HOW MUCH IS THE JOB WORTH TO HER?

C.A.G.E. has asked the Canadian Human Rights Commission about 3 years ago if job discrimination due to tobacco addiction was grounds for filing a complaint and their answer was that tobacco dependence was definitely not covered. We then turned around and queried Health Canada about their allegations that tobacco was more addictive than heroin and cocaine and why the Human Rights Commission doesn’t recognize it as such. Up to this day we still have not gotten a reply, not that we were really expecting a coherent one.

The truth is that authorities simply talk through both sides of their mouths. If they truly believe that smokers are desperate addicts as they claim, then they should be granting them the same protection as any other addict or alcoholic when it comes to human rights. Yet they don’t. The answer is simply because tobacco cannot be compared to any other substance. Millions of people throughout the world have successfully quit, using their will power alone. The problem with those who fail resides in whether they attempt to quit because they are truly wanting it or because of social pressure. Contrary to the propaganda, many current smokers simply do not wish to quit as they find many benefits in tobacco and its active substance nicotine, or because they simply enjoy using a product that, may we emphasize, is legally sold.

One lady in B.C. is testing the system as the Montreal Gazette reports. She’s filing a human rights complaint because she feels she was discriminated against obtaining a job based on her smoking status. Albeit it will be interesting to see the developments of this case, it would be setting a very dangerous precedent for smokers throughout Canada if the lady wins. Citizens who smoke would be further stigmatized as addicts incapable of taking their own decisions for their well-being and that of their families and children. Custody cases would be jeopardized because of one of the parents’ smoking status, medication would be fully covered by an already overburdened healthcare system and compulsory treatment will undoubtedly follow somewhere in the future. All in all people who smoke would be even further marginalized making the pharmaceutical industry and their front groups richer in the process. Is obtaining a job working for an anti-smoker employer really worth the precedent this case would be setting for the rest of the smoking citizens? Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to fight for the right to truthful information and the end of a corrupt system instead of begging for pity?

B.C. woman claims smoking ‘disability’ cost her job

CHEMICAL LOBOTOMY

Not only are the ‘’do-gooders’’ lobbying aggressively to coerce people in giving up pleasurable habits, their pharmaceutical partners are meddling with that part of the brain that controls hedonistic experiences, as we understand from the article below. The result? The very same drugs that are allegedly destined to help smokers and the obese lead healthier physical lives, cause their users to feel depressed, have nightmares and can even lead them to take their own lives.

It is only natural for the makers of these drugs to tout that it cannot be proven that it’s the drugs’ fault, but let’s not forget that it is these same interested parties that claim that the debate is over when it comes to smoke and obesity when in fact the studies on these issues are at best inconclusive.

Articles such as this one do not only flash red lights for smokers and the obese to weigh all sides when taking powerful prescription drugs, but also prove to our readers that smoking and obesity is big business for drug makers. Is it any wonder that they finance in billions anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns?

Risk of depression dims hopes for anti-addiction 'super pills' to curb overeating, smoking

CHICAGO - Two years ago, scientists had high hopes for new pills that would help people quit smoking, lose weight and maybe kick other tough addictions like alcohol and cocaine.

The pills worked in a novel way, by blocking pleasure centers in the brain that provide the feel-good response from smoking or eating. Now it seems the drugs may block pleasure too well, possibly raising the risk of depression and suicide.

Margaret Bastian of suburban Rochester, N.Y., was among patients who reported problems with Chantix, a highly touted quit-smoking pill from Pfizer Inc. that has been linked to dozens of reports of suicides and hundreds of suicidal behaviors.

"I started to get severely depressed and just going down into that hole ... the one you can't crawl out of," said Bastian, whose doctor took her off Chantix after she swallowed too many sleeping pills and other medicines one night.

Side effects also plague two other drugs:

_ Rimonabant, an obesity pill sold as Acomplia in Europe, was tied to higher rates of depression and a suicide in a study last month. The maker, Sanofi-Aventis SA, still hopes to win its approval in the United States.

_ Taranabant, a similar pill in late-stage testing, led to higher rates of depression and other side effects in a study last month. Its maker, Merck & Co., stopped testing it at middle and high doses.

The makers of the new drugs insist they are safe, although perhaps not for everyone, such as people with a history of depression. Having to restrict the drugs' use would be a big setback because it would deprive the very people who need help the most, since addictions and depression often go hand-in-hand, doctors say.

A bigger fear is that the whole approach may be in trouble. Researchers say blocking pleasure, especially the way the obesity drugs do, might take the fun out of many things, not just the harmful substances and behaviors these drugs target.

It may be possible to improve the drugs so they act more precisely. Chantix targets a different pathway — nicotine pleasure switches — and in a different way than the obesity drugs, which aim at the same pathway that gives pot smokers the munchies. That is one reason many doctors are optimistic that any risks about Chantix will prove manageable.

But doctors are no longer talking about so-called "super pills" for a host of addictions.

"It certainly diminishes my enthusiasm" to see these side effects, said Mark Egli, co-leader of medicine development at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

The buzz started four years ago, when studies showed rimonabant helped people shed weight and keep it off longer than previous pills had. It also was being tested for smoking cessation. The Associated Press and other media reported extensively on prospects for a pill that might tackle two big problems at once.

Rimonabant won approval in Europe. But advisers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration opposed it because of depression risks that became clearer with further study. Sanofi withdrew its U.S. application and said it hoped to resubmit after more research.

