught faking the 1992 EPA report. Some of us have done our homework and unless you can show that the dose response curve is linear then the time accepted dose makes the poison applies. As far as your comments about health violations in restaurants, there is a huge difference. Can you tell by walking in a restaurant if the food is tainted? Can you tell by looking at the bread if rats have crapped in the flour. On the other hand the fumes from the cooking oil and the cooking meat are just as much of a hazard as second hand smoke, do we ban public cooking? The fact is that everything in life contains some risk. It is your responsibility to decide what risks you find acceptable. In a free society we are allowed to choose for ourselves what risks are acceptable, and businesses are allowed to cater to those risks. Health codes are put in place to protect you from unseen and unavoidable risks. Entering a smoking allowed establishment implies that you are willing to take the risk.
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country.
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
''So, who is it that’s lying to me, and why?''
Oh, are you suddently opening your mind?
Do you have a few days, weeks, months and even years to get educated on this issue? Start by reading what I referred you to. You will find all you need to answer your question. But just as a teaser, ever wonder who funded the promotion of smoking bans in the USA?
Try the RW Johnson Foundation, the charitable arm of Johnson & Johnson. Guess what they make. If you said nicotine replacement therapy, you're well on your first step to recover from your extreme capnophobia.
Now go out and do your homework and if you find anything incoherent in what you will have read, come back to discuss it. My own mind is wide open to discuss all your criticisms.
Oh by the way, do you also believe that obesity is a threat to national security? Because this is what your ex Surgeon General Carmona now peddles as ''truth'' !
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/09/expanding-on-size-of-anti-obesity.html
“Some of us have done our homework?” The fact is you cannot find a single peer reviewed study from a reliable source that refutes the facts of either Surgeon General report. The tobacco companies have spent millions to do so.
There is no difference between secondhand smoke and what a health inspector does. Secondhand smoke endangers the public health. The Michigan Legislature has a constitutional duty to protect the public health, and that’s what they did with the workplace smoking ban.
“Fumes from the cooking oil and the cooking meat are just as much of a hazard as second hand smoke?” That is pure bullshit.
The public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, and that’s why 38 states - to date- and entire foreign countries have indoor smoking bans.
Again, there are two Surgeon General’s report and the EPA, as well as the positive health results after a ban.
Smoking is more than an annoyance it’s a health hazard. We have reached a compromise between smokers and non-smokers; step outside and endanger your health, not the majority of us who do not smoke.
Again, there is no ventilation system invented that completely protects people from deadly secondhand smoke. Ask the U.S. Navy.
My mind has always been open, and I have spent months and even years to get educated on this issue.
Again, so, who is it that’s lying to me, and why? Give me a break, nicotine replacement therapy? That is ridiculous.
I have done my homework, and I stand by everything I have written.
Yes, I do believe that obesity is a threat to national security. But this is you proof? A blog entry from a made up group?
''Give me a break, nicotine replacement therapy? That is ridiculous.''
Oh really? How so? You mean to tell me that you don't think that Big Pharma is capable to lie and cheat for a buck? My turn to tell you to give me a break. But this is just one part of the puzzle, you're going to have to look for the rest yourself, if of course you're interested to get to the bottom of it.
''I have spent months and even years to get educated on this issue. ''
Then you have been educating yourself with blinders. Not too good, not too good at all!
''But this is you proof? A blog entry from a made up group?''
My proof for what? That Carmona among other absurdities has declared that obesity is a threat to national obesity? Did you try to click on every red link of that ''made up group'' that will bring you to each and every article including Carmona's new toy the Obesity Alliance? And since you believe that obesity is a threat to national security, when will you be lobbying to kick the obese from every public place so as to not set a bad example for the kiddies@ and protect the future of the nation? Oh did you know that they have also found that obesity is socially contagious and may very well be virusly contagious as well? Second hand obesity, if you prefer. This is all that was missing to bring them in line with the successful anti-tobacco hysteria and guess what, they invented it! Why do I have a feeling that you believe that as well?
