If the below article had appeared in a California newspaper, it wouldn't have surprised me or even really held my interest. Google "crazy, insane, fascist, wacky laws and ordinances" and a picture of California comes up.
But this article was in the Business Section of the Dallas Morning News. Not to say that the City of Dallas is not anti-smoking; far from it. But the tone of the article, especially the quotes, is what really took me aback.
The latest in the "War on Tobacco"; cigarette smokers in particular this time: non-smoking housing, apartments and condos are beginning to take hold: no smoking in your own home & in some cases, even in the common areas or on the property at all.
------Click HERE to READ MORE ------
Technorati Tags:tobacco, fda, snus, camelsnus, marlborosnus, swedishsnus, dallas morning news, cigarettes, cigarette smoking
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Technorati Tags:tobacco, fda, snus, camelsnus, marlborosnus, swedishsnus, dallas morning news, cigarettes, cigarette smoking
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator Del.icio.us Add to del.icio.us Digg DiggIt! Reddit Reddit Stumbleupon Stumble This Google Bookmarks Add to Google Bookmarks Yahoo My Web Add to Yahoo MyWeb Technorati Add to Technorati Faves Slashdot Slashdot it
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
7 comments:
It's conflicting.
I certainly can embrace the notion that landowners (apartment owners) have the right to bar tenants from smoking on their property.
I can understand the idea that in a perfect world, cigarettes would not exist.
But this anti-smoking, anti-tobacco lobby is most likely going to derail and go out of control... and not before Something Bad happens.
Next it will be a Fat Tax. Then it'll be Caloric Restrictions.
The socialized healthcare plans that I think will become popular in the next decade will only reinforce this loss of individual rights. Once everybody's paying for everybody else's medical bills, they'll have an even greater say in your ability to live a lifestyle that might lead to the public having to pay your hospital bill.
These might be the good old days.
"These might me the good old days."
What a horrible thing to contemplate in the United States of America. But sadly, I think you're right.
And I agree with you on the Fat Tax and all the rest.
Ben Franklin said "We've given you a Representative Republic...if you can keep it". Looks like we can't.
Hope I'll be dead before they ban Swedish snus from America.
Hi big chris!
You know, I was thinking after I posted my reply.....
If as you say "I certainly can embrace the notion that landowners (apartment owners) have the right to bar tenants from smoking on their property."
Then why don't restaurants, bars and other venues who want to cater to smokers have the right to ALLOW smoking in their establishments?
It's a double standard.
De Tocqueville called it "Tyranny of the Majority."
Couple of things.
If you think the anti-smoking forces exempt smokeless tobacco of any kind from their campaign, think again. They are misnamed..they are anti-tobacco.
Your switch to snus was a good one. However, the distinction between American and Swedish products in terms of health is negligible. You will see higher TSNA counts on American product but that has not translated into higher rates of any kinds of cancer.
Any smokeless tobacco has less than 5% of the risk of cigarettes. Pasterization is more marketing than anything.
In general, I agree with you that the war against tobacco has lost all perspective. Its good that non smokers have places to go but smokers should have the same rights. I am no longer a smoker but this nonsense has almost made me go back just on principle.
Hi Aos!
I visited your blog. Very nice by the way!
I agree it a war against tobacco by certain parties involved. It's war against cigarettes in particular by ALL parties involved.
Cigarettes are the most offensive to non-tobacco/especially non-smokers. They cause the greatest outcry, have their so-called "second hand smoke" argument, and are very politically correct. And not just in the US.
Tobacco in general, on the other hand, (in the US at least), supporters too many farmers and generates WAY, WAY to much tax revenue to be eliminated any time in the near future.
The State and Federal Governments would collapse without tobacco revenue. And the government KNOWS the have a captive, nicotine-addicted audience: 46MM+ cigarette smokers, not including cigar and pipe....plus chew and dip users.
When Texas raised the cigarette tax a dollar a pack, cigarette sales were down in Texas 30% BUT cigarette tax revenue was up $13MM.
Where I most strongly disagree with you is your statement concerning pasteurization.
There is a VERY substantial difference in oral cancer rates between Swedish men and Americans using conventional chewing tobacco or dip.
Since the Swedes publish their TSNA rates and American "snus" manufacturers don't, I'm willing to bet you're right as to American snus having a higher TSNA count. We just don't know HOW high!
But I'm afraid you are absolutely and completely off-base when comparing any smokeless tobacco to cigarettes. Only a 5% difference????
With all due respect, your statement:
Any smokeless tobacco has less than 5% of the risk of cigarettes. Pasteurization is more marketing than anything. is SO far from being even REMOTELY accurate that even the US FDA; even the vitriolic anti-tobacco Nazi wouldn't dare make the statement.
All of the carcinogenic effects of cigarettes are caused by combustion....the fact that it is burned and inhaled. Over 2000 carcinogenic entities are created through tobacco combustion and inhalation. An easy example: there is NO TAR in smokeless tobacco...there sure is in cigarettes.
400,000 people die in the US from cigarette-smoking related causes.
Those that die from chewing tobacco are a tiny fraction of that.
And those that die from Swedish snus use: for all practical purposes: virtually NONE. (and I'm only using the word "virtually" so if one snus user gets run over by a bus, I won't be sued.)
And while high TSNA smokeless tobacco is the leading cause of oral cancer in those who use it, snus made to Swedish Government specifications INCLUDING not just THAT it is pasteurized, but how it is pasteurized has proven; long term study after long-term study, that Swedish Males who use Swedish Snus have the LOWEST rates of oral cancer in all of Europe....lowest lung cancer too, but that's not surprising.
Sweden also regulates snus manufactured there as a FOOD product. American tobacco of any kind is regulated as a ......TAXABLE product. There are no minimum quality standards a consumer can count on.
The War on Cigarettes is really on now. Why else do you thing American Tobacco Companies are "suddenly" marketing "snus"?
And THAT's why RJRT and PM USA are working SO hard in their marketing to make "snus" an all-encompassing, universal "product", while touting the virtues of SWEDISH snus as the example. It's to deliberately create an impression among Americans, 99.9% of whom (except for in Minnesota) ever even HEARD of snus until two years ago...and most of them think the American Tobacco Companies invented it! They want the (legal term again) "reduced-harm tobacco" label by association, not through a quality product.
I admit I was happy to see you're Canadian. The first thing I checked on your blog is that you're not from Winston-Salem or Raleigh NC.
And I do find your blog interesting and entertaining. But what BAFFLES me is in your Profile, you state that you earn your living "through research and writing in the field of health".
In light of your comments, especially on the 5% as well as on pasteurization, I find that simply incredible.
Thanks for visiting and making it an interesting read for me! Please feel free to visit again.
And if you check the three part series on Big American Tobacco I wrote recently, you'll find lots of links to legitimate studies you may find interesting.
Sincerely, yet dazed,
Mr. Unloadingzone
Actually, it sounds to me like aos is saying "both American and Swedish oral tobacco products have 95% less risk" when he says, "Any smokeless tobacco has less than 5% of the risk of cigarettes."
5% of X is 95% less than X :P
But I would strongly disagree that the difference between Swedish Snus and American dip/chaw is negligible, given what I've read about them in numerous studies.
Yea, Big Chris, you're right about the 5%....I was tired when I read it. My apologies to Aos.
But I still disagree about pasteurization. It's a lot more than marketing. Fermentation doesn't do squat to TSNA's.
Post a Comment