But in a new study last month, 43 percent of people taking rimonabant developed psychiatric issues versus 28 percent of those on dummy pills. One rimonabant patient committed suicide and one in the placebo group tried to. Unlike previous studies, this one did not exclude people who had depression in the past.

"I felt it was important to do an 'all-comers' study" to see how real-world patients might fare, said Cleveland Clinic's Dr. Steven Nissen, who led the work.

Sanofi now tells doctors to avoid giving the drug to people with a history of depression, said a company vice president, Dr. Douglas Greene.

"We are at the cutting edge of being able to manage this risk," he said.

Meanwhile, Merck had bad news from a study of its obesity drug, taranabant, which showed an increased risk of depression and other side effects among people taking medium and high doses.

"We're doing a lot to define this risk-benefit," including adding another year to all studies under way and going forward only with the lowest dose, said a Merck vice president, Dr. John Amatruda.

Others were less optimistic.

"The door is closing" on this approach, said Dr. James Stein, a University of Wisconsin-Madison cardiologist. If another study he is helping lead does not show benefit for rimonabant, "this drug's already slim chances of approval will be even more jeopardized," he said.

The situation is murkier with Chantix, which went on sale in the U.S. in 2006 and is sold as Champix in other countries.

The drug binds to the same spots in the brain that nicotine does when people smoke, causing release of a "feel-good" chemical, dopamine. Taking it is supposed to keep any inhaled nicotine from giving the same buzz.

In February, the FDA said a link between Chantix and psychiatric problems appears "increasingly likely." Pfizer added warnings to the drug's label and said that although a link had not been proved, it could not be ruled out.

But a Pfizer vice president, Dr. Ponni Subbiah, said nicotine withdrawal and even quitting smoking can cause mood swings and depression.

It is hard to know "what is causing what," she said. "We know that smokers are at higher risk of suicide than non-smokers, and heavy smokers are at higher risk than lighter smokers."

Some doctors agreed.

"Psychologically, just giving up this 'friend' that they've had many years in their life can be depressing," said Dr. Geoffrey Williams, co-director of the Greater Rochester Area Tobacco Cessation Center and a paid speaker for Pfizer.

Jeanne Morrison, 63, of suburban of Louisville, Ky., looked forward to giving up cigarettes when she and a friend went on Chantix. The friend did well, but Morrison lasted only 10 days on it.

"I got so depressed, I didn't want to go anywhere. I didn't want to do anything, and I'm a very high-energy person. It was a depression like I've never experienced in my life," she said. She also had "major, major nightmares. These would wake me up, and I would be absolutely shaking and sweating."

Several doctors said such reactions are rare, and that most patients do well on Chantix.
Morrison's doctor, psychiatrist Dr. Jesse Wright at the University of Louisville, said Chantix helped one of his schizophrenic patients, "who smoked like a smokestack," without worsening his psychological symptoms.

"The risk-benefit ratio is still very much on the side of use of the medication," Williams said. "The alternative, smoking, is extremely highly risky."

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION (PART 2)

On March 21st we presented you with a story about how smokers are deliberately left out of every decision that affects their lives and their health.

An opinion piece from the UK from which we publish excerpts below, eloquently describes the phenomenon of taxation without representation that is common to every country under healthist control. This is happening without much opposition from the public, right under our eyes. The public health campaign to stigmatize smokers and spoil their identity has created a situation that even a good number of smokers are conditioned to accept punishment as something they have coming to them unless they obey to the state dictate.

The healthist hate campaign will continue escalating unless we stop it. The first step in stopping it is self respect. As long as tobacco is a legal product that generates billions in revenues for the state, smokers are entitled to participate in the decisions affecting them. Demand that your opinion is not only heard, but seriously considered. After all smokers pay more taxes than any other identifiable group of citizens!

Excerpts from: Smoking: no taxation without representation

Smokers, says Robin Butler, are not fairly represented by government, so why should they pay £10 billion a year in tax?
……….

While there can be no denying that we smokers pay punishing and ever escalating taxes (currently around £4 on a packet of fags), can we claim that we are not represented? Worse than that, we are routinely misrepresented, from the gloomy, overspun utterances of a self-appointed health elite striving for political influence, to those late night TV black propaganda films using lurid images designed to link smokers in the public mind with purveyors of disease and death – unsexy, degenerate, and not the kind of people anyone would want for friends!
What a scurrilous, dishonest campaign, conceived to drive a wedge between smokers (the bad guys), and decent, wholesome, clean-living non-smokers (the good guys). It all serves to create a mythology in which smokers are no longer perceived primarily as fully paid-up members of the human race, but only as the sum of everything our detractors define as negative and destructive, and therefore not entitled to the same consideration as ‘proper’ people.
……….

That same bullying gang mentality is clearly evident in many of the individuals and groups who target smokers. There is something of the totalitarian in the mentality of these people: everyone has to be the same as them. But, instead of recognising its inherent dangers, our Government has harnessed this wave of mindless intolerance to launch its own attack, issuing a mass social exclusion order against millions of innocent British citizens.
……….

All the arguments for the protection of individual liberties of smokers, balanced by effective means of protecting the health and comfort of staff together with an acknowledgement of the non-smoker’s right not to be exposed to tobacco fumes, were swept aside by a government that was determined not to listen. When an elected government decides that it only wants to represent some of the electorate and not the rest, something has gone seriously wrong with democracy as most people understand it.
………

The Government has seriously overstepped the mark. Not only has it has compromised its claim to be an inclusive government, but it has acquiesced to the hectoring, bullying demands of an unrepresentative health clique, swallowed wholesale every ludicrous myth about smokers and smoking, and inflicted deep wounds on society and itself.