Yea, really. “Big Pharma” makes more money selling drugs to treat those with the diseases smoking causes. I quit smoking with nicotine patches someone gave me because they didn’t use entire the prescription, and I only needed a few. I haven’t had a cigarette in 15 years, so “Big Pharma” lost a customer. On the other hand, my mother had Emphysema and needed a lung transplant. She has to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of her life. I would say “Big Pharma” came out ahead in that case, don’t you? Besides, the smoking ban is not aimed at smokers; it’s aimed at the non-smokers.
You know who has lied to the public for years? Big tobacco, and I’m hearing some of the same arguments they have used on this thread that they used.
Like I said, ''Give me a break, nicotine replacement therapy? That is ridiculous. 'I have spent months and even years to get educated on this issue.
What’s absurd about out of control obesity being a threat to national security? Military recruits have to come from somewhere. Take a look at the childhood obesity rates. Will “I be lobbying to kick the obese from every public place so as to not set a bad example for the kiddies?” No. that as ridiculous as your “Big Pharma” conspiracy theory. We need education and mandatory physical education back in schools. No, they have not” found that obesity is socially contagious and may very well be virusly (sic) contagious as well.”
That’s as ridiculous as your Big Pharma” conspiracy theory and “lobbying to kick the obese from every public place so as to not set a bad example for the kiddies.”
Ok, I guess it's time I started giving you some documentation since it's obvious you won't bother researching anything up except for what you want to believe in.
About obesity being contagious through a virus (pls. pardon my occasional or even frequent mistakes, English is not my mother tongue):
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/17477160801896754
About obesity being socially contagious
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070725175419.htm
About the obese being denied service in a public place:
The original press release at http://www.pr-inside.com/don-t-feed-the-obese-bill-salvageable-r418545.htm has been removed but as proof that I'm not making this up, I came up with this blogger mentionning it: http://bigfatdelicious.blogspot.com/2008/02/mississippi-bill-can-be-salvaged-no.html
They are even working on making second fat fumes a health menace:
Fatty Food Fumes Could Be Dangerous
Even the smoke generated from cooking unhealthy food could be a hazard to your health.
http://news.discovery.com/human/fatty-foods-cooking-health.html
As for the second hand smoke documentation, you can read it all in that URL I indicated to you, but if you would like me to list them all here one by one, just let me know. I can give you one per day starting with an appetizer until we get to the main course and then the dessert. All salt and sugar free and low fat of course ;-)
One question for you: Hitler was an antismoker, does this make you a paid employee of the NeoNazi regime? It does not mean that because I may say some things similar to what Big Tobacco has said or is still saying that I have any relation by close or by far with them. Get over it. Perhaps Big Tobacco has said some sensible things over the years that our ''experts'' deliberately chose to ignore.
As for Big Pharma making a killing (no pun intended) from NRT, Chantix and Zyban, I will leave this for the day you will stop covering your ears and screaming lalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!
As for secondhand smoke documentation, I have read the best source available, and I stand by the 100 or so posts I have written on the subject.
Big Tobacco has never said any sensible things over the years, and who exactly are “our” experts? Their goals have been to sell as many cigarettes as possible, hook as many people as possible and avoid any regulations and restrictions. That mission is being helped by people like you. They spent millions of dollars in adverting to make smoking socially acceptable 100 years ago, and recently they spent billons more trying to make people believe they have some constitutional right to endanger the 80 percent of us who care about our health.
Oh my God, the Hitler bullshit. Again, “Big Pharma” makes more of a killing – pun interned – from selling the drugs to treat the numerous diseases caused by smoking and secondhand smoke, not the one time drug used to help someone quit smoking. And, again, the smoking ban is not about the smoker, it’s about the non-smoker.
The smoking ban is not about the non smoker and it's not about the smoker. It's about the Socialist Democrats that want to control every aspect of everyone's lives. It's funny that you've been saying 75% who care about our health and now it's jumped to 80%. Why not just use Obama's favorite number of 95%. Everything with him is 95%. 95% of the people will not get a tax increase. 95% of the people will be covered under Obamacare. Soon we'll hear that 95% of the people voted for him.
