Gummints worldwide spend trillions and trillions of taxpayers money on social engineering.
Enuf pls was this really what goverment where elected for? To live our lives. To control our risks in life?
If we had put a stop to all this crapola decades ago and spent the money on the human instinct to pioneer to go where no man has gone before, warp drive may have been invented by now. The moon may well have already be populated with space stations and we could be populating nw found planets.
Hell sorry what am I talking about, waffling into my webpage again. Its just not safe is it?
We have built a space bubble around each and every person on earth at huge cost.
I offer myself up to be the first pioneer on another plant cos I am dead sick of this one.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Can You Get Lung Cancer From A Toilet Seat?
Robert PraskerArticle Published: 2009/04/15
Tolerance for some, vilification for others, is the policy of "public health authorities."
"You do not get HIV from:* Being bitten by mosquitoes or other bugs* Being bitten by an animal* Eating food handled, prepared, or served by somebody with HIV infection* Sharing toilets, telephones, or clothes* Sharing forks, spoons, knives, or drinking glasses* Touching, hugging, or kissing a person with HIV infection* Attending school, church, shopping malls, or other public places with HIV-infected people."- Surgeon General Antonia Novello, 1992 Surgeon General's Report on AIDS"At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic many Americans had little sympathy for people with AIDS. The feeling was that somehow people from certain groups “deserved” their illness.
Let us put those feelings behind us. We are fighting a disease, not people. Those who are already affected are sick people and need our care as do all sick patients. The country must face this epidemic as a unified society. We must prevent the spread of AIDS while at the same time preserving our humanity and intimacy."-C. Everett Koop, 1986, the first Surgeon General's Report on AIDS"
ASH recently forced a major university to stop an employee, who took smoke breaks outside his smoke free office, from working in the same office with a women whose health -- and the health of her unborn child -- were threatened by his thirdhand smoke, according to testimony from two of her doctors....to avoid being barred, smokers likely have to change clothing, shower and shampoo, and use mouthwash."-John Banzhaf, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) press release, March 25, 2009It's evident from the quotations above that our attitudes regarding risk and health have gone askew. In 1986 we knew the Surgeon General himself placed a priority on "our humanity and our intimacy". Today, we all know that we can't get AIDS from kissing a person with AIDS, and that we can't get AIDS from sharing a toilet seat. A Surgeon General’s Report endorsed these facts and ideas in 1992. The public remembers, and generally continues to endorse them.Somehow though, ASH would like for us to believe that one needs to change clothing, use mouthwash and do laundry if they go outside for a smoke. This is to protect others from the residual particulate matter on smoker's clothing; a contrivance called "third hand smoke". Meanwhile, while the notion of "third hand smoke" has entered the vernacular, a search of the Surgeon General's website and the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website regarding "third hand smoke" comes up empty at this writing. (Please feel free to search yourself at the in-text links provided.) This absence of information is troubling given the willingness of health practitioners and policy makers to invoke "third hand smoke" as a justification for instituting healthcare and workplace policies.
Clearly, these policies haven't been adopted in any way by public health. Rather, ASH, an organization that thinks smokers should be arrested for homicide, is lobbying for these policies to be enacted."Third hand smoke" is really a misnomer; the residual smell left on clothing from burnt tobacco is only arguably "third hand" and it most certainly is not "smoke". In fact, “third hand smoke” is a catch-phrase, coined to promote a health scare, designed to destroy “humanity and intimacy.” There has been no epidemiological study to demonstrate that being exposed to residual tobacco smells represents any kind of risk to anyone. Anti-tobacco zealots simply want to instill that belief. They want to make smokers feared and hated. That has been their goal for decades. “Third hand smoke” is the latest tactic in the long-escalating war against smokers.Science and truth have never gotten in the way of the anti-smoking agenda, and ASH hardly conceals their contempt for tobacco users with comments like: ""We've always known that a smoker's breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution which can harm children and perhaps some adults." One might think that such statements would subject the motives of ASH to a greater level of professional scrutiny. To the contrary, it's obvious that health institutions now act according to the guidance of ASH and other anti-smoking groups. Also, the lack of epidemiological evidence and government guidance hasn't stopped the media or politicians from leaping into action to protect children from a non-existent menace. This alarmist approach to matters of public health has become commonplace, especially when it comes to tobacco. One would hope that government health authorities would step in to set the record straight, or that they'd issue guidance advising health practitioners to regard the claims of special interest groups like ASH with skepticism, at least until credible evidence can be produced. To the contrary, it appears that anti-smoking interests lead government health authorities by the nose. It also appears that the Surgeon General and CDC remain complicitly silent until they feel confident that the anti-smoking interests have been successful in pitching their scare du jour to the public. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona has already declared that there "is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke". Once the coast is clear, the Surgeon General and the CDC are likely to make similar claims regarding "third hand smoke".Not so long ago, public health took an entirely different approach. When the AIDS outbreak came along in the nineteen eighties, gay men, in particular, were falling prey to a mysterious killer virus that laid waste to the immune system itself. There was no effective treatment and no known cure. The devastating nature of the disease immediately attracted the attention of the sensationalist media. In no time at all, fear, speculation and misinformation spread across the country. Far right religious groups immediately fanned the flames of hysteria by claiming the AIDS virus was a biblical plague with a moral agenda. The infectious nature of the disease seemed to confirm the suspicions of anyone who was ill-at-ease with homosexuality. Last, the prevalence of the disease amongst gay men seemed to be the excuse that every homophobe had been waiting for to justify and exalt their hatred for gays.In 1982, 466* people had died of AIDS with hardly an eye blink from public health, and scientists proposed calling the new disease "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". 1 AIDS deaths more than tripled in 1983, and a June, 1983 Gallup poll revealed that 25% of the population felt that they could contract AIDS via "casual contact with an AIDS sufferer". 2 The CDC hadn't even appointed a group to investigate AIDS until the end of 1983, and when the group reported back in April of 1984, $20 million of additional federal funds had to be requested because 70 percent of those working on AIDS at the CDC had been diverted from other work areas. 3 In 1984, evangelist Jerry Falwell said in a televised interview that he didn't "hate homosexuals", just their "perverted life-style" and "sub-animal behavior". 4
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did not release a report on AIDS until 1986. Approximately 10,000 people had died from AIDS in that year, and nearly 25,000 people** had died since 1981.Only after Koop's 1986 report did the Surgeon General's office finally respond by providing credible information to the public regarding AIDS. The public was beginning to learn that AIDS is not transmitted by sharing a toilet seat or shaking hands. The reports from public health, if dismally overdue, were necessarily appropriate. They tamped down the flagrantly expressed hatred of homosexuals which early news about AIDS had inspired. The public health message was conceived to that end. An ill-conceived public health stance would have meant social ostracism for homosexuals.That didn't happen. Rather, tolerance was called upon to deal with the crisis. Efforts were made to disabuse the public of misconceptions they had regarding both AIDS and homosexuality. Heterosexuals, of course, were not immune from AIDS, and this fact became very clear when basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson announced he was carrying the HIV virus in 1991.
Questions immediately arose as to whether Johnson should be allowed to continue playing basketball. Johnson did so, and no one contracted AIDS from playing with him. It seems clear that social attitudes of the time regarding homosexuality are what allowed much of the health community to delay while tens of thousands died. Once the media caught hold of the prevalence and nature of AIDS, it was largely up to gay rights groups and the very same media to set the record straight while public health scrambled.The health issue of AIDS and the health issue of tobacco are entirely separate things. It is not my intent or purpose to imply that completely disparate health issues should be held to the same informative criteria. However, there are over 60 million tobacco users in the U.S., and tobacco is a legal product. The U.S. Constitution guarantees all equal protection under the law via the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, tobacco users are entitled to government treatment that is as ethical, responsible, and professional as that received by anyone else. Also, informational campaigns regarding tobacco use must treat the perfectly legal behavior with the very same tolerance it affords to any other group whose legal behavior leads to public health's epidemiological scrutiny.
As John Adams said, "We are a government of laws, not of men". Engaging in any kind of private sexual behavior should, of course, be legal under Federal law. Tobacco use, also, is and should be legal under Federal Law.
Any changes in Federal Law going forward are Ex Post Facto, and cannot be held to account regarding the unjust treatment that the Federal Government has already allowed and endorsed regarding tobacco use by allowing Federal public health policy to be influenced by entities that hold tobacco users in contempt. The legality of particular behavior, first and foremost, should afford anyone engaging in any such legal behavior the very same tolerance and protection as any other group, and any further distinctions are irrelevant if they are not matters of law. Under the law, the disparate legal behaviors of citizens should not be subjected to prejudicial scrutiny or preferential protection. To believe otherwise is to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice.HIV is mono-factorial: one must somehow contract the AIDS virus to be diagnosed with AIDS or test positive for HIV. Any cancer including lung cancer, as well as heart disease and other "smoking-related" illnesses are multi-factorial.
Non-smokers, and even non-smokers who haven't reported any significant exposure to any perceived risk factors, sometimes get lung cancer. Since 10 to 15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers each year in the U.S.A., even public health's statistical voodoo attributing around 3,000 annual non-smoking lung cancer deaths to secondhand smoke fails to account for thousands of people who never touched tobacco in their lives. Meanwhile, the anti-smoking campaign adopted by both anti-smoking interests and public health have swept tens of thousands up in the social stigma they've created in making tobacco use a synonym for lung cancer. Once upon a time, public health worked hard to ensure that there would be no social stigma regarding mono-factorial AIDS, and it didn't matter if you contracted AIDS due to using illegal IV drugs or engaging in multiple sexual liaisons without protection, or if you contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion. AIDS required tolerance, and it wasn't just tolerance regarding homosexuals, it was tolerance regarding the disease of AIDS because human beings all deserve respect.How different would our attitudes about both homosexuals and AIDS be today if Jerry Falwell and his ilk had been given charge of the health agenda regarding AIDS? I doubt that anyone would find comfort in the knowledge that Falwell didn't "hate homosexuals" but thought their behavior to be "perverted" and "sub-animal".One could argue that homosexuality is not a choice– the issue of “nature and nurture” – while smoking is. Granted, but this argument completely misses the point. Illegal drug use, for example, is a choice.