GOVERNMENT INDUCED BULLYING

A very frightened and concerned woman wrote to us at the C.A.G.E. forum recently. She dropped by to tell us the story of her son almost losing his life because of tobacco smoke. No, not because he inhaled it, not because it made him ill, well… why don’t we let the story speak for itself:

G'day and thank you.... My first time with CAGE...I sent the following to the Globe 'n Mail, to MacLean's, to every last Ontario Liberal MPP involved with 'Health', my MPP, CTV, a few local newspapers, one of which is rural and to one I've recently met on-line through 'My Choice' who encouraged me to post this here for Michelle and Iro. So, here you have it...

A month or so ago 911 whisked our son away, saving his life, treating me with the same contempt the medical professionals at the local hospital did. Superficial first glance assumption what with the current social culture and his problem solved. It's his Mother who smokes. His Mother, who if she really cared would quit. Stereotyping and Stigma too! We mentioned Hantivirus as a concern to be told I was in denial. Huh?

We sent our son away from this house that day and went straight to our Family Doctor. All considering our son and I did a lot of wall ripping out late last summer in our over a century old home, which included discovering mice nests roughly eighteen inches by three or more feet tall between the walls to remove. Yes, we were masked, gloved and well-ventilated. Hantivirus a legitimate concern these medical professionals turned a blind eye to, minds made up including me being in denial. Thank goodness it's not Hantivirus, rather our son's asthma has sprung off the wall due to this house, it's as I thought, Toxic to him! Not only would his medication have hardly worked here, as soon as it was done, he'd be suffocating again...911 again...medical professionals once again treating us with the contempt of narrow minds and self-limiting perspective/concern. Dust Mites alone can send our son into a tailspin of life!

This medical attitude needs to be exposed as frightening, if not life-threatening as it was to us. How many other people, age doesn't matter, are being misdiagnosed or not taken seriously directly due to the current medical holier than Thou stance that seems to say smoking, second-hand smoke, end of story? How many people are being stereotyped suffering from social alienation construed as 'bad' people for smoking...at a glance, without hesitation no less. People don't know me, they don't know what I've gone through, what efforts have been exerted, nothing. Yet, the medical profession itself, seems to be a willing promoter of mental health disturbances in it's quick to judge stance that almost cost our son his life. I think this is a very serious problem that needs to be publicly addressed.

You can't have the CAMH and other like associations trying to eliminate Stereotyping and applied Stigma when it's government led and induced. To me, it's little more than government legitimizing bullying....AKA...Stereotyping, for which our son almost lost his life. This is serious. Smoking, no more than Asthma, any illness isn't a character flaw and shouldn't be construed as such. This state of affairs is morally wrong.

And this folks is what tobacco control ‘’for our own good’’ has become. A dangerous dogmatic movement that takes no notice of whatever harm it causes in the process. It matters very little to tobacco control and their faithfully blind believers what collateral damage it leaves behind in its passing. As our correspondent very eloquently expresses, tobacco control is breeding bullies stamped with government approval. A cold-hearted irresponsible doctrine that doesn’t care about science, truth, progress, morality, or ethics. Smokers are indignant parents, killers, abusers, that must be accused and embarrassed at every opportunity and be punished by any possible means including death.

For what it’s worth we have offered this woman our help with the bureaucracy of filing official complaints to every government body in existence. But above all, we feel that stories like hers must be told far and wide. The politically correct media won’t report them unless of course there is blood and even then they will minimize the embarrassment to public health. Tobacco control have to be exposed for the bullies they are at every turn.

If you too have been a victim of discrimination and harassment because you smoke, please drop us a line. If the media won’t report it, this blog and other similar ones will!

BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE, HATRED - ASH THEY PEDDLE IT

This piece of news that Dr. Michael Siegel has just brought to light, confirmed that there are no limits to how low ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) can go when it comes to smokers and increasingly and steadily the obese.

Through a press release which we will not dignify by linking it here, John F. Banzhaf III, their Executive Director and Chief Counsel, is suggesting that heart donors attach the explicit condition that only never smokers or long time former smokers should receive the precious organ.

Dr. Siegel opined on the bigotry and hatred aspect of such a recommendation and we fully agree with his comment. We would like to add to his analysis that if such strings were to be attached to the gift of life, only the perfect and virtuous would deserve it. If such transplants were granted to the imperfect anyway, the obese would have to be haunted if they didn’t lose and continue to keep their weight off, the workaholics would have to be barred from working long and stressful hours, the sedentary would have to be coerced into community physical work, the anorexic and bulimic would have to be force fed, the alcoholics would have to be forced to stay dry, the diabetics would have to be scolded for abnormal glucose levels! And this only partly covers organ transplants! Can we simply imagine what conditions would have to be attached to the gift of life through blood transfusions?

Since imperfection is naturally human, ASH should go peddle their absurd and immoral policies to some humanoids or godly creatures at another planet. The sooner the better!

BON VOYAGE!

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

Dr. Michael Siegel was once again the guest of a FORCES round table interview. This time the discussion evolved around the unfair discrimination of smokers.