As always, you're inflating figures which only proves that your credibility is non-existant.
The smoking ban is about the non-smoker, anonymous coward. No one says you can’t smoke; it says you can’t smoke and endanger the health of the 80 percent or so who do not smoke inside public places.
Once again, anonymous coward, there is no such thing as a Socialist Democrat in the United States, and that is just a false, Republican smear. This is a public health issue; nothing more.
I’m not sure what the hell you’re talking about, anonymous coward. You can read the results of the survey yourself; I provided a link. It’s pretty clear: Just over 75 percent of Michigan residents are in favor of the recently passed workplace smoking ban, and 88 percent thought that secondhand smoke was a serious health threat to nonsmokers.
If you want to dispute that, please try.
That is true, 95 percent of Americans got a tax break under President Obama instead of just the richest 1 percent. There is no such thing as “Obamacare.” Now, if you are referring to the much needed and historic health care insurance reform, the fact is a majority of Americans do support it, but you are the only one who ever said 95 percent.
I have inflated nothing, and I challenge you to prove that lie, anonymous coward.
Again, anonymous coward, I’m still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”
You have been a useful unsuspecting tool, in the smoking ban propaganda. Smoking bans never had anything to do with non-smokers. You only wish they cared so much about your comfort and/or health! Right from the start in the 70’s and before they had even invented any links between SHS and health risks to non-smokers, the second hand smoke hoax has been planned and implemented one puff at a time to get us where we are today where so many people have been brainwashed to believe as you do. First they plotted it and then they tortured the epidemiological studies to come to the desired results. And even at that, there are more studies that do not show any risk than studies that do.
If smoking bans had anything to do with non-smokers, electronic cigarettes would have been hailed by our ‘’experts’’ (the experts are those who make a living from tobacco control in the anti-smoking industry. Those same anti-smoker professionals that you didn’t know or perhaps pretended to not know who they were).
Electronic cigarettes, as you may or may not know, do not emit any smoke or smell and contain nothing worthy of mention that has been suspected to hurt bystanders or even the users. Yet they’re under attack by the FDA and totally banned by Health Canada and in Australia and New Zealnd. Care to guess why? And what about outdoor bans, do you also feel that there are credible studies that prove any harm to bystanders outdoors?
The ‘’one time drug used to help someone quit smoking’’ ? Now it is you who has lost any credibility you might have had. Have you any idea of the success rate of NRT? The long term is anywhere between 2% & 7% depending on the study. That makes it a 93% - 98% failure rate. Do you know of many other drugs that would have such a failure rate that would still be peddled left & right? It is repeat business over & over & over for most people much to Big Pharma’s shareholders glee. If it has helped you quit smoking it had much to do with your willpower more than any placebo effect drug that costs pennies to produce yet sells with indecent mark-ups. And yes, cigarettes also cost pennies to produce but most of the price of cigarettes goes back to the gov't coffers in form of taxes that are used for everything under the sun. NRT are tax free in your country. The only ones that benefit from them are the Big Pharma shareholders and the lucky 2% - 7% that think they have been saved by them instead of giving credit to their own will power!
And before I too am labeled as a coward anonymous user.
Iro Cyr
Vice-President
C.A.G.E.
www.cagecanada.ca
www.cagequebec.ca
www.cagecanada.blogspot.com
You have been a useful unsuspecting tool, in the smoking propaganda. Big tobacco has spent billons and billons of dollars so many people have been brainwashed to believe as you do.
Smoking bans have everything to do with non-smokers. No one is denying anyone the alleged right to smoke, even though there is no such thing. Contrary to what you may believe, I do support a person's right to smoke, especially in the privacy of their own home. The reality is that secondhand smoke kills. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen containing 4,000 chemicals, including 43 cancer-causing chemicals. In Michigan alone 3,000 people die each year from secondhand smoke. As such, I firmly believe that smokers' rights end when their personal choices negatively impact the health and well-being of nonsmokers. This is especially important given that secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S.
There is no “hoax,” and the dangers of secondhand smoke are a scientific fact. “Planned and implemented one puff at a time to get us where we are today?” Where exactly is that?
