News-Record.com

Another self-serving, misguided, and pathetic attempt to place financial considerations above public health and personal safety and to have you believe that all that is legal is also ethical and moral -

Gill (what irony) could've made the point that the tobacco industry, in its infancy, never knew people would suck down his product to the point of financial impairment or the ruination of their health. It IS legal to manufacture cigarettes and a few puffs now and then wouldn't hurt a fly.

Gotta go, it's time to take my grass mower and run over a few kittens.

I was behind a guy buying cigs the other day and noticed a pack is approaching $5.

Govt. is significantly raising taxes on cigs and using the extra money "for the children" i.e. SCHIP. Govt. is also further restricting where smokers can smoke.

Both of these actions may significantly decrease smoking. The intended goal? If so where is the money going to come from for the children?

Govt. is equally addicted to tobacco.

Monica, Carrie Nations or whatever your name is, please don't forget to mention alcohol as you spew from your pulpit .

Monica, the manufacture of, the selling of and the use of tobacco products are perfectly legal.
When and if the "guvmint" can wean itself from the tobacco taxes it's addicted to, you may see it become otherwise.
However, I doubt it.

hugh,

Alcohol has had restrictions for years whereas tobacco has had almost no restrictions. Putting more restrictions on tobacco will not stop the hard core smoker from smoking any more than having restrictions on alcohol has stopped the hard core drinker from drinking. Besides, what you and others fail to recognize is NO ONE is trying to stop people from smoking, only to restrict WHERE they can smoke. Just google the states where smoking in public places has been banned and see how many restaurants and/or bars have had to close due to the restriction.

Alcohol and tobacco are not necessities in order to sustain life. The two properties they both share are addition and health hazards. Otherwise, it is an apples/oranges comparison. Someone else drinking in my presence has little effect on my health while someone else smoking in my presence can trigger an asthma attack that may become a life threatening episode. The potential for someone to kill me while drinking and driving is far less than the potential for someone to kill me with second-hand smoke. Therefore, to me, smoking in public places is far more harmful to the general public than is drinking in restaurants and bars.

Please do not hear me defending alcohol as I AM NOT. My father was killed by a drunk driver. Many years later, a drunk driver almost ended my life. I was married to an alcoholic and a smoker. Thus I have no use of either. My observations are based on sound evidence as an asthmatic and a health care provider.

To deny the hazards to the general public by public smokers is foolish.

People act as if raising the sin taxes are the sole source of revenue for the state. They're a great well to tap in a crisis, but if alcohol and tobacco vanished off the face of the earth, the Legislature would find something else to tax.

So, I'm not losing any sleep worrying about what will happen if sin taxes don't provide the revenue for program like SCHIP because the taxes finally convince most people to stop smoking.

The Truths & Myths about Smoking

The Anti-smoking Crusade is the result of a 30+ year campaign by small activist groups and agencies that have grown in power by tapping the cigarette tax dollars, the government teat, and more recently the monies from the tobacco lawsuits. What may have started out as an awareness campaign has been highjacked by the power hungry and those with an alternative agenda. The issue is not as black & white as you may have been led to believe. It takes a lot of time to do the research and become informed but hopefully this website will give you a broader understanding of the truth and maybe debunk a few of the many myths out there. Everything here is factual.

http://www.freedom-of-choice.com/AS3.htm

Myth: If you can smell cigarette smoke then the "bad" parts of the smoke are also there.
Truth: The portion of smoke that you can smell is only a small fraction of the content but it is also the longest lasting. Do you really think that because you can smell "smoke" in your clothes the next day that the smoke is still there trying to kill you? If so you belong to the neurotic (and exceedingly stupid) class of antismokers.7

Myth: Second-hand smoke is unfiltered smoke and therefore worse than the smoke that the smoker is inhaling.
Truth: The smoke that a smoker exhales is what you are exposed to as the cigarette does not give off significant smoke while idle. Therefore the smoke has not only been filtered by the cigarette's filter but also the smoker's respiratory system.