Who amongst us would want someone like Jerry Falwell calling the shots regarding how our current society treats marijuana users? What if a personality like Falwell went about the country influencing the medical and rehabilitative treatment of IV drug users? Would we consider that a responsible and ethical approach to public health?The delusion that those sympathetic to the cause of anti-tobacco seem to operate under is that ethical, knowledgeable, professional public health experts are particularly concerned about tobacco use and, because of that concern, they are approaching the issue with an ever vigilant watchfulness dedicated to consequence, objectivity and reason.
To the contrary, dogmatic zealots are manning the helm when it comes to the public information and perceptions regarding tobacco use. Homosexuality does not "cause" AIDS. Similarly, neither smoking nor exposure to tobacco smoke "causes" lung cancer. In the same way that religious beliefs regarding homosexuality and AIDS can be morally obtuse, so can equally dogmatic, secular notions regarding tobacco use. Jerry Falwell had firmly placed himself within our culture as being anti-gay long before AIDS came around.
Similarly, lawyer John Banzhaf had ensconced himself in the anti-smoking movement decades before anyone had ever dreamed of the notion that secondhand smoke, nevermind "third hand smoke", causes disease. "Third hand smoke" is yet another attempt by Banzhaf and his ilk to see how effective their outrageous claims will be at convincing an alarmingly uninformed and credulous public to persecute people who use tobacco. So, can you get lung cancer from a toilet seat? No. But public health is perfectly willing to abide when equally ridiculous claims are made by anti-smoking groups like ASH. Not only do public health officials fail to put an end to this nonsense, it appears that they are taking a wait-and-see approach to see if anti-tobacco groups will be successful in spreading irrational fears. If the anti-tobacco groups are successful, then public health will emerge from the shadows with a blessing and endorsement for the lies spread by the anti-tobacco evangelists.
Public health doesn't care if you lose your job, lose your spouse, lose your children, or lose your friends. They'll ruin your life before they'll let you have a perfectly legal cigarette. Allowing groups like ASH to run the public health agenda of our country is quite like empowering Jerry Falwell to pave the way regarding national AIDS policy. If that had occurred, your television and radio would tell you to be afraid to embrace or work with people who are gay, and reluctant to share bathrooms with them.
It appears that this is pretty much where public health policy is going regarding tobacco use, and probably obesity as well. Public health seems to have lost sight of the fact that we are all human beings, and we all deserve to be treated with dignity, tolerance, respect and equal treatment under the law. At the very least, even a public health policy that discourages smoking should draw the line at allowing anti-smoking evangelists to spread fear and lies regarding tobacco and its users. Public health needs to be cleansed of the influence of zealous special interests and financially motivated pharmaceutical makers. Permitting the spread of more hatred, lies and irrationality will keep us on the destructive path which public health has followed for decades.
Whatever happened to public health’s concern regarding "our humanity and our intimacy"? Public health's current approach to tobacco policy is not only wrong, it's outrageous, and it should be decried by all, whether they use tobacco or not.____
Tolerance for some, vilification for others, is the policy of "public health authorities."
"You do not get HIV from:* Being bitten by mosquitoes or other bugs* Being bitten by an animal* Eating food handled, prepared, or served by somebody with HIV infection* Sharing toilets, telephones, or clothes* Sharing forks, spoons, knives, or drinking glasses* Touching, hugging, or kissing a person with HIV infection* Attending school, church, shopping malls, or other public places with HIV-infected people."- Surgeon General Antonia Novello, 1992 Surgeon General's Report on AIDS"At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic many Americans had little sympathy for people with AIDS. The feeling was that somehow people from certain groups “deserved” their illness.
Let us put those feelings behind us. We are fighting a disease, not people. Those who are already affected are sick people and need our care as do all sick patients. The country must face this epidemic as a unified society. We must prevent the spread of AIDS while at the same time preserving our humanity and intimacy."-C. Everett Koop, 1986, the first Surgeon General's Report on AIDS"
ASH recently forced a major university to stop an employee, who took smoke breaks outside his smoke free office, from working in the same office with a women whose health -- and the health of her unborn child -- were threatened by his thirdhand smoke, according to testimony from two of her doctors....to avoid being barred, smokers likely have to change clothing, shower and shampoo, and use mouthwash."-John Banzhaf, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) press release, March 25, 2009It's evident from the quotations above that our attitudes regarding risk and health have gone askew. In 1986 we knew the Surgeon General himself placed a priority on "our humanity and our intimacy". Today, we all know that we can't get AIDS from kissing a person with AIDS, and that we can't get AIDS from sharing a toilet seat. A Surgeon General’s Report endorsed these facts and ideas in 1992. The public remembers, and generally continues to endorse them.Somehow though, ASH would like for us to believe that one needs to change clothing, use mouthwash and do laundry if they go outside for a smoke. This is to protect others from the residual particulate matter on smoker's clothing; a contrivance called "third hand smoke". Meanwhile, while the notion of "third hand smoke" has entered the vernacular, a search of the Surgeon General's website and the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) website regarding "third hand smoke" comes up empty at this writing. (Please feel free to search yourself at the in-text links provided.) This absence of information is troubling given the willingness of health practitioners and policy makers to invoke "third hand smoke" as a justification for instituting healthcare and workplace policies.