I don’t know much about electronic cigarettes. Perhaps if the tobacco companies spent as much money marketing those as they did cigarettes I might. I do know the FDA does not care about public health and only wants to enslave and take people’s right's away. Just for the record, that’s sarcasm.
No, I don’t know the success rate of “NRT,” but what I do know is that nicotine is perhaps the most addictive substance on earth, yet almost 80 percent of Americans are not adicted. Like I said before, “Big Pharma” makes more money on the drugs they sell to treat the numerous diseases caused by secondhand smoke and smoking.
I had tried to quit with just willpower and failed. The addiction is strong. If government makes so much money off cigarette taxes, it makes no sense for them to enact indoor smoking bans if it cuts down on tobacco use, and hence tax revenue. The answer is pretty simple; because smoking bans are aimed at non-smokers, and they spent much, much more on Medicaid costs treating the diseases smoking and secondhand smoke caused. In Michigan, for example, smoking is very costly and is literally sucking the air out of Michigan’s economy. Smoking directly results in $2.65 billion in annual health care costs in Michigan, of which $881 million is born by the state Medicaid program. In fact, each household spends $597 annually in state and federal taxes due to smoking-caused government expenditures.
Smoke-free worksites would eliminate these extra health care costs and would do so with virtually no implementation costs. Furthermore, by creating a smoke-free work environment, business owners can eliminate a variety of associated costs, including higher health, life, and fire insurance premiums, higher worker absenteeism, lower work productivity, and higher workers' compensation payments. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates the cost savings of eliminating secondhand smoke in the workplace to be between $35 and $66 billion a year.
What is “C.A.G.E.” another big tobacco front group?
''What is “C.A.G.E.” another big tobacco front group?''
The last person who has libeled CAGE as a big tobacco front group is still in and out of court for defamation charges, as we speak. Does that answer your question?
As for the rest, we will obviously keep going around in circles so let’s just agree that you have no intention whatsoever to look at any of the literature I have offered you because you’re quite content to believe the side of the story you have chosen to believe, and let’s leave it at that. I have far more important things to do than attempt to educate one single person who has no interest whatsoever to use some critical thinking or common sense!
But just for the record, it is neither Big Tobacco nor Big Pharma that markets e-cigarettes. Oh dear, a third player in the lucrative nicotine market to deal with! How will they put them out of business so that they don’t compete! Use your imagination. And if nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, how come you didn’t get hooked on NRT since I bet there is no safe level to that either. LOL !
Now back to my original thought of just wishing you a good day and a good life. I have no more time to waste with you.
Guru,Guru,Guru.
As a former member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin I have gone through all of the research. The so called Surgeon Generals Report iw nothing but the CALEPA report repackaged. The surgeon general you are so proud of was not that well thought of by his peers, he was called a cowboy that shot retarded people.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57276,00.html who now works for a health club. Hardly a shining beacon in his field.
It is obvious that you are nothing but a parrot for tobacco Control and don't have a clue about the science behind the studies. You keep spouting about the EPA, they have been a corrupt organization since their ince0tion, I call it science by agenda. Books have even been written about it. http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog/2006/10/more-fraud-misconduct-at-epa.html there is proof that it goes on to this very day. http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr23/0,4670,EPAScientists,00.html
You keep spouting the tobacco control crap like a very good parrot but fail to defend the fact that the RR's associated with ETS have never been considered proof of anything. I suggest you read this award winning article in science and get back to us.
http://nasw.org/awards/1996/96Taubesarticle.htm
Marshall Keith BTBW
” another big tobacco front group?''
good little parrot. Perhaps you should read this from a former member of tobacco control.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/04/in-my-view-brainwashing-in-anti-smoking.html
Ah, a threat; my question stands.
When you offer some peer-reviewed studies from a reliable source I’ll look at it. I have far more important things to do than attempt to educate one single person who has no interest whatsoever to use some critical thinking or common sense.