Indeed smokers have not only been de-normalized socially, they are increasingly discriminated against for employment and healthcare. Although we believe that private employers should have the right to make their own rules when it comes to ‘’on the job’’ smoking and they should have the privilege to decide who they feel is the ‘’best’’ man or woman for the job, we are unfortunately very much against the developing trend where employers are relying on political correctness and public support to discriminate a group of people that they believe is costing them more money. As we see it, if obese people, alcoholics, the handicapped and other groups of people, had public opinion against them the way smokers do, employers would not hesitate to also refuse employment to these groups of people. What is even more repulsive is that public opinion against smokers is the result of government approved insistent propaganda that encourages hostility towards smokers. This resembles a modern form of eugenics whereby only the flawless and the healthiest are deserving citizens.

Even more scandalous is the trend of the medical community who are now starting to refuse to treat smokers for ailments completely unrelated to smoking. This trend is quite spread in the UK where the health system is public and in a financial crisis. This refusal to operate has even been extended to obese people. Many have opined that it simply has to do with saving money. Much like employers, the public healthcare system relies mostly on a complaisant public who remain silent and untouched by such practices because they were conditioned to believe that smokers and the obese brought it upon themselves.

One important point that all should pay close attention when listening to this interview, is the groupthink mentality of tobacco control. Dr. Siegel believes that change towards more ethical and fair policies will not happen from within because the careers and livelihoods of tobacco control professionals would be destroyed if they dared express dissent. There are less than a handful of very wealthy groups that set the agenda for the whole movement and distribute the funds to all the smaller ones who must obey to the dogmatic tobacco control philosophy or see any future grants denied. After having unsuccessfully attempted for seven years to reason with his tobacco control colleagues, Dr. Siegel decided to take it to the public because he felt that the only way to hold the tobacco control movement accountable, is to reveal the truth publicly.

You will have heard it from someone from within: Spread the truth.


Listen to the interview at: How ‘’They’’ Are Treated

FOR THE KIDDIES...REALLY?

Although our Canadian media have reported plenty about another phase of anti-smoking to be enacted shortly in Quebec and Ontario, we have chosen to present this article from a UK reporter because we found that it brilliantly exposed every side of the perverse and hypocritical legislation of hiding or taking tobacco products down from the shelves.

Oh yes, it appears that in UK also, our kiddies must be protected from the site of the ‘’evil’’ nicotine, and be replaced by the ‘’good’’ nicotine from the pharmaceutical industry.

The anti-smoking movement is a financial and political war between two filthy rich industries with the smoking citizen caught in the middle and business people caught in the crossfire.

Indeed, the tobacco and the pharmaceutical industries battle over who will market the nicotine substance praised for its many qualities. It appears that the pharmaceutical industry is winning for the time being. Of course they have to continuously use their best arsenal: the kiddies.

Let’s not forget Pr Molimard’s exposé, pointing out how inexpensive nicotine is and how exorbitant profits can be made by those who market it. He pinned it down to a science, when he explained to us how the pharmaceutical interests wanted to profit from the momentum the substitution of heroin by methadone had on heroin addicts, by introducing nicotine replacement therapy to ‘’cure’’ smokers from their dependency. Except, as he explains, you can’t cure someone from his dependency by giving him his own ‘’drug’’ of choice. He went on opining that nicotine without tobacco does not procure the satisfaction the smoker craves for and this is why nicotine replacement therapy has very low success rates. He continues by pointing out that this is the reason smoking has dropped dramatically in Sweden after they introduced the SNUS. SNUS is a form of chewing tobacco and therefore gives the tobacco user what he’s looking for.

Yet, the legal drug pushers continue peddling their nicotine replacement treatments to the point that they are making themselves at home in private businesses by kicking out the tobacco products to replace them with theirs. At least this is in part what we conclude from the following article:

Pssst! Wanna buy 20 Capstan Full Strength?

Goodness knows what Arkwright in Open All Hours would have made of it. You can just imagine Ronnie Barker's stammering shopkeeper spluttering to his hapless assistant Granville: "W-W-What? S- s-sell cigarettes under the c-c-counter?"

But that's exactly what the Government is proposing in its latest assault on smokers.

Dawn Primarolo, Smokefinder General in Labour's monstrous regiment of meddling madwomen, wants all tobacco products taken off display and more prominence given to tobacco replacements such as nicotine patches and chewing gum.

She also plans to remove vending machines from pubs and restaurants.

"It's vital that we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that."

That's big of you, pet. "Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later."

Have you noticed how often the health fascists couch their argument in the language of caring?
Thus, if you dare to object, you are automatically accused of being in favour of children dying lingering deaths from lung cancer.

There can't be a single schoolchild in Britain who isn't aware of the dangers of smoking. They have it bludgeoned into them almost from the moment they leave the womb.

One of the biggest single factors in people giving up smoking is the constant nagging from their own children, who have just come home from school after spending the afternoon staring at pictures of diseased lungs and sclerotic arteries.

Not to mention lessons in the horrors of "passive smoking" which, as any fule kno, murders millions of unborn bay-bees every year.

Just in case there are any youngsters out there who still think cigarettes are safe, there's a handy reminder that "SMOKING KILLS" plastered across the front of every packet.

The public smoking ban introduced last year has spawned a whole industry of cessation officers and propagandists.

There's not a wall in any school, shop, factory or office without a statutory "NO SMOKING" sign on it. The anti-smoking nazi who visited my sister-in-law's place of work in Norfolk even insisted on putting one inside a store cupboard, on the grounds that otherwise someone might slip in there for a quick drag.

Even though only around one in five people still smokes, the figures aren't falling fast enough for the health fascists.