Myth: A lot of people have an allergy to tobacco smoke.
Truth: We have looked but been unable to find a single documented case of an allergy to tobacco smoke. What people sometimes call an allergy is really a perceived irritation of the respiratory tract.

Myth: Cigarettes cause lung cancer.
Truth: Cigarettes do not cause cancer but are but one of many factors that can increase the incidence of lung cancer. People who have never been exposed to any type of cigarette smoke still get lung cancer. Not only that but for every 100 lifelong heavy smokers, less than 6 of them would ever get lung cancer.1,2 Hardly any direct correlation.

Myth: Cigarettes are as addictive as heroin.
Truth: Not only cigarettes but now also hamburgers are as addictive as heroin.8 Of course these are false. Such statements are misinterpretations of recidivism rates. Basically, these people say that because someone who stops smoking or eating a hamburger, often have another cigarette or hamburger down the road at about the same rate as someone who kicks heroin, that they must therefore be equally addictive. This is nothing but pure sophistry (the incorrect use of logic to fool the public). It is also a purposeful confusion of psychogenic and physical dependence. The 1964 Report of the Surgeon General (p.352) states, "The compulsion (to smoke) appears to be solely psychogenic since physical dependence does not develop to nicotine ... nor does tobacco, either during its use or following withdrawal, create psychotoxic effects which lead to antisocial behavior.... In contrast to drugs of addiction, withdrawal from tobacco never constitutes a threat to life. These facts indicate clearly the absence of physical dependence."

Myth: Smoking has no medical benefits.
Truth: It helps to prevent the development of neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease.9-14 It may also be helpful in ADHD, schizophrenia, and depression.14 Smoking has been found to be relaxing for beneficial for some anxiety disorders and people with type A personalities. In fact, taking away smoking from some subgroups can increase their medical problems and chance of dying). Smoking like caffeine can help a person get going in the morning and improve their energy state.7 Though some of the benefits from smoking may be due to some individual components such as nicotine, studies need to be done and an effective means of administration needs to be developed.

"Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. BE WARNED THOUGH, THAT A SOCIETY THAT ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE ALL RISK TERMINATES INDIVIUAL LIBERTY AND WILL ULTIMATELY PARISH. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer),

Beachwalker: cut and paste is plagiarism . . . and unworthy of you. Don't you have any ideas of your own? I know you can write a coherent statement--I've seen you do it, even if I don't always agree with you.

You can't smell radiation, but it can still kill you.

Cigarettes contain cyanide. Some people can smell it (almonds or dirty socks), some can't smell it at all. Just because we can't smell the toxins doesn't mean they are not there.

Besides, as a non-smoker the last thing I want is the disgusting reek of cigarette smoke clinging to my clothing, and staining my whites.

Your web article cites a CDC page that apparently has been changed. So I went to the CDC. Here's their stats: "Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States,1 accounting for approximately 1 of every 5 deaths (438,000 people) each year.2,3" (http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/adult_cig_smoking.htm)

I'm not going to waste my time debunking each and every quote. But once again, you rely on the web page of a nut fringe "group" that doesn't identify who runs the page, what their credentials are, or who supports them. They may deny taking money, and there are indeed no ads on the site. Which makes me think it's the site of an individual due to it's brevity and narrowness of view.

In no way did I mean to plagiarize this information. That is why I listed the web site it came from.

And you miss the MAIN point of this site. And that is; there are many things that can be viewed as dangerous, but A SOCIETY THAT ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE ALL RISK TERMINATES INDIVIUAL LIBERTY AND WILL ULTIMATELY PARISH.

I do not smoke (never have other than experiment as a teenager), do not work for a tobacco company. My father did grow aprox. 10 acres of tobacco a few years, over 45 years ago, but that would be the only ties I have to the industry directly. But I am NOT blinded by those with alternative motives (lawyers, politicians, etc.) whose only aim is to line their own pockets. So I am not going to waste my time telling you why your stats are bogus. (You are too blinded by media hype to listen anyway.) I am also not blind to the many benefits the tobacco industry has brought to this state.