I could care less about “ e-cigarettes,” nor do I see the relevance. Nicotine is perhaps the most addictive substance on earth, and the reason you don’t get hocked hooked on NRT is pretty simple. And you accuse me of not using commons sense? Look in the mirror.
NRT is a way of getting nicotine into the bloodstream without smoking, and the goal is to stop smoking. Nicotine does not cause disease; smoking does. NRT stops the stops, or reduces, the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, and it allows you to break the habit of smoking without suffering the physical symptoms.
You “have no more time to waste” with me? Is that the excuse when you can’t win a debate on the facts? Just remember you came here.
Ah yes big pharma.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/tobacco-control-big-pharma/
Of course big pharma would never resort to astroturf to get smoking bans implemented.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/smoke-free-wisconsinbig-pharmaastroturf/
Marshall Keith
Are you referring to the Surgeon General in 1986 or 2006? Seriously, you’re using Faux “news” as a source? Give me a break.
It is you (sic) are nothing but a parrot for Big Tobacco and don't have a clue about the science behind the studies.
That is correct, another big tobacco front group. I’m not a parrot of anyone, but the fact remains the tactics that are being employed are right out of the playbook of tobacco companies. They only needed a few scientists in their employ to claim there’s some doubt or it needs more study, and that’s how they managed to continue to market cigarettes with no restrictions or warnings labels for years when the science was clear. Science, by it’s very nature, has a small amount of uncertainty. Just ask the tobacco company scientists and researchers.
Like I said about five or six times now; “big pharma” makes more money selling the drugs used to treat the numerous diseases and cancers caused by smoking and secondhand smoke than from drugs used once to quit smoking. Regardless, no industry has used as much deception, lies and fraud to turn a profit like tobacco companies, and still do.
Since I don’t want to leave you under the impression that you have made any valid point before I leave you to your narrow minded self, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer and such diseases allegedly caused mostly by smoking are firstly very expedient and secondly happen to a small percentage of the mostly older population (yes, even the smoking population) and they do not create any repetitive business as the only thing worse than a healthy customer for Big Pharma profits is a dead customer. On the other hand, NRT targets 25% of the smoking population of all ages (much higher at the time they started marketing them back in the 80’s or was it the 90’s) and with their dismal 93 – 98% failure rate, are good over the counter repetitive business with very high mark-ups. And since they hardly help anyone quit, what has Big Pharma who aims the best of both worlds got to lose?
And hellooooo, if nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth, I don’t care if it comes in the smoking form, the patch form, the gum form, the lozenge or inhaler form. Nicotine is nicotine is nicotine and if it’s that addictive you should have been hooked on it just by using NRT. Why is this so difficult a concept to grasp that you dare call it illogical?
Ah yes attack the messenger disregard the facts. Hate to pop your bubble bud, but I use all sources, that news was on all the networks not just Fox and does not negate the fact that the EPA has been cooking science to suit their agenda since it's inception. It does not negate the fact that honest former members of tobacco control admit that there are many I repeat many legitimate scientist who don't find the scientific evidence compelling.
http://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/danger-public-health-could-become-a-religious-movement/
Before you dare call me a NEOCON I will tell you that I am a card carrying Libertarian who is fighting against all of the Nanny state laws and all of the collectivist like you. Since you want to attack media outlets, how is that air america of yours doing?
Hint Hint!
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/the-new-fcc/
Wait, I thought you “have no more time to waste” with me?
Allegedly? Is there anything you will not say to protect tobacco companies? Really? “NRT targets 25% of the smoking population of all ages?” Did you pull that stat out of your ass, too? How is that even possible when, according to Gallup, the smoking rate in the U.S. is only 21 percent and falling. That would mean every single smoker is trying to quit with NRT, and another almost 5 percent who don’t smoke.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
Once again, “Big Pharma” makes more money selling the drugs to treat the numerous diseases and cancers caused by smoking and secondhand smoke that it does NRT drugs.