These people never stop dreaming up new ways to bully and inconvenience the rest of us. So small shopkeepers will have to behave like purveyors of hardcore pornography when it comes to selling cigarettes.

"Hello, George, I've got that College Girls Go Wild video you ordered. Psst, fancy 20 Silk Cut while you're at it? Or would you like something a little harder, know what I mean?

"I've got some Capstan Full Strength down here somewhere."

I can't see for the life of me why a perfectly legal product can't be sold on open display to consenting adults. The Government hasn't got the courage to ban smoking altogether.

Gordon likes the tax too much. So the battle goes on incrementally.

If they get away with forcing through the furtive sale of Woodbines, where will it end?
There's already an entire branch of government devoted to the eradication of junk food. On that basis, Curly Wurlies, crisps and fizzy drinks will be joining cigarettes under the counter. Booze won't be far behind, either.

McDonald's will have to clean up its act, too. First, it'll have to stop putting pictures of Big Macs in the window, then the sale of burgers and fries to anyone under 21 will be prohibited altogether.

Ministers may not be able to ban Top Gear magazine outright, but I wouldn't put it past someone like Primarolo to insist that it's sold in a plain brown wrapper to appease the polar bear huggers.

And take those magazines aimed at children, which are said to encourage binge drinking and underage sex. They'll have to go.

As for the old-fashioned Open All Hours corner shop, once the sweets and cigarettes and unsuitable comics are swept under the counter, the only thing Arkwright will have left on display will be a couple of packets of Nicorette and a dog-eared copy of Asian Babes on the top shelf.

Curious, too, that the tougher they get on tobacco, the softer they are on drugs. Only yesterday, figures were released which show that the number of cannabis dealers sent to prison is at an all-time low. Fewer than one in four is given a custodial sentence since dope was downgraded.

Next thing you know council officials will be mounting dawn raids on newsagents and tobacconists, accompanied by armed police in riot gear.

Maybe that should be Dawn Raids.

How long before the jails are full of shopkeepers convicted of putting cigarettes on open sale while the local pusher walks free?

G-G-Graaanville!

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS, NO MATTER HOW DESPICABLE THESE MEANS ARE

In a response to Dr. Michael Siegel's comment in his blog about the failure of a scientist to disclose the funding she received from tobacco industry interests for her research on CT screening for lung cancer, Mr. Bill Godshall, Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, unwillingly (or perhaps even willingly) exhibited the dogmatic ideology that characterizes the tobacco control movement: The end justifies any and all means.

His comment was not only devoid of any scientific merit and human compassion, but it eloquently illustrated that any means, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, must be employed towards coercing smokers into quitting.

After reading such a comment from an executive director of a public health organization, it makes it abundantly clear that scrutiny for truthfulness and scientific accuracy of anything spewed by the tobacco control dogmatists, is an absolute necessity.

The comment (color emphasis ours) :

While shocked that Dr. Claudia Henschke's research didn't disclose Liggett's funding, and that she is now claiming public health advocates knew about the funding source, CT scans have the potential to increase the dismal 15% five-year survival rate for lung cancer, and may prove to be the single most effective smoking cessation tool.

Mike wrote:

"having 90% of your patients with nodules worrying unnecessarily for 3 months hardly seems acceptable to me."

I cannot think of a more effective incentive (than worrying about having early stage lung cancer) to encourage smokers to quit smoking.

Mike also wrote:

"Ninety percent of the time, the test is wrong. That's usually viewed as being unacceptable for a screening test."Since false positive tests could be even more beneficial for the health of the smoker (when worrying about a false positive convinces the smoker to quit) than true positive tests (whose resulting treatment is not going to save the lives of many or most lung cancer patients), CT lung cancer screenings of smokers is likely to even more effective as a smoking cessation aid than as a lung cancer screening tool.

A caveat is that false positive CT lung cancer tests in ex-smokers (who comprise slightly greater than half of new lung cancer cases) is likely to cause unnecessary worrying, without providing any benefit. Thus, perhaps somewhat different CT lung screening guidelines should be considered for current smokers and for ex-smokers.

Bill Godshall 03.28.08 - 12:09 pm #

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

Although smokers dish out 75% on taxes on every pack of cigarettes they purchase, they are invited to stay out of any decisions taken on their behalf -- decisions that affect their daily life, their health, their wallet and their future. It is certainly a case of taxation without representation.

Mychoice.ca, the Canadian smokers’ rights organization, had issued a press release to this effect on June 17, 2005 that summarized quite eloquently how smokers are consistently and deliberately left out of the discussions:

Excerpts of the press release:

June 17, 2005 - The National Conference on Tobacco or Health being held in Ottawa June 19-22 is a triumph of ideology and propaganda over logic and accurate information as the basis for laws against smokers in Canada. “The publicly funded conference is an abuse of tax dollars as it uses them to establish laws against a minority while denying that minority a place at the table,” Nancy Daigneault, president of Canada’s largest smokers’ rights group, mychoice.ca, said today. ………….

“If the government really wants smokers to quit and to promote health, then why wouldn’t they at least invite smokers to the table? Smokers have a vested interest in the formulation of policies that directly affect them. To deny them an opportunity to be at the table indicates the contempt policy makers have for smokers, ” said Ms. Daigneault.

Mr. Simon Clark, director of the European smokers’ rights group Forest, recently attempted to sit at the table of one such meetings. The account on how he was treated, that we linked to below, is an eye-opener that raises more questions than it answers.