Clearly, these policies haven't been adopted in any way by public health. Rather, ASH, an organization that thinks smokers should be arrested for homicide, is lobbying for these policies to be enacted."Third hand smoke" is really a misnomer; the residual smell left on clothing from burnt tobacco is only arguably "third hand" and it most certainly is not "smoke". In fact, “third hand smoke” is a catch-phrase, coined to promote a health scare, designed to destroy “humanity and intimacy.” There has been no epidemiological study to demonstrate that being exposed to residual tobacco smells represents any kind of risk to anyone. Anti-tobacco zealots simply want to instill that belief. They want to make smokers feared and hated. That has been their goal for decades. “Third hand smoke” is the latest tactic in the long-escalating war against smokers.Science and truth have never gotten in the way of the anti-smoking agenda, and ASH hardly conceals their contempt for tobacco users with comments like: ""We've always known that a smoker's breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution which can harm children and perhaps some adults." One might think that such statements would subject the motives of ASH to a greater level of professional scrutiny. To the contrary, it's obvious that health institutions now act according to the guidance of ASH and other anti-smoking groups. Also, the lack of epidemiological evidence and government guidance hasn't stopped the media or politicians from leaping into action to protect children from a non-existent menace. This alarmist approach to matters of public health has become commonplace, especially when it comes to tobacco. One would hope that government health authorities would step in to set the record straight, or that they'd issue guidance advising health practitioners to regard the claims of special interest groups like ASH with skepticism, at least until credible evidence can be produced. To the contrary, it appears that anti-smoking interests lead government health authorities by the nose. It also appears that the Surgeon General and CDC remain complicitly silent until they feel confident that the anti-smoking interests have been successful in pitching their scare du jour to the public. Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona has already declared that there "is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke". Once the coast is clear, the Surgeon General and the CDC are likely to make similar claims regarding "third hand smoke".Not so long ago, public health took an entirely different approach. When the AIDS outbreak came along in the nineteen eighties, gay men, in particular, were falling prey to a mysterious killer virus that laid waste to the immune system itself. There was no effective treatment and no known cure. The devastating nature of the disease immediately attracted the attention of the sensationalist media. In no time at all, fear, speculation and misinformation spread across the country. Far right religious groups immediately fanned the flames of hysteria by claiming the AIDS virus was a biblical plague with a moral agenda. The infectious nature of the disease seemed to confirm the suspicions of anyone who was ill-at-ease with homosexuality. Last, the prevalence of the disease amongst gay men seemed to be the excuse that every homophobe had been waiting for to justify and exalt their hatred for gays.In 1982, 466* people had died of AIDS with hardly an eye blink from public health, and scientists proposed calling the new disease "Gay Related Immune Deficiency". 1 AIDS deaths more than tripled in 1983, and a June, 1983 Gallup poll revealed that 25% of the population felt that they could contract AIDS via "casual contact with an AIDS sufferer". 2 The CDC hadn't even appointed a group to investigate AIDS until the end of 1983, and when the group reported back in April of 1984, $20 million of additional federal funds had to be requested because 70 percent of those working on AIDS at the CDC had been diverted from other work areas. 3 In 1984, evangelist Jerry Falwell said in a televised interview that he didn't "hate homosexuals", just their "perverted life-style" and "sub-animal behavior". 4
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop did not release a report on AIDS until 1986. Approximately 10,000 people had died from AIDS in that year, and nearly 25,000 people** had died since 1981.Only after Koop's 1986 report did the Surgeon General's office finally respond by providing credible information to the public regarding AIDS. The public was beginning to learn that AIDS is not transmitted by sharing a toilet seat or shaking hands. The reports from public health, if dismally overdue, were necessarily appropriate. They tamped down the flagrantly expressed hatred of homosexuals which early news about AIDS had inspired. The public health message was conceived to that end. An ill-conceived public health stance would have meant social ostracism for homosexuals.That didn't happen. Rather, tolerance was called upon to deal with the crisis. Efforts were made to disabuse the public of misconceptions they had regarding both AIDS and homosexuality. Heterosexuals, of course, were not immune from AIDS, and this fact became very clear when basketball legend Earvin "Magic" Johnson announced he was carrying the HIV virus in 1991.