Like I said, nicotine is perhaps the most addictive substance on earth. Wrong again, the dose of nicotine from a cigarette is much stronger, and NRT allows you to break the habit without the physical symptoms of withdraw, such as irritability, hostility, anxiety depression; kind of like Methadone. If just a patch allowed you to quit smoking, the success rate of NRT would be much higher than the 50-70 percent. It takes willpower, NRT just eases the symptoms of withdrawal while you break the habit.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4753
http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000146.html
How am I attacking the messenger? Faux “news” is simply not a news agency. Wow, talk about me attacking the messenger. Exactly what is the EPA agenda; Other than to protect the environment? Hence the name Environmental Protection Agency.
Once again, the fact remains that the tactics that are being employed are right out of the playbook of tobacco companies. They only needed a few scientists in their employ to claim there’s some doubt or it needs more study, and that’s how they managed to continue to market cigarettes with no restrictions or warnings labels for years when the science was and is clear. It appears it worked so well, they are rolling it out again.
Good for you; you can call yourself anything you want, even if there is little difference between the two. I’m a liberal not a “collectivist,” what ever the hell that is.
Air America is bankrupt; you don’t know that? Who would advertise on a radio station that you can only hear a couple of miles from the station and not at all at night. The fact is when liberal talk gets the same fair shake as rightwing psycho talk, it does as well or better. I’m not sure what that has to do with misinformation on the scientific fact of the damage secondhand smoke causes.
No, I don't have anymore time to waste but I can't let you go unchecked posting such illogical enormities.
21% , 25% , do nitpick on a couple of percentage points on polls that are only estimates of the smoking prevalence in the US, won't you? You're really grasping at straws now. Yes NRT targets 21% (official figure in the US but newsflash, NRT is not only marketed in the US, anti-smoking is global) of all ages of smokers. It has the potential that many and even all of the 21% of these smokers will try it once twice, three times, right up to forever. Just keep the smoker believing that he's too addicted to quit on his/her own, and they will try every pharma product under the sun including the killer drug Chantix when what one really needs, and you admitted so yourself, is will power. Put peer pressure on that smoker and whether he has the will or not, he will try to find the miracle solution and try every new gadget out there possible to attempt to quit to please society. But guess what, it doesn't work unless the smoker WANTS to quit. And Big Pharma knows that. Are you beginning to see the circular pattern? Silly question, of course you're not!
''Once again, “Big Pharma” makes more money selling the drugs to treat the numerous diseases and cancers caused by smoking and secondhand smoke that it does NRT drugs.''
Perhaps, and perhaps not, I am not aware of the statistics, perhaps you are? Regardless, NRT does NOT help most people quit, so they're not losing anything. The biggest enemy of Big Pharma is not their own pseudomedication, it is people's will power and by golly they'll do and say anything to make people believe that they can't quit on their own while constantly and icreasingly putting the pressure on them to quit by making outcasts and pariahs out of them through smoking bans among other tactics.
I urge you to read this very timely article just posted today by an anti-tobacco activist.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-do-anti-smoking-groups-and.html and don't come back arguing nonsense like he's probably paid by Big Tobacco! He's as anti-tobacco as anti-tobacco gets!
I was going to leave the link to Dr Seigel's blog but CAGE beet me too it.
Now back to guru' "How am I attacking the messenger? Faux “news” is simply not a news agency." Again attack the messenger, is that all you collectivist/socialist can do. Ignore the facts, because they don't back you up. Now MSNoBodyCares might not consider them a news agency but lets check the facts.
http://www.pollingreport.com/media.htm
and
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_126.pdf
So now that we have that out of the way, how about arguing the facts Jack!
You are wasting your time because I have never posted “illogical enormities.”
Sorry, there’s no way you can spin your 25 percent claim. Believe it or not, not every smoker is trying to quit. Nice try at damage control, though. When have I ever said “Just keep the smoker believing that he's too addicted to quit on his/her own.” But it is a fact that NRT therapy increases the success rate to 50-70 percent. It helped me quit, and I didn’t pay a penny for the patches. Besides, the workplace smoking ban that just over 75 percent of Michigan residents are in favor of – which is what this blog post is about – does not target the smoker.