If you feel that smokers should participate in discussions affecting all spheres of their life and that what they have to say is just as, if not more, important than what Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and some other self-serving participants, then please write to your MP’s and MPP’s and demand that a group or several groups representing smokers, be not only invited but welcomed. You can find their addresses here:

Excerpts from: Smoking bans and open government? EU couldn't make it up

Hilarious! That’s the only word for it (although I can think of a few others). I don’t, as a rule, use blogs to report private meetings and conversations, but here’s what happened when I attended a meeting in Brussels yesterday of “EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission’s Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments”:

I sensed, as soon as I entered the room and introduced myself (“Hello, I’m Simon Clark – from the smokers’ lobby group Forest”), that there could be trouble. The guy from Pfizer (yes, the pharmaceutical company) didn’t look pleased, and there were mutterings from some of the other delegates. (There were around 20 in all.)

No surprise then, when, as soon as the meeting began, and we had all formally identified ourselves, two or three hands shot up. As I suspected, some of my fellow delegates were none too happy that a representative of Forest was in the room. If I didn’t leave, said one, she would. Others nodded their heads in agreement.

The facilitator (chairwoman) looked at me. “Sorry,” I said, “I’m not trying to be difficult because I know some of you have come a long way for this meeting, but Forest represents adults who choose to smoke and tolerant non-smokers like me. The consumer is entitled to be represented in the political process. So, on a point of principle, I’m not going to leave.”

Compromise

And that was how it stood until the facilitator suggested a compromise – of sorts. I could stay for the presentation and return to have my say at the end of the meeting. For the duration of the “facilitated discussion”, however, I would have to leave the room. (For some reason the other delegates didn’t want me to hear what they had to say. So much for transparent, open government! What do these people have to hide?)
…………..
And so, at the end of the meeting, after the other delegates had left, I was invited back in and given 15 minutes to answer questions and make our views abundantly clear. Amusingly, even this session didn’t go entirely smoothly. At one point, having pointed out the flaws in the “evidence” on passive smoking, I was asked to apologise (seriously!) by a woman who said she was an epidemiologist with a degree at Harvard. (So what? as Ed Balls might say.) Apparently my comments had upset her, poor soul. (Don’t worry, I didn’t apologise.)
…………..
Participants

Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline (all pharmaceutical companies), Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), InwatEurope (International Network of Women against Tobacco), International Health and Social Affairs Office, NHS Health Scotland, Business Europe, EUN, HOTREC (representing hotels, restaurants and cafes in Europe), AESGP (Association of the European Self-Medication Industry), SFP (Smoke-Free Partnership) and EHN (European Heart Network).

THE PERLEY VETERAN SMOKING ROOM

An update on the Perley Veteran smoking room (for background see THE PERLEY VETERANS SAGA CONTINUES and ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?).

While they finally got their room, at least one journalist – Earl McRae – is starting to understand how over the top the fear of second hand smoke has become. Actually, although we know that the propaganda does feed the hype of a number of hypochondriacs, we don’t believe that most people are afraid of second hand smoke. Many non-smokers simply don’t speak out because 1) They don’t care since it’s not affecting their lives 2) Go along with it because they don’t like the smell of burning tobacco. It is too bad that many people only care and get involved in an issue when it affects them directly and by then it’s already too late because the precedent has been established. Many of the modern day campaigns against this and that, take their model from the anti-smoking campaign. For those who are apathetic to the smoking issue, may we remind them that ‘’first they came for the jews…’’.

Room to improve

Veterans finally have their smoking lounge, some of the time ...

By EARL MCRAE, OTTAWA SUN

The aged war vet was angry. I encountered him in the corridor leaving the smoking room at the Perley and Rideau Veterans Health Centre where he'd just had his third cigarette of the day.
Yes. Believe it. The renovated room is finally open. After months of opening promises and letdowns that confused and frustrated the smokers who had to go outside to indulge their pleasure -- their frail health vulnerable to rotten weather -- the room that the benevolent you, the public, made possible with some $80,000 in donations opened last Thursday.

I went over yesterday to check it out, not expecting anymore glitches, (surely no more glitches), and saw the sign: Hours Of Operation 9:15-17:00 Daily.

Hold it. The room is open only between 9:15 in the morning and 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

"No one told us this," said the vet bitterly. "It's saying 'We don't like you smoking, so we're only going to let you smoke up to 5 o'clock.' They're treating us like children. Bloody ridiculous."

Ridiculous, indeed. Does the Perley and Rideau think smokers automatically stop smoking at 5 p.m. each day only to automatically start again at 9:15 a.m.? What is the room -- a retail shop with closing and opening hours, including for holidays?

Does the Perley and Rideau believe bad weather only happens between 9:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. after which lovely weather automatically sets in making it a delight for the smokers to once again go outside between 5 p.m. and 9:15 a.m. the next day?

"I had to go outside last night to smoke," said the vet. "Why in blazes can't that room be open 24 hours? I'm telling you, they're trying to discourage us from smoking. Sure I'm addicted, but it's what I enjoy. At my goddamn age in life, I don't need do-gooders trying to get me to stop."

The room for the smokers is off a smaller non-smoking room that connects to the main corridor. The smoking room is windowless, not large. Maximum Occupancy -- 6 Persons, says its sign. Six? It's big enough to comfortably seat more. It has two green, hard plastic chairs. A round table with two ashtrays. Thirty-eight butts are in the ashtrays.