Questions immediately arose as to whether Johnson should be allowed to continue playing basketball. Johnson did so, and no one contracted AIDS from playing with him. It seems clear that social attitudes of the time regarding homosexuality are what allowed much of the health community to delay while tens of thousands died. Once the media caught hold of the prevalence and nature of AIDS, it was largely up to gay rights groups and the very same media to set the record straight while public health scrambled.The health issue of AIDS and the health issue of tobacco are entirely separate things. It is not my intent or purpose to imply that completely disparate health issues should be held to the same informative criteria. However, there are over 60 million tobacco users in the U.S., and tobacco is a legal product. The U.S. Constitution guarantees all equal protection under the law via the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, tobacco users are entitled to government treatment that is as ethical, responsible, and professional as that received by anyone else. Also, informational campaigns regarding tobacco use must treat the perfectly legal behavior with the very same tolerance it affords to any other group whose legal behavior leads to public health's epidemiological scrutiny.
As John Adams said, "We are a government of laws, not of men". Engaging in any kind of private sexual behavior should, of course, be legal under Federal law. Tobacco use, also, is and should be legal under Federal Law.
Any changes in Federal Law going forward are Ex Post Facto, and cannot be held to account regarding the unjust treatment that the Federal Government has already allowed and endorsed regarding tobacco use by allowing Federal public health policy to be influenced by entities that hold tobacco users in contempt. The legality of particular behavior, first and foremost, should afford anyone engaging in any such legal behavior the very same tolerance and protection as any other group, and any further distinctions are irrelevant if they are not matters of law. Under the law, the disparate legal behaviors of citizens should not be subjected to prejudicial scrutiny or preferential protection. To believe otherwise is to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice.HIV is mono-factorial: one must somehow contract the AIDS virus to be diagnosed with AIDS or test positive for HIV. Any cancer including lung cancer, as well as heart disease and other "smoking-related" illnesses are multi-factorial.
Non-smokers, and even non-smokers who haven't reported any significant exposure to any perceived risk factors, sometimes get lung cancer. Since 10 to 15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers each year in the U.S.A., even public health's statistical voodoo attributing around 3,000 annual non-smoking lung cancer deaths to secondhand smoke fails to account for thousands of people who never touched tobacco in their lives. Meanwhile, the anti-smoking campaign adopted by both anti-smoking interests and public health have swept tens of thousands up in the social stigma they've created in making tobacco use a synonym for lung cancer. Once upon a time, public health worked hard to ensure that there would be no social stigma regarding mono-factorial AIDS, and it didn't matter if you contracted AIDS due to using illegal IV drugs or engaging in multiple sexual liaisons without protection, or if you contracted AIDS via a blood transfusion. AIDS required tolerance, and it wasn't just tolerance regarding homosexuals, it was tolerance regarding the disease of AIDS because human beings all deserve respect.How different would our attitudes about both homosexuals and AIDS be today if Jerry Falwell and his ilk had been given charge of the health agenda regarding AIDS? I doubt that anyone would find comfort in the knowledge that Falwell didn't "hate homosexuals" but thought their behavior to be "perverted" and "sub-animal".One could argue that homosexuality is not a choice– the issue of “nature and nurture” – while smoking is. Granted, but this argument completely misses the point. Illegal drug use, for example, is a choice.
Who amongst us would want someone like Jerry Falwell calling the shots regarding how our current society treats marijuana users? What if a personality like Falwell went about the country influencing the medical and rehabilitative treatment of IV drug users? Would we consider that a responsible and ethical approach to public health?The delusion that those sympathetic to the cause of anti-tobacco seem to operate under is that ethical, knowledgeable, professional public health experts are particularly concerned about tobacco use and, because of that concern, they are approaching the issue with an ever vigilant watchfulness dedicated to consequence, objectivity and reason.
To the contrary, dogmatic zealots are manning the helm when it comes to the public information and perceptions regarding tobacco use. Homosexuality does not "cause" AIDS. Similarly, neither smoking nor exposure to tobacco smoke "causes" lung cancer. In the same way that religious beliefs regarding homosexuality and AIDS can be morally obtuse, so can equally dogmatic, secular notions regarding tobacco use. Jerry Falwell had firmly placed himself within our culture as being anti-gay long before AIDS came around.
Similarly, lawyer John Banzhaf had ensconced himself in the anti-smoking movement decades before anyone had ever dreamed of the notion that secondhand smoke, nevermind "third hand smoke", causes disease. "Third hand smoke" is yet another attempt by Banzhaf and his ilk to see how effective their outrageous claims will be at convincing an alarmingly uninformed and credulous public to persecute people who use tobacco. So, can you get lung cancer from a toilet seat? No. But public health is perfectly willing to abide when equally ridiculous claims are made by anti-smoking groups like ASH. Not only do public health officials fail to put an end to this nonsense, it appears that they are taking a wait-and-see approach to see if anti-tobacco groups will be successful in spreading irrational fears. If the anti-tobacco groups are successful, then public health will emerge from the shadows with a blessing and endorsement for the lies spread by the anti-tobacco evangelists.