Wait, you just repeatedly gave me a hard time about me saying nicotine was perhaps the most addictive substance on earth, and you claim “they will try every pharma product under the sun including the killer drug Chantix when what one really needs, and you admitted so yourself, is will power.” If it’s not addictive, what’s’ the problem? Talk about a “circular pattern.” Also, I never, ever said “what one really needs is will power.” That is simply a lie. I tried to quit with no NRT a couple of times and failed.
That is 100 percent correct, “Big Pharma” makes more money selling the drugs to treat the numerous diseases and cancers caused by smoking and secondhand smoke that it does NRT drugs. NRT does help people quit, and I’m just one. The success rate of NRT is 50-70 percent. That’s significant. Besides, the smoking ban is not about the smoker, it’s to protect the non-smoker.
I give you medical journals and government agencies for soured and you give me blog posts? Like I said before, the fact remains that the tactics that are being employed are right out of the playbook of tobacco companies. They only needed a few scientists in their employ to claim there’s some doubt or it needs more study, and that’s how they managed to continue to market cigarettes with no restrictions or warnings labels for years when the science was and is clear. It appears it worked so well, they are rolling it out again.
I have shown that the EPA has had a long history of corruption and agenda based scientific fraud. Plain and simple those are the facts.
Yes you liberals claim to be intellectually elite yet your grasp on this subject appears to be nonexistent.
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual goals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group rights over individual rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism
Since you think that you have more rights (as a collective of anti-smokers) then everyone including the property owner I find the term appropriate.
This should acquaint you with property rights.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/antis-dont-understand-rights/
You are starting to make me wonder if this blog is not true.
http://electivedecisions.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/doctor-ben-carson-discovers-medical-link-between-liberals-and-limited-brain-activity/
Again, Faux “news” is simply not a news agency. Just give me a real news source. Why is that so difficult?
I am neither a “collectivist” – whatever that is - or a socialist. Is that all you got, name-calling?
I am presenting facts, “Jack.” I don’t consider Faux “news” a real news organization, you do. You don’t like MSNBC, fine; give me a source from one of the thousands of other mainstream media resources, even if they all are conservative.
''The success rate of NRT is 50-70 percent. ''
LOL, talk about a Big Pharma peddler!
Which part of the studies in the links that Dr. Siegel posted is not scientific enough to your standards? A doctor, public health practitioner, prominent anti-tobacco professor in behavioral science is not credible enough for you to write a blog?
You sir are as anti-truth and as anti-science as I have ever had the displeasure to discuss with in my travels and trust me I have been around and yes on MY OWN nickel, can you claim the same? I am beginning to seriously doubt it.
No, you haven’t. What is plain and simple is the fact that secondhand smoke kills and causes numerous diseases.
“You liberals claim to be intellectually elite?” When did I claim that? I’m just using scientific fact to debunk your baseless claims. By the way, the workplace smoking ban in Michigan – which is what this post is about – was bipartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for it, and both Democrats and Republicans voted against it.
Collectivism is a made up word no one but you uses, and I don’t fit the description.
I have a right to breathe clean, disease free air. What right does the smoker have to poison that air? There is no property rights violation, anymore than it is a personal property rights violation for the health department to shut down a restaurant that is making people sick.
That is correct, The success rate of NRT is 50-70 percent. I even provided a link.
So, if one scientist claims secondhand smoke is harmless, and 10 claim it is, I have to believe the one? That’s a tactic right out of the playbook of tobacco companies. They only needed a few scientists – or one in this case - to claim there’s some doubt or it needs more study, and that’s how they managed to continue to market cigarettes with no restrictions or warnings labels for years when the science was clear.
You sir are as anti-truth and as anti-science as I have ever had the displeasure to discuss with in my travels and trust me I have been around and yes on my own nickel. Yes, I can and do “claim the same.”
Listen Guru you obviously do not follow the links or you would have a clue. The link I gave to Dr Siegel listed several renowned scientist who don't believe the so called scientific evidence rises to the level of proof. Here is a quote from Richard Doll who helped find the link from smoking to lung cancer
He quoted only from his figures and was no absolutist. When questioned recently on second-hand smoke, he exasperated the anti-smoking lobby by replying: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article547715.ece
But go ahead and keep on drinking that collectivist left coast Kool Aid
Guru said,
"Collectivism is a made up word no one but you uses, and I don’t fit the description."