Another sign on the smoking room door: You Have To Live Here To Smoke Here. And Due To The Grave Health Effects Of Second-Hand Smoke, Employees Are Not Required To Enter. Grave health effects from second-hand smoke? From the smoke that is being provincially-standard, state-of-the-art ventilated to the outside? Give me a colossal break. You'd think "employees" would be stepping into the screaming hell of a thousand, torturous, diseases.

FIRE-RETARDANT APRONS

And in the outer-room, what were those six plastic, beige aprons hanging on hooks, aprons with the printed words Smoking Lounge?

Fire-retardant aprons? The smokers so careless they have to put on these aprons, kind of like an apron being put on a child in a highchair? Aprons to be worn voluntarily? Or enforced?

I phoned Paul Finn. He's managing director of the Perley and Rideau Foundation that co-ordinated the fund-raising. A non-smoker, Finn has been a huge supporter of the room for the smokers. A hero, no villain. The delays, the glitches, were outside his control.

The closing and opening hours sign. "The room doesn't shut down at 5 p.m. until the next morning. By law, it has to close each day for cleaning, but only for two hours and 15 minutes after 5 p.m. Except for that, it's open 24 hours." The sign is wrong, he says, needs to be clarified, and will be.

The aprons? He was puzzled. "I don't know about that. I didn't see them. I'll find out and let you know on Monday."

Finn said there will be more furnishings for the room to make it pleasant, including wall ceramics, and a large, flat-screen, high definition TV. "We want to thank all those who made the room possible. Since it opened, we've received calls from people saying thank you."

On the wall outside the entrance off the corridor, are two gold plaques: One crediting the "individuals and businesses" who "generously supported" the room; the other a dedication of the room on behalf of District G, Ontario Command, the Royal Canadian Legion.

The words on those two got it right.

ARE PEOPLE RESIDENTS OR INMATES?

In the following article, Mr. Dave Brown from the Ottawa Citizen, describes to us how he was thrown out of the Carlingview Manor, a long-term facility when he attempted to interview a perfectly lucid 60 year old smoker who took the leadership to fight for a smoking room for the 40 smokers in the facility.

Kudos to Mr. Brown for bringing yet another horror story to the public’s attention and shame on the legislators of the Smoke Free Ontario Act for having created such a barbaric situation for the elderly who are not only put in danger when left unattended in the cold to smoke, but whose constitutional basic rights are also violated by tyrannical house rules in these homes.

Will Mr. Delahunt, have the same fate as the other four known Canadians who, dare we say, were murdered by such an irresponsible, inhuman legislation? Is this the type of society the rest of us want for our retirement years? Where is the outrage from the relatives of these seniors? Where is the outrage from the public? Incidentally, with a little bit of luck, the Perley Veterans will get their room in February 2008 as you can read here. Let’s remember that this 80 000 $ room will be dismantled in five years as we reported here. The public's generosity is a clear sign that the citizenry does not want to punish smokers, however as generous as their gesture was, it is not the public’s responsibility or duty to finance these rooms. Anti-tobacco has created this situation, anti-tobacco should be held accountable for the suffering, deaths and dilapidation of public funds they have caused! If you are outraged and disgusted by this situation, you can tell us, but more importantly please call, write or visit your MP’s and MPP’s and let them know exactly how you feel.

Facility curbs right to meet
Order to end interview raises question: Are people residents or inmates?

Dave Brown, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Monday, January 14, 2008

The war against smoking has fallout as the vanquished discover they've lost not only the right to smoke, but in some cases, basic Charter rights -- like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

One week ago, I was ordered out of the lobby of Carlingview Manor, a long-term care facility on Carling Avenue. Apparently, the resident who invited me had not first sought management approval for the visit. The order came from the home's director, Bruce Peterkin.

I didn't leave quietly and, in a later telephone conversation, apologized to Mr. Peterkin for the temporary loss of my volume control. Volume doesn't show in print, but I'm still screaming.

An interview with resident Don Delahunt about his efforts to get a smoking room at Carlingview Manor took a darker turn when the long-term care facility's director intervened, and said the reporter needed permission to speak to Mr. Delahunt -- who is not of diminished capacity and has the paperwork to prove it. Don Delahunt is 60 years old, a smoker, and he's sane. He has the paperwork to prove it. It was part of his medical package when he moved in after months in hospital. He had a stroke July 27. It left him blind and in a wheelchair. He's one of 40 smokers in the place, and they want a smoking room. He took on a leadership role in the fight.

It was my use of a notebook that triggered the alarm that an interview was in progress, and Mr. Peterkin appeared. When his order to leave was refused, he said police would be called. Fine. I'll wait. But Mr. Peterkin stayed, and it became clear an interview would be impossible.

The only way it would happen, he said, would be if I left, called him, and had my acceptance of Mr. Delahunt's invitation approved. The story suddenly moved from smoking to basic rights. Perhaps if Mr. Delahunt invited me to his private quarters upstairs?

I was told to leave, call, and talk about it. My volume increased. He said he would make himself available for our talk later, but meanwhile, had more pressing matters.

On the edge of losing my temper, I left. Mr. Peterkin called later to tell me I had been approved, and gave his view on the smoking issue. He said government regulations shut down the manor's smoking room more than a year ago, and new regulations make upgrading costs prohibitive. It's the same for 630 similar long-term care homes in Ontario.

But the issue now was the right of the institution to control residents' rights to speak to whomever they want -- or to use the lobby for such conversations.