Public health doesn't care if you lose your job, lose your spouse, lose your children, or lose your friends. They'll ruin your life before they'll let you have a perfectly legal cigarette. Allowing groups like ASH to run the public health agenda of our country is quite like empowering Jerry Falwell to pave the way regarding national AIDS policy. If that had occurred, your television and radio would tell you to be afraid to embrace or work with people who are gay, and reluctant to share bathrooms with them.
It appears that this is pretty much where public health policy is going regarding tobacco use, and probably obesity as well. Public health seems to have lost sight of the fact that we are all human beings, and we all deserve to be treated with dignity, tolerance, respect and equal treatment under the law. At the very least, even a public health policy that discourages smoking should draw the line at allowing anti-smoking evangelists to spread fear and lies regarding tobacco and its users. Public health needs to be cleansed of the influence of zealous special interests and financially motivated pharmaceutical makers. Permitting the spread of more hatred, lies and irrationality will keep us on the destructive path which public health has followed for decades.
Whatever happened to public health’s concern regarding "our humanity and our intimacy"? Public health's current approach to tobacco policy is not only wrong, it's outrageous, and it should be decried by all, whether they use tobacco or not.____
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Hypocrites All!!
If you climb a mountain and fall to your death. The gummit sends out rescue teams, to help in the search at the cost of the tax payer. The climber is made out to be some sort of hero. Hello, climbing mountains is a lifestyle choice and the risks are know to the climber, but we are meant to wail and weep for this person.
You get on a plane, it crashes on take off ,all dead. Sad I know, but you got on that plane knowing the risk, you were prepared to take it. But the airlines are forced to pay huge payments to greiving families. Why? You know the risks. I could go on for ever here. No pls I hear you scream lol.
75% of the cost of a packet of ciggies is tax folk and yet we are told or threatened with the fact if you get really sick we dont deserve to be treated like a non-smoker.
When I was diagnosed finally after many cat scans with depression, agorophobia and social phobia I was told my lungs, my heart were in great condition for a 61yr old?? If I died right now they would blame it on smoking?? EH??
I have been smoking since I was 9 this makes 50 yrs of my preferred lifestyle choice.
I am told every cig is killing me. Well hell I am glad I didnt choose tobacco to commit suicide with:-).
It is my risk, I know the risks even back when I was 9 they were called cancer sticks or coffin nails. But folk its my bloody choice but now I am a leper in society. Its a damned legal product for god sake, it opposition legal product is alcohol, it kills maims has related diseases, that kill cost the taxe payer millions. But hey everyone drinks so they stay very mum about it problems on an individual by individual basis.
Get a grip, give the smoker some slack folk. I often wonder as I sit here in my own solitary confinement , why with all the fear and guilt tactics used by the health stormtroopers and the anti=smokers, that there aint more ppl like me.
You get on a plane, it crashes on take off ,all dead. Sad I know, but you got on that plane knowing the risk, you were prepared to take it. But the airlines are forced to pay huge payments to greiving families. Why? You know the risks. I could go on for ever here. No pls I hear you scream lol.
75% of the cost of a packet of ciggies is tax folk and yet we are told or threatened with the fact if you get really sick we dont deserve to be treated like a non-smoker.
When I was diagnosed finally after many cat scans with depression, agorophobia and social phobia I was told my lungs, my heart were in great condition for a 61yr old?? If I died right now they would blame it on smoking?? EH??
I have been smoking since I was 9 this makes 50 yrs of my preferred lifestyle choice.
I am told every cig is killing me. Well hell I am glad I didnt choose tobacco to commit suicide with:-).
It is my risk, I know the risks even back when I was 9 they were called cancer sticks or coffin nails. But folk its my bloody choice but now I am a leper in society. Its a damned legal product for god sake, it opposition legal product is alcohol, it kills maims has related diseases, that kill cost the taxe payer millions. But hey everyone drinks so they stay very mum about it problems on an individual by individual basis.
Get a grip, give the smoker some slack folk. I often wonder as I sit here in my own solitary confinement , why with all the fear and guilt tactics used by the health stormtroopers and the anti=smokers, that there aint more ppl like me.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Anti, Anti-Smokers Prayer
THE ANTI, ANTI-SMOKING PRAYER
As I lay me down to sleep, I pray thee Lord that you will keep, The Nico-Nazis wide awake, From noises that their halos make.
I am a smoker Lord you see, An outcast from society, But I don't tell those pious parrots, To cut out fats and eat their carrots!
Oh Lord the virtuous vultures pick, And call my smoke a "Cancer-Stick", Yet I don't look at their Big-Mac, And say "enjoy your Heart-Attack"!
Why does every sanctimonious soul, Preach to me about self-control, Well if they're perfect I'll stand alone, And dare the sin-less to cast the first stone!
I am aware that one day I'll die, I guess You know how when where and why, So if its from smoking my tombstone can say, From ashes to ashes, she loved life her way!
Tina White
AMEN!!!!!!
As I lay me down to sleep, I pray thee Lord that you will keep, The Nico-Nazis wide awake, From noises that their halos make.
I am a smoker Lord you see, An outcast from society, But I don't tell those pious parrots, To cut out fats and eat their carrots!