"They're (sin taxes) a great well to tap in a crisis, but if alcohol and tobacco vanished off the face of the earth, the Legislature would find something else to tax."

Exactly, they will find something else to tax, like our income, sales taxes, property taxes, etc.

Obama said the cig tax would fund SCHIP expansion. Once an entitlement is created or expanded, it's there and will have to be funded. Less smokers = less cig taxes = SCHIP funding coming from somewhere else. That's what concerns me.

Monica and Yvonne seem to be the only readers who have really read Mr Gill's letter and noted the logical disconnect between its two areas of thought. The rest is a sad recitation of various propaganda points of view with little thought involved, which is why I seldom visit this area and probably shouldn't have this time. I do feel sorry for Beachwalker, though, as he'd be able to see through the veil of deceit he's been handed if only he'd notice what's been left out of the words he's clipping instead of nodding so much at what's there that suits his predilections.
BTW, if by societies one means great empires, all so far have eventually perished. Read Arnold Toynbee, Herbert Muller, or Jared Diamond. For better or worse, liberty seldom has any role in the matter. If one means civilizations, most evolve into something new or are amalgamated into others and contribute their bits here and there, liberty being one of the more hopeful bits that have both evolved and flowered in various soils. Alas, it has also been stamped out, mostly where people don't distinguish paint from crap.

Yvonne, "apples/oranges ".

They will kill you. There's not one person in the history of mankind who has eaten and apple or orange in their lifetime and later died.

2fer, what an eloquent speech. Sounds like it came right off a teleprompter. And just like another popular person of today who over uses the teleprompter, his speeches are more crap than paint too.

And please don't feel sorry for me, it is obvious you have your own set of problems to worry about. By the way, the only words I've "clipped" are the words missing from your "various propaganda points".

Beachwalker: check out this website on plagiarism and how to cite sources appropriately: http://www.plagiarism.org/.

Your first paragraph is the intro of your web page cut and pasted. THEN you give the link. This gives the impression you are the author of the first paragraph. Had I not decided to look for myself, that's what I would have believed, indeed did believe until I looked.

Really, your reliance on cut and paste is odd behavior for one who always accuses others of using a teleprompter.

Your site states, ""Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story."

What this really means is, "I will weigh the risks and benefits to ME and to hell with everyone else!"

The reason smoking restrictions are enacted is to protect the health of non-smokers.

Certainly there is no way to eliminate all risk from life, as you state. But for individuals to engage in behavior that CREATES risk for innocent bystanders is on the same moral level as someone who calls out "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Smokers do not have the right to create risks for my health to satisfy their selfish addiction.

Ok go ahead and shoot me for plagiarism, even though that was not my intent. Even ignorant people who are trying to plagarize something wouldn't list the sight they were quoting from if plagarism was the intent. But then again I have to think about who is making the claim.

Now to the real issue. You libs are experts at cutting off your nose to spite your face, throwing out the baby with the bath water, killing the goose that laid the golden egg. And it is all because of your "holier than thou self rightous attitudes". And your "me, me, me attitude" and your "it's all about me nature". Most of this 2nd hand smoke BS was started by poeple who didn't like Jesse Helms (like Henry Waxman). So they thought the best way to show old Jesse is to take away a lot of the money in Jesse's home state of North Carolina. Ahhhhh, let's demonize tobacco. You you libs fell face first into it. I wish all the money and everything that tobacco money made possible for you libs to have was taken away. You would be left with just about nothing. Which is what you really deserve.

I see the N&R (one of the liberal news propaganda machines) has already had to retract its lie, that Earl Gill (the writer of the LTE) is NOT a consultant for the Lorillard Tobacco Co.
Sorta puts a damper on you liberal's statement about Gill be self-serving.

Second hand smoke hype = swine flu hype X 1,000. Uncle ted has killed more people than second hand smoke.

Nothing like the sweet aroma of a Churchill when one enters a room...