Are they residents or inmates? Is there a fear of whistleblowing or complaining?

The need to protect a person of diminished capacity is understandable, but should not equal care be taken to protect the rights of the able?

Mr. Peterkin referred the issue to head office. That's Central Care Corporation in Mississauga, with 90 seniors facilities in Canada, and the spokeswoman is Mary Nestor.

It's a confusing issue, she said, pointing to just some of the legislation that governs such homes -- The Residential Tenancies Act (2006), Landlord and Tenants Act, Nursing Homes Act, Charitable Homes Act, Municipal Homes Act and the list goes on. The Smoke Free Ontario Act is in there, too.

She supported Mr. Peterkin's handling of the situation.

Ann Dobbins didn't. A registered nurse and long-time seniors advocate, she is now a researcher and liaison officer with Alavida Lifestyles, a new player in Ottawa's retirement residence field. She called the approach "ridiculous" and a "violation of rights. They (residents) have a right to talk to anybody they want to."

It's a situation that is growing more complex as legislators grind out more legislation.

My suggestion: If management is concerned about a resident conferring, its first question should be to itself. Is there a power of attorney on file for that patient? If there is, step in immediately. If there isn't and you step in, you're out of line and don't be surprised if somebody raises a voice of objection.

I think I just withdrew my apology.

With Mr. Delahunt and myself at the lobby meeting was Howard King, 87, another resident/inmate proudly born and raised in Sydney, N.S. He said he's been smoking for 80 years. He offered something to think about: If they (anti-smoking campaigners) are worried about polluting the air, they should think again about a room with exhaust. He said he's pretty sure not every resident is, like smokers, stepping outside to pass gas. Ask him if he always does that, and he'll give you a look of great piety.

Society declared war on smoking. We won. What's happening now is the mopping-up phase, and we're giving no quarter. We've become mean. It's tantamount to shooting the wounded.

ASH DEFINITION OF STRONG EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION OF THEIR INTRUSION IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES AND PARENTAL AUTHORITY

A statement by ASH UK refers to the recent Swedish study that we discussed in our French text below and urges smokers to stop smoking at home.

Following is an excerpt of their statement that you can read here:

‘’Research: Smoking linked to allergies

There is "consistent and strong" evidence that children exposed to secondhand smoke in early infancy have a higher risk of developing allergies, according to researchers.’’

As we pointed out in our French text, the relative risk factor of this study is 1,28. This is hardly what an epidemiologist would label ‘’strong evidence’’. As a matter of fact, a study so inconclusive, on any other non-politicized health issue, would have simply been dismissed; especially with the limitations of the study as reported by the authors of the study themselves, that you can read here.

''Limitations of the study include difficulty in distinguishing the effects of tobacco exposure in utero and postnatally; reliance on questionnaire data on children at age 2 months; possible disease-related or recall bias, or both; lack of objective assessments of smoke exposure; and possible uncontrolled confounding.''

ASH UK should explain to its readers and the population at large, that if the conclusions of this study represent ‘’strong’’ evidence, what is their criteria for weak evidence? Surely, parents and other concerned citizens would also like to be enlightened as to why childhood allergies have been constantly rising while smoking prevalence has been dramatically decreasing since the last 25 years. Childhood allergy epidemic on the rise worldwide Prevalence of childhood allergies increasing worldwide

And this folks, is a perfect example of what anti-tobacco uses as ‘’scientific’’ evidence to peddle their ideology and justify their intrusion into our personal lives.

C.A.G.E. SALUE LES MANIFESTANTS ! BRAVO ! SALUTE TO THE FIGHTERS

Out of 30 000 people in the traditional ‘’bar tabac’’ profession in France, 10 000 were expected at their Parisian demonstration and 20 000 showed up!

They marched the streets of Paris, scanding slogans about their right to save their businesses, the right of the French people to their bar tabac culture, for their right to associate and socialize and against sending their customers to the pavement!

They symbolically covered their mouths to protest not only because their government has taken away their privilege to enjoy a legal product but how they were muzzled by their government during the process of adopting the legislation for the French smoking ban that will enter its final phase on January 1, 2008.

C.A.G.E. would like to salute these brave fighters who are standing up not only for their rights but for the right reasons!

They don’t whine about unfair competition, they don’t fight for the right of people to smoke anywhere they please, and they are not unreasonable in any of their demands. No, they are fighting for the legitimate right of the smaller mom & pop private venues to choose whether they wish to cater to a smoking or non-smoking clientele, they are fighting for less stringent specifications set by their government for the ventilated rooms in the bigger venues, for their right to continue making a living selling a legal product and the right of their clients to be catered to in comfortable settings whether smokers or nons.

One thing is certain, the French ban will not happen without a fierce fight!

(Click on the image to read article in French)

La nouvelle qui nous parvient du site des buralistes en France, ne nécessite pas beaucoup de commentaires français car tout est dit dans l’article.

C.A.G.E. salue ces braves gens d’affaires, non seulement pour leur courage et détermination dans leur bataille contre des lois qui ne respectent ni les gens d’affaires, ni les citoyens, mais aussi pour les motifs qui les poussent à agir. Ils se battent pour le bon sens qui dicte qu’on n’envoie pas nos clients sur le trottoir lorsqu’on peut avoir des aménagements aptes à satisfaire tous, fumeurs et non-fumeurs, leur droit de gagner leur vie en vendant un produit tout à fait légal et leur droit à une discussion honnête avec leurs élus ! Bravo !