Oh Lord the virtuous vultures pick, And call my smoke a "Cancer-Stick", Yet I don't look at their Big-Mac, And say "enjoy your Heart-Attack"!
Why does every sanctimonious soul, Preach to me about self-control, Well if they're perfect I'll stand alone, And dare the sin-less to cast the first stone!
I am aware that one day I'll die, I guess You know how when where and why, So if its from smoking my tombstone can say, From ashes to ashes, she loved life her way!
Tina White
AMEN!!!!!!
Monday, June 22, 2009
So How Do They Control? Fear and Quilt.
Are you safe, god I hate that word now. The health Stormtroopers,are wollowing about in your life because you let them.
We wrap our kids in cotton wool, do you let you child climb trees, ride a bike without a crash helmet. Do you worry continually about what you are putting in their lunch box. When you go to a pack and someone lights a cigarette do you move???
We are a world driven by fear and guilt the words "not save" overpowering. Pls folk can you get agrip life is full of risk.
I am now an agorophobic, social phobic. I cannot leave the house. beleive me I want to but the poor depressed brain has taken over. If I leave the house the brain takes over it informs my body to get back home , it does that by causing excruciating pain. The longer I stay out the more the fear produces symptoms, hyperventilation, sweats and I believe I will die with the next step.
I blame the gummint myself.:-)
We wrap our kids in cotton wool, do you let you child climb trees, ride a bike without a crash helmet. Do you worry continually about what you are putting in their lunch box. When you go to a pack and someone lights a cigarette do you move???
We are a world driven by fear and guilt the words "not save" overpowering. Pls folk can you get agrip life is full of risk.
I am now an agorophobic, social phobic. I cannot leave the house. beleive me I want to but the poor depressed brain has taken over. If I leave the house the brain takes over it informs my body to get back home , it does that by causing excruciating pain. The longer I stay out the more the fear produces symptoms, hyperventilation, sweats and I believe I will die with the next step.
I blame the gummint myself.:-)
Sunday, June 21, 2009
I Have A Chimney On My Head
I have a pack of ciggies in front of me ......oh dear you stupid, dumb, brainless, old fart. Yeap thats me. On this particular pack there is a pic of a limp cigaerette. It has the usual vague, threat of impotence becide it which states: Smoking may make you impotent. Omg, shock horror probe, no pun intended. This is how the antis suck the brainless and those who believe everything they are told or read as gospel. They also always use the word may. I really aint that stupid of course in the odd case it may cause impotents. But dont quote that bit pls.
I will use 40 year of anti-smoking reteric to plead my case that the cases of impotenece would be no more than the same disease from alcohol. Remeber they used the same tactics to allow prohibition of alcohol many years ago. But I digress.
My uneducated stats show me, and btw damned stats can tell you anything you want. Go back the 40 years we smokers have been driven by fear and guilt and back to impotence. When I was a child the smoking rate was something close to 60% of the population. I come from a faimly of 6. Thank you god for no birth pill, ppl back then had 11 to 15 kids sometimes more. They would end up in back street abortions because they couldnt cope with anymore kids. Here I end my impotence case.
Lets just wander a bit to asthma, again I am sure in some of the cases that it maybe the cause or at least an agitator. But again 40 years have past with the anti-smoking stormtroopers blaming amost every know disease on the demon tobacco. Over these year the rates of asthma have quadrupled so how can you blame smoking for that rate?? It really makes me angry.
Who are the healthiest countries in the world. If you correlate it to smoker per population counties like Japan, Italy, China, are high on the good health list. Now if anyone argues it because of their diet I will scream. If diet is the health damager leave me the smoker alone and attack ppl with bad diets PLS!! lol
The USA, and top anti smoking countries like New Zealand have rapidly gone down hill. Please dont believe me check the health stats. Quick because they realise the stats are not in their favour and the fudge them, grrrrr. Enuf for today I can hear the men in the white coats coming down the drive :-)
"Government efforts to fight cigarette smoking over the past 40 years amount to more than a victory for public health. They are also, as Ted Kings new book makes clear, a cautionary tale of how the state can bully, and ultimately crush, members of a momentarily-unfashionable minority group. Just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you shouldn't be afraid."- Tucker Carlson
I will use 40 year of anti-smoking reteric to plead my case that the cases of impotenece would be no more than the same disease from alcohol. Remeber they used the same tactics to allow prohibition of alcohol many years ago. But I digress.
My uneducated stats show me, and btw damned stats can tell you anything you want. Go back the 40 years we smokers have been driven by fear and guilt and back to impotence. When I was a child the smoking rate was something close to 60% of the population. I come from a faimly of 6. Thank you god for no birth pill, ppl back then had 11 to 15 kids sometimes more. They would end up in back street abortions because they couldnt cope with anymore kids. Here I end my impotence case.
Lets just wander a bit to asthma, again I am sure in some of the cases that it maybe the cause or at least an agitator. But again 40 years have past with the anti-smoking stormtroopers blaming amost every know disease on the demon tobacco. Over these year the rates of asthma have quadrupled so how can you blame smoking for that rate?? It really makes me angry.