Wrong Ayan Rand warned about your kind over 50 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=player_embedded
You have the right to breath clean air on your property, not mine, even if that property is a business. Please oh collectivist one show me where in the constitution does it say that the collective known as anti-smokers have the right to smoke free air on property that they do not own.
However the constitution does have a clause in the fifth amendment. "without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is from a Supreme court case,
Held: There has been no dedication of petitioner's privately owned and operated shopping center to public use so as to entitle respondents to exercise First Amendment rights therein that are unrelated to the center's operations, and petitioner's property did not lose its private character and its right to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the public is generally invited to use it for the purpose of doing business with petitioner's tenants.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0407_0551_ZS.html
Still, it doesn't describe me. I have the right to breathe clean air anywhere. Again, I’m not a “collectivist” I’m a proud liberal, Democratic American. And again, the workplace smoking ban is nonpartisan. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for it, and both Democrats and Republicans voted against it.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(utdi3vaqwwyqrvz4ibovl055))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/Senate/htm/2009-SJ-12-10-103.htm
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(utdi3vaqwwyqrvz4ibovl055))/documents/2009-2010/Journal/House/htm/2009-HJ-12-10-107.htm
Where in the Constitution? Easy; Try the Preamble where it says, “..promote the general welfare.” Or, Article I Section 1 “All Legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” Now, show me where in the Constitution you have a right to smoke anywhere with no restrictions and poison those who choose not to smoke.
Protecting the public health from known carcinogens does not in any way constitute a taking of property.
Again, it’s an accepted fact that secondhand smoke is a danger to health. Not only do we have two separate U.S. Surgeon General’s reports and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) conclusion that there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke and that it kills, we have others. We also have the actual results from the numerous places that have gone smoke free.
For instance, the nonprofit, nongovernmental Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report in October of last year called “Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence.” The report concludes “smoking bans are effective at reducing the risk of heart attacks and heart disease associated with exposure to secondhand smoke.”
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/Secondhand-Smoke-Exposure-and-Cardiovascular-Effects-Making-Sense-of-the-Evidence.aspx
We have two separate analyses where each found that heart attack rates fall 17 percent within a year after smoking bans take effect. One analysis, which included 13 studies, appears in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. A second analysis, which considered 11 studies, appears in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-21-smoking-bans_N.htm
An international panel of researchers convened by the University of Toronto and chaired by the university's Neil Collishaw, M.D., found after its review of several recent studies and meta-analyses that exposure to secondhand smoke was causally linked to breast cancer in premenopausal women.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/13899
The American Psychosomatic Society released a study in March 2009 at their annul meeting in Chicago. According to a report in USA Today, It’s the first U.S. study tying secondhand smoke to depression. Another study in Japan came up with a similar conclusion, buy unlike the Japanese research, this study actually confirmed exposure to smoke by measuring cotinine — a chemical that occurs in blood after breathing in smoke.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-04-secondhand-smoke_N.htm
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the results of an extensive report in January 2009 that said heart attack hospitalizations in the city of Pueblo, Colo. fell sharply after the implementation of a municipal law making workplaces and public places smoke-free.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm
In just one year after Italy enacted a national smoking ban, researchers in Rome found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74, according to a study in, “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.”
I know facts have a liberal bias and are stubborn things, but the fact is the medical and scientific community reached a consensus more than 20 years ago on the harm of secondhand smoke. The evidence has only gotten stronger in those 20 years. Now, there are a few researchers who may disagree, and that’s how tobacco companies managed to sell cigarettes with no restrictions for years. I know you will not let facts get in the way of your opinion, so keep on drinking that Kool Aid. But, most people are reasonable and respect science, and that’s why 38 states have smoking bans – to date.
Again, I’m a proud, Liberal, Democratic American from Michigan, not California, Washington or Oregon.
Post a Comment