Who are the healthiest countries in the world. If you correlate it to smoker per population counties like Japan, Italy, China, are high on the good health list. Now if anyone argues it because of their diet I will scream. If diet is the health damager leave me the smoker alone and attack ppl with bad diets PLS!! lol
The USA, and top anti smoking countries like New Zealand have rapidly gone down hill. Please dont believe me check the health stats. Quick because they realise the stats are not in their favour and the fudge them, grrrrr. Enuf for today I can hear the men in the white coats coming down the drive :-)
"Government efforts to fight cigarette smoking over the past 40 years amount to more than a victory for public health. They are also, as Ted Kings new book makes clear, a cautionary tale of how the state can bully, and ultimately crush, members of a momentarily-unfashionable minority group. Just because you don't smoke doesn't mean you shouldn't be afraid."- Tucker Carlson
Saturday, June 20, 2009
My Body, My Life.Bullypucky it belongs to the Gummint!!
Sunday 21st June
Hitler may have died but he is sitting on his grave mound laughing his nazi head off. We think we own our bodys that it is the one thing those who have the power cannot touch . Wake up fools the life you live is long past yours!
All western powers including New Zealand are more dictorial, than the German zealot himself.
We have the Nico nazis, the health Stormtroops, the its not safe platoon etc etc.
Then there is the : you cant smack your kids guilt trippers.
Please give me a break I am 61years old I believe totally able to make my own decisions on lifestyle risk. My main reason for this blog will mainly concern the nico nazis and I am not going to be frightened off because I may offend ...oh yeah I forget the, you cant offend brigade. I had a golliwog as a kid....it was a friggen cuddly toy folk not a political statement. I read Big Ears and noddy.... now they have been burnt. They are said to be gay, sorry gay folk, but it isnt a political statement. I will scream into this page about the nico nazi next probably, but at least be aware or maybe very afriad of these moustach wearing Puritanical lifestyle police because it is marching on.
Let me fantisize for you for a sec. A knock on you door. Standing there is the Newly formed Health Police they have goverment behind them to allow them to enter your house, search your fridge, to make sure you have seperated your cooked from your raw food and that the cooked food is glad wrapped. They will swab you kitcken, door handles,benches and toilet for germs. If you dont pass they will sanitize your house. If you dont accept this you WILL be fined. They will then check your children for cuts and abrasions. If any are found all your children will be taken from you till you can supply reasons and witnesses to the said injuries.
Be afraid, stop the rot. Right back to where they started their intimidation. They allowed gay folk out of the closest, and have since been pushing the smoker into it. Oops not meant to offend just the rambling of a down trodden, closeted smoker.
Hitler may have died but he is sitting on his grave mound laughing his nazi head off. We think we own our bodys that it is the one thing those who have the power cannot touch . Wake up fools the life you live is long past yours!
All western powers including New Zealand are more dictorial, than the German zealot himself.
We have the Nico nazis, the health Stormtroops, the its not safe platoon etc etc.
Then there is the : you cant smack your kids guilt trippers.
Please give me a break I am 61years old I believe totally able to make my own decisions on lifestyle risk. My main reason for this blog will mainly concern the nico nazis and I am not going to be frightened off because I may offend ...oh yeah I forget the, you cant offend brigade. I had a golliwog as a kid....it was a friggen cuddly toy folk not a political statement. I read Big Ears and noddy.... now they have been burnt. They are said to be gay, sorry gay folk, but it isnt a political statement. I will scream into this page about the nico nazi next probably, but at least be aware or maybe very afriad of these moustach wearing Puritanical lifestyle police because it is marching on.
Let me fantisize for you for a sec. A knock on you door. Standing there is the Newly formed Health Police they have goverment behind them to allow them to enter your house, search your fridge, to make sure you have seperated your cooked from your raw food and that the cooked food is glad wrapped. They will swab you kitcken, door handles,benches and toilet for germs. If you dont pass they will sanitize your house. If you dont accept this you WILL be fined. They will then check your children for cuts and abrasions. If any are found all your children will be taken from you till you can supply reasons and witnesses to the said injuries.
Be afraid, stop the rot. Right back to where they started their intimidation. They allowed gay folk out of the closest, and have since been pushing the smoker into it. Oops not meant to offend just the rambling of a down trodden, closeted smoker.
Friday, June 19, 2009
OMG, television news, shoot them.
OMG, shoot them all for the common good. OMG, what does the common good really mean? Who defines the common good? Common people.
Take swine flu for example. 140 ppl world wide have died and we have a pandemic, jeez wayne! More people die of the regular flu. Don't you think the control freaks have gone a little bonkers. Whose body is it anyway? If I have the flu and want to treat it by old fashioned traditional methods, one of these control freaks could come to my door if I sneezed on them they could force me to go to a hospital. I dont want to go to hospital. This is my body. I want to treat it my way.
This is just a rehearsal. Please don't be alarmed. The men in white coats are arriving soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
